asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state to the House the exact nature of a County Military Depôt Centre; how many battalions of the line, if any, are intended to be quartered at one time in each Centre; and, if these Depôt Centres are merely for the purpose of training recruits, afterwards to be drafted into the regiments of their respective Counties at such places, either at home or abroad, where they may happen to be stationed?

Sir, the exact nature of a county military depôt centre is stated fully in the Report of General M'Dougall's Committee, which has been laid upon the Table. Detailed particulars are given in Appendix H. Speaking generally, it is to be the military head-quarters of a brigade district. The brigade will consist of two battalions of the Line, two of Militia, and the Volunteers within the district. The depôt battalion will be localized there, and the permanent Staff of the Militia, and, as far as convenience will admit, that of the Volunteers. The recruits, both for the Line and Militia, will be trained there. The station will be made available, as far as convenience will admit, for the training of the Volunteers. Officers of Militia and Volunteers will obtain instruction there, and the arms of the Militia, and, so far as convenience may admit, of the Volunteers, will be stored there. Of the two other regular battalions of the brigade, one will be abroad and the other quartered in the United Kingdom wherever the public service may require, whether in its own district or elsewhere.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is prepared to state to the House the substance of any Correspondence with the Government of France on the continued deportation of political prisoners to this Country; and, whether, seeing that batches of these unfortunate persons continue to arrive in a state of absolute destitution, the Government of France cannot be made responsible for their temporary maintenance?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have been and are still in active correspondence with the French Government on the subject of the deportation of political prisoners to this country, and I can assure the hon. Member and the House that there shall be no unnecessary delay in laying the Correspondence before Parliament. I am not at present in a position to reply to the latter portion of the hon. Gentleman's Question.

Sir, before making the inquiry of Her Majesty's Government which I have placed on the Paper in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, I desire, with the permission of the House, to make a remark explanatory of the reasons which induce me to put it. These are critical times and circumstances, and I do not wish that my motives should be in any way misapprehended. I do not call in question in any degree the ancient and salutary Prerogative of the Crown as regards the negotiation of treaties; but every rule has some exception, and the application of a principle must be influenced, to a certain extent, by circumstances. This consideration applies to the present ease, because, from the first, Parliament generally, has been associated with the negotiations carried on with the United States. The House will remember that when Her Majesty was advised to commence these negotiations, now a long time ago, Her Ma- jesty, to a certain degree, called Parliament to her Councils. The negotiations were not entrusted merely to the Representative of this country at Washington, but a High Commission was appointed, and the most important Members of that Commission were selected from both Houses of Parliament. I put this Question also because, as the House must have observed, a new mode of conducting negotiations has been introduced in connection with this matter. I refer to the mode of proceeding by "understanding," and not by precise expression, which has hitherto been the mode approved by those who have engaged in the diplomatic office. This being on my mind, and the new method of proceeding by "understanding" being one which has not succeeded, and which ought to be arrested in its course, I do not see in what manner I could better achieve my object than by asking the right hon. Gentleman to advise the Crown that the control of Parliament should be exercised, to a certain degree, over these negotiations. I therefore think it my duty to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit the Terms of the Supplementary Treaty with the Government of the United States to the consideration of Parliament previous to its ratification?

Sir, the Question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman really requires no apology whatever; but the reasons given for it are such that I must be understood to reserve my liberty to demur to them. The right hon. Gentleman says—and says truly—that this case is in a great degree exceptional. One of his reasons for regarding it as exceptional is that a new mode of conducting negotiations—namely, by "understanding"—has been introduced, and he thinks it necessary that a check should be put on that mode of proceeding. It is obviously quite impossible for the Government to give any information to Parliament, if the reasons put forward by the right hon. Gentleman for so doing are the only reasons which can be advanced in support of such a course, because his reason amounts to this—that the proceedings of the Government have been such that it is impossible safely to entrust them with the ordinary discretion exercised by the Executive Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman must see that, however much that reason may weigh in his own mind, it cannot possibly have any force with us; and, indeed, it must operate precisely in the opposite direction. The House will do me this justice—that I have never defended the position of the British Government with regard to the Treaty of Washington on the ground of "understanding." Indeed, I have been much blamed for declining to do so. I have said that we had a perfect right to speak of our intentions; but I have always contended that it was a great mistake to place the argument on the basis of "understanding." That is not a matter which it is proper to enter upon now, and I will therefore address myself to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not suppose for a moment that I wished to find fault with his putting the Question yesterday. I wished him to put the Question on the Paper that I might answer him with perfect accuracy, instead of trusting to my memory, which is often apt to be treacherous. I was desirous of having an opportunity of referring to what had occurred upon a previous occasion. This is not a new transaction; it is the completion of an old one, and my memory impressed me with the belief that the rules which we had adopted last year were perfectly applicable to the present case. What I have now to say is an answer to the Question put to me yesterday by the right hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Horsman) as well as to the right hon. Gentleman. I was asked last year with regard to the Treaty of Washington a similar question, and I find I am reported to have answered as follows:—

"I am not able, Sir, to name the particular day of the arrival of the Treaty, of which we have not received a final Copy. When it does arrive, however, it will be immediately presented to Parliament. We shall, in this instance, depart from the general rule, and present the Treaty to Parliament, without waiting for its ratification, on account of special circumstances. Among these I may mention that the Treaty has been prematurely made known in America—by prematurely I mean contrary to the intentions of the Executive Government."

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury the Question I have put on the Paper, in consequence of the answer I received yesterday from the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)—namely, Whether the British Commissioners at Washington did communicate to the British Government that they had come to an understanding with the American Commissioners, and that a promise had been given by the latter that the Indirect Claims growing out of the acts of the "Alabama" should not be brought forward in the Arbitration; and, what were the terms of that promise, as reported by the British Commissioners?

Sir, I gathered from perusing the Question put by my right hon. Friend on the Notice Paper, as he has now stated, that it grew out of the terms of the answer given by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) yesterday to an inquiry then addressed to him. In what I have to say I hope I shall not be understood to convey—for I do not intend to convey—the smallest reflection on my right hon. Friend opposite. He acted in the exer- cise of his own discretion—I may say, in the exercise of his own right—and I own that I thought the answer which he offered in his place yesterday to my right hon. Friend behind me was—if I may presume to say so—a very just and proper answer. But in reference to this Question I wish to say to my right hon. Friend behind me, that our grounds for the contention we maintained in our correspondence with the American Government are fully set forth in the Despatches in possession of Parliament, and especially in the Despatch of the 20th of March, in which we set forth the various, and, as we think, amply sufficient, grounds for the doctrine and position we maintained with respect to the scope of the Treaty of Washington. I will not say—not having the whole of that Despatch in my mind—whether the word "understanding" occurs in it; but I will say that the general argument of that Despatch did not at all depend upon "understanding," but upon statements therein very clearly and sufficiently given. It was quite competent for my right hon. Friend behind me to ask whether there was such an "understanding;" but he will, I hope, excuse me if I say that—our arguments being sufficiently before the world—I do not think any advantage would arise from our going back at this moment on the question whether or not there was an "understanding" between the Commissioners of the respective high contracting parties, or what were the precise terms of that understanding. It may or may not, at a future time, be right to enter into that matter; but for the present I must respectfully decline to do so, because the result of our going back now upon the grounds of the contentions of the respective Governments would only be mischievous when those Governments hope to escape from the effect of those contentions by another arrangement, should they be so happy as to conclude one.

Will there be any objection to the Papers which have been published in The London Gazette being laid before Parliament?

There will be no objection to that.

said, he wished it to be clearly understood that he had not asked whether there was an "understanding;" but whether, as a matter of fact, the English Commissioners had reported that there was one, and in what terms they had reported it?

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any information has been received that the water-logged vessel containing a number of dead and half-starved Polynesian Islanders, which was recently towed into a North Queensland Port by one of Her Majesty's Ships of War, is identical with the schooner "Peri," which brought a cargo of kidnapped natives to Fiji from the Solomon Islands, and on board of which an attempt was made to shoot Mr. March; and, if not, if he can state to what Country the vessel belonged?

, in reply, said, that according to the best information received by the Colonial and Foreign Offices, it was believed that the two vessels were identical. Further inquiries were being made, and any information received should be communicated to the House.

On the last occasion of this kind I gave Notice that, if the Motion were made again, I should take the opinion of the House upon it, and I propose to do so to-day. I confess I am surprised that the Motion should again come from the Treasury bench, after the House has undeniably shown that its opinion upon this subject has changed during the past year. ["No, no!"] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen who cry "No, no!" will hear the reason I have for making that statement. If I am wrong the House will correct me. Previous to the present year there were always two occasions, and two only, when Motions of this kind were made. Those two occasions were, one a principal festival of the Christian year—namely, Ascension Day—and the other the principal festival of the English Turf—the Derby. On the 8th of this month the House passed a Resolution that hereafter—at all events for the present year—the usual adjournment which had taken place in previous years for the purpose of allowing Gentlemen who were so inclined to attend the services of their Church upon Ascension Day, should not be continued. The House decided, by a considerable majority, that there should be no suspension of Business. ["No, no!"] Well, I ask whether it is not the case that such a vote was taken on the 8th of this month? I happened to be absent, and I admit there is always a difficulty in ascertaining the reasons upon which the House acts unless one is present. But, so far as I could gather from the newspapers, the vote was of the nature I have described, and certainly the House did not adjourn as usual. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) said, I think, that there were a number of very important matters—Gas Bills, Railway Bills, Water Bills, and other measures interesting to the business public in general—which required to be attended to, and that we ought not to allow them to lie over for two hours, because some hon. Members were so old-fashioned and superstitious as to desire to attend Divine worship on the day of Ascension. That I understood to be the opinion of the House, after carefully reading the reports of what took place on the occasion. Then, surely, when at the beginning of the month the House has refused hon. Members two hours for the purpose of public worship, it is not going to stultify itself at the end of the month by devoting a whole day to a purpose which I venture to think no one in the House will consider of the same importance as the other. Now, as to the first of the two festivals, it has been the custom to keep it in England for—I will not say 1,800 years, but at any rate since St. Augustin with his monks marched from the coast of Kent to Canterbury. That gives it a great start as compared with the festival of the British Turf, for which it is proposed to adjourn to enable hon. Members to spend to-morrow at the races. So far as I am aware, the festival of the Derby has not existed for 100 years. The other has, therefore, at any rate, had the start of more than 1,000 years. I am not going to compare the importance of the two institutions; but I will say that, at any rate, whatever the Christian religion may have done for the British nation—["Oh, oh!"]—hon. Gentlemen may cry, "Oh!" but they will have an opportunity of answering. ["Oh, oh!"] If the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) has anything to say in opposition to what I am saying, he will have an opportunity to say it. Let us see what the other institution to which we are now about to give a special advantage has done for the British nation. I am told—I do not pretend myself to know much about it—that the British Turf has very much improved the breed of horses for the nation. I have doubts upon that subject. I know that many eminent authorities think that it is by no means the case. Without going into that question, however, as to which I am no authority, I do know what the British Turf has done for the British nation in other matters. It has given to the British nation a system of gambling the most corrupting, the most insidious, and therefore the most mischievous and abominable that has ever cursed any country in the world. Now, upon that subject I suppose most of us are, to a certain extent, authorities. Even in my own personal experience, in my own profession—which deals, of course, with matters of this kind—I have known hundreds of instances in which this system has been the absolute ruin of young men in this country. In the case of settlements under which I myself am trustee, I have had to raise for different families no less than upwards of £20,000 for youngsters who have lost it in gambling on the Turf, and all that money has gone into the pockets of some of the greatest rascals who remain unhung in this country. Therefore, I say, that the great festival of the English Turf is not a proper one to be recognized by this House in the manner now proposed. I have as great a love for sports as anyone in this House, and know as much about them as most hon. Members, and I say, that if we are to choose some sport for special recognition and distinction of this kind, do not let us choose the one which has done most harm, but some one which is doing good in the country. If anyone will move that this House should adjourn for the International Boat Race, or the Shooting Match between the Two Houses of Parliament at Wimbledon, or the Gentlemen v. the Players' Cricket Match, I would not oppose the House coming to such a vote as that. But when it is perfectly notorious to every Gentleman in the House what is the nature of the institution of the British Turf, we are, I think, stultifying ourselves, and setting an evil example to the country if we postpone all Business that is down for to-morrow for the purpose of allowing Gentlemen to celebrate their festival at Epsom. Let me point out to the House that the effect of rejecting the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman will be, not to stop anyone except, perhaps, a few hon. Members who would have to sit in Committee to-morrow, from going to the Derby, but merely to show that this House does not place the Turf festival above that of the Church. If the Motion of the Prime Minister should be rejected, any Gentleman may still go to the Derby as he may go to a dog fight or cock fight if such things still exist, or to a pigeon-shooting match, or any other manly sport of that kind, which this House does not specially recognize. Two years ago I brought into the House a Bill to deal with some of the worst portions of the present betting system. That Bill was received with a good deal of favour, and the House seemed willing to go into the matter. Then the Home Office took it out of my hands, and put my clauses into a Bill that they have had for two years before the House, and which deals with this question. In order, therefore, to provide some useful Business for to-morrow, as there seems to be no chance of the Government bringing on their Bill this year, I have placed a few short clauses in a little Betting Bill which I propose to bring before the House for a first reading to-night, and which I have put down for a second reading to-morrow.

I wish to correct my hon. Friend as to some statements that he has made, for he is dreadfully afraid of the consequences that may result from no Business taking place here to-morrow. He need not be afraid, because no Committees are going to sit to-morrow, and therefore the case that he has alluded to is not at all analogous to that which was mentioned the other day by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock based his opposition to the latter Motion on the ground that if the Committees did not sit until two hours after the usual time on Ascension Day, there would be a great delay in the Private Business of the House, and an unnecessary expenditure upon those interested in Private Bills, because although only two hours' work would be done, counsel and solicitors would have to be paid just the same as though a full day's work were performed. Now, no counsel will appear to-morrow before Committees—they will be at Epsom. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. Hughes) will of course be there also, because in many instances I have found him extremely inconsistent. For the reason I have mentioned, his objection falls entirely to the ground. It certainly would have been hard that persons who had business before the Committees should be called upon to pay double for the services of counsel and solicitors. But in this case it is clearly understood that it will be a blank day with the Committees, and therefore no inconvenience of that sort will arise. I do not think that it is becoming in the hon. Member for Frome that he should get up and preach to us in the manner which he has done. We must all be well aware that there is a good deal of money lost by betting upon horses; but horses are not the only things upon which money is lost. Is there no such thing in connection with cards and with dice, and are there not thousands of modes by which people could he ruined if they would. There is no doubt at all that the breed of horses has been improved in this country by racing. I know nobody who doubts it except the hon. Member for Frome, and he did not express any very strong doubt, and only, in fact, asked our opinion upon the point. I sincerely hope that he will not divide the House upon this question. It is a sort of sanctimonious course that he is pursuing, and one may well be surprised that he, at all events, should have brought it before the House. I say this because we all know what were his pursuits in early life, and I repeat that I hope that we shall not be troubled to divide.

said, he did not think the vote with regard to the adjournment on Ascension Day could be regarded as a test of the opinion of the House on the subject, because that division was taken unexpectedly, and even against the desire of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). The division was forced on by a small knot of hon. Members below the gangway, and after all they only obtained a majority of 5 in a House of less than 100 Members. He hoped that the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hughes) would not take the opinion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Locke), because he (Colonel Beresford) should be glad if he would divide the House, because then it would be seen what a small following he had, and probably he would not bring forward the question again next year.

As I must say a few words upon this question, I will observe that it is perfectly clear that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hughes) has misapprehended the nature and authority of the vote given by the House in reference to Ascension Day, for the two questions have really no parallel. The special objection to this vote is taken upon the ground of the immorality that is unfortunately associated with the practice of horse racing; but the objection in reference to Ascension Day was certainly not the immorality of anything connected with that day. It has been truly said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Beresford) that the affair was an accident; and the divi- sion was accidental so far as the right hon. Member who made the Motion and the Members of the House in general were concerned. I believe that numbers of hon. Members were present in Committee at the time, and, hearing the bell ring, they thought it must be for a counting of the House, or for a division upon a Private Bill, or for some other purpose of the kind, and that it could not be for anything that required their attention. I may mention, as an illustration, that my hon. Friend the Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Glyn) was placed in such a forlorn condition in that division as the representative of the Government, that he had not one on his own bench to accompany him in his telling, and was therefore obliged to fall back upon the good offices of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), in order to get somebody who would march with him up to the Table to announce the majority of 52 to 47. What I suppose to be the case is this—the House generally agrees with my hon. Friend in his denunciation of the foolish, vicious, and, I will say, ruinously vicious practice in many cases associated with what the House, notwithstanding, believes to be in itself a noble, manly, distinguished, and, I may say, historically national sport. The House is disposed, in looking at this sport, however, to feel that it is not bound to take cognizance—and it is not expedient to take cognizance—in connection with such a Motion as this, of those abuses which, though much to be deprecated, are not of necessity essentially connected with the sport itself. But if we are to take cognizance of these abuses—if we are to take our stand upon putting down these practices, which are of so vicious and detrimental a character—we should do something more decided than merely to decline to adjourn over to-morrow. We should endeavour to make these practices the subject of some aggressive action in our legislative capacity. Without entering any further into the excuses for this custom having come into use, I can only say I think it is a custom regarded by many who do not probably care much about the Derby as a security for the holiday. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Frome, in a division, will succeed in obtaining an accurate representation of the mind of the House, because I believe that many hon. Members who value the holiday will vote against him on that account, whilst some will vote against him on a question connected with the race itself.

remarked that for 30 years it had been the custom with the House to adjourn over the Derby Day; but it was not the custom formerly for the Motion for Adjournment to be made by the Government, but by an independent Member. The course was adopted, not so much for the Members of the House, but with a view to let the officers of the House take advantage of the holiday.

said, he intended to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Frome as a protest against the division which took place with reference to Ascension Day. The reasons for the one adjournment and for the other were as different as possible, but in its external aspect the present Motion resembled that of the other day. Each was a Motion made without Notice, and calculated to disturb a well-established understanding. It should be borne in mind that many persons had made their arrangements for the Derby in anticipation of the usual holiday, and any sudden departure from the established custom would entail great and general inconvenience upon a large number of persons. He must conclude with the remark, that any Member who might appear in what he believed would be the majority in the present day, and who had also appeared in the unlucky majority on Ascension Day, would not be able to congratulate himself upon his consistency, or his regard for the feelings of other hon. Members.

, on rising to move a Resolution condemnatory of the selection of the period of harvest for the contemplated Autumn Manœuvres, said, he should not have troubled the House with this question if he had not received a large number of letters from farmers expressing their great anxiety on the subject. They felt that very great hardship would be experienced by farmers and their labourers if the manœuvres were held in harvest time. The issue before the House rested solely on a question of time. He wished to guard himself with this declaration, because he thought any one who had taken any interest in the improvement of the organization of the Army must have come to the conclusion that the Government were entitled to great credit for having introduced the system of military manœuvres. Last year the Secretary of State for War stated that it was well known that in Prussia it had been the custom for a long time as soon as the harvest was over to make the different branches of the military service go through a series of manœuvres. Why should not the military manœuvres in this country be held not during the harvest, but, as in Prussia, as soon as the harvest was over? One of the officials of the War Department stated last year that in many parts of the country the crops would probably not be gathered in in September. The farmers were very desirous of giving every encouragement to the manœuvres; but was it not imprudent on the part of the Government to select a period when crops were still standing in the field for the carrying out of these manœuvres? The carrying out of these manœuvres in August would not only be a great inconvenience to farmers, but a great injustice to their labourers, because it would occasion the loss of their harvest wages. First, as regarded the farmer, the evil was this—that every year, and now much more than formerly, he had great difficulty in obtaining a supply of agricultural labour at the period of harvest. That might be attributed to many causes—partly to emigration, partly to the migration going on from rural to urban districts, and partly to the cessation of a large supply of Irish labour that used to be employed in the gathering in of the harvest in this country. As regarded the position of the labourer, it was still harder. During the period of harvest he earned the largest amount of wages. In the county of Hertford the average amount of wages earned by an agricultural labourer was no more than 11s. or 12s. per week; but in the harvest his wages were generally increased to 30s. per week. During the harvest he earned money wherewith he could discharge the little debts he had contracted during the year, and put himself in a better position to meet the hard time of winter. The alarming strikes which had occurred in agricultural districts had an important bearing on the present question. A strike was a great evil in agricultural and manufacturing parts of the country, both to employers and employed; but it was an evil especially in an agricultural district, as preventing the gathering in of the harvest in the most favourable part of the year, and thereby tending to produce famine. Contracts for the harvest month have been more freely entered into than in any previous year between the employers and the employed, and such contracts would be seriously interfered with if the Autumn Manœuvres commenced at so early a period as the 31st of August. There was another way in which both labourers and farmers might be very much injured. If you deprived the labourers of their money earnings in harvest they would have nothing to fall back upon in the winter months; they would be forced to become inmates of the poor-house, and the farmers would have to pay enormously in the way of rates. Then there was another point to be taken into consideration—namely, the ill effects which so mischievous a proceeding would have on the feelings of the labourers themselves. The other day a working man with whom he was discussing the question said—"I see clearly what is the meaning of this. You are anxious to choose a time of the year which you think will be rather for the benefit of the rich than of the poor." And of this he felt certain, that if by any means a belief, however unfounded, should spring up in the minds of the masses, that Parliament in selecting a period for these manœuvres were balancing the amusement of the rich against the hard earnings of the poor, it would give rise to a feeling of alienation between classes which would entail evils in the future far more serious than any that had ever befallen this country in the past, or in the guise of physical calamity or political disaster. The right hon. Gentleman had never shown himself unreasonable where any fair proposal was made from the Opposition benches, and he trusted, therefore, he would consent to postpone the manœuvres to the 25th of September. Nothing would be more deplorable than that the success of these manœuvres should be interfered with by embittering the feelings of em- ployers and employed in the agricultural districts. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

said, that usually the harvest was not completed even in the Southern and Eastern parts of England by the 31st of August, and he never knew such a large quantity of backward spring corn as this year. They could not tell now what sort of weather they would have this summer; but there was every probability of a long, lingering, and somewhat late harvest. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking the Militia from the farmers at the time when they would most be wanted, would, if there was any necessity for it, allow the soldiers to help in gathering in the harvest, as they would probably be needed. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider the pay given to a Militiaman. A great deal had been said lately about the poor remuneration given by farmers to the labourer. But the Militiaman, besides his bounty, had only 9d. a-day, 1 lb of bread, and three-quarters of a pound of tough bull beef. The result was, no sooner did the Militiaman undertake his duties if he had a wife and family at home, than they often became chargeable on the parish, and the Guardians were so kind-hearted that, considering the man was discharging a duty, they invariably allowed out-door relief. With the increased rate of wages which the labourer was receiving it was only fair that the Militiaman should get better pay, and so be enabled to repay the relief given to his family.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had brought forward his Motion in so friendly a tone that he presumed it was not intended to press it to a division, but that he had brought it forward as a mode of tendering advice in public that was more usually tendered in private, and which always received the most careful consideration of the Department. He could not agree to the terms of the Motion, and therefore he hoped the hon, Member would not give the House the trouble of dividing upon it. The hon. Gentleman might entirely relieve his mind from any notion that in making the proposed arrangements the authorities had considered one class of the community in preference to another. The military authorities could have no conceivable object except to choose the particular period which was most convenient to all classes of the public. The season of harvest was not the time really selected, but the period immediately after the harvest. ["No!"] If anybody thought that was not the case he should be happy to consider any suggestions supported by evidence to the contrary; but no such suggestions had reached him except in the form of this Motion. The history of the manœuvres of last year was extremely strong as an argument in favour of the proposal of the Government. He saw opposite his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), who was present at the manœuvres last year, and who knew all the particulars. Last year's harvest was unusually late, and he had been very much pressed by some gentlemen to postpone the manœuvres until the 23rd of September, instead of allowing them to commence on the 9th, as he did. It was not without reluctance that he postponed them to so late a date as the 9th. What happened? They had the most beautiful weather, which contributed very much to making the manœuvres a great success. But on the 23rd of September a deluge of rain came on, which lasted for many days, and which had it fallen during the time of the manœuvres would have occasioned the greatest possible disappointment. What was the result agriculturally? The whole damage had been covered by a sum of £1,000. Was that any proof of injury to any agricultural interest? By the advice of the same eminent land surveyor by which he was guided last year he proposed to hold the manœuvres this year about one week earlier—that was to say, to begin on the 31st of August; and he had been assured there was no reason for apprehending that the damage to the farmers would be larger this year than it was last year, and in that point of view the agricultural interest of the district received no injury at all. He would not venture on the hazardous though ambitious office of weather prophet, or predict on the 28th of May what the weather would be in August or September. But in the region where they proposed to hold the manœuvres—namely, Salisbury Plain, the harvest last year, which had been exceptionally late, was over the first week in September. He had no object in view except to consult the general convenience. As to consulting the convenience of the rich rather than of the poor, the hon. Gentleman in making himself a tribune of the people to protect the interests of the poor would carry him along with him. What was really the state of the case? He supposed he was right in tracing the origin of this Motion to an invitation which had been given to the Hertfordshire Militia to join the manœuvres. The military authorities were desirous of making these manœuvres generally representative. He would have been glad that they could have gone to some parts of Ireland or Scotland for the scene of the manœuvres. He had made inquiries, and had found that the balance of advantages was in favour of the present proposal. The next point for consideration was how to make all parts of the country take an interest in the manœuvres. They had invited Militia and Volunteers from Scotland and Ireland, and among other counties they had thought Hertfordshire entitled to notice. Unfortunately for themselves they determined to pay Hertfordshire the compliment of inviting its Militia to join the manœuvres. The colonel of the regiment was very glad, but some agriculturists took the alarm. The moment the military authorities heard that, they released the Hertfordshire Militia from the engagement into which they had improvidently entered, thus forfeiting the advantage to be derived from their presence. All he could say was that the authorities had chosen the most convenient time, when the harvest would in all probability be over, and if the hon. Member were to consult the records of the weather for past years he would find that what had proved to be the most favourable season generally had been selected. If the time recommended by the hon. Gentleman had been chosen, he would find that the weather then had been usually most unfavourable.

willingly answered the appeal made to him by his right hon. Friend. So far as he could judge as a spectator, nothing could be more successful than the manœuvres of last year, and he heartily wished that the meeting of the present year might be attended with equal success. But his right hon. Friend had used rather an odd argument with regard to the weather. His right hon. Friend said that, as last year they did not meet till September 9, when the weather was charming and the manœuvres entirely successful, therefore they should not meet at the same time this year, but some time earlier. [Mr. CARDWELL: A week earlier.] Last year the manœuvres began on September 9—this year they were appointed for August 31. If this were only a week, he did not take quite the same view as his right hon. Friend of the number of days which made up a week. No doubt the Secretary of State, in making an arrangement of this sort, had to balance various considerations between which it was not easy to decide; but he was rather surprised to find that his right hon. Friend did not follow the precedent of last year. Judging from his own experience, there were few years when they would find the harvest over by the 31st of August. It was desirable to avoid, as far as possible, any unnecessary risk of creating unpleasant feelings by interfering with the harvest; and, looking to the usual course of weather and harvesting, a week or 10 days later than the 31st of August would avoid this unpleasantness, and would not incur greater danger from bad weather.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to accede to the reasonable proposal made to him by the hon. Member (Mr. Dimsdale). Some years ago, when it was proposed to call out the Militia early in July, the agriculturalists represented to the authorities the great loss that would result therefrom, and the result was that the order was countermanded. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a similar course in this case, and meet in some way the views of the agricultural interest. The 12 months' labour of the farmer was about to be jeopardized. He should naturally sympathize with the military if encamped in bad weather; but sympathized more so with those whose whole year's labour depended upon the success of the harvest. The military had experienced no very great inconvenience from a few wet days at the end of August or beginning of September; but it would have a damaging effect on the farmer when shorthanded, for what farmer would like a sprouting barley crop with the malt duty unrepealed? The labourer would also be deprived of earning his accustomed increase of wages at harvest, and be thereby prevented from making his usual savings for the winter. He hoped it was not even now too late to make some modification in the existing arrangements.

said, the Militia were being called out in April and May, when the labourer was earning his 15s. or 18s. a-week in hoeing the land. They drew him away from this lucrative employment, paying him as a Militiaman only 13s. 4d. a-week, and so entailing upon him a loss of from 1s. 8d. to 4s. 8d. Besides this, the employer was often obliged to get his crops hoed at an increase of price, paying 7s. 6d. or even more per acre, instead of some 5s. The corn crop, too, was often damaged to the extent of a quarter per acre. There were 7,000,000 acres under cultivation; and assuming that half the number of Militiamen called out were withdrawn from hoeing the crops, and supposing each man during his five weeks' training would have hoed 12 acres, he reckoned that the loss to the country would be about £1,500,000. In the county of Essex a great loss would be occasioned if a number of men were withdrawn at a moment when it became necessary that the land should be hoed, and serious detriment would be done to the crops. He might also observe that a consequence of the men being withdrawn at such a time from their occupations was, that the Militia became unpopular with both the labourers and the employers, and that injury was thus done to the general interests of the country. He trusted, therefore, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would give the matter his serious consideration.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the attention which he had paid to the Question which he had addressed to him with respect to the training of the Hertfordshire Militia. It would be a serious loss to the farm labourer to be deprived of the £6 or £7 which he might earn during harvest time. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the appeals addressed to him, and would postpone the manœuvres for a few days.

, speaking for the Midland counties, said the period of harvest was considered of more importance than the time of wheat-growing, and inasmuch as harvest there was not over before the end of the first week in September he trusted the right hon. Gentleman, if he desired the attendance of the Militia of those counties at the Autumn Manœuvres—and they were quite willing to serve—would consider the representations which had now been made in favour of deferring the manœuvres to the time to which they were deferred last year with so much success.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would divide the House unless an assurance were given on the part of the Government that the Autumn Manœuvres would not be held until after the harvest had been completed. The harvest was very rarely over till after the middle of September, and if the manœuvres came off before that time great harm would be done, if not by the troops themselves, by the camp followers. The right hon. Gentleman said that the one great object of the manœuvres was to bring the Volunteers and the Militia into conjunction with the Regular Army; but he might inform him that, owing to the time which had been fixed on this year, the Wiltshire Militia had declined to attend because they could not leave their occupations. The Yeomanry, too, would find it impossible to leave their farms while the harvest was going on. He might add that, although the amount of damage done last year was small, the county in which the manœuvres were held was very different from that in which they were to come off this year.

said, with regard to any inconvenience which might attend the calling out of the Militia at a particular time of the year, that the Inspector General took the precaution of making local inquiries on the subject before any period was decided upon by the Secretary of State for War. That was the invariable practice. As to the objection that Militiamen, when called out, lost money which they would have otherwise earned by agricultural labour, he might remark that the services of the Militia, like those of the regular soldiers, were perfectly voluntary, and the War Department experienced no difficulty in finding men on the present terms, nor was there any complaint made on the part of the men. With reference to the rate of labourers' wages, that would depend upon the general principle of supply and demand which always regulated it. At the same time, the Secretary of State for War had given instructions—and they had been carefully complied with—to the effect that every consideration should be paid to local interests. The difficulties which his hon. Friend (Mr. Wingfield Baker) had mentioned as affecting the agricultural interest in Essex did not appear to arise from the calling out of the Militia there. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the 2nd Staffordshire Militia, so far from being unable to attend, had requested permission to be at the manœuvres, only expressing regret that the invitation had not arrived earlier. As regarded the Motion before the House, he had to assure it, on behalf of the Government, that what had been said that night would receive their full consideration, and without pledging the Secretary of State for War in any way to a departure from his present arrangements, he was authorized to state that his right hon. Friend had every desire to meet the wishes of all persons concerned as far as possible.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had been very unhappy in his selection of the 31st of August for the commencement of the Autumn Manœuvres, and, though no very large damage might be done, still the "indirect claims" growing out of the abstraction of labour from farming operations at this period of the year must not be overlooked. If further time had been allowed, as in last year, no one would have had a right to complain; but the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House seemed to think that the interest of agriculture was hardly worth considering. The case of the Staffordshire Militia was not in point, because they were composed of miners, who could be spared from their work, and not of farm labourers. He trusted that the hon. Member who brought forward the present Motion (Mr. Dimsdale) would divide the House on it, and let the country see that there was not on the benches opposite a practical Government, nor one which had any consideration for the great interest which supplied the food of the nation. No doubt it was important to have a well-organized Army; but it was also important, in settling the time when the men should assemble for the manœuvres, to fix a period when they could meet together with the least inconvenience. The present Government, however, if they could find one time more inconvenient than another, would select that period.

considered it important that the Militia regiments to be called out for the Autumn Manœuvres should not have their previous training curtailed; but if they got a fair drill first, then he thought they would be in a condition to receive much improvement from the manœuvres afterwards.

said, that the Militia regiment with which he was connected had been summoned to the Autumn Manœuvres, and he did not find that there was any objection to attend. On the contrary, the proposal to take part in them was very popular; but that was not the whole of the question. At the present moment the price of labour was increasing, and the farmers were becoming alarmed lest their labourers should be taken away at a period when they were most wanted. However, the House had received from the Government an assurance that the appointment of the exact day when the manœuvres should be commenced would be reconsidered, and he would venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Dimsdale) not to divide the House, but to accept that assurance. He trusted that the same course would continue to be pursued with respect to Militia training which had been followed up to the present time, and that the men and officers would be consulted as to what would be the most convenient time for being called out. In his county (Lancashire) the same period did not suit all regiments, and the Secretary of State for War had, in compliance with the suggestions of the commanding officers, allowed some difference of time in the calling out of the various corps.

said, he had been entirely misunderstood by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Greene). The authorities had consulted the convenience of all parties, as far as they were aware. He had endeavoured to ascertain the wishes of agriculturists, and, as far as the information he had received went, there appeared to be general concurrence of opinion as to the convenience of the time selected. The authorities had no other object but to choose the most convenient period, and they were ready to reconsider the matter with the view of ascertaining what would really be the most convenient time, and he would state the result when he brought forward the subject again.

inferred from the debate that there was no practical objection to his Motion, which stated that the manœuvres ought not to take place at harvest time, and he should, therefore, press it to a division.

must say that after the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War it would be hardly necessary to press the House to divide on the Motion of his hon. Friend; for the House knew what those remarks meant—namely, the right hon. Gentleman felt that much had been urged by hon. Members which was worthy of attention, and when he brought forward his Bill on the subject the House would see the results of the conversation to-night. For his own part, he should regret not to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend, because it was one founded on sound principles; but since the declaration made on the part of the Government, he thought it would be a want of courtesy on the part of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House to press for a division.

then consented, in consequence of the appeal just made to him, to withdraw the Motion.

rose to move the following Resolution:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it would conduce to the convenience of the public if a carriage communication were opened between Queen Square, Westminster, Birdcage Walk, and St. James's Street."