should be ashamed of himself if he shrank from avowing his opinions. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) in moving the second reading of the Bill, had not stated the reasons which induced the Government to propose a measure this year based on principles denounced by the noble Duke himself in moving the second reading of the Bill of 1869. He did not believe that the people of Scottand desired the change-certainly they had not shown much indication of such a wish by their Petitions, for their own. petitions Presented to the other House against the Bill were signed by nearly 20,000 persons against parts of it-especially touching religious education, from above 200,000, while not above 8,000 had signed in favour of it. He, therefore, much regretted the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had not moved its rejection. The standard of education under the existing system was as high as in Prussia, where the compulsory system existed, and the use and wont of religious teaching in the parochial schools had given to the Scotch nation the high character for persevering industry and good conduct which gained for them respect and advancement wherever they went. But he feared that in the event of this measure becoming law, the inevitable result must be that the deep religious feeling which was one of the main elements of the Scottish character would little by little decrease. If the schoolmaster were encouraged not to give, and the children not to receive, religious instruction, such would be the inevitable result. The only reason that the Bill was accepted in its present shape was, that the Free Church were in such a hurry to free themselves from the support of their schools, and have them supported from the land; and this was a poor reason for giving up a school system established by John Knox, and still working most efficiently. He would not dwell on the heavy increase of taxation under this Bill. He was sorry their Lordships accepted the Bill at all, but he was happy to think it would not pass into law without those Amendments which bore upon religious education in Scotland. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2' accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next. MINUTES.-SUPPLY-considered in Committee First Reading-Union of Benefices Act Amendment * [229]. Second Reading-Criminal Law Amendment Act (1871) Amendment [157], debate adjourned. Report of Select Committee-Juries [No. 286]. [Bill 230.] Committee-Metalliferous Mines Regulation (recomm.) [151]-R.P. Committee Report - Mines (Coal) Regulation (re-comm.) [150]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* [218]. Considered as amended-Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* [171]. Third Reading-Naturalization* [145]; Bank of England (Election of Directors)* [211]; Municipal Corporations (Wards) [102], and passed. The House met at Two of the clock. PARLIAMENT-ORDER OF BUSINESS MR. NEWDEGATE, having been called on by Mr. Speaker, said, he should have to ask the advice of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair with respect to a Notice which he should have to give. As it involved a question of Order, he would act upon the right hon. Gentleman's warning on a previous day, and, therefore, he now begged to move the Adjournment of the House. MR. SPEAKER: According to the Orders of the House, the rule is, that after the Private Business, Petitions, and unopposed Motions have been disposed of, the Notices of Motion should be given. I therefore called upon the hon. Member to give a Notice of Motion, and he cannot take that opportunity of moving the Adjournment of the House, 699 Parliament-Grand Jury {COMMONS} Presentments (Ireland) Bill. 700 NEW LAW COURTS-THE STRAND FRONT.-QUESTION. MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention to authorize the expenditure of public money in the execution of the design for the Strand Front of the New Law Courts, which is now exhibited by Mr. Street at the Royal Academy, and which was dated November 1871 ? MR. AYRTON said, that on more than one occasion he explained to the House that the design for the New Law Courts was not approved by him, but by the Lords of the Treasury; and since they approved the sketch of the design, Mr. Street intimated that he was making some small changes in the elevation towards the Strand. The nature and extent of those changes he was not able to judge of, because he had adjourned the consideration of them until Mr. Street sent in his regular contract plan and elevation for the building. The design exhibited at the Royal Academy was not the real elevation, but was merely a perspective drawing of the design which Mr. Street had in view in November or December last. As soon as Mr. Street sent in his regular contract plans and drawings, they would have to be considered either by the Office of Works or the Treasury; he could not say which at the present moment. If by the Office of Works, they would only have to see whether the contract plan was in accordance with the sketch plan sanctioned by the Treasury. If the contract plan was to be considered by the Treasury, they would be able to judge of the whole plan as before. No doubt, a great many observations had been made on the elevation of the Law Courts towards the Strand; but while great difference of opinion and much dissatisfaction had been expressed, there had been no such general disapproval as would render it necessary for the Office of Works to take any steps on the subject. In the case of the University of London great dissatisfaction with the elevation was at first felt; but, then, any hon. Member of that House took the decisive course of moving a Resolution condemning that elevation, and though the building had been partly erected, the Office of Works was compelled to take down what had been done, and to have a new elevation made in deference to the opinion of the House. That was the precedent which any hon. Gentleman who disapproved the design of the New Law Courts ought to follow, and if he succeeded in inducing the House to adopt his view, it would then be the duty of the Office of Works to reconsider the subject. PARLIAMENT GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (IRELAND) BILL. QUESTIONS. CAPTAIN ARCHDALL asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the advanced period of the Session, and that many Irish Members will be absent during the next fortnight attending the Assizes, considering also the important changes contemplated by the measure, the noble Lord will consent to withdraw the Grand Jury Presentments Bill? The hon. and gallant Member said, he had to complain that his Question, as it appeared on the Notice Paper was different in terms to what it was when given in from him. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, he did not propose to withdraw the Bill which was the subject of his hon. Friend's Question, for there was some hope, though, perhaps, not a very strong one, that the House would be able to proceed with the consideration of the Bill on this subject that day. If not, he hoped an early day would be named for the second reading; for though at that advanced period of the Session, there was no great prospect of being able to pass the Bill this year, it would be of the greatest possible importance that there should be a discussion upon it, in order that the views and wishes of hon. Members might be ascertained, with a view to facilitate future legislation on the subject. MR. SPEAKER: With reference to the complaint made on the alteration of the Question as originally proposed by the hon. Member, I think it right to say that it is against the Rule of the House to put Questions which involve opinion or argument, and, in accordance with that Rule, the terms of the Question of the hon. Member were altered by the Clerks at the Table under my authority. IRELAND-CONSTABULARY FORCE. QUESTIONS. MR. P. J. SMYTH asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it be true, as stated in Dublin newspapers, that a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the grievances alleged to exist in the Royal Irish Constabulary Force; and, if so, if he will state the names of the Commissioners? MR. MAGUIRE asked, Whether it was a fact that there were at the present moment 1,000 vacancies, more or less, in the Force? and, if so, why those vacancies existed? Friend the Attorney General for Ireland -namely, Whether this Mayor was the same right worshipful Thomas Simcocks who, on the 14th of June last, issued a placard, on the requisition of James Matthews, J.P., Thomas M'Evoy, J.P., Patrict Ternan, J.P., Thomas Green, J.P., John Gradwell, J.P., John Chadwick, J.P., and other inhabitants of Drogheda, requesting him to call a meeting at "The earliest convenience, for the purpose of expressing our disapprobation of the unwarrant able attack which Mr. Justice Keogh made on the Venerable Archbishop of Tuam, the Bishops, and clergy of Galway and its vicinity, when delivering his judgment on the recent Galway Whether such meeting did take place on Sunday, the 23rd of June, and whether the right hon. Gentleman thought such a person fit to be associated with Her Majesty's Judges at the coming Assizes for the county of the town of Drogheda ? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON | Election." said, it had been decided to refer the complaint which had been received from the Royal Irish Constabulary, and also from the Dublin Metropolitan Police, on the inadequacy of their pay, to a Commission about to be appointed for the purpose of investigating similar complaints from the Irish Civil Service. He had been enagaged for some time in endeavouring to procure the service of what he believed would be competent Commissioners, but he was not able as yet to communicate their names to the House. He hoped, however, in a few days to be in a position to do so. was not able, especially without Notice, to answer the Question of the hon. Member for the county of Cork. He was aware there was a considerable number of vacancies in the Royal Irish Constabulary, but he did not think they were anything like the number stated. IRELAND (Mr. Dowse) said, he must defer the answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth), for he had not the rehon. Member would repeat his Question If, however, the quisite information. on Monday, he had no doubt he should He be in a position to satisfy him on the subject. With respect to the Question of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stuart Knox), he did not know whether the Mayor referred to in the advertisement was the Mayor referred to in the Question, though, unless Drogheda had two Mayors at once, he probably was the same. As to whether he was a fit man to be associated with Her Majesty's PETITION THE MAYOR OF DROGHEDA. Judges in the precept for holding the IRELAND-THE GALWAY ELECTION QUESTIONS. MR. WHITWORTH asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the statement, as reported, that "The Irish Executive, for the first time since Commissions have been issued, has omitted the name of the Mayor of Drogheda from the precept for holding the ensuing Assizes for that county town" is true; and, if so, if he would state to the House what are the reasons why the chief magistrate of that ancient borough has been omitted from the precept? COLONEL STUART KNOX said, that on the same subject he wished to put a Question to his right hon. and learned Assizes, he must decline to answer such a Question at five minutes' notice, and thought it would not be a proper Question to answer at any time. CATTLE IMPORTATION-CATTLE FROM QUESTION. MR. SAMUDA asked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether the Government has been able to make arrangements with the German Government by which cattle from SchleswigHolstein can be imported without the necessity of being slaughtered at the port of landing, and therefore, as regards London, with a free permission to pass alive to the Metropolitan Cattle | field-day on Easter Monday? The ReMarket at Islington? port of the General in command has been given; but he understood that the Reports of the Brigadiers were favourable, and as it has been stated publicly that the Volunteer Force is not worth the paper on which the Estimate was written, he thought that in justice to the Volunteers these Reports should be produced. MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the usual course has been pursued in this matter. The Report of the General Officer who commanded at Brighton has been laid on the Table, and it certainly gives no encouragement to the idea that the Volunteers are "not worth the paper on which the Estimate is written." Nothing which has been said by any official authority in this House or elsewhere in the least degree favours any such impression. But the production of the Reports made by the subordinate officers is not usual; it would not be agreeable to the general practice approved by military authorities that I should produce them; and if such documents were produced they could not in future be written as freely as all these Reports should be written. MR. W. E. FORSTER: An Order will appear in The Gazette to-day with regard to the importation of cattle from Schleswig-Holstein; and as it relates to a most important matter, perhaps the House will allow me to explain the meaning of the Order. All cattle from Germany are considered under the Cattle Diseases Act as scheduled cattle, and, accordingly, for some time past they have, in pursuance of an Order of the Privy Council, been slaughtered at the port of landing. The reason why it was necessary to keep up that restriction is because of the proximity of Germany to Russia and other countries in which the cattle plague permanently exists, for, of course, we could not be secure that in admitting cattle from German ports we should not admit cattle which came from Russia, or which had been in contact with infected cattle. We have been always sorry that that restriction applied to cattle from Schleswig-Holstein, where large numbers of cattle are bred, and where experience has shown that they are as free from disease as cattle in most countries, if not more free. But no arrangement seemed possible by which we could be sure that we had to do only with cattle from Schles- PARLIAMENT RULES AND ORDERS— wig-Holstein. However, I am glad to say that the German Government, having shown much interest in the matter and much willingness to meet the demands of the trade, have now arranged, through my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, to give to cattle imported from Schleswig-Holstein a Government certificate of origin declaring that they are really bred in that country. The Order, which will be issued to-day, will allow such cattle to be imported, and to go into inland towns or into the Metro-I politan Cattle Market at Islington in the same manner as cattle from Denmark and Holland, provided those conditions are fulfilled which, after careful consideration, we deem sufficient. ORDERS OF THE DAY-RIGHTS OF MR. NEWDEGATE, who had on the "To move, as an Amendment to whatever Order may be entered upon the Notice Paper as to be taken first at the Two o'clock Sitting of the House on the fifth July next, that the Order for the Adjourned Debate upon the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill be then taken,” said: Sir, that I may be in Order when put the Question which I intend, I beg now to move the Adjournment of the House. I had intended to propose that the Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill should be taken first, in preference to any other Order that might ARMY-BRIGHTON REVIEW ON EASTER You are aware, Sir, that I gave Notice have been entered upon the Notice Paper. MONDAY.-QUESTION. LORD ELCHO asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Reports of the Officers of the Regular Army who commanded Volunteer Brigades at the last Brighton Mr. Samuda of that intention in order that I might raise the question whether the Government has, or has not, the exclusive right of precedence at the Morning Sittings of the House. I waited last night until the conclusion of the Business of the evening, in the hope of ascertaining | half-past 12 o'clock of which non what Order the First Lord of the Treasury would set down first on the list because it would have been more regular that I should have given Notice in reference to that Order. But I found that the Government intended to take shelter behind a Standing Order. The right hon. Gentleman placed the following Orders on the Paper :-First, "the Mines (Coal) Regulation Bill-Committee." Then the "Metalliferous Mines Regulation Bill-Committee;" "Local Government Board (Ireland) Salaries Bill-Committee;" and fourth, the Committee on another Irish Bill. Now, by the Standing Orders of the House, no Question can be put upon the Motion for you, Sir, leaving the Chair, that the House may proceed with the Committee on a Bill; and therefore by this arrangement of the Government-by their having put down no less than four Bills for progress in Committee-they have brought a Standing Order across the path that I intended to pursue. That is the action of the Government on the matter. Sir, in answer to a previous Question that I put to you, you were good enough to state to the House that the precedence of Government Orders of the Day at Morning Sittings does not rest upon any Standing Order, or upon any Resolution of the House, but had been determined in accordance with the practice of the House-by the decisions given by your predecessor in the Chair in 1851. I have looked at that ruling. It appears that it was given in reply to a Question of Mr. Frewen's, and that at that time the House did not meet at 2 o'clock, but that when there were Morning Sittings it met at 12 o'clock. It met at 12 o'clock, and sat till 4 o'clock. The Sitting was then suspended till 6 o'clock, when Business was resumed. Well, the difference between those hours of meeting makes a vast difference in regard to the opportunities available to non-official Members for bringing forward their Bills and Motions. Under the former arrangement, when the House met at noon, rose at 4 o'clock, and resumed at 6, they would have six hours and a-half-from 6 o'clock till half-past 12 o'clock. But now that the Morning Sittings begin at 2 o'clock, and last till 7 o'clock, and that the House does not resume its Sitting till 9 o'clock, there are only three hours and a-half-until VOL. CCXII. [THIRD SERIES.] official Members can make use; because, by the recent Resolution of the House, measures of which Notice of Opposition has been given, cannot be taken after half-past 12 o'clock at night. I may also remind you, Sir, that, in answer to me, you decided that if an Opposed Order comes on after half-past 12 o'clock, and if any objection be taken to the day, to which the hon. Member in charge of it proposes to postpone it, the objection will be valid, and the Order must be adjourned to the next day, or become a dropped Order. The Bill, in fact, would stand in the position of a dropped Order. Well, Sir, it is obvious that this process of objecting to postponements may go on ad infinitum, and that any single Member of the House, if an Opposed Bill comes on after half-past 12 o'clock, can, by merely objecting, adjourn that Order as often as it comes on. It certainly seems to me that the continuation of these Standing Orders, Rules, and Practice of the House, as at present applied and interpreted, inflict practical incapacity upon the great body of the House-upon the great body of the nonofficial Members; because, if any one of them is in charge of an Opposed Bill at this period of the Session-crowded as the Notice Paper is-it becomes practically impossible for him to secure an opportunity of submitting it to the House. Thus, the reason for the course I propose to adopt-namely, to dispute the right of precedence hitherto given Government Orders of the Day at our Morning Sittings, is because the ruling according to which you, Sir, have decided and, I know, decided correctly-was a ruling given under a totally different state of the Orders of the House, and at a time when the Morning Sittings began two hours sooner than now, and when the Evening Sitting extended from 6 o'clock until the rising of the House. I am anxious that this curtailment of the hours at the disposal of private Members should be brought clearly to the apprehension of the House; because if you, Sir, inform me that there will be nothing irregular in my moving the second reading of one Bill-in substitution for the second reading of another Bill or in substitution of the third reading of another Bill-at the 2 o'clock Sittings of the House, it is my intention to renew my Notice, and, if ever 2 A |