Perhaps, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to ask him on this occasion whether he has yet made up his mind as to the day on which he proposes to make a statement as to the position of Foreign Affairs. He promised that either to day or to-morrow he would mention the precise time when he should be ready to do so. I may, perhaps, also take the liberty of asking if the Government have seen their way more clearly as to the precise time at which the dissolution of Parliament will take place, and whether prorogation and the dissolution will take place on the same day, or whether the dissolution will take place the day after the prorogation, and if not, whether a considerable interval, and what interval, will be suffered to elapse between the prorogation and the dissolution?

I propose to make a statement respecting the position of Foreign Affairs on Friday, as I think it will be most convenient that that day should be fixed for the discussion. With respect to the dissolution, and that "considerable period" which the noble Lord seems to apprehend that I said should take place, I beg to say that there never was any intention that a "considerable period" should take place between the prorogation and the dissolution. I anticipate that the prorogation may take place upon the Tuesday in next week; the dissolution certainly will not take place the same night, but as soon afterwards as we think consistent with that decorum which should be observed with regard to the period at which the prorogation will take place.

I rise in consequence of the enigmatical answer of the right hon. Gentleman. For the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to be more explicit, and to state whether, assuming that the prorogation should take place on the Tuesday, it is the intention of the Government to advise that the dissolution should take place before Good Friday, to which day, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to decorum has reference. No person of course could wish the dissolution to take place on Good Friday, but I would wish to know whether there is any reason why it should not take place before that day, say on Wednesday or Thursday.

I must say, in explanation, that the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misconception in supposing that there is any wish on the part of the Government for the dissolution not to take place as soon as possible. As far as I can form an opinion from the accounts which reach us as to the results of the coming dissolution, I see no cause for that rabid heat which animates the right hon. Gentleman. ["Oh, oh?"] I think it was a proper observation. I must decline doing that which no person in my position has been called on to do—to fix the very day on which the dissolution should take place; but it will take place as soon as seems proper after the prorogation, and probably, as we are at present advised, in the course of Passion Week. No one in my position has been called on to name the day in such a case, and I think no person holding my position ought to take upon himself the responsibility of mentioning the precise day. There is no wish, however, on the part of the Government to delay the dissolution beyond the times which on the whole they recognize as a proper interval after the prorogation.

said, he wished to ask whether this was merely a continuance Bill. A most important clause relating to savings' banks had been inserted in a continuance Bill a day or two before.

said, this was a more continuance Bill.

said, he wished to state with reference to the clause alluded to by the hon. Member, that during the last twelve months institutions called Penny Savings' Banks had been very generally adopted, but as the law now stood such institutions could not invest their funds beyond the limit of £200 in ordinary Savings' Banks. The Government had, however, proposed such alterations in the existing law as would place the Penny Savings' Banks in this respect upon the same footing with Friendly Societies and other similar institutions. He was informed that the clause was much required and had inserted it under the belief that no objection was felt to it.

said, that as this was a Bill referring to the Navy, he hoped he should be in order in calling attention to the subject which he wished to bring before the House, relating to Greenwich Hospital. It appeared from the Report on the Manning of the Navy, that there were now a great number of vacancies in that establishment—no less than 960—which was sufficient to show that it was not popular with the navy, and that it did not give the satisfaction desirable to those for whom it was intended. He would not enter into matters of detail, but he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what measures the Government were prepared to take to place that noble establishment, which ought to be to them a subject of pride, on a better footing.

said, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had given no notice of his question, he could only give him a general answer. The report to which he had alluded contained a great deal of matter, and undoubtedly the representations with reference to Greenwich Hospital were not the least important points to which it referred. It was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the condition of that noble institution, with the view of ascertaining whether any, and what, changes were necessary to increase its efficiency.

said, he did not know whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been called to the language of this clause. In his opinion the offences to which it referred were defined in very vague and general terms, and every person who entered a railway train with a return ticket would be liable at any period of his journey, under the loose wording, to be apprehended and imprisoned by officers of railway companies. He would move as an Amendment to the clause that any railway company should issue any ticket for the purpose of being used by any person named thereon, with the words "not transferable," and that any other person who should use such ticket, or should sell or transfer it for the purpose of being used, or should alter the name thereon, should be guilty of the offence. It would be most improper to clothe a railway company with so large a power as was proposed, and allow their servants to seize any poor person travelling on the line and lock him up as they pleased, especially when it was remembered that a person thus treated would have no redress, unless he could show that the company had no reasonable ground for seizing him.

said, that undoubtedly the words of the Act were very wide, but the simple fact was that the offence of selling railway tickets had recently been one of continual recurrence, and it had been thought necessary that some precautions should be taken to protect the railway companies. At the same time it was very desirable they should not go beyond what the justice of the case demanded. Perhaps the best course would be for the hon. Member to give notice of and print his Amendments. If that were done, the Government would consent to postpone the Committee until to-morrow, in order to consider the substitution of the words proposed.

said, there appeared to be a power given, not only to the officials and servants of a railway company, but to all other persons, "to seize, apprehend, and detain." That was a very extensive and extraordinary power, and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would consider the point with a view to its omission.

said, he would appeal to the Government whether it was necessary that the Bill should pass at all, it haying been understood that only measures of an urgent nature should be pressed.

said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General could hardly have seen the provisions of this Bill. It was true that in one case it was discovered that a number of persons had conspired to procure excursion tickets at Brighton from persons who had gone down with them from London, for the purpose of selling them to others; but the case having been distinctly proved, the parties were very properly convicted and punished. If this Bill passed, however, a person who had innocently enough given his child, or relative, or servant, an excursion ticket would be liable to be seized and taken before a magistrate, and his name, probably, placarded all over the country, in the same manner as the names of parties who smoked in the railway carriages were. He certainly thought it would be advisable under the circumstances to withdraw the measure.

said, the clause went further even than the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) supposed. It empowered any railway servant or constable, or anybody else, to apprehend anybody charged with this offence at any time or in any place. Surely no one but a person connected with a railway could have drawn such a clause. Ordinarily, power was only given to seize anybody actually committing such offences, but railway companies under this clause might send a constable, fetch anybody out of this House, and lock him up as long as was convenient. There was certainly nothing in the Statute-book which could at all come near it. He trusted that the Bill would be amended in that respect, at all events.

said, he must agree that the terms of the Act were certainly very large, but it must be remembered the provisions by which the railway companies were to be guarded were the very same as those inserted in the 104th section of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. Of course, if the Committee thought the Bill had better be postponed, for the consideration of the clause of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he should have no objection to the postponement.

said, that in the Act referred to the offences dealt with were offences committed on the line of railway; but in the present instance the offence might be committed anywhere, because a railway ticket could he given away in any locality. As this was a Bill which had come down from the other House of Parliament he wished to treat it with every respect, but under the circumstances he felt he should be justified in asking the Chairman to report progress, in order to enable the Government to consider whether it would not be advisable to withdraw it.

said, he objected both to the power and the penalty created by this clause. Was the principle to be carried further? Were gentlemen to be made responsible who gave away the tickets on coming out of the Opera? The proper course to deal with persons offending in this way was to compel them to pay full fare, or in default to hand them over to a constable. He was surprised that a measure so lax in its provisions should ever have passed "another place."

said, that he thought the history of this Bill was not clearly understood. What had taken place was this:—Several lines of railway had year after year given the public greater facilities for travelling, in the shape of return and excursion tickets, and it was very evident that they must discontinue that kind of accommodation if it became a source of loss to them from the manner in which parties dealt with the tickets. Under these circumstances, one or two railway companies who came to Parliament this year inserted clauses in their Bills for the purpose of checking the improper use of these tickets; but it was objected by the noble Lord who had charge of such Bills in "another place," that as the matter was one which concerned the public generally it ought to form the subject of a general measure, and accordingly this Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets that it was impossible on any sound principle to allow any power of the kind asked for, except in cases where the tickets were marked on the back as not transferable. A party getting hold of a ticket so marked second-hand would at once know that he would be making an improper use of the ticket if he attempted to travel with it. He was therefore inclined to concur in any alteration which should confine this clause to tickets marked "not transferable;" but he thought if they went further and insisted upon having the name of the holder inscribed, it would be tantamount to saying that no excursion tickets should be issued by railway companies at all. As to the powers of apprehension, he admitted they were much too wide; but it must be remembered that, unless they gave the railway officials some power of immediate action, so as to enable them to stop a person on the spot, they would have but little chance of checking the abuse complained of. Under these circumstances he thought, after making an alteration confining the clause to cases of tickets "not transferable," and in some degree curtailing the larger powers which were given by the latter part of the provision, that it would even be for the interest of the public, as well as the railway companies, the Bill should pass without any further delay. With that view he quite concurred in the proposal to report progress, in order that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets might be considered.

said, the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to him to render it desirable that the Bill should not pass into law this Session. For any accommodation given by the railway companies to the public they largely consulted their own interests. By this Bill, however, if a person picked the pocket of another of an excursion ticket, the original holder, who was entirely innocent, would be liable to punishment. This was certainly not consulting the interest of the public. He thought the Bill ought not be allowed to go a step further.

said, it was no doubt extremely desirable that the frauds complained of should, as far as possible, be prevented, and the offenders punished. He could not, however, help thinking that great difficulty would be experienced in proceeding in the matter as was proposed. Two or three hundred persons, for instance, might take return tickets to Brighton or any other place on the Saturday. James Thompson, or any other person, might re- turn on the following Monday, and might or might not be the same individual who procured the ticket at London Bridge on Saturday morning. How, he should like to know, were the railway officers to be able to identify him? Great inconvenience and uncertainty would, in his opinion, be the result of the passing of the clause in its present shape, and it ought therefore, he thought, to be amended and due notice given of such alterations as it was proposed to introduce into it. Let him take, for instance, the case of theatres. A person on leaving a theatre during the performance received a cheque which entitled him to readmission if he pleased to return; was there any law in existence, he should wish to be informed, which precluded the occurrence of frauds in that respect? For his own part, he believed that although the principle of the Bill was right in the abstract, yet it could not be carried out without considerable annoyance, and that being his view of the case he should prefer seeing the remedy for the frauds which were said to exist left in the hands of the parties immediately interested.

said, railway tickets were issued generally to bearer, and not to any particular person, and, consequently, there could be no identity of any person. The railways were left free. They were not bonnd to do anything, or give notice of anything. He hoped the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill would review the clauses of it from beginning to the end.

was of opinion that if the offences against which it was meant to provide were not of common occurrence, it was better that the risk of their being committed should be allowed to continue than that it should be sought to prevent them in the manner proposed. The case of theatres, which had been adverted to by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, he did not think at all analogous to that of railway companies, and he was informed that it was a constant practice for persons to take return tickets to Brighton and there sell them at a cheap rate, thereby defrauding the company to a considerable extent. If that were so, then Parliament was bound to make some provision against such frauds being committed. While these were his views on the subject, however, he could not regard the Bill under discussion as having been drawn up in a satisfactory manner, inasmuch as he concurred with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that un- der its operation, as it at present stood, anybody might seize on his neighbour, even at his own dinner table, on the charge of having committed a fraud.

said, he thought it was the duty of the House to protect railway companies from being defrauded. At the same time a Bill of this kind ought not to be forced through the House in such baste. The Bill was so closely worded that even in the interest of the companies themselves the noble Lord would do well not to persevere with it. In his opinion some means should be provided for dealing with cases summarily, so that persons should not be locked up all night.

said, the reason why the Bill had been introduced was on account of the frequent occurrence of the frauds it was intended to check, and he could not help remarking that a person accused of this offence would be in a similar position to any other person who was accused of an offence; it would be open to him to prove his innocence before a magistrate. As, however, it was certainly understood that no measures would be proceeded with except such as were of a pressing character, he thought it was inexpedient for him, under the circumstances, to proceed any further with this Bill. He would therefore consent to the right hon. Gentleman leaving the chair.

withdrew his Amendment.