and he distinctly said he would take it | promoters had been singularly unjust in on Monday. certain clauses to the manufacturers. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, of course, where there was any misunderstanding as to an arrangement, it was far better to take an ad MR. SCLATER-BOOTH begged to explain. The Bill stood for last evening. He was asked about it early in the day, and he said he was afraid from the opposition to it that it would be im-journment. possible to take it before Monday, but that he had not given up all hope of taking it that evening. SIR HENRY JAMES asked, whether the natural inference from those words was not that the Bill would not be taken this evening? He knew many Members, including his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who desired to speak on the Bill, had gone away, and if the second reading were pressed on, the only effect would be to create a feeling that a promise had been broken, and so to prevent its further progress. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Sir Henry James.) MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he could not resist the Motion, if it were pressed; but he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman was the only Member in the House who desired the adjournment. His answer was not reported, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was not present when the answer was given, he could not be prejudiced. MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON said, he was in the House at the time the answer was given; but, as he did not catch its purport, he spoke to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) afterwards, and certainly understood from him that he would bring on the measure that (Friday) night, if he could. He thought it would be very inconvenient to delay the Bill, and to waste the time of hon. Members who had come down to support the second reading. MR. LOWTHIAN BELL could not tell, of course, what took place between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the last speaker privately; but immediately after hearing the answer given on the previous evening, he went into the Lobby and told half-a-dozen gentlemen, manufacturers and others, that the Bill would not come on before Monday, and they consequently went away. As a whole, he liked the Bill, although its Sir Henry James Question put, and agreed to. Debate adjourned till Monday next. WORMWOOD SCRUBS REGULATION (Colonel Lindsay, Mr. Secretary Stanley, Lord Order read, for resuming Adjourned Question again proposed. Question put, and agreed to. Mr. GORDON, Colonel KINGSCOTE, and Colonel LOYD LINDSAY nominated other Members of the Committee. MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (Dr. Lush, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Sir Joseph SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [12th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time." And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months."-(Mr. Serjeant Simon.) word 'now' stand part of the QuesQuestion again proposed, "That the tion." Debate resumed. Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL-[BILL 88.J (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Adoocate General.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, resolve itself 10th or the 11th of June was the time at which these Morning Sittings should begin. Within the last four or five years there were two years, in each of which there had certainly been either three or four Morning Sittings - he could not pledge himself to the exact number-in either the months of April or May. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 92; Noes into the said Committee."-(Colonel 15: Majority 77.-(Div. List, No. 100.) Stanley.) SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he had no intention of detaining the House, but it had always been the effort of the Opposition to keep the Government to an understanding as to when Morning Sittings should commence. The rule always had been that they should not commence regularly before the 10th or 12th of June, and for two years the first Morning Sitting was on the 19th of June. There had sometimes been exceptional Morning Sittings, one in March and one in April, but these were always regarded as purely exceptional. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, he saw, shook his head; but on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) went very carefully into the figures, and prepared a tabulated statement which was reported in Hansard. The Government, he thought, would hardly deny that they were taking more Morning Sittings, and taking them oftener, than ever was the case before. That day made the third, another was fixed for Tuesday, and he was certain that was the earliest period at which they had ever got into them regularly. Previously, any Morning Sittings before June were always defended on the ground that they were exceptional. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a Morning Sitting some weeks. ago, he told them it was exceptional; but he only missed one Tuesday, and they had had them ever since. If Government insisted, of course, it was useless to object; but he certainly should divide the House by way of protest. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he also wished formally to enter his protest against the idea that the able for the term of thirty-five years, to be computed from the first of the said days which shall next happen after the advance in respect of which the rent-charge shall be charged, such rent-charge to be paid by equal halfyearly payments on the fifth day of April and the tenth day of October in every year, the first of such payments to be made on the second of such days which shall happen next after the issue of any such advance in respect of which the rent-charge shall be charged;" and in page 3, line 30, after "annual," leave out sum," and insert "rentcharge;" said, if his proposal were adopted it would bring the Bill into harmony with the Public Works Loans Bill. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words, subject to the understanding that he reserved to himself the right to make the Public Works Loans Bill now before Parliament apply, if necessary, to this Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next. LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 25.] (Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Rodwell.) SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [17th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time." And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months."-(Sir Harcourt Johnstone.) Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." SIR CHARLES W. DILKE drew attention to the fact that it was after half-past] 12 o'clock, and contended that the Order, being opposed, could not be taken. Mr. Bruen HOUSE present Session to amend "The Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865." Resolution to be reported upon Monday next. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HIGHWAYS) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (DORSET, &C.) BILL. On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878," relating to the Counties of Dorset, Montgomery, Northampton, Salop, Wilts, and York (East Riding), ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.] OF LORDS, THE EARL OF MORLEY: I rise to SIONAL ORDERS (GLOUCESTER AND HERE- ask the noble Marquess opposite (the FORD) BILL. On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878," relating to the Counties of Gloucester and Hereford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 185.] TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. On Motion of Mr. JOHN G. TALBOT, Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Bristol Tramways (Extensions), Briton Ferry and Swansea Tramways, Burnley and District Tramways, Chesterfield, Brampton, and Whittington Tramways, Crewe and District Tramways, Derby Tramways, Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways (Extension), Ipswich Tramways, Leamington and Warwick Tramways, Liverpool Corporation Tramways, Newcastle upon Tyne Tramways; North London Suburban Tramways, Oxford Tramways, Staffordshire Tramways, Stoke upon Trent, Fenton, Longton, and District Tramways, Sunderland Corporation Tramways, Sunderland Tramways (Extension), Swansea Tramways (Extension), Tynemouth and District Tramways, Wigan Tramways, York Tramways; and for empowering the Board of Trade to grant licences for the use for limited periods, by way of experiment, of steam or mechanical power upon Tramways in certain cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN G. TALBOT and Viscount SANDON. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.] House adjourned at a quarter No Marquess of Salisbury) a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, Whether the telegram which appeared in The Daily News on Saturday last, purporting to give the terms of M. Waddington's Circular with regard to the negotiations on the subject of the Greek Frontier, is correct? If the text as thus printed in extenso is correct, I hope the noble Marquess will have no objection to lay it on the Table of the House. The noble Marquess may object, that during the progress of negotiations on a question of this importance, it is undesirable to lay any Papers on the Table. I admit the force of that objection, but, at the same time, it seems to me that if the Circular can be given to the public, the House, too, is entitled to have it before it in an official and authentic form. doubt, this question of the Greek Frontier is exciting considerable and increasing interest in this country and in Europe. There is some apprehension, that while Her Majesty's Government have been recommending the exercise of patience and forbearance to Greeks, they are themselves somewhat lukewarm in regard to negotiations based on the 24th Article of the Treaty of Berlin; and I venture to say, without going any further, it would be of importance if the position of England in regard to the matter were clearly understood. If the noble Marquess could lay this and other Papers on the Table, giving information as to the course these negotiations are taking, he would, I think, satisfy a not unnatural desire for information, and allay no inconsiderable anxiety. the on the 16th of May, I will at once encounter that objection to the Notice. No doubt, the topic was alluded to by those who mixed in the debate, and anyone who rose might feel at liberty to mention it. But in so vast an issue as the merit or demerit of the Government in all their European and Asiatic policy, to fix upon it the attention of the House, would scarcely have been possible. But even if it was possible, according to the view which guides me, the object of the Notice would not have been compassed. My Lords, ever since the Treaty of Ber THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I were to go so far as to criticize the course taken by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley), what I should object to would be asking whether a document, not produced, was or was not accurately represented in some newspaper. As there is no secret in the present case, I may venture to indicate generally that the Circular, as published, is correct. But if the document was a document that could not be produced, and was inaccurately represented in a newspaper, a Minister could not say that it was accurately represented. If he said it was in-lin, there has been no greater matter of accurately represented, and it turned out that the inaccuracy, in the view of the questioner, was not a matter of great importance, the Minister would be accused of practising concealment. Therefore, I should venture to say that, if a Paper cannot be produced in its entirety, it is better not to answer any Question In the present case that point does not arise, although, undoubtedly, the rule with regard to pending negotiations would justify us in withholding it. I propose to lay shortly on the Table Papers which will give the required information. MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE. LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to Article 22 of the Treaty of Berlin, as it relates to the period during which the occupation of Bulgaria and East Roumelia was sanctioned; and to move for the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and other Powers on the subject, said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend whose Question stood first (Lord Stanley of Alderley), I am called on to address you. As it may be thought that comments on the 22nd Article in the Treaty of Berlin might have been offered to the House solicitude, to those who reason justly on |