people with the absolute necessity of the cloture. So far as the future Tuesdays of the Session were concerned, he had a special interest in Tuesday, the 2nd of May, seeing that a Motion in his name stood first on the Paper. The second Motion on the Paper was one by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), who desired to raise the important question of addressing Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent to the Statutes proposed by the University of Oxford Commissioners for Jesus College. His (Sir John Hay's) Motion was even of greater importance, and he had very little doubt that he should be able to get a quorum, even if he were compelled to put it off until 9 o'clock. It was as follows:"That the detention of large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects in solitary confinement, without cause assigned, and without trial, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, and that, to enable them to be brought to trial, jury trials should, for a limited time (in Ireland), and in regard to crimes of a well-defined character, be replaced by some form of trial less

liable to abuse."

He might almost suppose that Her Majesty's Government did not wish to have that question discussed, and that they intended, if possible, to prevent its discussion. He had, however, been promised so much support that he trusted, even if it were deferred until 9 o'clock, that he should obtain a fair hearing, and that the question would be duly considered. His own opinion was that the Government ought to be anxious to give facilities for the discussion of such a question rather than endeavour to defeat it by a side wind. At the present moment, and in the present state of Ireland, there could be no more important question for consideration than that of the persons who had been so long detained without trial.

MR. DILLWYN remarked, that hon. Members opposite professed great zeal for the rights of private Members, and called upon Members on the Liberal side of the House to participate in their feeling; but he did not think their zeal was quite pure in the matter. The hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) mentioned the case of several Members who had been shut out and prevented, by the counting out of the House, from bringing on their Motions; but towards the end of his speech the hon. Member let the cat out of the bag, and showed

that the real desire on the part of hon. Members opposite was to stop any Government Business from being transacted at all. The hon. Member said that the measures introduced by the Government had been so objectionable in their character and so dangerous that he wished to see them stopped altogether, and that was the reason of his opposition to the present proposal. ["No!"] At all events, the hon. Member gave that as his own reason for the Amendment he moved; and he (Mr. Dillwyn) had no doubt that that reason was the very reason which would commend the Motion of the noble Marquess to the votes of hon. Members who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House.

MR. HEALY said, he should like to say why he had not the smallest objection to the Government taking a Morning Sitting on Tuesday; but why he should view with some anxiety any proposition to give up all private Members' nights to them for Morning Sittings. As yet the Government had given no indication of what their policy in regard to Ireland was to be; and if Morning Sittings were to be used for the purpose of passing a Coercion Bill for Ireland, he should give to the proposal the most strenuous opposition in his power. He would remind the House that Her Majesty's Ministers were already pledged with regard to a variety of measures, not one of which had as yet seen the light. One of these measures was for the extension of Municipal Government, others for Grand Jury Reform, Poor Law Reform, Bankruptcy, the Repression of Corrupt Practices at Elections, the Conservancy of Rivers and Prevention of Floods, the Codification of the Criminal Law, the amendment of the Laws affecting Patents, and the establishment of a Peasant Proprietary. Upon five of these subjects the Government stood positively pledged to introduce reforms, and in regard to three of them the pledge was given in the Queen's Speech. Not one of these Bills, nor, indeed, not a Bill upon any subject whatever, had been printed. Under these circumstances, until the Government showed their hand, it was not to be expected that the House would tacitly give up all its privileges, and enable Ministers to appropriate the whole of private Members' days to Morning Sittings. He thought the House should be fairly informed what

the programme of the Government was, and what the measures were which they desired to carry out. He strongly objected to take any step in the dark, and he would strenuously resist any proposition to give continuous Morning Sittings to the Government until they stated the way in which they proposed to arrange their Business, and the use to which they intended to put the Morning Sittings. At the same time, he had no objection to give up next Tuesday. He was not about to enter any protest against the counting out of the House, for he had on several occasions approved the Speaker's attention being called to the fact that 40 Members were not present; and he should ever be willing to support a Motion to that effect. It had always appeared to him an extraordinary thing that millions of money should be voted when but a small number of Members were present; and he was inclined, on a future occasion, to move that the number required to form a quorum should be enlarged.

MR. R. N. FOWLER said, he would remind the noble Marquess that there were some very important Motions upon the Paper for next Tuesday. Amongst those was the Motion of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. R. T. Reid), which excited a great deal of public interest, and which so large a number of Members of that House were pledged to support; and also that of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), which, if the House met at 9, would, no doubt, occupy it until halfpast 12 o'clock. The effect of the Government proposal to take Tuesday as a Morning Sitting, for the purpose of interposing another Motion, would probably be that the hon. Member for Hereford would have no chance of bringing on his Motion in regard to the Deceased Wife's Sister. If that were so, the responsibility would rest with the noble Marquess.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE said, as the Government proposed to ask for a Morning Sitting, not only on Tuesday next, but on every Tuesday during the Session, hon. Members would be glad to understand that the Government would give timely Notice of their Motions on that subject, so that their proposals might be adequately discussed.

MR. O'DONNELL said, he thought it was not a fair argument to say that

But

private Members had a very slight appreciation of their rights, because they did not keep a House on Tuesdays. The fact was that private Members had no corporate interest in any particular Motion. Before the House could take any interest in private Motions it was necessary that they should be laid before it, and when this had been done it would be an easy matter to keep a House on a future occasion. However important the question raised might be, unless this were done only five or six Members might know anything about it. The difficulty was that Motions had often to be introduced on the responsibility of a Member who had not made his position in the House; and in that case, unless the Government contributed to the keeping of a House, the Member, whose Motion might raise a question of great public importance, did not even obtain the opportunity of laying it before the House. Again, it was impossible to keep a House for private Members unless the Government accepted the responsibility of so doing, because there was scarcely any private Motion which would have more than a dozen backers. he regretted to see that the occupants of the Front Benches were acting upon the principle that they had no responsibility towards private Members in this respect. He felt convinced that if this policy were pursued, a great many private Members would feel themselves relieved from their responsibility to the Government on the Government nights; and he could strongly corroborate the statement made by an hon. Member that evening, that, as surely as the Government prevented private Members bringing forward their Motions on legitimate occasions, the illegitimate occasions which would be availed of would multiply. It was neither in the purview of the proposed New Rules nor in that of the Rules now existing to prevent illegitimate occasions arrising; and the Government of the day would therefore do well to take great care that the Business on Tuesdays, up to 12 o'clock, should not be interrupted by "counts." He could quite understand the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench not wishing to throw stones at the Government about the matter of not keeping a House on Tuesdays, for both Parties appeared to be in permanent conspiracy against non-official Members in this respect. As

he had before pointed out, the result of the present practice would be to increase the temptation to new Members to take illegitimate, if they could not find legitimate, opportunities of bringing forward their Motions.

MR. CHILDERS said, there was no intention on the part of the Government to move any general Resolution with respect to Morning Sittings on Tuesdays, as the noble Lord the Member for South Wiltshire (Viscount Folkestone) seemed to suppose. The usual course was to move to put a Bill down for Tuesday, and to intimate that from that time there would be Morning Sittings on the following Tuesdays. His noble Friend had been very careful to explain that the Government would be quite willing that not the morning alone, but even the whole of any particular Tuesday, if within the control of the Government, should be given up for the discussion of any subject of adequate import

ance.

EARL PERCY asked if hon. Members were to understand that the Government practically intended to take all the Tuesdays during the Session for Morning Sittings, because, as far as he was aware, that was certainly not the impression which the House had derived from the statement of the noble Marquess.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, that he and other Members, on a previous Tuesday, had inferred that there would be no "count out" from the fact that the Government had placed a Notice on the Paper relating to the Committee of Public Accounts. He pointed out that if private Members were deprived of the opportunities for bringing forward their Motions, which were accorded to them by the Rules of the House, they would be under the necessity of taking such care as they could of their own interest. There was an important Motion, of which he had given Notice, that he should have been glad to bring on if he could get the opportunity for doing so on Tuesday; but now that the Government were about to take Tuesdays for Morning Sittings this was no longer possible. He was, therefore, driven to the necessity of infringing upon one of the Government days; and, accordingly, he had given Notice that he should move the Resolution he had referred to on the next Government day

that was to say, the following Monday, on the Motion for going into Committee of Ways and Means.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR said, it was clear that the noble Lord had unintentionally conveyed a false impression to the House in his statement of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Morning Sittings on Tuesdays; because the statement he made had been entirely contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the whole of the remaining Tuesdays throughout the Session would be taken for Morning Sittings, whereas the noble Lord gave the House to understand that the proposal was an isolated one and referred to next Tuesday only.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I gave Notice yesterday that I should propose Morning Sittings on Tuesday next, and on succeeding Tuesdays.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR said, he was aware of that. Their complaint was, however, that the speech which the noble Lord made that evening had altered the impression which many hon. Members had, who came down for the purpose of preventing the Government getting next Tuesday and succeeding Tuesdays during the Session, their opposition having been mitigated by their belief, derived from the noble Lord's statement, that the Government only intended to take next Tuesday for the purpose of a Morning Sitting. They now found that it was the intention to take all succeeding Tuesdays.

Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 100; Noes 50: Majority 50.-(Div. List, No. 70.)

Main Question proposed.

SIR JOHN HAY asked for a distinct intimation from the noble Marquess as to when the Government would propose to take the remaining Tuesdays; and when they would propose to take Tuesday, the 2nd of May, because he had an important Notice down for that day respecting the imprisoned Irish "suspects."

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, if the right hon. and gallant Baronet would put down the Question on the Paper, he would answer it on Monday.

EARL PERCY said, he considered the reply of the noble Marquess to be so unsatisfactory that he felt bound to move the adjournment of the debate. VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Earl Percy.)

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, he would undertake that the Government would not attempt to fix a Morning Sitting for next Tuesday week until next Thursday.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Committee deferred till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that Her Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Earl of Cork and Orrery Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Earl of Redesdale; the Earl of Lathom Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Redesdale, and the Earl of Cork and Orrery; the Viscount Hawarden Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord

Chancellor, the Earl of Redesdale, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, and the Earl of Lathom; and the Lord Monson Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Redesdale, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Earl of Lathom, and the Viscount Hawarden: The said Commissions were read.

"I HAVE received with sincere pleasure your loyal and dutiful Address.

"The assurance of your lively interest in the intended marriage of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, is most gratifying to me, and I share with you the confident hope that, under the blessing of God, this event may be an additional source of happiness to my Family and also to my People."

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 (SEC. TION 8, SUB-SECTION 9)—CASE OF "ADAMS v. DUNSEATH."

QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to call attention to a statement of the Prime Minister relating to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Adams v. Dunseath; and to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose any legis lation in reference to the Irish Land Act of 1881 ? said, the statement was one which involved most complicated issues. It had to do with that portion of the Land Act which dealt with the vexed question of the relative value to landlord and tenant of improvements.