had given notice of the following Question: To ask the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, with regard to the Shipping Federation Bill introduced by him, whethe promoters of the Bill will undertake to give a week's notice of the Second Reading. The right hon. Baronet said the undertaking which he suggested had been given, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to put the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the percentage of recruits between the ages of 20 and 25 that pass through hospital; and what is the percentage of recruits admitted sick during their first year of service?

The medical returns do not treat recruits separately from other soldiers. The admissions to hospital vary so greatly in the different foreign commands that any percentage based upon averages would be misleading; but as regards the United Kingdom for the last year for which the returns are made up, 1894, the admissions per cent. of soldiers between 20 and 25 years old was 94·5, and of soldiers in their first year of service 87·6. But these figures include men who were admitted several times over, and we have no returns to show the proportion of men per cent. admitted.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board (1) if he is aware that the Clerk of Carrickmacross Union, on 15th February 1896, informed the Local Government Board for Ireland that seven paupers from England and Scotland had been deported from 1891 to 1895; (2) if he is further aware that Patrick Brady, who was 40 years in Scotland, was deported from Glasgow to Carrickmacross Workhouse in 1892; and Peter M'Enany, who spent 50 years in Scotland, was deported from Kirkcaldy Workhouse to Carrickmacross Workhouse in March 1895; and that these men, after spending the good of their lives in Scotland, are at the present time costing the ratepayers of Carrickmacross Union about £20 per annum; and (4) what steps will he take to relieve the ratepayers of Carrickmacross Union of the support of Brady and M'Enany?

I have no reason to doubt the statement in the first paragraph. I have inquired into the two cases specially mentioned. Patrick Brady, after spending 30 years in various places in the south and west of Scotland, became at last chargeable to the city parish of Glasgow in 1892, and, as he desired to be sent home to Ireland, and had no legal settlement in Scotland, his wish was complied with, and his removal took place in September, 1892. Peter M'Enany became chargeable to Abbotshall, in the county of Fife, in December, 1894, and in March, 1895, the local Sheriff, after a careful inquiry, granted warrant for his removal, he having no settlement in Scotland at the time. I am not aware of any means by which the ratepayers can be relieved of their legal responsibility in the matter.

asked if there was no redress open to the ratepayers in such cases as these? He had proof in his hand of the accuracy of the statement as set forth in the question.

Might I ask the Lord Advocate whether it is not the invariable practice to deport these paupers from Scotland to Ireland whether they desire it or not?

Inquiry is provided for under the Act, and if that inquiry results in its being found that the pauper ought to be removed, he is removed whether he desires it or not. In one of these cases he did desire to be removed.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain what he means by saying whether a pauper ought to be removed or not.

Order, order! The only question on the Paper is about the case of two particular men. If any general question is to be asked it must be put down on the Paper separately.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why it was considered the two men ought to be removed?

The Statute provides for an inquiry into certain points—first, whether a man is fit to be removed; and secondly, whether he has any legal settlement in Scotland.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what constitutes a legal settlement?

That is provided for in the Statute.

asked if M'Enany was not a householder in Kirkcaldy from 1887 to 1892, and as such was on the list of voters?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I shall give it.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Government will propose legislation in pursuance of the Report of the University of London (Gresham) Commission?

The matter is still under the consideration of the Government.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received any recent Report from the Government Engineer as to the progress of the works in connection with the harbours presently being constructed partly under Government subsidy on the north coast of Sutherland; whether there has been very little progress with the harbour works at Talmine, in the Kyle of Tongue; whether he could state the cause of the delay; and whether the Scottish Office are taking steps to have the work expedited?

Several Reports have been received lately by the Scottish Office from the Government Engineer on this subject. Very little progress has been made lately on Talmin Harbour. This is almost entirely due to delay on the part of the contractor. The attention of the Harbour Trustees has been several times called to this, as they alone, by the terms of the contract, can take effective steps to hasten the work.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how much of the grant for the current financial year for Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works, &c.) has been expended up to the present time on piers, harbours, and minor works, and what further expenditure will be incurred up to the end of March; the district in which the respective works are situate, and the character of each such work; the total amount already expended on each work out of the Government subsidy; how much each such work has yet to receive from the said subsidy; and how much from the local authority, or other source to render each such work complete?

It is impossible to reply to this question within the ordinary limits of an answer. If the hon. Member will send to the Secretary for Scotland a form of the return which he desires, he will be informed how far it will be granted.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he proposes to introduce, during the present Session, any special legislation dealing with the evil of sheep stealing, which is alleged to be so prevalent in certain districts in Scotland?

The subject is receiving the careful consideration of the Government, but no promise of legislation can be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state in how many instances during last year the Postmaster General demanded guarantees when asked to establish telegraph offices in the Highland counties of Inverness, Argyllshire, Ross-shire, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland; and, whether he will state in how many of these instances telegraph offices were eventually established under guarantee?

It will take some time to prepare the information desired by the hon. Member, but the Postmaster General has given directions for the particulars to be got out, and they will be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as they are ready.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the statement contained in the last Report of the Postmaster General that 381 additional telegraph offices were opened at post offices in the course of the year, he will state how many of the said telegraph offices were opened during that year in the Highland counties of Inverness, Argyll shire, Ross-shire, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland; whether he will state what sum was placed at the disposal of the Postmaster General for the establishment of telegraph offices during the year above referred to; and, whether he will state how much of that sum was devoted to the establishment of telegraph offices in the Highland counties above mentioned?

Of the 381 additional telegraph offices opened in the year 1894–5, 16 are in the counties mentioned in the hon. Member's question. The sum of £25,000 was placed at the disposal of the Postmaster General in the year in question for telegraph extensions, and out of this amount the sum of £1,662 was spent in extensions to 12 of the 16 offices. Of the remaining four offices, two were opened at a cost of £200, in connection with the coast communication scheme, and the other two at a cost of £359, out of the Highlands and and Islands of Scotland (Grants in Aid of Public Works and Communications, &c.) Vote.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the buoy at present on Briggs Reef, in Belfast Lough, whether, considering that two vessels were lost there within the last two years during fogs, he will inquire whether bell buoys might be placed instead of the buoys now in use; whether there are any bell buoys at present unused in Donaghadee, within a short distance; and, if the wreck of the sunken steamer Emily, the danger of which the managers of the Groomsport lifeboat have frequently called attention to, has yet been removed?

I have made inquiry of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Statutory General Lighthouse Authority for Ireland, with regard to the suggestion contained in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, and am informed that the Commissioners are prepared to consider the question of the substitution of a bell buoy for the buoy at present marking Brigg's Reef. They have not, however, at present in their possession any unused bell buoys that would be available for the purpose. I am further informed that the wreck of the steamer Emily has not yet been removed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) whether the attention of the Postmaster General has been directed to the greater advantages enjoyed in France and Germany in the Foreign parcel past rates; (2) whether the following rates are those now current for 11 pounds (five kilogrammes) parcels, viz., England to France, 2s. 2d.; Germany to France, 9½d.; England to Germany, 2s.; France to Germany, 9½d.; England to Austria, 2s. 4d.; France to Austria, Is. 2½d.; Germany to Austria, 6d.; England to Italy, 2s. 6d.; France to Italy, 1s.; Germany to Italy, 1s. 5½d.; (3) whether he is aware that a large and daily increasing portion of the commerce between these countries is carried on by parcel post; (4) whether even heavy goods are divided and sent in 11 pound parcels; and (5) whether he can promise to give to Englishmen the advantages enjoyed by foreigners?

The figures given by the hon. Member are correct; but he has selected a weight which is most unfavourable to this country for purposes of comparison. Lower weights would show different results. In comparing the charges on parcels between this country and the Continent with the charges on parcels sent from one Continental country to another, the cost of the sea-conveyance must be taken into account, and also the fact that in this country the railway companies are entitled to a fixed sum (10d. on an 11 1b. parcel) for the land conveyance, while in Continental countries the payment for haulage is much less. The answer to the third and fourth Questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. The fifth Question must, I fear, for the reasons given above, be answered in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the collection and publication of papers and documents preserved in this country, and relating to the first settlement and early history of the Colonies, will come within the scope and functions of the Historical Manuscripts Commission?

The publication of papers belonging to private persons in this country, and relating to the early history of the British Colonies, is considered to come within the scope of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. For instance, the calendar of the manuscripts of the Duke of Manchester contains documents about Virginia and the Summer Islands, and there is now in the press a volume of some 600 pages dealing with some manuscripts of the Earl of Dartmouth concerning the history of the North American Colonies before the declaration of independence.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India (1) whether the 24th Bombay Native Infantry, or other force, has been ordered to proceed to British East Africa to engage in military operations; and (2) whether, as this is an employment of the Indian forces in military operations beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, he intends, at an early date, to submit a Motion to the House, in accordance with the 55th Section of the Government of India Act?

My answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. As regards the section of the Act referred to in the second Question, I am advised that its restriction is purely financial—namely, that the revenues of India shall not, without the assent of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operations carried on beyond the frontiers of India by Her Majesty's forces charged upon Indian revenues. I am in communication with the Foreign Office and Treasury as to how the expenditure in connection with this regiment is to be met, and, until this question is settled, I cannot say if it will be necessary under the section to submit any Motion to the House.

Can the noble Lord say to whom this regiment is lent, and, if to the Zanzibar Government, can he say whether he has made any stipulation on behalf of India with regard to the command of the force of which it forms part, in fact, under whose direction it is to be?

It will be under the command of its colonel, who will supersede the officers at present in charge.

If the Secretary of State determines that any part of the expense shall be borne by India, will a Resolution be submitted to the House?

I will take care that the section is not infringed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there has been on the whole continuous increase in the amount of Grand Jury Cess levied in Ireland although the population of the country has decreased 33 per cent. during the last 40 years; whether it is the duty of any Government Department to supervise the expenditure or audit the accounts of the Grand Juries; whether there is any power of surcharge; and whether any detailed summary is published annually of the amounts levied and the expenditure of these bodies in some such form as the accounts of the Poor Law Guardians are issued by the Local Government Board?

There has been considerable fluctuation in the amount of Grand Jury Cess levied in Ireland in past years. The average cess levied in the period of 1873 to 1894 was £1,223,305, the highest levy being in 1876, when it amounted to £1,325,053. In 12 out of the 22 years covered by this period the average was exceeded, while in the remaining ten years the actual levy was less than the average. The duty of auditing the accounts of the Grand Juries in Ireland is vested in the Local Government by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1877, and the audit is carried out in accordance with the provisions of an Order of the Privy Council made pursuant to that Act. The Order gives the auditors the power of disallowance and surcharge, but they have no power to deal with presentments fiated by the Judges at Assizes. Provision is also made in the order for the printing and publishing of the audited accounts in one or more newspapers circulating in the county, and an abstract of the receipts and expenditure in counties is also given in the returns of local taxation annually presented to Parliament.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state to the House how many new inspectors of cabs have been appointed in London, the salary paid to each, and the qualifications of the men who have received the posts; and whether these new inspectors have been chosen from the ranks of the Police Force, or are men having technical knowledge of the construction of vehicles or of veterinary matters, as recommended by the Departmental Committee?

Five new inspectors have been appointed. One of them is a sub-divisional inspector with a salary of 70s. a week; the others receive salaries ranging from 56s. to 64s. per week, according to their seniority. All have been chosen from the ranks of the police and had previous experience of horses or of the construction of carriages, as recommended by the Departmental Committee.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as a Charity Commissioner—(1) whether it is the case that the Schemes of the Charity Commissioners for the administration of Endowed Schools are submitted to the Education Department for approval, or otherwise, before publication; and (2) whether, upon any Scheme for the administration of an Endowed Elementary School, the Commissioners have consulted the Education Department as to the propriety of providing for the teachers of such a school those safeguards against capricious dismissal which are invariably provided in Schemes for Endowed Grammar Schools; and, if so, whether the Education Department have ever disapproved of a Scheme containing such safeguards for the teachers of an Endowed Elementary School for the reason that it contained such safeguards?

No Schemes are submitted by the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department before publication; but Schemes framed by the Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Acts are so submitted after publication. The Commissioners have not so consulted the Education Department. The Schemes for the smaller Endowed Elementary Schools (not within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners), which have been approved by the Education Department, contain provisions as to the position of teachers identical with those inserted by the Commissioners in their Schemes. The answer to the last Question is, no. It may be added that the question of the teachers in Public Elementary Schools is one with which the Education Department appears to be primarily concerned; and, consequently, is not one as to which the Commissioners can properly take the initiative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the fact, acknowledged in the House by his predecessor on 19th February 1895, that some auctioneers are using in their cattle auction marts dial-weighing machines upon which the graduations are not of sufficient width to indicate the limits of sensitiveness required in the application of the test for sensitiveness under the Model Regulations, 1890, he is prepared, for the guidance of inspectors of weights and measures and in order to introduce uniformity of practice amongst them, and to remove existing doubts as to the propriety of stamping machines of the above description, to state the minimum extent of movement of the dial finger which must take place when the tests for sensitiveness are applied?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can state, for the guidance and uniformity of action of inspectors of weights and measures, when they apply the test for sensitiveness, as prescribed by Rule No. 55 of the Model Regulations, what extent of movement of the vibrating principle steelyard tongue is necessary to comply with the Regulations?

I will answer the Questions of the hon. Members for East Renfrew and Mid Lanark together. I am advised that a general rule to indicate either the minimum extent of movement of the dial finger or of the steelyard tongue is impracticable as regards existing machines, because it must vary with the size of the machine, and I should like to point out to the hon. Members that the local authorities with whom the matter really rests have not in any case applied to the Board of Trade for a modification of the Model Regulation referred to in the Questions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Westport Board of Guardians, passed at their meeting on the 20th February, in which they declare their inability to meet the requirements of the Local Government Board Inspector as to the structural alterations which he ordered them to carry out in the Westport Workhouse, at a cost of £3,350; and, would he, considering the poor state of the Westport Union, postpone the carrying out of those alterations until the Government have arrived at some decision as to the amalgamation of unions in Ireland?

I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. For the present, the Local Government Board do not propose to require the Guardians of this union to carry out any structural alterations in the workhouse beyond those which are urgently necessary and which would have to be carried out under any circumstances.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether he is aware that the Government of India sells post cards at their face value; (2) whether these post cards are printed in England by the same firm that prints British post cards; (3) what would be the estimated loss to the Government by selling thin halfpenny post cards at their face value, in place of selling them at three farthings each; and, (4) whether the Government take into consideration the claims of the stationers when selling penny post cards at their face value?

It is understood that the Government of India sells post cards at their face value. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. At the present rate of issue the loss would be £6,500 a year. As regards the last paragraph, the sale of these cards is not so large as to materially affect the interests of stationers.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he can grant a return of the regulations with regard to religious instruction given in public elementary schools other than Board Schools in a selected number of counties, on lines similar to the Return given in February, 1895, by the Education Department in relation to Board Schools?

In the case of Board Schools, the Committee of Council have a right to inquire about religious teaching, under Sections 14 and 16 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870. In the case of Voluntary Schools they have no such right. They consider that to make the inquiry suggested would be justly regarded as an unwarranted interference.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that theatres and places of entertainment, even when unlet, are deemed to be occupied from the fact that necessary furniture and appliances are left within them, and that they therefore have to pay rates; that, in consequence, some theatres, though earning nothing for their owners, pay hundreds of pounds annually in rates; and, whether he will consider favourably a scheme by which such places of entertainment may be exempted, partially or altogether, from the payment of rates during the period they remain unlet?

I see no reason to doubt that a theatre or other place of entertainment, in which there are the necessary furniture and appliances, must be regarded as occupied, although they may not at the time be let for performances. I shall be very glad to consider any scheme which the hon. Member likes to bring forward, but I cannot hold out any expectation that I shall be prepared to propose legislation on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if his attention has been directed to the telegram of the Mayor of Limerick last month to the War Department, expressing dissatisfaction against the contemplated removal of the Limerick County Militia for training to Kilworth, county Cork; whether the Limerick Militia have not up to the present been trained in the city of Limerick, where barracks and every facility exist; and, if he will make an order that the same system should continue?

The telegram from the Mayor of Limerick was received and answered. The Limerick Militia has trained at Limerick for some years, but there is no range there which enables them to fire the service cartridge. For this and other reasons of efficiency it is desirable to train them at Kilworth this year, where they can be drilled with another battalion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a memorial from the Board of Guardians of the Bailieborough Poor Law Union, county Cavan, pointing out the great necessity for making a line of railway between Bailieborough and Carrickmacross, viâ Shercock, to connect with the Great Northern Railway; and whether, considering that the district lying between Bailieborough and Carrickmacross is populous, he will recommend a grant; and, if so, on what conditions?

The case of the particular line referred to in the Question will be considered in connection with that of others, but beyond this I cannot make any further statement at the present time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that none of the Justices of the Peace, who act by virtue of their office as Chairmen of Metropolitan Vestries or District Boards, have been nominated for or elected upon the General Committees of Justices for the current year? Is he aware that difficulty has arisen from the fact that the terms of office of the ex-officio Justices do not coincide with the terms of office of the General Committees, the former being elected in May, the latter in January? And will he see if an arrangement can be made to obviate this difficulty?

I am aware of the difficulty referred to in the Question, and am informed that, in consequence of it, no ex-officio Justices were nominated upon Committees at the London Quarter Sessions in January along with the Justices in the Commission of the Peace. There are serious difficulties in the way of altering the dates for electing Committees, some of which are fixed by Statute and Statutory Rule; but I will make further inquiry with a view to seeing whether arrangements cannot be made as desired.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a discussion by the Wexford Board of Guardians concerning the appointment of County Councils in Ireland, during which a resolution was proposed by Charles H. Peacocke, Esq., J.P., and seconded by Lord Maurice Fitzgerald, both Conservatives, calling upon the Government to pass into law a County Councils Act on the same lines as that already passed for England and Wales; and, whether he can give any assurance that the Government will take up this question?

My attention has been drawn to a report of the proceedings at the meeting of the Wexford Board of Guardians at which a resolution was adopted in favour of the extension of Local Government to Ireland. The question is one which no doubt will engage the attention of the Government, but I am not at present in a position to give any pledge in the matter.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it will be possible, in the future coining of farthings, to impress in bold letters the words "A Farthing" on their obverse sides as well as on their reverse sides as heretofore?

I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer of a few days' ago. There is no room to impress in bold letters the words "A Farthing" on the obverse, without a complete alteration of the design of the coin, which, as I then stated, I am not prepared to undertake. I may, perhaps, point out that, with the exception of one issue at the end of the last century, the farthing never bore its denomination stamped, even on the reverse, until 1860.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to a statue purporting to be of the late John Bright in the Central Lobby; and, whether it is to remain there?

The statue of Mr. Bright lately erected in the Central Lobby has been placed there, under an arrangement made with one of my predecessors, at the request of the Committee of the late Statesman's friends, at whose expense and under whose supervision this memorial has been raised to his memory. In the circumstances, I do not think that its removal is a question for me consider.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree to submit to the view of the House the question whether the statue should remain where it was or not?

I certainly have heard varying opinions as to the artistic merits of the statue in question; but, while I am ready to consider the views of hon. Members, I am bound to say I am aware of no such unanimous opinion as would justify my serious consideration of a proposal for its removal.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that between the hours of 12 and 4 in the afternoon, certain roads in Hyde Park are very little used by the general public; and, whether he can see his way to allow cyclists to use these roads during those hours?

I am afraid that I cannot at present add anything to the statement which I made in the House as to cycling in the park, in my reply to the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division on the 13th of February. I wish to obtain experience of the working of the present rules during the summer months when the traffic is at its heaviest.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that, in consequence of his recent statement in the House as to the inconvenience caused to large numbers of bicycle riders using the road on the north of the Serpentine in Hyde Park by horsemen and carriages unnecessarily frequenting that road before 12 in the morning, there has been a very considerable decrease in the number of horses and vehicles passing along that road; and that inconvenience and danger is still caused by empty flys and by private carriages, and horses in charge of servants only passing along and in some cases standing in the road; and, whether, in the circumstances, he can see his way to direct the constables to divert such last-mentioned vehicles and horses along another route, and to intimate to other persons about to ride or drive along that road the inconvenience of doing so until after 12 o'clock?

I do not see my way, without an alteration of the rules of Hyde Park, to give directions for the diversion of horses and empty carriages in charge of servants from the road north of the Serpentine, as suggested by the hon. Member; but the police will do all they can in the matter; and I would once more appeal strongly to the riding and driving public to show all the consideration they can to the cyclists using that road up to 12 o'clock, by not frequenting the road previous to that hour, and further I would appeal to owners of carriages to give stringent orders to their servants not to use the road in question when driving empty carriages, a practice which can give no pleasure to themselves and which causes great annoyance to cyclists.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in regard to the deputation from the Munster Agricultural Institute, which recently waited upon him for the purpose of obtaining a money grant in order to establish a new model farm, whether he can state the name of the tenant whose interest it is proposed to purchase for the sum of £1,500; if he can also say how long the tenant has been in occupation of the holding and what sum, if any, was paid by him for the tenant right; and, whether, in the event of a grant being made, the selection of a farm will rest exclusively with the Governors of the Institute; and, if so, will steps be taken to insure that no evicted farm shall be acquired for the purpose indicated?

I have no information in reference to the name of the tenant in question, and do not think any purpose, could be served by making inquiry into the matter at present.

Is it not a fact that the scheme submitted not only contained the acreage and rental of the proposed farm, but also the estimated rates and taxes and cost of stocking the farm, and whether this calculation was purely imaginary?

replied that he was unable to say.

In the event of a grant being made for the purpose, in whose hands will the selection rest?

Primarily in the hands of the Government.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he will consider the desirability of utilising Queenstown Harbour as a station for torpedo gunboats?

In the event of the Service requiring the establishment of additional stations for torpedo gunboats, the question of utilising Queenstown Harbour will be fully considered.

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly convey to the Admiralty the fact that Queenstown Harbour is the finest and safest in the United Kingdom? [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is intended to make the grant to Irish National School teachers per child in average attendance uniform with the figure paid to English teachers?

If the grants referred to in this question are the Irish School grant and the English Fee grant respectively, the reply is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it could be made obligatory on shipmasters or shipping companies to forward quarterly Returns to the Board of Trade, differentiating between passengers of the tourist class leaving Great Britain and Ireland and emigrants intending to permanently settle in the Colonies or other countries, with a view to the provision of reliable data on which an accurate statement of the actual amount of emigration from the British Isles might be based?

The Board of Trade have no power to compel shipmasters or shipping companies to make Returns showing whether the passengers they carry are tourists or emigrants. A slight consideration of the subject of distinguishing between different classes of passengers will show the impossibility of shipowners being able to supply correctly such information, because they could know nothing but what the passengers told them; whereas, by giving the place at which the passengers disembarked, they are stating what is within their knowledge or that of their servants. The account of actual emigration now obtained from the balance of emigration over immigration is as accurate as one obtained from doubtful returns made by shipowners showing which amongst the passengers they carried were emigrants.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will state about what date he expects to be able to introduce the Employers' Liability Bill, foreshadowed in the Speech of Her Most Gracious Majesty at the opening of the present Session of Parliament?

I am afraid I cannot state oven approximately on what day I can introduce it.

Will it be this Session?

Certainly, I hope.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford whether he is aware that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have definitely refused to contribute any sum towards the repair of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral, although they are in receipt of at least £25,000 per annum from the capitular estates in the diocese surrendered in 1864; and whether the Commissioners are correct in stating that the sum of £10,000, granted for the Fabric Fund on such surrender, was from the Capitular Fund and not from the Common Fund of the Commissioners?

It is a fact that the Commissioners have expressed their inability to make a contribution out of the Common Fund towards the repair of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral. The Commissioners are not in receipt of an income from the capitular estates in the diocese at all approaching £25,000 per annum. At the time of the commutation in 1864 the Chapter were placed in possession of a larger income than they had previously derived from their estates. It is not the fact that the sum of £10,000 was granted for the Fabric Fund out of the capitular property; but such a sum was advanced out of the Common Fund.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the terms of the Order in Council dated October 11, 1861, expressly stated that £10,000 was to be paid as a further consideration for such transfer, and that due allowance was made for such sum granted to the Fabric Fund in fixing the amount to be paid to the Dean and Chapter; and, further, may I ask my hon. Friend if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners absolutely refuse to assist the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury in their efforts to save one of the best-known architectural monuments in the country?

Speaking without notice, I have to say that the Commissioners are unable to admit my hon. Friend's argumentative construction of the Order in Council, and it is doubtful whether the Commissioners have such a power as that suggested in the last Question.

asked whether the income referred to had not been enormously reduced by the fall in the value of land.

For some years after the commutation the Commissioners were paying to the Chapter considerably more than they received from the estates formerly belonging to the Chapter. At the present time the income received by the Commissioners is not one-fourth of that named in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that in many of the large towns throughout the country the local police constables receive their allowance for boots in half-yearly payments; and whether he can state why this system of payment cannot be carried out as regards the Metropolitan Police?

I am not aware of the practice which prevails in other police forces; but it cannot, in any case, be a guide to the practice which should be followed in the Metropolitan Force, the circumstances of which are entirely different. The manner of payment was not decided upon without most careful consideration on the part of the police authorities and myself; and I may add that other clothing allowances exist in the Force and are paid weekly, in regard to which no hardship has ever been felt.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence with the Government of India in reference to opium, arising out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Opium?

The correspondence to which the hon. Member alludes will be laid upon the Table to-day.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will lay upon the Table the Report as to the excessive death-rate in Bengal prisons, and the other papers connected with the Inquiry some two years ago; and why the Administrative Report of the Gaols of Bengal, printed at the Bengal Secretariat Press, is marked as not printed for sale, and is not purchaseable, as similar Reports are in this country?

I am not aware that there has been any single Report on the subject referred to. The Government of India's proceedings contain several voluminous Reports upon certain gaols in which a heavy mortality had been observed, but the papers are obviously incomplete. I will make inquiries, and let the hon. Member know in due course what papers can be presented upon his making the usual Motion. I will also inquire whether the Administrative Report may not be offered for sale after it has been reviewed by the Lieutenant Governor. The Government Resolution, I observe, has been published in the official Gazette, and it seems to contain all the material facts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he can state what is the quantity of land under poppy cultivation this year in the Behar and Benares Agencies, respectively, as compared with the years 1893–4 and 1894–5?

Information regarding the area under poppy cultivation during the present season, the spring of 1896, has not yet reached me.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to the action of the Vice Guardians of Killarney Union in appointing Head Constable Carty as Master of Killarney Workhouse; was Head Constable Carty in receipt of pay from the police authorities at the time of his appointment; what special experience, knowledge or fitness for the position of Master of a Workhouse did this police officer possess over 13 other candidates, many of whom spent years in the Poor Law service as masters, assistant clerks, and schoolmasters; and, has this appointment obtained his sanction and approval as President of the Local Government Board?

It is a fact that the Vice Guardians of the Killarney Union have appointed Mr. Carty, an ex-Head Constable in the Constabulary, to be Master of the Workhouse. Mr. Carty held the position of Head Constable at the time of his appointment, and was therefore in receipt of pay as such. He has since retired from the Constabulary Force. The Vice Guardians, after careful consideration of the qualifications of the several candidates, selected Mr. Carty as the most suitable. He had had considerable experience as clerk and book-keeper in the office of the County Inspector of Constabulary, and was well qualified to enforce discipline and order in an institution like the Killarney Workhouse. The Local Government Board have seen no reason for withholding their sanction to his appointment.

Are we to understand from the answer that a head constable while in full pay may enter into competition for such a position?

I see no reason why a head constable should not take an office of this kind.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to his statement that the 35,000 evicted tenants had been reinstated in their holdings since 1879, whether he can say what proportion of those were restored as future tenants, and thereby deprived of their status under the Land Act of 1881; and, whether he can give the total number of tenants evicted since 1887?

I have consulted the Inspector General in reference to this matter, and find that no official records exist which would supply the information desired by the hon. Member relative to tenants evicted and subsequently reinstated since 1879, nor has the Government any effective means at its disposal of obtaining reliable, or even approximately reliable, information as to the proportion of such tenants who have been restored as either "present" or "future" tenants. I may add, with reference to the figures mentioned in the question, that they include, in addition to ex-tenants reinstated in their holdings, the cases of relettings to other persons who entered into occupation with the consent of the former tenants; of persons who purchased the interest of ex-tenants; of relatives or connections of ex-tenants; and of sub-tenants who attorned to the head landlord. The total number of evictions from January 1, 1887, to December 31, 1895—a period of nine years —was 13,794, and of this number the greatest number in any one year was 3,869 in 1887, and the smallest 671 in 1895.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the case of a tenant named Patrick M'Inerney, of Moreens West, near Carrigaholt, county Clare, who was processed by his landlord to Kilrush County Court in October last for recovery of £11 arrears of rent; whether he is aware that before the case came on for hearing the amount was forwarded to the land agent by Father Vaughan, but that, notwithstanding, a decree for the full amount and £2 15s. costs was obtained; that, without notice to the tenant, and despite his protest, his horse was seized on foot of the decree and brought to the common pound; and that eight policemen accompanied the bailiff to make the seizure; and, whether he has sanctioned the sending an escort of police to assist the landlord, under the circumstances where the rent had been already paid?

The facts appear to be as stated in the question. The occurrence is one which I regret should have taken place, though, as regards the action of the police in the matter, they were bound to afford protection on receipt from the Sheriff of his requisition for protection in the execution of the Civil Bill Decree against M'Inerney. The police were not aware that M'Inerney had previously paid to his landlord the arrears of rent due by him; and had they been aware of the fact before proceeding to escort the Sheriff's bailiff, they would have made such representations to the landlord or to the Sheriff as would doubtless have obviated the execution of the decree.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the amount of revenue annually derived by the Post Office from the guarantees against loss exacted from the largest taxpayers in an outlying country district, before a telegraph wire is laid to such district; and whether, in view of the fact that telegraphic communication with the nearest markets is necessary to enable British agriculturists to struggle against Foreign competition, he will aim at placing every person in the Kingdom, whether near to or distant from a centre of population, as far as possible on an equality in respect of postal and telegraphic facilities and charges?

The amount paid to the Post Office last year in respect of guaranteed Telegraph Offices was £6,390, this amount representing the difference between the cost of such offices and the revenue derived from them. The cost which is thus repaid to the Post Office bears of course a very small proportion to the cost which would be thrown upon it if guarantees were abolished, and it were consequently bound to extend the telegraph to every place which asked for it. The Postmaster General is anxious to do all in his power to extend postal and telegraphic facilities to rural districts, and he regrets that the number of cases in which guarantees have to be demanded is so great. Guarantees may now be given either by the Rural District or Parish Council.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the New and Anti-Japanese Korean Ministry, having ousted and murdered their predecessors, are now residing at the Russian Embassy, at Seoul, under the protection of Russian marines? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask him also whether it is a fact that the King as well as the Ministry is in the Russian Embassy?

In the information that we have received the King and Crown Prince alone are mentioned as having taken refuge in the Russian Legation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he could state to the House, what was the total capital invested in the construction of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway; whether he is aware that, under The Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway Act, 1873, the Grand Juries of the city and county of Waterford have paid £14,000 annually for the past 22 years towards the dividend of the Company; whether the Grand Juries availed themselves of their power to appoint 12 directors of the Company at the assizes next after the passing of the Act; who are the present directors of the Company; how many of them are nominated by the said Grand Juries; whether the county and city of Waterford are responsible for a further period of 18 years for the payment of a dividend of 5 per cent. on the entire authorised capital of the Company; whether the Board of Trade has appointed arbitrators under the Act; and, whether steps will be taken to make and publish a better and more impartial audit of the accounts of the Company and to control its management?

I understand that the total capital invested in this railway is £393,333, of which £280,000 was raised by shares guaranteed by the county at 5 per cent., and the remainder by loans. I believe that £14,000 has, in accordance with the guarantee, been paid annually by the Grand Juries of the city and county of Waterford. I have no information as to the third point. Only six directors are named in the Company's report for 1894—viz., Francis E. Currey, Esq., J.P., chairman, W. G. D. Goff, Esq., J.P., deputy chairman, Sir James Ramsden, R. J. Usher, Esq., C. Morley, Esq., and H. Villiers Stuart, who has since died. I cannot say how many of these were nominated by the Grand Juries. The guarantee was given for a total period of 40 years. Of the three arbitrators, the Board of Trade appoints one, and the two Grand Juries appoint one each. The system of audit, which, as far as I know, is properly carried out, is laid down by the Act, and under existing circumstances no further control can be exercised over the management.

Is there any possibility of this £14,000 being taken off?

That is a question it is quite impossible for me to answer; the only connection the Board of Trade has with that railway is the appointment of arbitrators.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is now prepared to give an answer to the Petition forwarded on 27th September 1895, by seven sorting clerks of the sorting office, General Post Office, Dublin, with reference to the delay in the granting of their appointments, and claiming that their appointments should date from the time of nomination, and that all increments to which in that time they would have been entitled be allowed?

The question is now under the consideration of the Treasury, to whom the Postmaster General has referred it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Patrick Lynch, late of the 108th Regiment, who gave 18 years' service, 15 years of it in India, and was engaged in battle at Bandah and several other engagements, was awarded four good-conduct badges and the Indian medal and clasp, and discharged in 1872 on account of disease, the result of long service in India, on a pension of nine-pence per day; whether he is aware that Lynch, being unable to work or support himself on his pension, was obliged to go into the Kilkenny workhouse, where he is at present; and whether, in consideration of his good character and distinguished service, he will increase Lynch's pension to enable him to support himself outside the workhouse?

This case will be referred for inquiry by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the case that subscribers to the Parliamentary Debates for 1895 have been charged by the contractors an extra guinea (in addition to the regulation price of five guineas) under the pretext that, owing to the occurrence of the Dissolution, there were two Sessions during that year, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament sat fewer days, and consequently there was less outlay involved upon the part of the contractors than has been the case in average years; and, whether such extra charge was justifiable under the actual terms of the contract; and, if so, whether steps will be taken when framing future arangements to protect Members and other subscribers from such exactions?

From early times the subscription for Parliamentary Debates has been by the Session, and this principle was maintained in the Form of Contract drawn up by direction of the Joint Select Committee of 1888 on the Publication of the Debates and Proceedings of Parliament, and printed in the Appendix to their Report. The contract as first granted, when the old "Hansard's Reports" ceased to exist, empowered the contractors to charge five guineas for a complete copy of the Report of each Session, however long or short it might be. Subsequently the further stipulation was introduced that, "in the event of the Reports of any Session not reaching five volumes, the maximum price to be charged by the contractors shall not exceed one guinea per volume, and proportionately for parts of volumes," and the contractors were therefore justified in charging one guinea for the volume covering the second Session of last year. Under this arrangement it is true that the contractors may gain if there are two Sessions in one year; but, on the other hand, the subscribers gain if there is one long Session in the year. For instance, in 1893–4 they only paid five guineas for a Report extending to 14 volumes. When next the conditions of the contract are under review, I shall be quite prepared to consider whether it would be more for the convenience of the public to make the rate of subscription proportionate to the bulk of the Reports, provided that this can be done without entailing extra expense to the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies,—(1) whether the Government of New South Wales has been requested to assume the direct control and administration of the affairs of Norfolk Island; and, (2) if so, whether he has any objection to state the grounds on which it is sought to deprive the inhabitants of that island of the large measure of local self-government they have hitherto enjoyed?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second, I have to state that, up to the present moment, the administration of justice, which is in the hands of a magistrate elected by the community, has been partial and unsatisfactory, crime is rarely punished, and debts are not recoverable; and that these circumstances, coupled with the fact that the public buildings have been allowed to fall into a ruinous condition, and that no effort has been made to develop the resources of the island, the condition of which is thus rapidly deteriorating, have, in the opinion of of Her Majesty Government, afforded sufficient grounds for effecting a change in the administration of its affairs.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Police is in the habit of appointing standings for omnibuses in bye-streets within the Metropolitan area when they are not plying for hire, and that the Vestry of Hammersmith, as well as residents in such streets, have objected to his action; whether the Commissioner has any power to appoint such standings, and, if so, under what section of what statute; and whether, if the Commissioner has no such power, he will direct the Commissioner to discontinue the practice of appointing omnibus stands in such cases, and to leave the local authorities, under the Highway and other Acts, to deal with omnibuses standing in bye-streets?

In dealing with the stopping-places of omnibuses, the Commissioner acts under Section 29 of the Act 6 and 7 Vic. cap. 86. No standings for omnibuses are appointed, but the practice is to allow them to remain at convenient places in various streets for a few minutes at a time; at such times they are still technically plying for hire. In the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, no objection was made by the Vestry; the place at which the omnibuses stand is against a hoarding where no obstruction, and, practically, no inconvenience, can be caused to anyone, and the time allowed for stopping is not more than four minutes.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has been able to make the inquiry, promised last Session, into the conditions under which pensions are granted to the Scottish police; and whether he can now see his way to redress the existing inequality, by raising them to the same level as in England?

Inquiry has been made into this matter, but no decision has yet been arrived at. As the hon. Member is aware, special legislation will be necessary if a change is to be made.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if his attention has been called to the serious diminution of the receipts by county councils for the local taxation licences, probate duty grant, and estate duty for the year ending the 31st March 1895; whether he is aware that the arrangement under section 19 of The Finance Act, 1894, has operated to the disadvantage of county councils; and, whether he sees any way of obviating such disadvantage?

My attention has been called to the falling-off in these receipts in the year ending March 31, 1895. The receipts for the present year, however, will not only greatly exceed those of 1894–5, but will also exceed those of 1893–4, which of course were in no way influenced by Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1894. Under these circumstances it seems to me premature to conclude that that Scetion operates to the disadvantage of county councils.

I bag to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, under the laws of the South African Republic (Transvaal), there is any writ of habean corpus, or analogous right, enabling a prisoner to have himself brought up for trial or discharge; whether the four British subjects, Messrs. Rhodes, Farrar, Phillips, and Fitzpatrick, are still in custody under strict military guard, and their trial postponed sine die; and whether although they have deposited £10,000 each, they are not allowed the ordinary freedom of persons who have given, and are willing to give, bail; (2) whether he is aware that this fact is causing great detriment to thousands of other British as well as German and French subjects who are in great measure dependent upon the undertakings in which these four gentlemen take a leading part; (3) what are the reasons alleged for the postponement sine die of the trial, and the continued incarceration of the accused notwithstanding, even after they had given such security; (4) what steps have been taken by the British Government to insure a speedy trial or delivery of the prisoners; (5) whether the Transvaal Government have taken from these and other untried persons no less than £170,000 of money without proving them guilty of any crime; and (6) why an American citizen has been released from custody, while these four British subjects are compelled to linger in prison, notwithstanding they have given the same security that he did?

I cannot undertake to answer the legal question contained in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, but a habeas corpus law in the ordinary acceptance of the term might not have much bearing on the case of the accused persons mentioned, who are not in prison, but out on bail under restrictions not applied to the bulk of the accused. I have already telegraphed to South Africa asking that the four persons be given the same terms as the others who were released on bail, and inquiring as to the cause of the delay in proceeding with the trial and when it will be resumed. When I receive an answer I shall be in a position to give further information. I do not understand that the property of the accused has been confiscated, but placed under interdict. The information in my possession leads me to think that the detriment to other persons caused by the absence of the four accused persons is not as great as the hon. Member supposes.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. [Cries of "Order!"] He has said that these four gentlemen are out on bail——

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is making a general statement. He must put a question.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to his statement that these four gentlemen are out on bail, whether he considers that they have any liberty whatever? My information is directly to the contrary. ["Order, order!"]

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that, though these four gentlemen are now allowed to reside in a private house, they are practically under the control of the Pretoria police—that is to say, they are not out on bail?

They are allowed to reside in a private house, and the private house is guarded by police.

Without any liberty to go out?

That I do not know. If my hon. Friend wants information on that point, he must put down a Question. No doubt, if they go out, they would be followed by the police. [Laughter.]

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice, whether Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Jacobus tie Wet knew on January 7 of the terms of Dr. Jameson's surrender; and, if so, why Her Majesty's representatives informed the Uitlanders in Johannesburg on that day that the lives of Dr. Jameson and his men depended upon their surrender?

I have no information on the subject at present; but I have telegraphed to South Africa, and if my hon. Friend will put down his question for Thursday I think I will then be in a position to answer it.

I will put it down for Thursday.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests should be granted power to apply to the Crown property in London the system adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in regard to their London property, whereby lessees are enabled, on the payment of an increased ground rent, to acquire a practical perpetuity of their holding?

I find that the Commissioners of Woods consider that there are objections to the application of this system to Crown property in London, and I am in communication with them on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was responsible for having the charge against James Pelan, of Gorey, of being drunk and disorderly on his own licensed premises amended into a charge of drunkenness; who was responsible for having this case heard in camera, and who supplied the original information that the case was heard in open Court, which was afterwards admitted to be untrue; whether he is aware of any other cases under the Licensing Acts being ever heard in camera, and where they were heard; why a distinction was made between Pelan's case and the cases of three other publicans which were tried in open Court on the same day; and whether he will direct an independent inquiry as to who supplied the erroneous information to him?

The accused, the owner of licensed premises, was summoned for an offence under the 18th section of the Licensing Act, 1872. His solicitor drew the attention of the Resident Magistrate to the great doubt which, he alleged, existed as to whether the accused could, in point of law, be convicted under that Section, and applied to the magistrate to amend the charge into that which could be clearly sustained, namely, drunkenness on licensed premises. He was not charged with being drunk and disorderly. The magistrate, with the consent of the police, complied with the request, and the amended charge being one of a nature he had jurisdiction to decide sitting but of Petty Sessions, and alone, proceeded to adjudicate upon it. All this took place in the Grand Jury Room, and only a few minutes before the Petty Sessions Court was opened. There was free access to this room, and no attempt was made to conceal the case from the public. The local police official who supplied the original report that the case had been heard in open Court and not in camera, explains that what he meant was that the case was not heard privately, and that he looked upon the Grand Jury Room with open doors and the public passing in and out as an open Court. His mistake was regrettable, but I am satisfied he had no intention to willfully mislead.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, if arrangements could be made to allow Members to smoke after dinner in the two end libraries, otherwise in the deserted tea-room?

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to reject this preposterous proposition. [Laughter.]

I am quite in sympathy with hon. Members in their views as to the inadequate accommodation at the House for smoking, and am endeavouring to find a feasible plan for extending it. I do not think that either of the suggestions of my hon. Friend would be practicable, nor would they be in accordance with the general wish of the House.

I beg to ask the Attorney General, whether, in creating a new Bench of Magistrates for Eastbourne, the Lord Chancellor has followed the precedents created by the ex-Lord Chancellor of placing an equal number of gentlemen from both political parties on all new Benches?

Most careful consideration is always given by the Lord Chancellor to the question of appointment of magistrates, and to any recommendation submitted to him upon the subject. I must decline to express any opinion upon the action of the Lord Chancellor in any particular case, but it would, in my opinion, be most dangerous to adopt the view that political are the only qualifications for that which, in effect, is a judicial office. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to stop the creation and extension of deer forests and large grazing-farms in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?

The Government have no present intention of taking any such steps as are suggested in the Question of the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of his statement to the House that The proposed extension of the North British Railway to Mallaig, under a Government subsidy, is again under negotiation with the Treasury, he would be prepared to consider the claims to a subsidy of other proposed railway routes to the West Coast of Scotland, which, on expert evidence, are believed to be superior to the proposed route to Mallaig; or, alternatively, whether he would consider the advisability of devoting the large sum proposed to be expended on one district to constructing means of communication either by new roads or light railways in several districts in the Highlands?

It must be remembered that this Bill was introduced by the Government in pursuance of an agreement. If it should be proceeded with, no other Scheme can be considered as alternative to it. I am not at present prepared to make any promise on the general subject, in the event of its not being proceeded with.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to the second Resolution passed on the 28th February, by which whenever any Member in charge of a Bill in Committee, or on Report, desires to withdraw from the Bill any clause or clauses, he may, at the commencement of Public Business at any sitting before such clause, or the first of such clauses, is reached, move that the said clause or clauses cease to form part of the Bill, upon which Motion a Debate may follow, whether he will bring in a Motion to so amend either that Resolution or the Supply Resolution previously passed that no such Motion or Debate following thereon shall take place at the commencement of public business at either of the two last sittings allotted by Resolution No. 1 to Supply.

It is the fact that Amendments were admitted which would allow private Members to take the course suggested by the hon. Member. But such a course would be so obviously an abuse of the intentions of the House in passing the Rule that I do not think it will be taken advantage of; and as the Rule is only a Sessional Order I do not propose to ask the House to reconsider it at present.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how he proposes to prevent those persons who have come to reside in parishes on last Lady Day (and who would otherwise be eligible) from being disqualified from becoming Parish Councillors at the coming Parish Election?

answer was quite inaudible in the Press Gallery.

Arising out of that answer, Sir, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a Bill is now before the House dealing with the subject of parish elections, he would consider whether he could allow an extra clause to be added to that Bill, which would have the effect of preventing this disqualification?

I should be very glad to consider that proposal, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill before the House merely gives temporary powers, and I greatly fear it would not be in order to move such a clause as he suggests.

If an Amendment is proposed dealing with this matter in a temporary way in order to cover the present year, would the right hon. Gentleman support it?

It would be for the authorities of the House to decide whether such an Amendment would be admissible.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is necessary, in order to obtain the services of a direct representative of the Postmaster General in this House, to pass legislation for that object, assuming such representative to be an unpaid official; and, whether in the event of legislation being necessary to this end, Her Majesty's Government will give facilities for the passing of a Measure if introduced by unofficial Members?

There are legal difficulties connected with this matter which I do not think it necessary to go into. Whether these difficulties can be solved in the way indicated or not, I do not think it would be desirable to have a new unpaid representative of the Post Office in the Government. The matter will be considered.

Arising out of that answer, Sir, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to appoint an officer to deal with Post Office questions in this House which would be unconnected with the Government?

No, Sir, I think the anomaly of having an unofficial Member would be so great that it would not meet with general approval.

said: I see no reason to depart from the plan sketched out as to the course of business of the other day. It is that the Navy Estimates will be put down first on Thursday.

who was received with cheers, said: My first duty is to thank the House for accepting without demur the suggestion that I should make my annual statement on the Navy before you, Mr. Speaker, leave the Chair. I promise that I will not abuse the privilege by any inordinate length of speech, and I shall not make a statement of such proportions as have been assigned to it by anticipation in some quarters of the House. I wish to approach the business part of my statement at once, and will therefore make but few preliminary observations. I hope I may be relieved of any necessity of dwelling upon what is called the critical nature of the times. These are sober Estimates which we are going to propose. We hope that they will be accepted by the country as adequate to the occasion. They are not proposed with any feeling of alarm. ["Hear, hear!"] The only other preliminary observation I would make is to remind the House of the truism, the truism which is often ignored, that any increase in the Fleet means not only an increase in the number of ships, but must be followed all along the line of Naval preparation by expenditure in various directions. [Cheers.] More ships mean more men to man them, more officers, more seamen, more marines, more engineers, more stokers, more ratings of every kind. And more men and more officers mean more centres of training, more accommodation both on shore and at sea, more schools, more hospital accommodation, and more barrack accommodation; and, therefore, it must be well borne in mind that when an increase in the Fleet is suggested it would be unwise to act simply in one direction. A general survey must be taken of the whole situation, and the corresponding increases must be made where they are necessary. Excessive increase in any one direction would be useless unless it were followed by increases in other directions. [Cheers.] I would enforce that view by stating that now the situation is changed as regards the completion of warships. In old days the building of a warship took four or five years. Then it was necessary to look far in advance, and overtake the building of those ships in respect of men and mighty guns. Now the rapidity of shipbuilding has become such that you can build ships as rapidly as you can construct the large guns that are to be put into them, or train the officers and men who are to manage those ships when they are completed. For instance, a new 12-in. wire gun contains 108 miles of wire. The result is that if we were to push on with our ships more rapidly than the producing power of the country will supply us with armour and armaments, we should have our ships ready for sea but not be able to send them to sea. A further feature in the situation is this, that we train almost every class of men whom we put into our ships. We do not take seamen from the mercantile marine except in very small numbers; and now we train our engineers and stokers, as well as our seamen. Stokers are entered young; they are sent to the various ports; they are drilled as seamen are drilled for a certain number of months; and in that way we get a higher class, a more disciplined class, and a more useful class than we should otherwise be able to obtain. ["Hear, hear!"] But the House must bear in mind the enormous complexity of our armaments. That is a difficulty which must induce us to pay the highest attention to every form of training, to engineering schools, to gunnery schools, and to our naval shipbuilding schools, because these great modern machines are such that the ordinary seaman who was the gunner of the past would certainly not be able to find his way about. ["Hear, hear!"] In the scheme I am about to lay before the House we have not been looking to an increase in one direction only, but we have endeavoured, I can assure the House, to face the great requirements of the Navy in every department, and I may say, in every part of the world. [Cheers.] We have tried to look at this matter as a whole, and the result of that examination, as it stands, I will now proceed to lay before the House. I will, in the first place, deal with the personnel of the Navy, and here I should wish at starting to be allowed to dispel a fallacy which is very prevalent in many quarters—namely, that we have a difficulty in obtaining sufficient men for the Navy. [Cheers.] That view is only held by those who are not acquainted with the actual circumstances, but still it is a very general fallacy, and I have received sometimes touching letters from local authorities and from individuals, offering their services to the country on account of the alleged scarcity of men and difficulty of recruiting for our services. That difficulty does not exist. [Cheers.] On the contrary, I am able to make a satisfactory statement to the House on that point. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course we cannot recruit trained men because it is a special service for which we require them, and therefore we must take them early and train them ourselves. But, as regards the number of men which we can secure by accepting the offers of those who present themselves, we are in an entirely satisfactory position. [Cheers.] When we enlist 3,000 boys for the Navy we take 1 in 10 of the applicants, and the numbers of eligible candidates have been such that we have been able to make a strict selection and to increase the standard and the chest measurement of the boys. The same holds good as regards the stokers. We are now able to secure the number of stokers we desire, and we are training them at the present moment in great numbers. Well, now, with regard to numbers, right hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware, and the House must be aware, that the Admiralty has proceeded not in any haphazard way in order to see how much we can afford to spend on men next year; but for some time past there has been a Manning Committee sitting, and they have examined every ship ready and every ship in course of construction, and have made their plans in advance, calculating what number of seamen, marines and stokers is necessary to man the increased number of ships that we are going to send afloat. Last year the increase in the total number of men was 5,450. I propose to ask the House to sanction an increase of 4,900 to the personnel. We wish to add 1,800 to the seamen class, slightly more than 2,000 to the engine-room ratings, 342 to the artisan class, and 500 to that most useful and valuable force, the Marines. To show what progress has been made with regard to numbers, I will give the House a few figures. Upon the active list there were ten years ago 61,400 men. In 1895 there were 88,850, and, as I have said, the number is now to be increased by 4,900. The Reserve has been increased in the same time from 18,300 to 25,100. One method by which we have recruited for the Service is by the cruise of the Northampton, a ship set aside to visit various ports along the coast and to enter directly a certain number of boys of an older age than usual. That is a system which can only be adopted very tentatively and with care, but we have received reports from the Commanders of the ships in the Mediterranean Squadron, and without exception they speak most favourably of the conduct of these boys. ["Hear, hear!"] There is apparently one deficiency, and that is that only a few of them can swim. Apart from that, they have been extremely well reported upon. We are now going to increase the sources of supply by a method which occupied the attention of the House last year—namely, by the agency of a training-ship, which is to be sent to Queenstown. For this service we have selected the Black Prince, one of the finest ships that could be devoted to such a purpose. In the case of the Marines the recruiting has also been most satisfactory; and here, again, during the last few months, we have been able to raise the standard. I call particular attention to this, as it shows that, both in the case of seamen and Marines, we have a large selection from the youthful population of the country. I may mention that we are arming the batteries, where the Marines are trained with the latest type of marine guns. I stated at the opening of my remarks that there must be consequential expense upon the increase of the Fleet. For example, the number of men being increased, we are bound to provide more hospital accommodation. The accommodation at Chatham is at present insufficient and inadequate, as is also the barrack accommodation. We shall have to propose expenditure under these two heads as well as for further school facilities. I think the House will be prepared to regard such expenditure as capital expenditure, and to add it to the Naval Works Programme initiated by the last Government. I will say nothing now with regard to the Royal Naval Reserve, which is in a satisfactory position, but for information on this subject, I may refer hon. Members to the printed statement which will explain the Estimates, and which will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning, if not this evening. I wish to say a word or two with regard to the position if warrant officers. We have been able to come to certain conclusions affecting their prospects and condition. The list of chief gunners, chief boatswains, chief carpenters and warrant officers will be further increased to meet the extension of the Fleet, thus giving a certain amount of promotion. That increase will be accompanied by a revision of the rules governing their pay, promotion, and training. The chief gunners, chief boatswains and chief carpenters will get an improved scale of pay, ranging from 10s. to 12s. a day, and warrant officers will get from 5s. 6d. to 9s. a day, besides increased store and certain other allowances. Pensions and compassionate allowances to widows and children of officers who retire with the rank of honorary lieutenant will be on the same scale as those granted in the case of junior lieutenants. We trust that this will meet the wishes, to a certain extent, of a body of officers whom the nation values highly, and in whom it takes a legitimate pride. ["Hear, hear!"] I am able to say also that the training of engineer students in the college at Keyham is progressing in a most satisfactory manner. Two members of the Board visited that college not long ago, and they were struck by the general appearance and aptitude of these young recruits to Her Majesty's service. The profession of engineers in the Royal Navy is a fine profession, and the men who enter it now come from all classes of society. They have, when they enter the profession, a certain professional career. They have that advantage over civil engineers. Having once entered the service they are sure of being on full pay until they retire, there being practically no half-pay in their case, as there is in the case of the active list. The prospects of engineer students, who are to mess with gun-room and ward-room officers, are not generally known in the country, yet the number of applicants is such as to meet the necessary requirements of the service. Now I pass to the executive officers. The House will remember that an experiment was made last year, when it was determined that 100 officers should be entered from the Mercantile Marine. The plan was very much criticised at the time, and some hard things, which I regretted, were said with regard to Mercantile Marine officers. It was suggested that there would be difficulty on board ship, and that we should not get the right sort of men. Well, according to the information which we have received from the officers under whom these men are serving, there has been no friction, and they have proved themselves to be a most excellent addition to our Naval Service. [Cheers.] Ninety of these officers were taken from the Royal Naval Reserve; two were taken from the Victorian Naval Defence Force; and eight were taken from the Mercantile Marine direct. There were several hundreds of applicants, and we have a supplementary list. The gaps caused by the plan in the ranks of the Royal Naval Reserve have been at once filled up, 264 young men having sent in their names for enrolment in that service. A great many of these officers, I should add, have had a year's training, and some of them two years' training, on board a man-of-war. This plan, however, we still regard as a temporary expedient, and we shall look in the future as in the past to a system of education such as has been hitherto carried on in the Britannia o prepare the officers of our fleet. There is no subject which has more exercised my mind than the question of the supply of young officers. It is a matter of paramount importance, and I am not prepared to say that I consider the present system as entirely satisfactory. I think we draw our boys possibly from too small an area. Whether the Civil Service Commissioners have been unable to defeat the efforts of crammers or whether the crammers have improved upon their system I do not know; but certainly the main idea of parents still is that their boys must be sent to cramming schools, before they can expect to pass the entrance examination for the Navy. Now, all who have looked into the matter are unanimous in this, that we ought to get boys from the various schools in the country. ["Hear, hear!"] We want to get them straight from school, and we do not approve of that forcing system by which a naval cadet before he enters the Britannia has been put under pressure at a very early age. Holding these views, with which my colleagues at the Admiralty entirely agree, I have communicated with the head masters of some of our great schools, and I find that some of them are anxious to have Navy classes with the object of passing boys directly into the Navy, just as older boys pass into the Army, straight from school. The difficulty in the way hitherto has been the question of age. If boys have to enter the Britannia when they are between 13½ and 14½ the time they can spend at school is too short, and they have to go to school very young. The head masters state that if we advance the age by a year, then they would be able to establish a Navy class. I held a conference with a few of the head masters who have rendered me great assistance, and who have entered cordially into the scheme that we should make an appeal to all the schools in order to get boys, not with the traditions of a forcing establishment, but with the traditions of general British schools where boys are reared. At that conference, besides the head masters, were the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, the Captain of the Britannia, and the chief naval instructor of the Britannia; and they, one and all, came to the conclusion that if we advanced the age of the boys by a year it would be possible to give them a better and a more healthy education before they entered the Naval service, while the age for going to sea would not necessarily be increased. There is an objection in many quarters to increasing the age of sending to sea. The boys, however, would have 16 months of preliminary training instead of 23; but coming so much better prepared, and having done a good deal of school work before entering the Britannia, it is thought that the time can be shorter. This will be amply compensated by the possibility of devoting it more fully to the study of our own technical requirements. If the House approves that proposal, which we could carry out, we should raise the age of entry by a year, substituting shorter courses, but in those courses giving more special attention to the special technical requirements desired, and giving the boys, at the same time, such training in seamanship, in sailing, in boating, and so on, as is now given in the Britannia. [Cheers.] But our views with regard to the admission of boys to the Naval service do not stop there. After the most careful consideration, after a review of the previous inquiries, we have come to the conclusion that the Britannia itself—now an old ship, holding now 270 cadets, whereas it only held at one time 150 cadets—will not, for long, offer sufficient accommodation, or be the best for training which our boys could have. We propose to substitute—as was proposed many years ago—a college on shore for the Britannia. ["Hear, hear!"] The sanitary and disciplinary arrangements of the Britannia are extremely difficult to maintain at the highest point of efficiency. I have, however, on wish to depreciate the Britannia; but, without entering into the argument at this moment, I think better education, a more healthy education, and better discipline will be maintained by the arrangements I have suggested. I know there is no point which the House views with more interest than the period when the boys have passed through the training in the Britannia and training college. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn asked me the other day with regard to the Training Squadron. He thought that the Training Squadron was insufficient, and he stated that he would like to see it increased in order to give more opportunities of seamanship to our midshipmen. I find a very considerable difference of opinion in naval circles on that point. Personally, I think there is a great deal of force in the contention of my hon. Friend. I think that though the Training Squadron has ships which still have sails, the training in ships which have sails is invaluable to sailors who have to combat the elements; yet there are a good many officers of the younger school who believe that our sailors and officers will never take the same trouble with regard to sails with which afterwards they may never have anything more to do. ["Hear, hear!"] They hold that the time so spent is somewhat wasted, as well as the money expended on the trainingships; and their view is that the young men ought to be exercised only in ironclads and torpedo destroyers. Between these two schools of thought it is difficult to decide; but it appears to me that this attack on the training and sailing system is very much like the objection brought against a study of the classics. Though the training may not be of direct use, I believe it to be invaluable. But training is, of course, also necessary in ironclads and in torpedo destroyers, and we have established a system of passing a number of men and officers through torpedo destroyers so as to accustom them to the management of this new form of swift vessel. We have a certain number attached to the Channel Squadron and at various ports, so that while we continue the training in the Training Squadron we are, I hope, meeting the views of the other school by training as far as possible in torpedo vessels and ironclads. I am glad to say that we have been able—and in this respect I am sure the House will agree with me—to increase the number of ships afloat to a very considerable degree. It is costly, no doubt, though scarcely in proportion to the experience which is gained. I pass now from the personnel to the question of mobilisation in the statements which are generally submitted to the House—the question of the number of our ships at sea. We have strengthened our various squadrons; we have more ships in the Channel; we have more ships in the Mediterranean and in China. ["Hear, hear!"] We have also substituted efficient ships for the old coastguard ships, and we have organised the Flying Squadron, which has added largely to the number of our ships afloat. I am glad to be able to say that the organisation of this Flying Squadron created no disturbance whatever in any single dockyard, or in any other way. It was not a question of unparalleled effort. Orders were given that we required so many more ships to be put into commission. They were put into commission without any fuss or difficulty in the dockyards; and the rapidity with which some of the ships were docked and sent out reflected the highest credit on our dockyard authorities. [Cheers.] Notwithstanding that we have this larger number of ships at sea than usual, notwithstanding any necessary criticisms that may have been passed on many of the ships, or the faults that could be found almost with any ship that sailed the sea, the behaviour of our ships at sea has been good and has given satisfaction to the country. ["Hear, hear!"] It is marvellous what people will write occasionally on these matters. I saw an article from a paper—I did not read the paper—which the writer apparently thought important enough to circulate as a leaflet. It was to the effect that our ships were so constructed that it was dangerous for them to go to sea; and, therefore, they generally remained in the harbour. [Laughter.] I think that the number of ships which have been commissioned and floated are much greater in proportion than that of any other country, European or American. I say this in no spirit of boastfulness, but because it belongs to us as a maritime nation to have as many ships as we can. The commissioning additional ships for the Channel Squadron has given us the opportunity of putting into it the two latest results of British shipbuilding, the two latest creations of Sir William White, our most talented constructor-in-chief. They went to sea with the Channel Squadron, and the Admiral commanding the squadron was able to write as follows with regard to the Majestic:—

"I am thoroughly satisfied with the result of our first cruise in the new ships, and think the result is most creditable to the designers and fitters-out. We went through manœuvres, target practice, and torpedo running, just as if we had been a year in commission; and although it was the first time and everything was new—guns, torpedoes, and engines—all went without a hitch. The ship steers well. She is quicker off her helm than the Royal Sovereign, and does not lose her way so much in turning."

This comes from a practical sailor, and it is a criticism of the last ships we have added to our fleet, the Magnificent and Majestic. With regard to torpedo destroyers our experience has been extremely satisfactory, and there have been some circumstances which have given us an opportunity of testing their strength. There was the Sunfish, for instance, which came from the north when just completed in a heavy gale, and small as she was she made a good voyage. Some hon. Members will remember the Daring running into Dover. A ship ran into her, but she was nevertheless able to keep at sea, and the naval architects who examined the results were surprised at the manner in which so slight a vessel had been able to stand the strain. I trust that the House will forgive me if I dwell upon these points, because they are of very considerable interest to the country at large, and there are criticisms made which we are not often able to answer. This is another report of the experience gained in a recent collision with another vessel:—

"The torpedo-boat destroyer Lightning, when proceeding at a speed of 14 knots, collided with another vessel. The collision tore away the whole of the Lightning's bows, and her subsequent grounding twice without material damage, proved that these vessels, though necessarily very lightly built to secure the high speed demanded, are yet capable of withstanding very severe damage without foundering."

I have thought that these reports on the new types, the Majestic and the torpedo destroyers, would not be without interest to the House. I would now recall the attention of the House to one of my opening remarks about the consequential expense attendant on the increase of armaments. I turn, therefore, to the subject of ordnance—armaments, guns, and ammunition. In this respect I think scarcely sufficient provision has been made in the last two years' Estimates, but I do not wish to attach any special blame for this. I am most anxious we should all co-operate together, without party recriminations, in this work. Probably and naturally the late Government thought that the ships would not make that progress to completion with the immense rapidity which we have seen exhibited. At all events, we have fallen behind in the construction of guns, but I trust we shall be able to pick up what we have lost, and with the view of doing so we have spent £200,000 extra in the present financial year, for which I shall propose a Vote in the Supplementary Estimates. But next year, having gone into the examination ship by ship in the same manner as we have done in the case of the men—and again I say this is no haphazard Vote—I regret to say it will be necessary to ask the House to assent to an increase of no less than £850,000 on Vote 9, for ordnance and ammunition. The Vote, that is to say, will be increased from £1,693,000 to £2,543,000, an increase of more than 50 per cent. That is imperatively necessary [cheers], and we shall look to the producing power of the country to supply us with that amount of guns and ammunition. If there are hon. Members on the other side who think this is too much, let them put themselves in the position of necessity arising and ships being ready and there being no guns or ammunition for them. Check the ships if you wish, but do not grant the ships and refuse their armaments. ["Hear, hear!"] I am afraid this is not the only result of the increased requirements for guns and ammunition. If we have more guns and ammunition, with the corresponding reserves, we require more storage room, more magazines. Fresh magazines are required. I may state that the old hulks in which powder has been stored have become to be regarded as positively dangerous, and the question of magazines must be vigorously taken in hand. For this purpose we think that nearly half-a-million will be required. That, again, I think we may consider as capital expenditure, and provision will be made for it in the Naval Works Bill. It may be convenient for me to state what other expenditure we intend to provide under the Vote. Increased dock accommodation was provided by the Act of the late Government. Amongst other works, there is the long-desired extension of the Mole at Gibraltar, and other works connected with that port. Money was also taken for a dock, but the House may remember that in the Bill of the late Government the word "dock" was inserted in the schedule, but at the instance of the House of Commons the word "docks" was substituted; and a shipbuilder, whose loss we all regret—Sir E. Harland—recommended that the dock which was being built should be increased to 700 feet. Apart from that, another argument has been urged—namely, that if the dock were increased to 700 feet two vessels might possibly be docked in it at one time. ["Hear, hear!"] "Docks," as distinguished from "dock," implies a certain amount of increased accommodation in various ways, and that at Gibraltar means a considerable amount of money. I do not know whether the House of Commons approaches this matter with a light heart. At all events the Admiralty have not done so. If there is one point on which we have concentrated the best attention at our command it was as to what should be done at Gibraltar. The matter involved an immense amount of responsibility, and admittedly there are considerations on one side and the other; but finally we came to the conclusion that an effort must be made to make that necessary accommodation at Gibraltar which its strategic position and the requirements of the Navy render necessary, and we have concluded to build three docks instead of one and to provide the necessary accommodation. The cost of the new works is estimated at 2frac14; millions, in addition to the £361,000 already provided for the one dock. ["Oh!" and a voice, "Shame!"] The amount, I admit, is large; I do not think it is staggering, and I shall be surprised if we do not in this matter receive the support, not of a unanimous House of Commons, but of a very large portion of the House of Commons. [Cheers.] I ought to add that we have not only considered the point by ourselves, but we have called in the experts of the War Office. We have considered all the questions with regard to the strategic position of Gibraltar, and certainly not without the fullest consideration, but with a deep sense of our responsibility, we shall ask the House of Commons to include this additional amount in the Vote. Nor have we confined our attention to Gibraltar. It has been our duty to take a survey of all parts of our Empire ["Hear, hear!"], and to see where dock accommodation was necessary in the changed circumstances of naval policy and strategy. I have no professional opinion upon this, but I am told that modern iron ships require more docking than the wooden ships of olden time. We have had to look to various parts of the globe, where I will not say our interests might be menaced, but where we ought to be prepared to defend them, and it will probably be necessary for us to add to the works which were proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We do not in present circumstances intend to ask for a dock at Mauritius or Simon's Town, at the Cape of Good Hope. We believe a dock at Mauritius is necessary, and we shall ask for money in the Estimates to make a preliminary survey with regard both to Mauritius and Simon's Town. We think that better than putting any amounts into the Naval Works Bill this year, for the following reason—that it is impossible to estimate the cost, and the House of Commons might only be unwittingly deceived if we were to insert any sum in the Bill before the preliminary surveys are completed. In the Naval Works Bill of last year, for example, Dover was inserted. It is highly probable that the amount set down on account of the works there is underestimated by a very large sum. I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite took the figure of two millions from old Estimates made many years ago, having no other figures to go by, and it being impossible to find any others. We shall propose a Naval Works Bill on the lines of the Act of last year—that is to say, a Bill to be renewed in the next financial year—because we feel that at present we have not got sufficient knowledge to estimate as regards Dover or the other docks which I have mentioned. The works which I have enumerated and certain other minor proposals raise the amount taken in the Naval Works Act of last year from £8,500,000 to £14,000,000, which will be the amount laid down in the new Bill. These are large Estimates, but the House will not be staggered by the amount [cheers] unless hon. Members can put their finger on one single item where they think that economy ought to be enforced. It is not lightly that we have included these large sums in our Estimates. It is with a full conviction that this expenditure is necessary. With regard to the finance of the Bill, I am authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that he will put aside the surplus of this year, after satisfying the Supplementary Estimates, to make a fund which, in the first instance, shall supply the expenditure under this Naval Works Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Instead of borrowing with one hand and setting up annuities and perhaps at the same time buying Consols or other securities with the surplus, my right hon. Friend has generously placed the surplus at the disposal of the Admiralty for the purposes of the Naval Works Bill. [Cheers.] I now pass to that which perhaps will be more interesting to the House—namely, the question of ships. Let me in a few sentences review the past; and let us look for a moment at the efforts of the last few years, in order that we may obtain a glance at the whole of the naval shipbuilding which this country has considered to be necessary. I will start with the Naval Defence Act of 1889. Of course in that first year there were certain ships under construction, the expenditure on which I leave out. I start afresh with the Naval Defence Act. There are three periods—that of the Naval Defence programme; then that of the programme intermediate between the Defence Act and what is called Lord Spencer's great programme, which includes the ships built in 1892–3 and 1893–4; and thirdly, that of Lord Spencer's programme of 1894. The Naval Defence Act added 70 ships to the Navy, of which 10 were battleships. The intermediate period supplied three battleships—the Renown, the Majestic, and the Magnificent; five cruisers, including the Powerful and the Terrible, four sloops, and six torpedo-boat destroyers. Then came Lord Spencer's programme, under which the following ships have been or are now being constructed—seven first-class battleships, four first-class cruisers of the Diadem type, six second-class cruisers of the Talbot type, four second-class cruisers of the Arrogant type, two third-class cruisers of the Pelorus and Proserpine type, and 56 torpedo-boat destroyers. No ships of this latter programme are complete as yet—the time has been too short—except some 20 torpedo-boat destroyers. Adding the 70 ships built under the Naval Defence Act, the 12 under the intermediate programme, and the 23 under Lord Spencer's programme, we reach the total of 105 ships and 62 torpedo-boat destroyers which have been commenced, part of them finished and part still under construction, between 1889 and 1896. That is a formidable list—a great list; and yet I shall have to ask the House to add to it. [Cheers.] The effect of the Naval Defence Act is now apparent. Up to now we have only the Majestic and Magnificent of the ships belonging to Lord Spencer's programme. Of course it is not in the first year that one sees the good effect of it; but of the 70 ships built under the Naval Defence Act there are at present in commission 10 battleships, 27 cruisers, nine torpedo gunboats. The Mediterranean Squadron has three Defence Act battleships out of nine, and six out of seven first and second-class cruisers. The Channel Squadron has four Naval Defence Act ships out of six, and the Particular Service Squadron is, except for torpedo-boat destroyers, entirely composed of ships of the Naval Defence Act. Therefore you will see from the present ships afloat how much is due to the effort made at the time of which we are now reaping satisfactory results. There are two ways by which we may increase our force—either by the acceleration of ships building or by the laying down of new ships. I am not sure whether the acceleration of ships building is not as important an element in policy as the laying down of new ships; and that policy of acceleration is a policy to which we are committed, and which we wish the House of Commons to endorse. [Cheers.] During the present year we have endeavoured to hasten the programme which was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have done so by putting more men on the battleships, and so finishing them earlier. We have hurried on the order for armour—a most important fact, if we require more armour in future years; because though, of course, there is a great industry for the supply of armour, yet it is necessarily limited. Therefore we have only taken time by the forelock, and have spent more money upon armour in the present financial year than the original Estimates contemplated. The Supplementary Estimate which it will be our duty to propose to the House amounts to £1,100,000. It includes an excess of £150,000 for wages in the dockyards, that is for the additional men we have put on to make the Majestic and the Magnificent ready earlier, and to have them in the Channel Squadron at the present moment, and for other work. We have spent £300,000 more on armour; £325,000 more on stores, and £200,000 in armaments and munitions for guns and Maxims. By this amount we undoubtedly relieve the burden on the coming financial year. Whether it is fair to do so, hon. Members will be able to judge in a few moments, when I come to that which we propose to place on the Estimates for the year 1896–97. I may say here that we have increased the men in the dockyards up to 23,000; and I think that I ought, in passing, to pay a tribute to the organisation of our dockyards and those who have assisted in building our ships. There is the greatest emulation, I am glad to say, between the various dockyards. They take the greatest possible pride in finishing a ship before the time in which a corresponding ship was finished in another dockyard. The emulation between Chatham and Portsmouth is most healthy and exhilarating, and it is pleasant to see the men taking this interest in their work and their delight in turning out ships well and swiftly. The output of work will bear the closest criticism, in regard to either time, efficiency, or economy. It reflects the greatest credit upon the officers of the yards and on all the workmen. ["Hear, hear!"] The unexampled rapidity in the construction of battle ships has not in the least interfered with the other works in the yards. It is extra work that has been done. I know that it has been said that this rapidity affects the efficiency; that the men have been taken away from other ships. But that is not so. The up-keep of the fleet in commission and the thorough-going efficiency of the ships in the reserve have been fully maintained. With regard to the question of sacrificing efficiency to cheapness, it has been said that complaints have been made by the overseers or captains of newly commissioned ships. The records of the Admiralty contain no mention whatever of such complaints. [Cheers.] I have spoken of the year in which we are at present. Now I come to 1896–97. We start with having under construction a formidable number of ships—eight battleships, 21 cruisers, and 40 torpedo boat destroyers. Let me approach the question of battleships from the points of view of number and class. I am not going to place before the House comparative lists of the navies of foreign countries and of our own. It is, no doubt, a matter which has to be done, and we at the Admiralty have given days and weeks and months to the consideration of the relative strength of the different navies. I propose, not to place before the House the processes or figures by which we have arrived at our results; I propose only to give those results, with some indication of the system which we have followed. One paramount rule which we have laid down in all comparisons is that size alone is no criterion of the fighting value of a ship. [Cheers.] The Leader of the Opposition caused tables to be prepared showing the first-class battleships of various countries. Such lists are illusory to a certain extent, unless they are accompanied by numberless explanations; and even then such controversies would gather round them that it would be impossible to elucidate them. But we have proceeded by analysing, as regards battleships, all such forces as ought to be taken into consideration. We have been aware of this fact—that there are first-class battleships belonging to ourselves which are at present not much more efficient than some second-class battleships; and, on the other hand, that there are some second-class battleships which may be ranked in certain circumstances as equal to first-class battleships. We look at the matter as a whole. We take a second-class battleship which is capable, as regards armament, armour, and speed, of competing with a first-class battleship. You must send a first-class battleship against it. Nevertheless, that second-class ship is unequal to the first-class, because it has not got the coal-carrying capacity, and, therefore, it is only under certain given circumstances that the second-class ship is equal to the first-class. In the construction of battleships there are four desiderate—speed, armament defensive armour, and coal carrying capacity. To secure these objects, if you want to secure them all in their fullest efficiency, you require vessels of a certain size, and when you want to decrease the size of that vessel, you must make up your minds which of those four desiderata you are prepared to sacrifice, and that sacrifice you will choose according to the special circumstances of the nation. Those who are prepared for defensive naval strategy may leave out coal-carrying capacity; those who believe that theirs must be an offensive policy must on no account surrender coal-carrying capacity, and so it happens when you compare one of our ships having large coal-carrying capacity, and also considerable capacity for carrying ammunition with a foreign ship has thicker armour, but what is her coal-carrying capacity? You must make a sacrifice on one side or the other, and it is only when you bear in mind these first principles you will do justice to your own ships, or be able to form a proper opinion. No naval architect is able to combine all these desiderata together under a certain size. I will read an extract from the speech on the French Navy Estimates by the reporter on the French Naval Budget, because it very neatly expresses the doctrine of which I am speaking, and which has a great bearing on the selection of ships. M. Thomson said:—

"It is certain that if the problem of modern construction is not insoluble, it is at least very delicate and very complex. Naval construction becomes more and more complicated. We are at this moment in a period of transformation, development and trial. Every ship brought into existence puts the type which it replaces in the Fleet into a lower grade, and only bears a distant resemblance to that type. Every armourclad is a compromise. Beyond the multiple and very various requirements, it would be impossible to conceive a type which would not give a handle to any criticism. To instal on the hull of a medium tonnage weapons of war of a tremendous power, to put under the protection of an armoured wall formidable fighting instruments where bronze, iron, and steel are crowded together in every shape, to give to this mass a large radius of action, a high speed, it is almost the pursuit of the improbable. But have the goodness to believe it—the foreigner no more than we possesses the solution of this difficult problem."

We say the same. No country more than ourselves has power to solve this problem. I thought I would place before the House some of the various differences of opinion which exist with reference to what you ought to sacrifice; but I have already detained you so long—and I have still a certain amount of ground to go over—that I will refrain from doing so on the present occasion. I will confine myself to saying that the whole ship must be taken into consideration, also the differences as regards the disposition of armament. A choice must, therefore be made. That choice must depend on the special requirements of the particular nation for whom the ships are built. It is strongly held by the present Board of Admiralty—I believe it has been held by past Boards—that the range of action in the case of English ships must not be crippled, and that coal-carrying is one of the most vital necessities. We must have ships equal in fighting capacity and we must have coal-carrying capacity also, in order to enable our ships to remain at sea. Consequently, in any ships we may propose we cannot go below a certain size, unless we accept the doctrine that they are to be Channel ships only. Some of our rivals have fine fighting ships, but their inadequate coal-carrying capacity prevents them going beyond the Channel. We think we ought not to build such ships, because we require our vessels not only in the Channel, but in distant parts of the world—we require ships ready to go anywhere and to do anything. ["Hear, hear!"] I will put before the House the number of ships which we propose to add to those now under construction. We propose to add five battleships, four first-class cruisers, three second-class cruisers, six third-class cruisers, and 28 torpedo-boat destroyers. The first-class cruisers will be of the Diadem type, the second class of the Talbot, and the third-class of the Pelorus type. With regard to the torpedo-boat destroyers, I must inform the House, looking to the extraordinary urgency of proceeding with that class of boat—seeing they were sanctioned by the late Cabinet and entered into the programme of Lord Spencer—we have ordered eight of them in anticipation of the verdict of the House of Commons. Of course, if the House of Commons so chooses, they will strike them off the number we now propose. With regard to this list of cruisers, the House will observe that they are to be according to existing types—the Diadem, the Talbot, and the Pelorus. The five battleships are to be improved Renowns. In order to avoid any misconception, I may say these designs were prepared by Sir William White before he left. Sir William White has been indisposed for some months, but before he started on his holiday for the restoration of his health, he was able to approve of the whole of the programme which we now produce to the House. I have his authority for it, and his authority is a great one. ["Hear, hear!"] Sir William White has built 130 battleships, and not one of them has had a deeper draught or has erred in stability from the calculations which he had made. His recent ships, the Magnificent and the Majestic have had 200 tons less weight when launched than his design. The new Renowns will be 390 feet in length, 74 feet in breadth, and have a displacement of 12,900 tons. They are thus 2,000 tons smaller than the Majestic, and draw about two feet less water, a point to which we attach very great importance. They will have the same coal endurance and rather greater speed. They will be fitted with water-tube boilers, and will consequently be able to steam further at a high speed than the Majestic class. The main armament will be the same as that of the Majestic class. The protective arrangements are also similar, but there will be less thickness of armour. We believe that, through the coal arrangements in the bunkers alongside the deficiencies in armour will be amply compensated by the advantages we have gained in other respects. I have compared the new Renown with the Majestic. As compared with the old Renown, the new ships will be greatly superior in armament—namely, 12-in. as against 10-in. guns, and in barbette armour 12-in. as against 10-in., and two more 6-in. quick-firing guns. In citadel protection the principal portion of the protected area has the same thickness in both cases—6-in. The Renown has a little 8-in. armour, but the new ships will have their citadels about 15 feet longer. For continuous steaming over long distances, the new vessels will have an advantage in speed of two knots. These five battleships, added to the seven battleships which are now building under Lord Spencer's programme, and the Renown, will constitute 13 battleships which will be under construction during the present year. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the number of cruisers, I wish to say to those who think it is either too great or too small, it has again not been decided upon haphazard. The First Naval Lord has gone over every station, every trade route, and has considered the composition of the squadrons of the Mediterranean, North Sea, and Channel, on the Irish coasts, and in distant parts. He has allotted so many cruisers to these particular places. This number of cruisers is based not upon a comparison of the number of cruisers other nations have, because their conditions are entirely different from ours, but upon the question what we have to defend, what services will have to be performed, in what direction the food supply will have to be protected, and what resources we have. This number of cruisers, added to those which have gone before, and with the addition of a few third-class cruisers which may still have to be asked for in a future year, represents the deliberate opinion of the Board of Admiralty. Whether we err or not, it is the deliberate opinion of the Board of Admiralty as to the requirements of the day. ["Hear, hear!"] I am now approaching the end of my very long story. I have placed before the House the number of ships which we propose to add to the Navy. We do not propose to proceed by Bill, because it is intended to begin all these ships during the present financial year. I may say that, looking at these additional ships, the House is entitled to know that the cost, in addition to what we have in hand at the beginning of the year, spread over three years, is £10,000,000 sterling. That is for the new ships. We propose to finish the whole of the Spencer ships, and the whole of our own ships, by July, 1899. On the present year there will be a proposed increase of £1,860,000 on Vote 8. Now I have placed before the House roughly the effect generally of our Estimates. There is an increase for men, including the reserve, of £300,000; shipbuilding, £1,860,000; ordnance, £850,000; new works, £70,000 more than last year, exclusive of the Naval Works Bill, and other Votes, £42,000; or a total increase of £3,122,000 on the Votes of last year. The total Navy Estimates are £21,823,000. In 1895–96, they were £18,701,000, there being thus an increase of £3,122,000. In regard to items of new construction, the amount will be £7,385,000, as compared with £5,393,000. In previous years the amounts were—1892–93, £4,050,000; in 1893–94, £2,984,000; in 1894–95, £4,477,000; and in 1895–96, £5,393,000; and in this year, £7,385,000. The amount of increased wages in the dockyards is £294,000. Three battleships, one first-class cruiser, and one third-class cruiser will be built in the dockyards. The remainder will be built by contract. The three battleships to be built in the dockyards will be commenced when the ships on the slips at Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth are completed. This will insure a continuity of work in the dockyards. Tenders for the two battleships to be built by contract will be given out next month. The whole of the third-class cruisers will be commenced at once. Indeed, I have gone so far as to invite tenders, and as soon as Parliament sanctions them the whole will be put in hand at once. Stringent limits as to the date of their completion will be inserted in the contracts. They ought to be ready within 13 months from the time of their commencement. The same holds good with regard to the torpedo-boat destroyers. The whole of the tenders for these will be invited at once. The first and second-class cruisers will be commenced in the autumn. The House will see that the whole of this Programme will be commenced and pushed on in the financial year 1896–97. The Programme on which the Board of Admiralty agree is embodied in the Vote of that year, with the few exceptions I have already stated. A broad view has been taken of the Navy, and we believe that now we have arrived at some point on which we may stand. There will be 13 battleships, 10 first-class cruisers, 19 second-class cruisers, eight third-class cruisers, and 90 torpedo-boat destroyers, which form the joint Programme of Lord Spencer and the present Board of Admiralty. The cost of the whole of this, beginning with 1894–5, added to as it has been by myself, will be about £28,000,000. The cost of the Naval Defence Act was £21,000,000. Five million pounds were spent in the two intervening years on these ships. And now about £28,000,000 is the joint Programme of Lord Spencer and ourselves, forming from the year 1889 to 1899 an aggregate expenditure of £55,000,000 upon new construction. I may now sum up. The House will remember that we ask for a supplementary Estimate of £1,000,000 and for Estimates which this year amount to nearly £22,000,000. I give these figures to the House not in any spirit of boastfulness or exaggeration. That is far from our desire. These are not Estimates of provocation—[cheers]—they are Estimates of self-defence. [Cheers.] They are Estimates based on the special conditions of this country—conditions which are not those of any other country—on our scattered possessions, on the position of our food supply, and on our colonial Empire. They are based on the security of our own shores. [Cheers.] If foreign countries look at these Estimates they must not compare them with what they spend upon their navies. They must consider comparatively what they spend upon their armies—["Hear, hear!"]—because the squadrons which we send to sea are the corps d'armée that we place upon our frontiers as they place corps d'armée upon theirs. [Cheers.] Then they have conscription and their vast military armaments. We have our small, though, I hope, excellent, Army. ["Hear, hear!"] But it is to our ships and our Navy that we look. [Cheers.] And an increase of these, even a large increase in our Estimates, ought not in any degree to excite the jealousy or emulation of any foreign nation. We are doing no more than we consider absolutely necessary for our self-defence. ["Hear, hear!"] Some words of mine have been misconstrued to mean indifference to the maintenance of friendships with other countries. No statesman can feel such indifference. ["Hear, hear!"] When we are taunted, as has been continually the case, with what has been called our isolation, we have a right to tell them how we regard that alleged isolation ourselves. We have a right to explain its nature and limits to our countrymen. But, however that may be, whether we be isolated or not, whether in any great strain that may come upon us—which God forbid—we should be unaided by allies, or whether in any general disturbance of peace, we should take our place side by side with other Powers, the British people are unanimous that our fleets should represent the self-reliance of a great nation. [Cheers.] To that unanimity the Government commend these Estimates, satisfied that their cost will be cheerfully borne by the nation, and trusting that they will be accepted, as they have been conceived, in a spirit of moderation, though framed on a scale which, with a full sense of responsibility, we deem adequate for the occasion. [Cheers.]

Not at all. That is quite a mistake.

Under Sub-head C, of Clause 5, the rate is restricted.

But only to the line itself.

asked why should not a railway if it destroyed the local traffic, contribute fairly to the rates in accordance with the income it derived. The next feature of the Bill was the Treasury assistance given for the construction of lines in cases where it was assumed that a line could not be made without such assistance. In the Bill it would be found that only £1,000,000 was devoted to this purpose whilst only £250,000 was available for grants. That sum was so small as to be absurd when they considered the great work that was to be done and yet it was dealt with on entirely wrong principles. If the Treasury lent money to a locality, it charged 3½ per cent. interest. Why should the localities have to pay such a rate of interest? If the Treasury approached the localities at all it ought to approach them on honest principles and lend them the money as cheaply as the Treasury could itself borrow it, and not try to make a profit in all these transactions. Free grants were made to railway companies to build these lines. He ventured to think this would be found to be a most dangerous provision. What security was taken in the Bill with regard to these advances? The first was that the Board of Agriculture should send a certificate to the Board of Trade stating that they thought the construction of the line would benefit agriculture in the district. What use was that? It was only a benevolent expression of opinion by the President of the Board of Agriculture. He thought there ought to be evidence given on the point or otherwise all sorts of jobbery would arise here. Pressure would be brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman who would be asked to write a letter stating that he thought agriculture would be benefited, and forthwith the, Chancellor of the Exchequer was to provide,£100,000 to some company which might have sprung into existence. What was the next protection? The Board of Trade was to certify that a connection would be established between a seaport and a market. If the Board of Agriculture or the Board of Trade interfered at all they should do a great deal more than this, and should fully explain the reasons why they thought a railway was wanted. The Board of Trade should prove that there was a good market for fish, that the seaport it intended to connect with the market had got a good harbour and that there was some prospect of trade to make the line pay. He thought the provisions under which the free grants were made were dangerous provisions which were only too likely to lead to corruption, and the Government which distributed a largesse like this would be placed in an extremely difficult position in administering this clause of the Bill. He asked the House to contrast the limitations imposed upon the Treasury with the absence of all protection to the locality. There was no single provision to protect localities which were led into every extravagance, and no attempt was made to keep them safe. Again, why was this called a Light Railway Bill? There was nothing in the proposed Measure about the gauge, and he hoped the standard gauge of the country would be adopted. There was nothing about cost to justify the use of the word light, and he thought in that respect they might well have the Bill amended when they came to consider it hereafter. The last complaint he had to make about the Bill was that no real facilities were given to the localities. There was no provision by which the land was to be secured cheaply and the promoters were not even preserved from the extra 10 per cent, which they had to pay for the land. In answer to a question the other day, the President of the Board of Trade intimated that he was not even willing to forego the passenger duty in regard to the light railways. No facilities, therefore, were to be given to the localities, the only difference between these and the great railways of the country being that in the case of the light railways the community would be asked to bear the risk instead of the speculators who had built the line. There was no Member more sympathetic with the difficulties of agriculture than he was, and he was most anxious to see everything done that possibly and wisely could be done for that depressed industry by that House. The localities ought to be facilitated in the construction of the lines, they ought to be protected, and legislation should aim at enabling them to make the lines cheaply and readily without undue risks. He objected to the Bill because it contained none of these conditions. He wanted the localities to give all the assistance they could without risk. It was said they could do nothing without risk. But they had in Belgium, the lines in that country paid, but if the Government here were to adopt the principle that lines ought to be made where they could not pay they would be proceeding in a dangerous direction. There was no effort in the Bill to consider whether the lines were likely to be an economical success, although that was a most important element to take into account in legislation of this character. The rates ought to be carefully guarded and they should do all they could to benefit localities without increasing the burden of local taxation. He thought the assistance given by the Treasury under the Bill was given in the most pernicious form; it charged too high a rate of interest, gave away too freely, whilst the whole amount dealt with was far too small adequately to carry out the purposes for which the Bill was intended. The railways of this country had been constructed by private enterprise, and now when the private speculator had got all the good and promising investments the country was asked to take up what was doubtful. What the Treasury ought to do was to give a small guarantee of about 2 per cent. for 10 or 15 years, so as to induce the private speculators to construct lines where they thought there was an economical demand for them. The Treasury should use its vast resources of borrowing money cheaply and assisting in the way he had suggested without throwing any serious burden on the taxpayers and not address itself to the matter in the wholesale way proposed by the Bill. He thought it would have been quite possible to have drawn up a Bill on safe lines, but this Bill was not so drafted. There were, he believed, some supporters of the Bill, who imagined that if they made a railway in an agricultural district they would do an infinite amount of good, but unless they had something besides agriculture, a railway could not be successfully made and especially a short line of three or four miles, such as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The lines should be allowed to be made in accordance with the wants of the locality and surrounded by the safeguards the locality would suggest. He asked the Members for agricultural constituencies to show why they were so certain that agriculture would be made profitable if these railways were constructed. He would give the experience of light railways of a little town with which he was acquainted in Ireland. Forty years ago, until a railway was made, letters could be posted to Dublin four hours later than now. The reason was there was not enough traffic for the railway company to supply a good service of trains. The first effect of making a railway was to destroy the means of locomotion, that formerly existed. The coaches, cars, and local carriers disappeared. The old—if not perfectly effective—system of locomotion was destroyed, and there was substituted one which did not meet the wants of the district half as well. Under the old system all the profits accrued in the locality; under the new system they deprived the locality of the profits of carrying goods, and they went to a company of shareholders, perhaps 100 or 200 miles away. He was not against replacing the old methods by machinery. But the machinery must be adapted for the work it had to do, and they must introduce machinery where the interests were small, poor, and easily destroyed, with the greatest care, and the Bill involved too great precipitancy. He would describe the effect of two great light railway enterprises in Ireland. Under the first Bill—a Liberal Bill—of 1883, light railways were built under an extravagant guarantee of 5 per cent. to be furnished by the locality in Ireland, and if the Treasury were satisfied that the railway would be kept at work, it refunded the locality 2 per cent, of the guarantee. Since the Bill became law 18 lines had been constructed and they were about 250 miles long and he asserted the worst constructed lines in Europe. The service was irregular and unpunctual and the rates were high. The lowest cost was £2,600 a mile, ranging to £6,000. On every one of the local loans the taxpayers had to pay interest on the whole of the capital, and this year,£30,000 would be voted, to be added to £60,000, or £90,000 in all to pay interest on £1,500,000,sunk in these lines, or 6 per cent. Was it not a wicked thing to plunge Ireland into this mischievous speculation in a time of agricultural distress? The working expenses had never yet been covered by the takings, yet the stock of these railways was among the most prized in Ireland. They sold at 50 per cent. premium. If the lines were pulled up the shares would be merrily dealt in at 50 per cent. The House did not construct appropriate industrial enterprise with these railways, but gave greedy capitalists money which they would stick to for ever. Instead of gaily plunging into light railways in England, they ought to be repairing the mischiefs they had done by light railways in Ireland. A rate of 2s. 2d. in the £1 was being paid for light railways which it was dangerous to travel upon. With such experiences in Ireland the House ought to be careful about light railways in England. It would be said that local authorities in England were not as they were in Ireland. Thank God they were not. There was no local authority in Ireland of which any decent Government ought not to be ashamed. The local authorities in England were no more to be trusted than local authorities in Ireland. It was said they would proceed as safely as capitalists. The latter sought interest on their money, and that made them cautious. But county and district councils were trained in money making, and before they would put thousands into a light railway, they ascertained whether it would pay. In the protection of localities from further taxation, English local governing bodies did not give a bit more protection than Irish Grand Juries did. The second chapter in the history of light railways in Ireland began in 1889. The Government recognised the scandal that had arisen out of the heavy tax imposed by bankrupt railways under the Act of 1883. The plan was then adopted of making grants to the railway companies to make the lines, and £1,500,000 had been distributed for this purpose. He called it a most questionable distribution of public money. The cost of construction ranged from £4,000 to £9,000, and £15,000 a mile. Now, it was proposed to launch a similar system in England. The Government approached private companies and said: "If you are prepared to make a loan we will give you so much money." The companies wanted more and tried to get all they could and grants to the extent mentioned had been made. He believed that most of the companies were paying 5 per cent. on their ordinary shares. He lived near one of these lines when in Ireland. The taxpayers there had no control over the line and the service of trains was most inconvenient. Similar evils to those caused by light railways in Ireland would arise in England if this Bill were passed. Let it not lie thought that the £1,000,000 mentioned in the Bill would be the end of the expenditure. The House would open a little tap that night which they would never be able to close and ultimately £100,000,000 might have to be spent. Because he thought the principle of Bill was unjust to private capitalists who had built over a thousand millions' worth of railways in England; and because he considered the Bill would be oppressive and mischievous to the localities, and likely to be injurious to the State, he asked the House to adopt the Amendment that stood in his name.

in seconding the Amendment said that the Bill in its present form would be of comparatively little use in securing the construction of cheap railways in the rural districts and that unless it was very substantially altered or amended in Committee the House ought not to pass it. As had been pointed out, a light railway was not always an advantage to a district. The use of steam and electricity for motive power must largely diminish the use of horses; there would be a disappearance of carriers' carts; and the customers of country shopkeepers would be tempted to go to the towns. Still, these disadvantages would be outweighed by commercial advantages, although light railways would not be the universal panacea that some anticipated. They would affect but comparatively small areas, and the farmers who had to load a wagon would prefer to send it to the market town if the distance was not too great. The Government had made one improvement in the Bill as compared with last Session. It was an untenable position to lay down that there should be no support from Imperial funds. Increased trade meant increased public revenue, and there was therefore some justification for Imperial support of local enterprises. Light railways ought to lead to considerable economy in postal arrangements. Localities would not like to burden themselves in order to construct, subsidise, or work light railways; and he should like to see in the Bill greater elasticity in the giving of Imperial support. He agreed that with the adoption of the principle of guarantee there might be openings for great waste in construction, and the absence of incentives to earn dividends in working. That was likely to be so, if interest were paid at a high rate; but, if interest were paid at a low rate, then guarantee was a suitable form of aid. If the Bill took power to give, a two per cent, guarantee over 25 years, that would be a more effective and economical way of using the million of money than would be the subsidising of local authorities. He was not at all sanguine that the Bill would be effective in securing the construction of light railways, owing to the principle of guarantee being ignored altogether. He should like to ask whether the Government would not be disposed to guarantee small sums for the construction of feeder-lines. They were not at all likely to be made by local capitalists; and, indeed, they would have to be made by the companies owning the trunk lines; and the construction of them would not be facilitated by this Bill. It was useless to offer money at 3½ per cent. to established companies, who could borrow at a much lower rate. The House ought to do all it could to facilitate the making of light railways by the trunk lines. Twenty miles of narrow light railway had been made between Barnstaple and Lynton at a cost of £42,000, exclusive of land and stations; and this was a marvellously low figure; but feeder lines ought to be on the standard gauge, and they ought to be made and worked in connection with the trunk lines. The trunk lines would go into them with a guarantee of two per cent. if they could work the local with the long traffic. If a local authority attempted to work such a line, they must, ultimately, either leave it or sell it; and if there was a break of gauge, profitable working of long traffic would be impossible. It might be provided that future local assessment should not exceed the rateable value of the land before the making of a railway. In a parish in Kent, 70 per cent. of the rates was paid by a railway company, and the man who got the chief benefit of the expenditure was a railway director living in that parish. But he did not see why light railways should be rated for local purposes at all. They would take a large amount of traffic from off the high roads, the repairs of which would cost much less. In 1889, in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, the House passed an extraordinary provision, requiring a new company to pay a considerable ad valorem duty before it could start business at all. From that charge these light railways might be exempted. They might be relieved from the payment of a Parliamentary deposit upon the cost of construction, and also from the payment of passenger duty, for it might be expected that, as in tramcars and omnibuses, the passenger traffic would be of but one class. Under the present law, passengers could not be carried by goods trains, but there would be no necessity for that restriction in light railways. There was one very important principle in the Bill which had now been adopted for the first time by a Conservative Government—that was, power was given to acquire land compulsorily without the intervention of Parliament. He was glad to see that, under the auspices of the President of the Board of Trade, they had recognised this principle. They permitted, under this Bill, land to be compulsorily expropriated for public purposes without the interference of Parliament. That was a very important step in the direction of a principle which hitherto the Party opposite had opposed. There was another good thing—indeed there were many good things—in this Bill, and that was the abolition of the present costly process of acquiring land. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on this step which would considerably cheapen the method of procedure. In conclusion, he urged the President of the Board of Trade to make his Bill a little more elastic in the financial clauses.

said, he had listened very attentively to the two interesting speeches which had been addressed to the House, and he thought they could not fail to remark that the Debate, so far, had been characterised by remarkable unanimity in favour of the principle of the Bill, the rejection of which was desired by those who moved and seconded the Amendment. His hon. Friend and colleague who moved the rejection of the Bill, found his most powerful argument against it, if he might say so, in his peroration, where he warned the House that we were only at the beginning of the experiment ["Hear, hear!"], and that ultimately they would have to incur an expenditure of 100 millions sterling. It seemed to him that, if there was any truth in that exaggerated forecast, it must mean that the House of Commons would only be induced to enter upon the gigantic expenditure if its previous steps in that direction had been attended with that success which most of them on that side of the House expected. But surely his hon. Friend could not pretend that he foresaw all this. The expenditure could only become so large, could only be justified, if previous expenditure had been successful in that direction. Might he say one word more? He could not forbear from an expression of his regret that a speech intended to damage a carefully considered effort to ameliorate the disastrous condition of agriculture, should emanate from a Metropolitan Member. ["Hear, hear!"] And it was in his capacity of a Metropolitan Member that he had ventured to rise as early as possible, in order, not merely to testify the interest which London, and he should have thought every representative of London, had in the improvement, and, if possible, the restoration of agriculture, but also to bear his tribute to what was, he thought, generally speaking, the value of this Bill as being well calculated to contribute to the relief of agriculture. There was no Member of that House who had not a sympathy with agriculture, but he thought his hon. Friend's was a remarkable way of testifying sympathy—a mode of doing it for which agriculturists would not be grateful. Having said so much, perhaps he might refer to one point in regard to which he felt a little sympathy with his hon. Friend who had moved the rejection of the Bill. In the first place he thought his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had given too little time for the careful study of the details of the Bill—["hear, hear!"]—but he was consoled by the reflection that all they were asked to do was that which he was prepared to do without hesitation and certainly without much discussion, namely to read the Bill a second time. They were asked to affirm the principle of introducing the experiment of light railways into this country. He said this country advisedly, for there was no force in the comparison between light railways existing in sparsely-occupied districts in Ireland and those that he hoped to see spread over populous districts in this country. He thought a better parallel might be found in Belgium, where it was altogether different from Ireland. If he wanted any proof of that it would be found in the interesting anecdote referred to by the hon. Member. The hon. Member would not give free and unfettered communication so as to enable the agriculturists to come into contact rapidly and cheaply with centres of population. He, however, thought there was great force in what had been said by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment with reference to the 3½ per cent. The hon. Member said he did not think much advantage would be gained to light railways by advancing money at that rate. He shared that view and he thought that more advantage would be gained, and certainly with no more risk to the Treasury, by the proposal of a guarantee. He thought it would be a greater service to the development of light railways, and facilitate the development of these undertakings, if this principle were adopted. He did not think that this rate of 3½ per cent. could be justified by any real or valid argument. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that about 20 years of his life had been spent in connection with railways, light railways, and tramways. He had learnt to regard light railways very highly indeed. He was, therefore, sorry to hear some of the arguments which had been advanced against the Bill from his side of the House. He thought those arguments a little oldfashioned, coming from Liberal Benches. He allowed that some of the criticism, especially in regard to the financial clauses of the Bill, was warranted. But, after studying the Bill in the light of his experience, he had come to the conclusion that it only needed a little alteration in some particulars to make it an excellent and practical measure. He did not think the Bill dealt sufficiently with a case where a light railway had to pass through two or three different areas presided over by two or three different local authorities. For instance, a railway might pass over two areas with two local authorities by one of which it might be opposed. For instance, there might be a county anxious to have a railway laid to a borough and entering such borough, and the borough might refuse to allow the line within its boundary. The Bill seemed to leave it to the Board of Trade to decide in such circumstances whether or not the railway should be allowed. But he thought it likely that the Light Railway Commissioners or the Board of Trade would refuse the responsibility in such a case, and would demand that the Bill should be laid before Parliament; and, as Parliamentary expenses in connection with railway Bills were extremely heavy, it was very desirable to avoid such a contingency. Besides, before a proposal for the continuation of a light railway was put before the Commissioners or the Board of Trade, considerable preliminary expenses in the way of engineering, surveys and lawyers' fees would have to be borne by the promoters, who naturally would not relish the chance of all their labour and expenditure resulting in failure in the end. What he would suggest, in order to prevent such cases, was that the clause of the Tramways Act of 1870, enacting that where two-thirds of the local authorities interested in a proposed tramway were in favour of the scheme, they should override the opposition of the remaining third, should be inserted in the Bill. He thought such a clause would materially help the promoters of light railways. According to one of the clauses of the Bill a local authority was not to be permitted to spend more on a light railway than was justified by the probable profits of such a railway. So far as he could see, that clause would prevent a town, having, as in Scotland, a little fishing village within ten miles of it, and desiring to give the fishermen of the village facilities for the carriage of their fish, from building a light railway, because, while such a railway would be a great benefit to the borough, it might not pay for the money expended on it. He thought it would be better to allow the Light Railway Commissioners or the Board of Trade to judge each case on its own merits. Another point he considered important was that a definite gauge should be fixed by the Bill. He entirely disagreed with the suggestion that the gauge should be 4 ft. 8½ in. Such a railway would not be a light railway; it would be a heavy railway, needing heavy rolling stock, and occupying a considerable area of ground, and would cost £40,000 per mile. He thought the gauge should be three feet. [Cries of "No, no!"] He supposed hon. Members who objected considered that the matter should be left to the local authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that would be a mistake. He hoped that by having a universal gauge a system of intercommunication would be established between the light railways, and while there was very little difference in regard to cost between a gauge 2 ft. 6 in. and a gauge 2 ft. 9 in. or 3 ft., there would, under a system of varying gauges, be a considerable difference in the rolling stock of the various lines rendering intercommunication impossible. Besides, a 3 ft. gauge would allow of the construction of economical light railways. He therefore considered that it would be a very good thing, in the interest of the light railways, that a 3 ft. gauge should be fixed by the Bill, except in such cases where the Board of Trade thought fit to order it otherwise. The Festiniog Railway had a gauge of 2½ feet, but it ran up an ugly road from the engineering point of view. He thought the President of the Board of Trade under-estimated the cost of the lines in stating that they could be constructed for £3,000 per mile. It might be so if the Belgium plan of laying the lines by the side of the road could be followed, but that was impossible in most cases in this country, and as, therefore, a great deal of land would have to be taken, he was convinced that the railways could not be built for less than £5,000 per mile. He did not think that there would be a threat extension of light railways under this system, unless the proposed rate of interest of 3½ per cent. was reduced. It must be remembered that the interest would be a first charge on the railway, and therefore there would not be much cream left for the promoters. As the railways were wanted most where they were likely to pay the least, the Government would have to alter their financial proposals in a liberal spirit. He did not believe in free advances at all. They might be right in a sense, but they were not always economical, for local authorities were inclined to spend freely and unwisely any money they got from the State. Therefore he thought it would be better to give a small guarantee of not more than two per cent. or at least to reduce the interest. He really thought it would be the best thing for the Government themselves to build the railways in the poor districts. Probably, few Members on either side of the House agreed with him in that, but there were Government telegraphs and Government post offices, and, after all, light railways in the rural districts would be but a great extension of the Parcel Post system. He had seen State railways in India which paid well, and he did not see why we should not have them at home paying well also. He did not mean that the Government should build all the railways, but only those in poor rural districts. He hoped, in conclusion, that the Bill would go through, and that it would be a credit to the Government and a benefit to the country.

said, that it was very necessary in Wales that the Board of Trade should have ample power of control over what was proposed to be done, as the circumstances of different districts varied considerably. He was glad that hon. Members opposite recognised so generally that this Bill was an improvement on the Bill introduced by the last Government. It was, undeniably an improvement, but he looked forward to an even better Measure. He was not in love with all the provisions of this Bill. He did not approve of the introduction of a Railway Commission, preferring that reliance should be placed on the Board of Trade and Parliament. Then he regretted that the interest to be paid for advances by the Treasury was to be so high as 3½ per cent., rather than a low rate of interest. What he desired was to see effect given to the principle of helping those who tried to help themselves.

That is the principle of the Bill.

said, distinctly, it was not the principle of the Bill. It had been laid down that there should be a sort of triple alliance, a co-operation of the State, localities, arid private individuals, but the free grants had no reference to any such co-operation. Clause 13, which gave the Board of Trade, subject to the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, power to make rules fixing a scale of costs applicable in arbitrations deserved warm commendation. He believed that no more useful reform could be made, or one which would do more to make the scheme of light railways successful, than an attempt to reduce the costliness of legal proceedings in connection with them. He should like to see some power added to the clause giving increased power to the Board of Trade, inducing the Lord Chancellor to reduce the legal charges. Though he was not satisfied with all its provisions, he recognised that the Bill was an improvement on that introduced by the late Government, and he could not reconcile the action of hon. Members opposite who, while eulogising the Board of Trade for introducing the Measure, intended to vote against it.

, in dealing with the Bill from the points of view of local taxation, said, in his view there were two objectionable points in it. One was the clause referring to loans by the Treasury, and the other was the clause dealing with special advances. The Treasury advances were fixed at 3½ per cent. Hon. Members were familiar with the every-day proposals on the part of local authorities to repay money to the Public Loan Commissioners, because they can now borrow at a lower rate of interest. The clause could be easily amended if the President of the Board of Trade thought fit to adopt the suggestion of altering the rate of interest to be charged. The second class of loan was called a "special advance." He hardly knew why the term "advance" was introduced in the clause. "Advance" implied an advance by way of loan, and was dealt with under Clause 4, but the fifth clause proposed a free advance or grant. The object was for the purpose of making light railways. For some time past, owners of settled estates have had the power to make these railways, and to borrow money and charge it on the fee simple of the estate. If, therefore, they had thought that it would be a profitable transaction, they could have resorted to that system. They might also have borrowed from one of the Land Improvement Companies and have obtained an advance as loan on the estate, and the railway company might construct the line. Owners of settled estates did not adopt that course because the outlay involved only loss. As regards properties not in settled estate, but in occupation, what difficulty, if the outlay had not been a loss, was there in the occupiers or landowners borrowing on their property for the purpose of constructing those railways which were to develop their property and bring their produce to market? Experience had shown that neither the settled owners nor the landowners had adopted that system from the unprofitable nature of the transaction. Hence the proposal in the Bill was that an outlay which had not been successful in private hands, was now to be treated as a free grant out of Imperial funds. It was really a proposal to lend or to give to the landed interest of the country moneys raised from the taxation largely imposed upon the urban occupiers of property. The urban occupiers were to contribute to the expense of constructing light railways for the benefit of the rural landowner. The system of Imperial grants had been introduced since 1888, and the experience of past years showed that no more vicious system than that of grants from Imperial taxation for the relief of local taxation could be devised. The present Bill intensified that vicious system. The urban districts paid the larger proportion of Imperial taxation, whether in the form of house tax, licences, or stamps, and urban occupiers were taxed far heavier than rural landlords. In London and other towns the system of taxation was such that the percentage was no less than 20 per cent. on the rateable value in London, 24 per cent in Plymouth, 34 per cent. in Devonport. The taxation was levied on a system which undoubtedly produced a fair systein of rating at the highest possible maximum rateable value, but in the country it was different. In Middlesex, for example, the Receiver General found that a certain locality in the country was so lowly rated that he had the area revalued so as to bring the valuation up to the level of the Metropolis, and thus equalise somewhat the rating in the area of the police levy. The rateable value in London and the large towns was very different from rateable value in the country. Whilst they had the towns taxed as high as 24 and 34 per cent., on the rateable value, the country was taxed at from 9 to 16 and 17 per cent. And yet in what proportion was the distribution from Imperial Revenue in the form of relief of local taxation? He found that out of Imperial Revenue London received only 15 per cent. on the rateable value, while Westmorland got 32 per cent., Essex 22 per cent., and Norfolk——

pointed out that the hon. Member was travelling outside the scope of the Bill.

, bowing to the Speaker's ruling, said that, if it was unprofitable for settled landowners or occupiers to raise the money, he failed to see how it could be profitable for the Government to make a free grant or special advance in the way proposed. If the Imperial purse was to contribute to the construction of light railways in arid about London, that was taking money out of the Imperial purse for the purpose of getting into the London market the produce of those adjoining counties, and as all the London markets were in the hands of capitalists and the Corporation, the result would be that London occupiers would be still more excessively taxed than at present for the purpose of paying off the very large sums which had been expended in bringing that produce to market. He trusted the President of the Board of Trade would be induced to omit the clause which related to the procedure of the advance, or, rather, free grant, by the Treasury for the purpose of the construction of the light railways.

pointed out that, although the advance was in the form of a free grant, it was in the option of the Board of Trade whether it should be by way of advance or by free gift. The Debate had shown very little difference between the two sides. He believed there was a pretty general feeling on the Ministerial side that the rate of interest asked was too high. If it was suggested that it should be left to private enterprise to carry out these railways, he replied that private enterprise hitherto had not been induced to try it. It was hoped that by means of the Government scheme, lines of communication between different parts of the country would be opened up; but hope was not a sufficient inducement for private capitalists. This was a matter of general concern which the Government were taking up, not the hope of immediate or even perhaps of ultimate profit, but in the full expectation that the locality would benefit and the residents be better off than before. The hon. Member opposite had drawn a picture of what the local authorities would do. He had himself some acquaintance with local authorities and he could assure the hon. Member that in England their tendency, at all events in the country districts, had been exactly in the opposite direction. Besides, the local authorities did not take the initiative. It was the people in the localities who went to the local bodies and told them what they wanted, and these local bodies were perfectly able to judge whether or not it was desirable to make the experiment. There was precisely the same security for money advanced by the Government to the local authorities as there was to the Treasury itself. The Treasury and the local authority were placed in exactly the same position. Whatever rate of interest the Government get the local authority will get. He agreed that the powers to be given to the Commission were extremely limited. He should like to see some definition of a light railway laid down in the Bill.

It is impossible.

In that case he would like to see the matter left either to the Commission or the Board of Trade. He should like to see included in the Bill as light railways metalled tracks, for traction engines and motor cars, laid by the roadside. The land there was not so valuable to the landowners; and by such lines the steep gradients of a hilly country might be surmounted. He entirely agreed with the Bill in principle, and such details as had been criticised might very well be left for the Committee stage.