Commons Sitting of 17 June 1892

QUESTIONS.

  BARRACKS AT LEEDS AND BRADFORD.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether £100,000 is about to be expended upon the re-construction of Leeds Barracks; and whether, in view of the fact that the Bradford Barracks are in a dilapidated and insanitary condition, and have long
  1452
  stood in need of thorough repair, it not of total re-building, the War Department is prepared to take into consideration the case of Bradford, as well as that of Leeds, in regard to barrack accommodation?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): My hon. Friend is in error in supposing that £100,000 is about to be expended for this purpose. About £23,000 will be expended in the re-construction of Leeds Barracks. The Barracks at Bradford are not up to the modern standard, but it is not known that their condition is insanitary. It is not proposed to re-construct them to any great extent, as the case is essentially different from that of Leeds.
  MR. REED: Will my hon. Friend direct further inquiry to be made into the state of Bradford Barracks?
  MR. BRODRICK: Certainly; I shall be glad to cause inquiry now that attention has been called to the subject.

  VOLUNTEERS AND JURY SERVICE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is correctly understood that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to take legislative power to exempt officers and non-commissioned officers of the Volunteer Force from jury service?
  MR. BRODRICK: My hon. Friend will share my regret that no legislation in the direction of exempting officers and non-commissioned officers of the Volunteer Force from jury service is possible this Session. But, so far as the officers and non-commissioned officers of Volunteers are concerned, the Secretary of State thinks a very good case has been made out for exempting them from jury service, which we desire to see carried out by law.

  THE CAVAN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what decision has been arrived at as to the payment of the costs, &c., in the case of Ryan v. the Guardians of the Cavan Union?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GOHST,): In accordance with the pledge I gave the other

  1453
  night, I wrote to the Local Government Board in Ireland saving that, if the facts were substantially as stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Knox), the opinion of the Treasury was that the costs should be repaid. I have not yet received any answer to that.

  ENGLISH LEATHER AND FRENCH CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Under I Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that on three occasions in the last half of last year—namely, in the case of goods forwarded 28th July, 2nd September, and 16th October respectively, the French Customs Authorities refused to admit leather tanned and curried by Mr. William Pan1, at the Oak Tannery, Leeds, at the rate of duty applicable to English leather under the most favoured nation clause, the French officials contending that the leather in question was of American origin, and that the extra, tax and fines imposed upon Mr. Paul in consequence of the action of the French Customs Authorities amounted to a sum of over £230, apart from indirect losses inflicted upon him; whether he is aware that in spite of a sworn declaration by Mr. Paul, countersigned by the French Consul in Leeds, that the leather in question was tanned and curried at the Oak Tannery in Leeds, and an offer on his part to pay the expenses of an official of the French Customs to Leeds for the purpose of seeing similar goods actually undergoing the process of tanning and currying, he has, nevertheless, failed to obtain any redress for the injustice done him; and whether the Government will undertake to make representations to the French Authorities in order to secure that the clause in their Tariff' Bill admitting English goods into France at the minimum rate of duty shall be given due effect to?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The facts mentioned in the first and second paragraphs of the question are substantially correct. Representations were made to the French Government, but the reply received showed that the goods in question had three times been examined by experts;
  1454
  on the first occasion the experts decided unanimously that the goods were of extra-European origin; on the second occasion there was a difference of opinion, but on the third occasion upon four fresh experts being summoned and the matter reconsidered, they decided unanimously that the goods were of extra-European origin. The French Government have declined to make any change in the existing law in this respect.

  JOHN MITCHEL'S LIFE AND WRITINGS.
  MR. KNOX (for Dr. TANNER,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why certain historical books, recommended by the acting Catholic Chaplain to Armagh Prison, namely, Mitchel's History of Ireland and The Life of John Mitchel were disallowed by the General Prisons Board?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I am informed that the person mentioned in the question was convicted of treason felony in 1848, and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. His writings are incitements to treason, and such as should not, in the opinion of the Prisons Board, be admitted to the Prison library.

  UNSANITARY WORKSHOPS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON:: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has, as yet, in any case, enforced Sections 1 and 2 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, which provides that, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the sanitary provisions in regard to workshops have not been duly carried out by the Local Authority, he may intervene; whether the Inspectors have, under Section 26, received due notice of the opening of workshops since the passing of the Act; whether they have further duly forwarded the notification to the Sanitary Authority of the district; and whether he has, under Section 27, made any order requiring the occupier of any workshop, or any contractor employed by any occupier, to keep lists of those employed by him; and, if so, whether any penalty has been inflicted for non-compliance with the order?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have hitherto received no complaints requiring the intervention of the Home Office under Sections 1 and 2 of the Factory Act of last Session. I may point out to the hon. Member that such intervention should only take place where there has been clear neglect or default on the part of the Local Authority. The Inspectors of Factories have received full instructions to require occupiers of workshops to send them notices as prescribed by the 26th section of the Act, and to forward such notices to the Sanitary Authority. Further instructions to the like effect were issued to the Inspectors on the 8th of this month requesting them to see to the strict observance of the 26th Section, and to forward prosecution reports where they found any occupier who had failed to send the required notice. To what extent the Inspectors have received these notices I am unable to say without further time for inquiry; and I am about to issue a Circular calling for information on the subject. With regard to the fourth paragraph of the question, I have had the provisions of the 27th section of the Act under my consideration, and I have been collecting information as to the trades and localities in which it would be expedient to issue orders.
  MR. BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in reference to the Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, and the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, he has sent out any Circular to the Local Authorities in London, drawing their attention to the new duties imposed on them in respect to workshops; what arrangements have been made for carrying out the law in regard, on the one hand, to notification by the medical officer to the Factory Inspector if the former becomes aware that any child, young person, or woman is being employed in a workshop; and, on the other, to notification on the part of the Factory Inspector to the Local Authority when the former receives notice of the opening of a workshop; and whether he is in a position to state that any improvement has taken place in the sanitary condition of the workshops in
  1456
  London since the passing of the before mentioned Acts?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, and the Public Health (London) Act came into operation on the 1st January last, and I caused a Circular Letter to be addressed on the 30th November last to the several Sanitary Authorities in London drawing their attention to the new duties imposed on them in respect of workshops. The duties of the Factory Inspector as regards notification to the medical officer, and of the medical officer with respect to notification to the Factory Inspector, are specifically prescribed by the Statute, and those duties were referred to in the Circular of the Local Government Board. I have had no complaint that the requirements of the Statute as regards these matters have not been duly complied with. The Annual Reports of the Medical Officers of Health in London are usually made for the year ending the 31st December and I have not received any communication either from the Sanitary Authorities or the Medical Officers of Health which would enable me to express any opinion on the question as to the improvement in the sanitary condition of London workshops since the 1st January in the present year. Of course, the Act has been in operation but a short time, and I hardly think it is desirable to call for a special Report yet; but I am watching the matter carefully, and when the time arrives to take action I shall be prepared to do so.

  PETROLEUM IN THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will name the provision, if any, in the Concessions of the Suez Canal Company giving authority to make, what has-hitherto been and is optional, by its mere motion compulsory and binding, in the matter of the exclusion, by virtue of the provisional regulations, of petroleum tank steamers from the Canal, when such vessels do not happen to have been constructed in accordance with the terms of such regulations?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: This question refers to a matter of law, namely, the

  1457
  construction of the Charter and Concessions of the Canal Company, which is at present the subject of litigation in the Egyptian Courts; and it is not within the province of Her Majesty's Government to express any opinion upon it.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relating to the Inter-Departmental Commission, with reference to the provisional regulations of the Suez Canal Company, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  *MR. LOWTHER: These Papers are in the printer's hands, and will be distributed as soon as possible.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a conference of the Inter-departmental Commission (British) of 1891 was held before or after the adoption of the principle of allowing ships laden with bulk oil to pass along the Suez Canal; would he state on what date or dates the Commission met; and whether any rules on the subject were adopted, modified, or abandoned in consequence of direct negotiations between the Commission and the Government Directors of the Suez Canal or the Company itself?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The date of the meeting of the Inter-departmental Commission was December, 1891. The action of the Commission and its results will appear from the Papers which have been laid and which will be distributed as soon as possible. They are now in the printer's hands.
  MR. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the possible dual system of rules adopted by the Suez Canal Company and the Egyptian Government, Her Majesty's Government would urge the Suez Canal Company to suspend the Provisional Regulations until Egypt has declared in the matter or abandoned her police rights in reference to bulk petroleum in or on the waters of the Suez Canal, or in the ports situated in, or along, and adjacent to the Canal, and pending the decision of the Egyptian Courts as to the legality or illegality of the Provisional Regulations.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I replied yesterday to an almost identical question put to me by the hon. Member for West Limerick (Mr. Abraham), and I have nothing to add to the answer I then gave.
  MR. PHILIPPS(for Mr. LLOYD MORGAN,): I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any communication of a special character relating to the passage of bulk petroleum through the Suez Canal, between the Foreign Office and the Suez Canal Company, prior to the admission of the principle of the passage of ships laden with bulk oil by the Directors of the Suez Canal, including the nominees of the Government on the administration of the Canal?
  *MR. LOWTHER: No such communication as that referred to in the hon. Member's question took place.

  H.M.S. "WANDERER."
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before converting the "Wanderer," which in 1884 cost £46,232, into a training brig, he will first obtain tenders for a new steel vessel; whether he is aware that a new sailing brig, similar in tonnage to the "Wanderer," may be purchased complete for sea, with the exception of guns, for about £12,000; can he state the cost of converting her; and whether the model and dimensions are such as to make her a desirable ship under canvas?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): For the particular service for which it is intended to convert the "Wanderer" an iron or steel vessel is not desirable, as a training brig is chiefly employed on the coast and frequently in shallow waters. When converted the "Wanderer" will be quite suitable for the purpose. The cost of the conversion will be about £6,000.

  H.M.S. "AGINCOURT."
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty the nature of the alterations and overhaul intended in the battle-ship "Agincourt"; whether the machinery is to be converted into that of triple or quadruple, and what he

  1459
  anticipates will be her coal endurance and speed, when completed; whether intended to be fitted with breech-loading, and quick-firing, and other modern guns; and will he also state the cost of the proposed conversion?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is intended to fit the "Agincourt" with new boilers, which are in store and available, and to limit repairs in other respects to the work necessary to bring the ship into a condition of efficiency for active service. New machinery will not be supplied. No change of armament is proposed except the introduction of some small quick-firing guns. These repairs are estimated to cost about £35,000.

  THE RAILWAY "BLOCK" SYSTEM.
  MR. GEORGE DIXON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, although by the Act of 1889 Railway Companies were compelled to provide their lines with the absolute block system, the special block signal of thirteen rings known as the "Come at Caution" arrangement, which was sanctioned by the Board of Trade for special purposes only, is now constantly in use for the ordinary traffic; whether the recent serious collisions at Birmingham and Leeds were owing to the use of this dangerous signal; and if it is under the consideration of the Department whether something can be done to carry out more strictly the intention of the Act of 1889?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): (No, Sir, the facts are not quite as stated in the question of the hon. Member. The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, does not require Railway Companies to provide their lines with the absolute block system. What it does do is to empower the Board of Trade to order a Railway Company to adopt, inter alia, the block system with any exceptions or modifications allowed by the Order, and the Board of Trade have required the Railway Companies to adopt the block system with such modifications, in each particular case, as the circumstances of the railway required. The signal referred to by the hon. Member is probably the signal, "section clear, but
  1460
  station (or junction) blocked," which is not a signal sanctioned in any way by the Board of Trade, or forming in any way a modification of the Order to adopt the block system. It is a signal adopted by certain Railway Companies for use under certain special circumstances, but it is frequently used in a manner against which the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade have on several occasions protested. Whether or not the recent unhappy collisions which have led to lamentable loss of life were due to the use of this signal I am unable to say until I have received the Reports of the Inspecting Officers on the inquiries which have been ordered. I am of opinion, however, that the signal as it is sometimes used is by no means satisfactory, and that, in the interests of the public safety, a greater strictness should be adopted than is possible with such use of the signal. The Reports of the Inspecting Officers on the accidents which have occurred will be carefully examined, and the Railway Department of the Board of Trade will consider whether any, and if so, what, further representations shall be made to the Companies which are still using the signal referred to.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under the powers of the Act of 1889, he has power to issue an Order to exclude the use of this signal in the manner referred to, or whether he can only make a recommendation?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I think that is a question of which I should have notice.

  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF AND THE BUCHAREST LEGATION.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs out of what fund and on what authority the additional £ 1,000 was paid to Sir H. Drummond Wolff when acting as Minister in Roumania, when Parliament had already voted the usual salary appropriated to that appointment; and whether it is competent to the Secretary of State to increase the salaries or emoluments of such officers without the vote of Parliament? In putting this question I may be permitted to say in explanation that on the 31st July last a question

  1461
  was raised as to the salary of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and the then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said it would be necessary to submit a Supplementary Estimate, to which I gave notice of opposition.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The allowance to Sir H. D. Wolff was granted with the sanction of the Treasury, and was charged to the subhead "Salaries" of the Diplomatic Vote. As was explained by the Postmaster General on 1st August, 1891, it was unnecessary to ask for a Supplementary Vote, owing to there being an excess under another head. As the allowance had ceased before this year's Estimates were prepared, the charge does not appear in them. It will appear in the Appropriation Accounts for 1891–2.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: On the 31st duly the then Under Secretary informed the House that it would be necessary to take a Supplementary Estimate.
  *MR. LOWTHER: Yes; but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Report for 1st August he will find the statement to which I have referred.

  IRISH LEASEHOLDERS AND THE EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  COLONEL NOLAN(for Mr. CLANCY,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, inasmuch as a considerable proportion of leaseholders in Ireland have not yet sent in applications to have fair rents fixed on their holdings, he will include in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of the present Session, and so continue for another year, the provision in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, which relates to the time within which such applications may be made?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, the provision in the Act is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

  UNIFORM OF THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended shortly to dress the men of the Royal Naval Reserve in a woollen jersey instead of in a serge frock or jumper; whether he is aware that a good jersey cannot be
  1462
  obtained for the price proposed to be given for this one, so that the jersey proposed to be issued must necessarily be of an inferior kind; if he is aware that a jersey uniform is looked upon by a man-of-war's man as being characteristic of the ordinary crew of a merchant ship leaving port or of the "longshore boatman," and therefore not fit for men of the Royal Navy or Royal Naval Reserve; whether he is aware that a seaman's uniform has been designed, consisting of blue frock and collar, trousers, neck handkerchief, wide collar, lanyard, cap and ribbon, which would be highly popular with the men of the Royal Naval Reserve, and which can be served out to the men of that force at a cost which will save the Admiralty by its issue £1,625 a year; and whether, in view of the fact that this suggested jersey uniform will place the men of the Royal Naval Reserve at a disadvantage in appearance with their comrades of the Royal Navy when serving on board Her Majesty's ships of war, he will consider the advisability of forthwith issuing this blue serge frock uniform to the men of the Royal Naval Reserve instead of the proposed jersey uniform, with a view to add to the popularity among them of that important branch of the Royal Navy?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The uniform which has been finally approved for the Royal Naval Reserve consists of one blue jumper (serge), two flannels, two collars, one black silk handkerchief, one pair blue tartan trousers, one cap and ribbon. Until arrangements have been made for supplying this uniform, the present uniform will continue to be issued. It is not intended to supply the so-called jersey uniform. The cost of the approved new uniform will be about 2s. 8d. per man more than the present uniform in use.

  SALARIES OF PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. EDWARD KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the system of payment of warders of prisons, if it is the case that the principal warders of Borstal Prison, commencing under the new scale, will lose £8 on the first six years' service; and, if so, why this reduction has been

  1463
  made; on what grounds assistant warders of over ten years' service, when promoted, get no immediate increase of pay, whereas they would get an increase if under ten years' service; is it the case that warders are sometimes on night duty, and in the open air, for more than twelve hours without a break, and that the civil guard, in addition to the twelve hours a day, have to be on night guard once in nine or ten days, and that, by reason of this extra duty, men are frequently deprived of the usual half-holiday on Saturday; will the three days' extra leave be granted to the civil guard, as well as to the rest of the staff at Borstal; and if there is any reason for the scale of pension being so low as one-sixtieth instead of one-fiftieth of the annual pay for each year served, and for there being no limit of service at which the staff would be entitled to a pension?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is the fact that under the old practice a warder, at his maximum of £87, on promotion to the post of principal warder commenced at the minimum scale of that rank, which was £83, but to which were added the increments earned in the lower rank, namely, £14, making his initial salary as principal warder £97. Under the new scale a warder, on promotion to the rank of principal warder, commences at the minimum pay of £93, but rises by £2 to a maximum of £105, in lieu of his former maximum of £103. The Treasury decided that the practice of carrying over increments must cease; and the new scale was devised to compensate these deserving officers as far as possible for this loss. Assistant warders who have served ten years receive an increment for the next three years of service. This increment brings their pay above the minimum of a warder's salary; and on promotion they carry with them the higher pay they are then receiving, but receive no increase until they have served a year as warders. Warders are never on night duty in the open air for twelve hours without a break. Each officer on night duty gets a rest of about three hours during the night, and is exempted from day duty. The hours of actual duty of the civil guard average about nine per day, in addition to which he takes his turn of sleeping in the prison as a reserve guard, but is not called up except in case of emergency. Prison officers are not
  1464
  deprived of the Saturday half-holiday, save under exceptional circumstances. The Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the grievances of these officers did not recommend additional leave, and it has not been granted; nor did they recommend any change in the rate of superannuation.

  THE VACCINATION LAWS.
  MR. ADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any Circular on the subject of repeated prosecutions in cases of a breach of the Vaccination Laws has been issued by the Local Government Board; and, if so, whether he could state to the House the purport of the Circular?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board, in September, 1875, addressed a letter on the subject of repeated prosecutions in cases of a breach of the Vaccination Laws to the Guardians of the Evesham Union. I have in a large number of cases forwarded a copy of this letter to Boards of Guardians. In that letter the Board stated that it was the intention of the Article in their Regulations with reference to proceedings under Section 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, being repeatedly taken in the same case, that the Guardians should carefully consider with regard to each individual case the effect which a continuance of proceedings was likely to have in procuring the vaccination of the child and in insuring the observance of the law in the Union generally. The Board stated that when in a particular case repeated prosecutions had failed in their object, it became necessary carefully to consider the question whether the continuance of a fruitless contest with the parent might not have a tendency to produce mischievous results by exciting sympathy with the person prosecuted, and thus creating a more extended opposition to the law. In this view I entirely concur.
  MR. ADDISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any answer from any Board of Guardians promising compliance with this very reasonable request?
  *MR. RITCHIE: It was not a communication requiring an answer; it was merely an intimation to be received.

  RETIRED NAVAL PAY AND CIVIL PENSIONS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the fact that the Treasury have refused to award a full Civil Service pension to Dr. Blaxall, R.N., late Medical Inspector under the Local Government Board, on his retirement after twenty-one and a half years' service, although the Local Government Board specially recommended him for the maximum allowance, on the ground that his retired naval pay must be taken into account when arranging for his retirement on two-thirds of his salary, whether it is on record that the Law Officers of the Crown in 1872, on a case referred to them,
  "Gave it as their distinct opinion that there is a valid distinction between naval half-pay and retired pay, and that officers in receipt of retired pay are not subject to the restrictions relating to half-pay";
  and whether, in view of subsequent decisions, the above opinion having been invariably followed in the case of naval officers on retired pay entitled to Civil Service pensions, the Treasury will reconsider their decision as affecting Dr. Blaxall, and grant him the pension as recommended by the Local Government Board?
  *SIR JOHN GORST: Dr. Blaxall has been treated, in the award of his pension, exactly in the same way as every other Civil servant who is entitled to retired pay in respect of previous service in the Army or Navy. He has been granted so much Civil pension as, together with his retired pay, equals two-thirds of his Civil salary. Such a limitation is, I believe, within the intention of the Superannuation Acts, and it is made in all cases in virtue of the full and final discretion given by those Acts to the Treasury. The advice of the Law Officers of the Crown to Public Departments is confidential, and I cannot therefore reply to that portion of the question which refers to an opinion stated to have been given by the Law Officers in 1872.

  LICHFIELD BENCH OF MAGISTRATES.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  1466
  whether he is aware that on 30th December, 1890, the. Justices' Clerk of the City and County of the City of Lichfield called the attention of the Lichfield Town Council to the existence of seven vacancies on the Bench of Magistrates, and suggested the expediency of adding the names of qualified gentlemen on the Commission of the Peace; whether he is aware that a Memorial was thereupon presented by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City and County of the City of Lichfield to the Lord Chancellor, recommending the names of seven citizens to fill the existing vacancies; if he will explain why for sixteen months no notice was taken of this Memorial, when a commission was returned to the city containing the name of only one of the seven gentlemen recommended by the Memorialists; whether he is aware that the action of the Lord Chancellor in this matter has caused great dissatisfaction in the City of Lichfield; and whether he can state what steps, if any, are to be taken to give effect to the wishes of the Memorialists?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that about the time stated his attention was called to the state of the Bench at Lichfield. His Lordship, in discharge of the responsibility which rests entirely upon him in this matter, after careful inquiry and consideration, came to the conclusion that an addition of three Justices was sufficient for the requirements of the case.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, did the Lord Chancellor receive another Memorial, not from the Town Council?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: There is a general impression that a counter-Memorial was sent.

  SUPERVISORS OF INLAND REVENUE.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer will he explain on what grounds expectant supervisors of Inland Revenue receive only £240 per year salary, while the senior first-class officers supervised by them will this year attain a salary of £250; and whether, in view of the facts that expectant supervisors and expectant inspectors are the only classes not in receipt of annual incre-

  1467
  ments, although some years must be spent in the grades, that, notwithstanding some recent concessions, there are districts wherein expectant supervisors receive only £50 a year for officiating, though having to live away from their homes they cannot maintain themselves properly on so small an allowance; and that expectant supervisors form but a small body (fifty), their case will be included amongst the minor questions affecting Inland Revenue officials now under consideration, with a view to granting an adequate officiating allowance and to the removal of the anomaly of paying a supervising official a lower salary than that received by one he may supervise, as prayed for inter alia in the general Petition presented last year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The fact stated in the first paragraph is correct; but expectant supervisors are really officers of the first class acting from time to time as supervisors, and when promoted to be expectant supervisors they receive an immediate increase of about £40 a year more than they were receiving or were entitled to receive according to their standing as first-class officers. Annual increments are not continuous throughout the service in any of the classes. The position of expectant supervisor is a transitional or temporary one, occupied for about three years only. Expectant supervisors receive £50 a year for cost of lodging and extra cost of living away from home. This is considered sufficient when the circumstance is taken into account that they also receive, when officiating, on an average of all districts, more than £20 a year in addition, for cost of living when absent from their lodging during the day. Concessions have recently been made to the expectant supervisors, and notwithstanding the alleged grievances the number of applicants for the position is embarrassingly in excess of the requirements of the Department.

  NEW FOREST RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what action he contemplates taking in regard to the Report of the Commission upon the contemplated site of a rifle range in the New Forest?
  MR. BRODRICK: I said a few days ago that, having regard to the Report of the Commission and the difficulties indicated, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to proceed further with legislation. Proceedings will be by Provisional Order in a future Session.

  THE CASE OF THE BOY REAY.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a boy named Frederick Reay, who was committed to an industrial school at West Hartlepool on the 2nd March, 1892, on the ground of continual absence from school; whether it has since been medically certified that the boy's eyesight was so defective that he could not see marks or diagrams on a blackboard, and that it was on this account that he absented himself; whether he is aware that it has been stated by the two magistrates who committed him that, if they had known the circumstances which have since transpired, he would not have been committed; and whether, under the circumstances, he will direct his discharge from the industrial school, and allow him to be returned to his parents, who are willing to undertake his proper education?
  MR. MATTHEWS: This case has been under consideration, and I have directed the boy to be discharged.

  COAL FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. BAIRD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the difference of price between Scotch and Welsh steam coal in the Clyde and Forth amounts to between five and seven shillings per ton in favour of the former; and whether, as the best Scotch steam coal is fairly free from smoke, and perfectly suitable for cruising, he will, if Her Majesty's Fleet visits the coast of Scotland this year, order the ships to coal there, and give the Scotch coal a full and effective trial?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Welsh coal supplied in the Clyde and Forth is more expensive than Scotch coal, but this additional expense is assured to be more than balanced by the advantages derived from the use of Welsh steam coal. The long and care-

  1469
  ful trials made in 1889 fully demonstrated the superiority of Welsh coal for steaming purposes, and no further trial is likely to reverse that conclusion.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, as the result of tests made about the year 1866, it was decided that one-third Welsh and two-thirds North Country or Scotch steam coal was the best for uniform as well as rapid combustion, and that a Minute was then issued to that effect, which was acted upon for some years; and whether he can state when and for what reasons the change was made?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: A certain mixture of Welsh and North Country coal—but not in the proportions stated in the question—was ordered, in 1869, to be used on board Her Majesty's ships, but the use of this fuel was found to be so unsatisfactory, and met with such general condemnation in the Service, that, in the year 1887, it was definitely decided that North Country coal should be no longer supplied for steaming purposes in the Navy. The reasons for the disuse of the North Country coal were fully explained by me in 1889 to a deputation of Members of this House and representatives of the North Country mining industry.

  COUNTY CESS RECEIPTS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the cess collectors in Cavan have, by direction of the Grand Jury, refused or omitted to give separate receipts for county cess under the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, half of which is recoverable from the landlord, or in any way to separate the amounts levied under that Act from the ordinary cess; whether £4,000 repayable by the landlords has ever been repaid by them owing to this practice; and whether he will take steps to prevent the recurrence of this abuse?
  MR. JACKSON: The subject-matter of this question does not come within the cognizance of the Executive Government. I, however, caused a copy of this question to be forwarded to the Secretary to the Grand Jury for any observations they might desire to offer. No reply has so far reached me.

  THE REGISTRAR OF BELFAST COUNTY COURT.
  MR. KNOX (for Dr. TANNER): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the attention of the authorities has been directed to the inconvenience occasioned by the late attendance of Mr. H. M'Neill M'Cormick, Registrar of the Belfast County Court; is he aware that Mr. M'Cormick is nearly always late in his attendance at Court, occasionally many hours late, and that on Thursday, 14th April last, when he should have attended at 11.30, he did not come until 5 p.m., to the great discontent of counsel and clients; and whether steps will be taken to remedy this inconvenience?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): No information has reached me on the subject of the question, nor am I aware of any complaints having been made in regard to it. The matter is not one in which I have any right to interpose or any right to inquire.

  THE DISSOLUTION.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think it is anticipated from conversation which passed on a previous occasion, and I think the House will be anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord is now in a position to make a final announcement as to the measures to be proceeded with, and also if he will give us some definite statement as to the day for the Dissolution of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Everybody, I think, will admit that the request of the right hon. Gentleman is a very reasonable one. As I understand the position of Public Business it is this: There still remain on the Paper seventeen Orders of the Day. I understand from my right hon. Friend that No. 13—Public Authorities Protection Bill—is not one which the Irish Government desire to see pressed, and I propose, therefore, to omit that. The remaining Orders of the Day can probably be passed into law without any serious delay; and, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, I see no reason why we should not get through all the measures we have on the Paper by Wednesday next, unless, indeed, we pro-

  1471
  ceed with the British Columbia Bill, which, being a Money Bill, requires a separate day for each one of its stages, and which could not, therefore, be passed before Thursday. With that exception we can, I believe, get through all the business on the Paper by Wednesday. Nor is that general view of our prospects at all modified by the fact that I find there are four Government Bills coming down from another place, of which the following are the titles: Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, Colonial Stock Act, 1877, Amendment Bill, Forged Transfer Bill, and the Bills of Sale Act Amendment Bill. With regard to the Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, I have on more than one occasion pointed out to the House that this was a measure which I was led to understand has excited great interest in Scotland; but I do not believe it is likely to be opposed, as it is not of a controversial character. I hope that is still the view of the House, and that there will be no difficulty in passing that Bill into law before Wednesday. The Colonial Stock Act, 1877, Amendment Bill is a Bill dealing with a very small subject; it is only intended to rectify certain wrong or informal entries with regard to certain Colonial Stock in this country. The Forged Transfer Bill and the Bills of Sale Bill are Legal Bills, more or less important, which could pass if they were generally assented to; but which, of course, the Government could not and would not attempt to force down the throats even of a small minority if they were objected to. So much for the business that we have to get through in this House, and I may say, in passing, I think we owe a great deal to the efforts of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have enabled us to transact so rapidly and so successfully a very large mass of important Public Business. The Session, however, cannot be brought to a close until the business of the other House is also brought to a termination, and, therefore, I see no prospect of being able to conclude our work at so early a date. We have sent up a very large number of very important Bills; and, so far I have been able to understand the procedure in another place, there is no probability, or even possibility, of these Public Bills being dealt with before the end of the week. There is, indeed, a further, and in some respects a more insuperable, difficulty in concluding the
  1472
  business of the Session arising out of certain very important Provisional Orders, which, as I am informed, must lie on the Table for a certain length of time—seven days—in order to give private interests which may be affected power to appeal. That time cannot be shortened without violating all the tenets of public equity, which both Houses have invariably observed; even if the Standing Orders of the House of Lords were suspended with regard to these Provisional Orders it would not, as I understand, be possible to get them through before the end of the week, and a very great deal of hardship would be inflicted on the various localities concerned, for if they were not passed these localities could not obtain the water supplies, and other matters with which the Orders deal, until another year has-elapsed. Under these circumstances, I should propose that we should adjourn House on Wednesday. Monday must be kept open in case we have to-deal with Lords' Amendments, and I should propose, as soon after that as possible, the Dissolution should take place: it cannot possibly be later than Wednesday or Thursday in next week.
  MR. PICTON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to insist on passing Order No. 17, the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill? He said he was unwilling to press a certain Bill down the throats of even a small minority. Does he regard this as a Bill that ought to be pressed down the throats of a small minority?

MOTIONS.
  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

    DATE OF PROROGATION.
    Mr. LABOUCHERE,Mr. LABOUCHERE, Member for the Borough of 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 general inconvenience to the Country of the lengthened period likely to elapse before the Prorogation of Parliament"; and the pleasure of the House having been signified:—
    MR. LABOUCHERE: My observations must be very brief, because I have already almost lost my voice owing to this Prorogation being put off. I do not think that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury was very satisfactory to Members on either side of the House. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman admits that we have done our best to facilitate the conduct of business. We have done that, and we are told that, so far as this House is concerned, the Prorogation could take place next Wednesday or Thursday; but, owing to the action of the House of Lords, this turmoil and disquietude, which is incident to elections, is to be continued for a further week or two. I may also point out that our great object on this side of the House is to cheapen elections as much as possible, and that every day after a contest has commenced there is a certain cost to candidates. Therefore, candidates unite with electors in wishing that, as soon as practically it is announced that the Dissolution is to take place, the Dissolution should take place. Now, what are we told the Lords are going to do? The Lords are going, calmly and quietly, absolutely ignoring the feeling of this House and of the country, to treat their business as if time were no object. We are anxious to give the Lords an opportunity of looking into Bills. We sent up the Agricultural Holdings Bill after much discussion in Committee, in order to give the Lords an opportunity of discussing it. They did not do so. We met again on Thursday. The Lords did not meet on Thursday. They wanted to have a longer holiday. On Monday they carried the Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. Naturally, we expected that they would have put the Bill down for Committee on Tuesday or on Wednesday. I do not say for a moment that it was due to Ascot races going on; but, as a matter of fact, a good many noble Lords did go to Ascot, and the Bill was put off until to-day. Therefore, we have a right to complain of the action of the House of Lords, and I move the Adjournment of the House, because I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use the great influence he has with the other House in order to induce them to facilitate business by sending down their Bills to enable us to pass them before
    1474
    the end of next week. And I move the Adjournment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making a further statement, and to give Gentlemen on this side of the House an opportunity of strengthening the arguments, or the suggestions, that I have used by many of the cogent reasons which, no doubt, will occur to them.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: At last we have had avowed the plan which has obviously been under consideration for a longtime. We have been asked upon this sale of the House to facilitate the public business of the country and of the Government; we have agreed to and supported that request; we have carried out our part faithfully and well. But all the time the Government had in reserve, as an instrument of obstruction, the House of Lords; and while we were asked to pass Bills with very little discussion in this House, the Prorogation of Parliament is to be delayed by the action of the House of Lords at the instigation of the Government. And what is the object? The object is to prevent a large number of electors of this country recording their votes, especially the poorer members of the community. When the London Council elections took place a few months ago, in the Tory organs it was stated that the success of the Liberal Party had been due to the elections taking place on a Saturday. It was, therefore, determined that a day should be fixed for the Dissolution which should make it impossible that a poll should be taken in the boroughs of this country upon a Saturday; and the proof of it is that such a day has been selected. There are only two days that you can select which would make it impossible under any circumstances for a poll to be taken upon a Saturday, and these are the two days of the week named by the First Lord of the Treasury—namely, Wednesday and Thursday. If you took any other day the poll might take place upon a Saturday. These are the two days which make it impossible, and it is perfectly well known that preventing the poll on a Saturday is preventing many hundreds and thousands of men from

    1475
    recording their votes. I can speak of my own constituency. When I was there the other day I asked what is the day upon which the largest number of votes can be polled. There is a large number of working men in the railway works there, and a great many of these in the employment of the Midland Railway are absent during the whole week. They only return to their homes upon the Saturday, and they go away on the Monday morning. Hundreds of these men will be disfranchised by Her Majesty's Government using the House of Lords for the purpose of taking away the votes of the working men of this country. You think you will gain by this trickery. In my opinion, you will lose by it. The resentment and the indignation which will be raised by this contrivance throughout the country will, in my opinion, rally against you many thousand more votes than you will gain by this design. Now, if you had issued the Writs on Saturday next it would not have compelled the polling to have been taken upon a Saturday. Nobody has ever asked that; nobody has ever wished that. All that we ask is that there should be an opportunity given that, in the places where it is most convenient, in the places where it would admit of a larger number of men voting than would otherwise do so, the poll should be taken on a Saturday; and if you had issued the Writs next Saturday, as you could do, and as you know you could do, and as I will prove you could do, and, according to all former practices you would have done, what would have been the days? The earliest day would have been the Friday following. The Saturday would have been open, the Monday, and the Tuesday. These would have been the four days upon which the poll could be taken; yet you have selected the day which you knew must exclude Saturday. And upon what pretence? Let anybody who has any experience or knowledge of the conduct of public business ask whether, with the Bills sent up at the close of a Session, it has been the practice of the Lords in former days to demand a long time for their consideration. Why, we know how they have swallowed them whole rather than sit for half-an-hour. What has been the history of the past week? There has been a Bill which they consider, I suppose, of great cones-
    1476
    quence—the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill. That Bill was passed by the House of Commons before Whitsuntide. What has the House of Lords been doing since Whitsuntide—this Assembly, which requires so much time to consider all these measures carefully—what has it been doing since Whitsuntide with the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill? Their Lordships met together upon the Monday, and the Government announced that it intends to strike out of the Bill, I was going to say almost the only liberal provision, which they accepted under the pressure of both sides of this House. That is all they have been doing all this week. Why has the House of Lords not been sitting to consider Bills during the present week? Why, because they were meant to spend next week or the next ten days upon those measures which have been referred to them! Now, as to the Bills which we have sent up, I undertake to say that, according to the practice of Parliament in former days, the House of Lords would not have required a week or ten days to dispose of them. We all know perfectly well that they would have been disposed of in a couple of days, according to the practice of the House of Lords in former Parliaments. The Money Bills, of course, could be disposed of in one day, as they suspend the Standing Orders; and as to the rest of the Bills, which we have disposed of in two days, will anybody say that the House of Lords could not dispose of them in two days, if we could do so, after we have sent them up from this House? I think the nature of this delay, and the object of this delay, will become apparent. I cannot think that it has been a very prudent course on behalf of the Government to employ the House of Lords for such a purpose as this. I think it will be thoroughly understood throughout the country. (Cheers.) Yes; we will take care that it is thoroughly understood; we will make it understood to every one of those men whom you do not intend to poll on Saturday, and whom you will have deprived of the franchise, what is the object of this performance; and we will let them also understand that upon the great issue that is put before the country you have arranged your proceedings so that by the action of the House of Lords you may, as

    1477
    far as possible, disfranchise the working men in the constituencies.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The attack of the right hon. Gentleman, both upon the House of Lords and upon the Government, appears to me to be one of the most extraordinary and one of the most unfounded that even it has been given to him, in his considerable Parliamentary experience of such attacks, to make in this House. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think, when I stated that that House would probably require next week to consider the measures that we have sent up to them, that I was indicating that the House of Lords were asking the greatest possible amount of time they could to consider the legislation which they are expected to pass. Has the right hon. Gentleman thought what that legislation is—of its amount, or of its quality? He talks as though it was the practice of the House of Lords at the end of the Session to deal with Bills of the kind they will have to deal with next week in a day, or two days. He expects, because the right hon. Gentleman happens, in the borough of Derby, to wish an election on the Saturday, that therefore the House of Lords are to suspend all their Standing Orders. I deny that it is the practice of the House of Lords, or that they can be reasonably expected, to suspend their Standing Orders on such Bills, and I deny that they can reasonably be asked to do so.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say that they should suspend their Standing Orders. My statement was that the Bills which have been sent up to the Lords in the last two days could be dealt with by the House of Lords between Monday and Thursday next, and that, without suspending the Standing Orders at all. There is not the least necessity for suspending the Standing Orders.
    MR. BALFOUR: If the House of Lords were to follow their ordinary procedure—and I cannot see why they are not to follow their ordinary procedure —in dealing with Bills, for example, so important and so complicated as that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) in connection with Irish Education—it is absurd to expect the House of Lords to
    1478
    deal with that Bill before Thursday next. The right hon. Gentleman belongs to that class of politicians which desires to abolish the House of Lords. By all means abolish the House of Lords, if you can. That may be a perfectly legitimate object of public policy; but so long as the House of Lords is an integral portion of our Constitution, in Heaven's name, at all events, allow the House of Lords to fulfil the duties which are entrusted to them by the Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman made no allusion to a matter which I suppose affects him very little—namely, the extreme desirability, if possible, of getting various Provisional Orders through the House of Lords, to which I adverted in the brief statement I made just now. These Provisional Orders cannot by any possibility be hurried. The very briefest time allowed will carry them over next week, and I utterly fail to see why we are to sacrifice, not the House of Lords, or their discussions, but the interest of all the communities in whose behalf, and for whose sake, these Provisional Orders are to be passed, merely in order that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby may have an election in Derby on a Saturday. There is one other point which has to be borne in mind. I think it is of importance, though not of quite such importance as those to which I have already adverted. There are at this moment before the House of Lords one or two Private Bills in the very first rank of importance. It is possible for us—and, of course, we shall do it—to pass a Resolution by which, even if those Bills are not passed, the money spent in promoting them shall not be wholly wasted. It is not absolutely necessary that the Bills should pass in the course of the present Session; but what is most expedient and most desirable is that the Committee stage of such a Bill as the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway should be got through, and even if the Bill cannot pass into law this Session—which I am afraid is very unlikely—that enormous investigation should not be cut in half before the Committee which is now carrying it on. Now, I do not put that in the first rank of importance; I do not say that the whole business of the country should be made to stand still on account of a Private Bill, however large; but I say

    1479
    that when we are considering what course the House of Lords should pursue in this matter we must not, and cannot, leave out of sight the immense private interests involved in such legislation as that to which I have ventured to advert. If it be admitted—as I think it must be admitted—that the House of Lords are only asking what is reasonable when they demand a week to discuss, I do not know how many, but twenty, thirty, or forty Bills which we have sent up, among which is included a Bill of such immense importance and of so controversial a character as that which has lately been in charge in this House of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I think I have done enough to show the House and the country that we are not asking anything unreasonable for the House of Lords in giving them that length of time to discuss their business. What is the objection to the House of Lords having this very moderate period for debating these Bills? The objection is that if the Dissolution takes places on one of two days next week it will be found difficult, and perhaps impossible, to have the election on a Saturday, and the right hon. Gentleman works himself up into a storm of virtuous indignation over the iniquities of a Government which should so arrange matters that the elections should not be on a Saturday. The first observation I have to make upon that is that the Statutes by which the times of elections are fixed have often been under consideration in this House, and never was it professed that the Dissolution should not take place on certain days because of its operation in connection with a Saturday election. Possibly the point never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) at that time. I do not dwell upon that; but I point to the experience we have actually had in this matter. I am given to understand that in 1885 only two London boroughs polled on Saturday and eight county boroughs; and in 1886 only two London boroughs and thirty-one county elections polled on Saturday. I conclude from that that it is not the view of those in the country who are responsible for these things that Saturday is the best day; and I am bound to say—although I do not profess to have the electioneering experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
    1480
    Derby — that such considerations as have been brought before me in this particular would certainly not induce me, if I were a returning officer, to fix an election on Saturday. I must point out certain very large errors of fact in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He asserted that the London County Council elections took place on a Saturday, and that certain Conservative newspapers stated that the success of the Progressive Party was due to the fact that the elections were on a Saturday, and he concludes from that that Saturday is the proper day on which to hold an election. But we must examine the facts more closely before we arrive at such a conclusion. What are the true principles which should determine this House when it deals with matters of this kind? What we desire, and what, I suppose from his speech, the right hon. Gentleman desires, is that the very largest number of people possible should be allowed to go to the poll, without inflicting upon them a pecuniary fine. As far as my observation goes, Saturday is the most disfranchising of all days. Before the extension of the hours of polling to eight o'clock, no doubt it was perfectly true that to have an election on any other day than Saturday disfranchised large and important masses of the working classes. Now that the hours of polling have been extended to eight o'clock, I cannot believe that any disfranchisement of a large kind can operate with regard to the working classes; but if you choose to have your elections on Saturday, you must disfranchise an enormous multitude of smaller tradesmen in the large towns, who are obliged to keep their shops open till late on Saturday night, and who cannot go to the poll without making a distinct, and for them important, pecuniary sacrifice. Therefore, if the returning officers insisted in any case on having the poll on Saturday—though no doubt they would be acting within their right, and I should never criticise their action—still it appears to me that the result of their action would be, not to enfranchise, but to disfranchise, those on whom Parliament has bestowed the privilege of returning Members of Parliament. There is another class, not indeed absolutely disfranchised, but something very like it, by an election on Saturday. The

    1481
    Jews are not a very large section of the population, except in certain constituencies; but in some cases, both in London and the country, they are a very large and very important element in the constituencies, and they are practically disfranchised by any returning officer who insists on having the election on a Saturday. There are other and subsidiary objections on which I do not care to dwell, but I think that many persons must be painfully aware of the fact that an election on a Saturday may often, has often, and may again, produce scenes of drunkenness and disorder. Hon. Gentlemen opposite belong to the teetotal party, but I suppose they will admit that an election is frequently accompanied by scenes of drunkenness and disorder. Another result of having the election on a Saturday is that a vast amount of Sunday labour is thrown on the various classes of the community connected with the working of an election. I do not propose to go into these points, as being comparable in importance with the disfranchising effect of a Saturday election. I only quote them as circumstances which should not be left out of account. I should not have gone into this question of the day of the week on which an election should or should not be held if the right hon. Gentleman had not dragged me into it. I have no objection to the controversy, and I am not afraid of it; but the fact that we cannot finish our business this week has nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with an election on a Saturday. It has to do with the possibility of getting through public business; and I say distinctly—having made the best endeavour I can to discover what the views are of those who are better acquainted than I can be with the business of the House of Lords that it is impossible for that Assembly to deal with the enormous mass of business we have sent up to them before the day I have mentioned. I hope the House will feel that, at all events, the way of hastening the election is not to move the Adjournment of the House, and that, therefore, it will not support the Motion.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should wish, Sir, to endeavour to brush one or two cobwebs out of the way, as a preliminary operation. Referring to what was stated
    1482
    by my right hon. Friend, and what I believe is an indisputable fact, as to the great reason alleged by the Conservative newspapers of London for the success of the Progressive Party on a recent occasion—namely, that it was because the election was held on a Saturday—we now see how much weight Her Majesty's Government assign to reasons alleged in Conservative newspapers. It could have had nothing whatever to do with the success of the Progressive Party.
    MR. BALFOUR: It is disfranchisement.
    MR. GLADSTONE: So that the success of the Progressive Party tended rather to disfranchisement in the view of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman said—it was a piece of Parliamentary fencing—that the question we were discussing was whether the election of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) should or should not be held on a Saturday, that it was convenient to my right hon. Friend that that day should be chosen, and consequently he had made this extraordinary attack on the Government. Now, Sir, my opinion of my right hon. Friend's position at Derby is this—that it does not signify one pin to him on what day of the week the election may take place; that Her Majesty's Government may fix it, if they please, on such day as they shall select, and at such hour of the day as they shall select, and my right hon. Friend would be entirely unapproachable by any one of them, or by the whole of them, in the confidence of the constituency of Derby. Then there are two subjects in the main which have been raised before us, and the first is as to the House of Lords. It appears—to my observation and memory for the first time—that the House of Lords is in the habit of giving such cheerful and careful attention to the Bills that go to the House of Lords from this House, that it is quite impossible for them to get through the business in less than the whole of next week—closing, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, with the Monday of the next week. It is quite impossible for them to do the business in less than that time. Now, what we have been accustomed to see is this—that the Bills that have occupied this House for months are

    1483
    disposed of in the House of Lords in days. The House of Lords has not been exhausted by its recent labours. The work of the House of Lords during the present week has not been of an overpowering character. My right hon. Friend has pointed out—and I entirely support what he says—that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week are available, compatibly with a Dissolution next week, for the despatch of its business. It will be curious to watch the hours on those days of next week during which the House of Lords—in that self-sacrificing way which always distinguishes it—shall devote itself to the consideration of these measures. Of course, I take it for granted, from what the right hon. Gentleman says, that it is the intention of the House of Lords on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, to meet at three or four o'clock, or whatever the time may be, and to sit steadily until twelve o'clock for the consideration of these Bills. Manifestly this is the first demand we are entitled to make upon them. Will they do it? No, Sir, nothing of the sort; it cannot be done. They may request a few Peers to speak; they may put the Whips in motion for the purpose of getting up what may be called bogus Debates; but I defy them, with all their efforts, to make a show of business which shall occupy them even the time my right hon. Friend has pointed out as amply sufficient for the discharge of this business. No, Sir; my recollection of the House of Lords is this: that during all the years of my Parliamentary remembrance—and Heaven knows there are quite enough of them—there has not been a single occasion on which the House of Lords has been set up to create a difficulty until the occasion has now arisen. The House of Lords is the most accommodating, is the most elastic, and is the most squeezable body, so far as procedure is concerned, that has ever discharged legislative functions. I will not say that I denounce, but I must protest against the whole attempt of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to set up these necessities of the House of Lords to have prolonged and repeated Sittings for the purpose of discharging business which we know to be perfectly capable of being gone
    1484
    through during the time pointed out. It is one of the idlest and thinnest fictions that has ever been set up for the purpose of entrapping an unwary Parliament and an unwary public—if such a public there were in this country, and I suspect there is not. We know very well that when we are talking of the House of Lords we are talking of the Government. ("No, no!") That is our humble and respectful opinion. Oh, I know there are certain points on which the House of Lords will rebel on certain occasions; but those are isolated cases—when the House of Lords is touched in a tender place—when unquestionably it will, if galled, wince and make even the Government, with whom they fully agree, feel the effect of their wincing; but for all ordinary purposes, for the discharge of business, the House of Lords, if not under the control of the Government, gives a willing, a ready, a loyal, and universal assent to the proposals of the Government. Consequently, we perfectly understand that it is the right hon. Gentleman who, with a certain limited amount of aid from the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Bill, has set up this remarkable defence for the postponement of the Dissolution. Then we come to the question of the effect of disfranchisement produced by the choice of one day or the other; and here the right hon. Gentleman set up the case that Saturday was a disfranchising day. Why is it a disfranchising day? It is a disfranchising day for two reasons. The Jews—that most worthy and excellent body of men—have been paraded before us as a reason why there should be no election on a Saturday, the fact being that in forty-nine out of fifty constituencies in the country there is not a single Jew in the constituency. But the right hon. Gentleman says there are constituencies where there are large fractions of Jews. Very well, Sir, and if there are such constituencies, let the returning officers take that into consideration. We do not ask to have the elections fixed on a Saturday, but we ask that it should be left open to the returning officer to fix the election for a Saturday. So I think I have disposed of the Jews. Then there is the case of the small tradesmen. What is to become of them? If you have an election on a

    1485
    Saturday no small tradesman can vote without inflicting on his business a fearful loss, and putting him, perhaps, in danger of the Gazette. Why cannot a small tradesman vote, as I believe he always does, in the daytime? He is not dependent on the extension of the poll to eight o'clock, as the workman is. The small tradesman's pressure of business does not commence at those hours when the poll commences. Therefore the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that there will not be a single small tradesman or a single big tradesman throughout the country disfranchised. But the right hon. Gentleman has formed the opinion that Saturday is an inconvenient day altogether; and I must say that we are so far indebted to the right hon. Gentleman that he laid down a sound principle, and said we ought to have the day which is the least disfranchising. The answer is that it ought to be, at the very least, left open to the returning officer; we ought not to preclude him from the exercise of his discretion, and have the election on Saturday if he so thinks fit. Who are the persons mainly interested? I think I have given him a fair answer for the Jews—let them be considered by the returning officer. I think, too, I have given him a fair answer for the small tradesmen—they have the whole forenoon and afternoon at their disposal. But what are we to say for the working men of this country? The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, will be inclined to admit that the working men of this country are at all events entitled to have an opinion, and that they might entertain an opinion entitled to much attention on the question of which is the best day for the election. The working men of this country form the large majority of the constituents. Our contention is that in the boroughs the Saturday is by far the best day, the day of least disfranchisement—the only day for perfectly free voting; and consequently, the working men being the most numerous class in this country, the day on which the nation can most freely and adequately exercise the suffrage. The right hon. Gentleman has had some evidence put before him on this subject. I had an opportunity yesterday of receiving a deputation of working men, who, undoubtedly, whether they represented the whole working class of the
    1486
    country or not, are representative to a very large extent—unquestionably representative—of the Metropolis; and undoubtedly this question is more important in the Metropolis than anywhere else. What, Sir, is their view? They informed me that they had presented to the right hon. Gentleman spontaneously—not any influence from above, and not as the result of any political machinations, but spontaneously—a. Memorial setting forth on their behalf that Saturday is the lay on which they can most easily and freely vote; that if Saturday be not appointed in many cases a considerable disfranchisement of their class will take place, and that consequently there ought to be a free discretion to fix the election on Saturday. I think that is a moderate contention, and I cannot help stating that, in my opinion, Her Majesty's Government have been very ill-advised in taking a course—a course which they might have avoided—which will prevent what the working classes themselves believe to be the best means of allowing them fully and adequately to exercise the suffrage. The construction placed upon the matter would undoubtedly be that whatever the profession of the right hon. Gentleman may be as to the propriety of appointing the day of least disfranchisement, his action is not in conformity with that profession, and that he and the Government to which he belongs have deliberately and advisedly adopted an arrangement for the Dissolution of Parliament which, in the opinion of the working men themselves, will make it impossible for them to exercise the franchise in that large and unrestricted manner in which it was the desire of Parliament, and in which it is for the benefit of the country, that it should be exercised.
    MR. JAMES STUART: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is about to take a step which will have the effect of disfranchising the working men of London. There can be no doubt about it. His argument about the small shopkeepers is worth nothing at all. The working men believe that they can vote in larger numbers on Saturday than on any other day. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the experience in past elections. There are very few constituencies in London in which

    1487
    the returning officers are not in the power of the Party opposite, and these returning officers must have been convinced by the experience of the 5th March last that the day on which London could really poll is on a Saturday, and on that day alone. The right hon. Gentleman has got up a case about the House of Lords. He says that there will be delay because the House of Lords cannot dispose of their business in the time. If that is so, the House of Lords is to blame.
    MR. BALFOUR: How can that be, when only to-day this House sent up to the House of Lords a most important Bill?
    MR. STUART: They have a week in which to get through the business. The right hon. Gentleman has shown his whole hand, for his speech was dead against a Saturday being chosen for the election. When answering the question I put to him, he chose to regard it as one asking the Government to declare in favour of a Saturday. We only want to be free to have a Saturday, and that is a very moderate request indeed. The public will be able to judge with regard to it for themselves. There is a marked difference between Saturday and any other day, and we say that the election ought to take place on the day which we are convinced is the most convenient for the masses of the people. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is in favour of better registration laws, but he and his Party have sneered at us for improving registration—they say we are always tinkering with the Constitution. The people of London will now see what tinkering with the Constitution means. Disfranchised as the working men are through the state of the registration laws, the right hon. Gentleman is going to disfranchise them still more by keeping from them any opportunity of voting on a Saturday. There is no obligation on the returning officer to have the election on Saturday in constituencies in which there are great numbers of Jews. I appeal, therefore, from the right hon. Gentleman to the people of London, who will see well enough who it is that is preventing them from exercising their privileges.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to think that enfranchisement simply means the power of voting on the part of those who agree with him in politics. ("No, no!") He pointed to the 5th March as a proof that Saturday was the best day that could possibly be fixed for the election, but what was the result? That scarcely more than one-half of the whole of the constituencies in London were able to vote.
    MR. STUART: Yes, but very many more voted than would have done had it not been a Saturday.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: That day happens to show that there was a very small poll indeed, and the greater portion of that poll was on the side of the hon. Gentleman. A subsequent bye-election showed that the friends of the hon. Member had voted in their full strength on the Saturday. If there was disfranchisement then, where was it? It was of the small shopkeepers, who were not able to vote on a Saturday, but who voted on the other day. No proof has been offered whatever except the Memorial referred to that Saturday is so inconvenient to the working classes as has been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is no proof whatever, except the desire which they have expressed and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), that the railway employees in Derby would not be able to vote except on Saturday. But the curious thing is that in Manchester it is stated that hundreds of voters among the working classes in the employ of the railway would not be able to vote if the elections took place on a Saturday. This matter has been considered by the Manchester Trades Council, and by an overwhelming majority they approved the previous question against using any influence with regard to this matter. And what did they state? One delegate stated that Saturday would not suit thousands of shopkeepers. But hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care apparently to have the small shopkeepers' vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said that we wished to disfranchise the working classes.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What I have done is this: I have only insisted on polling on Saturday where it is convenient. What we say is—poll on Saturday where it is convenient, and where it is inconvenient poll on some other day. What you are doing, however, is to make Saturday polling impossible.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: It is not we ourselves who choose that day; but we say that Saturday is not more an enfranchising day than any other day, and that, on the contrary, it disfranchises a large number in the constituencies. In proof of that, we cite the County Council elections in London. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to give the impression that we want to disfranchise the working classes. While we deny the allegation, we are entitled to say that the hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to avail themselves of a day when they cannot have recorded against them the votes which we believe will, if recorded, defeat them. The hon. Member opposite has said that my right hon. Friend's speech was a speech dead against Saturday polling; but my right hon. Friend was only replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who dragged that particular day into the discussion. It is therefore he who is responsible for raising the question, which is not a question for the House, but for the returning officers, who in many parts of the country consider that Saturday is not a good but a bad day for the election.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There are four days in the week any one of which the returning officer may choose for the holding of the polls; and in making that choice they will consult the interests of the locality and the general local feeling. But what the Government are doing is to make it impossible for Saturday to be one of those four days, and that is the gist of the controversy between us. The right hon. Gentleman says that in some districts Saturday is not a convenient day. I quite agree with him that there are some districts in which Monday is a much more convenient day; but when he says that there is no proof that Saturday is a convenient day, I can assure him that he is entirely in error. A large number of industries would prefer
    1490
    Saturday to any other day; but that not the question for the House to argue now. What we want to argue is that no Government have the right to make any such arrangements as render it impossible for, at all events, a considerable number of localities to hold the poll on the day they prefer, and which, if not selected, would involve their disfranchisement. The whole case is perfectly plain and transparent. The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. A. J. Balfour) argued against Saturday altogether, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) has also argued against Saturday altogether.
    MR. BALFOUR: I do not desire to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but what I argued was that it is quite impossible to finish the Business of the Government before the end of next week; and I pointed out the result might be that the election could not take place on Saturday; and I answered certain arguments against that course.
    MR. FOWLER: But that was not the point which was so rapturously cheered by those behind the right hon. Gentleman. What his Party so rapturously cheered, and especially the London Conservative Members, whom I should like to hear express their views openly and audibly in this House, was the argument against Saturday elections. I think it is desirable that the London Conservative Members should, in the interests of their constituents, present their views on this subject.
    MR. WEBSTER: I have stood up in my place three times, and it is not my fault that I have not been called on.
    MR. FOWLER: We shall be glad to hear the hon. Member when the time arrives. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury says that the Public Business cannot be disposed of. I wish he would take the volumes of Hansard for the last three years and read what has been the record of the House of Lords in the last two days of each of the last three Sessions. And I wish he would note the speed with which they can despatch Public Business when the 12th August is looming. Last year on the last day but one of the Session the House of Lords immediately suspended all the Standing Orders relating to every Bill, and they passed them as I may say by shovelsful, and they adjourned at six

    1491
    o'clock, after passing all the Bills the House of Commons had sent them with the greatest rapidity in the last week of the Session. When the last Dissolution took place in 1886, the whole of the House of Lords' Business was completed in two or three days, and always has been at the end of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Irish Educational Bill is to occupy a considerable time in the House of Lords. But what the right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon was Private Business and the great injustice that would be inflicted on persons promoting Private Bills. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the Motion which the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) is going to move on Monday. He is going to make a Motion on Monday relative to the standing Orders, which will simply suspend all these Provisional Orders and all these Private Bills, so that nobody would be put to any loss. The extreme amount of delay which will take place will be the thirty-five or forty days between the dissolution of this Parliament and the meeting of the new Parliament. I am sure the country will believe that there is no necessity for the delay on account of business; but the Government are, of course, the musters of the situation, and they can dissolve Parliament on any day they think proper. Let us, however, distinctly mark that there are two days in the week which if taken for the Dissolution will render a Saturday election impossible, and that the Government have deliberately announced that they intend to select one of the two.
    MR. WEBSTER: So far as I am concerned as a London Conservative Member, all I wish is that at the next General Election we may have a large poll and not a County Council poll, which in my constituency was not much over twenty-five per cent. A large number of shopkeepers were to my knowledge disfranchised. I was personally in St. Pancras on that day, and I asked a large number of the shopkeepers to vote for my friends, but they told me that they were unable to leave their business. It is not right or fair that either shopkeepers or any other class of the community should be disfranchised. It appears to me that the working class can vote equally well on any day of the week; but Saturday to the tradesmen in London is practically
    1492
    market day, and they are therefore obliged to be in the shop from two o'clock to eight in the evening. Thus to have the poll on Saturday would virtually disfranchise the tradesman. Look at the last election. The poll was not thirty or forty per cent as in the case of the County Council election, but eighty or eighty-five per cent.; and I find that in Blackburn, where there was the largest poll of all the constituencies—ninety-five per cent. of the voters on the register—the poll was not taken on a Saturday, but was either Tuesday or Wednesday. Therefore it appears to me that the working classes in the towns can, as I have said, vote equally well on any day in the week; while, by having the poll on Saturday, you would virtually disfranchise a large number of the shopkeepers of London.
    MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I have had some experience of elections in London, and I deny that the working classes can go to the poll between the hours of 8 and 8, and I am prepared to prove that a large proportion of electors are disfranchised by the closing of the poll at 8 o'clock. We are told that we are not to have elections on Saturday because of the percentage of voting that took place on 5th March; but are we to be responsible because our friends on the other side could not get their friends to vote for their programme? They brought the Duke of Westminster into London and also the Duke of Norfolk, and then they could not get their people to the poll. That, however, was not our fault. We offered an attractive programme; we won the election, and that programme is the whole secret of our County Council victory. Let me point out that with regard to this polling on 5th March there has been left out of the calculations this fact—that we were able to vote on the system of one man one vote for London. That was one reason why the poll appeared less than it really was. What has been the sort of argument offered? The argument used by the Leader of this House is an insult to the working class of London, and I throw it back to him as contumely upon that class. He said that if we were to have a Saturday election we should have a vast amount of drunkenness. Was there drunkenness on the 5th March? I went through several of the constituencies, and I saw none of that

    1493
    debauchery the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make appear; and I believe this absence is characteristic of the whole of the working class constituencies throughout London. If that drunkenness exists, it must exist among the friends of the right hon. Gentleman, and not among the Radical electors of London. Never, I believe, was a greater insult offered to the working class than is contained in that statement. The class that, unfortunately, gets drunk on Saturday is the class which does not take interest in public affairs. We have been told that the whole question remains with the returning officer, but we know that it does not. Anyone acquainted with the Act knows well that it is distinctly laid down that after the receipt of the Writ certain stages up to the date of the Election are all settled for the returning officer, and must take place within a period of given days. If you have the Dissolution on a day which does not allow Saturday to come within those dates, it will be impossible for the returning officer to choose Saturday. I have reason to believe that a very large number of returning officers in London would, from their past experience, fix Saturday as the day of polling; and when we are told that this might suit the working class, but would not suit another class, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer seek to admit that his Party does not expect to have the working class vote at this Election—that they have lost it? As to the small shopkeepers, I find that they choose the quiet period of the morning between 9 and 11 o'clock for recording their votes. Our wish is not to disfranchise the small shopkeepers. I think this Debate has been of a very interesting character to the working classes, because it has been clearly demonstrated, whatever may be the theory laid down, that the First Lord will not afford the facilities which will allow the vast mass of the working class to go to the poll. Take the question of Saturday from another point. Will any hon. Member say that the day upon which the working classes have most leisure is not the best occasion they could have for voting? Many of them work a long way out, and are prevented by distance from getting back to their homes in time for a poll that closes at 8 o'clock. Especially does that apply where the working men have to take a railway
    1494
    journey. Go to Liverpool Street and see the working men's trains going back at 8 o'clock on an ordinary day. On Saturdays these return about 2, 3, and 4 o'clock, and the passengers are not, as the First Lord said, in a state of drunkenness.
    MR. BALFOUR: What I said was that there was more drunkenness on Saturday than on other days. Is that denied by the hon. Gentleman?
    MR. ROWLANDS: I do not deny that there is more drunkenness on Saturday afternoon; but I say that those who take an interest in public matters do not get drunk on Saturday afternoon in consequence of going to the poll, and thus there is no argument in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think my object has been fulfille Under ordinary circumstances, I should be desirous of dividing the House; but it appears to me that if we were to carry the adjournment, which is very possible, we should furnish the Government with an additioral excuse for the extraordinary course they are pursuing on this occasion. I beg, therefore, to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    MR. PICTON: One reason, apparently, why a longer time is required by the other House for the discharge of Public Business is that the Peers are at present so busily engaged in electioneering. So many of them are taking part in the elections that I do not wonder they cannot attend to their duties. Only the other day I had a message from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb), who at present is in his constituency, stating that there are two noble Lords going about with the Conservative candidate and taking the chair at that candidate's meetings. Therefore, I do not think we need be much moved by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that all next week would be required for the discharge of Business.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There is one matter of Public Business I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement about. Late last night the question of Private Bills was raised, and I hope it may be fully understood now that the right hon. Gentleman will at the conclusion of Public Business move the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I understand that a Motion for the Adjournment of this House will be moved by the First Lord of the Treasury. That will be the proper opportunity for the discussion of this question.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BALFOUR: I think the question which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) asks will be answered by the Motion that I now make: "That, at the conclusion of Government Business this day, this House do adjourn till Monday next."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, at the conclusion of Government Business this day, this House do adjourn till Monday next."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Can it be understood by those who desire to leave London that it should be the rule hereafter, as long as the House sits, that the Motion for Adjournment shall be made at midnight when Government Business is concluded?
    MR. BALFOUR: Yes. I am in accordance with that appeal.
    MR. PICTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the whole of the Government Orders must be carried? Does he include the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill?
    Motion agreed to.

  BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.—(No. 406.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. SEXTON: I see this Bill includes the Bank of England. Up to the present moment the House has not had one syllable of explanation with regard to the Bill. I ask for some light on the Bill.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I have already said that we have made an arrangement with the Bank of Ireland similar to that made with the Bank of England. The Bill has been sent over to Ireland, and every opportunity afforded for the study of its details.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reduction of
  1496
  the rate of interest due from the public to those banks, and by what amount the remuneration of these banks is to be altered?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The total amount by which the remuneration to the Bank of Ireland will be diminished, including the diminution in the rate of interest on' the Government Debt, is over £7,500. The interest is reduced by one quarter per cent. on the debt, the amount of which will be found in the Bill. Then there are two items of £600, and this £1,200—one-half of which is in connection with the altered scale of payment to the Bank for managing the Public Debt—and the reduction of the quarter per cent. in the interest on the Debt to the Bank make up the total diminution in the remuneration of the Bank.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the effect of the Bill to lessen the charge upon the public?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; I stated that the charge upon the public connected with both banks is diminished by a sum between £52,000 and £53,000.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 224.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, considered.
  On Motion of Mr. KIMBER (Wandsworth) the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Clause 9, page 5, line 25, at end, insert "access to which is obtained from the street through a court, passage, or otherwise," and.
  On Motion of Sir ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 19, page 18, line 21, leave out "kerbed."
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 418.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, leave out "1st day of November," and insert "31st day of December."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT(1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 405.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 18, to add the words, "for the purpose of exercising in Ireland the powers conferred by this Act."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to move the following Clause:—
  (Application of Act.)
  "This Bill shall not apply to England or Scotland."
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 345.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]
  Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords.]—(No. 397.)
  Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be considered upon Monday next.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MIDWIVES REGISTRATION.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 289.]

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL.—(No. 239.)
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments, and Consequential Amendments, to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 374.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed].
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  TELEGRAPHS (re-committed) BILL. (No. 377.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL. [Lords.]
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 422.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS CONSOLIDATION BILL.—(No. 184.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL. (No. 417.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 262.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  MAURITIUS LOAN BILL.—(No. 425.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA [LOAN].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to advance, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, a loan of £150,000 to the Government and Province of

  1499
  British Columbia for the purpose of transferring and settling in that Province families from Crofter Parishes in Scotland, and to make provision for raising for a limited period the sum necessary for the said loan, the principal moneys so raised and the interest thereon being charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c.
  Ordered—
  That a Message be sent to the Lords, to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House, a Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on Metropolitan Hospitals, &c., with the Proceedings of the Committee.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

  BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) [REMUNERATION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That is is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of an increase in the remuneration for the management of Treasury Bills, and the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Irish Land Commission, of remuneration for the management of Guaranteed Land Stock, in pursuance of an Act of the present Session for making further provision respecting certain payments to the Banks of England and Ireland.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to ask whether it is due to a blunder on the part of some Government official that the Committee stage of the Banks of England and Ireland (Payments) Bill was placed upon the Order Paper before the Money Resolution relating to the same Bill, because I noticed that, instead of proceeding with the clauses of that Bill when the House went into Committee upon it, a Member of the Government at once moved to report Progress, which was done.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I might point out to the hon. Member that, apart from the question of whether there has been any mistake in putting the Bill upon the Paper as No. 3 and the Money Resolution as No. 5, no progress could be made with the clauses of the Bill until the Money Resolution has been reported. As that cannot be done until
  1500
  Monday, no delay will take place in consequence of the order in which the two stages have been placed upon the Paper.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I wish to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart Wortley) with reference to the Shop Hours Bill. It has been unanimously passed by a Select Committee, who went so far as to pass a Resolution that it was very desirable the Bill should pass. It is a Bill to enable Local Authorities to appoint Inspectors to carry out the provisions of the Act passed in this House two years ago; and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot agree to granting facilities so that the Bill may become law?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The light hon. Baronet is aware that I am not in a position to control the business of the House, but I will convey to the First Lord the facts stated by him. So far as I am aware, the conditions necessary for its being put into the Paper with Government Bills have been met, so far as they could be met on this side of the House.
  *SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: With reference to the Secondary School Teachers' Registration Bill, No. 21 on the Paper, I think those who are interested in it are entitled, in some degree, to protest against the arrangement of the Government whereby that Bill, which has been read a second time, is shut out from the Committee stage. It is a Bill which, although introduced by a private Member, has received a considerable amount of support, being backed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair). It is based on the Report of a Select Committee of this House, and is approved by the Education Department. I submit that, as it has been shut out from the Committee stage to-day, some opportunity should be given for passing it next week. I hope the Government will carefully consider if that cannot be done.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.