I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will, at an early date, bring in a Measure to exempt from electoral disabilities such persons as may accept employment under the out-door labour test order of the Local Government Board?

I am afraid I cannot undertake to introduce a Bill upon this subject during the present Session, and in view of the fact that the Committee on Distress from Want of Employment is to be reappointed this Session, it would be better, I think, to wait till we have their views upon the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the work of his Department, owing to recent legislation, has enormously increased, and the officers are overworked, while there is the greatest delay in granting orders for work agreed to be done, and in preparing and issuing Tables and Returns; and whether it is intended to take any steps to obtain from the Treasury the necessary means for increasing the staff of the Department to meet the requirements of the time?

It is the fact that the work of the Local Government Board has, owing to recent legislation, been enormously increased. Every effort is made by the staff to meet the pressure, but it has not always been practicable to dispose of the cases as promptly as I could wish. The question of an increase of the staff of the Department is receiving my attention and I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government can lay before Parliament Sir John Kirk's Report on the rising of the Brass Natives, and the evidence taken at the Inquiry?

Sir John Kirk's Report on the results of his Inquiry into the Brass disturbances will be laid at an early date.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether, referring to his answer to a Question put on 3rd September last, he is prepared to accept medical evidence that the eyesight and consequent ability to earn his own living of John Hynes, late of 67th regiment of infantry, who was discharged without a pension after a service of nine years and 210 days, during which he took part in the South China War and was wounded, has been permanently injured; whether at the time of his enlistment his vision was on the face of his attestation proved to be sound; whether his conduct during his service was invariably good; and whether the pension allowed him for 27 months will be restored?

As the hon. Member has again raised the case of this man, the Secretary of State has referred it to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital for further consideration, and I will undertake to communicate with the hon. Member as soon as their report has been received.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether soldiers who have been born or enlisted in Ireland, on becoming insane during their term of service in England or elsewhere are sent to lunatic asylums in Ireland, while English soldiers on becoming insane while on service in Ireland are not sent to English asylums but are sent to Irish asylums; and whether he intends to propose any alteration of the law in this respect?

There is no difference in the practice in England and in Ireland. A soldier discharged as insane is sent to the parish or union to which, as appears from his attestation, he is properly chargeable. In cases where it is necessary to send lunatics temporarily to lunatic asylums near at hand, payment for their maintenance is made from Army funds.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Venerable Archdeacon Jameson, who he has recently appointed a governor of the County Carlow and County Kildare District Lunatic Asylum, does not reside in either of those counties, nor does his parish or official duties extend into either of those counties; and, if so, what were his qualifications for that office?

The Venerable Archdeacon appears to have been appointed one of the Governors of the Carlow District Lunatic Asylum in 1894. He was re-appointed in 1895 and again for 1896. It has been the practice to appoint the Protestant Bishop and the Roman Catholic Bishop of a diocese to the Board of Governors of the District Lunatic Asylum in that diocese. If the services of the Bishop are not available a representative clergyman is selected. Archdeacon Jameson has been a regular attendant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government Auditor, when auditing the accounts of the District Lunatic Asylums, Ireland, only allows the Government Grant of 4s. per head per week for pauper patients for each full and complete week, and does not allow a proportion of that sum for odd days or weeks that have not been fully completed; and, if such is the case, whether he will take steps to amend the instructions issued to the Auditor on this subject, and thus save the District Lunatic Asylums from this loss?

The practice is as stated in the first part of the question. I have asked the Local Government Board to ascertain from the Auditors, after their next audit of the accounts of these asylums, whether the collective number of days in respect of which no grant is payable, is considerable, owing to the operation of the existing rule on the subject, and when this information has been obtained I shall be in a better position to judge whether further action is called for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received any reply to his telegram (No. 212, Blue Book, South African Republic, p. 81) addressed on 30th January to Sir Hercules Robinson; and, if so, whether, since it is not included in the Blue Book, Her Majesty's Government have any objection to laying it upon the Table of the House?

The investigation of the matters referred to is not yet concluded, and therefore the correspondence is not complete. I am informed by the British Agent at Pretoria that the reports cabled home from Johannesburg were grossly exaggerated, but that he has brought to the notice of the Government of the South African Republic such of the complaints as appeared to be well founded.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Officers of Customs have received instructions to take samples of foreign butters at ports of entry; if he can state how many samples have been subjected to analysis, and what has been the result of the analysis; and, whether many samples of German-made and Holland-made have been analysed; if so, with what result?

Samples of importations from abroad described as butter are being taken by the Officers of Customs at certain ports at which butter is principally imported. Seven hundred and thirteen samples have been taken and sent to the Government Analyst, who has reported that 98 of them contain a certain proportion of substances foreign to butter. Seventy of the samples thus dealt with represented importations from Germany, of which 27 were found questionable, and 159 importations from Holland, of which 56 were found questionable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the statements made by several persons examined by County Inspector Scott, on the 27th and 29th ultimo, at the Inquiry held by him at Ennistymon regarding the charges brought against District Inspector Hugging and Head Constable Murnane, he will grant, as has been already solicited, a full and impartial sworn Inquiry into those charges?

The charges referred to were made by an anonymous letter-writer, and an informal Inquiry was ordered to be held into the allegations so preferred. This is the Inquiry to which reference is made in the first part of the question; and the Officer who conducted it has made a full report on the subject, and is of opinion that the charges have not been substantiated. It would be contrary to practice to hold a sworn investigation into charges preferred anonymously; but if the writer of the letter, over his own name, makes a specific charge, the propriety of directing a Court of Inquiry with power to swear witnesses will be then considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will agree to the Motion for a Return as to Labourers' Cottages in Ireland which stands on the Paper this day?

The last Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland gives detailed particulars in relation to the working of the Labourers Acts up to the 31st March 1895, including, amongst other things, the number of cottages erected in each Union in Ireland, the amount of loans sanctioned by the Treasury, and the average weekly rent charged. Similar information brought down to the 31st proximo will be contained in the Report for 1896, to be issued in a few months. No advances have been made to private owners under the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1883, or any Act amending the same. Advances for labourers' cottages have been made to private owners, under the Land Improvement Act (10 Vic. c. 32), the Land Law Act of 1881 and Acts amending it, and the total amount of the advances could be given, but not the number of cottages built—of which a record has not been kept—or the rents charged. With this information before him, I trust my hon. and gallant Friend will not press for the Return in question; but if there is any point on which he requires further information, I shall be happy to supply it to him if he will communicate with me privately.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the cause of delay in the erection of the few labourers' cottages in Longford Union, passed at an Inquiry held now nearly two years ago; and will he urge on the Local Government Board the necessity of having all the legal steps concluded immediately, so that the intended tenants can put crops in for the coming season?

Considerable delay on the part of the Guardians and their officers took place after the Inquiry held by the Local Government Board's Inspector in May, 1894, and it was only at the end of the following December, after repeated communications to the Guardians in reference to the matter, that the Board were in a position to issue their Provisional Order confirming a scheme for the erection of 16 cottages. This Order became absolute on the 9th March last. The loan for the purposes of the scheme has been sanctioned by the Treasury, and it would appear from recent Minutes of the Guardians that the Board of Works Arbitrator has held his inquiry with a view to assessing the compensation payable for the lands, so that it is probable very little further delay will take place.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that in 1893 the cost per inmate for stimulants in Carrickmacross Workhouse was 15s. 7d. per head, or almost one halfpenny in the pound on the rateable property in the Union of Carrickmacross, whereas in Monaghan and Clones Workhouses the cost of stimulants in 1893 was nothing; and, if so, will he take steps to put a stop to such a large consumption of stimulants in Carrickmacross Workhouse?

The cost of stimulants in the Carrickmacross Union in the year 1893 was 15s. 7d. per head as stated, and in Monaghan and Clones Unions the cost of stimulants in the same period was 6d. and 3s. 4d. per head respectively. The Medical Officer of Carrickmacross Workhouse explains that the consumption of stimulants in 1893 was due to the exceptional number of cases which, in his opinion, required stimulants for their proper treatment. I am causing further inquiries to be made into this matter.

inquired whether this was not entirely within the discretion of the medical officer?

I believe so, but many questions of this kind are addressed to me.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) if his attention has been called to the arrest and detention for a week in Dundee Prison of a young man, a native of Ullapool, Ross-shire, on suspicion of murder. (2) Can he state why the authorities took him on foot through the town of Markinch, Fife-shire, to the railway station, at an hour when many persons were about the street, seeing that there are covered flys for hire at Markinch. (3) Will he state why this young man was detained for a week seeing that he could establish an alibi. (4) Is he aware that the detention need not have exceeded a few hours if the police authorities had exerted themselves more. And (5) will he also state why on release railway fare was not paid to the young man's place of residence, but only half-way—viz., from Dundee to Cupar, and whether any amends will be made to him?

My attention has been called to the arrest referred to. I am informed that the authorities did all in their power to shield Macrae from observation. He was taken through Markinch on foot, at about six in the morning, to a private room in an hotel near the station. This was thought less likely to attract attention than if the somewhat unusual course of ordering a fly had been resorted to. As to the defence of alibi stated lay his solicitor, no time was lost in testing its accuracy. When this was satisfactorily established he was liberated after a detention of five days. The fifth paragraph is altogether inaccurate. In accordance with the usual Prison Regulations Macrae received railway fare to take him to Cupar, from which place he had been sent to Dundee. On his arrival at Cupar he saw the Procurator Fiscal, who expressed regret on behalf of the authorities that he had been inconvenienced. He also gave him more than a sufficient sum to pay his railway fare to Markinch, the nearest station to his home. I cannot undertake to do more for him. The hon. Member must be aware that in the investigation of crime it is often necessary to arrest and detain persons on suspicion, who afterwards prove to be innocent.

asked if the Lord Advocate was aware that the police authorities kept the man in prison until they had captured another man, who was also innocent?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware of the general complaint of the farmers in Ulster as to their inability to pay rent out of last year's crops; and, whether, considering the very low prices obtainable by farmers for their produce, and the almost total failure of the flax crop, he will take some steps to bring them immediate relief.

I cannot add anything to the repeated declarations which I have already made on this subject and must decline to follow the precedent of 1887 by legislating in the matter. It is true that in some parts of Ulster the farmers have suffered by reason of the bad flax crop of the last year, but I am assured that this circumstance has not been overlooked by landlords and that rent reductions have been freely given.

said, that perhaps the Chief Secretary would be kind enough to state when he hoped to introduce the Land Bill, as great uncertainty prevailed on the point.

said that that question ought to be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.

said a great many of his hon. Friends scarcely understood the reply given by the First Lord of the Treasury last night. Would the right hon. Gentleman now say when the Irish Land Bill would be introduced?

inquired whether the Chief Secretary had seen the various reports of meetings of farmers in the north of Ireland at which complaints were made of the distress which exists, and were not many of these farmers his own supporters?

said he had seen many reports of the kind referred to.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman had any official information which led him to believe that reductions of rents were being made?

remarked that he had received his information from the usual channels.

asked if the answer of the Chief Secretary in reference to reduction of rents referred to the south of Ireland as well as to the north?

No, it referred to the flax crops.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to the state of affairs in connection with the admission and treatment of inmates in workhouses in Ireland; (2) whether he is aware that harmless epileptics are sent to the wards for lunatics; that lunatics are sent to the lunatic wards without cither committal order or legal warrant of any kind; and that lunatics are detained and often put under restraint in workhouses in direct violation of the law; and, (3) whether he will consider the desirability of having a Royal Commission appointed to inquire generally into the working of the Poor Law system in Ireland, and particularly as to the admission and treatment of the different classes of inmates of workhouses?

The subject of the admission and treatment of inmates in workhouses in Ireland engaged my careful attention during the Recess, in connection with the general question of workhouse administration in Ireland. It is true that in some workhouses harmless epileptics are sent to the lunatic wards, and the Local Government Board often pointed out to the Guardians that this is not a desirable arrangement. It has been frequently explained, in answer to questions in the House, that destitute persons of unsound mind are sent to Irish workhouses without either legal warrant or committal, and if unable to take care of themselves they are detained and not allowed to take their discharge. Restraint is only employed in workhouses as in all civil hospitals by order of the responsible medical officer, who directs that it shall be imposed when he deems it necessary for the safety of the patient or those about him. The Local Government Board have, however, always advised Guardians that when a lunatic in a workhouse is so violent as to require restraint, the Guardians should endeavour to have him or her committed to the asylum. An Inquiry of the nature indicated in the third paragraph has already been held in 1878, and a somewhat similar Inquiry was conducted by a Special Commission in Lunacy in 1889. I do not consider it necessary to have further Inquiry made at the present time, but I may add that the Government have under consideration the introduction of a Bill for facilitating amalgamation of workhouses and for making better provision for certain classes of the destitute poor in Ireland.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that not only were lunatics admitted from outside, but that they were often transferred uncured from lunatic asylums to workhouses?

was aware there was a considerable amount of friction between the asylums and workhouses in Ireland, but if the hon. Member wanted further information on that matter he would perhaps put a question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is his intention, as reported, to bring in this Session a Bill to reduce the judicial establishment in Ireland; and, if so, whether the Bill will provide that the money saved by such reduction shall be applied to reducing the fees paid by litigants in Ireland, as suggested in a paper dealing with the subject recently read by Mr. A. W. Samuels, Q.C., before the Statistical Society of Ireland?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but it would be premature at present to disclose the provisions of the Bill.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that under the Acts of 1877 and 1887 a sum amounting to £187,000, or thereabouts, had been saved to the Treasury, not a farthing of which had gone in the direction of relief of taxation in Ireland, and whether the system had been condemned?

was not aware of the particular facts.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been given to the foundering in November last of a boat of H.M.S. Edgar, whereby 48 lives were lost; whether he can state what class of boat it was and of what length, and how many men that particular kind of boat will carry; how many men, including officers, were actually sent away in the boat, and what guns and ammunition, if any; who was responsible for seeing that the boat was not sent away from the ship over-laden; and, whether there has been any Inquiry held into the matter; and, if so, with what result?

My attention has been directed to the lamentable loss of life on the occasion of the foundering of the Edgar's boat in November last. The boat in question was a 36-ft. pinnace. The number of men she will carry varies with the weather and the accoutrements and stores carried. A landing party of 71 men, including a lieutenant, sub-lieutenant, and three midshipmen, armed with rifles, were in the boat. A Court of Inquiry has been held. The boat was considered by the Court to have been overladen for the service on which she was employed, and also to have been unskilfully managed when the men re-embarked for return to the ship. The Papers have not yet been officially before myself.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could say who was responsible for the overloading of the boat, and whether it was a fact that she was in charge, not of a naval naval lieutenant, but of a gunnery naval lieutenant?

said that with regard to the apportionment of the blame he had not been able to inquire of the First Naval Lord, who was indisposed, and on such a delicate matter he would not like to say a word until he had made personal investigation. ["Hear, hear!"]

inquired whether provision had been made for the widows and children of the men whose lives were lost?

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can state on what grounds the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council have refused to sanction the appointment of Mr. Edward Reynolds as Veterinary Inspector of Mohill Union, seeing that his qualifications are the same as those of his father, who held the position until his death a few months ago; (2) and, whether, as it will involve a heavy tax on an impoverished district to pay the salary which a fully qualified veterinary surgeon would require to reside permanently in the Union, and as Mr. Reynolds has discharged the duties for a considerable time without complaint, the Veterinary Department will withdraw their objection to his appointment as they did in the case of his late father?

The Lord Lieutenant refused to sanction the appointment in question, because Mr. Reynolds possesses no professional qualifications for the office of Veterinary Inspector, and because it is open to the Guardians to obtain the services of a duly qualified veterinary surgeon who is willing to undertake the duties. The late Veterinary Inspector of the Union was appointed so far back as 1878 at a time when the Local Authority were unable to procure the services of a qualified veterinary surgeon. The hon. Member is under a slight misapprehension in regard to the second paragraph, inasmuch as one half of the salary attaching to the office would be recouped to the Guardians by the Veterinary Department, and the salary of £52 a year paid to the late holder of the appointment would represent a charge of about one farthing in the pound on the valuation of the Union.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, (1) whether he is aware that H.M.S. Jason grounded last week on a mudbank near the entrance to the basin at Haulbowline while in the act of taking up her station in Cork harbour; (2) if he can say why the dredging operations at Haulbowline have not yet been commenced; and (3) whether, in case the total amount voted for this purpose is not expended during the present financial year, the balance will be included in the forthcoming Naval Estimates?

I am informed that the report that the Jason grounded off the entrance to Haulbowline is incorrect. In reply to the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I have to say that the dredging was commenced on the 17th instant. Provision will be made in the Naval Works Bill 1896–97 for completing the work.

asked if he was to understand from the reply of the hon. Gentleman that the dredging operations when commenced would be continued uninterruptedly until completed?

Yes, Sir, that is the intention.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the 17th Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, in which it is shown that of the 28 female convicts still in custody many of them are old women, more fit for treatment in a poorhouse than in an institution for inflicting penal servitude; and, whether he will consider the desirability of giving effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners?

The question is founded on a misapprehension. No recommendation is made by the Prison Commissioners in the paragraph referred to, which contains nothing more than a simple statement of fact and opinion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state whether effect has been given to the recommendations of the Lunacy Commissioners in their Report, dated 26th October, 1894, relative to the death of a patient who was subjected to undue mechanical restraint in the Holloway Sanatorium, Virginia Water, and which recommendations were further advocated in the Report of an Inquiry, dated 20th April, 1895.

All the recommendations which were made in the two reports referred, to by the hon. Member have been duly carried out.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether steps have yet been taken to carry out the following recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Cabs: the transfer of the cab shelters to the care of some local authority; the abolition of the carriage tax of 15s., and the reduction, so far as possible, of the licence duty of 42s. in the Metropolis; the extension of the cab radius; the introduction of Bills on "bilking," and the liability of proprietors; and to abolish the railway privilege system?

As regards the licence fee, the hon. Member is aware that the Committee only recommended a reduction in the event of the revenue arising from these fees exceeding the expenditure incurred in the administration of the Public Carriage Acts. The augmentation, however, of the inspecting staff and the other alterations which have been made in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee have involved an additional annual expenditure amounting to several thousand pounds, and I do not anticipate any balance which would allow an appreciable reduction in the amount of the licence fee. With regard to the privilege system, the decision which I have arrived at, after conferring with the railway managers, has already been announced. In the absence of any workable proposal which would insure the same conveniences and good order as the present system I am not prepared to take any steps. I hope to introduce a Bill on the subject of "bilking," and I am considering whether it will be possible to deal with the question of proprietors' liability. The existing cab shelters are the property of a voluntary society, and their transfer to a local authority does not appear to me a matter in which I can properly interfere. I do not propose at present to touch the question of the extension of the radius or the abolition of the carriage-tax.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House what "bilking" was?

inquired whether, in reference to the railway privilege cab system, the right hon. Gentleman would carry out the arrangements promised by the late Home Secretary, viz., to invite a deputation of railway managers to meet a deputation to be named by the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to see whether they could settle this difficult question so as to avoid any trouble.

said, he would be glad to encourage any such conference as the hon. Gentleman suggested. He had endeavoured to do it in conference with the railway managers, and it was because he had hitherto failed to find a workable proposal that he had given the answer he had made. If any proposal were made which would appear to result in any practical remedy he should be glad to give it his assistance. He was not prepared to give any legal definition of "bilking," but with reference to cabs it was understood to mean that a cab was engaged and the fare by some means or other evaded the proper payment. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether Her Majesty's Government will take an early opportunity to repeal Section 40 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, so far as it insists upon school cards in the case of children whose parents are receiving poor law relief?

The Section referred to does not mention school cards. The system of school cards is prescribed by the guardians of the poor under the direction of the Local Government Board. The Committee of Council do not attach any educational value to the section or the system; but they understand that the section is of importance, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, in connection with out-door relief.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the disturbances which recently took place in Hyde Park at meetings, where speeches of an insulting character were said to have been made against the Catholic religion; whether he has seen the statement made by one of these speakers in the police court, that he produced upon the platform and held up a rosary and some wafers; and whether it is proposed to allow such demonstrations to continue in view of the great provocation thereby given to the members of the Roman Catholic Church?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in June last the magistrate at Worship Street Police Court expressed a strong opinion upon a similar occurrence?

I am informed that on the last two Sundays meetings have been held by Protestant lecturers in the park, but they have not, from a police point of view, been otherwise than decent and orderly. The disturbances were caused by persons who were annoyed at what was said, and assaulted the lecturers at the close of the meetings. A rosary and wafers were produced, but by way of illustration only. Nothing was said or occurred which would have justified the police in interfering; but they will hold themselves prepared to deal with any disturbance that may arise, and to exercise all the powers conferred on them for the decent regulation of these meetings under the Parks Regulation Act. With reference to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for South Mayo, I was not aware of the fact until he called my attention to the remarks made so long ago as last June with reference to meetings of this sort. I can only say, in common with every Member of the House, that I deprecate any extravagant language or violent assault on the religious susceptibilities of any one. ["Hear, hear!"] I can only express the hope that these lecturers may be able in future to express their convictions without arousing feelings of animosity.

Is it not a fact that exception was taken in this case, not so much to the language user as to the exhibition of emblems which are reverenced by those who hold the Catholic religion? May I ask whether some steps could not be taken which, without interfering with free speech, may have the effect of prohibiting the insulting exhibition of emblems which are reverenced by Catholics, such as the rosary and the wafer?

May I ask whether one of these so-called Protestant lecturers was not a servant of Cardinal Manning, and was not a man who had turned Protestant? [Laughter and Nationalist cries of "Order!"]

I am not aware of the fact just stated by the hon. Member for South Belfast. My information is that these emblems, which are held so sacred by the hon. Member's co-religionists, were used upon this occasion, not, as I have said, for the purpose of insulting anyone, but by way of illustration. If, when so used, they gave offence to other persons, I regret it, but when the hon. Member asks me whether the police have power to stop the exhibition, I can only say that all the police can do in the matter is to exercise the powers conferred on them under the Parks Regulation Act. I do not think they can interfere further than they have done at present.

I beg to ask whether conduct such as had been alleged to have taken place on this occasion is not eminently calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, and whether, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman does not think it comes within the cognisance of the authorities?

No, Sir; under the Parks Act there is no such power. It may be different in the streets, but in the parks the police have no power to interfere otherwise than when an actual breach of the peace occurs.

Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly legal to publicly turn the Protestant religion into ridicule?

I am not called upon to answer a question of that sort. I have expressed my own hope that these proceedings may be conducted in a different manner in future, and I have also said that the police are prepared to try to keep these meetings as peaceable and orderly as possible.

May I ask whether, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot take any steps in this matter, he will at least give an expression of opinion as to the exhibition of emblems at these meetings? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if the police have no power to stop the exhibition of sacred emblems, the probabilities are very greatly in favour of Catholics in this country doing it themselves? [ Cries of "Order, order!"]

Order, order. That is a matter of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman has already expressed his opinion as to the exhibition of emblems.

I rise, Sir——[Cries of "Order!"]

There really must be some limit to this. [Cheers.]

again rising amid loud cries of "Order!" said: Mr. Speaker, I desire to give notice——

Order, order. I have called on Mr. Logan for the next question.

On a point of order, Sir, I desire to ask whether, when an hon. Member is dissatisfied with an answer given to a question put by him, he is not within his right in giving notice that he will take future action in the matter?

No. Sometimes an hon. Member, before he sits down, gives notice, but strictly speaking it is not in order to do so.

I hope that Irishmen—[loud cries of "Order!"—I hope that Irishmen in London will do it themselves.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, since 1891, appointments have been made to permanent clerkships in the Civil Service by selection from the body of men copyists, at an annual increase of salary of £2 10s. extending over the whole period of their service as permanent officers, until a maximum of £150 is reached; whether similar appointments have been made recently by selection from the body of boy copyists and clerks, who became entitled to annual increments of £2 10s. for six years, and after that time of £5 per annum; and whether he can inform the House of the reasons for this difference of treatment as between men and boys?

Registered men copyists have, until recently, been appointed to the Class of Abstractors on a scale commencing at their average earnings as copyists—(say) £91 per annum (viz., 10d. per hour)—and rising by £2 10s. a year to £150. The class of men copyists qualified for these appointments is now practically exhausted. In future the Abstractor Class will be recruited by competition among boy copyists and clerks, who, on promotion, will be paid on a scale of £55 per annum, rising by £2 10s. a year to £70, and thence by £5 to £100. They have also a prospect of promotion to a limited class rising by £5 a year to £150. The increased rate of increment after seven years to the new class is given in consideration of the much lower commencing salary—viz., £55 as against £91.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the regulation exacting a fine of 8d. from the recipient of a letter enclosed in a registered envelope (for which envelope 2d. has to be paid), or in an ordinary envelope marked "registered," in every case where the envelope is inadvertently posted, instead of being handed over the counter; whether he can state for what service or extra labour the Department requires compensation amounting to eight times the ordinary postage; whether express letters may in certain cases be dropped into letter-boxes; and whether he will reduce the fine complained of to the amount of the registration fee?

The fine for posting a letter enclosed in a registered envelope in a letter-box instead of handing it in over the counter is 6d., and not 8d., as supposed by the hon. Member. In order that the system of registration may be effectually carried out, it is of great importance that every registered packet should be handed personally to an agent of the Post Office and a receipt obtained. This cannot, of course, be done if the packet is posted in the ordinary way; and the difficulty of tracing it, if lost, is thus largely increased. Only those express letters which are intended to be sent by express after transmission by post can be posted in a letter-box in the ordinary way.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a petition, forwarded last autumn by the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey, from the people of Sark, praying that a cable might be laid between Sark and Guernsey, so that Sark might be in telegraphic communication with the mainland; whether His Excellency supported this proposal, on the ground that Sark was in effect a British outpost, nearest to the French coast and fleet; whether he is aware that in case of shipwreck lives have frequently been in serious peril for want of such communication; and, whether he will at once complete the short length of cable required to bring Sark into telegraphic connection with this country?

The Postmaster General is of course aware that such a petition, was forwarded by the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey. The grounds on which the Lieutenant Governor supported the petition were that the want of a telegraph office in Sark was much felt by visitors and by the inhabitants, and that in cases of emergency there was no way of communication with England. I have no reason to believe that in cases of shipwreck lives have frequently been in serious peril for want of such communication. Sark is not a much-frequented water route; and in the last two Wreck Abstracts, the only case of loss of life in the neighbourhood of Sark was in a small French cutter (three lives lost). I doubt whether in any case the Guernsey lifeboat could arrive in time to be of service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received any representations as to the necessity for holding more Revision Courts throughout the counties for the convenience of persons claiming to be put upon the register of voters; and, whether he has taken any steps to carry out that object?

Representations have been received as to the necessity for holding Courts at Athboy, Co. Meath, and Newtown Mount Kennedy, Co. Wicklow, and in each case the application has been complied with. The late Government were asked to establish a Court at Clontarf, Co. Dublin, but it was held to be unnecessary to accede to this request.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware the jurors of the county Wicklow have protested strongly against the practice of holding the Leinster Winter Assizes in Wicklow, a practice which entails great hardship, especially on the humbler class of jurors; and, what steps he will take to remove the grievance?

I understand that the Grand Jury at the late Winter Assizes protested on behalf of Petty Jurors against the alleged continued loss and inconvenience caused to the latter by the holding of these Assizes at Wicklow. In the interval between now and the next Winter Assizes the Government will consider whether, having regard to the interests of justice and the due administration of the law, any steps can be taken to relieve the jurors for a time from the duty they have so often and satisfactorily discharged.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will consider the desirability of an official investigation into the cause of miners' nystagmus, and the best means of preventing that disease?

I am not prepared to institute any general inquiry into the causes of miners' nystagmus. I understand that the hon. Member's view is that this disease is frequently caused by defective safety lamps, and if he will bring to my notice any cases of nystagmus which are supposed to be due to this cause, I will have inquiries made. This can be done in the first instance by the Inspector of the District, and if necessary a medical man can be consulted.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) whether the excess of interest accruing to the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ending 31st December, 1894, over and above the interest paid to depositors and expenses of management, was on £89,000,000 of deposits £3,836 10s. 3d.; (2) whether some £10,000,000 more deposits have been received since that date; at what rate Consols have been purchased with this amount; and (3) whether the £3,836 10s. 3d. margin has covered the extra cost; and, if not, from what source the extra cost will be met?

said, the reply to the first point in the question was in the affirmative. As to the second point, he had to state that the amount due to depositors (including interest undrawn) increased in the year 1895 by about £9,000,000. With respect to the third paragraph, the answer was that the average price of Consols during 1895 was about 106; and, as to the last point, the margin of £3,836 was, under statute, paid over to the Exchequer. Owing to some decrease in administrative charges, and to investments in other Government securities than Consols, the year 1895 showed a much larger margin.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the fact that the Post Office Savings Bank was established for the encouragement of thrift among the masses, he will give the House some assurance that the rate of interest shall not be reduced, at all events, so far as accounts showing a balance of less than one hundred pounds are concerned?

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, in reply to the hon. Member for North Islington on the 17th instant, the whole question of the rate of interest on Savings Bank Accounts must remain in suspense till the Report of the Departmental Committee has been received.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has observed, at page 70 of the recently-issued Foreign Office Report on the German Colonies in the South Pacific (No. 382), it is stated that Mataafa and his leading followers, who were deported to the Marshall Islands in a British war vessel after the last Samoan war, are anxious to return home; whether there is any immediate prospect of these exiles being permitted to return to their own country; and, whether he is in a position to supplement the information in the Report with respect to the provision made for their religious requirements in their present place of banishment?

I have seen the Report in question, but Her Majesty's Government have no other knowledge that Mataafa and his followers have recently expressed an anxiety to return home. In view of the state of affairs still prevailing in Samoa, there is no immediate prospect of their being permitted to return. Upon the third point, I have no information to add to that which was given to the hon. Member in reply to a question on March 25 last, according to which the religious provision for the exiles is adequate.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Mardiros Arabian, a British subject, and wealthy merchant of Trebizond, has been imprisoned at that place since September by the Turkish authorities; and if any, and what, steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to obtain his release?

Mr. Mardiros Arabian was imprisoned after the disturbances at Trebizond in October last. In reply to representations made by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, the Turkish Government maintained that the trial of Mr. Arabian, whose naturalisation as a British subject had not been completed, was properly conducted and that he was justly sentenced. Her Majesty's Ambassador has reported that he is making a further representation on the matter.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, (1) if his attention has been drawn to the condemnation of schools in the West Riding of Yorkshire, made in the Report of Mr. A. P. Lawrie, an Assistant Commissioner; and (2) if, with a view to the withdrawal of the Report if it should prove to be inaccurate, he will cause an independent Inquiry to be held as to the nature and extent of the investigations made by the Assistant Commissioner as the basis of his Report?

said, the answer to the first part of the question was in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

asked if there was any machinery in the Department by which a person aggrieved by the report might have an Inquiry?

asked for notice of the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House regarding the presence of Russian forces at the capital of Korea; and whether the agreement entered into by the Russian Government not to occupy any port in Korea when Great Britain withdrew from Port Hamilton is still binding?

We have received no further information than that which I gave in reply to a question on Tuesday, but have telegraphed to Her Majesty's Consul General at Soul. Her Majesty's Government consider that the pledge given by the Russian Government in 1886 not to occupy Korean territory under any circumstances whatsoever is still binding.

I beg to ask the Vice-president of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Government has considered the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the office of High Sheriff, and will make any recommendation on the subject?

I understand that the attention of the Government has not been directed to the recommendations in question with a view to any legislation on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the number, or approximate number, of hand-loom weavers in India; and, when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which has taken place with the Government of India on the Cotton Duties since the last Papers were laid upon the Table?

I have no returns of the precise number of hand-loom weavers in India. The Census of 1891 showed for all India, including Native States, 1,873,980 households of the weaver caste. This is a large reduction as compared with the previous Return of 1881. This evidence of the falling-off in the hand industry is confirmed by the fact that of recent years the weaving mills of India have steadily increased their out-turn, while the area of cotton cultivation has remained stationary. As soon as I receive copies of the recent Acts and the discussions thereon I shall be glad to lay papers on the Table.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce in this Session any Bill dealing with the subject of secondary education in England?

said, the Bill of which notice had been given would deal with education generally.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has considered the advisability of improving the method of transferring the mails from train to steamer and steamer to train at Holyhead and Kingstown; and, whether the harbour improvements being made at the ports mentioned, in view of the new mails contract, include any arrangements for a speedier transfer of the mails than the present slow method of carrying them on the backs of porters?

The question of improving the method of transferring mails, &c., at Holyhead and Kingstown piers is now receiving special attention, and the Postmaster General is at the present time in communication with the President of the Board of Trade on the subject. The improvements to be made to the harbours will not affect the method of transferring the mails.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, when he proposes to introduce the Bill, promised by him last Session, to constitute Towns Commissioners in Ireland corporate bodies to enable them to hold land for the purpose of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (Part III.), and for other purposes for which the holding of land is necessary?

I hope to introduce, at an early date, a Bill for the purpose mentioned in the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the policy of the Admiralty, in relation to the invitation to tender and the acceptance of tenders for the building of ships and machinery, is under the guidance of Sir John Fisher?

The policy of the Admiralty in relation to the invitation to tender and the acceptance of tenders for the building of ships and machinery is distinctly under the guidance of the First Lord and Financial Secretary. Their intervention is not nominal or theoretical, but practical and direct. Any attacks on the system or on the mode in which it is carried out ought to be directed against them, and not against the person of the Controller of the Navy, Sir John Fisher, who, by the rules of the Service and official custom, is prevented from defending himself either by voice or pen. [Cheers.]

I would like to put a supplemental question to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, whether it is true that everything in the matter of contract-built ships, especially our destroyers, is sacrificed, as stated in the Globe yesterday, to cheapness?

My answer to my hon. Friend would be this. Just look at the ships which have been delivered by the contractors, and look at their efficiency, and see whether everything has been sacrificed to cheapness. ["Hear, hear!"] This attack on the Board of Admiralty with reference to cheapness reflects an unmerited slur on the splendid work which has been done by other firms who have delivered torpedo-boats perfectly equal in efficiency to those of the firm the rejection of whose subsequent tenders has led to the attacks on the present system. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the losses of the inhabitants of Kafiristan during the recent invasion by the forces of the Amir; and whether, if the military operations are renewed, Her Majesty's Government will arrange for a British officer to accompany the Afghan troops?

According to the latest information received from the Government of India, the Kafirs were being disarmed and the property of those who had fled was being confiscated, but both the persons and property of those who remained were safe. No repressive measures are reported. About 150 Kafirs have sought refuge in Chitral. The Afghan troops under the Sipah Salar have withdrawn, and military operations are reported to be practically terminated. The Government of India have desired that telegraphic reports be sent to them from Chitral of any further operations. It would not be possible to make arrangements by which a British officer should accompany any subsequent Afghan expedition.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has any information confirming the reports of the maltreatment and murder of a British officer or trooper near Blaawberg, in the Transvaal, on 1st January; and, whether the complaints of British subjects being commandeered at Sydenburgh, Klerks-dorp, and other places have been authenticated?

I have received from Sir Hercules Robinson the following telegram dated February 11th:—

"British Agent in the South African Republic has telegraphed long report on allegations in Critic as to shooting of a British officer, which I am sending by mail. The President of the South African Republic has been asked by British Agent to institute searching inquiry.—ROBINSON."

I have no information as to the second portion of the Question. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars, I will cause inquiry to be made.

May I ask whether the President has assented to the demand for a searching inquiry?

I have no further information.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government has refused to co-operate with Germany in furthering an International monetary agreement by re-opening the mints in India?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say there is no truth in the report mentioned by him. The Government of this country has not been approached by Germany on the subject of an international monetary agreement. We should be willing to consider, in conjunction with the Indian Government, the reopening of the mints in India if such a measure could be made part of a satisfactory scheme of currency reform.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the grievances of tied-house tenants, and other licensing questions.

The Government have no objection to an inquiry into the licensing laws, but the subject, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is a thorny and difficult one, and before proceeding further we should like to be assured that there is some agreement as to the terms of reference among the various persons interested in this difficult subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, (1) whether, amongst the Measures referred to in the Speech from the Throne which the Government contemplate introducing during this Session to mitigate the distress under which the agricultural classes suffer, it is intended to introduce a Bill to reduce the heavy railway rates and charges which press so heavily on farmers; and, (2) whether the Government intend to introduce legislation to either revise or abolish the preferential terms given by railway companies for long distances and foreign traffic.

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Having regard to the recent legislation on the subject of rates, I am not prepared to say that I think it is desirable to introduce any such Measure this Session. As regards the latter part of the hon. and learned Member's question, I must remind him that undue preference has been already dealt with by the Legislature in the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts of 1854 and 1888.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in sending out the circular which is always sent out in connection with the introduction of the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill, which will be introduced to-day, he will so modify the circular of 1893 as to point out that the Land Tax Commissioners, nominated by the County Members of the House, themselves elect the Income Tax Commissioners, which makes the matter one of importance to the commercial classes.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly correct in saying that the Land Tax Commissioners had the right to appoint the Income Tax Commissioners. In view of the fact that the Income Tax Commissioners had a difficult class of questions to deal with, he thought it would be advisable that the circular should be altered, and he had no doubt it could be altered.

said he should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question which might, perhaps, facilitate the discussion upon the Resolution which stood in his name. The question was, whether the several sub-heads would be moved separately, or whether each Resolution would be moved en bloc?

asked the Speaker under what rule the Debate would be conducted? He presumed that if any hon. Member spoke that day, after the right hon. Gentleman had moved the Resolution, and the Debate was adjourned, he would, according to the strict rules of the House, have exhausted his right of speaking when the Debate was resumed. But he understood that frequently, when a discussion had taken place upon a new Standing Order, a certain amount of latitude had been allowed, and a Member had been permitted to move two Amendments, not necessarily consequential, and, in fact, to a certain extent, the Debate had been conducted much in the same way as when the House was in Committee.

The hon. Member for Northampton is quite right in his description of what would be the ordinary course. If any Debate takes place to day, and it is resumed on Monday, it would be treated as one Debate, and those who spoke to-day upon the general question would not, of course, be able to speak on the main question again on Monday. The hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that, on the occasion of the introduction of the New Rules, in 1887, by the late Mr. W. H. Smith, there was, with the general assent of the House, a general Debate upon the scheme which was laid before the House, and I think it would be convenient and in harmony with other precedents when new Rules of Procedure were moved, that a general Debate upon the proposed method of dealing with Supply should be permitted, if such be the pleasure of the House. There was an understanding on previous occasions that hon. Members who had spoken in that general Debate would not be prevented by having so spoken from moving or seconding Amendments. As the hon. Member says, the Debate on that occasion was treated, practically, like a Debate in Committee, with the exception that hon. Members had not the right to speak as often as they liked upon the same Amendment. Subject to that it was treated as a Bill in Committee and a Member was allowed to move more than one Amendment. But, of course, that is entirely for the House. There may be a general desire in the House to conform to the strict rules. But, if there is a general understanding, the discussion might be conducted on the lines which have been before allowed with regard to Rules of Procedure.

As I understand, Sir, the Resolutions are to be dealt with as if they were clauses in a Bill. I mean that the preliminary discussion would be very much equivalent to a sort of Second Reading discussion, and afterwards, when we come to the Amendments they will be dealt with just as if they were clauses in a Bill, and that you can have discussions on each line and each paragraph.

I think the right hon. Gentleman a little misunderstood what I said. I did not say that course would be adopted, but that it was for the House to say what should be the course. It is not for me, but for the House, to say.

asked if an hon. Member might take part in the general Debate on the general proposition and afterwards speak on as many Amendments as he chose to move, or whether he was confined to one Amendment to the general proposition itself.

By the ordinary Rules of the House he may speak on the main question before the House, and afterwards, if an Amendment is moved, he may speak to that Amendment when it has been put from the Chair. According to the ordinary Rules of the House, if he had spoken on the main question he could not propose or second an Amendment, but I have already suggested how those rules might be relaxed.

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the manner in which the question will be put in regard to the various paragraphs of the Resolution depends, not upon the Government, but entirely upon the Chair, and I have no doubt the Chair will consult the general convenience of the House as to the manner in which the question shall be put. In regard to the other points, my own view is that a certain amount of latitude may be well allowed, provided it is not abused. ["Hear, hear!"] I should call it abuse that an hon. Gentleman should make a general speech on the Resolution as a whole, and then repeat that speech with regard to a special Amendment. [Laughter]

observed, that these Resolutions formed, in fact, several distinct Standing Orders, and he desired to know from the Speaker whether a Motion would be in order that each paragraph should be put separately from the Chair. That was to say, that each paragraph should be subject to Debate.

I understand the rule of the House to be this. An hon. Member may put down a Motion in any form he likes, and it will remain in that form unless upon an appeal made to me I decide it would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the House to deal with it in that shape; otherwise, it is for hon. Members to formulate the Motions which they desire to bring before the House. It would not be in order that the House should reform a proposition put before the House by an hon. Mem- ber except by the regular course of moving Amendments, and the only question is—Would it embarrass or inconvenience the House? I rather understood from the First Lord of the Treasury that he invited my opinion whether it would be so in this case. So far as I understand, it is proposed to move No. 1 as one Resolution and No. 2 as another. That is a course which does not seem to me to be one likely to be embarrassing to the House. It does not appear to me that the question is put in such a shape that it cannot be conveniently dealt with, because it will be in the option of hon. Members to move that everything after the first clause should be left out. I do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the First Lord of the Treasury in putting down the whole Resolutions as one.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it would not be convenient that the first paragraph should be put separately from those which followed. As everybody could see, the two questions were very distinct, and they ought to be practically two Standing Orders instead of one. The Speaker having decided that the matter was one for the discretion of the Government, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might facilitate discussion to separate the paragraphs.

replied, that it was not possible for him to adopt that course for a reason the House would appreciate. In the view of the Government the two clauses hung together, and if, by any chance, the second part of the clause was defeated they should drop the first. Ho considered that no one would suffer any inconvenience from the course the Government proposed to adopt.

suggested, as a way out of the difficulty, that the right hon. Gentleman should move clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 first, and then, if they did not pass, drop the whole thing, or, if they did pass, then he might move No. 1. [Laughter.]

, wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he had postponed the consideration of the resolutions until Monday, the rights of private Members in respect to notices of motion, which would be balloted for to-morrow and would commence to take effect from that day four weeks, would be respected?

I am not quite sure that the hon. Member quite apprehends the position. An appeal was made to me yesterday on behalf of private Members to defer the main Debate upon this resolution until Monday. I accepted that suggestion, not as a convenience to the Government, but to private Members. I stated it would probably be advantageous that I should make a preliminary statement to-day explaining the object for which we have brought forward the resolutions now on the paper. My hon. Friend has not been injured by postponing the resolutions. If the Government are fortunate enough to carry through their scheme, as I hope they will be, I am afraid the chances of any hon. Member's resolution coming on this day four weeks will be a very small one. It will not, however, be made smaller by the fact that the main Debate has been deferred until Monday.

, desired to know whether it was intended to introduce the Bill that night (of which a notice appeared on the Paper), to amend the law relating to the trial of criminal causes and the attendance of jurors at Quarter Sessions in Ireland?

It is the intention if we reach it. I confess I know nothing about it, but I do not think it will be at all of a controversial character.

I only wish to say that we should expect at least some brief explanation of the provisions of the Bill.

Certainly.

asked for leave to introduce a Bill to appoint additional Commissioners for executing the Acts for granting a Land Tax and other rates and taxes.

complained that a provision had been introduced into this Bill from an old Act of George III. requiring a property qualification. In one of the clauses every Land Tax Commissioner was to have a property qualification amounting to an income of about £100 a year out of land. Hon. Members would be aware that in addition to the Justices, who were ex officio Land Tax Commissioners, that House, under successive Bills brought in each Session, had given to each Member a right of nominating Land Tax Commissioners. In his view a little more time ought to be given before such a measure was introduced. The property qualification of £100 per annum in land was required to be possessed, by the Land Tax Commissioners, under a clause in an old Act of George III., and in his opinion that qualification ought to be abolished. He felt bound to oppose the Measure at its present stage, because it was an instance of the evil of legislation by reference to previous Acts of Parliament, and therefore it could not be amended in Committee.

said that the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that this Measure could not be amended in Committee, because it was quite as possible to amend this Bill in the Committee stage as any other Measure. Whatever objections the hon. Gentleman had to the Bill could properly be urged in Committee. The hon. Member had put a question on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir William Harcourt), in 1893, when the latter informed him that the Government had nothing to do with the matter.

Friday is now a private Members' day.

Yes; but Tuesdays and Fridays, under our existing practice, are always taken at a comparatively early period for the legislative work of the Government. No Government will give up that privilege unless they can, in return, look forward to some conclusion to the work of Supply, to some probability of bringing the labours of the Session to a close before the end of August or the beginning of September.

The rule makes no change in that regard. The Government will still have the power to take Friday under the proposed new Rule.

Yes, Sir; the Government will undoubtedly have power to take Friday after a division under the new rule, but the Government would be obliged to do in the future what it has never been compelled to do in the past; it will have to give 20 days between the hours of 4 and 12 for the discussion of Supply, in addition to all the time taken up on the Appropriation Bill, the Supplementary Estimates of the preceding year, and the three days which are at least required before the Speaker is moved out of the Chair.

The words are ''not more than 20 days;" not "20 days."

Twenty days will be given to the House entirely. It will be seen from what I have said that the great merit of the scheme is that it practically insures that private Members shall have an opportunity during the effective Parliamentary months of bringing forward really important questions that can be fairly discussed. They do not get that under the existing system: they would get it under the system I propose. The first objection I have stated is this, that if you allocate these twenty days in the manner proposed, the Government having it in their power to control the order in which Supply is discussed, Ministers could put off till the very end of the time the critical Votes, which they are afraid perhaps to have discussed, and the result would be that, after all, the really important questions would be gagged. Let me reply, in the first place, that I individually should have not the slightest objection to leaving it to a Committee of this House to determine the order in each Session in which the Estimates shall be brought forward. (Opposition cheers.) If the House desired it, we might leave this in the hands either of the Committee of Selection or of some other small Committee of unquestioned impartiality. I do not recommend that course, and for this reason: If you look back at our Parliamentary history you will see that no Government is to be trusted in the distribution of the time when there is a conflict between its own business and other people's business. Of course, the Government always decides for its own business. But I have never yet heard of a Government which tried to manipulate the business of the House so as to avoid criticism. I go back to the days when I was Chief Secretary, when feeling ran much hotter than now, and Party passions were more violent. We had prolonged discussions on the Irish Estimates, but there was no attempt to fix Irish Estimates, at a time inconvenient to Irish Members. On the contrary, I am sure they would acknowledge that, whatever our faults may have been, we always endeavour, and any Government would always endeavour, to meet the convenience of important sections of the House. (Cheers.) I do not believe that among the many faults which Front Benches have, the fault of desiring to shirk criticism is one that can be charged against them. Therefore, my own personal advice would be to leave the decision of the order of the Estimates to the discretion of the Government and the Secretary to the Treasury. That will be more elastic than any Committee could be; I believe it would be more satisfactory and equally impartial. And I may here be permitted to declare at the outset of the discussion what is the method which I think ought to be adopted in dealing with the Estimates. I think our existing system has every fault which a system can possibly have. Among others, there is the fault of beginning with Class 1, which deals with, I think, Royal palaces, some trivialities [Irish laughter], some architectural trivialities [Cheers], which have nothing to do with the general policy of the country, and on which the general policy of the country cannot be raised. If there be a Republican in the House he might wish to raise the question of Republican institutions, but he cannot do it. Under Class 1 you can discuss nothing but drains, windows, roofs, and matters of that sort. Therefore, I should propose that we should always put first on every day Votes in Supply are taken some Vote of public interest and importance. [Cheers.] It will be observed that it is not necessary, and I suspect it is probably not desirable, that we should lay it down that the discussion on that Vote must needs be finished before an other Vote comes on. Let us say that Thursday and Friday in a particular week are devoted to Supply. Let us suppose the Foreign Office Vote—the important Vote on which the foreign policy of the Government can be raised—is put down first on Thursday. Let us suppose, further, it goes over Thursday and Friday. The House will then have had an opportunity of discussing the foreign policy of the Government for two nights, and my own view would be that when the next Friday comes round, or the next day on which Supply is taken, we should not necessarily finish the Foreign Office Vote, but that some other class, raising some other subject of great interest, should have the first place. That practically is an impossible system if you manage your Votes as you do now. Under the proposed system it will be in our power to arrange the discussion of Foreign Affairs, the Army, the Navy, Ireland, education, and so on in a manner convenient to the House and to Members interested. Some hon. Gentlemen have supposed that we intend to devote Fridays alone to Supply, so that, in the case of Irish Estimates, Irish Members would be put to the inconvenience of coming over on successive Fridays, and going back to Ireland, it may be, in the interval. That is not a necessary part of our scheme at all. There is nothing whatever in the scheme to prevent a week or fortnight being continuously devoted to Supply. Of course, in the case of the Irish Members we should take care in the future as in the past to see that out of the 20 days time was allotted to them in the manner most convenient for their attendance and the continuous discussion of the questions in which they are interested. That brings me to the second objection I have heard against my scheme. That objection is that by the end of the 20 days a large number of Votes will remain undiscussed, and that when the guillotine falls it will be found that the expenditure of a vast sum of money has never really been under the consideration of the House at all. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, that is true. I go further and say that the plan of always putting an important Vote at the beginning of a day's sitting will probably increase the number of Votes that are not discussed, though it would make the Votes that are discussed far more important than at present. The House is well aware that, under the system under which we have been content to live so far, the number of Votes that are necessarily passed either undiscussed or with only a word of conversation in the small hours of the morning is very large indeed. I have not made out any elaborate statistics on the subject, but I find that in one sitting 26 Votes for the Civil Service and the Army and Navy were taken and £16,500,000 were voted in, 12 hours.

What date?

I take it from a speech—I believe of the hon. Gentleman himself—made on the subject of Supply in 1891. Then in 1894 it will be found that half the Votes for the Civil Service, representing £15,000,000, were passed without any discussion at all, and among them the Education and the Post Office Votes, involving an expenditure of £8,500,000.

1894?

My note is 1894. So the House will see there is really no difference in that respect between my plan and the present system. The only difference is, as I said before, that under my plan Votes not discussed will be unimportant and under the present plan they are too often important. The fourth objection I have to meet is the limit of the 20 days which I have suggested as the proper time in addition to the days spent in getting the Speaker out of the Chair and the time taken up by Supplementary Estimates and the Appropriation Bill. The House will find it very difficult, with the information at their disposal, adequately to criticise that estimate. A return has been prepared in which the number of days devoted to Supply is nominally set out, but it is wholly misleading, for the reason that any day on which Supply was discussed at all is put down as a day devoted to Supply, and therefore you would infer from it that a great deal more time was given to Supply in previous years than was actually the case. I have had worked out, by a laborious calculation, the number of hours given to Supply, Votes on account, and the Report of Supply for the six years 1890–95, and I have divided the number of hours into eight-hour days, as it will be observed that my 20 days are 20 eight-hour days. The number of these days was—28 in 1890, 23 in 1891, eight in 1892, 27 in 1893, 19 in 1894, and 20 in 1895. It will be seen that, while some years are in excess of what I propose to give, others are in defect; but I wish the House to remember that in those eight-hour days are included many hours in which, practically, the time was thrown away, as the House was called upon to deal with Supply under conditions in which proper discussion was absolutely impossible. Assuming that the House is not in its best Parliamentary form after the 5th of August, I find that in 1890 no fewer than seven days were given to Supply after that date; in 1893, 14 days; in 1894, three days; in 1895, ten—all after the 5th of August. I find, further, that, of the time which I have stated was given to Supply, a number of hours equivalent to 2½ days in 1890, two days in 1891, 1½ in 1892, one in 1894, and two in 1895 were spent by this House after midnight. If you abstract these hours from the number of eight-hour days, you will find that the 20 days I propose is a very liberal allowance, if in the future we are not asked for more elaborate discussion than we have been content with in the past. The last objection with which it is necessary for me to deal is one of principle; it is, perhaps, one which affects some hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House more powerfully than any of the others. The very idea of bringing Supply to a summary termination—of guillotining Supply, as the phrase is—is repellent to them [Cheers from both sides of the House], and they are very reluctant to make what they consider so important a change in our rules. I am the last person to undervalue that objection; but I hope it will not be raised in this House by any of those hon. Gentlemen whose love of Parliamentary institutions does not induce them to stay here during the dog days in order to fight Supply after the 12th. [Laughter and cheers.] There is a not inconsiderable class of hon. Members who are anxious to maintain the liberties of the House, provided those liberties inflict no sacrifice upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] I can well conceive that, if my resolution should be rejected by the aid of these hon. Gentlemen, when next August comes round and they have vanished from the scene, and are enjoying themselves on grouse moors or golf links [Laughter and cheers], they will, when they take up the morning paper and see that the business of the House was Supply and that the House was ''left sitting'' at three o'clock in the morning, reflect with satisfaction that they have contributed to this happy result [Laughter], and that they fought gallantly for the privileges of the House when the new Rule was discussed, and they will have the double happiness of enjoying the country and reflecting that their friends are not enjoying themselves in the same way. [Laughter and cheers.] Criticism on my plan from hon. Gentlemen who suffer from the existing plan I will listen to with respectful sympathy, but criticism from the other hon. Gentlemen should not excite either respect or sympathy. I remember that when the late Mr. Smith proposed as a new rule that we should adjourn for an hour-and-a-half for dinner he met with very great opposition, not only from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but also from Members of the House of standing and influence on his own side; the rule was accordingly rejected and the House continued to sit during the dinner hour. But when the hon. Gentlemen whose opposition contributed to the rejection of the proposed rule were asked to stay here through the dinner hour they all with one accord began to make excuse [Laughter], and said that, though it was extremely proper that the House should sit during the dinner hour, it was not at all proper that they should be in the House. Leaving the various classes of critics who object strongly to the proposals, let me come to the objections themselves. I do not believe there are two opinions as to the inexpediency of applying what is controversially known as the "gag" to legislative proposals. In the past both parties have been responsible in circumstances which they deemed to be of overmastering exigencies for gagging discussion upon very important measures—it is not for me to say whether with adequate excuse or not; but both parties have, with the utmost reluctance, resorted to the practice of bringing discussion upon Bills to a sudden termination. It may be asked whether there is in this matter any ground for distinction between Supply and Bills. I think there is the widest distinction between Supply and Bills. First, it is not necessary that a Bill should pass in any Session; but it is absolutely necessary that Supply should be passed. Secondly, a Bill is for the most part, and always to a certain extent, a novelty; it provides for something new to be done; but Supply, with insignificant variations, which are seldom variations of principle, is the same from year to year and almost from generation to generation. However valuable criticism in Supply may be, it hardly ever results in the alteration of an estimate. Of course we all know there have been exceptions, and Governments have, as happened last year, been beaten on Supply. The House knows that in whatever shape Supply is introduced in that shape it will pass. But in the case of a Bill there never has yet been an important Bill brought forward by even the strongest Government in which the result of the discussion of the various stages has not been profoundly to modify the structure and sometimes even the principle of the measure. Then there is a third and even more important distinction. When you pass a Bill you make a permanent alteration in the laws of the country. You put upon the Statute Book a measure which is bound to influence the history of your country until it is repealed. But Supply deals with annual expenditure, and what Parliament has done in 1895 it can reverse in 1896. Supply is just for a year and a year only; and therefore, in this third respect there is the greatest difference between Bills and Estimates. But, Sir, in addition to these arguments there is the further argument which I must earnestly press upon those who are influenced by the objection which I am now endeavouring to meet. I ask, is there after all so wide a distinction between the guillotine proposed by us and, the actual method by which Supply is now brought to an end; and, if there is a difference, is it a difference in favour of the prevailing practice? Sir, the difference between the guillotine and the rack. [Laughter.] You bring Supply to an end, but you only bring it to an end by applying such an amount of physical torture to the persons engaged that the discussion ceases to go on. [Laughter.] Misery and exhaustion—these are the methods you now adopt through August in order to bring discussion of Supply to a close. Is it not more dignified and less painful to have an automatic process by which on a reasonable date and after reasonable discussion an end could be put to Debates which all must desire to close? ["Hear, hear!"] The public outside this House know little of what goes on here in those mysterious hours of the morning when the unhappy Administration of the day is trying to finish the work of Supply. [''Hear, hear!"] The expenditure of temper, the irritation of nerves, and the waste of tissue [Laughter] which go on; the self-control which is required on the one side and the heroic endurance which is exhibited on the other would move the admiration possibly of the outside world if the outside world knew it; and whether it would move their admiration or not it would certainly excite their pity. [Laughter.] I cannot conceive why we should tolerate the further continuance of a system so absurd. [Cheers.] I ask those who have gone through it—and most of us who are old Members and do not pair on August 1 have gone through it—I ask them whether they think any possible public object is served by this suffering of those—some of them at least—the most unoffending of God's creatures. [Laughter.] For my own part I absolutely deny that it contributes either to the dignity or to the liberties of this House to require the Government and the Opposition—rather the small remnant of the Opposition who linger in this House after the middle of August—to go through this melancholy tragedy year after year without Irving some rational and reasonable remedy. [Cheers.] The House will now understand the main grounds on which I venture to ask it with all earnestness to adopt what I think is this great reform. Let it be understood that it will not increase the amount of available Government time for legislation. It will not curtail, but largely increase the privileges of private Members. It will, I most earnestly hope and firmly believe, have the effect of shortening our inordinately long Sessions, and will give even the hardest worked of us some chance of enjoying, at all events, the end of an English summer. It will, beyond question, improve the discussion of Supply, and increase the control which this House has over the administrative action of the Government; it will give to private Members much-desired opportunities of criticism, and it will add dignity and importance to our Debates. For these reasons I earnestly trust that, irrespective of Party, we shall do our best to carry through, on an early day, if not this Resolution in its exact terms, at all events a resolution not substantially different from it. [Loud cheers.]

said, he did not suppose that the subject of the Bill which he proposed to ask the leave of the House to introduce would excite any opposition, whatever difference of opinion might exist in regard to its details. The question of greater facilities in railway communication was before the House last Session, when he believed there was a general expression of opinion that Parliament ought to endeavour to supply some less costly means than the existing law allowed for providing more extensive railway accommodation. The Government did not put forward their proposals as a panacea for the evils of agricultural depression. But it was the duty of the Government to do all in their power to remove any impediments which they thought interfered with the development of agriculture, and it was with that view they proposed to introduce the Light Railways Bill. If they could do anything to bring consumer and producer more closely together—if they could make more easy the distribution of agricultural produce—they would have done much to help both the producer and the consumer. This country was possessed of a great network of important railways, and no one would deny that much of the development of our industries was due to the enterprise of railway companies in opening up their great lines of communication. It was quite true that considerable complaints were made in regard to the charges of those great railways for the carriage of agricultural produce, and it was asserted that agriculture suffered in consequence of such charges. ["Hear, hear!"] He was not prepared to deny that there was some ground for those complaints, but, assuming that agriculturists who now possess railway facilities might fairly complain of railway charges, what of those producers who had no railway communication whatever to avail themselves of? If the position of the one class was bad, the House would admit that the position of agriculturists who had no means of railway communication was infinitely worse. The Agricultural Department had had for some time past under their charge the production of maps of various counties containing large tracts of country without adequate means of communication. He found that in one county there were 324,000 acres of cultivated land which had no railway within three miles. In another county there were 286,000 acres, in another 128,000 acres, in another 102,000 acres, and in another 72,000 acres—all large areas of cultivated land—distant more than three miles from a railway station. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen endeavoured to deal with this question last year, and he took a wise and proper course in inviting certain gentlemen familiar with the subject to meet in Conference at the Board of Trade with the view of suggesting some remedy for the admitted evil. The result of that Conference was undoubtedly very useful, but as embodied in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman it was inadequate. [''Hear, hear!"] The conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman at the first meeting of the Conference were somewhat to blame for the inadequacy of the result. The right hon. Gentleman said at the outset:—

There is one question which we think it will be entirely unnecessary for you to consider, and which, indeed, ought to be regarded as lying entirety outside the scope of our Conference, and that is the question of anything in the nature of aid by the central Treasury of the country."

When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill last year, the complaint which was made of the absence of any provision for help from the State was by no means confined to the right hon. Gentleman's opponents. ["Hear, hear!"] It was true that the Bill of last year provided for facilitating the necessary procedure; but the Government's view was that in a great number of districts, at any rate, where the railways were most needed they would not be made except with some aid both from the locality and from Parliament. [Cheers.] A combination of the State, acting very necessarily within certain limitations, the localities, and individuals outside the local bodies, would be necessary to secure the effectual operation of an Act dealing with light railways; and the question was, How could this combination of effort be best secured and how could procedure be best facilitated? Believing that a little personal investigation and experience would be a very valuable aid in dealing with this question, he, together with Lord Dudley and Sir Courtenay Boyle, went to France and Belgium last year with a view to seeing the nature of the light railways there—how they were made and worked and how their finance was conducted. Nothing could exceed the extreme courtesy of the officials both in France and Belgium, who afforded every facility for obtaining full information as to construction, working, and finance. The systems of light railways in France and Belgium were materially different. In France the light railways were to all intents and purposes secondary railways. They had their bridges, embankments, cuttings, signals, and stations; and the main difference between them and the main trunk lines was that the one had a broad gauge and the other a narrow. In Belgium the system would be more properly described as a great system of steam tramways. The main roads were used for the lines, although occasionally a strip of land by the side of the road was taken or a short cut across country was made to avoid a difficulty. They had very few signals and hardly any stations. The branches leading to particular farms or centres of industry which had to be served were simple and inexpensive; and the loading and unloading of trucks was carried on in simple sidings on the roadside, where the farmers' carts and wagons were drawn up. The natural result was that the light railways in Belgium were constructed much more cheaply than those in France; and they were so superior from many points of view that he was led to ask the manager of the Chemin de Fer du Nord, with whom he had an interview in Paris, how it happened that the two systems, the one paying and the other not paying, should exist side by side. The manager explained that in Belgium, as in England, the system of great trunk lines was practically complete, whereas in France it was by on means complete, and the secondary railways were therefore built as completing the main system, only on a cheaper scale. He added that if a country had the same complete main railway system as Belgium he would unhesitatingly advise the adoption of the Belgian system of light railways rather than the French. The Bill of the Government would, of course, provide for either of these two plans being adopted. It would afford facilities for making branches of existing railways upon a large scale, but with a different gauge if it were desired, and also for making such railways as the Belgian. In Belgium these railways were made at an average cost of about £3,000 a mile including rolling stock; in France the cost was very much greater. It was objected that Belgium was a flat country, and the system which was possible there would not be possible in a hilly country. But part of Belgium was hilly; and he found there that the light railways travelled with the greatest ease up gradients of one in 22 and round the sharpest curves. The development of this system in Belgium had been very great. Within the last 10 years over 1,000 miles of railways had been completed and were in working order; and he was told that projects were now under consideration for another 1,000 miles, which would probably be approved and in operation in a short time. In Belgium the money for the light railways was provided by the State, the province, the commune, and outside subscribers in conjunction. In 1890 the average profit returned was 2·65 per cent.; in 1891, 2·75 per cent.; in 1892, 2·76 per cent.; in 1893, 2·80 per cent.; and in 1894, 2·90 per cent. In 27 per cent. of the whole the average profit returned was 3½ per cent. But these results, progressively good, did not represent the whole of the case. In connection with these railways there were two interests—that of the subscribers and that of the companies which worked the lines. The companies handed over to the subscribers a certain proportion of the gross receipts, and from the remainder derived their own profit. As showing the great advantage that accrued to the country districts by these lines, it was interesting to note that the two provinces where the interest paid upon the outlay was the lowest were pushing for a larger mileage of railway than before. How did the Government propose to extend the advantages he had described to Great Britain? The main difficulties hitherto had been two—first, the unwillingness of Parliament to authorise the compulsory acquisition of land otherwise than by a scheme directly approved by Parliament itself, and the consequent cost of obtaining approval. The second difficulty had been the expense of the requirements for the public safety enforced by the Board of Trade. As regarded the first difficulty he had alluded to, he hoped Parliament would not insist upon keeping in its own hands the sanction of schemes for this useful purpose, and that owners of property would be content with a full, exhaustive, but simply organised inquiry without insisting on an appeal to the Legislature in a matter so largely beneficial to their own interests. As regarded the requirements for the public safety, the public must make up their minds that, if they desired to have these railways, they must of themselves exercise an amount of caution, and not insist upon those elaborate precautions which, on trunk lines, where trains were run at great speed, might be necessary, but which in other countries had been abandoned where great speed was not desired. So the Government proposed not to require the sanction of Parliament to the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of these light railways. Under their Bill a scheme for the construction of light railways might be proposed by local authorities such as a County, Town or District Council, or by a Railway Company, a Tramway Company, a Company ad hoc, or a combination of these. To whom was the scheme to be submitted? In Belgium there was a special tribunal for this purpose, and it was rather remarkable to note that before this tribunal was set up, ten years ago, the Act empowering the construction of light railways was practically inoperative. It was proposed not exactly to follow the Belgian system, but to take a leaf out of their book, and this Bill set up a Light Railway Commission, consisting of three persons, two of whom it was hoped would consent to serve without pay. The Government desired to have on the Commission gentlemen who would act with considerable knowledge of the whole subjects in the interests of the community, and it was not intended that this Commission should be a mere formal Department of the Board of Trade but that it should be a Commission which would not only have these schemes submitted to it, but would give every assistance to local authorities and others in the formation as in the preparation of schemes—giving benevolent assistance in the development of the whole system of light railways. What would be the mode of working of the Commission when a scheme was presented to them? They would have to satisfy themselves that all persons interested had been consulted; they would determine the expediency of the application, elaborate its details, and after consideration of all objections laid before them they would reject the scheme or submit a draft Order for the confirmation of the Board of Trade. As to the action of the Board, they would give notice of the effect of the Order, consider any objections lodged with them, and confirm the Order with or without modification; and the Order when confirmed would have the same effect as if enacted by Parliament. They hoped that in the bulk of cases there would be no necessity for more than one local Inquiry. But they did not shut out the possibility—under circumstances which the Board of Trade might think justified it—of having an Inquiry of a more formal character. The Bill guarded against certain contingencies. It guarded against any attempt to apply the machinery of the Bill to the promotion of great lines of railway. It also provided against lines being made on a cheap and easy system which would unreasonably and improperly compete with existing lines, which had been formed and built under much more costly conditions. Therefore the Board of Trade might reject an order and insist on reference to Parliament—whether by reason of the magnitude of the undertaking, or on account of its effect on existing companies, or, thirdly, for any special reasons which would justify them in so acting. The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act would be incorporated in the Order, but, instead of the difficult and expensive process of deciding as to value under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, all matters in connection with them would be determined by a single Arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. As far as the question of public safety was concerned, the Board of Trade was empowered to deal generally in the way of modification with those requirements in their order, and the circumstances of each case would be considered in respect of permanent way, gauge, posts, and brake power. No limitations were contained in the Bill as to any of these requirements, but the Board of Trade would have power to deal with each separate application and the requirements which seemed to be necessary in each case. Power was taken to make other provisions. The House would thus see that the Board of Trade was intrusted with large and wide powers for dealing with all matters of interest in connection with the management and construction of these railways. With regard to finance, it was provided in the Bill that local authorities might themselves construct and work light railways either alone or jointly with other local authorities. It was, perhaps, not generally known that local authorities could not at present make tramways without obtaining Parliamentary powers in some form or other, and even when such powers were obtained, they could not work the tramways except in special cases. This Bill sought to remove those disabilities. It permitted local authorities to subscribe towards the funds necessary to make these light railways, either by taking shares or making debenture loans. Borrowing powers were conferred upon them to enable them to do this. The Government believed that these special facilities for procedure would encourage capitalists to bring forward schemes, and that, as in the case of water supply, gas, electric lighting, and tramways, local authorities would avail themselves of the powers given under this Bill. The Government believed that without State aid from local authorities it would be impossible to obtain the facilities required, and that Parliament might and ought in many cases to join with local authorities in giving financial aid. How did the Bill propose that it should be given? There were one or two ways open to them, e.g., the Bill might guarantee a certain dividend. The Government rejected that system both with regard to Imperial and local money. They did not think the system of guarantees was a sound or economical one, or that railways were as economically constructed or worked as they would be without a guarantee. Therefore the Government rejected that mode, which they believed might entail heavy burdens on the taxpayer and the ratepayer. With regard to the State becoming proprietors, the Government rejected the idea, not without some amount of anxious consideration, for there were arguments to be advanced in favour of the suggestion. They proposed to devote to the objects of the Bill £1,000,000, which would be available in two different ways. One portion would be available for special advances under special circumstances, another would be available for the granting of loans to facilitate the making of these lines. The Bill proposed that an existing railway company should undertake the construction and working of the line. Applications for loans would probably come from districts where it was almost impossible to hope for much assistance either from the local authorities or from outside individuals in the making of lines which were necessary for the carriage of agricultural produce to market. Similar assistance had been given in other parts of the United Kingdom, and they thought that England and Scotland had a right to the same treatment. In the case of large and poor districts the Treasury might take special cognisance of the needs of the case either by a grant or in some other way. Advances of this kind, he was sure the House would agree with him, would have to be considered with extreme caution ["Hear, hear!"] and no step should be taken before careful inquiry had convinced the Treasury that such aid was necessary. He thought it right that the Treasury, when making this advance, should have security given to them by the existing railway company undertaking to make and work the line, as had been done with considerable success, he believed, in Ireland. The other mode which they proposed was that in cases where the local authorities contributed either share or debenture capital to promote a light railway, the Government might contribute the like amount, either in shares or debentures, or both. The total amount contributed by the Treasury must not exceed 25 per cent. of the whole capital required for the making of the line. Two conditions were necessary before the State gave its aid—namely, that 50 per cent. of the capital required should be subscribed by way of share capital, and that 25 per cent. of that capital should be subscribed outside any public authority. The Government must be satisfied that all parties interested in the matter were becoming partners in the undertaking. It had been represented to him that many landowners who desired to subscribe towards the capital required for these railways could not, under the Settled Estates Act, raise the money for the purpose. The Minister for Agriculture would introduce a Bill dealing with that subject enabling landowners to raise money for that object. The Debenture loan of the Treasury would rank pari passu with the Debenture loan of the local authority, and the interest would be fixed at 3½ per cent. These were the proposals embodied in the Bill. It would be seen that they were founded upon the principle of harmonious action on the part of all parties concerned. He hoped and believed that the existing railway companies would be large factors in the success of their proposal, and would recognise that the light railways would become feeders of their own lines. They hoped for co-operation from the road authorities. The interests of the landowners would be adequately safeguarded, and their private rights would not be infringed, nor would these rights, he hoped, be unduly pushed, because, if these light railways were a success, there was no one who would derive greater benefit from them than the existing landowners. [''Hear, hear!"] The Government, therefore, expected their co-operation, and also that of the public, who, he trusted, would consent to some relaxation of the precautions hitherto taken. The Government did not propose this scheme as a remedy for the difficulties with which both the agricultural and fishing industries had to contend, but he hoped it would be recognised as an honest and vigorous attempt to improve the means by which the products of those industries could be brought to market. Whatever criticism might be directed against the Bill, he trusted that at least it would not be said that it was a feeble or halting attempt to deal with a subject of great interest and importance. [Cheers.]

said, he was glad that Her Majesty's Government should have put this Bill among the first measures of the Session. He had listened with great interest to the very clear statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and he heartily wished that the premature conclusion of the Parliament of 1895 had not prevented this matter having been sooner dealt with by the Bill which Her Majesty's late Government introduced. The discussion of the matter which took place 16 months ago, when the Board of Trade conference met, had continued in the Press ever since, and this would have prepared the public mind to welcome a measure of this kind. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, there were many districts which were still without facilities for the transport of agricultural products; we were, in fact, as much behind other countries in regard to this means of transport as we were in advance of them in regard to our system of main railway lines. He thought it was now generally admitted that no one could say that such a measure as this could give all the help which British agriculture unfortunately needed at this moment. [''Hear, hear!'] Still, he felt, with the present condition of agriculture and the sympathy which they all felt for the agricultural population, every possible remedy and palliative should be applied by Parliament. [Cheers.] If there was no other reason to justify this, one might be found in the fact that it was the oldest industry in the country. There was one other matter to which he would refer. It was that one of the evils of the times was the undue growth of large towns, and these light railways might encourage people to migrate from the large centres of population to small villages and increase there the demand for labour and increase the markets, and at the same time the health of the people, by allowing them to live in the pure air of the country. [''Hear, hear!"] In the subsequent discussion he hoped this point would attract attention. The problem was, how were they to cheapen the working of these railways? He was glad to see that the Bill dealt with the points (1) of the reduction of the cost of obtaining legal sanction to the making of the line; and (2) the cheapening of the requirements as to the construction and working of the line. No Bill would be adequate if these were omitted. On the first point the Government proposed to solve it in a different way from the Bill of last year. As regarded the second point—the cheapening and the dispensing of certain requirements—the Government were in the same position as the late Government were—such as the strength of the staff, the provisions for interlocking points and signals. All these were matters with regard to which great economy in the construction and the working of the line might be effected. Some one had said, utilitas publica periculum privatum. There were cases where there would be a certain amount of risk, and there were level crossings where there was danger; but he believed on the whole that the experience of this and other countries was satisfactory. In the United States they might see trams running at the rate of four miles an hour through populous districts, and children playing about, and yet few accidents happened. He should not be far wrong in saying that this Bill differed from the Bill of last year in three points—(1) in the creation of a Light Railways Commission; (2) in the power given to local authorities; and (3) the giving of a subsidy from national sources.

said, that he thought the Bill of last year provided that the local authority should be authorised to grant a subsidy.

said, he had the best reasons for saying that the difficulty as to a subsidy in the Bill of last year would not have been considered as fatal to the Measure brought forward if there had been an opportunity of proceeding with it. The objection to it was on the part of a few Members. [''Hear, hear!"] He should address himself to the three points referred to. As to the Light Railways Commission, he thought that was a proposal which might be fairly considered by the House. The Commission was to consist of two unpaid Members and a paid Commissioner. He thought the power would fall into the hands of the permanent paid Member, and ho would become a sort of light railway dictator. He did not desire then to express any hostile opinion; he only said the point would deserve very careful consideration. As to the next point, they were perfectly willing, when they brought in their Bill, to give the local authorities the power to make, work, and subsidise the lines. The warnings they received—they had not the advantage of a majority of 150 at their back—were to the effect that they should introduce as little controversial legislation as possible. He did not feel any objection to allowing the local authorities to subsidise the lines provided proper safeguards were taken. Then as to the Imperial subsidy, those who came forward with a gift always had an indulgent House, and therefore he should not be surprised if this proposal was received with favour. They must remember, however, that they were inaugurating a perfectly new policy. An appeal was sometimes made to the practice of continental countries, but in all countries of the continent the State had always taken a much more active part in railway construction than it had done here, and in many instances it was the owner of the railways. One of the causes of the greatness of our railway system was that we had relied so much upon private enterprise. Our railways, made at immense cost, were at present enjoying great prosperity, and therefore, he thought, we ought to be loath to embark on the new policy of State railways. He hoped before this proposal was approved by the House, if it was ever approved, these considerations would be very carefully weighed and set against those temporary temptations which were no doubt strongly felt by a good many of his hon. Friends. Besides our hereditary policy in the matter, there was another point worth attention, and it was that the entry of the State would necessarily be a check to voluntary action. Last year when the late Government introduced this Bill they had every reason to believe that the great railway companies were prepared to make these lines without any subsidy. He did not say they would have made them everywhere, but he knew that in many parts of the country—in thinly populated and purely agricultural districts—several of the great trunk railway companies were prepared to make branch lines which would have been of great benefit to the agricultural community. Local landowners and local public spirited-minded men of the towns were preparing to take advantage of the Bill and to enter into arrangements with the great railway companies under which lines would have been made, but if the Government promised a subsidy from the Exchequer to the railway companies it was quite plain that no company would make a line without getting a subsidy if they saw the slightest chance of getting one. Therefore, so far, this plan would operate actually as a discouragement to the action which railway companies would otherwise have taken on their own accord. He did not deny there might be cases even in England where the precedents of Ireland and Scotland might fairly be followed and where a railway company might possibly be entitled to get assistance for the making of a line. There might be cases in Wales and in some of our most thinly populated and poorest tracts of country where claims similar to those which were advanced for some parts of Ireland and the Islands and Highlands of Scotland might be put forward; but the House would recollect that the Irish and Scotch cases were not put forward as matters of general policy, that they were advocated, both in 1883 and 1889, as exceptions to the general policy of the country, and were not, it was said, to be taken as general precedents. Light railways were advocated for Ireland and the congested districts of Scotland because there there was an undue accumulation of population and wages were scarce and low. Those were considerations which could not be advanced, speaking generally, for England—["Oh!"]—not generally and in parts of England where agricultural distress was greatest. He supposed that Essex was the county in England where agricultural distress was perhaps as severe as it was anywhere. He supposed there was no county in England where so large a part of the arable land had gone out of cultivation; but clearly the conditions which applied to the congested districts of Ireland and Scotland did not apply to Essex. He did not know whether the Bill would enable money to be advanced to the Great Eastern Railway Company for the construction of light railways in Essex.

Railway companies who can borrow at 2¾ per cent. in the open market are not likely to come to us for money at 3½ per cent.

understood the Bill would not apply to Essex?

I don't say that; I hope it will.

said that, if the Bill would apply to Essex, he could only say the circumstances were entirely unlike those of Ireland and Scotland, where money was advanced on the grounds that the special conditions of the population required it. They must look upon the proposals of the Government as constituting a new point of departure for England which might be followed up much more largely afterwards. In the case of grants of money from the public Treasury, the beginning was always comparatively small. The right hon. Gentleman proposed now to allot only a million sterling. That was a sum which was more likely to stimulate than to satisfy the appetite for the creation of light railways, and the right hon. Gentleman and his successors would find themselves pressed very soon to enlarge the amount. He did not believe that, if the grants were to be confined to instances in which a case similar to that made on behalf of Ireland or the Islands and Highlands of Scotland could be made, the demands of the bulk of the English agricultural population would at all be satisfied; and on the other hand, if they were to be extended to the relief of agricultural districts generally, one million would be altogether inadequate. He would not dwell upon another aspect of the subject, that was the political objection which applied to grants of money from the public Treasury. They could hardly estimate how far the dangers of political pressure had been guarded against until they saw the particular safeguards with which the Bill proposed to surround the grant of public money, but it would be a serious matter if grants of public money were made in such a way as to enable competing localities and competing railway companies to come to the Treasury and endeavour to apply pressure, whether privately or publicly in the House, to give them grants out of a comparatively small sum like a million sterling. Where there were a great many claimants, it was perfectly obvious a new element of difficulty and danger would be introduced. He would not, at this stage, discuss any further the provisions of the Bill, but content himself with expressing the hope that the House would not only not follow the lead which the right hon. Gentleman had given it in proposing to abrogate the functions of Parliament, and provide some tribunal to enable these railways to be made, would not only not consent to dispense with the requirements they had hitherto applied to the working of railways, but would also give most careful consideration to the proposal to make grants from the public Treasury, bearing in mind that a case had not yet been made out to show that they were necessary, but that so far as they knew, and had heard from the right hon. Gentleman, there was nothing to show that private enterprise, and the action of the great railroad companies, would not make these light railways without the subsidy which was offered.

asserted that no more serious proposals with reference to the future of agriculture in England and Wales had been placed before the House for a great many years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen who, not unnaturally, was a little jealous of this Bill, had endeavoured to show that in one or two respects only the measure differed from the Bill which he introduced last year. He did not know that ever any two measures were more dissimilar. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to have a great terror of the proposal of a subsidy from the public purse, and argued that such a proposal had only been made in cases where a great emergency had arisen. When would the right hon. Gentleman, and those who sat around him, appreciate the fact that for many years past there had existed, not only a local, but a great national emergency as regards the present deplorable state of agriculture. [Cheers.] He admitted there was novelty in the present proposal, but if ever there was an emergency which deserved novelty, which deserved a little courage on the part of a Minister and of Parliament, that emergency was with us today. He congratulated the Government on this bold move on behalf of a great industry, and he asked those hon. Friends of his who had expressed some dislike of the scheme to set up light railways, to recollect that the proposals contained in the Bill were wholly permissive in their character. He hoped the scheme set forth in the Bill would be worked in encouragement of, and not in antagonism to the existing railway companies. ["Hear, hear!"] It would be found to be all important, not only to local authorities, but to those of the Board of Trade, that in the working of such a measure efforts should be made to fasten the scheme as far as possible on the present railway system. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to dread that, under the system proposed, subsidies would be handed over to the great railway companies by the State. But those companies had long since discovered that the best way of promoting their interests was to extend their lines and thus increase their traffic and receipts for transit of goods. ["Hear, hear!"] For this reason he was confident the great companies in the country would meet the scheme of light railways in a liberal spirit—in fact, that they would give every assistance to it without regard to the subsidies from the State, and with the view of extending their own systems and traffic. One admirable element in the scheme foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman was that it was essentially elastic in its character, and he hoped that feature of the scheme would be utilised to the fullest extent, so as to bring it into working, as far as possible, with the existing lines. In view of the state of trade in the country, and especially in view of the extremely depressed condition of agriculture, some scheme of this character was absolutely necessary, and he believed that if the Bill was adopted and energetically carried out, full advantage being taken, where necessary, of the elasticity of the proposals, it might be made to confer great advantage on the country, especially on the particular counties in which there was exceptional distress. He admitted that there was somewhat of novelty in the financial proposals of the Measure, and that it might be a wrong principle to hand over the money of the State to a poor locality to make a light railway without asking that locality to rate itself to a certain amount in order to prove its interest in the scheme, but he thought this difficulty might be overcome under the elastic conditions of the Measure. In many of those localities the landowner would be only too ready, for his own sake as well as for the interests of the district, to materially assist in the carrying out of a scheme of light railways by taking advantage of the Settled Estates Act. Living in a county to which a scheme of the kind proposed would be of the utmost value, he could not help rising to heartily thank the Government for bringing in the Bill, and he would ask hon. Members, to whatever Party they belonged, to remember that the question could not be tortured, in any sense, into one of a Party character. [Cheers.] Many of them had been engaged for a long time in Conference considering the adoption of various schemes of light railways, and at least one fact had been made clear—that there was a unanimous feeling among men of all Parties that some scheme of the kind would be of immense value to the country, and especially to Wales. He earnestly hoped the Session would not be allowed to slip by without the proposed measure being carried. [Cheers.]

said, the subject was one to which he had given a great deal of attention of late, and he had come to the conclusion that, not only from an engineering, but a business point of view, it was necessary that if light railways were to be constructed in such an industrial country as England, it was advisable that they should be worked by the existing railway companies. It was all very well to say that light railways meant narrow gauge and lighter rolling stock, but they could not convey agricultural produce to market upon such railways without transhipping goods on to the broader gauge lines, and the cost and difficulty of this would be great. It was on that ground that he believed the proposed light railways would have to be worked by the existing great railway companies. There was no doubt that a system of light railways was required in this country, and he was glad that the President of the Board of Trade had brought in such a socialistic Measure. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He did not think the pecuniary aspect of the question should be raised at all. The money required would be spent for the purpose of the public good, and, therefore, all Radicals should vote for the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman said that those railways would cost £3,000 per mile, but that would depend on what was paid for the land, and he would have to watch the matter very closely to make sure that the sum he had named was not exceeded. Another aspect of the case which struck him was that he did not think they could allow County Councils, who would generally be found to have interested parties among their members, to settle this matter without a final reference; and when a County Council came to propose a light railway through a county, the true solution would be to leave the matter of cost to some independent authority. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a Light Railway Commission, composed of gentlemen free from all local influence and independent of all political bias. He was glad the Government had introduced such a Measure, and he hoped there would be no cavilling over a paltry million of money for such a purpose. The more railways we had in the country the better, and what had startled him was the lateness of Great Britain in promoting a scheme of light railways. He hoped there would be no objection to the Bill on the Opposition side of the House.

said the case of Wales in this matter was exactly on all fours with that of the Highlands of Scotland and Ireland. He was perfectly certain that, without some financial support from the Treasury, these light railways which were expected to benefit the poorer agricultural districts so much, would altogether fail of their purpose.

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having the pleasure of introducing such a Measure, which would be a source of gratification not only to the depressed agriculturist but to the country generally. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen said there was riot much difference between his Bill and the present Bill. The whole difference was in the subsidy which the Government was going to give to these light railways. This made all the difference in the world. The whole thing was a question of money. In depressed counties like Essex and Lincolnshire, and in parts of Scotland, no doubt these light railways would not pay by themselves. In thickly populated districts, where there was a great deal of trade—as in Lancashire—there were light railways at the present time, and they paid very well indeed. It was, however, a totally different thing when they were going to make light railways in the depressed counties. Then they must get a subsidy from the Government. He was glad to hear the hon. Member for Gateshead say that he did not grudge this £1,000,000. It was, after all, a very small sum to give to England and Wales. Much greater sums had been given to Ireland. Under the Land Purchase system alone £33,000,000 were given to Ireland, and hundreds of thousands of pounds were given to light railways. Some of them thought it was to be £1,000,000 a year, but they now knew it was only to be £1,000,000 altogether. Still they were thankful for small mercies. He must maintain, however, that in his opinion these light railways would never pay unless they were made feeders to the great systems. If this could be done, he believed it would be a good thing for the country, because they would require less money and there would be more to share in the subsidy. The great difference between light railways in England and in Belgium was, that Belgium was one of the most thickly populated countries in Europe. From a return he found that the receipts from the Belgian railways consisted of 72 per cent. for passenger traffic and only 28 per cent. for the goods traffic. It would be just the reverse here. They wanted their railways to carry goods, and therefore he was afraid they must make up their minds to the fact that the railways would not pay themselves. Still with the subsidy from the Government they might possibly work them in some of the counties. He could not help being rather afraid of the power which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the local authorities to either work the railways or else to subsidise them. He thought it was a very dangerous power because it might be a source of a great waste of money, and they knew that whatever was spent by County Councils or local authorities meant money which was coming out of the rates. Therefore this was a power which ought to be carefully guarded. What he should like to see in the Bill was a clause to enable County Councils to contribute as much as the subsidy from the Government to a particular district. As to the question of the width of the roads, he would like to point out that in foreign countries the roads were very much wider than their own and it was, therefore, a comparatively easy thing to run the railway alongside the road. In England, owing to the narrowness of the roads, this would not be possible. The taking in of an extra strip of land, the levelling of the banks and the taking away of the fences would add very greatly to the cost of the right hon. Gentleman. An hon. Member had expressed the hope that the landowners would not charge too much for the land. He did not think the land would be charged at a very high rent. Indeed in some counties, he had no doubt some of the landowners would give the land in order to attract the railway. He gave a hearty support to the Bill, because he was sure it was an attempt in the right direction.

(Reading) from the point of view of a railway director, said, that one of the greatest difficulties that the railways had had to contend with was in getting the agricultural produce on to their system from the districts which, at present, were not served by railways. They welcomed the Bill of the Government because they believed it would enable them to do away with this difficulty. Hitherto, the two causes which had prevented railways from extending their system had been the extreme cost of construction, and also the restrictions which the Board of Trade thought it necessary for the safety of the general public to put on the cheap working of the lines. The removal of these restrictions would enable railway companies, if they made these light railways, to work them very cheaply indeed. What was more, the not having to come to Parliament and to spend so much in obtaining an Act, would be an important factor in making these lines cheaply. If he was correct in supposing that £3,000 per mile would be the average cost of the construction of light railways, he believed that the existing railway companies could certainly make equip, and maintain these lines far more cheaply than any other body could do. They had experience; they had the staff; and they would, he thought, be able to use up a great amount of their surplus material in making the lines, and a great deal of the stock which at the present time they could not use on their main lines. He doubted whether it would be wise to have any different gauge with regard to these light railways. Such a difference would, he believed, be very detrimental to the transference of the produce on to the main systems, and would be more expensive. He really did not believe that the making of a narrow gauge would be an economy. On the contrary, the small additional cost that would be incurred in the first instance in making the gauge the same as on the main systems would be amply repaid afterwards. If he understood the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman aright, he reckoned that the £1,000,000 subsidy would enable over 1,200 miles of light railways to be made in the first instance. He did not think that, as a first start, would be at all a bad addition to the means of conveyance of agricul- tural produce. From every point of view he heartily approved of the scheme which had been laid before the House by the Government; and in carrying it out he believed the Government would have the most cordial assistance of the great railway companies.

congratulated the President of the Board of Trade upon the general construction of his Bill. The suggestion of a Light Railway Commission was an exceedingly happy one. The first difficulty that would suggest itself in that connection would be that of having two authorities, which might lead to a multiplication of inquiries and expenses; but he imagined that the Commission would be to all intents and purposes an independent authority, that it would be in effect a subordinate Department of the Board of Trade. He wished to impress upon the President of the Board of Trade the necessity of providing that where an independent company started a light railway it should have the right of obtaining through rates and other conditions of access to existing railways with which it formed a connection. He had nothing to urge against the proposals of the Government except that perhaps the House might regard them with some reserve until it was seen how far the rates might be used in any way as a guarantee for the loans advanced.

If the hon. Gentleman means that the local authorities should in any way guarantee interest to the State, no such guarantee is proposed.

said, that he must express his dissent from that part of the proposal. It was in his opinion of the greatest importance that when large sums were advanced by the Treasury for local objects, the local authority should be brought into co-operation in some way as guarantors. Many witnesses before the Royal Commission on Agriculture stated that, notwithstanding the depressed condition of agriculture, they were perfectly willing to take upon themselves a guarantee which would fall on the rates. He thought the policy of spending their money in the form of gifts, without any conditions whatever ought, after Irish experience, to be viewed with caution and reserve. With regard to the proposal as a whole, so far as it had been laid before the House, he might say it would have the most cordial support of many Members on his side of the House, and no part of it more than the provision which enabled the County Councils and other local authorities to take a public and active share in promoting these undertakings.

said, he would hardly have ventured to take part in the Debate, had it not been for one or two expressions that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that it was only in congested districts in Ireland and in the Highlands of Scotland that these railways were necessary. Representing a large agricultural constituency in the south of Scotland, he might say that this Bill would be hailed with acclamation in that part of the country. There were many districts separated by a long distance from the main systems of railways, and in his own district they had to transport dairy produce 15 or 20 miles to a station. He felt it would be a most important thing to have the usual gauge in order to avoid the necessity for transferring the goods. More damage was done by that process than by any other. He questioned much whether it would be wise or prudent to give uncontrolled powers of borrowing to County Councils. There was great temptation to them to spend money that was not their own, and he rather thought there should be some limit to their borrowing powers. He thought 25 per cent. of the cost would be a proper limit. He believed that these railways might be made along the roads for less than £3,000 a mile.

I meant to include rolling stock in that.

said, he had not understood that. With regard to railway companies taking this matter up, he could state from experience that he had gone from company to company, to ask them to make railways running into agricultural districts, and he had always been met with a negative, especially in those times when dividends had been got together with some difficulty. Although 3½ per cent. might frighten them in one sense, he believed that this assistance would make them keener to make and equip these railways. If the Bill had the effect of producing 1,000 or 1,200 miles of light railways, this Government would have done a great deal to assist agricultural distress, and what they were doing would be remembered. In consequence of the narrowness of the roads in some parts it would be necessary to make the railways off the roads, but a great deal of the land traversed would be moorland, and fencing would not be required. He thought, therefore, that the regulations as to fencing might be relaxed. Thousands of miles of railway in America were not fenced at all, and it was not likely that many accidents would be met with on the moorlands. He thanked his right hon. Friend very warmly for his proposal which he believed would prove a very useful measure.

wished to offer his congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade for the generous Bill he had laid before the House. The great question in a poor country like Wales was that of finance, and he was sure that in those districts which would not be able to meet a great expenditure necessary in a matter of this kind, the knowledge that the Government would come forward and help them would be very welcome. He hoped, however, that the question of gauge would be left open, and as regarded signalling and taking care of the public, he thought that they generally took a great deal too much care of the public and themselves. In France a man had to take care of himself, and if he got run over he had to pay the people who ran over him. In Russia also the public had to take care of themselves. Then there was the question of transfer. In North Wales, where there were a few short lines of narrow gauge railway, that difficulty had been proved not to be of any consequence. Some thousands of tons of slates and coal were annually transferred from lines of one gauge to those of another, at a cost of only sixpence per ton. He did not, therefore, think that that could be a bar against the narrow gauge they required for Wales. He welcomed the Bill and intimated that he should be delighted to give the right hon Gentleman who had introduced it every support in his power in order that it might be passed into law with as little delay as possible.

said it must be gratifying to the President of the Board of Trade to find how thoroughly well appreciated was the message which he had so lucidly explained to the House that evening. Both sides of the House recognised that it was a practical Measure framed on thoroughly bold lines, and that it was an earnest attempt to redeem the pledges given to the agricultural interest by the Government at an early period of their career. When he heard that the right hon. Gentleman had gone to Belgium to see the system of light railways there, he felt that the Government meant business. As was known to many hon. Members, and as was shown by the Blue-book last year, Belgium was par excellence the country of light railways, and it was there that the system was seen to the greatest advantage. The present measure appeared to be compounded of a judicious mixture of the Bill of the late Government and of the system which prevailed in Belgium as far as regarded the financial part of it. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) complained that the course followed by the Government in subsidising light railways was contrary to its general policy as regarded this country. The right hon. Gentleman was a little at sea in regard to this matter. For many years Ireland had been subsidised in this way, and last Session there was a discussion with regard to the Government guarantee of interest in respect of a Highland railway. A good deal was heard about differential tariffs and preferential rates on the part of the railway companies, but he did not see why the farmer in Ireland and Scotland should be treated more preferentially than the English farmer. Why was it that the English farmer was placed at a great disadvantage as regarded the rest of the community? He was exposed to foreign competition at the hands of producers who, perhaps, with a soil not so fertile as our own, had yet a virgin soil, and who were able to place their produce on the shores of this country at a very much less cost than the English producer. It was only by reducing the cost or by increasing the yield that the English farmer could compete with his foreign rivals, and one of the ways in which to help him to do this was to reduce the cost of carriage. This was the reason why this Measure would help the English farmer. Something had also been said as to the capital of the railway companies being enormous, but it should be remembered that a great deal of the capital was sunk, and paid no interest. Even if a million were sunk to aid light railways the facilities created thereby would remain as a permanent source of benefit to the general community. He thought, however, that 3½ per cent. was rather a high rate to pay for a Government loan, especially when they considered how cheap money was at the present time. It was interesting to note that the local authorities and the Government practically obtained the only security obtainable, namely, by the debentures. He wished to know from his right hon. Friend whether there would be any provisions in the Bill enabling an existing railway which did not pay, to reduce itself to the condition of a light railway? He had an instance in his mind at that moment—that of a railway which he believed had never paid and which was now kept going almost by the charity of the people in the neighbourhood. There was the line and the rolling stock; and if the railway could be reduced to the status of a light railway, a great deal of the cost of maintenance and of running the railway would be saved, making the line pay in all probability, and benefiting the district generally. If there was no such provisions in the Bill, would the right hon. Gentleman be disposed to favourably consider an Amendment which would practically give effect to this suggestion?

said, he was one of those who supported good legislation from whichever side of the House or political Party it was proposed, and he heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the present measure. It was a step in the right direction. At the same time it did not provide anything like an adequate sum of money from Imperial sources. The Highlands of Scotland alone could easily absorb the greater part of it. The President of the Board of Trade referred to thousands of acres of cultivated land in the south that were three miles distant from a railway station. Why, in the great county he represented he could go 120 miles away from a railway station into the Island of Lewis, but even on the mainland there were populous places 30 and 60 miles distant from any railway. According to the scheme of the President of the Board of Trade, special grants would only be made to existing railway companies that would construct and work a light railway. But no railway company would cross the Minch to construct railways in Lewis. Therefore, that part of the scheme would not work in the Highlands. The question of gauge in mountainous districts, should, he thought, be left to the local authorities. For places like Lewis or Skye, the Long Island or Harris, the narrow gauge might be very well, but in flat districts of the mainland, he was afraid it would be disadvantageous. Reference had been made to the County Councils providing 25 per cent. of the cost, but in the counties in the Highlands the ratepayers were too poor to provide anything like that percentage. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that point. In connection with the acquisition of land, he understood that the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was to be incorporated in the Bill, but if he was not mistaken, proceedings under that Act were extremely costly, and his fear was that hungry landlords in the north would ask so much money for their land that, instead of the money going to the construction of light railways, a large portion of it would go into the pockets of the landlords and the lawyers. Then with regard to the Light Railway Commission, would these gentlemen have power to call witnesses and to take evidence, and would the costs be so minimised that the money would not be swallowed up by solicitors and barristers and by bringing witnesses to London.

It will be a local inquiry.

was glad to hear that. He only hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take care to set aside a large share of the million especially for the poorer districts in the Highlands, in order to give practical effect to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that the Highlands would be greatly benefited by the Light Railways Bill.