Sitting of 25 February 1896

QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL,)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
"I return you My sincere thanks for your loyal and dutiful Address and for your sympathy with Me and My dear Daughter Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg, in the loss which We have sustained by the death of My beloved Son-in-Law, Prince Henry of Battenberg.
"Your sincere participation in the general feeling of sorrow for Our heavy bereavement has afforded me much consolation."

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CORPORATION OF LONDON (METROPOLITAN MARKET) BILL (BY ORDER).
  On the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill—
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid, he did not wish to adopt any hostile attitude towards the Bill, although it touched a subject which affected profoundly the interest of his constituency. The object of the Bill was to deal with a large tract of land which lies in the

  1045
  centre of his constituency, which belonged to the Corporation and which was at present used for a market. The Corporation acquired the land 45 years ago, when the district presented a very different appearance to what it did today. They built a large cattle market there, and now they knew the market was larger than was required. They therefore sought to sell some vacant land which had been preserved under the provisions set out in the Act. He desired to have an instruction to the Committee.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Gentleman could not discuss an Instruction upon the Motion for the Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, he had put down an Instruction which would enable the Committee to appropriate the land for the purposes of an open space or recreation-ground. He did not anticipate there would be any disposition on the part of the Corporation of London to take a hostile attitude towards the Instruction, but he desired to explain that the circumstances which had arisen since the market was built made it almost absolutely essential for the life and health of the inhabitants of the district that this ground should be used as an open space. When the market was built there were fields around it, but now these had been built upon. Therefore, in order to enable the Committee to look into the matter, and if possible to allocate the vacant land as an open space, he begged to move:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to take into their consideration the suitability of the unoccupied ground in the neighbourhood of the Cattle Market for the purposes of an open space and recreation-ground, and if necessary to make such provision in the Bill as would enable the same to be acquired for that purpose."
  SIR REGINALD HANSONsaid, the promoters of the Bill, who had always been supporters of the acquisition of open spaces, were perfectly willing to accept the Instruction. It could not be expected that an Epping Forest could be established in Islington, but whatever the Corporation could do to meet the wishes of the population there they would do with pleasure.
  Instruction agreed to.

  WATERFORD INFIRMARY BILL.
  On the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill—
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, the Bill proposed to establish an infirmary in Waterford for the county and city of Waterford. At present there was no county or city infirmary there. There was what was called in Waterford the Old Leper Hospital. The charter dated as far back as the days of King John, and there were granted in perpetuity to the Mayor and Corporation certain lands and certain possessions in the city for the support of the hospital and for the relief of lepers and other diseased persons. Though the scourge of leprosy had ceased to exist, the hospital bore its old name. It was now proposed to utilise the present buildings and property for an infirmary. Hon. Members were on the present occasion at some disadvantage. He knew the lands in question, but he had no particular knowledge of the income derived from the property. He regretted that the promoters of the Bill had not given them some table showing what the income was, and also how the judicial rents, if they were judicial rents, bore with the valuation of the land. As to the provision of county hospitals for Ireland, he thought the Local Government Board might do a great deal towards meeting the want by utilising the hospitals now attached to the different Unions, which were, as a rule, well equipped. He knew some people would object to go to a Union hospital. He did not object to such people being provided for, but he objected to the mode in which they were to be provided for. His chief objection was to the source from which it was proposed to get an income for this hospital. It was suggested that the Grand Jury should have power to levy a rate to the amount of £800 a year in the country and £400 a year in the city for the maintenance of the hospital. The Grand Juries were not representative, and to such a course he strongly objected. As he had previously said, his main objection to the hospital was on account of the source from which it was to derive a considerable portion of its support. The Bill proposed that a certain number of Governors should be

  1047
  nominated, and in addition to that a list of non-official Governors was to be appointed, and they were to be elected for life with power to appoint their successors. It was true that, so far as he knew of, these gentlemen were men of standing, but not one of them occupied anything like a representative position in the city. In this connection, it was only fair to the promoters of the Bill that he should state that he had received a telegram from the Mayor of Waterford stating that the Infirmary trustees had agreed to add four names to the non-official list, thus equalising the number of Catholics and non-Catholics, and that the Bishop of Waterford and the Mayor thought that in those circumstances opposition to the Bill should be withdrawn. Doubtless the Bishop was of opinion that opposition should be withdrawn, and he should be glad if possible to accede to his Lordship's wishes, but his constituents were opposed to the Bill; they objected to any increase of powers being given to the Grand Juries, whose action was in reality a system of taxation without representation, and he was bound to act in that House for his constituency. ["Hear, hear!"] He at one time made what he regarded as a fair proposition to the promoters. He told them that if they chose to make the Bill a city Bill, and confine it to the city, he should have no objection to it, but the promoters did not see their way to adopt the suggestion and insisted that the county should supply a part of the funds for the maintenance of the hospital. A statement had been circulated that the two Boards of Guardians in his constituency had decided in favour of the Bill. That was not the fact. It was true that two resolutions in favour of the Bill were passed, but they were brought up merely on correspondence and without notice, and it was only recently that some of the Guardians waited upon him and said that, so far were the Boards from being in favour of the Measure, if a statement of the facts was placed before them the two resolutions referred to would be rescinded. The Waterford Board of Guardians, in fact, of which he was himself Chairman, had since unanimously rejected the proposal of the Bill. Another suggestion
  1048
  he made with a view to meet the promoters was that arrangements should be made by which certain powers in regard to the county rate should be transferred from the Grand Juries, entirely unrepresentative bodies, to the Boards of Guardians; but this also did not meet with approval. To show the absurd and incompetent way in which these Grand Juries sometimes acted, he would mention that about eight years ago, when the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway Bill was brought before that House, the Grand Jury pledged the county rate to the extent of paying the shareholders 5 per cent. for 35 years.
  COLONEL WARINGasked whether that passed the Presentment Sessions.
  MR. POWERreplied that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen knew as well as anyone that the Presentment Sessions were not in any way representative. They did not reflect the views of the ratepayers.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Member say "yes" or "no." [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. POWER: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Presentment Sessions represent the views of the ratepayers?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Yes, I do. [Nationalist laughter.]
  MR. POWERsaid, that in that case he would mention two instances of their mode of action that came under his own knowledge. His late colleague in that House—Mr. J. D. Pyne—was one of the largest ratepayers in the County of Waterford, but owing to his political views he was never once solicited as an associated ratepayer to take part in the Sessions. The other instance related to himself. For years he was regularly summoned as an associated ratepayer to take part in the Presentment Sessions. In 1880 he was made a magistrate, and then it was not necessary for him to be an associated ratepayer in order to take part in the Sessions. But in 1887 Lord Ashbourne removed his name from the roll of magistrates, and, though he still possessed the same qualifications to serve on the Sessions, he had never since that day been asked to attend them. [Nationalist cheers.] He contended, therefore, that the Presentment Sessions were not representative in

  1049
  any way of the ratepayers, and were not entitled to speak or act for them. For the last 16 years they had been paying £14,000 a year for this county railway, owing to the incapacity of the Grand Jury. In his own place he was paying 11½. in the pound for the railway which he never used. This was a good specimen of the way in which these Grand Juries administered affairs. These Grand Jurors, who, by this Bill, they were going to give special powers to, had always prided themselves on standing aloof from the people. The Bill also made it impossible for the ratepayers, who were asked to con tribute this £800 a year, to have the assistance of any but lay persons. He wanted the poor to be well nursed, and he wanted proper accommodation to be provided for them, but what he objected to was this system, which necessitated the asking of the ratepayers, through the Boards of Guardians, to support these hospitals. He certainly objected to conferring further powers on the Grand Jury, which had shown its incapacity in the past. With that object he would move the Motion standing in his name.
  MR. J. ROCHEseconded the Motion.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, he sincerely hoped the opposition to this Bill would not be pushed to the extreme, but if they did he hoped the House would give it a Second Reading with a decisive majority. The object of this Bill was to carry out the intention of the hon. Gentleman when he said he was anxious the poor should be properly nursed and that proper accommodation should be provided for that purpose. The city of Waterford, with 20,000 inhabitants, and the capital of a populous community, was entirely without anything in the nature of an infirmary or county or city hospital. The absence of this accommodation necessarily entailed very great hardship and suffering, especially on the poorer classes. In the city of Waterford there was an intense feeling in support of the Bill. There was, in Waterford, an old institution called the Leper Hospital of St. Stephen, established in the reign of King John. It had a small fund, about £800 a year, but it had a magnificent building, capable of accommodating at least 100 patients. Owing, however, to
  1050
  insufficient funds, they were not able to provide more than about 20 beds, or a resident physician, or a nursing staff. The object of this Bill was to convert this old Leper Hospital into a city and county Infirmary, and to utilise the building and also the funds so far as they would go. Complaint had been made of insufficient notice, but he would remind the House that in the Session of 1895 he introduced this Bill as a public Bill, but he had to drop it because it was held by the authorities of the House that it must be introduced as a private Bill. He had now had to introduce it as a private Bill at a cost, if it was unopposed, of some £400, and at a very much greater cost indeed if the opposition of the hon. Gentleman went on. A public-spirited and benevolent gentleman in Waterford had provided the money necessary to pay the fees of this House and of the other House, so as to enable the Bill to be introduced. There was practical unanimity in the city and county of Waterford in favour of the Bill. What was its backing? He did not suppose a private Bill was ever introduced which was so influentially and universally supported as this was. The petition was signed by the Catholic and Protestant Bishops, by all the Catholic parish priests and administrators, by the Protestant Dean and all the Protestant clergy of the city, by the Mayor of the city, the High Sheriff of the county, and the High Sheriff of the city. The Grand Jury of the county and of the city also, unanimously passed resolutions in its favour. One of the objections originally taken to the Bill was that on the governing body of the new institution there was not a sufficient representation of Catholics as contrasted with Protestants. As the governing body stood in the Bill at the present moment there were 17 Catholics to 16 Protestants, but the promoters had, in order to obviate this expensive and irritating opposition, agreed to insert four additional Catholic names to act on the governing body. The governing body was to be composed of ex officio and non-official members. The ex officio members were to be the present Master of the Leper Hospital, the Catholic and Protestant Bishops, the Incumbent of the Parish, the Parish Priest and administrator of all the Catholic

  1051
  parishes, the Mayor, the High Sheriff, and the three Members for the city and county. The Grand Jury nominated a certain number in proportion to the amount which they contributed. The non-official members were to consist of the present Trustees of the Leper Hospital, thus bringing into this institution this magnificent building and the £800 a year. That was a very fairly-constituted body. The second, and really the main objection of the hon. Gentleman was the fact that they were asking the Grand Jury to contribute something to the maintainance of this hospital. He did not yield to anyone in his opinion of the non-representative character of the Grand Jury system. All the Nationalist Members for Ireland were in favour of substituting for these Grand Juries representative bodies, such as County Councils in England, and when these County Councils were established, as they must be sooner or later, then all the functions and all the powers of the present Grand Juries would of course be handed over to them. But in the meantime what were they to do? They had no other body to go to, and he submitted it would be an absurdity to suggest that they should go to the Boards of Guardians. There were county and city infirmaries all over Ireland, and there was absolutely no precedent in existence for a county and city infirmary maintained by the Guardians out of the Poor Rates. Poor Law Guardians had their own workhouse hospitals to support at the present moment, and if this power were to be given to them, and if, in addition to their own workhouse hospitals, they were to contribute to this new hospital, it would have still clinging to it the objection with which the poor people still regarded workhouse hospitals. As to the question of taxation without representation, he objected to that principle as much as anyone, and they only went to the Grand Juries because there was no other body to go to. They did not compel them to give a contribution, but they were empowered to levy a tax of £800 if they chose to do so, which would only amount to a halfpenny in the pound on the population of the county. He was pleading, in this matter, on behalf of the suffering and sick poor of the city and county of Waterford, and he regretted that this
  1052
  opposition—which had developed at the last moment, which had already entailed considerable expense, and which would entail more if it went on—had been allowed to impede the progress of the Bill. Beyond the opposition shown there that day, and by the one Board of Guardians that had been mentioned, there had been no opposition whatever, and no petition lodged against the Bill, and the whole length and breadth of the opposition might be gathered from what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman. He hoped that the opposition would not be persevered in. If it was it must entail considerable expense and delay, and if, by any chance, it were successful, it would entail years, perhaps, of additional suffering to the poor sick of the county of Waterford. In these circumstances, he hoped the opposition would not be pressed, but if it was, he appealed to men of all creeds and parties in the House to carry the Bill by a decisive majority.
  DR. TANNERexpressed gratification at the fact that clergymen of both denominations were to be ex officio Trustees of the infirmary under this Bill, which was not the case in the County Cork Hospital, with which he had been connected for 10 years. He wished to point out, however, that only secular nurses were to be appointed.
  MR. J. REDMOND: That is not so. The governing body of the institution, in which there will be a large majority of Catholics, has ample power to have either nuns or secular nurses, just as they choose.
  DR. TANNERobserved that the clause in the Bill said: "The existing system of employing only secular matrons, nurses and probationers shall be continued."
  MR. J. REDMOND: Read on.
  DR. TANNER: "But this provision may be annulled by resolution." There had been, he believed, the same power in connection with the Cork South Infirmary, but although for years an agitation had been carried on to get Protestant nursing sisters for Protestant patients, and Catholic nuns for nursing Catholic patients, it had never been done by the Trustees. The same remark also applied to the Infirmary for County Kerry and the Barrington Hospital in the city of Limerick. He certainly

  1053
  distrusted the giving of so much power to the Grand Jury. His experience was, that the Grand Jury members of these institutions never attended the meetings of the Boards of Trustees except there was some job on. If the Bill was allowed to pass, he hoped that the various rules would be so modified as to give a proper preponderance in the government of the Institution to the people who were in a majority in the county and city of Waterford.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERdid not wish to intervene between the House and any decision, but he believed it was usual, on an occasion such as this, for the Chairman of Committees to give his advice in matters of the kind. The rule which the House had generally followed, and he thought very wisely, had been to allow the Second Reading of Private Bills to go through unless any strikingly new principle happened to be enunciated therein, and in such cases the House must pause before it accepted the principle. He had listened most attentively to the Debate, and he confessed he saw nothing of a new principle in any of the proposals of the Bill. On the contrary, so far as he had been able to gather, the Bill only carried out, in the case of Waterford, that which already existed in the case of certain other counties and cities in Ireland. Certain objections had been taken to the Bill by the hon. Member who raised the opposition to it, but he thought they were all Committee objections, and that the proper place to deal with them would be in Committee, not upon the Second Reading. All hon. Members were agreed as to the desirability of the object of the Bill, and that being so, the only difference of opinion was as to the machinery. The questions with regard to the representation of Protestants or Roman Catholics, the employment of secular nurses, and the means by which the funds were to be obtained for placing the hospital in an efficient condition, he ventured to submit, could all be fairly and properly dealt with in Committee, should the Bill be opposed; or, if unopposed, would be considered by the authorities of the House in the proper place, but no case had been made out for making an exception to the ordinary rule, and, no new principle being promulgated, the House
  1054
  would do well to follow the rule it had invariably followed in former Parliaments—namely, to give the Bill a Second Reading, and send it Upstairs, in order that it might be dealt with there in the usual manner.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNcontroverted the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill adopted on new principle, remarking that it extended and perpetuated the bad principle of allowing the Grand Jury to deal with funds, no portion of which it levied upon itself. In the case of the County Hospital in Cork, the Grand Jury contributed largely to the institution, and so did the City Corporation. Both the Cork Grand Jury and the Cork Corporation were largely represented on the governing body, but there were other representatives, including the Members of the county. He certainly thought they were justified in objecting to a non-representative body like the Grand Jury, which paid none of the taxation, monopolising the representation on the governing boards of institutions of this character.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 320; Noes, 57.—(Division List, No. 12.)

  LONDONDERRY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That leave may be given to bring in a Bill for the reduction of the municipal franchise in the city of Londonderry, for the alteration and increase in the number of the municipal wards, and of the number of Aldermen and Councillors elected for the said city, for the extension of the municipal limits and improvement of the city, for the raising of further moneys, the issue of stock; and for other purposes."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid, this Bill was concerned with a city which at the last census had a population of 33,000 people, but the promoters of the Bill wanted to extend the municipal boundaries larger than those of Berlin. The Catholics formed the majority, but under the circumstances they got no adequate representation. He hoped an end would be put to jerrymandering. He asked the Members from Ulster on the other side of the House to take the opportunity that was presented by that Bill and the Belfast

  1055
  Bill to remove what was a disgrace to Ulster. The Catholics of Derry and Belfast had no power in municipal affairs. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted before the Second Reading of the two Bills they might be able to come to such an agreement as would prevent them washing their dirty linen in public. ["Oh!"] Let them see if they could not now remove this long-standing grievance.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, hon. Members would hardly gather from the remarks of the hon. Member the true state of the facts. They would hardly realise that the proposal as to extending of the boundaries had been withdrawn. He denied that there was any jerrymandering, and the system which the people had was one that best suited the district. They were certainly willing as to Belfast to consider any reasonable proposal, but he protested against any insinuations being made.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Lea and Mr. Dane.

  SEA FISHERIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Statistical Tables and Memorandum relating to the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom, including Return of the quantity of fish carried by railway from each of the principal ports of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, during each of the years from 1890 to 1895, inclusive, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 53, of Session 1895."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 75.]

  DEATH DUTIES.
  Return ordered, showing—

  "1. The number of estates not exceeding £100, together with their net value, for the year 1894–5 (as returned on page xxiii. of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue Report for 1893–4);

  "2. The capital value of each description of property charged with Death Duties under each head of charge for England, Scotland, Ireland,
  1056
  and the United Kingdom for each of the five years ending 1894–5 (as returned on page xxii. of the Commissioners' Report for 1893–4);

  "3. The total principal value of property situate out of the United Kingdom on which Death Duties were levied during the year 1894–5;

  "4. The total amount allowed (under Section 20 of The Finance Act, 1894) as a deduction from Death Duties on property situate out of the United Kingdom, on account of payments of duty in British Possessions during the year 1894–5;

  "5. The amount of duty levied on (1) small estates not exceeding £300 gross, and (2) small estates not exceeding £500 gross, during the year 1894–5."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (GRANTS REFUSED).
  Return ordered—
  "Of cases in which annual grants have been refused to schools in England and Wales, from the 1st day of January, 1871, to the 31st day of December, 1895, under Section 98 of The Public Elementary Education Act, 1870," in form set out.—(Mr. Field.)

  WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
  Account [presented 24th February] to be printed.—[No. 69.]
  RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
  Paper [presented 24th February] to be printed.—[No 70.]
  LIGHTHOUSES ABROAD.
  Account [presented 24th February] to be printed.—[No. 71.]
  SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS (MONEY ORDERS AND TRANSMISSION OF WAGES).
  Accounts [presented 24th February] to be printed.—[No. 72.]
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Paper [presented 24th February] to be printed.—[No. 73.]
  INSPECTORS OF MEAT.
  Return [presented 24th February] to be printed.—[No. 74.]
NOTICES OF MOTION.

  FAIR WAGES RESOLUTION.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONgave notice that this day four weeks Mr. Buxton (Tower Hamlets) would call attention to the fair wages Resolution and move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the whole question of the interpretation and administration of the fair wages Resolution by the different Government Departments." ["Hear, hear!"]

  AGRICULTURE.
  MAJOR RASCHgave notice that this day four weeks he would call attention to the agricultural situation, and move a Resolution. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MILITARY FORCES.
  SIR J. COLOMBgave notice that, on going into Committee on the Army Estimates, he would call attention to the necessity for the more complete adaptation of the existing military forces to the oversea requirements of the Empire, and move a Resolution.
QUESTIONS.

  BRECON SCHOOL BOARD.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that the Brecon School Board have lately been educating their children in a public-house named the "New Buck Inn;" and, if this be so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Committee of Council are not aware that the Brecon School Board are educating their children in the "New Buck Inn;" but inquiry is being made, and, if it is so, it will be stopped.

  ST. VINCENT, WEST INDIES.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether he is aware that Mr. George Trafford, who is now over sixty years of age, has been for upwards of twenty-nine years Chief Justice of St. Vincent, West Indies; (2) whether he is now entitled to his full pension; and, (3) whether he will make inquiry as to the general complaints made by suitors and by members of the Bar as to the necessity for relieving him from his position of responsibility?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The reply to the two first paragraphs is in the affirmative. As to the third paragraph, as I have not received any complaints I do not see any necessity to make inquiries.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. J. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill to reform and reorganise the Irish Lights Board?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The answer is in the negative.
  MR. FIELDasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the dissatisfaction that existed amongst all political parties respecting the administration of the Irish Lights Board?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was not aware of the dissatisfaction, but his impression was that it would tend to the good administration of the Irish Lights Board if, when that body co-opt, they would co-opt gentlemen who were more acquainted with the matters they had to deal with than the gentlemen co-opted were.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFinquired if the right hon. Gentleman had no power to compel the Board to co-opt such gentlemen.
  MR. RITCHIEwas afraid he had no influence, but if any representation of his would be of any avail he would be glad to make it.
  COLONEL WARING: Who has control over the Board?
  MR. RITCHIE: Only themselves, I am afraid.
  MR. FIELD: Do they themselves contribute the money which they spend?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper?

  ROYAL BARRACKS, DUBLIN.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the amount of the original estimate for the repairs and reconstruction of the Royal Barracks in Dublin; also the sum in excess of the original estimate that was ultimately expended; the date of final payment, and the date of completion of the contract; and, whether it was deemed expedient to hold an inquiry into the matter?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): No complete detailed estimate was made of the cost of reconstructing the Royal Barracks in Dublin. In order that the troops to be quartered in Dublin might be housed as quickly as possible in good sanitary quarters, it was considered by the local military authorities essential that the reconstruction should be commenced without waiting for detailed plans and estimates, which would have caused delay. It was only as the old buildings were pulled to pieces, and the old drains explored, that the extent of the work necessary gradually became known, and the estimates furnished, while the work was in progress, were consequently to some extent misleading. The reconstruction was commenced in the spring of 1891, and the major portion of the barracks was occupied by the troops early in 1892. The bulk of the work was completed by the autumn of 1893; though the whole was not finished until the middle of 1895. The final payment to the contractor was made on the 4th July 1895. The whole case was made subject to careful investigation in the War Department, but it was not deemed necessary to hold any special inquiry.
  MR. FIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how much of the excess of the original estimate was paid?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have already informed the hon. Member that no original estimate was made.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Dr. William Anderson, the Director General of Ordnance Factories, is a shareholder, and his son, Mr. E. W. Anderson, a director, in the engineering firm of Easton, Anderson, and Goolden; and, whether this firm supplies machinery for the use of the Arsenal at Woolwich?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: This matter has previously been raised in the House. The facts are that Dr. Anderson, as soon as possible after his appointment as Director General of Ordnance Factories, transferred the shares he held in the company in question, and ceased to have a pecuniary interest in its affairs. The company is what is known as a private limited company, and its shares do not come upon the market; he, therefore, transfered them to a member of his family. Whether that member is a director in the company I do not think it necessary to inquire. In some instances machinery has been procured from the firm, but the orders have invariably been given through the Contract Branch, over which Dr. Anderson has no control.
  MAJOR RASCHinquired if the hon. Gentleman was aware that as lately as last week Dr. Anderson was a shareholder in the company.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, Dr. Anderson became a shareholder through the death of his daughter, but as soon as he possibly could he made a second transfer, and in that way ceased to have a pecuniary interest in the company.

  ARMY REMOUNTS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in view of the statement in the confidential Report on Mobilisation, 1st Brigade, 1st Division, 1st Army Corps, 1895, that no cavalry regiment can avoid losing efficiency by the influx of registered horses which cannot work up to the bit or answer the leg, and to expect a regiment under such conditions to face good European cavalry would be to court disaster, will he explain what steps, by supplementing the stallions in the congested districts of

  1061
  Ireland, or otherwise, the Government proposes to take to provide an efficient horse reserve?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The passage which the hon. Member has quoted occurs in a confidential Report, and relates to horses which have only been subjected to one week's drill. The peace establishment of regiments is always below the full war strength; and cavalry establishments must of necessity be made up by the addition of horses untrained to military work though broken to bit and bridle. The Secretary of State fails altogether to see how the measures proposed in the question would effect the object which the hon. Member apparently has in view.
  MAJOR RASCHasked, if the hon. Gentleman was not aware that the stallions in the congested districts of Ireland were absolutely useless?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, that entire horses were not under the control of the War Department.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT (IRELAND).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) has it come to his knowledge that an evicted tenant, named Pat M'Quade, of Gola, county Monaghan, was recently served with a summons requiring his attendance in Dublin to answer a charge of trespass, and that, failing to attend in Dublin for want of means, was arrested and imprisoned, and that his wife and six children have thereby been reduced to a state of destitution, necessitating their removal to the workhouse; and (2) will he inquire why this case was not tried at Petty Sessions instead of in Dublin?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): It appears to be a fact that the person named in the question has been recently committed to Dundalk prison for contempt under an Order of the Court of Chancery. The responsibility for the proceedings in such cases rests altogether with that Court, and the Executive have no power to interfere in any way. Regarding the allegation at the end of the first paragraph, I am informed that the family of M'Quade
  1062
  have not been removed to the workhouse and that, so far as the police are aware, they are not reduced to a state of destitution.
  MR. MACALEESE: Has the Chief Secretary any objection to give the name of the Judge guilty of this extraordinary conduct; and will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill to limit the power of Judges in such a matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think it was Mr. Justice Boyd. The Government are not prepared to introduce a Bill.

  POISONING CASE.
  MR. J. AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, on the 25th December last, a death was reported to Dr. Gordon Hogg, the Coroner for West Middlesex, by a medical practitioner, as a probable case of poisoning by an opiate; and, whether he would ascertain on what grounds the Coroner had based the opinion expressed that the medical practitioner was worthy of censure for administering sulphonal in 25-grain doses?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have been in communication with the Coroner referred to, who informs me that he did not express the opinion attributed to him in the question. The doctor was censured by the jury, through their foreman, for prescribing in the case without due examination.

  DOCK WORKS.
  MR. J. AIRD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Government are prepared to consider the desirability of giving a grant or yearly subsidy to encourage the construction of new dock works, including graving docks, by dock companies or harbour authorities, these works being arranged to meet Admiralty requirements, and when needed to be at the disposal of the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I have arranged to receive a deputation in a

  1063
  few days in connection with a scheme put forward by a local authority in the North, when I shall be prepared to listen attentively to what may be urged on behalf of any proposal of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, but I must not be understood to hold out hopes that anything will be done.

  RETIRED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  COLONEL C. W. MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what measures are being taken, or are proposed to be taken, to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat in 1894 and 1895 on the Employment of Retired Soldiers and Sailors.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Committee made a series of recommendations affecting a number of departments, and they have been carefully examined with a view to giving effect to them as far as circumstances permit. I hope to be in a position to make a statement with regard to them upon the Estimates.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if English and Scotch school teachers are paid more in salary than Irish national school teachers; and, if so, will he explain the reason of this difference?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The average receipts of teachers are higher in England, but the system is so different in the two countries as to make a profitable comparison between salaries difficult. To fully explain the reasons of this difference would involve a dissertation on the educational systems and social conditions of the different parts of the country, which cannot be given within the limits of an answer to a question; but I may point out that in England and Scotland a large part of the remuneration of teachers is derived from local sources, while in Ireland that remuneration is almost entirely from Imperial money.
  MR. DALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Irish teachers perform their duties as satisfactorily as English and Scotch teachers?
  MR. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of that on the Paper.

  BRONZE COIN.
  MR. J. F. OSWALD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the future coining of bronze coins, an alteration could be made in the obverse (or Queen's head) side of the farthing, so as to make the same unlike the obverse side of the half-sovereign, and thus prevent the mistakes and fraud alleged to have arisen from the present similarity in appearance of the obverse sides of the two coins?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): No, Sir, I do not think that this can be done. The present design of the farthing was arrived at last year after full consideration. It was decided that the effigy of the Queen on all denominations of the coinage of this country should be of the same design. On the reverse of the coin the word "Farthing" is stamped in clear letters, and the edge is plain instead of milled, so that there is an obvious difference between the farthing and the half-sovereign. The danger of fraud exists only when the farthing is quite new, and I will consider whether it is possible to alter the colour in some way so as to reduce the resemblance.

  LISGAR ESTATE, COUNTY CAVAN.
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Lisgar estate, near Bailieboro', county Cavan—(1) whether he is aware that, for the last half century, the rents which the tenants have been compelled to pay have been forwarded to Captain Holford, of London, who has a mortgage on the estate; (2) whether his attention has been called to the inability of the tenants on this estate to pay their rents this year; (3) whether extreme pressure has been put upon the tenants to recover last year's rents and arrears which they have no means to pay; (4) whether these tenants are now

  1065
  threatened with eviction; and, (5) whether he will devise some plan for their relief and to prevent the eviction of all the tenants on this estate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. No representations have been made to me on the subject of the statement in the second paragraph, though I understand that about four-fifths of the tenants have paid a year's rent since November last. No extreme pressure has been brought to bear on the tenants, so far as I can gather, nor are the police aware that any evictions are contemplated on this property. As to the concluding paragraph, the hon. Member is aware that the Executive cannot interfere with the execution of decrees or judgments of competent Courts.

  NEWCASTLE HARBOUR, COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. M. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the dangerous state of the pier and harbour works at Newcastle, county Down, which he was good enough to inspect during the Recess, whether, considering the railway accommodation already existing there, the desirability for a harbour of safety in that district of the coast, and the necessities of the poor fishermen of Newcastle and vicinity, he can now say what the Government intend to do in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The matter is now under consideration by both the Irish Office and the Treasury. I am not yet in a position to announce the Government's decision, though I hope to be able to do so shortly.

  RAILWAY AND CANALS REGULATION ACT, 1873.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. J. TUITE), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, to what extent can his Department enforce the provisions of Section 17 of the Railways and Canals Regulation Act of 1873 relating to the maintenance of canals by railway companies; and, if no power exists, will he introduce a Bill which
  1066
  would enable the Board of Trade to impose penalties for its contravention, or secure facilities for the passing of such a Measure if brought forward by a private Member?
  MR. RITCHIE: To parties aggrieved he proper means of obtaining redress is to make an application to the Railway Commissioners. I am not prepared to introduce legislation on the subject.

  CANALS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of Mr. J. TUITE, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether from time to time his Department has received reports of the general unsatisfactory management of railway-owned canals, and of the persistent neglect of certain companies to maintain in a proper navigable condition the canals in their possession, as required by Section 17 of the Railways and Canals Regulation Act of 1873; and, whether, having regard to the great public utility of those undertakings as a cheap means of transit for agricultural produce and certain classes of goods, he can see his way to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report on the best means of improving and developing the canal systems of the United Kingdom?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade have not recently received specific complaints of the management of railway-owned canals. I am not prepared, as at present advised, to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to consider means of improving the canal systems of the United Kingdom.

  BUTTER.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the word "butter," being defined in the Margarine Act, 1887, is, in the view of the Board of Agriculture, a false trade description within the meaning of The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, when applied to butter adulterated with margarine; and, why is it that a Customs entry being under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, a trade description, the Board of Agriculture do not put in force the power of forfeiting

  1067
  adulterated butter at the port of entry under the powers given to them by the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and the Customs Consolidated Act, 1876, Section 42?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The application of the word "butter" in relation to butter adulterated with margarine, either in the Customs entry or otherwise, would be the application of a false trade description within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Acts, and if, upon the arrival and examination of goods, the officer of Customs was satisfied that there had been an infringement of the law in this respect, it would be competent for him to detain them, with a view to proceedings being taken for their forfeiture, if the circumstances justified it. The difficulty in the way of the adoption of this course, however, lies in the fact that until an analysis of the butter has been made, it is impossible to say that it is adulterated, and goods of a perishable character could not well be detained in the absence of special information as to the existence of adulteration. The suggestion of the hon. Member will doubtless, however, receive the consideration of the Select Committee which has now been re-appointed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether butter taken for analysis and found to be adulterated was confiscated under the powers of the Customs Act?
  MR. LONGsaid, it was impossible to seize adulterated butter because, in the opinion of his legal advisers, there was no fraud on the part of the consignees, with whom they alone were able to deal.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEYasked whether any steps were taken by the Department to trace adulterated butter from the merchant to the retailer?
  MR. LONGreplied that that was the duty of the local authorities, to whom the Department communicated the fact that adulterated butter was in circulation, and left them to deal with the retailers.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the statement in relation to the samples of foreign butters taken by the officers of Customs at certain
  1068
  ports of entry to the effect that 713 samples have been sent to the Government Analyst, who has reported 98 of them contain substances foreign to butter; that 70 samples represented importations from Germany, of which 27 were found questionable; and 159 from Holland, of which 56 were found questionable; what power does the Board of Agriculture possess in dealing with these adulterated substances; and have any prosecutions or confiscation of these commodities occurred; and, if not, what steps do the Board intend to take?
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is at the instance of the Board of Agriculture that samples of foreign butter are now being taken by the officers of Customs, and I am, therefore, officially cognisant of the facts to which the hon. Member refers. The Board are empowered to prosecute offenders under the Merchandise Marks Acts in cases relating to agricultural produce; but I am advised that in none of the cases in which on analysis there has been reason to believe that the goods contained an admixture of margarine were the circumstances such as to justify the prosecution of the importer or consignee by the Board, or the detention and forfeiture of the goods by the officers of Customs. We propose to continue to sample and analyse the goods, and to bring the facts under the notice of the importers and the local authorities, so as to prevent, if possible, any infringement of the Margarine Act; and in the meantime the whole subject will receive the attention of the Select Committee now sitting.

  DERADDA POST OFFICE (IRELAND).
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in accordance with the memorial received from the inhabitants of Ballinamore District, South Leitrim, he will appoint Michael Fee as sub-postmaster in Deradda, and thus remedy the public inconvenience which has been occasioned owing to no permanent appointment of sub-postmaster being made in that locality?
  MR. HANBURY: The letters for Deradda are few in number, and a considerable loss is already incurred in sending out the letters to that place. The

  1069
  additional cost of providing a post office at Deradda would not be warranted, and the Postmaster General had no alternative but to refuse the memorial referred to by the hon. Member.

  ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many gentlemen cadets who have passed through the Royal Military Academy are waiting for commissions; and could he state how long they have been waiting for commissions?
  MR. BRODRICK: Thirty-seven gentleman cadets have been waiting commissions in the Royal Artillery and nine in the Royal Engineers since the 21st December last. All will be gazetted to commissions by the 21st March.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will consider the hardship to farming owners or occupiers who have made no income of being compelled by distraint to pay the amount at which they are assessed for Income Tax under Schedules A and B, and of being left to recover it, if possible, and after considerable delay, on appeal; and whether any method can be devised by which such exactions can be postponed till it is ascertained whether the amount is really due?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is usual to allow payment of Income Tax under Schedules A and B by owner-occupiers, and under Schedule B by occupiers, of agricultural lands to stand over, where the parties at the time of the collection are able to produce accounts showing primâ facie that a loss has been incurred. The liability to the tax cannot, of course, be discharged except by the District Commissioners after examination of the accounts. But I may add that I have recently looked into this matter with the desire to facilitate repayment as much as possible; and the surveyors are now instructed that, when the claim for remission by an owner farming his own land is confined to the tax paid under A
  1070
  and B on that property, he will not be required to produce any accounts except the farming accounts for the land in question.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he can state how many tenants who had their rent fixed under the Land Act, 1881, were entitled after the 29th September and 1st November last to apply again to have a fair rent fixed; (2) how many applications to fix fair rents for a second statutory term have actually been lodged up to the present, either in the Land Commission or the County Court; (3) whether any of such applications have been heard; and (4) whether the hearing of any of them has been delayed by the Land Commission, pursuant to Judge Bewley's undertaking that the result of such applications would await the passing of the proposed Land Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to the first question I have to say that 36,000 applications to have fair rents fixed were recorded as having been made to the Court on the first occasion upon which it sat after the passing of the Land Act of 1881, and the tenant who had his fair rent fixed in any such application would be now entitled to apply again to have his fair rent fixed for a second statutory term. In a considerable number of these applications the originating notices were subsequently either withdrawn, struck out, or dismissed, and in a large number the tenants subsequently purchased their holdings; the Land Commission are, therefore, unable to state in how many of the 36,000 cases the tenants would now be in a position to apply again to have fair rents fixed. (2) The total number of applications which have been made to the Court to fix fair rents for a second statutory term, inclusive of cases transferred from Civil Bill Courts, is 245. (3) The Commissioners understand that some applications to fix fair rents for a second statutory term have been, heard by some of the County Court Judges to whose Courts the applications were made, but up to the present date the decision in only one such case has been notified

  1071
  to the Land Commission. In the Land Commission Court only three of such cases have been disposed of to date, the applications having been struck out, the tenants not being at present entitled to apply to the Court. (4) The Land Commission has not yet sent down for hearing any of such applications to the Sub-Commissions which are at present employed in disposing of fair-rent applications for a first statutory term. No undertaking, but only an expression of opinion, was given by Mr. Justice Bewley in the matter.

  CLANRICARDE ESTATE.
  MR. J. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the number and cost of extra police in the Woodford district in connection with the Clanricarde estate, also the number and valuation of the evicted farms now unoccupied in said district?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of extra police employed in the Woodford Constabulary District in connection with the Clanricarde estate is 14, and their annual cost is, approximately, £965, one-half of which is charged to the county at large. There are 32 evicted farms at present unlet on the Clanricarde estate in the same district, and of these nine are used or worked by the landlord. The total valuation of these 32 farms is £293 6s., and of the nine farms used by the landlord £114 12s.

  SLIGO POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is proposed to erect a new post office in Sligo; whether he is aware that the accommodation in the present post office premises is such as to inconvenience the public and endanger the health of the officials; and, whether he will give instructions to have the proposed new arrangements completed as soon as possible?
  MR. HANBURY: It is proposed to erect a new post office at Sligo, and offers of sites for that purpose are now under consideration. The present office
  1072
  was improved last year, and the Postmaster General is not aware that the conditions are now such as to inconvenience the public and endanger the health of the officials. The arrangements for obtaining a new office will be pressed forward.

  CORK TELEGRAPH STAFF.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) whether he is aware that a revision of the Cork telegraph staff was sanctioned on or about the 16th July, 1895, whereby the number of superior appointments was increased from six to ten, but that the promotions consequent upon that revision have not yet been made; (2) whether there are thoroughly competent officers at Cork actually performing the duties, and who were nominated in August last to fill the vacancies; (3) whether, since on the 9th January last a memorial drawing attention to the delay in giving effect to the revision was presented by the staff, the Postmaster General will now direct that the revision be put into force without further delay; and, (4) whether the salaries applicable to the various appointments will be given to the officers selected for promotion as from the date on which the revision was sanctioned?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the case that in the course of last summer four superior appointments were added to the Cork establishment, and that these appointments have not yet been filled. It is also the case that a memorial to the effect stated by the hon. Member has been received. The delay arises from the serious doubt which the Department entertains whether any member of the class below was qualified for the office of Assistant Superintendent, or whether it might not be necessary to introduce into that office some officer from outside. Pending further inquiry into this matter, the Postmaster General hopes to make the other three promotions shortly. As regards the last paragraph in the Question, the usual rule is that the salary applicable to an appointment is given from the date of appointment, and there is no reason to suppose that in this case this course will be departed from.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of George Schuff, of King's Congleton, Warwickshire, upon whom an order to have his child vaccinated was made on 30th December by the Alcester Magistrates; whether he is aware that the parents had previously had a certificate from the public vaccinator that the child was unfit for vaccination owing to skin disease, and that the child was shown in court to be still suffering from skin disease; whether the magistrates acted legally in declining to accept this as a reasonable excuse, or to adjourn the case on the request of the parents till another certificate could be produced, and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: If the case to which the hon. Member refers is that of George Shuck, of King's Coughton, I am informed that no evidence was given, at the hearing of the case, of any certificate of unfitness having been obtained from the public vaccinator, and that no request was made by the parents for an adjournment. I am not aware of the condition of the child at the time of the hearing, but am informed that the magistrates told the parents that if it were unfit for vaccination at the next public examination the medical officer could give a postponement certificate. The vaccination officer states that no such certificate has ever been sent him in this case.

  DISTRICT REGISTRIES (IRELAND).
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether he is aware that in England there are 83 district registries where writs of summons can be issued, and that in Ireland; such writs can only be issued in Dublin; and, whether, considering the very large number of writs of summons issued in respect of parties living in the city of Belfast and the adjoining counties, and having regard to the convenience of suitors and the speedy service frequently required in such cases, he will consider the desirability of having a district registry for the purpose established in Belfast?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,): I believe the number of district registries in England is correctly stated in the Question; but, without fresh legislation—for which I am not aware there is any pressing necessity—district registries cannot be established in Ireland.

  BUTTEVANT BARRACKS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the complaints made about the want of proper married quarters in Buttevant Barracks will be attended to; and, if so, what is intended to be done; and, whether the families of soldiers are now living there in misappropriated barrack rooms?
  MR. BRODRICK: The erection of 24 married quarters in Buttevant Barracks is about to be commenced, which will meet the requirements. Of 30 soldiers' families now at Buttevant, 12 are provided for in married quarters, 12 are on the lodging list, and six are in separate rooms set apart for their accommodation without inconvenience to other services.
  DR. TANNER: How soon will the proposed works be commenced?
  MR. BRODRICK: Very shortly, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly.

  CONVICTS ON LICENC
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the aggregate number of released convicts under licence, and persons under police supervision in the Metropolitan Police District; how many of them are required to make their monthly report personally; how many are permitted to report themselves by letter; and, of the former class, what number (if any) are required to report themselves elsewhere than at a police station?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The aggregate number of convicts at large on licence in the Metropolitan Police District is 613. Twenty of these are permitted to report themselves by letter, nine have been relieved altogether

  1075
  from the obligation to report, the remainder is composed of 538 males who are required to report themselves in person, and 46 females who are required to notify personally any change of residence. Of those who are required to report personally, none are required to report elsewhere than at a police-station. I may say with reference to these figures that the power to remit the obligation to report rests with the Secretary of State, and that individual cases are carefully considered in the Home Office, which is in communication with the police in regard to them.

  REDUCING ALCOHOLIC STRENGTH OF WINE.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) whether, some months ago, it came to the knowledge of the Inland Revenue Commissioners that a wine merchant of O'Connell Street, Dublin, was found to have reduced the alcoholic strength of wines in bond before clearing for duty, and by this means succeeded in releasing the wines at the rate of 1s. a gallon duty, instead of at the rate of 2s. 6d. a gallon; (2) on how many occasions was this fraud perpetrated upon the Revenue; (3) what was the fine for each case; and, (4) what was the amount of the fine imposed by the Revenue Commissioners?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Revenue authorities cannot state on how many occasions this offence was committed. A fine of £300 was imposed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

  POST OFFICE PUNISHMENT.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received from First Class Sorter A. A. Townsend an appeal, and was Townsend punished by removal from the Registered Letter Division of the General Post Office, entailing a loss of £30 a year, owing to his failing to observe an error committed by another officer; and will the Postmaster General give his favourable consideration of this apparently severe punishment?
  MR. HANBURY: The particular error for which Townsend was removed from the Registered Letter Division was a very serious one, and as it was in continuation of a long series of errors it became necessary to remove him from registered letter duties. He thus lost a special allowance of 5s. a week or £13 a year which the performance of these duties carries. The difference between £13 and £30, the amount mentioned by the hon. Member, was made up of extra pay for extra duty in dealing with registered letters on alternate Sundays; and although Townsend can no longer be emploved to deal with registered letters, it is being considered whether Sunday extra duty cannot be given him in connection with ordinary letters.

  SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  SIR BEVAN EDWARDS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if any steps have yet been taken to appoint a successor to Mr. Rigby, who has recently vacated the appointment of superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield; and whether there is any difficulty in finding a properly qualified naval or military officer for this post; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the War Office to appoint a naval or military officer to succeed Mr. Rigby?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The question of the appointment of a successor to the late superintendent at Enfield has been the subject of careful inquiry and consideration, and a decision will very shortly be arrived at. No difficulty is anticipated in finding a competent person to fill the appointment who has had the necessary experience in the management and control of a great manufacturing undertaking, but he may or may not be a military or naval officer.

  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has made arrangements to secure for the teachers of Scotland all advantages in the way of pension which may be granted to the teachers of England?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): The Secretary for Scotland has arranged that additional advantages in the way of pension which have been granted to teachers in England, should he secured for teachers in Scotland, and he will take care that in regard to any future advantages, the interests of Scotland shall not be overlooked.

  PARISH MEETINGS.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS (Hants,): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in the event of the parish meetings not being held on 9th March, as fixed by the Local Government Board, nor on the seven days before or after 25th March, as fixed by the Act of 1894, any penalty would be incurred; and, if so, from whom that penalty would be recoverable; and, if from any cause the parish meeting were not held on 9th March, would the present Council continue in office for another year?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): If the chairman of the parish council neglects or refuses to convene a parish meeting for the election of parish councillors he is liable to a fine not exceeding £100. If the chairman, from illness or other sufficient cause, is unable to discharge the duty, or if there is no chairman, the meeting is to be convened by the clerk to the parish council, or if there is no such clerk, by the overseers of the parish. There is no express provision as to a penalty if there is a failure to convene the annual assembly of the parish meeting. It appears to me that, if no meeting for the election is held, and there is consequently an entire failure to elect parish councillors, the present councillors will go out of office on 15th April, but the County Council may order a new election.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBYasked the right hon. Gentleman if the fine of £100 was provided for by a clause in the Parish Council Act or by an order of the Local Government Board.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot speak with certainty, but I think it was by an order of the Local Government Board.

  MILITARY BOOTS.
  CAPTAIN H. M. JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the adverse reports of H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught after the New Forest Manœuvres, 1895, and of Lord Ralph Kerr after the Curragh Manœuvres, 1895, on the ankle boot at present in use in the Army, it is intended to provide a different boot for the troops; and, how long a time would elapse before a new pattern is issued?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Various experimental patterns of boots have, for several months past, been under practical trial; but until some pattern has stood a thorough and conclusive test it would be premature to adopt it for the troops. No undue delay will occur in the selection of a new pattern.

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of Exchequer what is the rate of interest now paid over the portion of the National Debt due to the Bank of England?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In pursuance of the Bank Act, 1892, the rate of interest payable on this debt was fixed at the same rate as on Consols until 1903.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS TO IRELAND.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to prevent the deportation of paupers from England to Ireland; and, whether any similar deportation is exercised regarding aliens who have become pauperised after long residence in England?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Aliens becoming chargeable to the rates in England are not removable to the country of their birth. In the case of Irish persons who become chargeable in England, they are not removable to Ireland, if they have acquired a settlement or the status of irremovability in England. The law of removal from England to Ireland is receiving my consideration, but I cannot at present undertake to propose legislation on the subject during the present Session.
  MR. FIELDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was acquainted with the case which occurred very recently, in which a Frenchwoman who had never spent any time in Ireland——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  DR. TANNERasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say what the status of irremovability was?
  MR. CHAPLIN: A settlement in England can be acquired by a residence in a parish for three years without receipt of relief. A status of irremovability can be acquired by residence in a union for one year without receipt of relief.
  DR. KENNYasked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of many cases of persons who spent almost their entire lives in this country and were removed in their old age to Ireland? He could give the right hon. Gentleman such a case.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I should be very glad to inquire into any case the hon. Member cares to bring before me, but I am not aware of the cases he refers to.

  FRANCE AND CHINA.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what action has been taken by the Government towards an agreement with China in order that Article IV. of the Anglo-French Agreement of 15th January last relating to China, Siam, and the Mekong shall not be ineffective; whether Article III. of the said Anglo-French Agreement is held by Her Majesty's Government to imply that, notwithstanding China's breach of Article V. of the Burmo-Chinese Boundary Convention in ceding portions of the Shan State of Kian Hung to France without our permission, the remaining portions of that State are not to be reclaimed by us from China; what action has been taken by the Government for preserving our right of railway approach from our Burmese seaboard to Ssumao and for acquiring the right from China of prolonging our present projected railway across the Chinese border into China, on the same terms as have been granted by China to France in the case of present projected
  1080
  French railways under Article V. of the Franco-Chinese Commercial Convention of 20th June 1895; and whether, Ssumao having been declared open as a treaty port by the aforesaid Franco-Chinese Convention, and a French Consul having been appointed to it, the Government will, in the exercise of their rights under the Most Favoured Nation Clauses of our Treaties with China, appoint a British Consul to this important emporium of trade?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The matters alluded to by the hon. Member are at the present moment the subject of negotiations with the Chinese Government, and I am not in a position therefore to make any statement about them. As regards paragraph 2 of the Question, no such inference is necessarily to be drawn.

  ENNISKILLEN POST OFFICE.
  MR. J. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the Post Office in Enniskillen is a small house, into which are crowded the post office, the telegraph office, the parcel post, and the postmaster and his family; that there is but one small and ill-fitted office for the receipt and delivery of letters, the sale of stamps, the transmission of telegrams, the savings bank, the receipt of and delivery of parcels, and the payment of public money to pensioners; that the offices are badly lit and ventilated; that there is general complaint in reference to the thick and suffocating atmosphere in the office on busy days; that there is but one small door for the ingress and egress of the public and employees, and for the transaction of all the business of the office; that there is no accommodation, for postmen and telegraphic messenger, other than the public street, even in winter weather; that even the postmaster's office is but a dark and dismal small apartment; and that 21 employees, male and female, and eight members of the postmaster's family, with servants, 29 to 31 in all, are compelled daily to occupy this house. And, is it the intention of the Postmaster General and

  1081
  the Department, in view of the wellbeing of their employees and the accommodation of the public, still to continue these premises as a post office?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member is aware that in consequence of his representations an exhaustive Inquiry was made not long since as to the conditions of the post office accommodation at Enniskillen, which is provided by the Postmaster, and he was informed that no such deficiencies had been disclosed as would warrant a removal from the premises. There is no reason to suppose that the staff or the public are suffering from the post office being continued where it is.

  MUSEUM PURCHASES.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he can say what is the amount of the substantial reduction made this year in the Vote for Purchases for Museums and Circulation (Class IV., Science and Art Department, F 1) alluded to in the memorandum just issued of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; whether he can state what is the reason for this reduction; and, whether there is any evidence that the needs of the museums in London (including Bethnal Green), Edinburgh and Dublin in the matter of purchases, and of the provinces in reference to the circulation of objects when purchased, are becoming less at the present time?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The information asked for will be found in the Civil Service Estimates as soon as they are laid before Parliament, and the Government will be prepared to give the reasons for reduction when the Estimates are discussed. I do not think I should be in order in anticipating this discussion.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any evidence that the needs of the museums referred to in the Question are becoming less at the present time?
  SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I am a little irregular in saying that there is such evidence, and the details of it will be laid before the Committee of Supply when the Estimates are discussed.

  STEAMSHIP COLLISION.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, (1) if his attention has been directed to the Board of Trade Inquiry into the cause of the collision between the steamships Netley Abbey and Alicia, which occurred off Cromer on the 20th December 1895, and was attended by the loss of five lives; (2) whether he is aware that evidence was given that the cause of the collision was due to the failure on the part of a Foreign able seaman, named John Petersen, to understand and execute the orders of the officer in charge; that when the officer gave Petersen orders to port helm, he, Petersen, upon two occasions, put the helm to starboard; that Peterson had been only three or four voyages to sea, and had never before sailed on a British steamship; and, notwithstanding these circumstances, the man Petersen possessed an able seaman's discharge, and was rated as such; (3) whether, having regard for the loss of life caused through the engagement of incompetent seamen on British vessels, it is his intention to bring in a Bill for the purpose of providing that able-bodied seamen shall be provided with certificates, proving that they have served at least four years' apprenticeship, either as apprentices or ordinary seamen; and that Foreign, seamen shall be called upon to pass a simple elementary examination before the superintendent of a mercantile marine office, to prove that he has sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand the orders given on board ship; and (4), whether, if he is unable to bring in such Bill, he will undertake to give his support to any Bill embodying such conditions and proposals?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called to the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers. I gather from the Report of the Court of Inquiry that, while the failure of the men at the wheel of the Netley Abbey—one of whom was an Englishman, and the other had an excellent knowledge of English—to comply with an order of the chief officer, materially contributed to the collision, both vessels were to blame, neither of them having complied with the Regulations for Preventing

  1083
  Collisions at Sea. In reply to the concluding paragraphs of the Question, I can only remind the hon. Member that the whole subject of the manning of British merchant ships is being considered by a Committee, presided over by Sir Edward Reed. Until the Report of that Committee has been received, I am not prepared to take any further steps in the matter.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if it is not a fact that at the time of the collision there was only one man at the wheel, who was a Norwegian?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir, it is not a fact. At the time there were two men at the wheel—one an Englishman, and the other a Norwegian with an excellent knowledge of English.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to when the Manning Committee is likely to make its Report?
  MR. RITCHIE: No; but I made some inquiry before Parliament rose last year, and I understood that the Report was almost ready for presentation.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any explanation as to the delay in presenting the Report?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  SCHOOL SITES.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Department exercises any supervision over the tendency to extravagant expenditure on the part of School Boards in the matter of the purchase of sites; whether he is aware that the London School Board has for some time been endeavouring to purchase part of a very valuable site fronting on three roads near Clapham Common, known as Lavender Lodge, and belonging to Mr. Whiting, who has actually resided on the premises for 74 years, having inherited it from his father, and that last year, on the School Board promoting a Bill for the compulsory purchase of a part of this property, it was thrown out by the House of Commons on the Petition of Mr. Whiting; whether the Education Department is aware that this year the School Board had scheduled
  1084
  the entire property, valued at from £30,000 to £48,000, for acquisition; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken by the Department to scrutinise the necessity for laying out so large a sum of the ratepayers' money in the neighbourhood of Clapham Junction for a suitable School Board site; whether it will ascertain if other cheaper sites are available in the immediate vicinity; and whether, in any case, it would be possible for the Department to order an Inquiry into all the circumstances?
  SIR JOHN GORST: No School Board can borrow money for the purchase of a site without the consent of the Committee of Council. The London School Board have not yet sent in to the Education Department the petition required by Section 20 (3) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, with respect to the proposed purchase of this site. When the petition is received the Inspector will be directed to inquire into all the circumstances.

  GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) when the Select Committee upon Government Printing Contracts will be re-appointed, when will they commence their sittings, whether they will ask for evidence from Ireland as well as England and Scotland, and whether they will be instructed to report before the contracts which fall in this year are renewed; and (2) whether he intends to take steps to redeem his promise to the deputation which waited upon him in Dublin Castle last December, that the printing for all Irish Government Departments should be printed by the Queen's Printers in Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: In reply to a question put in this House on the 20th June, 1895, my predecessor stated that the terms of the reference to the Select Committee already included all Stationery Office printing contracts whether in England or Ireland, and that there was no objection to including in the Inquiry the printing contract of the National Education Commissioners. I think that his reply covers the first sentence in the hon. Member's question. I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable that the proposed Committee should

  1085
  report in good time before the existing contracts expire, but I am not sure that it would be wise to limit them to a fixed date. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I find that under the existing practice all Irish papers over which the Stationery Office has any direct control—namely, all Departmental papers, and all papers presented by Command—are, as a matter of course, printed in Ireland. The only exceptions are the comparatively few and short papers which are delivered in manuscript to the House, moving for them, and are then ordered by the House to be printed. These are sent by the officials of the House direct to the printer holding the contract for printing ordered by the House. The hon. Member will understand that I have no direct control over these papers, but I will consult with the officials of both Houses as to whether the Irish papers could be sent to Ireland in future.

  MILITIA HEAD-DRESS.
  MR. A. F. GODSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if any steps have been taken to supply Fusilier Militia regiments with the head-dress of their Line battalions?
  MR. BRODRICK: At present only the issue of the ordinary line helmet is being proceeded with. Issues to corps with special head-dresses like Fusiliers have not been commenced.

  SOLICITORS (INCOME TAX).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in view of the fact that the annual licence duty paid by solicitors is in effect a tax on their incomes, and one of a character not payable by any other profession, he will consider the advisability of so amending the Income Tax Acts as to allow credit for the annual licence duty as against the Income Tax payable under Schedule D?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. Member's question yesterday but I cannot agree with him that solicitors ought to get credit for the amount of the licence duty payable by them as against the actual Income Tax assessed upon them. They do already
  1086
  get credit for the licence duty by being allowed to deduct it in computing their profits, and to allow them to deduct it also from the actual Tax paid would be making the allowance twice over. A landowner might with equal justice claim to be allowed to deduct Land Tax from the Income Tax payable by him.

  POSTMASTER GENERAL.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware of the inconvenience that arises in consequence of Her Majesty's Postmaster General not occupying a seat in this House; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to take steps for the creation of a Parliamentary Office, subordinate to the Postmaster General, which shall give direct representation to his Department in this House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the answer I gave to a question on a similar subject yesterday. I quite recognise the inconvenience which arises in both Houses of Parliament [laughter]—yes, in both Houses of Parliament—owing to the Minister in charge of a Department being a Member of the other House, but I am afraid I cannot promise legislation on the subject.
  MR. W. GALLOWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to consider the question of the Postmaster General having a direct representative in this House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My hon. Friend is perhaps not aware that that could not be done without legislation.

  CARDIFF MAYORALTY.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that Cardiff is one of the chief commercial centres of the world, and that the title of Lord Mayor is not enjoyed by the chief magistrate of any corporate town in the Principality, he will advise Her Majesty to confer that distinction upon the Mayor of Cardiff?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Any application that reaches me on this subject will, I need not say, receive my careful consideration; but the difficulty of distinguishing between the comparative claims of Cardiff and other towns of equal, or even greater, importance would, I think primâ facie, be an objection to acceding to the request.

  MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Mines Regulation Act?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: It is my intention to introduce such a Bill, and the draft of it has already been prepared.

  TIED (PUBLIC-HOUSE) SYSTEM.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Commission to inquire into the tied-house system will be appointed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Member is probably not aware that I told the House the other night that the Government see no objection to a Committee of Inquiry provided the various parties interested can arrive at some agreement as to the terms of reference. I hope such an agreement will be come to, but I understand it has not been come to yet.
  MR. ALLEN: Will this Inquiry go into the whole licensing question, or will it be confined to that of tied houses?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Gentleman will see that that depends upon the terms of reference that may be agreed upon.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEY: Then are we to understand that the Government are willing to allow the reference to extend to the whole licensing question if such reference can be formulated?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir. I do not think any objection will be raised by the Government.

  NEW MEMBER MAKES THE AFFIRMATION REQUIRED BY LAW.
  The Right Honourable John Morley took and subscribed the Affirmation according to law for the Montrose District of Burghs.

  PERSONAL STATEMENT.—SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH AND MR. GIBSON BOWLES.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am very reluctant, but I am sure the House will permit me to trouble it for a moment or two with a personal statement. Hon. Members may recollect that in the course of his speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, in one of those characteristic sallies with which he amuses the House, having said that it was not true that any reductions were effected in Committee, of Supply, added that—
  "he himself obtained from the late Secretary to the Admiralty—and only by threatening to reduce his salary—a promise of the abolition of the Jamaica Dockyard, though it came to nothing, because the right hon. Gentleman did not keep his promise."
  I do not think either the House or myself is always inclined to take the hon. Gentleman very seriously. Still, such a charge made in the House of Commons, with regard to anyone who has held an official position, is a serious matter. I therefore thought it my duty at once to rise in my place and say that "no such promise had been broken, because no such promise had ever been made." The hon. Gentleman then rejoined that his memory was better than mine, and reiterated his statement, and rashly allowed himself to be betrayed into a repetition of the historic wager of a guinea that he was right. I have since refreshed my memory upon the subject, and also communicated with the hon. Gentleman, and sent him a reference to Hansard, which I hope has convinced him that all the statements he made were entirely unfounded. First of all, the Debate in question did not arise upon the Vote for my salary; it was raised by the hon. Gentleman on the shipbuilding Vote. Secondly, I made him no promise. I was not authorised to make any promise, and no promise was made that any

  1089
  dockyard should be abolished. Thirdly, of course, as no such promise was made, no promise was broken. In asking the hon. Gentleman whether he was wrong in his statement, perhaps I may also remind him that his historic accuracy is not perfect. He referred to what he called the "great precedent" of the year 1746 [cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] as the time when the incident with reference to Sir Robert Walpole was reported to have taken place. In 1746 Sir Robert Walpole was not a Minister, was not a Member of this House, and was not alive. [Loud laughter.] The incident took place in 1741. [Renewed laughter.] I beg to ask the hon. Member whether he has refreshed his memory, and whether he is now able to make any statement?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I may perhaps be allowed to say that I entirely agree with the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House of the relative importance to be attached to him and to myself. [A laugh] Consequently I shall not enter into the minute details of this matter which he has thought it worth his while to follow up. With regard to the wager, I would remind him that he had not the presence of mind to utter the sacramental word "Done" [laughter], which, as he well knows from his experience, alone ratifies a wager. [Laughter.] I have refreshed my memory with regard to this question of the Jamaica Dockyard, and I am constrained to admit that I approached to the verge of, if I did not actually touch, inaccuracy. [Laughter] What occurred was this. But first let me dispose of the suggestion that any influence I had with the right hon Gentleman, or any answer I obtained from him, was not due to my having threatened to reduce his salary. [Laughter.] Why, I was always threatening to reduce his salary [laughter], and, in spite of his assertion, I am constrained to believe that any indulgence he showed to me was due to the continual threat of his having no salary to reduce, the continual possibility of his being deprived of the means of maintenance. ["Oh!"] On the 29th of August, 1893, I called attention to the dockyard at Jamaica and pointed out that "it was a worm-eaten and moss-grown abuse"—[laughter]—I am quoting from Hansard—and said it
  1090
  cost £12,000 a year. Whereupon the right hon. Gentleman said that "Admiral Hopkins"—who was then Commander-in-Chief on the North American and West Indies Station—
  "had recommended that Port Royal should not be continued as a dockyard, and that a local committee was to report on the proposal."
  I frankly admit that when a right hon. Gentleman of the admitted importance, of the self-asserted importance [cries of "Oh!"], of the late Secretary to the Admiralty—[renewed cries of "Oh!"]—yes, he compared himself with me [laughter, and a Voice, "Well done, Tommy"]—I quite admit that when he told me this I did think that, inasmuch as the Admiral on the station, who knew all about it and was the only authority, had recommended that the dockyard should not be continued, and that a Committee was appointed, I understood that to be a promise that the dockyard was going to be abolished. [Ironical laughter.] Certainly I did so understand it. But, as I have said, I have refreshed my memory from the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, corrected by himself [laughter], and I do admit I did approach to the verge of inaccuracy if I did not touch it. [Laughter.] I only regret that the right. hon Gentleman did not yesterday avail himself of the means within his grasp of securing the payment of a guinea from me. [Laughter.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  MR. JOHN REDMONDdesired to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which he had given him private notice—whether, in the event of his Motion giving precedence to the Procedure Debate being carried, he would give an undertaking to exempt to-morrow (Wednesday) from its operation, so as to enable the Irish Evicted Tenants Bill to be discussed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am very reluctant to interfere with private Members' Bills on Wednesday; but the hon. Member will recognise that the Government are in a difficult position, and it was at the request of an Irish Member that this Debate was deferred from last Thursday till Monday. If it be at all possible,

  1091
  consistently with a proper dealing with the time of the House, I shall be very glad to devote Wednesday to the Bill which the hon. Member mentions. But it must depend upon the progress we make with the Resolution about the business of the House, and with the Sessional Order which we are engaged in debating. If progress, rapid and conspicuous, is made, there will be no reason why Wednesday should be taken by the Government.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I do not gather that the right hon. Gentleman will take to-morrow if the Debate is not finished to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If I have some security that the whole question will be disposed of by Thursday, then the Government would leave to-morrow for the discussion of the hon. Member's Bill, but without that security it would be absurd for the Government not to continue the Debate de die in diem.
  MR. J. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman must know that I have no power to make such an arrangement or to give such a pledge. Is he not aware that this Bill is of very grave importance; that great interests are concerned; and that the discussion of it is looked for with great anxiety in Ireland? Under these circumstances, could he not see his way to allow this Bill to be taken on Wednesday? And does he not think that the progress of business, instead of being impeded, will probably be expedited by such consideration being shown to Irish Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am anxious to show consideration to Gentlemen in all parts of the House, and I am aware that it would be unfair to ask the hon. Member himself to give any pledge as to the termination of the Debate on Thursday. But there are recognised methods of conveying this assurance; and if any such arrangement could be made, I should be very glad to see Wednesday given to the discussion of this important question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYmoved:—
  "That the consideration of the proposed now Rules of Procedure have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion on every day for which they may be appointed."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, that he had anticipated that the Leader of the House would make some statement in support of this unusual Motion. The view which many independent Members in the House took with regard to the Procedure Resolutions was closely connected with the use to be made of Tuesdays; and in recommending his Resolution as to Supply last week, the right hon. Gentleman had made no mention of Tuesdays. It was always absurd for any hon. Member to complain of time being taken because of the sacrifice of some Motion interesting only to himself; but Tuesdays were now the only Motion days left to the private Members. The Leader of the House would admit that there were many questions of the highest importance to the country which could not be adequately raised in Supply and Private Members' nights were the only occasions on which attention could be called to questions which it was essential should be discussed if Parliament were to continue to discharge the functions which it had discharged in the past. He balloted very seldom for precedence on Tuesdays and Fridays last Session; but on one occasion he was successful, and his Motion was accepted by the House and acted on by the Government. This Session he was asked by a representative body to bring forward a Motion, and in the ballot he was fortunate enough to get the first place. He inquired what would be the best day to choose for his Motion, and was informed that the first Tuesday after the Address had been disposed of would be best. That day he chose therefore. That right hon. Gentleman

  1093
  had scoffed at the use which was sometimes made of private Members' nights; but the good use of that time depended on the certainty or uncertainty of Members being able to bring on the Motions for which they had secured a place. If there were uncertainty, Members refrain from balloting, because it was unwise to excite anticipations in the country which were not likely to be realised. The Government were evidently surprised by the early conclusion of the Debate on the Address, and were not prepared with their business on Thursday, and on Friday, Motions which were quite unexpected were brought forward. Yet now the Government were taking away the first opportunity which private Members, who had given due notice of their Motions, had of bringing those Motions forward. How was it possible to consider the right hon. Gentleman's Motion for taking Fridays without regard to the one remaining private Members' night? In 1869 or 1870, he remembered that the then Leader of the House appealed to him privately and publicly to give up to Government business a certain Tuesday he had secured for a Motion; but then a Government day was offered in exchange. But now times had changed. The Motion in which he was at present interested he had been asked to bring forward by the West Riding Textile Workers and Weavers Association—one of the bodies most representative of the working classes. It was in the terms of a Resolution passed at the Leeds Trades' Council, and supported by a large number of trade unions. The question (an Amendment of the Truck Act), was of more importance to the unorganised and feeblest portion of the labour of the country than to the organised portions; and if the great trade unions took up the question it was not in their own interest. Having himself inquired into the matter in every part of the country, he thoroughly believed that the Measure called for in his Resolution was more generally demanded by the working classes than any part of the Government programme destined for the benefit of the working classes. It affected all working people. The necessity for it was admitted by the Chief Inspector; and both the late and the present Home Secretary had said that
  1094
  the question deserved immediate consideration. The late Government in troduced a Bill, but by the present Government no promise of legislation had yet been made. The Home Secretary could not hold his office, and receive the reports made to him year after year, without recognising the urgency and importance of this question. It was hard, therefore, and it would be the cause of great regret outside the House, that when such a favourable opportunity presented itself of raising this important subject, the Government took that opportunity away.
  MR. W. ALLEN MR. W. ALLEN (Newcastle-under-Lyme) rose to move the following as an Amendment to Mr. Balfour's Motion:—
  ''That, in view of the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury to deprive private Members of Friday Motions, the House declines to give Tuesday to the Government at so early a period of the Session."
  He thought it was a very high-handed proceeding on the part of the Leader of the House to move a Motion taking away a private Member's right, when a most valuable Resolution was on the paper, without a single word of explanation. When oil former occasions Leaders of the House proposed similar Motions they always supported their Motions by weighty arguments, such as the urgency of legislation, but on this occasion not a word had been said on behalf of the proposal of the Government. The Government could not complain that they had been met by obstruction on the part of the Opposition; they got their Address in a much shorter time than they had expected, and yet the only reward the Opposition received was a Motion taking away the time for the discussion of two Resolutions—one on the Truck Act and the other on Mining Royalties—in which they were greatly interested. He thought such a proceeding was not calculated to aid the Government in getting through their legislation harmoniously during the Session. In the last Parliament there was a far larger and more contentious programme of legislation, and yet the Government made no attempt to take away private Members' time so early in the Session, but had allowed them many opportunities of bringing forward Motions. There was no reason for urgency in the present

  1095
  circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman was not pressed for time, and he had no very contentious Bills to bring before the House; and yet, with the prospect of a short and peaceful Session before him, he proposed to deprive private Members not only of their Fridays but of their Tuesdays a few days after the opening of the Session. As a protest against such conduct he would divide the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not, I think, in order. It has been the practice to disallow an Amendment which merely amounts to a reasoned negative to a Motion of this kind. He proposed to substitute after the word "that," another proposition which merely gives a reason for rejecting the proposal, and is therefore out of order.
  MR. ALLEN: Then, Sir, I meet it with a direct negative.
  MR. PAULTONcould not think that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was very wise in the circumstances. He was prepared to support the new Procedure Rule, and the reason which induced him to come to that decision was that he felt certain that under it Tuesdays would not be taken from private Members as in past Sessions. He was afraid that confidence was somewhat shaken by the present action of the Leader of the House. He could not think that that action would tend to further the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. As it was not yet too late the right hon. Gentleman might reconsider his position as the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean was of great importance to the working classes.
  MR. B. L. COHENdesired to address one word to the House on behalf of the Irish evicted tenants. It was a course which it had not been his good fortune to be able to take up before. But hon. Members would recollect that the hon. Member for Waterford made an appeal to the Leader of the House on behalf of the Evicted Tenants' Bill which stood on the Paper for to-morrow. He did not wish to be understood as in favour of that Bill, but he wished to second the efforts of the Leader of the House in the direction of
  1096
  giving the Irish Members the opportunity of discussing a Bill which they thought of great importance. The desire of the Irish Members to get to that Bill would be frustrated by a lengthened discussion on a Motion that was neither intricate nor obscure, and he therefore put it to hon. Members opposite, who boasted of their monopoly of interest in Ireland, to justify that boast by allowing the House to come to an immediate decision on a perfectly plain Motion, which would give the hon. Member for Waterford the time he desired for the discussion of his Bill.
  MR. R. McKENNAsaid, that if the Leader of the House would postpone his Motion until 9 o'clock, it would give to his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean the opportunity of discussing his Resolution, which was as important to the working classes of Great Britain as the Evicted Tenants' Bill was to the people of Ireland. The Leader of the House asked private Members to sacrifice this day to the Government, in order that they might decide as to the desirability of sacrificing many more of their days. Was that reasonable in view of the attitude of private Members on the Opposition side towards the Government? The right hon. Gentleman could not say that they had shown any marked hostility to the proposals of the Government. There had not been a single half-hour of obstruction, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reward their want of obstructiveness by taking away their privileges. If the whirligig of time brought its revenges the right hon. Gentleman would have only himself to blame. He also had a Motion on the Paper in reference to Mining Royalties which was interesting to the working classes, but he would be quite willing to sacrifice it if the right hon. Gentleman gave time, by withdrawing his Motion till 9 o'clock, for the discussion of the Resolution of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks me to admit on behalf of the Government that there has been nothing in the nature of an undue prolongation of Debate on the part of the Opposition this Session. I am glad to make the admission he asks for.

  1097
  ["Hear, hear!"] I hope he will on reflection make the admission to me in return that I am following strictly in the lines that Leaders of the House have taken on similar occasions in the past. I did not begin with a statement of the reasons for giving us these specific facilities until the new Rule is passed; but really no explanation is necessary. It is quite true that when the Leader of the House, at a later period of the Session, asks for more time for the Government, he explains that he is driven to do so by the backward state of the supplementary Estimates and the impossibility of fulfilling the requirements of the law without additional time; and then additional time is given him. If, still later, he asks for more time to pass Government Bills, he is naturally called upon to take a survey of the Session and to explain why it is he requires more time. None of these necessities exist now, and I thought the House understood that, in asking for the time of the House in order that this matter should be disposed of, I was only doing that which any reasonable man would do and which all my predecessors have done in similar circumstances. It is unfortunately impossible, when the Government have to take the time of the House, they should avoid interfering with Motions which have been put down. But this discussion arises out of the good nature of the Government, who had hoped to bring on this Resolution last Thursday, and if they had done so there is no reason why the Motions on the Paper should not have been taken to-night; but an appeal was made to me by the Irish Members and others to defer the discussion till Monday, and it is because we, without remonstrance, at once acceded to that request that the Motions on the Paper are interfered with. However valuable might be a discussion on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke), even the adoption of the Motion would not alter the law; and neither this Government nor the late Government require to be converted to the importance of the subject. Therefore the interests of the working classes will not suffer materially by the discussion not coming on. I am desirous that Wednesday should be given to an important Irish Bill on the Paper, but it
  1098
  does not rest with the Government to determine whether it shall be or not.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he was in hopes the right hon. Gentleman was going to give them a precedent on which he was acting. For himself he could not call to mind any occasion when, so early in the Session, the time of private Members was pounced upon by the Government and taken for their business.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In view of the adoption of the new Rules of Procedure.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERcontinued, that he could not recall a Motion of this kind being made in connection with Rules of Procedure. He must remind the House that, the moment the Queen's speech had been read from the Chair, the First Lord of the Treasury made a special Motion; and upon that Motion, by an elaborate system of ballot, Members obtained precedence for Motions, including the Motion of the right hon. Baronet opposite, which stood first on the Paper for that day, and the Bill which stood first on the Paper for Wednesday. The result of the introduction of the new business was to throw the whole of these proceedings to the winds and to resolve their arrangements into absolute chaos. What they had to decide was whether the arrangement of business was to be left to the chance of the moment, and whether everything was to be reduced to anarchy so that Members would never know whether a Motion would come on or not. If the Government would propose to take all Tuesdays or a certain number of Tuesdays then private Members would know where they were; but the system now inaugurated was almost without precedent. There might be a bad precedent for it in late years, but he could not recollect Government asking for additional time so early in the Session except for a very pressing and urgent reason. They ought to have some understanding as to what was to happen next Tuesday, when he desired to submit a Motion on Armenia; and they had a right to ask what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to that and following Tuesdays. There was nothing more disagreeable than for Members who were attached

  1099
  to these political principles to be continually finding fault with the arrangements made by those with whom personally and politically they were warmly associated. It would conduce to the dispatch of business if some indication could be afforded as to the way in which it was to be conducted.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have the deepest sympathy with the wail of private Members on this occasion, and especially when it is consistent with their former action, as it is in the case of the right hon. Member for Thanet; but as regards the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, their interest in the case of private Members appears to be altogether new. Let me remind the House what has happened in recent years. In 1894 private Members had one Tuesday, and in 1895 two; and in 1893 private Members obtained three-and-a-half full days. I am not suggesting that these are desirable examples to follow; and the Government are not now proposing that any Tuesday but the first shall be taken. We are asking for that Tuesday in accordance with general precedent when it is desirable to complete a discussion on the subject of the Rules of Procedure. Hon. Members opposite who make such protests now were silent in the time of the late Government, when for three succesive Sessions private Members were practically deprived of all their Tuesdays. Hon. Members speak of Fridays; but in those Sessions when they had Fridays they had only evening sittings. Hon. Members who think we contemplate anything like that to which they have quietly submitted are very much mistaken, for nothing of the sort is intended.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELobserved that the right hon. Gentleman had said that this proposal was in accordance with precedent; but if it was, why did he break through the precedent and try to make bargains with hon. Members on the back Benches? The Secretary of State for the Colonies justified the proposal as being in harmony with all the precedents. The right hon. Gentleman said it was in accordance with precedent that any
  1100
  Government making any proposal dealing with the procedure of the House, should take all the time until the question of procedure had been discussed and dealt with. But a short time before the right hon. Gentleman had shown himself willing to disregard this precedent, and to make a bargain here and another there if hon. Members would only deliver few speeches and make that progress with which he would be satisfied. The Secretary of the Colonies taunted right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House with their attitude when this question was before former Parliaments. But there was no analogy. In former Parliaments, whatever was done with regard to Tuesdays, they had the satisfaction of knowing that any Motions they had to bring forward they could move on the Friday evenings. But to-night, on a Tuesday which belonged to private Members, they were actually discussing Government business, namely whether or not the Government should take away Fridays. He contended there was no justification whatever for the action of the Government in taking away Tuesday, a private Members' night, in order to discuss whether they should also take Fridays away. The First Lord of the Treasury said that although they might to-night discuss the Resolution of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, they could not get any further forward with it, and that the discussion would be practically useless for legislative purposes. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman in that conclusion. The Motion which was first on the Paper dealt with an evil which was admitted both by the late and by the present Government. The late Home Secretary, indeed, brought in a Bill to deal with the evil, and he had publicly admitted the pressing need for legislation in this direction. Would the discussion of such a subject not be a practical result? He maintained it would be. Hon. Members might be able to convince the Government of the urgency of dealing with the matter. At any rate one result of such a discussion would be that the Government would see there was a possibility of bringing forward a Bill and passing it through the House without any prolonged discussion. There were two things hon.

  1101
  Members ought to have before this Debate concluded. They ought, in the first place, to have a pledge from the Leader of the House that when private Members' days were going to be taken in future, any discussions upon the proposals should be conducted on Government days. It was not fair on a private Members' day to come forward with a proposal to take away the remaining days which ought to have been appropriated to private Members. Let them have full notice, and let the matter be settled on a Government day instead of upon a day which did not belong to the Government at all. They had, up to the present, received no assurance as to what the Government were going to do with Tuesdays in future. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that in previous Sessions private Members had only one or two Tuesdays, and that therefore the present could not be much worse than previous Sessions. But what was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman himself when these proposals were made? The right hon. Gentleman had taunted other right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House on their attitude in not opposing proposals of the kind when made by the late Government; but there was not one single such proposal in any Session in the late Parliament that the right hon. Gentleman himself did not oppose to the utmost of his power, so that if right hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition were inconsistent, they were inconsistent in good company. They ought to have an assurance from the Government that this Tuesday was only taken under very urgent circumstances, and that in future Tuesdays would not be taken, or if they were, adequate notice would be given of any such proposal, together with ample time for discussing it.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHdesired, if possible, to narrow the area of controversy which this Motion had aroused. He thought the Government were fully alive to the importance and urgency of dealing with this question of fines and deductions from workmen's wages referred to in the Motion of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. He was certain no subject was more interesting to the working classes, nor was there one in which an amendment of the law was more generally called
  1102
  for by their representatives without restriction of party. If the Government would give an assurance either that they would provide time for the discussion of this question on some future day, or, what would be infinitely better, that they would themselves be prepared to submit to the House legislative proposals dealing with the matter in the course of the Session, he thought that most hon. Members would be satisfied with that assurance and would not oppose the Motion any further.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYwas prepared to promise that a Bill should be introduced by the Government on the subject, and if it was regarded as a non-controversial Measure, there would of course, be no great difficulty in passing it.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 336; Noes, 125.—(Division List No. 13.)

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
  Ordered, that the Select Committee on Royal Patriotic Fund do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of:—Mr. Thomas Bayley, Commander Bethell, Mr. Brodrick, Captain Chaloner, Mr. Hare, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Luttrell, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Colonel Wyndham Murray, Captain Norton, Commander Philpotts, Lord Edmund Talbot, Viscount Valentia, Mr. Powell-Williams, and Mr. Woodall.
  Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, that five be the quorum.—(Mr. Kearley.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend certain provisions of the Local Government Act, 1894, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hobhouse, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Wharton, and Mr. Bill; presented accordingly, and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Wednesday, 18th March.—[Bill 109.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th February]:—
  "That, so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the Business of Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the First Order of the Day on Friday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate;
  "Not more than twenty days, being days when the Speaker leaves the Chair for the Committee of Supply without Question put, counting from the first day on which the Speaker so left the Chair, under Standing Order No. 56, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account, the Business of Supply standing first Order on every such day;
  "On the nineteenth of such allotted days, at 10 o'clock p.m., the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in Committee of Supply; and on the twentieth of such allotted days the Speaker shall, at 10 o'clock p.m., proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply;
  "On the days appointed for concluding the Business of Supply, the consideration of such Business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17; nor may any dilatory Motion be moved on such proceedings; nor shall they be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House;
  "Provided always, that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days. Provided also, that two Morning Sittings shall be deemed equivalent to one Three o'clock Sitting; and that, except in the case of a Dissolution of Parliament, or other emergency, the said twenty days shall be allotted so that the Business of Supply be concluded before the 5th of August."—(The First Lord of the Treasury.)
  Question again proposed:—Debate resumed:—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL, who, in continuation of his speech, which was interrupted last night at midnight by the Standing Orders of the House, said that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury could scarcely be congratulated upon the success of his proposals for saving the time of the House, seeing that, in the discussion upon them, already two days had been wasted.
  1104
  The right hon. Gentleman had, in the course of his observations, suggested that this was a subject for compromise, but in his view there ought to be no compromise entered into by hon. Members which would have the effect of curtailing their rights and privileges. It was impossible that the rights and privileges of private Members could become a matter of compromise, or of bargain and sale between those Members and the Government. If he had any influence with his hon. Friends he should ask them most earnestly not to accept any compromise which would touch, by one hair's breadth, their rights and privileges. He should call upon them not to touch the unclean thing. He wanted to know who was the father of these proposals. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was their putative father, but he wanted to know who was their real father. To do the right hon. Gentleman justice, he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, with his high and elevated tone of mind, could have formulated these proposals, which appealed to the worst instincts of hon. Members. The Resolution was so drawn as to fit in with the personal convenience of hon. Members, and was not intended to meet the wishes and desires of their constituencies. Private Members were sent to the House for the service of their constituencies and not in order to take holidays at such times as might be most convenient for themselves. For his own part he should be glad if that House were to sit all the year round, and if they made Rules of the House to suit their private convenience they would be acting the part of unjust stewards in this matter. He doubted whether hon. Members fully realised the effect that these Rules would have upon the Irish Members, who refused to have any official connection with either one side or the other in the House. As far as the Irish Members were concerned these Rules would act like a muzzling order. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was really the author of these proposals, but he rather thought that he could trace the authorship of them. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking last night he made some small mistake, and was at once put right by the

  1105
  right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. The Irish Members in opposing these proposals were fighting for their Parliamentary rights and privileges, and the right hon. Gentleman had no greater rights and privileges in that House than any private Member had. The Irish Members demanded that those rights and privileges should be safeguarded and preserved, whatever alterations might be made in the Rules of their Procedure. How was it that these proposals were supported by the party who had always professed to be the guardians of the Constitution? Why, no more unconstitutional proposals had ever been laid before that House than those which were embodied in this Resolution, Those proposals constituted an invasion of the rights and privileges not only of private Members, but of their constituencies, of the most vital kind. The proposals had been supported on the ground of pure benevolence, on the pretence that they were to do hon. Members good. But it was impossible to do them good against their wills. The right hon. Gentleman had relied upon the evidence of experts to which but little weight was attached in the Courts of Justice. There had been during the last few years a growing tendency to attack the rights and privileges of private Members by means of so-called new Rules of Procedure. The attack had commenced in 1878 and was continued in 1881 and 1882. In 1887 Mr. Arnold, in opposing one of these attacks, had prophesied that the Closure, which was then only proposed to be applied in the case of a single measure, would in time come to be the general rule of the House. That prophecy was now altogether fulfilled. He remembered that a great sensation was produced by those words, and that there was a murmur of "No, no" when they were uttered. But here they had their fulfilment. Were hon. Members to do their best to get into Parliament, and when they got there, were they to form part of the retinue of hon. Gentlemen opposite? That was not his idea. So long as he was in Parliament he would never be tongue-tied by any Resolution. Where did the First Lord of the Treasury get his constitutional law when he contended that the discussion of questions in Supply was not nearly so important as an ordinary
  1106
  Second Reading? He did not know where that doctrine was to be found. He had always understood that discussion in Supply was the great safeguard against grievances. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite know what they were doing? Did they not know that they were doing much more than suppressing obstruction? Did they not know that there was no method whereby a private Member could, in the slightest degree, attack the foreign policy of a Government on great questions of peace and war, except by calling attention to it in the Vote for the Foreign Office? It was incredible that any such proposal as this could be made. It was amazing to him to hear hon. Members who had been but a few days in the House get up and tell the House how admirable the proposed Rules were. It was only evidence of the ignorance of a large proportion of Members in the House. They were willing to rob themselves of the only privilege they had because they knew nothing whatever about it. For his own part, he would not give up to the dearest friend he had one atom of his Parliamentary privilege. Those who opposed the Resolution were trying to defend their rights, and they were determined to do it. The right hon. Gentleman was in the forefront of the fray, with the Irish Members during the discussions of the Irish Land Act of 1881, and a very capable disciple they found him. The first line of that Act occupied four days, and the first clause occupied nine days.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member forgets that the subject before the House is the mode of procedure on Votes in Supply, and to go into the history of the conduct of an hon. Member on a Bill is irrelevant.
  MR. MACNEILLbowed to the ruling of the Chair, and proceeded to contend that this proposal was insidious, in that it affected Supply and did not affect ordinary Bills. They were on the downward grade, and he was sorry to think that a Conservative Government should be the first to lead this crusade against the privileges of the House of Commons. He hoped that, whatever else they might call themselves—and they gave themselves many different names—they would no longer presume to call themselves the Constitutional Party.
  SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that it was his intention to support the Resolution throughout. Anyone who had been in the House as long as he had been would know that Supply had been for many years a scandal. ["Hear, hear!"] The health of Members had been impaired, the proper business had not been taken, while immaterial business had occupied much time, and it seemed to him that the honour and dignity of the House of Commons had suffered very severely in consequence. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, notwithstanding his aversion to all measures of the character of the guillotine, he thought that these measures were unavoidable. Each Government that had proposed any alteration in the direction of the Closure had found that the succeeding Government had not only followed, but bettered its example. This step was rendered necessary by the fact that the House of Commons had far more business on its shoulders than any such assembly, by any amount of diligence, could by any possibility discharge. ["Hear, hear!"] There were only two ways by which the difficulty could be met. The first was a method which it was useless to discuss in the presence of the majority he saw before him. It was the method of devolution, of enabling Parliament to get rid, by way of Home Rule, or whatever other name might be applied to it, of a large amount of its present business. Since they were not able, even if they were all willing, to do the business of the country, they ought to commit some of it to hands that were able and willing to do it. He hoped that the progress of opinion that had led the Conservative Party from opposition to all Closure to this proposal, would bring them to see that they could safely devolve to different parts of the country a very great portion of the business of the House. Meanwhile, they, on his side of the House, could wait patiently until the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite should come round to their way of thinking, and until that occurred they must be content with what they could get. He agreed that the proposal now made was an imperfect method of meeting the difficulty, but it was the only method by which it was possible, by establishing some time-limit for the transaction of
  1108
  business, that the House could, in some degree, discharge the work before it. He should be sorry if the Irish Members had to suffer, but he did not believe that they would suffer, because most Members of the House were determined that they should have fair play in Debate. It was his conviction that the cause which the Irish Members advocated, a cause that must prevail by its own justice, had not been served but disserved by any obstruction that had been indulged in. It could not advantage the cause of Home Rule that Irishmen should have recourse to methods which were dishonouring to the reputation of Parliament.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he had seen these Resolutions on the notice paper with surprise and regret, and he found it impossible to support these Resolutions as they stood at present. He could not but think that some of the support which the Government had received from the other side of the House ought to be viewed by them rather in the nature of a warning than as an encouragement to persevere with these proposals. What was the main argument of some hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of the Resolutions? It was that they would enable an immense mass of legislation to be passed through that House, legislation which included, of course, a Home Rule Bill. But neither the Conservate Party nor the country wanted a plethora of legislation. Rest and good administration at home and abroad, were the real desire of the people. The Resolutions as moved by the First Lord of the Treasury were crude and revolutionary. They were crude because they were, by the confession of Ministers themselves, incomplete and open to much amendment. They certainly needed amendment in the direction of breaking up Supply in compartments, and a term must be fixed towards the usual close of the Session to the period during which legislation could be actively proceeded with. These Amendments were vital to the scheme, and yet they found no place in the right hon. Gentleman's original plan. The proposals of the Government were also revolutionary, and that was the chief reason why he could not support them. Many Members now on the Ministerial side of the House

  1109
  had denounced the gag and the guillotine when they were proposed by the late Radical Government, and they could not consistently support such extreme expedients when they were proposed by the Conservative Leaders. The only difficulty that he felt in opposing these unhappy proposals was the fact that these Resolutions were proposed by the right hon. Member the Leader of the House. That fact was practically the only argument in favour of these proposals, and it was, looking to his great ability and popularity, he admitted, a very strong argument. Leaving that factor out of consideration, there was little or nothing that could be urged in support of the proposed plan. He objected specially to the proposal for a fixed automatic time Closure; but he admitted that the adoption of this as a Sessional Order merely was some amelioration of the situation. He protested against the principle of the gag as being not only contrary to the immemorial practice of Parliament and the theory of the Constitution, but as likely to be most injurious and disastrous to the interests of the Conservative Party and the Constitution in future. The right hon. Gentleman had been warned, for had not the Leader of the Opposition told the Government distinctly that this change would not stop at Supply, and would be applied to Bills. And when it was applied to Bills and a Radical Government was in power, there could be no doubt that an immense mass of revolutionary legislation would be forced through the House by means of this gag and guillotine. There were now comparatively few Members of that House who had seats in the eventful years between 1880 and 1885. There were, therefore, but few Members who could realise what the tyranny of a big Radical majority was. The Radical Ministry between 1892 and 1895 was always in a precarious condition—not in a condition to tyrannise over the House; but if these Rules had been in existence from 1880 to 1885, probably not a single institution in this country would have remained untouched. Supposing that five or six years hence there was a Radical majority of 140 such as existed in the years 1880–1885, the Members of the present Government would find that they had forged shackles by which they would themselves be firmly bound, and
  1110
  that their present so-called reform of procedure would be used for the destruction of all that they held most dear. He would make an observation with regard to certain statements that had been made respecting the old constitutional theory that the redress of grievances should precede the voting of Supply. He was sorry to hear the Leader of the Opposition ridicule that theory, but he was not surprised, because most constitutional theories were at some time or other ridiculed by the present occupants of the Front Opposition Bench. But however much it might be ridiculed, that theory had been for hundreds of years the basis of the Constitution, and it was so still. The redress of grievances ought to precede the voting of Supply, and the right of calling attention to grievances, and, if need were, the reiteration of grievances on the Votes, constituted the main bulwark of the liberties of the House of Commons and of the people, whom the House of Commons represented. Of course a Vote given in support of a certain specific Closure necessary for the completion of some particular Act of legislation, regrettable as even such a remedy must be, was a very different thing from a Vote given for a fixed and permanent guillotining rule. They all knew that a time came near the end of a Session when with regard to some great Bill special measures might have, to be taken; but his argument was that every case of the kind ought to be judged separately on its own merits, and that it should be left to the whole House to decide in each particular case whether it was necessary that the gag should be applied or not. The work and the rights of private Members had been steadily underrated during the Debate. The great bulk of valuable legislation passed by the House had been originally initiated and brought to public attention by private Members on Tuesdays and Fridays. Not only had these private Members' nights been of the greatest advantage to the House as a whole but they had paved the way for valuable legislation thereafter. It was probable that this Resolution would be passed. He did not think, however, that the general feeling of Conservative Members was in favour of it, if he might judge by private conversation. There was a very widespread feeling of

  1111
  regret that the proposal had been introduced in its present form; but he had no doubt that the devotion of the Conservative Party would lead them into the Lobby in support of the greater portion of the proposals. Assuming that to be the case, he wished to appeal to the Leader of the House with regard to one alteration which he thought would go some way towards making this Rule at least tolerable. He referred to the division of Supply into compartments. The right hon. Member for Bodmin, with his unique experience of procedure, laid great stress on the necessity of dividing Supply into compartments; and in his opinion that was the only way in which this Resolution could be prevented from working grave mischief and preventing the discussion of important questions in Supply itself. He had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this question. He did not wish the Government to divide Supply into compartments, for the Closure to be applied at the end of each period, but he wished to see a certain proportion of days out of the 20 allotted by Government to the discussion of the different classes of Estimates. If the Government introduced some such system of division of time among the Estimates they would remove a good deal of the objection at present felt to the new proposals.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) rose to move the Amendment standing in his name, providing that:—
  "A Select Committee be appointed to consider the proposals of the Government on the Business of the House, and that such Committee have power to make additional or alternative recommendations."
  DR. CLARKon a point of order, said that there were several Members who proposed to speak on the general question. If the hon. Member moved his Amendment those hon. Gentlemen would be prevented from continuing the general discussion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that hon. Members would not necessarily be cut off from the general discussion. After the Debate had lasted a considerable time the Speaker called upon any hon. Member who intended to move an Amendment, and thus he had called upon the hon. Member for South Islington. The moving of the Amendment might
  1112
  preclude the general discussion, but on the Amendment almost every question which had been debated yesterday and to-day was open for Members to discuss.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand that the general discussion cannot be renewed before the Amendments are gone through and that we are now to go through the Amendments?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that so far as nineteen-twentieths of the general discussion was concerned, it might take place on the Amendment to leave out all after line 7.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he still retained the opinion that these Resolutions were not only insufficient and inadequate on certain points, but they ought to be more comprehensive in character in order to effect the object they had in view. He still thought that the proper and best way of attaining their purpose would be consideration by a Select Committee. It would render the procedure more deliberative than it possibly could be in the whole House, in itself a source of danger, and would enable precedents and alternative proposals to be considered, and it would have the great advantage of enabling the House as a whole, through a representative Committee, to deal with its procedure which should reflect the general opinion of the House rather than bear the appearance of having been imposed upon it either by a mere Party majority, or by the Government of the day. He thought also that some opportunity should be given of more fully considering the proposals. The more they were debated the more in his opinion did they disclose dangers and doubts. There had been intimations thrown out in the course of the Debate that the Government would probably accede to the views expressed that this proposal should not remain a Standing Order but be merely made a Sessional Order. If that was so he would be satisfied, and would not move his Amendment, because practical experience and trial for some temporary period would be some, though not a better, substitute for previous careful consideration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he had no hesitation in saying that the Government recognised the desirableness of seeing how this

  1113
  Resolution would work experimentally one Session, before it was decided to embody it in permanent legislation.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.
  DR. CLARK, on a point of order, asked whether he would be out of order in speaking now on the general question?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member would be out of order. It would be impossible to deal with a Resolution of this kind if after the Amendments had begun, or while they were being gone through, hon. Members intervened with a general discussion. After the Amendments were gone through, then it was open to take a general discussion if the House was disposed to listen further; but practically hon. Members could review the general discussion on the Amendment at the end of line 7.
  On the return of MR. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Amendment he proposed to move was on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Burghs (Mr. Lloyd-George) who was very anxious to move it. But as his hon. Friend was not present, and as he had a somewhat similar Amendment on the Paper, he would ask the House to adopt the proposal. At present the whole of Friday was taken away by the Government for Committee of Supply; and the proposal of the Amendment was that on Fridays there should be morning sittings; that the Government should have from 2 to 7 o'clock for Supply; and that at the evening sittings, beginning at 9 o'clock, private Members should have the opportunity of proposing the Resolutions for which they had secured places in the ballot. A good deal had been said against the Resolutions of private Members. It was asserted that they were mere abstract propositions; and they served no good purpose; and no one gained by having them discussed; and that the sooner they were abolished the better. It was also said that every criticism that could be raised by Resolution against the Government could be better raised in Committee of Supply. That was our entire mistake. There were a vast number of subjects that could not be discussed in Committee of
  1114
  Supply. Complaint could be made in Committee of Supply of what the Government had done; but complaint could not be made of what they had not done; and very often their sins of omission were of greater importance to the country than their sins of commission. He did not say that private Members' Resolutions were all of very great importance. Everybody, perhaps, had not a proper sense of proportion. Resolutions were the result of the ballot; and he had often urged that the way to meet Resolutions of trifling importance which had not the concurrence of 40 Members was that everybody should have the right to move a Committee, and that if the Committee were successful the House, instead of adjourning, should pass to the next Resolution on the Paper. Why that should not be done he could not understand; and if it were done it would give the House a very necessary power of selection between different Resolutions. The proceedings of Friday last had been quoted as an example of the uselessness of private Members' nights. He had not had the advantage of being present in the House that night, but he saw by the newspapers that some valuable suggestions were made by various hon. Gentlemen on important subjects. These Resolutions might not have an immediate effect on the country, but the hon. Gentlemen who moved them were sowing in order that they might eventually reap. For his part he had no doubt that private Members' Resolutions fulfilled a very useful purpose. They would find that the source of all reforms could be traced to this power of private Members to move Resolutions, First there was a feeling outside the House in favour of some reform; then a Resolution was moved in the House; it was beaten perhaps three or four times, but it was persisted in, and if it at all accurately gauged public opinion the majority against it gradually decreased, and in the end it was passed. Then the Government shirked—as they usually did—bringing in a Bill to deal with the subject, and again the Resolution was moved and carried, until the pressure of public opinion compelled the Government to give it legislative effect. Now, if there was no power of moving Resolutions they would never have arrived at that point. His name, for instance,

  1115
  was associated with a Resolution, against the House of Lords. The first time he proposed it there were only about three Members in its favour. In the end the whole Liberal Party supported it. Of course, it was perfectly true that when the Liberal Party were in power they did not fulfil their duty by giving effect to the Resolution—a fact which had shaken his confidence in the Liberal Government—but he thought the overwhelming defeat which the Government had sustained at the General Election was due to this dereliction of duty. [Laughter.] These Resolutions undoubtedly did great good; and it would be a great mistake to prevent their being moved. He thought there was a certain method in the action of the Government. The object of the Motion was not to expedite business. It was intended to relieve the Liberal Unionists from a difficult position. The Liberal Unionists professed to their constituents that they were still Liberal. They were consequently in favour of Resolutions of reform. But on the other hand they were now less of a Party which supported the Government. Therefore the Government, very wisely from their point of view, said:—
  "If we can put an end to these Resolutions, or reduce them in number, we relieve our Liberal Unionist supporters from the difficulty in which they find themselves in regard to those proposals."
  He did not see the First Lord of the Treasury in his place. He did not complain of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, for he could not be always in the House. But the Secretary to the Treasury was present, and no doubt he understood a great deal more about the Estimates than the First Lord of the Treasury. He was sure the Secretary to the Treasury must deeply regret that he could not second the Amendment. [Laughter.] But he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to stand up, with his post behind him [laughter], and tell the House that he did not consider it right or proper that private Members should have the small modicum of time asked for in the Amendment, and left to them in order that they might at least have the chance of moving one Resolution per week. He begged to move in lines 2
  1116
  and 3, to leave out "so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented," and insert "after Easter the House do meet on Fridays at 2 o'clock, and that."
  MR. ALLENseconded the Amendment, and said he endorsed the plea for private Members which had been made by the Mover. If the Government would consent to modify their plan and to leave to private Members Friday evenings, he did not think it would make much difference to them getting Votes in Supply, and it would meet the wishes of many private Members. Exception was taken to finding time for what were called frivolous Motions, because there was less and less danger of their coming on, because it was becoming a custom for Members to ballot in groups who had agreed to support a particular Motion, and thus the Motions of individual Members had less chance of securing days. When last Friday was pointed to it must be remembered that the ballot for that day took place when it was thought that other business would not be concluded, and when it was believed that the first chance of securing a discussion would be on that day. The House would not make the great difference between the Motions down for last Friday and those on the Paper for this day. When Members had a fair chance of securing a discussion, it would be found that the subjects put down were of general interest. The Government did not act straightforwardly in discrediting Friday Motions by referring to those of last Friday. There were many matters which could not be brought forward except by Resolution, and it was important that the way of expressing their views should be reserved to private Members.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston)said, he was afraid that if he were in Opposition he would not be able to accept the Amendment. As a matter of fact, it was a Motion in favour of Resolutions as against Supply being set up on Fridays. ["No, no."] At any rate, it was a Motion in favour of Resolutions as against discussions in Supply. Since he took an interest in this subject he had hardly ever advocated Resolutions as against Supply. He always believed that discussion of Supply was much

  1117
  more practical than general discussions on Resolutions. He had always felt that Supply afforded to private Members their greatest privilege—that of criticising the proceedings of the Administration. Therefore, when he was quoted as being in favour of Resolutions as against the ordinary business of Supply, he had to point to his past history and to say that, while he had advocated the rights of private Members, it had always been in the direction of the practical work of Supply rather than of abstract and academic discussions on Resolutions. It being admitted that the work of Supply was the more practical work of the House, the Amendment was intended to curtail the opportunities of discussing Supply, while the object of the Resolution of the Government was to increase opportunities for discussion in Supply. Therefore, it was utterly impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, which would curtail those opportunities in two directions. It would give a portion of a day instead of a whole day, and it would postpone the operation of the Resolution till after Easter. The Amendment would, therefore, defeat the objects the Government had in view.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, it had been found difficult to get 40 Members to return to the House at 9 o'clock on Friday evenings, and in the last Parliament Members who desired to secure a House took to feeding a certain number of Members in order to keep them on the premises. [Laughter.] The whole tendency of the Resolutions of the Government was to throw more weight and more power on to the Front Benches, and the effect of that would be that there would be more set Debates during the Estimates. He did not think private Members would lose much by losing Friday evenings; but they would lose a little. If the House thought it desirable to continue with the sittings let it do so; but there were many things to be said on the other side of the question, and, on the whole, he thought he should Vote with the Government.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that one of the effects of Governments depriving private Members of opportunities for bringing grievances before the House was to drive them to do so in an illegitimate manner.
  1118
  A few years ago they had the right of "grievance before Supply" on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays; and when the right was taken away on Mondays and Thursdays, Mr. Gladstone said that Fridays would never be surrendered. Now they were to be limited to three occasions on which a division could be taken on going into Supply, once for the Navy, once for the Army, and once for the Civil Service. It was in these Estimates that the Amendments sought to retain a part of the day for private Members, while giving to the Government the morning sitting. The last relic of the old power of private Members to bring forward grievance was being swept away. His hon. Friend thought they could bring them forward in Supply, but they could not unfortunately. They would have to bring them forward in instalments, and they would occupy as much time in discussing one instalment as they would in discussing the whole question. There was one great question which they could not enter into as far as he was concerned. They had Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Colonial Affairs, but they had no Estimates for India. Indian Affairs could not be discussed except on a Motion to leave the Chair on Friday night. The result of previous attempts to take away the time of private Members was to compel them to move the adjournment of the House or to bring the matters forward on the Address, and that was why in the last few years—for eight or ten years—the Debate on the Address had been spun out. If they could not bring it forward in one way, they would in another. So it would be again. They could always make sure of 40 Members, so that instead of bringing a subject up in a regular form they were driven to moving the adjournment of the House. He contended that this irregular procedure would waste more time than if a subject was brought forward in the proper manner. The condition of things was now worse than before, when the Government put off Supply to the end of the Session, and then rushed 8, 10 or 16 millions through between 10 and 3 in the morning. This question might be finished to-night if there was a division of time made between the Government and private Members. He wished to point out to the

  1119
  Government that, if they tried to prevent a fair and legitimate mode of expressing grievances, they would not save the time of the House but waste it.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid, he should like to say a few words on behalf of the most oppressed minority in the House—the minority consisting of Members who occupied themselves about Indian questions. He should like to ask the Leader of the House what he was able to do for that group of Members? At present they had lost their Fridays, but nothing whatever had been given to them instead. The Leader of the House had promised to some Members that they would have better opportunities in Supply of bringing for ward grievances, but this did not apply to Indian questions, as not a single item of Indian expenditure appeared upon the Imperial Estimates. Therefore there would be no opportunities for bringing forward Indian grievances. He must point out that those Members who tried to support the cause of India required the fullest indulgence of that House. They had no Voters behind them. He thought he might say that in bringing forward Indian grievances any hon. Member had a difficulty and a danger to confront. The subjects were unfamiliar and even distasteful to the House. Anyone who brought an Indian subject forward was likely to be regarded as a bore, and that was a danger at which the stoutest Parliamentary heart might quail. The one really valuable weapon was the power of making objection upon the Estimates.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was now going beyond the Amendment.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNclaimed that if Fridays were to be taken away some equivalent should be given. The way he would suggest was that the salary of the Secretary of State for India should be brought into the British Estimates.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to argue that Indian finance should be dealt with differently from the way in which it is now dealt with.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 84.—(Division List, No. 14.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved in line 5 to insert "after two days' previous notice," after "on the Motion." As the paragraph now stood it laid down—
  "That as soon as Supply has been appointed and the Estimates have been presented the business of Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the first Order of the Day on Friday."
  Then came the proviso—
  "Unless the House otherwise order, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate."
  That proviso put it in the power of a Minister of the Crown at any moment, without any notice, without any reason assigned, without any Debate, without anything but a Division, to abrogate the rule. That was a very dangerous power to give to a Minister, a power he should not seek. It was well to recollect that by a later portion of the Resolution, Standing Order 17, which gave a Member power to move the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance upon the rising of 40 Members and the Speaker's permission was to be abrogated. While no Member of the House other than a Minister would have power to stop the Juggernaut car of Supply, her Majesty's Government would have the power to do it at any moment on any Friday, without notice or without reason given. The Government proposed to take to themselves more power than they would leave to the whole of the House itself. To meet the convenience of the Irish Members, who, on account of the distance they had to travel, occupied an exceptional position, the First Lord of the Treasury had offered to give them the first Fridays in May, June, and July. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "A Friday."] If that arrangement, were made Irish Members might find when they arrived at the House on one of the Fridays, and no sooner, that the Government had determined at the last moment to take away that particular Friday. The matter was one really of bargain between the House at large and the Government, and therefore it was hard indeed that while the House was to give up its privileges, the Government should retain the power of taking the Friday, suddenly, and at the very last

  1121
  moment, without giving the House any quid pro quo, and moreover be able to take the day, without reason assigned and without Amendment or Debate. That was not a fair bargain. ["Hear, hear!"] In the case of the Irish Members it might, as he had said, operate very hardly. They might come over from Ireland on purpose to take part in a Debate on certain Estimates, and when they came to the House they might find that the Government, without notice, announced that they intended to take the day for some other purpose. In the same way any private Member might be treated in the same way; he might absent himself from the House, in the belief that some triviality was to be discussed, but in his absence the Government might suddenly, and without any notice whatever, take the Friday and bring on some question in which he was deeply interested. ["Hear, hear!"] That would be extremely inconvenient and unfair, and he contended that the power referred to should be exercised only on fair notice. The whole of the merits upon which those proposals had been recommended were based on the contention, that by means of them there would be a certain amount of system in the work done, and foreknowledge of what was going to happen, on Friday; but unless notice was given they could never be sure that the plan would be carried out. He, therefore, thought that his Amendment commended itself to the consideration of the Government, and he trusted that they would not refuse to give the two days' notice asked for. If they refused to do so, then he urged that the power should not be given without Amendment and Debate. He begged to propose the Amendment.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSseconded the Amendment.
  DR. CLARKexpressed the hope that the Government would accede to the Amendment; otherwise, hon. Members on both sides would be unfairly treated.
  MR. HANBURYremarked, that if the Amendment had proposed some general scheme applying to all days, making it always a rule that certain notice should be given of the alteration of the business of the Government, it was possible, at any rate, that something might have been said in favour of such
  1122
  a proposal. In the present case, however, the Amendment applied only to Fridays, and he thought it was incumbent on the hon. Member who moved it, to show that there were particular reasons why this notice of two days should be given in the case of those particular Fridays. The Amendment in fact, if it were carried, would only cover a portion of the evil of which the hon. Member complained, because it was limited to certain days. His hon. Friend, however, had shown no particular reasons for adopting the piecemeal proposals he had submitted to the House, and he would point out that it was only in cases of emergency that the power would be exercised. Such a power certainly ought to be reserved to the Government to meet emergencies, when they suddenly arose; but in other circumstances, so far as any grievance generally to private Members was concerned, through absence of notice of such a Motion being made, he would point out that it was possible for hon. Members, two or three days beforehand, to ascertain by question, whether the Government intended to take the Friday or not. In these circumstances the Government could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYin supporting the Amendment said, he wished to call attention to the fact—that was the first time it had been proposed—that it should be possible to suspend a rule of this kind. In fact, so far as he was aware, there was no precedent for permitting a Motion to be made suspending a rule, and fixing business for a particular day without allowing Amendment or Debate. The Amendment simply asked that the Government should give notice of the course they intended to take in certain circumstances, and it was only fair to the House that that notice should be given. It appeared to him that this Amendment tested the sincerity of the Government, for they had indicated that they had no desire to oppress any part of the House, or to gain any unfair advantage for themselves, but that all they wanted was to see Supply properly discussed. If that was so, let the Government bind their own hands as well as the hands of Private Members, so that it should not be in their power to play fast and loose

  1123
  with this rule, or to take undue advantage of it. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was no grievance to hon. Members in the Resolution, because they could ask the Government a day or two beforehand, whether they intended to suspend the rules or not. That might to some extent apply to English Members, but not to Irish Members, who lived hundreds of miles away, and who would have no such protection open to them. He granted that cases of real emergency might suddenly arise, and no one would wish to question that the Government should have the power in such cases to suspend the rules without notice. It should not be forgotten, however, that the Government already had the power. It was always open to them, if circumstances required it, to propose a Resolution to that effect; the only difference was that at present the Motion would be open to discussion. ["Hear, hear!"] But the Resolution proposed would take away the power, and surely, in common fairness to hon. Members, if that was done, at least fair notice should be given by the Government to the House of their intention to move the Resolution. ["Hear, hear!"]
  The House divided:—Ayes, 100; Noes, 208.—(Division List, No. 15.)
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to omit, in line 6, the words "to be decided without Amendment or Debate." He said his reason for moving this Amendment was, that the Resolution proposed to establish a principle with regard to business on Fridays, which did not prevail on any other day of the Parliamentary week. The Rules of the House fixed for each day its appropriate business. It was competent in spite of the Rules, for a Minister, at the beginning of public business, to move that the Standing Order be suspended, and that some other business be submitted. When he undertook to do that he had the penalty of having his Motion
  1124
  discussed. In other words, if he proposed to abrogate the Rules of the House, he had to make a case for it. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that, for the proper discussion of the Estimates, it was necessary that Friday should be devoted to Supply. But he also wanted to retain in the hands of the Government, the power to appropriate Friday for any other class of Government business, and to do this without giving to the House the power to debate or discuss the proposition. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, had said that emergencies might arise which would not render it necessary to take other business on Friday, and it was, therefore, essential that the new rule should reserve to the Government power to suspend the Standing Order and place other business on the Paper. He quite conceded that such an emergency might arise, and he also conceded that the House should have most complete power as to the disposal of Parliamentary time, but the right hon. Gentleman had shut his eyes to the fact that the House always had the power, quite irrespective of the Standing Order. The Government had power now to abrogate any rule which said they should take Supply on Friday, and they could put down other business for that day, but they had not, and ought not to have the power to make that change without Amendment or Debate. Hon. Members were asked by this rule to make a large sacrifice of Parliamentary time, but he protested against the notion that it was a fair thing to bind the House down by a hard and fast rule, to take away from the ordinary private Members the rights which he had at present, to allocate Fridays for the purposes of Government business, as Supply was, and, at the same time, to reserve in the hands of the Government the power to appropriate the time intended for Supply to ordinary business, whenever they chose to do so. What the Government contemplated was that this rule should be abrogated for

  1125
  the purpose of devoting Friday to ordinary Government business. What they now proposed was quite different to what was done under similar circumstances at present. As matters now stood, if they wished to take Friday for their business, all they took as a rule, was the morning sitting. But if this rule was carried, notwithstanding that the Government abrogated that portion of it, which bound them to devote Friday to effective Supply, it would be in their power to appropriate the whole of Friday for ordinary Government business, a thing which they could do under the ordinary Rules of the House. That was unfair, and it was ten times more so when they made the proposition that it should be put to the House, without discussion or Debate. The Secretary to the Treasury had based this proposition on the ground that it might be necessary in cases of emergency, but if such emergencies arose, it would be possible to show them in Debate. If not, the rule should be abrogated, and the Government bound to do as much as other portions of the House. When Members had surrendered their Fridays, it was not fair they should have the Government coming down and saying "We have given Friday to Supply, but we propose that the rule should be abrogated and we shall devote Friday to our Bills." All he asked was that this should not be a one-sided bargain, but that if there was to be a bargain, the two Parties to it should be equally bound. What the Government wanted, however, was a bargain that should bind private Members but not the Government. He and those who thought with him, protested against that, and at any rate, they asked that if the bargain was to be abrogated, and Friday was to be taken for ordinary Government business, it should not be so taken without discussion or Debate. If the rule passed in its present form, it would be the only instance on record in which it was possible for the Government to change
  1126
  the business that had been fixed for a particular day without discussion or Debate. At the present, if a proposal was made to abrogate any Standing Order, which fixed the particular class of business for a particular day, it must be done on a Motion which must be fully debated. Now, for the first time, and with regard to a wholly novel and revolutionary proposal, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that after Friday had been allocated to Supply, and after Private Members had surrendered their vested rights in Friday, it should be possible for the Government to devote it to other purposes. If that was to be done it was only fair to ask, that at any rate, it should not be done without discussion or Debate, and to secure this he begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. COHEN, in opposing the Amendment, said, its effect would be to deprive absolutely of all their value the whole of the proposals of the Government. These were not intended to abridge discussion or the privileges of private Members, but, if possible, to divert those discussions from useless, impracticable fads to the ordinary business of the House of Commons.
  MR. HANBURYpointed out that the proposal of the Government was intended to facilitate business and not to tie the House to hard-and-fast rules, and if in any given week it was found more convenient generally to have Thursday for Supply and devote Friday to other Government business, the Government would be willing to agree.
  MR. REES-DAVIESsaid, the Government simply proposed to suspend their own rule at their own sweet will, and allow any particular Resolution which might affect them to be taken on Friday, and thus to deprive private Members of their rights.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, it would be a serious state of affairs if a Member stayed in town the whole of the week in expectation that a certain Vote would be taken on Friday, and then on Thursday

  1127
  night, without notice, the Leader of the House gave notice that next day he would move that other business be taken. It might be said that the proposal of the Government was to meet an emergency. But when the Leader of the House considered there was an emergency they might take an opposite view. In the interests of private Members, and to guard against abuses on the part of any Government, he hoped the Amendment would be favourably considered. The Government should bind themselves to give private Members notice of any intention to suspend their Rule.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought it right that the Government should have the power in the case of any emergency arising to suspend the arrangement with regard to taking Supply on Fridays. But the question was how that power was to be exercised. Was it to be exercised upon reasonable grounds shown or not? In his opinion either notice should be given of the intention of the Government to exercise that power or else good grounds should be shown for exercising it. In his view the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this subject had failed to use that convincing line of argument and that brilliancy which had so distinguished him when he and the right hon. Gentleman sat upon the Opposition Benches. It was the custom of that House not to decide upon any subject without due reason given. All the arguments that had been addressed to the House were in favour of giving the power in question to the Government, but that did not absolve the Government from giving reasons for their action. He could not conceive the Government saying, "the emergency is tremendous, the reasons of State are overwhelming, and therefore, we will not tell you what they are." The Government might state their reasons for exercising the power in three words which would be sufficient to satisfy the House of Commons of the necessity of their action. The hon. Gentleman behind him had said that the
  1128
  Amendment would deprive the whole Resolution of its value, but in his view it would give it additional value. He admitted that this was a matter of bargain and that private Members would acquire under that bargain more valuable rights than those they parted with, but at all events their rights should not be taken away from them without notice, without reason given, and without Debate. Although he agreed with the spirit of the paragraph, he felt bound to support the Amendment.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 248; Noes, 123.—(Division List, No. 16.)
  MR. JOHN ELLIS MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe) moved to insert after the word "debate" "and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 shall be extended to Friday."
  DR. CLARKasked what the effect of the Amendment would be.
  MR. HANBURYexplained that the effect of the Amendment was to authorise the Speaker to leave the Chair without Motion put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved after "debate" to leave out to the end of the question and insert "and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 shall extend to every sitting day of the House." He explained that his object was to cut out the muzzling portions of the Ministerial Resolution. A more gross and outrageous invasion of the rights and liberties of that House was never before imagined by any Government. When the Leader of the Opposition was opposed, as he was on this occasion, to an attack upon the privileges of private Members, that was the best proof that could be adduced that the restrictive proposal ought not to be passed. Ordinarily, when attacks were made upon Members' rights, it was because both the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition were

  1129
  in favour of the change. He agreed that their present system of procedure was exceedingly bad, but he could not sanction the very drastic remedy that was proposed. It seemed to him that almost every Member who had spoken failed to understand what the Estimates really were. Undoubtedly one of the uses to be made of the Estimates was to criticise the conduct of the Government, but another was to criticise the general manner in which the affairs of the country were administered. The Leader of the House said that the financial control exercised by the House in Supply was absolutely useless, and he gave this extraordinary reason—"that the days of extravagance and jobbery were over." But the days of extravagance and jobbery were not over. Those faults had been scotched unquestionably, but only in consequence of the control exercised by that House. Under the present system, when a Member found something objectionable in a Vote he could ask for an explanation, and if it was not satisfactory he could insist upon a division. When the House was told that the fact of its not having investigated all the Estimates, and that it voted away millions a night without investigation, was proof that it ought to be deprived of the power of investigating them, he replied to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that the argument was a perfect non sequitur. The House wanted the power to investigate the Estimates when any hon. Member deemed it to be necessary, and it was for the good of the country that investigation should take place. He thought that the right was a most useful one. For example, he was looking into the Supplementary Estimates the other day, and he noticed that there was a supplementary Vote of £8,000 or £9,000 for paper, and it was stated that the Vote was due to the fact that the price of paper had risen in the market. When the time came he would naturally wish to know why the price of paper had
  1130
  risen to the Government and to no one else. The right hon. Gentleman spoke scornfully of complaints made as to Royal palaces. He called them "trivialities." As a loyal subject, he was perfectly horrified. [Laughter.] Those items, however, were not so unimportant as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, because he generally found that in the items for Royal palaces, and other minor subjects, there lurked a suspicion of jobbery. Mr. A. C. Morton, in the last Parliament, raised the question of the Royal ratcatcher. He honoured and respected Mr. Morton for raising this small point, because it prevented more rats and more mice from eating into the Royal palaces than the Royal ratcatcher himself. The right hon. Gentleman said that the tendency of a discussion on the Estimates was to increase—not to diminish—expenditure. He admitted that there might sometimes be a tendency to increase expenditure, but the object of private Members was to see that the money was usefully expended, and in trying to obtain the reduction of useless expenditure he suggested that the money should be usefully expended. Generally speaking, he had found that the big men were paid a great deal too much and the poor men a great deal too little. He had often suggested a reduction in the salaries of Ministers. If they could find a gentleman to do exactly the same work for £2,000, why in the name of common sense should they give £5,000? With the most touching unanimity, ex-Ministers and Ministers had gone into the Lobby invariably against him. The main plea of the right hon. Gentleman for this change in the Rules was the most extraordinary one of the guillotine. Of late the Estimates had been thrown back to the end of the Session; and there was a certain feeling then that they might as well come to an end as soon as possible. But the right hon. Gentleman said that hon. Members had been put on the rack for the last few years, and he now came forward as

  1131
  a benevolent person, saying: "I feel I ought to kill you at once, and save you from the rack." But the plea of the Government fell to the ground, because they proposed to take the Fridays, and therefore they would have no object in putting off the Estimates. He could not see that the first portion of the Resolution hung together with the second portion. The right hon. Gentleman practically said to the House: "You have acted so nobly as to merit a holiday earlier than usual." But this portion of the Resolution had nothing to do with the Estimates; it was simply a golf-and-grouse Resolution. He always admired the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, but he particularly admired his speech in proposing his Resolutions. From paradox to paradox the right hon. Gentleman arrived at this conclusion, that the less time you have for discussion the more time you have to discuss. Those who had at heart the sound procedure of the House had urged that Bills should be carried on from one Session to another, and that would entirely meet the difficulty the hon. Gentleman behind him had pointed out. What would be the practical working of this Resolution? The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give 20 days to the Estimates. Now, on the more important Foreign and Colonial Votes, there were serious matters to be raised, such as Venezuela and the Transvaal, which would occupy not less than nine days. Then there was the Army, on which the Colonels developed themselves lengthily, when they talked about guns and arms and all sorts of things. When the Navy Vote was reached the same story was carried on by the Colonels. He was not putting it too high when he estimated that the Army and Navy Votes together ought to last eight days. That disposed of 17 days out of the 20. Then there were, say, two Votes on account to be thrown in. Thus one day was left for the whole of the Civil Service Estimates, and the Scotch, Irish,
  1132
  Welsh and English Votes. He sympathised with his hon. Friends from Ireland. These hon. Gentlemen complained that Ireland was governed from Dublin Castle. Here in this House then was the only place where they could develop their grievances. Then there were the Scotch. Had any gentleman ever been present at a Scotch Debate? [Laughter.] He had never been able to get through it, but he had looked in occasionally and seen Scotch gentlemen, each armed with a sort of pamphlet, jumping up one after the other trying to catch the eye of the Chairman of Committees. How long were these to go on? One quarter of a day. Then there was gallant little Wales. The other day the Welsh Members had an interesting Debate, about a museum, he thought it was [laughter], but Wales wanted a great many more things besides a museum. So poor England, the predominant partner, was left with three hours for all the Estimates! He defied the right hon. Gentleman to say that these calculations were exaggerated. He had under-estimated the time generally taken with these different Votes, when there was a fair field for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had cited the experience of the last Parliament to show that 20 days was a fair time to allot to the discussion of Supply. But not only during the last Parliament, but ever since 1886, the Estimates had been discussed under "the rack"; and if the right hon. Gentleman went back to the time before 1886, he would find that Supply generally occupied twice 20 days, or even more. The right hon. Gentleman had given away his case by admitting that if his Resolution were carried a great many Votes would not be discussed at all. It was urged that a great many Votes were unimportant; but it would not necessarily be the unimportant Votes that were left undiscussed. There were six classes, and it might happen that all the time would be occupied on the first or the first two classes. The right hon.

  1133
  Member for Bodmin had suggested that the time should be divided into compartments. But even then, it would be easy to exhaust the whole time in any compartment with the first few Votes. And if there were merely a limit to the time for each Vote, the time might be occupied in discussing unimportant subheads of the Vote. He had often seen the House get so weary of the discussion of the first sub-heads, that the rest passed without notice. Arrange, this matter as they would, if there were a hard-and-fast time limit to Supply, the Committee of Supply would necessarily be in the hands of a small minority, which would be able to concentrate the discussion on one or two Votes or subheads of Votes. Sufficient weight had not been attached to the fact that, as a rule, Ministers did their best, under the present system, to restrain the loquacity of their followers. But if this rule passed, the muzzle would be taken off. They might even encourage talk. Of course, Governments never attempted to evade criticism when they could not evade it; but there were a large number of minor questions which Ministers did their best to prevent from coming on. It was possible to imagine a Ministry who would wish to put off certain Votes, and with the power to closure at a certain date, that would undoubtedly be done on occasions. What surprised and almost sickened him with official human nature was the utter ingratitude of the Leader of the House and his colleagues. That they sat now on the Treasury instead of on the Front Opposition Bench was due entirely to the Estimates. If the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution had been in force in the last Parliament the interesting Cordite Vote would never have been reached. Yet in spite of the fact that the Members of the Government owed their position to there having been no Closure on the Estimates, the first thing the Government did was to kick away the ladder by which they had mounted, and to rule the Committee
  1134
  of Supply with a rod of iron. What then ought they to do? The whole system of Supply was utterly bad; and what they ought to do was to revise the whole system, in order to fit it to modern requirements. Thirty years ago there was time for Estimates and time for Bills. Now the Estimates were thrown to the end of the Session and few Bills were passed. The secret was that 30 years ago Members were not so eager to go to bed at the early hour of 12 o'clock as they were now. [Laughter.] The bane of the House was the 12 o'clock Rule. [Laughter.] He never knew of anyone, in the years of which he was speaking, feeling old or tired or flagged from remaining in the House. In those years they used not only to remain in the House, but to sleep in the House; and sleep, too, like owls, until the turn of each came to speak. The custom on Fridays was that Resolutions were moved by private Members until about 9 or 10 o'clock. After that effective Supply was set up, and as there was no sitting on Saturday they generally made a night of it. If at 2 o'clock any Member got up to suggest that it was getting late, he would be howled down; and it would be said that it was ridiculous that Members should not pass their nights as well as their days in the service of their country [Laughter.] They went on again for another hour, when some one got up and said that the Vote under consideration was an important one and ought to be postponed till a more favourable time for its consideration. "Very well," the Minister would probably say, "we will adjourn this Vote; but we will take the six following Votes." That was agreed to, and they went on again for another hour, and finally got home at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. In that way the Estimates were got through very efficiently. At the present time the difficulty was that they had more business to do and more Members anxious to take part in the Debate than

  1135
  in previous years. But the great block of business was to a great extent due to Ministers themselves, and he was bound to say that both Parties were equally responsible for it. Each Party went into office with a huge legislative programme. They knew it was not going to pass; but they held it up to show people what great, wise and eminent legislators they would be if they could. Then came a Motion taking away private Members' time; and when anyone protested he was answered from the Treasury Bench, "Look at our programme." If the Government would only bring in such Bills as they knew they could pass in a Session a good deal of the present difficulty would be got rid of. But he suggested that the best way to get rid of the deadlock was by giving Home Rule not only to Ireland, but to every part of the country, and also by throwing on the Municipalities a good deal of work which they could do better than Parliament. The main thing was to establish what Mr. Gladstone was always urging—some system of delegation, which meant division of labour; and he would have it not only in regard to Bills, but in regard to Estimates. The First Lord of the Treasury truly said that the Estimates were now used for the purposes of political criticism. Then let the right hon. Gentleman adopt some system by which the Vote of the head of each Department on which the whole of the political issues might be raised could be retained for discussion in the House, and all the other Votes sent to Committees. He would have a Committee for every Department—an Army Committee for Army Votes, a Navy Committee for Navy Votes, and the Irish, Scotch and Welsh Votes considered by Committees formed of Members from those countries. So long as all the Estimates were submitted to the House, the House was responsible; but under the new rule of the right hon. Gentleman there would be only a sham audit of accounts. The right hon. Gentleman told them that a large number of Votes were not to be submitted to the House at all. Why, it was such a proposal that Jabez Balfour proposed to his Directors, and it was for adopting such a proposal that those Directors were sent to prison. Members were sent to be the guardians of the public purse; yet, the House
  1136
  adopted a system by which they could not go into the greater part of the Estimates; and any Judge would say they were acting dishonestly and dishonourably. At Elections they said they wanted to serve their country, but when they got to the House they threw to the winds the opportunity of checking the expenditure; and the electors might well say that the House was the last refuge of humbug. Ministers would have Members believe that they were so wise that they ought to be trusted; but he did not consider that Ministers were angels; and, even if they were, he would put only a qualified trust in angels after they became Ministers. The tendency of the later action of the House had been to part with its control over the Executive; but he held that it was their duty to keep a control over the Executive in great as well as in small things. He asked Members to pause before they adopted a Resolution which practically destroyed the control exercised—the control that ought to be exercised—over the Executive in its administrative capacity. He detested the gag, and Members purposed to make that gag a permanent article of furniture. They were to be treated to the old French parliamentary lit de justice; they were to discuss everything as if on a scaffold, with a rope round their necks, until the fatal moment which launched them into eternity—or the holidays. [Laughter.] Ministers held it to be the business of private Members to make a House, to keep a House, to cheer Ministers enthusiastically, to groan and moan when anyone attacked them, and to vote as if they were machines. The more private Members were like children, the better Ministers appreciated them; and, like children, they were to be seen often but seldom heard. An independent Member did not accept the Whip as his master; he looked only to the electors; and he did his best to further the interests of the country at large, irrespective of Party ties. That was his ideal of a model Member. Hon. Members ought to be specially independent on questions of Procedure. In the present alteration of Procedure, the First Lord of the Treasury did not come forward as the Leader of a Party; he came forward essentially as the Leader of the House With all

  1137
  respect for that right hon. Gentleman, private Members would find in himself a better guide in regard to their interests. That right hon. Gentleman had a great mind, and did not condescend to small details; but for himself he had a small mind, and did condescend to small details. The right hon. Gentleman would treat private Members like kittens before their eyes were opened on the floor of the House. Private Members would do well to allow him to protect them from the attacks made upon them by Ministers. All plans were tentative and there could be two lines of rails at the present moment. The great trouble as to the Estimates was that there frequently happened that the obstruction to the Estimates prevented Bills coming on, that was why he was in favour of one day a week for the Estimates or with the two only, the blocking of the Estimates could not block the Bills. One would be entirely independent of the other. Why not try this plan and see whether it was successful? The Leader of the House said "Oh, if you do not give me Fridays and these 20 days, I won't accept the Fridays." They were not there to force Fridays on him. If he did not like them let him leave them. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not himself see why one was dependent on the other. They bad in fact two plans—one the guillotine plan which was a brutal plan, an indecent plan and the plan of Mr. Gladstone—the plan of devolution—which was an honest plan, a practical plain and sound plan. He recognised in the plainest and fullest way the objections to the present system. He should never vote for the guillotine plan until Mr. Gladstone's plan of devolution had been thoroughly tried. He had no objection on principle to what is called revolutionary legislation, none in the least. He had no prejudice. He thought it would be desirable to have a good deal of revolutionary legislation, but when he found a Conservative Government coming in saying, "Let us have one revolution, one good, sound revolution, against the rights, liberties, and privileges of the elected Members of the country," then he was against that species of revolution. ["Hear, hear!"] They had now a Conservative House, and why should it indulge in this wild, reckless proposal? Let them be cautious. The Radicals
  1138
  were also cautious. Let the Government propose their Resolution as to Fridays and try what would come of it. If they did not get the fair number of Bills, then let them go back to Mr. Gladstone's system of devolution. Until that had failed—and he was certain it would not fail—let them not go and adopt the guillotine principle. [Cheers.]
  CAPTAIN BETHELLbegged to second the Amendment. He said that his right hon. Friend would not be surprised if those who found in this Resolution a principle of the widest scope—one that they thought would gravely affect their Party and Constitutional history—had not had their objections removed by the two speeches he had made. On the other hand, those who did not find a material principle, but to whom on other grounds the Resolution was generally distasteful, might well have had their dislike overcome by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman. They regarded the proposal of his right hon. Friend as of wide scope, and one which would have very severe effects on the rights of private Members. It was destructive of much of their Constitutional history. The analogy which was attempted to be drawn between the application of this Rule to the Estimates, and its application to legislation, was entirely at fault. In his speech last night the right hon. Gentleman argued that analogy was perfect. If the Resolution was applied to the Estimates it must certainly follow, as had been avowed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it would be dragged into a precedent in order that it might be applied to legislation. Let him cite the case of two very recent Bills. In. 1889, there was introduced a Bill for strengthening the Navy. It was admitted by the Government of the day there was no necessity for placing the particular proposals in a Bill, and that they might have been submitted as Estimates. That case showed how analogous were Estimates and Bills. It was argued that it was unnecessary to place in a Bill the proposals contained in a Finance Bill, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he might have proceeded in the ordinary way in Supply; the right hon. Gentleman, however, thought it would give greater opportunity to the House to discuss the

  1139
  proposals if they were placed in a Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury rather scoffed at the fears of some Members that the Resolution would be dragged into a precedent for placing an automatic Closure on Debates on Bills, and told them, with great truth, that if a Jacobitical revolutionary Government were in power, they could take a short cut. Such a Government would, no doubt, cut off all Members' privileges—for all he knew they would cut off their heads, but that was not the sort of Government they had to deal with. They rather feared the ordinary wicked Government which brought in the sort of legislation they had seen in the last two or three years, and which would carry great schemes of legislation rapidly through the House by means of automatic Closure. He imagined that one of the great reasons why so much success had attended our Parliamentary institutions, why the legislation that came from the House was generally received in the country with approval, was that that legislation was rarely repugnant to any large section of the people, and he believed it could be shown that the reason for that was the power of free debate which had prevailed in the House. If they took the power of free debate from the House of Commons, they took away the only weapon the House had by which it could compel a Government to withdraw or to modify any proposal which was repugnant to any considerable section, of Members. The weapon had been used all through our Parliamentary history, and he believed it was that power, and very largely that power alone which was answerable for the general success of our Parliamentary institutions. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, had argued closely, eloquently, and with his usual skill on most of the other features of the proposals he had introduced, but he did not endeavour to allay the feelings of hon. Members with regard to the particular and important principle which he (Captain Bethell) had endeavoured to bring before the House. That principle was a true one, a live one, and a real one. For his part he firmly believed that if the right hon. Gentleman was successful in depriving them of the power referred to, he would be taking the first step to depriving the House of
  1140
  perhaps the only weapon it had to insist on legislation, before it issued from Parliament, being of such a character that, on the whole, it should meet with the general approval of the country. He was aware that he was speaking now in a considerable minority on this question. He could only regret that his right hon. Friend had rather disturbed the peace of his Party with this rather startling proposal. He regretted also that the right hon. Gentleman had brought it forward at this particular time, when there were something like two hundred new Members, who had been recently elected; for it was quite impossible that gentlemen who had had no previous experience of the House could estimate fully the importance of the change that was proposed. The Debate had taken place largely upon the question of the Estimates themselves, and it had been stated by his right hon. Friend that the discussions on the Estimates were of little value as far as the financial part was concerned; and that, as far as the Administrative Department went, they were, to a large extent, useless. He had been inclined, from his experience of these matters, to doubt that statement. It was quite true they never did succeed in Supply in getting a reduction of the sums proposed; but that was not quite the direction in which they could assert, much influence. What they wanted to do by these discussions was to keep the attention of those who were responsible for these Estimates perpetually on the rack, so that they might be fully alive to the fact that, if anything unusual was done, it would be discovered, and that they would be held answerable for any remissness of which they might be guilty. He had taken the opportunity of seconding the Amendment, because he was very anxious, being in opposition to the bulk of his Party, to place before the House his reasons for the action he took. The change proposed by the Government was so great, and possibly so far-reaching, that he thought it ought not to be made, not only at this particular time, but unless the general consent of both Parties was obtained to it. He regretted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend had not thought it better, before bringing in the proposal, to try some more moderate arrangement to secure the end he had in view—that he did not invite the House

  1141
  to give him, say, the use of the Friday, or some other day, and see what effect would be caused in the course of a Session by such an arrangement. Certainly, a concession had been made by the Government to the effect that this proposal should be a Sessional, and not a Standing Order; but everybody who held the views that he did on points of principle would surely see that such a change could be of little value to them.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. He viewed with great regret and surprise the action on which his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury had embarked at this early hour of the Session. He put a very heavy strain on his faithful and loyal followers, and they were placed in the position either of voting with those who desired to embarrass and injure the Government, or of voting against their consciences, and going contrary to their own clear and positive statements in and out of the House. His right hon. Friend drew the distinction that this was a matter of the Estimates and that the other was a matter of a Bill. But the examination of the Estimates had been declared by Mr. Gladstone and other persons of authority to be one of the most important functions of the House; and his right hon. Friend seemed to consider it a reasonable and proper course that they should automatically cut short the discussions on Bills. He could not forget the language they had used when the late Government applied the guillotine. There was not then one single Member on that side of the House who said that if the Government had applied the guillotine to the Estimates they would have been acting rightly. They had no light to support their own Government when they were taking a leaf out of the book of the Party opposite, and thus do them a bad turn in the country. They would give the country a bad opinion of the Government and of themselves if they joined in supporting any such Measure as that which was now before them. What was the reason for the Measure? They were told it was because their Supply was ill-managed. He saw no connection between the remedy and the evil. He saw no remedy in this proposal for futile discussion, and no reason why
  1142
  Supply should not be discussed just as ill when there was a guillotine to come later in the Session, as it had been hitherto. He had heard no argument which would lead him to believe that any hon. Member would refrain from boring the House because there was to be a guillotine later on. He could not help feeling that this Measure was introduced more or less in the interest of legislation. He could quite understand the right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches had a parental regard for legislation, which was not altogether shared by private Members, some of which they regarded with a feeling that was not enthusiastic and a great deal of which they distrusted. There was one matter to which he would like to call the attention of his right hon. Friend, and that was to ask him if he could see his way to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Newton Division, which was practically that there should be no contentious business taken after the 5th of August.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  DISTRESS FROM WANT OF EMPLOYMENT.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report as to—

  (a) The extent to which distress, arising from want of employment, prevails;

  (b) The powers at present possessed by local or central authorities in relation to such cases;

  (c) Any steps which may be taken, whether by changes in legislation or administration, to deal with the evils arising therefrom;

  (d) The means of discriminating in cases of exceptional distress between "the deserving man forced to become dependent upon public aid" and the ordinary claimants for parish relief, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Report of the Select Committee on

  1143
  Distress from Want of Employment, dated 2nd July, 1895, viz., that the former class should be exempted from disability as regards the Franchise, whether local or Parliamentary.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Agricultural Tenancies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Yerburgh, Mr. Jeffreys, Colonel Cotton-Jodrell, Major Rasch, Sir Cameron Gull, and Mr. Rutherford; presented and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Wednesday, 18th March.—[Bill 110.]
  MEAT (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL).
  Bill to regulate the Sale of Foreign and Colonial Meat, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Yerburgh, Sir Cameron Gull, Mr. Pender, Mr. Verney, Lord Alwyne Compton, and Mr. Rutherford; presented and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Wednesday, 18th March.—[Bill 111.]
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND).
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tully, Mr. Power, Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Colonel Waring, and Mr. J. P. Farrell; presented and read 1a; to be read 2a this day.—[Bill 112.]
  ABATTOIRS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  SPORTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Adjourned Debate on nomination of Select Committee [24th February] further adjourned till Monday next.

  STATIONERY CONTRACTS.
  Ordered, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the present system of issuing invitations for tenders and of making contracts for Government printing and binding sufficiently secures compliance with the terms and spirit of the Resolution of the House of Commons of the 13th day of February, 1891, and whether any, and, if so, what, improvements of the system are called for.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Michael Austin, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Mr. Lopes, Mr. Lough, Mr. Maden, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Jonathan Samuel, Mr. Souttar, Mr. Stephens, and Sir Howard Vincent.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LETTING OF SPORTING RIGHTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, in moving the Adjournment of the House, said, he desired to say that he had deferred the discussion of the new Rules of Procedure until Thursday in order that the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill might be discussed To-morrow. He had done so having made full inquiries and feeling assured that all parts of the House were desirous of bringing the Debate on Procedure to a conclusion on Thursday night. He would move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule on Thursday night to render that desirable consummation more possible and more certain. ["Hear, hear!"]
  House Adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MARQUESS OF ELY.
Petition of John Henry Marquess of Ely in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote, at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

BETTON'S CHARITY.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHmoved
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her consent from so much of the Scheme 'for the management of the funds contributed for the purposes of the Central Welsh Board by the county governing bodies established by the Schemes made under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, for the administrative counties of Cardigan, Carnarvon, Merioneth, and Montgomery, and for the county boroughs of Cardiff and Newport, and by the county governing bodies established or to be established by Schemes under the said Act for the administrative counties of Anglesey, Brecknock, Carmarthen, Denbigh, Flint, Glamorgan, Monmouth, Pembroke, and Radnor, and for the county borough of Swansea,' as refers to Betton's Charity (Schools Account)."
He said that under the late Government a Scheme for the formation of a Central Board of Education for Wales was drawn up. That Scheme appropriated among other funds, Betton's Charity, which was now given to Elementary Schools of the Church of England in England and Wales. His Motion only related to that part of the Scheme which affected this Charity, but he would venture to point out that the whole Scheme was open to very serious objections. To begin with, opinion in Wales was very much divided on the question of the formation of a Central Board.
1034
The Principal of Cardiff College and a number of those who supported him did not want to have a Central Board. They wished the funds given to it under this Scheme to be entrusted to the new Welsh University Council. There were other considerations of great weight. At present they had in Wales a University with a Council and Senate, and each College had its own Council and Senate. They had also in each county a county and district governing body as well as local governors of schools, and it was now proposed to add a new body to be called the Central Board of Education. It seemed to him that such a multiplicity of organisations must lead to confusion, and it was rather hard to inflict such a mass of conflicting machinery on a country so small as Wales. He would also venture to point out that it was educationally for the interests of the new intermediate schools in Wales that the body to examine and inspect them should be absolutely free and independent, and he thought that body should be somewhat after the model suggested in the Report of the Commission on Secondary Education. The more Welsh Education was made free and open, and brought into touch with the English system the better it would be, he believed, for Wales. But he did not intend to move the rejection of the whole Scheme. He only moved the rejection of that part which related to Betton's Charity. In 1724 Thomas Betton left the residue of his estate in trust to the Ironmongers' Company, as to one half to be applied to the redemption of captives in Barbary, and as to the other half to be divided between certain persons in London and Charity schools in which teaching was carried on in accordance with the principles of the Church of England. The first part of the trust failed, and a Scheme was prepared in 1846 by the Court of Chancery and was afterwards confirmed by the House of Lords, directing that the funds should be applied to Charity schools in England and Wales conducted on Church principles. The fund now amounted to something like £8,000 a year, and about 1,300 schools were receiving assistance from it. This Scheme proposed to take away the portion given to Church Schools in Wales, about £900 a year, but it left untouched

1035
the part given to Church Schools in England. He submitted there was no justice or reason in such a proposal. The percentage of the population attending Church schools in his diocese was quite as large as that in the dioceses of Canterbury or York; and it was, in his opinion, very hard to take away from those schools the assistance given to them by such a charity as this. He therefore moved the Motion which stood in his name.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Motion of the right rev. Prelate. It is unnecessary to go into the question of the principal object of this Scheme, or the arrangements that have been made for intermediate and higher education in Wales. The part of the Scheme to which the right rev. Prelate takes exception is not an essential part of the Scheme itself, which is one for the establishment of an Examining Board for the whole of the schools under the Welsh Intermediate Act. The proposed application of the funds of Betton's Charity has, I believe, been repeatedly suggested with reference to schemes in England; but, having regard to the very strong opposition to which such proposals have always given rise, that intention of diverting any part of these funds from the assistance of elementary education to other objects has either been entirely abandoned or, at all events, indefinitely postponed. For some reason or another, it was believed that the proposed application might meet with less opposition in Wales, especially as I believe it was intended, in connection with it, somewhat to increase the amount of the grant which would be applied to the benefit of Wales. As, however, this has not been the case, and as the opposition to the Scheme in Wales is quite as strong as that to which deference has been paid in connection with similar proposals in England, I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Motion of the right rev. Prelate. The Scheme has been drawn up by the Charity Commissioners in such a way as to enable those provisions to be omitted without invalidating the rest of the Scheme.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid he was sorry to have to say that Lord Rosebery
1036
was unable to be present, and that Lord Playfair was ill. He had, therefore, been asked to say a few words with regard to the proposal of the right rev. Prelate. The proposal was rather a considerable one, as it asked their Lordships to reverse the decision arrived at—or, at all events, approved of—by the Education Department under two successive Governments. He would also point out that the Scheme emanated from the Education Committees of the counties of Wales, which consisted of three persons chosen by each County Council and two persons nominated by the President of the Council. No doubt the right rev. Prelate had a perfect right to make the most he could of the decision arrived at in 1846, and he did not impugn the justice of the decision, although the fact that it was carried to the House of Lords showed that there was reason to doubt it. Admitting, however, the righteousness and authority of that decision, surely a good deal had happened since; and he thought that the right rev. Prelate should have shown, not only that the decision of 1846 was right and just, but that the same decision ought to have been arrived at now—50 years afterwards—in a totally different state of circumstances. In 1846 none of the circumstances affecting the present Scheme had been passed. In those days education, so far as it was assisted—to a very small extent—by the State, was merely elementary, and the change proposed in the application of these funds was necessary because of the changed circumstances of the case. There was a peculiarity in this case which the right rev. Prelate had not remarked—that this money was not originally ear-marked for the purposes of education, and it therefore came under the Endowed Schools Acts. But even supposing this money had been ear-marked, there was the high authority of the late Lord Selborne himself for saying that benefactions ear-marked for education would not be confined to one denomination unless the evidence in favour of such a restriction was absolutely clear; and he did not quite understand how such evidence was forthcoming in the case of a fund not originally ear-marked at all for education. He would only say, in conclusion, that surely the best use that could be made of the funds—and there

1037
was no reason to suppose that the founder would have objected to such an application of the money—was, in the circumstances of the case, to place them at the disposal of the large representative body, the formation of which the noble Duke had not yet given up, notwithstanding the strictures passed upon it by the right rev. Prelate; and that these funds should be applied to the purposes that would be most beneficial to the interests of the higher education of the people of Wales.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONdesired to point out that there was something very real indeed to be brought forward in defence of what the right rev. Prelate had urged, and it was contained in the original will of the founder, who did not give all his money to one purpose, but divided it into three parts. Half was to be given for the redemption of captives in Barbary, and the remaining half was to be divided between destitute persons in London and charity schools where teaching in accordance with the principles of the Church of England was given. That very distinctly ear-marked the kind of education the founder would have wished to assist if he had known that that part of the fund set apart by him for the redemption of slaves in Barbary would come back to be rearranged. It would have been a very natural thing for the founder to give this portion of the fund for the purposes of education, because he had already given a large sum for that purpose. It was clear that, had he had the disposal of it, he would have given it in connection with education in accordance with the principles of the Church of England. He thought it would be a very great mistake to depart from what was indicated by the founder in his will.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that of course this Address would be adopted, the disposition of endowments of this kind being entirely in the hands of the Episcopate. Noble Lords on his side of the House had found that it was useless to protest or divide when, on previous occasions, they had been dealing with endowments. Where the person who created an endowment for an educational purpose destined it for teaching in connection with the Church of England, a forcible argument was doubtless
1038
supplied to the Members of the Episcopal Bench. But in the present case they were dealing with an endowment not created for any such purpose. The testator had not endowed Church of England schools in Wales with this money. It was true that he had endowed certain Church of England schools in London, but with that endowment there was no intention to interfere. The question was, what was the best course to take at the present day with regard to the money left for releasing slaves in Barbary. When the testator made his will the questions of secondary and technical education were not in his contemplation, it was true; but the use to which he designed this money—namely, the release of slaves in Barbary—being out of date, and secondary education being an object now regarded as of very high importance, why should that House interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Education Department, and by the joint Committee of the County Councils in Wales, that this money could be best used in the way provided by the scheme? If the money was allocated 50 years ago to certain schools in Wales there was no reason that he knew why that arrangement should be stereotyped. The case in favour of the scheme was very strong, but he recognised that it would be of no avail to divide in its favour.
THE PRIME MINISTER (the MARQUESS of SALISBURY): I think the noble and learned Lord always ignores on these occasions the fact that jurisdiction has been reserved to this House to deal with these schemes. The noble and learned Lord says that if Mr. Betton had destined this money for Church education he would recognise that to be a cogent argument, although I think I can remember occasions when he has not been greatly influenced by arguments of that kind. But the fact is that, if a testator has left money for the support of the education of a special religious body, the general and equitable jurisdiction of the Houses of Parliament does not apply unless there has been some accidental default. I understand that in passing the Measures under which these schemes are framed we were willing to pass provisions of a somewhat stringent and doubtful character on the understanding

1039
that we retained an equitable jurisdiction over their application, and that whenever that application did not coincide with the general policy which Parliament had in view we should interfere to correct it. Now, I imagine the policy Parliament had in view was to maintain the status quo as between religious denominations. It did not wish to encourage any aggressive claims by the Church of England upon money that belonged to the Dissenting or unsectarian body. On the other hand, it did not wish to encourage any spoliation of that which was destined for the Church of England. There are occasions when the words of the Endowed Schools Act do not provide entirely for the fulfilment of this policy, which Parliament had in view. In the case before us the money was assigned in 1846 by the authorities of that day to the support of Church religious education. They may have been right or wrong, but 50 years make a good prescription. This plan having been laid down by the authorities of that day, it came within the principle of the Endowed Schools Act, if not actually within the words, and it seems to me that the House of Lords by supporting that plan would be exercising its jurisdiction in a manner in which it is right that that jurisdiction should be exercised. Nothing can be more injurious either to the cause of religious peace or of successful education than that the various religious bodies should conduct a predatory war into one another's endowments. What we have to resist too often is the attempt on the part of that religious body which calls itself Unsectarian to take away the endowments of the Church of England; but I am not desirous that the Church of England should take away endowments that are unsectarian. It appears to me that it would be well that there should be a proclamation of peace between religious bodies, and that they should cease to dispute one another's titles to endowments, so that they may set to work to do the business they have in hand. I think that is much more likely to foster religious peace and to favour the promotion of that education which the noble and learned Lord, in entire sympathy with the whole House, so earnestly supports, than anything which shall keep alive the religious
1040
conflicts by which the education of the people has been so frequently impeded. Therefore I think the Motion of the Bight Reverend Prelate is in itself wise, and it is in conformity with the general principles and policy which this House has observed with respect to endowments of this kind. ["Hear, hear!"]
Agreed to. Ordered that the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL,
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR)presented a Bill to amend the laws relating to public health in Scotland. He said that if he took the less usual course of saying a few words in regard to the main purpose and scope of the Bill upon that occasion, he could, he thought, give good reasons for doing so. This Bill was one of those that had the honour of mention in the gracious Speech from the Throne, and it had been decided to present it in the first instance, in that House, in the hope that it might have the advantage of detailed consideration at an early period of the year. It was not so likely to have that advantage if it were to be introduced in the other House of Parliament. If anyone should think that it was a subject which could be more appropriately dealt with, in the first instance, in the other House, and one requiring more prolonged consideration in that House than in this, the answer would be that by bringing the Measure in at this early period of the Session in their Lordships' House, they would be able to pass it through all its stages, having given it very full and practical consideration, and yet send it down to the other House soon after Easter, by which time it would probably only have reached the Committee stage, if introduced in that House. The noble Earl the late Prime Minister alluded to this Bill in his speech on the Address as being a very old friend. In that the noble Earl was mistaken. The Measure which he, doubtless, had in his mind was the Burgh Police and Health Act, which became law some years ago. The Bill which he now had the honour to present had only a very casual relation to that Act, and was a new Bill. The

1041
principal Act dealing with public health matters in Scotland was passed so long ago as 1867. It had been amended upon five different occasions, in 1871, 1875, 1882, 1890, and 1891. He did not wish to say a word in disparagement of that Act, for it was a Measure of great value, and the very fact that it had remained for nearly 30 years the principal Act in a matter of so much importance as public health proved how valuable it had been. But sanitary science had progressed very much during the last 30 years. Public opinion also demanded more far-reaching provisions in regard to matters of public health than were demanded 30 years ago. The English Public Health Code had been amended two or three times in recent years, and Ireland also had had the benefit of an Amending and Consolidating Act. There was a matter peculiar to Scotland, which had created a very general demand, not only for an amendment, but for a consolidation of the Public Health Laws. The Local Government Act of 1889 caused an almost complete revolution in the constitution of sanitary authorities in Scotland, and the phraseology which was appropriate before the passing of that Act was not now appropriate. He thought he might say without fear of contradiction that a desire for a general revision of the Act of 1867, and for the consolidation of the various Measures relating to public health, was practically universal among all local authorities in Scotland. This Bill was then an Amending Bill, and it had been framed in almost every important respect upon provisions which existed in some Act of Parliament in force in some part of the United Kingdom. The plan of the Government did not end by amending the law. The Government had also prepared a Measure for consolidating all the provisions of the Public Health Laws in Scotland, and it had been so prepared that it carried into effect all the provisions of this amending Bill; and the Government would be prepared to produce it as soon as they were able, judging by the kind of reception which their proposals in the amending Bill were likely to receive. The hope of the Government was that, ultimately, the Consolidation Bill might become law, so that their Lordships would have, within the
1042
four corners of a single Act, a code of Public Health Law for Scotland. One of the most important provisions of the Act of 1867 was contained in the 16th Section, which provided for the definition of a large number of nuisances which had been known as statutory nuisances, or, in other words, nuisances defined by Act of Parliament in regard to which it was sufficient merely to prove that they existed to afford a prima facie case to deal with them, and to have them removed. But the definition had been found in practice to be very defective, because the nuisances consisted only of things which were said to be "injurious" to public health. The word "injurious" had been interpreted by the Law Courts to mean only things which were proved to be absolutely a means of injury to public health. The Bill proposed to add to this definition the word "dangerous," so that matters might be dealt with which, if they had not actually caused injury, were of so serious a kind that they might reasonably be apprehended, if allowed to continue to exist, as likely to prove dangerous to health. Then the Bill proposed to go further in such matters as the protection of the public health from danger in regard to the supplies of milk. At the present time, under Acts of Parliament in existence, milk which was contaminated might be seized, but there was no power to go to the source of supply, more particularly if it lay beyond the district of the local authority in question, so that care might be taken that their supplies of milk from the contaminated place should not be sent for sale. The Government proposed to establish regulations under a series of bye-laws for regulating buildings in districts under County Councils. At the present time, there were very stringent laws in regard to all burghs in Scotland as to the width of new streets, the height of buildings which might be erected, and the sanitary provisions for those buildings; but those provisions did not exist in places where the burghal districts overlapped and passed into the counties, so that the result of the present law was that buildings were put up under a county authority, and when they had to be taken over by the burghal authority and made part of the town it was found that they were

1043
improperly constructed, and great expense was required to put them right. He thought that there was a general demand on the part of local authorities in Scotland for power to regulate the erection of those buildings at an early stage, so that the difficulties he had indicated might not subsequently arise. The Public Health Act of 1867 provided certain things, such as the provision of water supply and sewerage, for which land might be compulsorily taken. The Government proposed that, to a certain extent, those powers should be extended for some other purposes, for some of which the local authorities might at present purchase land by agreement. The provisions for putting that power into operation were carefully guarded. There would be a notice to owners, and thereafter a petition to the Secretary for Scotland, who would direct a local inquiry, and after being satisfied with the result of it he might promote a Provisional Order in Parliament giving the local authority power to acquire land. It was hoped that this would be a valuable privilege to the local authorities, because it would probably avoid the great expense in many cases of coming to Parliament for this purpose. There was a considerable code of sanitary public health law in the Burgh Police Act which was applicable only to burghs. It was not the intention of the Government to interfere with that code, and the Bill which he now presented would not supersede the law of public health in burghs at the present time. In some respects, however, it would supplement it, but it would not take the place of it. Their Lordships would recognise that things might fairly be done within the bounds of a burgh which it would not be appropriate to extend to all rural districts. He would not ask their Lordships to read the Bill the second time for at least a fortnight, in order that those interested in its provisions might have an opportunity of seeing its provisions.
Bill read 1a; to be read 2a on Thursday, the 12th of March next.—[No. 13.]
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: When shall we have the Bill in our hands? County Council authorities meet in Scotland next week, and it is desirable to consider the Bill in print before proceeding further.
LORD BALFOUR: The Bill will be circulated on Thursday or Friday, and the Second Reading will be taken on Thursday, March 12.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I do not think there will be any opposition to the Bill, but I think there is hardly time to get the opinion of Scotland upon the Measure before that date.
LORD BALFOUR: Not by Thursday, the 12th prox.? I think so for the Second Reading stage.
House adjourned at Ten Minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.