said, he rose to a point of Order. He desired Mr. Speaker's decision as to whether he could move the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry.

No. The Rule is strict, that the Instruction must be moved by the hon. Member in whose name it stands.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Baden Tarbet Pier, Ross-shire, has been completed for six months, will he state the cause of the delay in granting a certificate for the pier?

The delay has been on the part of the Piers Committee of the County Council, whose duty it is to apply for the certificate. I am informed that the Piers Committee is to meet this week to take the necessary steps.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether his attention has been called to an accident which occurred on the 14th July last, whereby a lad of 16 years of age, named George Wylie, in the service of Messrs. Lobintz and Company, Renfrew, lost his life by falling from a loose gangway; (2) whether Wylie, who had only been a few days in the service, was working overtime, contrary to the provisions of the Factory Acts; and (3) whether any action is proposed to be taken by the Department in regard to the alleged contravention of the Statutes?

The answer to the first two paragraphs of the Question is in the affirmative. Wylie gave his age to the foreman of the works as 18, and it was owing to this misrepresentation—supported as it was by the lad's appearance—that he was employed overtime. Special inquiry was made into the case by the Inspector at the time, who did not think it one where the employer was to blame, and therefore did not prosecute. In any case, proceedings could not now be taken after the lapse of more than six months.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether a Return for 1895, showing the classification of persons employed in the mercantile marine, similar to that for 1891, put in by Mr. Howell of the Board of Trade before Sir Edward Reed's Committee, could be laid before Parliament?

The return for 1891, referred to by the right hon. Baronet, was taken from some tables which were compiled by the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, and printed for the use of the Department in 1893. I have already decided to have a similar return prepared this year, and I see no objection to its being laid upon the Table. The information has, however, to be extracted from the log and list of each vessel, and a very considerable period must therefore elapse before the Return can be completed.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of the West Riding of York, Mr. HENRY J. WILSON, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that at the recent burial, with a Nonconformist service, of Mr. William Simpson, in the churchyard of Bishop Monkton, near Ripon, the sexton was not in attendance, and the main entrance was closed against the funeral party, which had to enter by a side gate which is but rarely used; and, whether he can take steps to prevent a repetition of such an occurrence?

I have made inquiry and am informed that the sexton properly fulfilled the duties which were required of him—namely, to dig the grave, and to be ready to fill it in at the close of the service. I am also told that it was the main entrance, and not a side gate, which was used on the occasion of Mr. Simpson's funeral; and that the main entrance leads directly into the burial-ground, while the entrance by the side gate, though more commonly used as leading to the church door, was not needed on this occasion, when no service was held in the church. I have no authority to interfere in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether means will be found to meet some of the grievances in the coming financial year of which the Dockyard workmen have complained in their recent annual petitions; and, if so, which of the grievances complained of do the Admiralty propose to redress?

As announced in the First Lord's statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1896–7, "certain grievances of which the Dockyard workmen had complained in their recent annual petitions have been under consideration, and it is hoped that means will be found to meet some of them in the coming financial year." A statement will be made on the subject when a decision has been come to, but other Departments as well as the Admiralty have to be consulted in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the application of the fishermen of Portavogie, county Down, (which place he visited on the 2nd November last), has been considered by the Treasury and the Irish Office, and with which of these Departments the matter now rests; and, whether the officer of the Irish Board of Works has made any report on the subject, or furnished any plans or estimates; and, if so, whether the Secretary to the Treasury will permit them to be inspected?

No communication on this subject has been received by the Treasury from the Irish Office, and, therefore, no inspection or report has been made by the Board of Works. It is not for the Treasury to initiate expenditure in such cases, but I will consult my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to whether any, and if so what, steps should be taken in the matter. I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that, so far as I am aware, he has not furnished the Government with any memorial from the locality showing how it is proposed to provide for whatever expenditure is suggested, though he has already brought before me the claim which the enterprise and rapidly-increasing number of fishermen at Portavogie give for favourable consideration, should funds be available.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to compel the seller of foreign meat to expose in a conspicuous place a notice to the effect that he is a dealer in such foreign meat?

Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the proposal of the Hon. Member, and, inasmuch as a Bill on the subject now occupies a favourable place on the Paper, it would be more convenient that the views of the Government respecting it should be explained when the Bill comes forward for discussion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has come to any decision on the question of the drainage of the River Barrow, Ireland; and whether there is in existence a complete survey of the lands that would be affected by the proposed drainage scheme; and, if not, if he will take steps to have the necessary survey and Report prepared?

I have not arrived at any final decision with regard to the drainage of the river Barrow, but the inquiries I have made point to the conclusion that it is very doubtful whether the outlay involved would be sufficiently remunerative to make it worth while to undertake the work. Complete Papers and plans in connection with the drainage scheme exist at the Office of Public Works.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have the necessary legal notices served on the local landlords and tenants, and the necessary notices inserted in the local papers before November next, so that if it were decided to proceed with this important work next year, the necessary legal preliminaries would have been undertaken.

I am afraid that cannot be done. If I were to do so I might raise hopes I would not be able to fulfil.

asked whether this had not a serious effect on the sanitary condition of Portarlington, owing to the non-drainage of the Barrow?

had not seen that stated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Secretary of Public Works has issued a notice for bidding the use of the steps of the Custom House for meetings; and whether it is intended to interfere with the right of public meeting so long exercised at that place by the citizens of Dublin?

The use of the Custom House steps for meetings causes serious inconvenience to the public service. It is difficult for persons requiring to enter or leave the premises to do so during the meetings, or for the watchmen and police effectually to safeguard the Custom House, and damage has been done to the building. It has, therefore, become necessary to prohibit the holding of meetings on these steps, but there is no intention of interfering with any right of public meeting in the open space adjoining.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether mounted acting sergeants and sergeants are compulsorily transferred to the Infantry force after 30 years' service, while head constables and constables are allowed to remain to complete the term which entitles them to full pension; (2) whether the want of knowledge of Infantry duty compels the men so transferred to retire at an earlier period than they would be obliged to had they been allowed to remain in the mounted force; and (3) whether, if such a grievance exists, he can see his way to have it remedied?

It is the fact that mounted sergeants and acting sergeants are compulsorily transferred to the Infantry force when they have completed 30 years' service, and though the rule does not, at present, include mounted head constables, of whom there are three, yet it will also be applied to them should they remain so long in the force. The Inspector-General thinks it not unlikely that the effect of the rule may be as stated in the second paragraph, though it is to be borne in mind that all men on attaining 30 years' service are eligible for full pension, and the maintenance of the rule is considered by him to be necessary to ensure the efficiency of the mounted force.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras, Mr. R. G. WEBSTER, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether he is in a position, to inform the House the number of days the Judges have been withdrawn from their ordinary duties during the past six months to try election petitions; and (2) if, from this or other causes, the ordinary administration of justice has been retarded?

I am not aware of the exact number of days the Judges have been engaged in the trial of election petitions, but I suggest to the hon. Member that when all the petitions have been disposed of he should move for an address for return of the number of days they have occupied. The hon. Member's reference to the ordinary duties of the Judges is somewhat misleading; the trial of election petitions is a part of their ordinary duties, an addition of three having been made to their number many years ago to meet the requirements of these petitions. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is that there has undoubtedly been some interference with the ordinary course of the administration of justice; it became necessary to appoint Commissioners for some of the Assizes to prevent the arrears which would have arisen if more Judges had been withdrawn from the Courts in London.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, how many clerks are paid out of the Votes for clerical assistance in the various departments; and, whether it is intended to place any of the clerks so employed on the permanent estab- lishment of any Department; and, if so, whether they are to be granted certificates by the Civil Service Commission, and under what Order in Council they are to be promoted?

Personal allowances for clerical assistance in the various departments are made to provide for work likely to vary in quantity from time to time, and the number of such persons is therefore continually changing. I cannot give the information asked for. Persons so employed are occasionally admitted to the establishment with certificates issued by the Civil Service Commissioners under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of June 4, 1870, but such admissions are only possible in the special circumstances stated in the Order. I am not aware of any proposal before the Treasury for placing such clerks on the establishment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can state what clothing allowances at present exist in the Metropolitan Police Force, and to what proportion of the constables of the entire force these allowances are paid?

The only clothing allowance is an allowance for plain clothes; the duties in respect of which it is made are very various. The number of men receiving it varies from day to day, but one in 17 may be taken as the average proportion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the proportionate quantity of shirting material supplied to all the Home garrisons by the Army Clothing Department during the last three years; and, whether this is the total quantity of material annually given out; and, if not, to whom the difference has been given; what that difference is; and, what are the prices paid for making up?

The proportion of shirting material supplied from the Army Clothing Department to the Home garrisons during the last three years has averaged 96 per cent. of the whole issue. The balance has been given to the Alford Needlework Association and to the Spitalfields Shirt and Clothing Factory. The prices paid for making up are 8½d. for ordinary shirts and 7½d. for hospital shirts.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1), whether the contracts for the sea conveyance of mails to India, the East, Australia, West Indies, Canada, and South Africa, are made irrespective of weight, no more being charged for any additional quantity of letters; (2) whether he has been informed that the requirement fixing half an ounce as the limit of weight in a letter to be carried for 2½d. to the countries included in the Postal Union necessitates the use of flimsy paper, inconvenient in use, without corresponding gain to the Department; (3) whether the United States and Canada long ago entered into a "restricted Union" (under the authority of the Postal Union Convention), by which the minimum rate of postage covers the transmission of a letter weighing one ounce from one to the other of those two countries; and, (4) whether he will take the necessary steps for raising the weight of a letter to India, the East, Australia, the West Indies, Canada, and South Africa, from half an ounce to one ounce for the present minimum rate of postage?

The facts are not exactly such as the hon. Member supposes. The Postmaster General has at present contracts with shipping companies for the sea carriage of mails to and from India, Australia, the East, and the West Indies, irrespective of weight; but he has no contracts for mails to Canada and South Africa, and pays the Colonial Governments by weight—a ½ d. on an average for each letter in one case and 1½d. in the other. The hon. Member is also aware that for the conveyance of mails for India, Australia, and the East across Europe the payment is by weight. The answer to the second paragraph is No. On the contrary, a longer letter than most people now care to write or read can be written on excellent paper and enclosed in an envelope of excellent quality without exceeding half-an-ounce in weight. The United States and Canada have arranged that the domestic letter-rate of each country shall apply to a letter for the other. The effect is that from Canada to the States an ounce letter costs three cents, from the States to Canada two. There is no demand for an increased weight, and no intention of raising it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, owing to the imposition of a registration fee of 2d., immense numbers of letters containing postal orders, and other valuable documents are posted unregistered, to the injury of the postal revenue, and that this fact tempts the dishonestly inclined to the commission of theft; whether a clerk requires more than 15 seconds to register a letter, and whether the subsequent dealings with it necessitates the exaction of treble the ordinary postage; and whether he will recommend the imposition of a uniform registration fee of 1d.

The Postmaster General is unable to say what number of letters containing postal orders, cheques, and other valuable documents are posted unregistered, but whatever advantage might arise in the shape of greater security to a larger number of letters from a reduction of the registration fee, the postal revenue would certainly suffer, as the present fee of 2d. is believed to be not more than sufficient to cover the extra cost and risk incurred in dealing with registered letters. As to the time occupied in the treatment of such letters, it must be borne in mind that it is not only at the office of origin and at the place of delivery that special care and attention are required, but that a hand-to-hand check is maintained at every stage through the whole course of post. The Postmaster General is not prepared to recommend the reduction of the fee to 1d.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether he is aware that the circulation of small patterns or samples of light materials, such as paper, linen, and other stuffs, is much hampered, to the detriment of postal revenue, by the fact that the minimum postage for patterns and samples is 1d. for four ounces; and (2) whether he can see his way to assimilate the pattern rate with the book post rate by prescribing a minimum pattern rate of ½d. for two ounces?

As regards the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that few complaints are received of trade being hampered by the want of a lower rate than 1d. per four ounces for patterns and samples sent by post. The question was fully considered at the time of the restoration of the sample post, and has been reconsidered on various occasions since, but it has always been held that a lower minimum rate than 1d. would not be remunerative. The Postmaster General regrets therefore that he cannot see his way to assent to a ½d. rate for patterns and samples.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the Harbour Commissioners of Westport, county Mayo, are at present paying 4 per cent, on a loan obtained through the Board of Works for the improvement of the harbour; and whether, considering the present low rate of money, he will take steps to have the rate of interest on this loan reduced to a lower rate?

The Westport Harbour Board have had two loans, both of £3,000, at 4 per cent. The first was made in 1882 at 5 per cent., subsequently reduced to 4 per cent., and the second in 1894. 4 per cent. is the lowest rate of interest which can be allowed for such loans in the absence of special legislation, and, as the Local Loans Fund is at present constituted, any reduction in the present rate of interest would seriously endanger its solvency.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Corporation of Preston is the only public authority in England that has spent no part of the grants from the Customs and Excise Duties under the Local Taxation Act, 1890, upon technical or higher education; whether he is aware that this Corporation allowed the grants to accumulate until last year, when it diverted over £6,000 to the Borough Fund Account in relief of local rates; and whether any special circumstances exist in Preston to render the application of the money to higher education inexpedient?

The facts appear to be as stated in the Question. I have communicated with the Town Council, and am informed that they have applied the moneys received from the Customs and Excise Duties Grants in relief of the Borough Rate under special circumstances—these circumstances being that they have, at a cost of about £16,000, given a site for a technical school now in course of erection.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the police station of Shantonagh and the police hut at Dromod are in the polling district of Ballytrain, South Monaghan; and if lie is aware how many magistrates are resident in the polling district of Ballytrain and what are their religions?

I am informed by the Constabulary that the police station of Shantonagh is in the polling district of Ballytrain; that the hut at Dromod is in the polling district of Rockcorry; and that there are two Magistrates resident in the polling district of Ballytrain, both of whom are Protestants.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in view of the fact that the sum of £25,000 was placed at the disposal of the Postmaster General for the establishment of telegraph offices in the United Kingdom for the year 1894–5, and that out of this sum only £1,662 was devoted to the establishment of telegraph offices in the six Highland Counties of Inverness, Argyllshire, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland, he will consider the advisability of expending on telegraph extensions in the Highlands a larger proportion of the money to be allocated to the Postmaster General this year?

If the Vote for Telegraph Extensions in the United Kingdom were to be equally divided among the counties, the share of any six counties would be about £1,300. But if it were to be divided between the different counties according to their population, the share of the six Highland counties mentioned by the hon. Member would be less than £240. These six counties have, therefore, had nearly seven times their share of the Vote, and do not seem to have any claim to a larger proportion of the money to be expended, and as I informed the hon. Member in answer to a Question on the 3rd instant, besides the £1,662 devoted to the establishment of Telegraph Offices in the Highlands, two offices were opened at a cost of £200 in connection with the coast communication scheme, and two at a cost of £359 out of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Grant in aid of Public Works and communications, &c., Vote).

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether it is the case that an ex-soldier or sailor entering the police cannot reckon his term of service in the Army or Navy in any degree towards pension, whereas under the Police Act, 1890, any person who has served as a Civil servant is entitled to reckon such service at the rate of four years as equivalent to three years of police service, the proportion of pension in respect of such service being payable from money provided by Parliament; and (2) if there is any ground of public policy for such inequality of conditions resulting in an ex-soldier or sailor having to serve a greater number of years in the police in order to earn a pension; and, (3) if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to redress it?

The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The case of soldiers and sailors serving in police forces cannot be considered apart from the case of those who are serving in considerable numbers in the Civil Departments of the State. I am informed that the whole question was under consideration recently by the Treasury, but the conditions of combatant and civil service are so different that a scheme for pension on combined service would be difficult to devise even if it were considered desirable. It must be remembered that Army and Navy pensioners employed in civil service continue to draw their pensions while so employed without deduction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he could state to the House how many prosecutions have been instituted in Ireland during the past five years against persons for selling by retail spirituous liquors adulterated with poisonous ingredients dangerous to the public health; and were there any, and, if so, how many convictions?

There have been a large number of prosecutions for offences of all kinds against Adulteration of Food Acts in Ireland during the past five years, but the returns do not show how many of these were in respect of the sale of adulterated liquor. It will take some little time to collect the information desired by the hon. Member, inasmuch as local inquiries throughout the country are necessary, but I hope to be able to give it to him in about ten or twelve days hence if he will then repeat the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will issue to Members as a Parliamentary Paper the recently published report regarding the possibility of introducing land and agricultural banks into the Madras presidency?

The report on agricultural banks in India is not complete, Volume I. only has come home, and the report has not yet been considered by the Governments in India or by the Secretary of State in Council. It would, therefore, be premature to lay a part of the report on the Table; but a copy of Volume I. has been placed in the library of the House, and ten more copies of that volume could be made available for hon. Members interested in the subject. I shall be happy to supply a copy to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will take steps to expedite the settlement of the clerical staff of the Admiralty, the constitution of which was called for by Treasury Minute of 10th August 1889, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, and has been under consideration for the past two years?

The First Lord desires me to say that he hopes to be able to complete the settlement of the clerical staff of the Admiralty in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the petition presented a long time since by the Irish light-keepers has been yet considered; and, whether he is able to state his intentions with regard to its requests?

As I informed the hon. Member for South Down on the 24th ultimo, the Board of Trade have not received from the Irish Lights Commissioners the petition referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the case of John Fast, who was, on 8th January, fined £45 by the Kingsbridge Bench of Magistrates for fishing without a light in prohibited waters, this being his first offence; and, whether, considering the fact that another man was fined £9 6s. for a similar offence, he will take the case into his consideration with a view to a mitigation of the penalty?

The facts of the case are not quite accurately stated in the Question. Fast was summoned on the 6th January for not carrying lights, as required by the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act; he was also summoned on the same day, with two other men, by the Devon Sea Fishery Board for fishing in Stark Bay-contrary to the byelaws. He pleaded guilty to both charges, and was fined £25 on the first charge, and (as were also the other two men) £20 on the second, both fines to include costs. There had been a succession of cases of illegal trawling before the Kingsbridge Bench. At first the charges were dismissed on payment of costs, or small fines only were inflicted. As the offences continued, the Magistrates found themselves compelled gradually to raise the fines until in the present case, after repeated warnings had been given from the Bench, the full monetary penalty was imposed. There is no reason to suppose that the Magistrates failed to exercise their discretion properly, and after carefully inquiring into and considering the case, and consulting the Board of Trade, I found no grounds to justify any interference on my part.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether it is proposed to take steps to give effect to the recommendation of the recent Departmental Committee on Inveterate Misdemeanants and Inebriates, that such classes of persons should be subjected to longer terms of detention, not necessarily in prison, but under more effectual and reformatory conditions than hitherto?

The question as to how far the recommendations of the Departmental Committee referred to can be given effect to, is at present engaging the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland, in conjunction with the Home Secretary. I cannot say more at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the cause of the delay in the issue of the Criminal Statistics for 1894, and when they will be laid upon the Table?

The delay has been due to pressure of work in the Statistical Branch of the Home Office, and especially to the enormous labour which has been involved in the revision of the Civil portion of the Judicial Statistics. The Criminal Statistics are, however, now nearly completed, and I hope to be able to lay them on the Table soon after Easter.

On behalf of the hon. Member for York, Mr. J. G. BUTCHER, I beg to ask the hon. Member for East Cork on what day he proposes to move for the issue of a writ for the election of a Parliamentary representative for East Kerry?

replied that he proposed to move for the issue of the writ for East Kerry next Monday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the building which at present serves as a school at Mayo for the accommodation of 150 children is only 12 feet by 30 feet, and that a new schoolhouse of proper dimensions has been completed; can he state what is the cause of the delay in opening the new school; and whether he will take into consideration the danger to the public health of the present arrangement, and take steps to have the new school opened without further delay?

The dimensions of the school house at present in use at Mayo are slightly in excess of those mentioned. It has accommodation for 79 pupils, whereas the actual average attendance is about 130. Early in January last the manager informed the Commissioners of National Education that the new schoolhouse would be open for the reception of pupils in a few days, but it appears the contractor owing to a dispute, has refused to allow the premises to be opened. The District School Inspector will shortly visit and report on the circumstances of the case in order that the necessary action may be taken to insure the early admission of pupils.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will now state the average prices of agricultural produce and cattle in Ireland, as prepared for the Land Commission, for the first three years of the working of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1887, respectively, also for the year 1895?

I am in communication with the Land Commissioners as to the precise amount of information which they can give in a Return on this matter, and if the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question tomorrow, I shall then be in a position to give him an answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if his attention has been drawn to the fact that on 5th March sheep were almost unsaleable in Dublin Market, and that some of those sold were bought in October last and sold to-day at less than was paid for them in October and loss of feeding besides, and that bullocks bought in Athy Fair on the previous day were sold in Dublin at £2 per head less than cost price delivered in Dublin; (2) and if, in framing his Land Bill for Ireland, he will remember the low prices that prevail for cattle, sheep, horses, and farm produce?

I have called for a report on the first part of this Question, but as I have not yet received it I must ask the hon. Member to repeat his inquiry to-morrow. As regards the second paragraph, the question of agricultural values must no doubt always be an element to be considered in connection with Land Legislation for Ireland.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the ground required for rifle shooting at Downpatrick, County Down, whether anything has yet been done in the matter, or what is proposed to be done?

Sites near Down-patrick have been examined but none has been found suitable for a rifle range. The subject is not being lost sight of.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Land Acts (Ireland) 1894, with respect to holdings in Ulster; and, (2) whether, considering that the tenants of holdings valued over, £10 must make out schedules of their improvements, and that no corresponding obligation as to fact or law rests upon the landlord, and that these are matters with which the Land Commission can deal, he will suggest that the Land Commission consider how far they can simplify these, matters by framing and adopting new rules for the guidance of farmers and sub-Commissioners?

It is not clear from the first paragraph of the Question to which recommendation of the Select Committee the hon. Member refers. Perhaps he will repeat that part of the Question. But it appears to me it merely has reference to the coming Land Bill. I am not in a position to enter into the details of the provisions of that Measure and perhaps the hon. Member will consider it desirable to defer the Question until the Land Bill is introduced. As to the second paragraph of the Question, I have asked the opinion of the Land Commissioners and they inform me that they do not deem it expedient at present to alter the general rules in reference to furnishing particulars of improvements.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Commissioner oblige the tenants to give information to the landlords and will they also oblige the landlords to give information to the tenants?

The Land Commissioners report that they do not consider it expedient at present to alter the rules in reference to tenants' improvements.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether he is aware that it was given in evidence at the Marylebone Police Court on 19th February that boys to the number of some fifty on each side were in the habit of meeting about five in the evening armed with stones, sticks, belts, and other weapons, and fighting like savages, and that a short stick, at the end of which was fastened the blade of a knife, was produced before Mr. Plowden the magistrate, along with other weapons which it was stated were used by the boys; (2) whether it has been brought to his notice that Mr. Plowden stated that tricks of this kind were easily calculated to be a source of great annoyance to people, and having severely cautioned the prisoner ordered him to be discharged, and that the magistrate ordered the sticks to be returned to the boy; and, (3) whether there has been any renewal of hostilities in the neighbourhood in question, or any special arrangements made by the police for dealing with the matter?

Complaints were received by the police that the boys of two schools were in the habit of meeting and fighting among themselves with stones and sticks, and one who appeared to be the ringleader a boy of 13, was arrested and taken before the magistrate. No such stick as is mentioned in the Question was brought to the magistrate's notice. The action taken by the magistrate is, I understand, correctly described in the second paragraph of the Question. He informs me that, in his opinion, the affair sounded much worse than it really was. There has been no renewal of hostilities, and no reason for any special police arrangements. The police are prepared to deal with any recurrence of the disorder.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture—(1) with regard to the fact that in the exercise of his official powers he caused a steamer engaged in the live cattle trade from Australia (the Angers to wit) to be suspended from such traffic by reason of the mortality losses reported as having occurred during the voyage; (2) whether he has similar power to deal with vessels employed in the cross-Channel traffic, and, if so, has he at any time exercised the same; and (3) whether his attention has been drawn to the mortality on board the steamship Argo from Dublin to Bristol last November?

The reply to the first and third Questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative, and to the second Question in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any recommendations with a view to the amelioration as regards higher increments, maximum pay, and prospects of the first and second class clerks in Her Majesty's Prisons have been made to him by the Commissioners of Prisons, based on the scheme submitted by the clerks over four months ago, showing that such increased maximum, &c., might be met without an increase in the Prison Vote for Salaries, and when his decision thereon would be made known; whether steps were being taken to apply the Rule for Retirement at the age of 65 of all the higher prison officials above the rank of chief warder; and, whether a petition from the warders of all grades had been received, asking for compulsory retirement after 30 years' service, and when a reply thereto would be addressed to them?

As I stated the other day, in answer to a Question on the same subject, certain recommendations have been made, which it is hoped may favourably affect the positions and prospects of the prison clerical staff. These recommendations are based on the Report of the Prisons Committee, and not on the scheme submitted by the clerks, which, however, to a certain degree they anticipated. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is in the negative. A petition from the warders for an improved scale of superannuation is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when will the Joint Stock Companies' Law Amendment Bill be introduced; and, will the Government be willing to refer it to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament?

The Bill has already been introduced into the House of Lords. I have considered the question of referring the Bill to a Joint Committee, and have come to the conclusion that the best course will be to adopt the usual practice and have the Bill considered by Committees of both Houses.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he could obtain the publication of the Reports of the Inspectors to the Diocesan Boards of Education for the past year as a Parliamentary Paper?

These Reports are not official documents, and are not brought under the notice of the Committee of Council. The Committee are not prepared to be responsible for their publication as a Parliamentary Paper.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1), with reference to the fact that a deputation, from the municipalities of the seven cities excluded from the Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act waited last month on the Secretary for Scotland to protest against their continued exclusion, and to the circumstance that the Secretary for Scotland is reported to have said, in the course of his reply, that he should hope to see a Bill brought in, and a discussion take place, whether the Government will give facilities for the amending Bill now before the House; and, (2) whether, on further consideration of the subject, the Secretary for Scotland and the Government are prepared themselves to carry out the desires of the municipalities which are affected by the present state of the Law?

I may say that in the reply of the Secretary for Scotland referred to, no suggestion whatever was made that the Government could give facilities for the Bill in question. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question I have to say that the information promised to the Secretary for Scotland on the point referred to, has not as yet been supplied.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if a parish which is transferred from one union to another by the Order of a joint committee, under Section 36 (ii.) of the Local Government Act, 1894, can rightly claim to be repaid by the Guardians any portion of the cost of building and furnishing the union workhouse to which such parish originally contributed; and, if so, whether the length of time during which the parish has enjoyed the use of the workhouse ought to be taken into account in fixing the proportion of the cost to be repaid?

I am advised that an Order made under Section 36 (11) of the Local Government Act, 1894, is to be deemed to be an Order made under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and that Section 62 of the latter Act therefore applies. The rights of a parish in respect of the interest in workhouse property would appear to be a matter as to which there may be an adjustment by agreement, or failing that, by arbitration under the last named section. The Local Government Board are not prepared to suggest any general rule as to the basis on which an adjustment should be made in such cases, circumstances in each case must be considered.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, if there is any objection to the children in the lower standards of a public elementary school learning geography from the ordnance maps of their own parish or district, so as to insure an intelligent understanding of what a map really means; and, if, in framing the New Code and Instructions to Inspectors, he will consider if it is possible to promote the use of such maps?

The Committee of Council not only do not object, they encourage the use of local maps. They cannot require managers to purchase the ordnance maps on account of the expense, but they have suggested that they might be placed in elementary schools as an advertisement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received a copy of resolutions adopted at a public meeting in Swanlinbar, county Cavan, on 22nd ult., in favour of the construction of a branch line of the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Light Railway from Baunboy Road, through Swanlinbar, either to Belcoo or Enniskillen; and will the prayer of the resolutions to have the line constructed by Government aid be granted; and, if so, when?

I have received copies of the resolutions referred to. The case of this proposed line will be considered with that of others, but more than this I cannot at present say.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any statement as to the time at which he will apply for money for the extension of light railways?

I am afraid I cannot give any assurance.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he has received a memorial from John Maguire, formerly of the 32nd Cornwall Regiment, signed by the Protestant Rector of Templemichael, asking for an increase in his pension, on account of several brave actions performed by him during the Indian Mutiny, and particularly at Cawnpore; and, will he recommend the War Department to grant the prayer of the memorial?

The memorial from Pensioner Maguire which the hon. Member sent to me on the 5th inst. has been received, and the receipt was duly acknowledged. Inquiry is being made as to the correctness of Maguire's statements. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether, seeing that His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland appoints the High Sheriffs throughout that country, will he state whose duty it is to see that these gentlemen carry out the law with reference to the selection of members of the Grand Jury; (2) whether he is aware that a copy of the grand panel, as called over at each Assizes, is recorded in the office of the Clerks of the Crown, and that the Poor Law valuation of the property possessed by the gentlemen whose names appear on the grand panel is recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Union; and, (3) whether he will request these officials to furnish a Return giving the names of the gentlemen sworn in on the Carlow Grand Jury at the Assizes held during the last three years, showing their profession or calling, the value of the property possessed by them in the county, and any other qualification that they may possess which would entitle them to act as Grand Jurors?

The Sheriff is bound to frame the panel at Assizes in accordance with the provisions of the Statute 6 & 7 Will. IV., cap. 116, sec. 31, which provides that a Sheriff who willfully omits or neglects to follow the rules made for the selection of Grand Jurors shall be liable, on complaint made to a Judge of Assize, to be fined. It is open, I think, to any person to make such complaint. I am advised that neither in common law nor Statute law is the duty imposed on any person of seeing that the Sheriff carries out the law in this respect. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. As to the third paragraph, no doubt the Poor Law valuation can be obtained from the Valuation Office or the clerk of the Union. The hon. Gentleman can have no difficulty himself in obtaining the information desired in the concluding paragraph from the newspapers, which give the names of the Grand Jurors, and from the Valuation Office and Clerk of the Union. If, however, he should desire to have the information prepared in the form of a Parliamentary Return the matter will be further considered on his moving for the Return in the ordinary way.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board are authorised by law from time to time to inspect and examine into the administration of any hospital or infirmary supported in part by Grand Jury presentments or Parliamentary grants; if he will give the date of the last time that the Carlow County Infirmary was so inspected, and its administration examined into by a Local Government Board Inspector; and if he will cause such Inspection and examination of its administration to be made at an early date?

It is the case that the statutable power indicated by the hon. Member exists. A general inspection was made under it shortly after it came into force. If the hon. Member is aware of any circumstances which, in his opinion, render an inspection of the Carlow Infirmary now necessary, and if he will communicate them to me, I shall be happy to consider whether such an inspection should be ordered by the Local Government Board.

Can the right hon. Gentleman kindly give me the date?

I am not sure of the exact date, but I think it was between 1840 and 1850.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a strong representation on behalf of the Dominion Government of Canada against the permanent exclusion of live Canadian store cattle from the United Kingdom; and whether he will confer with the President of the Board of Agriculture on the subject, with the view of obviating the objections of the Canadian Government?

Such a representation has just been received and will be duly considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether it is proposed to withdraw any of the six Naval Cadetships which were recently given by the Admiralty to the training ships Worcester and Conway; and, if so, would he explain what is the reason for such a decision?

Under the provisions of the Regulations for the entry of Cadets from the Conway and Worcester, six Cadetships, in addition to the two annually granted to nominated candidates from these ships, will be offered for competition in 1896. It is the intention of the Admiralty to offer four Cadetships for competition in 1897, and two in 1898, by which time it is hoped that the entries into the Navy through the Britannia training establishment will meet all the requirements of the Service. These extra Cadetships are given from time to time as may be thought desirable, and there was no undertaking that the grant of the Cadetships for competition, over and above the two annually allowed by nomination, would be permanent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can give any indication of the proposed future form of government in Norfolk Island; is the island to be regarded as territorially annexed to New South Wales, and as entitled to a representative in the Parliament of that Colony, or is it to be ruled by a Government resident acting under the direct authority of the New South. Wales Government; is he aware that when the inhabitants of Pitcairn Island were transferred to Norfolk Island, in 1856, at the expense of the Imperial Government, they were guaranteed the continuance of their self-governing rights and privileges; and whether any opportunity will be afforded for an expression of local opinion before the contemplated changes in the government of the island are carried into effect?

The government of Norfolk Island is now the subject of communications with New South Wales, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present. On. reference to the Papers, and especially the Order in Council of June 24, 1856, laid before Parliament in that year, the hon. Member will see that the power of legislating for Norfolk Island was conferred on the Governor of New South Wales, who was instructed to preserve, as far as possible, the laws and usages to which the community had been accustomed. As the hon. Member has already been informed, the administration, of the affairs of the island has been most unsatisfactory, and cannot be allowed to continue; and, under the circumstances, it does not appear to Her Majesty's Government that there would be any advantage in calling for an expression of local opinion on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether Her Majesty's Government has consented to give an Imperial contribution of £75,000 towards the cost of the fast mail steamship service between Canada and the United Kingdom, making the total annual subsidy for this object £225,000; whether he can state the terms provided in the contract respecting such contribution, such as speed required, number of times per week the vessels will leave the respective ports, etc.; and when a copy of the document will be laid upon the Table?

Her Majesty's Government have not consented to make a contribution of £75,000 per annum towards the cost of a fast mail steamship service between this country and Canada. They have intimated to the Canadian Government their readiness, under certain conditions, to make some contribution; and they have suggested that the Canadian Government should, by calling for tenders, ascertain the approximate cost of such a service. Her Majesty's Government will then be in a better position to decide what amount of assistance they would be justified in affording.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that many of the finest steamers afloat were built in the shipping yards of Belfast; and whether, considering the excellence of the work done there, he will see that some of the contracts for the additional ships required for the Navy are given to Belfast.

It is known at the Admiralty that many fine merchant steamers have been built in the shipping yards at Belfast. When obtaining tenders for new shipbuilding work it has been the practice of the Admiralty to invite those firms at Belfast capable of executing the work to quote prices and time of delivery. This practice will be continued with respect to the new shipbuilding programme. The actual placing of the contract, however, cannot depend on the wishes or goodwill of the Admiralty; it must depend on the offers received.

asked whether some of the money would also be expended in the shipbuilding yards of Londonderry.

Order, order. That does not arise out of the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has he received information to satisfy him that Owen M'Manus, an applicant for a labourer's cottage, in the Monaghan Union, whose representation was rejected on the ground that he was not a labourer within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, is really an agricultural labourer; and will he direct the Guardians of the Monaghan Union to entertain this man's claim?

The statements which have been furnished to me by the hon. Member go to prove that in some instances M'Manus has done agricultural labourer's work, though it appears to me that the Guardians are in a better position than I am of arriving at a determination whether he can be regarded as coming within the meaning of the words "agricultural labourer" as defined by the Labourers' Acts. I would further remind the hon. Member that the Guardians, in refusing his application, also stated that they did not consider there was any want of houses for bonâ fide labourers in the district. The Local Government Board do not consider the circumstances are such as to justify them in enforcing in this case the compulsory provisions of the Act of 1891, and moreover the expense of putting in force the machinery of the Acts for the purpose of providing a single cottage would be entirely out of proportion to the result.

As I happen to be a member of this Board of Guardians myself, will the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that the man is an agricultural labourer?

Of course I accept the hon. Member's assurance, but I am afraid I must be guided by the opinion of the majority of the Guardians in this matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any children in the Poor Law school below the age of 11 were employed as half-timers during the year 1895; and whether any order was issued on the subject by the Local Government Board; and, if so, what was the date of that order?

No order has been issued by the Local Government Board on the subject, but the attention of the Board's Inspectors has been specially drawn to the matter. There have been very few cases in which it has been reported to the Board that the provisions of Section 1 of the Education Act of 1893 have been infringed, and in these instances steps have been promptly taken to check the irregularity.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Schools has been made, and when it will be laid upon the Table?

I am informed that the Report of the Poor Law Schools Committee has been signed, and will be presented to the Local Government Board in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he expects to be able to introduce the Bill affecting the Christian Brothers' Schools?

The Bill is in the course of preparation, and I hope soon to be able to consult with the Irish Members as to the date it would be convenient for them to introduce it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would lay upon the Table the correspondence with the Lord Bishop of Limerick respecting the Roxborough Road Schools?

In addition to the correspondence there is a further correspondence between his Lordship and the Educational Commissioners, which has been followed within the last few days by a letter from his Lordship to the Lord Lieutenant, which is now the subject of inquiry. In the circumstances I think it would be better to postpone the question whether the correspondence should be published as a Parliamentary paper until that letter is considered.

As the matter concerns an alleged breach of a Resolution of this House, will the right hon. Gentleman say that no action will be taken by the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the new scheme before the House has an opportunity of pronouncing upon it?

No, Sir; this House has in any case the power of considering the matter, and I cannot give the undertaking the hon. Gentleman asks for.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the bishop mentioned in this question is not the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick?

Is there an Orange bishop?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether in view of the fact that by the Highland Railway Company (New Lines) Act, 1890, five years were allowed for the construction of five new lines of railway, two of which, numbered 2 and 5, were not completed within the specified time, he will state whether a certificate has been given by the Board of Trade showing that the company was prevented from completing or opening such lines by unforeseen accidents or circumstances beyond their control; and will he state the date of such certificate, the reason assigned by the Highland Railway Company for the delay, and the grounds for seeking an extension of four years to complete a short railway of only two miles in length?

No certificate has been, given by the Board of Trade.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state the ground for permitting the company to exceed the time allowed?

I have no information on the point.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire?

It is not my duty to inquire. If the companies do not fulfil their obligations, the landowers may bring actions against them if they choose to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that all the benefits arising out of the River Suck Drainage works are, by the Drainage Acts, conferred on the occupiers of the lands drained and improved, and that, not with standing this, a larger charge or annuity has been placed upon the owners than upon the occupiers; whether, if the owners receive no return for the annuity charged to them, he will favourably consider their claim for a remission or reduction of this charge?

It is the fact that the charge on the proprietors represents non-productive outlay on the works, and in addition they are obliged to pay the maintenance rates levied in the district. They were, no doubt, induced to embark upon the undertaking by an estimate of results based on prices in force 18 years ago, when the scheme was first undertaken. As the occupiers only pay an annual sum not exceeding the estimated annual improvement in their lands on the basis of present prices, they no doubt pay a smaller portion of the cost than the proprietors under the Final Award. The Draft Award charged a capital sum of about £78,000 on the occupiers, and,£58,000 on the proprietors, which sums under the Final Award became about £67,000 and £71,000 respectively. The difference is due partly to the exclusion of certain lands and partly to a reduction of the estimated improved value in consequence of the Inquiry which was held after the publication of the Draft Award. The proprietors have, however, had the benefit of a free grant of £50,000, without which their share would have been larger to that extent, and the Government has no funds at its disposal out of which any further charge could be met.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what is the present condition of the water supply in Richmond Barracks, Dublin; and if the defects alleged to have occurred in the recent additional supply have occasioned grave difficulties?

The Richmond Barracks are supplied, like the population of Dublin, with Vartry water for drinking purposes. Its quality is satisfactory. For flushing drains, canal water was used until recently, but this has been discontinued. No defects in the recent supply have occurred beyond the fact that one day last week the water was shut off for a few hours while a burst main was under repair.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any attention has been paid to the reports on the outbreak of cholera at Lucknow; what is the present condition of the filter beds attached to the wells; whether it has been substantiated that these wells were contaminated with the cholera microbe; and what are the reasons given for the high mortality, 97 in 144.

The reports on the outbreak of cholera at Lucknow in 1894, have, no doubt, been fully considered by the military authorities in India, but I have not received a copy of the Report. The cantonment is now supplied with pure water by the Lucknow Municipality. The opinion of the Committee was that the sand in the filter beds attached to the wells was contaminated with the microbe of cholera. No special reasons were assigned for the high mortality, which, however, was not higher than the average.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Galway, Mr. J. PINKERTON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps have been taken to put a stop to illegal trawling in Galway Bay; and if the Admiralty have considered the advisability of having a gunboat permanently stationed there to prevent further breaches of the fishing laws?

The Admiralty do not undertake to stop illegal trawling, or prevent breaches of the fishing laws on the coast of the United Kingdom. It is not possible to station a gunboat permanently in Galway Bay, and the Admiralty do not recognise any obligation on them to do so for the purpose indicated in the question. The senior Officer at Queenstown has, however, been communicated with for the purpose of causing a vessel to visit Galway Bay at the earliest possible opportunity.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that the National School in the parish of Fingringhoe is being conducted under the sole management of the Rev. C. E. Walker, in violation of the trust deed of the school house, which provides for a committee of management, and that the head master of Fingringhoe School has been recently dismissed by the Rev. C. E. Walker; can he state the reason for such dismissal; is he aware that the ratepayers and other inhabitants of Fingringhoe have protested against the removal of the teacher, against whose character there is no complaint, and who has received excellent reports from Her Majesty's Inspectors and from the Diocesan Inspector for work done in the school; and, will he take the necessary steps to insure that the terms of the trust deed are observed, and to protect children and teachers of schools from the injurious results of such dismissals?

The last application for grant to this school was signed by the Rev. C. E. Walker and two other managers. The Committee of Council have no power to inquire into the observance of the terms of trust deeds of elementary schools or to enforce them. The master has received notice of dismissal and some of the inhabitants have protested; but the Committee of Council have no power to interfere. Questions arising out of agreements between managers and teachers must be decided by recourse to legal procedure, as in the case of other contracts.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the reverend gentleman in question has withdrawn the notice of dismissal?

No official information of that has reached the Department; but, if it is as the hon. Member has stated, I am very glad of it. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if his attention has been directed to the large number of illiterates who voted at the last General Election, more especially in the Counties of Monmouth, Norfolk, and Somerset; if he knows whether there is, or if there has been, any deficiency either in the extent or in the character of the education given in the schools within these divisions; and, whether Her Majesty's Inspectors ever called the attention of the Department to the defective education received by the people of those localities for a long period, as evidenced by the Return of Illiterates made to the House of Commons on 28th February, 1896.

My attention has been directed to the Return mentioned by the hon. Member. There is nothing to show any special deficiency in the extent or character of the education given in three districts named; but I, personally, am not surprised to learn that a large proportion of the children living in rural districts forget how to read or write when they become adults.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice—whether there is any foundation for the statement that a British squadron will shortly arrive at Curaçoa?

So far as I am aware there is no foundation for the report.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury what business would be taken on Thursday and Friday?

The main business, both on Thursday and Friday, will be Supply; and I imagine the time will be chiefly divided between the Naval and the Military Estimates.

asked what day the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on the Army Estimates would be moved?

It is rather difficult for me to answer with absolute certainty as to whether Thursday or Friday will be devoted to getting the Speaker out of the Chair, but I think Thursday.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of which I have not been able to give him private notice—whether he will be able to furnish the identification of the British officers who are reported from Madrid in to-day's intelligence as having volunteered their service to the forces of Spain in the event of war being declared by that country against the United States?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I will put it down for Thursday.

said, he must not be taken as animated by any spirit of hostility to the Bill in objecting to the Motion to refer it to the Grand Committee. There was no Bill read a second time this Session in which so many Members took an interest as the Light Railways Bill, and the result of referring it to the Grand Committee would be to exclude nine-tenths of those Members from taking part in the discussion on the Bill in Committee. The Grand Committee on Trade was composed mainly of manufacturers, merchants and bankers, and the representatives of large boroughs like London, Manchester and Glasgow, who were not likely to be much affected by the provisions of the Bill. No doubt a number of Members would be added to the Committee as specialists, because of their knowledge of the subject of the Bill, but he did not think that would remove the objection. He had been overwhelmed with requests from his colleagues, especially those who came from Wales, to get them places on the Grand Committee; and he did not think it would be for the advantage of this Measure that these Members should be shut out from the discussion. Another objection to sending the Bill to the Grand Committee was that it raised a new principle and marked a new departure. Of course, he knew that it was a great temptation to send a Bill to a Grand Committee, because it was the easiest and best chance of getting it through; but, in view of the character of the question, he hoped that temptation would be resisted.

said, it appeared to him that the House ought to take a little more interest in this question than it seemed inclined to do. There were three reasons why the Bill should not be sent to the Grand Committee, but should be discussed fully in the House. The first was the haste with which the earlier steps of the Bill were pushed through the House. The Measure touched a very large matter. He could not pretend that he had not had an opportunity of stating his views, but he complained that, owing to the great hurry of the proceedings in the Second Reading, their views had hardly received the consideration which, in his opinion, they were entitled to. This whole policy of light railways had produced a profound effect in Ireland, and he did not think the result of the policy of building those interesting structures there had been what the House thought it had been. This Bill proposed to commence a work of the same kind in Great Britain; and he thought that it demanded the most careful consideration of the House. What opportunity had they had of considering it? The Bill was distributed on the Friday morning, and the Second Reading was taken on the following Monday night, and when the Second Reading came on he was astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman did not open the discussion by explaining the provisions of the Bill. In the course of that discussion, a great many important questions of principle were raised. The right hon. Gentleman was greatly hurried in his reply; he believed some of his Friends on the Front Bench were pulling his coat-tails. The right hon. Gentleman, he was sure, had a great deal more to say about the Bill in. the House than he had yet said. His second point was in connection with the finance of the Bill. He thought the finance was all wrong. The principles on which it proceeded were unjust both to the local and the Imperial taxpayer, and so, without being hostile to the policy of light railways, he thought some different principle of finance should be adopted. That was a subject that could hardly be adequately discussed by a Grand Committee. They were going to begin a great work on which they ought to concentrate their attention, and which it was most important to the people of the country should be placed on a proper basis. His third reason was that they seemed to have no work to do. In the Queen's Speech some 19 Measures were promised, and they had been craving for these Bills so that they might think them over. But all they had got was this Light Railways Bill, which, after being dangled before them for a moment, was now to be snatched away to a Grand Committee. This Bill would affect the towns as well as the country districts, and the representatives of the great cities ought to have an opportunity of discussing its provisions.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had advanced three reasons against the proposal before the House. One of them was that the interval between the First and Second Reading was short, and that the discussion on the Second Reading was hurried. He also made complaint that he (Mr. Ritchie) did not make a speech in moving the Second Reading. It was, however, in accordance with custom that, having made a long and full explanation in introducing the Bill, he should reserve himself until the discussion on the Second Reading was drawing to a close, in order that he might answer the objections and criticisms offered to the Bill. It was quite true that there was only a short interval between the introduction and the Second Reading of the Bill, but no one could complain that he did not very fully explain all the provisions contained in the Bill. He did not enter into details. That was a matter for criticism and discussion in Committee. [Opposition cheers.] Did that cheer indicate the belief of hon. Gentlemen opposite that when details had to be discussed they must be discussed in Committee of the whole House? If that was the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite who were responsible for the sitting of these Grand Committees, all he could say was, they had better at once abolish the whole thing. If such a Bill as that now before the House was not to be referred to the Grand Committee, he could not see what Bill could properly be referred to it. There was really no contention whatever with regard to the principle of the Bill. The only question of principle raised on the Second Reading was in regard to finance. That was raised by the hon. Member for West Islington, but was supported by no other Member. He therefore claimed that, in regard to the principle of the Bill, there was no real difference. The only difference was on questions of detail, and he maintained that the Grand Committee could deal far more effectively with these questions than a Committee of the whole House. He was satisfied, from having sat on many Grand Committees, that they could not possibly have a better tribunal for discussing the details of such a Bill than the Grand Committee on Trade. The present opposition came with a very bad grace from hon. Gentlemen, opposite. He remembered that they had sometimes referred Bills which invoked very great difference of opinion to the Grand Committee. The Employers' Liability Bill was an example. In that case there was extremely sharp contention in regard to one principle in the Bill, but, notwithstanding the objections raised, it was sent to the Grand Committee. If that could be done, he could not for the life of him see how hon. Gentlemen opposite could refuse to send a Bill of this kind, which was not contentious, to the Committee upstairs. Another reason which the hon. Gentleman gave was that they had no work to do. If he meant that they had not a large number of Bills to discuss, he ought to know that the exigencies of the financial year made it imperative that the Government should ask the attention of the House at this period of the Session, not to measures, but to finance. The hon. Member might however rest assured that the Government had plenty of Measures which they hoped to bring before Parliament, and which would give him the work for which he pined. Having regard to the manner in which the House had received the Bill, and the fact that the discussion had been mainly on points of detail, he asserted that, if ever there was a Bill which ought to go before a Grand Committee, this was one.

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that, because this was a Bill the principle of which they were all agreed upon, that was the very reason why it should be taken from the House and sent upstairs. When it was agreed that the principle was admitted, and that there was nothing contentious about this Bill, he would venture to submit that that was the very Bill which ought to come before the House, because there could be no possible obstruction to it, and probably one night, or two nights at the outside, would be sufficient for its discussion in Committee. Having regard to the character of the Debate on the Second Reading and to what was said on that side of the House, there would not be the slightest inclination to raise any hostile criticism on details or to discuss the Bill in anything but a practical manner in Committee. What did the right hon. Gentleman do by this Motion? He sent the Bill to a Committee upstairs of which a very large number of Members on both sides of the House were not members, and who would have no opportunity of taking any part in the discussions on the details of the Bill. Although it was a Bill the principle of which they were agreed upon, it was very necessary to see that the details were discussed, not at very great length, but by hon. Gentlemen in every part of the House who had special knowledge of these matters. It was impossible to get hon. Members having a special knowledge to attend the Grand Committee on Trade, while there was no difficulty in getting hon. Members in the House in the evening to discuss these matters. He could not help thinking that the Government proposed to set up an entirely new principle, namely, that of giving free grants of money. Such a principle had never been adopted as regarded England, and it was a very dangerous proposal to take such a matter out of the control of the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider his decision if he received the assurance, as he was sure he would do from that side of the House, that the Bill would not be treated in anything like a hostile spirit in Committee of the whole House.

said, he had never been personally in favour of Grand Committees, and he was no lover or supporter of them. But he had always understood that their object was to save the House as a whole much hard work, and, if there was any good or any reality in them, and they were not to be a mere sham, they should be made to serve that purpose. What was the principle of these Grand Committees? There were certain Measures, containing matters of principle to which many hon. Members objected, which it would be very wrong and unfair to shut out from the consideration of the vast majority of members of the House, ant it was the essence of the new scheme of devolution that no seriously-contentious matter should be sent to a Grand Committee. But now hon. Members opposite had argued that, because this was a non contentious Measure, because it was a Measure the principle of which they were all agreed upon, therefore it was not a Measure which ought to be sent to a Grand Committee. It seemed to him that the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite went to the very root of the whole matter of Grand Committees, for surely if ever there was a Measure which ought to be referred to such a body it was the Light Railways Bill now before the House. In his long experience of the House he had scarcely ever known a Bill the principle of which had been so unanimously received by hon. Members on both sides, and, that being so, he thought they ought to make some arrangement by which they could refer it to a Grand Committee at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh had said with truth that a large number of Welsh Members would thus be shut out from the discussions on the Bill, but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the custom to add to the Committee a certain number of Members who were interested in a particular measure. No doubt that course would be followed in the present instance, and the objection of the right hon. Gentleman would thus be removed.

said, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in that he was a great advocate of these Grand Committees. He regarded them as a very useful addition to their procedure. He also differed from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill did not raise questions of contention. On the contrary, it was a Bill which raised some extremely difficult questions which deserved to be very carefully considered. The first of these was whether the existing restrictions imposed on normal railways should be relaxed; the second was whether power should be given to the Light Railway Commissioners, instead of Parliament, to incorporate companies and pass ordinances for the creation of these light railways. Upon these two questions he believed little or no difference of opinion existed in the House. The third question was whether local authorities should be empowered to make subsidies to these light railways, and the fourth question was whether Treasury grants should be made to subsidise these light railways. On these two points they had a considerable difference of opinion as to principle. They were very important principles—how far they should extend the powers of local authorities to enter into undertakings of this kind and to charge them to the rates, and how far they should empower the Treasury to make grants, which was a perfectly new policy with regard to England, and, except as to the congested districts, to Scotland. That was a precedent which deserved the attention and the whole strength and force of the House. It was not a matter for a mere quorum of Members in the Grand Committee. It was a matter for a Committee of the whole House. When the President of the Board of Trade rose, he hoped he was rising for the purpose of giving the House a precedent that was applicable to the present case. The right hon. Gentleman had not done so, and so far as he (Mr. Bryce) was aware there was no precedent. If the right hon. Gentleman could give them one he was sure they would be very glad to hear it from him.

said, there was a Light Railways Bill, though he did not just remember the year, under which very considerable grants were made from the Treasury, and that was referred to the Grand Committee.

1883 or 1887?

I forget the year.

1891.

Neither of them was referred to the Grand Commitee.

said, that probably some speaker would follow him and deal more minutely with this question, which seemed to him to be one of importance. He did not think that this was a question which ought to be handled by so small a body as a Grand Committee. The question of what powers should be entrusted to local authorities was a very different one to those which generally came before the Grand Committee on Trade, and it was a question on which a large number of Members, representing different constituencies, might very well wish to express an opinion, while the question of whether grants from the Treasury should be made was one on which many Members, not otherwise connected with the policy of Light Railways, might desire to express an opinion. They ought to have the opportunity of expressing that opinion, and they could not express it on the Grand Committee. He said, therefore, that, considering the very great novelty and the very great importance of the issue which this Bill raised, it was not a Bill which should be discussed in so small a body as the Grand Committee, with the necessary exclusion of many Members who might desire to offer their opinions upon it. He also ventured to submit that it was a departure from the understanding on which Grand Committees were set up, to send to them Bills on which a large difference of opinion on principle existed.

said, that while he had a great deal of sympathy with those who desired to debate this Bill in a Committee of the whole House he intended to vote for sending it to the Grand Committee for two reasons. The first was that it would be discussed in a much more businesslike and satisfactory way in the Grand Committee than it could be in Committee of the whole House. He had attended these Grand Committees for a great many years past, and he had always noticed that when matters of very minor interest were before them there was a difficulty in getting a quorum, but when a Government Bill, raising really important questions, came before them, there was no difficulty in getting a quorum, and the questions had always been discussed in a thoroughly businesslike spirit and free from any feeling of party spirit. Another great advantage was that the questions could be decided in the Grand Committee in a way they were often not decided by the House—not by the votes of those Members who had sat through all the discussions of the Amendments, but by those who had rushed in at the sound of the Division bells and gone into the Lobbies according to the bidding of the Party Whips. The Members of the Grand Committee would decide questions which they had heard discussed throughout. Although the Bill might contain some contentious points, yet, on the whole, it commanded a very large consensus of the opinion of the House. The only serious principle the House could claim to debate was the right of the Treasury to grant money for the purposes of light railways. But they should have an opportunity of debating this in Committee of the whole House. There would be an Expenses Committee, and the Report of that Committee, before the Grand Committee could insert in the Bill any clause empowering advances out of the Treasury; therefore, although he admitted this was a great, a new and important principle, yet he would point out that there would be an opportunity of discussing it in Committee of the whole House. Saving that, he believed those of them who wished to see the Bill passed into law were pretty well agreed as to the general principles involved, and he very much doubted if the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had been able to proceed further with his Bill of last year, he would not rather have passed it into law last year through the agency of the Grand Committee than have allowed it to fall into the limbo of forgotten Measures by reserving it for the Committee of this House. Because he was one of those who desired to see the Bill passed and who knew the dangers that befel secondary Government Measures which were kept for the Committee of the whole House, he thought it far better that this Motion should be passed and the Bill be discussed in a businesslike manner upstairs, so that it should have a good chance of becoming law this Session.

observed that when the Grand Committees were appointed every Member of the House had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on the Second Reading of a Bill. There was then no Closure, but everybody knew perfectly well that upon this particular Bill a great many Members had no opportunity of expressing their opinion on the Second Reading. The result was that they were now asked to send the Bill for its next stage to a Committee upstairs, no that they should be again excluded from expressing their opinion on the Bill. He ventured to say that was not in contemplation when Standing Committees were appointed by the House, and it was an element to be taken into consideration. There was one great constitutional change effected by the Bill, the nature of which was not touched upon on the Second Reading. At the present moment Parliament alone had the power to take land and give authority in regard to matters of railway legislation, but by this Bill a new body was established altogether outside Parliament—a Railway Commission—and that new body was to have the power to grant applications which, when once granted, were not to be so much as laid before Parliament for sanction. That was an entirely new principle, because now, when power was given to a body like the Local Government Board in the case of Provisional Orders, those Orders were still brought up for confirmation in the House of Commons. But what they were going to do now was to confer on the Board of Trade the power of sanctioning railways taking lands, etc., without such matters being brought before Parliament at all. The only thing the Board of Trade had to do was to make a report of the proceedings to Parliament, and the particular grant was withdrawn from the purview of Parliament altogether. It had been stated that a grant had been made in the case of the Highlands, but an Act of Parliament was passed through the House to sanction that grant. Under this Bill there would be no Act of Parliament, and no reference to Parliament whatever in the Measures which might be sanctioned by the Board of Trade. Parliament ought not to surrender its rights, or such a grave constitutional change ought not to be allowed to take place without the fullest discussion in Committee of the whole House, and if there was going to be this new departure it ought only to be made in cases where every Member of the House had the fullest opportunity of stating his views upon the matter discussed.

observed that two opposite opinions had been expressed about this Bill, one hon. Member saying it was contentious and another that it was non-contentious, while the Amendment to the Bill upon the Second Reading gave the Measure most hearty support. But, assuming that it was contentious, the late President of the Board of Trade asked what the precedents were for sending such a Bill to a Grand Committee. Contention was no object to a Bill going to the Grand Committee. The Employers' Liability Bill was a highly-contentious Bill, but it went to the Grand Committee; and so was the Factories Bill of the late Government, and it also went to the Grand Committee. The opportunity of discussing the principle had passed on the Second Reading, and what was left was the discussion of those details which could either be properly relegated to a Committee of the whole House or to the Grand Committee. He had from the first supported the principle of the Standing Committee. They wanted a great deal more devolution instead of less, and it seemed to him that two conditions upon which Grand Committees were supported were fulfilled here. In the first place, this was a Government Bill; and, in the next, this was a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. Again, there was a great deal of detail requiring expert and businesslike discussion, which would be best achieved in the Grand Committee. What they desired was the speedy passage of the Bill; and, because he believed the principle of devolution was right in itself, this Bill adapted to it, and that a good Bill would result from the discussions in the Grand Committee, he heartily supported the Motion of the Government.

observed that for once he had the pleasure of being of the same opinion as his right hon. Friend the Member for the Dartford Division. He had never liked Grand Committees. He did not think they were good, and they took upon themselves matters which had much better be attended to by the House. They were constituted for the devolution of businesss; but this was exactly one of those Bills of which the House ought to have the control. The proposed Measure gave great power to local authorities, and it was only a little while ago that hon. Gentlemen opposite took the view that powers vested in local authorities for the spending of money were powers rather to the detriment than to the benefit of the commonwealth. He had always entertained the view that the local authorities they were establishing had not been constituted in the manner which enabled them to conduct their business with great economy. This was a Bill which placed large and almost unrestricted powers in the hands of local authorities; and if ever a Bill ought not to go upstairs to the Grand Committee, but ought to be dealt with in this House, it was the present one. It was true they all wanted to see the Bill passed; but surely the House was better able to deal with the question than a Committee of an almost uncertain character. If these railways were to do good, they must be made in connection and work harmoniously with the trunk railways of the country. How many railway men were there on the Grand Committee? Perhaps there were as many as desired to go on; but they were only two—one being the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, and the other an hon. Gentleman from the North of England. Surely the House itself had better take up this question of Imperial contribution to local authorities, and keep it in its own hands, rather than run the risk of adding to local burdens by handing a Bill like this over to a Grand Committee, which was often a very badly-composed tribunal.

thought the Standing Committees were of the greatest possible value. In the case of one or two Bills which he had seen dealt with by them, the most admirable results had been obtained, and especially so in the Bill dealing with the hours of railway servants. He ventured to think, however, that this Bill raised considerations of a wholly different character. If it had been the same Bill as that of last year, he would say at once, "Send it to the Standing Committee," because the Bill of last year was merely a facilitating Bill; whereas this Bill handed over a large amount of public money to the local authorities, and that was a matter in which the representatives of the taxpayers were directly interested. He did not think his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade could complain in the least of the way in which this Bill had been treated by the House. He was one of the supporters of the Bill, and desired to see it passed into law; but he would ask whether, after the House had decided the other day that the question of voting public money must be discussed on the floor of the House, and had refused to allow any of the work of Supply to be handed over to a Committee, it was consistent that this Bill should be taken out of the hands of the representatives of the taxpayers of the country, and that the application of public money should be discussed upstairs. He thought that such a proposal was very dangerous, and he should heartily support the retention of the Committee stage of this Bill on the floor of the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Somerset had said that, if the Bill was so retained, it would fall into the category of abandoned Measures; but he could assure his hon. Friend that both sides of the House were too much interested in the Bill to allow the Government to set it aside, even if they wished to do so. The number of districts interested in the Bill was so large that it was utterly impossible that all of them could be represented on the Standing Committee. The Bill raised a great many issues, it had not been unduly discussed by the House, and the only opportunity of discussing its details was by Amendment in Committee. Would it not, therefore, be more harmonious, more logical and more rational if the Government could see their way to afford one sitting of the House for the Committee stage? If, on the other hand, the Bill was sent to the Grand Committee, it was obvious, from the discussion that had taken place, that there would be a long and somewhat animated Debate on some portions of the Bill on the Report stage. The Government would really facilitate this Measure if they assented to the very reasonable claim put forward from his side of the House.

referring to the Irish Bill of 1889, pointed out that when that Bill was sent to the Grand Committee there had been previously an Irish Act of 1883 which had been well discussed in the House, and the Bill of 1889 was only a draft on the Bill of 1883. This Bill raised a most important question of principle. By the Standing Orders, every money Bill must be founded on a Resolution in Committee, and he thought it was a distinct infringement of the ancient privileges of the House that a Bill of this kind should be sent to a Grand Committee. The reason why he, as an Irish Member, was interested in this Bill was that the Government had given a pledge that they would introduce a similar Bill for Ireland, and he thought it would be exceedingly unfair if that Bill was delayed until they saw the shape this Bill took in Committee. He thought they ought to have a statement from the Government as to the course they proposed to pursue on the Irish Bill. Would they follow the precedent of 1889, and if so, in what way would the thing be worked? In 1889 they had a Committee practically composed of Irish Members. Would the same course be taken with regard to the Irish Bill? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intended, in Grand Committee, to announce the names of his Commissioners?

As regards the introduction of the names of the Commissioners, that will not be done in Grand Committee. As regards the question of the relations of this Bill to the Irish Bill, I would say that when you are dealing with Ireland and Great Britain in two Bills, one of those two Bills must come first, and I would point out that, as a matter of fact, Ireland is a long way in advance of England in legislation of this kind. Further, it appears to me that the conditions of Ireland are so different in many respects that I do not imagine that the discussion in Grand Committee of the English Bill will have much bearing one way or the other on the action which may be taken on the Irish Bill. If the Irish Bill is referred to the Grand Committee, the Government will take care that the Irish Members are properly represented. As regards the general question, surely I am not making an unreasonable request when I ask that this Debate should now be brought to a close. Hon. Members on the other side of the House have said that the matter contained in the Bill is so controversial that it ought not to be referred to a Grand Committee; but, if I cast my memory back and refer to the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in relation to Grand Committees, I shall not be contradicted when I assert—as I do fearlessly assert—that the action of hon. Gentlemen, opposite has been to stretch to the utmost the purposes for which Grand Committees might be used, and in the past they have gone to the very length of, if they have not overpast, the limit of the duties which ought to be intrusted to these bodies. According to the previous contentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, this is the very kind of Bill which ought to be referred to a Grand Committee. It is a Bill in which there is general agreement. It contains a great mass of detail. It is a Bill which, if it does grant public money, does not leave it to the Grand Committee to decide how much shall be granted. It is carefully reserved to this House to decide what are the limits beyond which that grant shall not go. I cannot understand what abuse can follow from the reference of a Measure of this kind to a Grand Committee. It is surprising that Member after Member should announce in glowing words his desire to see this Bill pass, and describe the many benefits that would ensue if it were passed, and should then follow up that declaration by asking the Government to take a course which everybody in this House knows is likely to kill the Bill. The hon. Member for Northampton said that hon. Members on his side of the House were so anxious to see the Bill pass that they would take care that the Government did not drop it in favour of other legislation. I may be allowed to remind the hon. Member that if the Opposition can prevent the Government from passing Bills it cannot force them to pass any Measures. If this Bill should not be successful, the hon. Member will have to explain to his constituents that he was one of those who did everything in their power to prevent this Bill from becoming law. The House will decide whether it does or does not wish this practical Measure to pass. If it decides that the Bill must be considered in Committee of the whole House, then, having regard to the opportunities for prolonged discussion which that procedure involves, I tell hon. Members on behalf of my colleagues that there is little or no chance of the Bill becoming law.

said, that this was a question in which his constituents were vitally interested, and they would consider it a great grievance that this important matter should be withdrawn from the cognisance of the House before their representative had had an opportunity of speaking no their behalf. At the Second Reading stage he had risen several times, but was not fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye. The Debate was closured, and he had had no opportunity of speaking. Hon. Members spoke, because they thought it their duty to do so, in behalf of their constituents. On an Amendment to the Address, he had appealed to the Leader of the House on behalf of the fishing population of Scotland, and when the right hon. Member replied that it was not the case that their interests were being neglected——

Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the House, which concerns the Committee to which this particular Bill should be referred.

explained that the reason why he wished to keep this Measure in the House was because he had not been allowed an opportunity of speaking on behalf of his constituents. Continuing, the hon. Gentleman said, that the proposal of the Government was to refer this Bill to a Grand Committee. Having regard to what they had heard as to the way business was sometimes conducted in Grand Committee, it might make some Members shudder to know that a Measure in which they were interested was to be referred to a Committee of that kind. He was not, him- self, opposed to the Grand Committee system, and he had served on the Committee to which the Local Government (Scotland) Bill was referred, and which did its work satisfactorily. But he was not aware that the Grand Committee to which the Bill under consideration would be referred had an adequate number of Scottish representatives upon it, and as the Bill was intended for the benefit of the fishing population of Scotland, it was very necessary that there should be a reasonable representation of Scottish Members interested in the subject upon the Committee. The, Bill was in its essence a financial Bill, but they had had hitherto no indication as to the direction in which the money would be applied. There was, it was true, a provision to the effect that the Secretary for Scotland would provide for Scottish needs; but how were they to know that he would be able to prevail against the English Minister for Agriculture, who would be the predominant partner in this matter? Considering the great importance of this Measure to the Scottish people, he would like to ask the First I Lord of the Treasury whether any particular sum under the Bill would be earmarked for the use of Scottish fishermen?

thought that the House must have been surprised at the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Member had given them to understand that if the Bill were discussed, as he thought it ought to be discussed, in Committee of the whole House, the Government would be compelled to drop the Measure. That expression of opinion did not seem to show that the Government had very much at heart the programme for the benefit of the agricultural interest to which they had understood this Session was to be devoted. He had served on many occasions on Grand Committees, and knew well that those Committees often performed the duties intrusted to them better than the House could have performed them. But in this particular Measure there were questions of principle involved, which could not be properly discussed by any delegated authority. In the first place, there was a considerable demand for public money. That was a question that not only interested agricultural constituencies, but which also interested the Members for urban districts. In the second place, there was the question to what extent the great Railway Companies were to be allowed to take advantage of this Measure, because it was evident that the proposed application of public money might be taken advantage of by a Railway Company, unless precautions were taken, for the purpose of increasing the railway monopoly in this country. Then there was a cognate question, which he was informed it was desired to raise in connection with this Bill—namely, the question of our canal system. If it was desirable to spend money on light railways——

Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the merits of the Bill and the arguments for and against them. I understand that his object is to show that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the whole House, but it appears to me that he is now going beyond what is reasonable.

said, that he did not think that the Bill ought to be withdrawn from the purview of the House. He hoped all Liberal Members would support the proposal that the House should retain its control over this Measure.

complained that many Members interested in this subject had been excluded from participation in the discussion on the Second Reading. It had been said that if the Bill went to a Grand Committee it could still be discussed on Report. That was true, but it was well known that the discussion on Report could only be perfunctory. If a Special Grand Committee had been nominated for the purpose of considering this particular Measure, there would not be so much reason for objection; but the effect of the proposal of the Government would be that many Members deeply interested in the Bill would have no opportunity at all of discussing it. What was the character of the Bills that had been referred to Grand Committees? Like the Enfranchisement of Places of Worship (Sites) Bill, the Hours of Railway Servants Bill, the Clergy Discipline Bill, they were Measures involving legal technicalities. The Bill under consideration, however, stood upon an entirely different footing. A comparison had been drawn between this Measure and the Employers' Liability Bill, but those who set up that comparison overlooked the fact that the Employers' Liability Bill was discussed in that House for many days on the Second Reading, whereas the discussion on the Second Reading of the Light Railways Bill was closured in an untimely manner.

thought that many of the speeches made on the Opposition side of the House would have been more appropriate if delivered against the informal proposal for the establishment of Grand Committees. It was true that, when a Bill was referred to a Grand Committee, most Members of the House had not the same opportunities of discussing its details as they would have if it were referred to a Committee of the whole House. But surely that was a matter that was taken into account when the method of procedure by Grand Committee was first under consideration. The hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs was in error when he said that it was only Bills involving legal technicalities that were referred to Grand Committees. Last Session a Bill dealing with the question of the Municipal Franchise in Ireland was referred to a Grand Committee. Endeavouring, as he had been, to look at this question from a strictly and narrow Irish point of view, he desired to say that he was one of those who believed that Ireland might be able to reap some benefit from a continuance of the system of Grand Committees; and therefore he was opposed to any action of the House which would discredit the system. The meaning and object of Grand Committees was to relieve congestion of business in the House itself, and though congestion of business might be urged as one of the reasons for consenting to Home Rule, he believed it was possible for Ireland, pending the achievement of Home Rule, to obtain through the medium of those Committees some useful legislation on those minor grievances which afflicted Ireland. If it was true that there would not be an adequate representation of all classes of Members who were specially interested in this Bill, he took it for granted that any class of Members who desired representation on it would find it by means of those Members who were to be added for the special purpose of the Measure. He understood the cold-blooded threat of the Leader of the House with reference to the progress and fate of the Bill, a reference which an hon. Gentleman said had shown a want of heart on the part of the Government. The reference of the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, showed want of time; the time of the Government was limited, of course, and he recognised that, in view of the other Government Measures, it would be impossible for them to give a guarantee that the Measure would be passed into law it' retained in the House. It was fair that the Government should be asked to give the Irish Members a fair share of representation in the consideration of this English Bill in the Grand Committee, because it was possible that the Irish Bill might run on the same lines. He was, therefore, in favour of sending this Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade.

I beg to move that the question be now put.

I hope that the House will come to a decision without compelling me to resort to any process of the kind suggested. The question is in very small compass.

Certainly, Sir. I was going to support the Government.

continued his speech, which was interrupted at midnight on Friday, and said that as he understood the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth lapsed with the former sitting, he proposed to conclude with an Amendment to reduce the Vote.

I called on the hon. Member for East Mayo because he was in possession of the House when the discussion came to an end last Friday.

And I ask whether any Amendment, being first on the Paper, is not entitled to priority?

I do not think that that necessarily means that the hon. Member should move his Amendment first. If the hon. Member for East Mayo, who was in possession of the House on Friday chooses to conclude with a Motion he is entitled to do so.

said he had no desire to intervene to prevent the hon. Member for East Clare moving his particular Amendment. He submitted, that the very large increase in men which was made by the late Government last year was accepted by the Committee on the understanding that it was to be more or less a resting place, and that full provision had been made for the defence of the country for some time to come. He was entitled to ask, therefore, what fresh instances had arisen to justify the present Government in coming down and asking for another enormous increase. The fact was, these periodical demands were made as the results of panic and fits of Jingo fear, or from a policy of aggression. One of the worst features was that these demands were always accompanied by speeches which constituted a defiance of some European Powers. The First Lord of the Admiralty had cast aside the principle that the fleet of England was to be a match for any two fleets in Europe. Apparently, the principle now was, that the fleet was to be increased inimitably, until it should be able to cope with the fleets of almost all the rest of the world. That opened up a prospect of the most terrifying character for the taxpayers of the country. Where were these armaments to cease? The speech of the First Lord held out no hope of even temporary finality to the piling up of armaments, and before consenting to a single step in this most unnecessary and monstrous increase in naval expenditure, the House was entitled to demand against what nations the armaments were intended to be directed. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said:—

"These are not Estimates of provocation, they are Estimates of self-defence. They are Estimates based on the special conditions of this country, on conditions which are not those of other countries, on our scattered possessions, on the position of our food supplies, and of our colonial possessions They are based on the security of our own shores."

What had altered since last year in the special conditions of the Empire? Nothing, unless foreign complications have altered them. But the First Lord of the Admiralty had not adduced one shred of evidence in favour of this enormous advance on the programme of last year; and by the words quoted the right hon. Gentleman had condemned his own propositions. The present Government did not complain last year that the late Government's proposals were inadequate, and nothing had changed but the foreign relations of the Empire. Then these enormous Estimates must be asked for as a menace to foreign Powers. The last increase of the Navy was based on the alliance of France and Russia, and the junction of their fleets off the south coast of France. What had been the gain to the Empire of all these millions spent on this most foolish and criminal attempt to overmatch the fleets of France and Russia in a spirit of aggression? In the last few months the result was shown. England had gained nothing, and the foreign policy of the present Government had thrown the entire East of Europe and Asia into the hands of Russia. Now Parliament was called to vote another enormous increase to meet the difficulties which were even more alarming than the alliance between France and Russia. They were asked to vote these millions in the dark. They did not know against whom this demonstration was intended. Was it intended against the United States? Was it a warning to that country, if she should not yield on the Venezuelan Question, of what she might expect? Or against what new enemies was it intended? The late Government increased the number of men for the Navy by 12,000 in two years; and now a further increase of 5,000 was to be made; and it had been made abundantly clear that the increase was only temporary, and would be followed by still more. The First Lord of the Admiralty had explained that his proposals would add £2,000,000 to the Estimates for the present year, and that there would be a supplementary Estimate of £1,000,000. That increase of nearly £4,000,000 seemed likely to be permanent; and it did not take account of the £8,000,000 to be spent under the Naval Defence Act. That was a monstrous and extravagant charge; and further, the supplementary Estimate ought really to have been included in the general Estimate of the year. He did not believe that these increases in the Navy would bring any increase of safety or strength to the country. They provoked counter-increases in European and perhaps American Powers. This system, if carried on as it had been by this country for the last 10 years, could only end in one way, and that was universal European bankruptcy. The time had come, quite apart from special considerations connected with Ireland, to protest against these enormous and monstrous armaments, and against the shame of a free-country like England leading the way in this race to universal ruin and bankruptcy. If England could build ships, so could other Powers. The principle was laid down that England's fleet must be more than a match for the combined fleets of any two other countries; and when that was reached, the principle was thrown aside, and it was declared that the English fleet must be prepared to stand against the world in arms. On England's shoulders would rest an excessive share of the responsibility for these armaments, which were draining the life-blood of the populations of Europe. It was to be deeply regretted that the First Lord of the Admiralty, who in a special manner was identified with and responsible for these great increases before the world, should have thought it right to go down to the country, shortly before the opening of Parliament, and make a speech which he has admitted in this House to have been interpreted as a threat hurled at the whole of Europe. He spoke of our magnificent isolation, and intimated that England would take steps to stand against the whole world in arms, if called upon to do so. [Ministerial cheers.] He thought that such cheers were foolish. It was against that very spirit that he had risen to protest. Why should England challenge the world in arms? Why should this country, blessed with free institutions, set an example of arrogant militarism? It was a disgrace to England, who ought to claim far different honour, by setting an example of moral armaments and a desire for peace and good understanding among the rest of the European Powers. If for no other reason, this was not the time to make these enormous and aggressive increases, after such a speech from the First Lord of the Admiralty, interpreted in the capitals of Europe as a sort of universal defiance. There could be no doubt that while the quarrel with the United States was impending, these enormous naval increases would be regarded in America as very aggressive and insulting proposals. He must say a word in honour of the one great British Statesman whose absence from this House he regretted, who had not hesitated to make his voice heard against this ruinous and scandalous expenditure on armaments. Mr. Gladstone, in a recent letter, the words of which would be long remembered, said:—

"I will only add that conviction and sentiment on this subject grow with me in strength from year In year in proportion to the growth of the monstrous, and, I will add, barbarous militarism, in regard to which, I consider, that England has to bear no small share of responsibility."

Those were courageous words, and they were true, from the greatest Englishman of this generation. These words ought to, and he believed would, commend themselves to the attention and respectful consideration of the English people when the present fit of Jingoism had cooled down. There was another aspect of the increase in the Navy. He had been an assenting party to the proposals of the late Government for an increase in the Navy. It was very much against his own judgment and inclination. But the ate Government had promised to issue a Commission to inquire into the proportion in which these charges were borne by Ireland and Great Britain; and Irish Members were bound to show some consideration to the Government. Although that Commission had not reported, it had taken a great amount of evidence; and in his opinion it not only substantiated all that Irish Members had contended for, but had revealed a condition of things worse than they had presented to Parliament. There could not be the slightest doubt that Ireland, the poorest part of the United Kingdom, had for many years been paying far more than her just proportion to the military and naval expenditure of the country. That being so, was it not a monstrous and outrageous injustice that, in spite of the known and expressed wish of the vast majority of the Irish people, who were opposed to this policy of big armaments, which they considered unnecessary, that this huge increase to the Navy should be forced on Ireland, when, as everyone knew, she would have to pay double her share of the cost? While, as an individual, he was opposed root and branch to this increase, because he believed that it would be another step in the iniquitous race to general bankruptcy—while he was opposed to it on grounds of common humanity—as an Irish Nationalist he was still more strongly opposed to it, because he held that the Irish people, who had no kind of responsibility for this system of bloated armaments, and the policy which had given rise to it, should not now be asked to pay two or three times their just share of this additional burden. The Government could not expect the Irish Members to help them in their proposals as regarded the increase of the Navy. Irish Nationalists were united in their resolve to give the proposed increase, whether as regarded men and boys or in regard to the gigantic increase under the Naval Defence Act, the most determined opposition that the forms of the House would allow. [Cheers.]

said, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillon) probably endorsed the opinion that the proposed naval expenditure was occasioned by fear of Russia, France, Germany, and the United States. Why, instead of paying money to enable England to defeat those countries, Irish Nationalists at the present time infinitely preferred to pay money to enable those countries to defeat England. It was all-important, politically, that that view should be taken into consideration; when they came to the discussion of the Navy Estimates, and were trying to do what they could to increase the strength of the Navy, they need not pause to consider such a view.

Does the hon. Member quote that as a speech of mine?

It is a quotation from an article written by one of the hon. Member's friends. [Nationalist laughter.]

United Ireland of Saturday.

I repudiate it.

said he was glad to hear it.

Let him stand up and repudiate it. [Parnellite cheers.]

resuming, said, it was to be regretted that they had hardly yet heard any discussion as to the real deficiency of the Navy. They had heard two speeches from the two front Benches following the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and they had a speech of the greatest importance from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. That speech was being commented upon by Members on both sides of the House and outside it. It struck everyone who heard it as a lucid, well-conceived statement of a case which might be strong or weak, according as the facts stood. Until the facts were overthrown it was a strong case, and one to which a little more consideration ought to be devoted. The Leader of the Opposition said that we were to accept the proposals of the Government because they were proposed by a responsible Government with their knowledge of the necessities of the case. Was it not an elementary fact that during the last ten years everything that had been conceded had been forced by agitation from the responsible Government and had been something they did not intend to give? The increase of the Navy Estimates had proved that the Estimates made by former responsible Governments did not cover the necessities of the case. To tell them that they must accept these Estimates because they were proposed by a responsible Government was to fly in the face of all experience. Then the Leader of the Opposition said our policy made our Navy Estimates. Did they not all know that there were present to the minds of the House two recent things that were done independently of this country, which were neither sought, nor desired, nor anticipated by us, and with which we had no more to do than "the man in the moon?" There was the action taken in the United States and in South Africa. They were acts entirely independent of our policy ["Hear, hear!"], and no prevision on our part could have foreseen and provided for them. So it was illusory to say our Estimates were dependent on our policy, for that would suggest that we were always aggressive, and increasing our Estimates accordingly The speech of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean certainly required to be answered on one or two points. He said that the materiel for manning the Navy and the Reserve were not sufficient. He himself did not believe that we had not men enough to man the existing ships. He believed we had. But there were ample facts to show that the Reserve we relied upon in the Mercantile Marine was not sufficient, and if the present system went on it was not likely to become so. In the Mediterranean we had a state of things which every man was able to understand was to our disadvantage, and which they ought to protest against. We had 30 ships, large and small, in the Mediterranean, but we had in the Channel a still larger fleet. In the Channel we were spending £10,000,000 at Dover, Portsmouth, and Devonport, for the purpose of strengthening our naval depôts and fortifying works. In the Channel, with a superior fleet, with all the resources of the United Kingdom behind us, so unsafe did we believe ourselves to be that we were actually putting booms across our harbours that our ships in our own dockyards, under our own guns, inside our own forts, might be safe at night. In the Mediterranean every single precaution was discarded. We had only one torpedo-boat in the Mediterranean, and she, like most of her kind, broke down. We had only two docks, and they were in the wrong place. We had now, for political purposes, four ships cruising about in the Levant, 2,000 miles from Gibraltar and utterly unprotected, we had no coaling station, and the proof we knew we were unsafe was that we were committed to further expenditure in making plans. Then there were the forces of a great naval power entrenched in a line with four great fortresses—the whole of the French fleet and an enormous number of torpedo-boats. The most elementary strategy in the world told us that to divide two inferior forces with a superior enemy entrenched on an inner line was bad policy. People might say we could recall our fleet from Gibraltar. He remembered, when there was a possibility of war with Siam, one of the French gunboats fired a shot across the stern of one of our men-of-war. It was the merest accident that that shot was not returned; if it had been, there would have been war from one end of the world to the other. At that moment half of our fleet was at Smyrna, the Victoria was at the bottom, another ship was docked at Malta, the French fleet was mobilised at Toulon, and what happened then might happen again to-morrow. These were matters requiring explanation. It was political reasons only that accounted for this fleet being in the Mediterranean. He could not meet with a single naval officer who would say that our naval arrangements were really satisfactory. Let hon. Members ask themselves why, if it were right to go to such enormous expense in the Channel, what we were doing and not doing in the Mediterranean could also be right? He went down to see the Rupert, when she returned nearly full of water; and he asked, what would have happened if she had got abroad? She might have been left somewhere unprotected unless she had been patched up and towed to Malta or Devonport. The mishap occurred in a time of peace; but what would have been the state of things if it had been a time of war? He hoped that we should either withdraw our fleet or resolve to make it strong enough; at all events we ought not to run the risk of assuming that it secured us an advantage which was absolutely illusory. With regard to men he had been studying the matter somewhat closely, and he affirmed that the demoralisation of the British Mercantile Marine by the introduction of foreign sailors had reached a point that was startling. He had been told that the ships that were subsidised carried neither guns nor ammunition, while the steamers of the German Lloyds carried guns, and within six hours of leaving New York could be converted into armed ships. On the Atlantic station we had nothing that could touch them or come near them; and in the Pacific, too, the French steamers could be quickly converted in to armed cruisers. Ammunition could not be carried on board these mercantile steamers under the Board of Trade regulations; but it was stored at depôts all over the world; and guns could easily be carried in the hold. Arrangements could easily be made for supplying the officers in command with the necessary sealed Commission. If the First Lord was really needing men, let him include in the list of mercantile seamen the 9,000 men engaged in connection with yachts. The Naval Volunteers were justly put an end to but those who sailed for pleasure might be made available by a little encouragement. If a torpedo-boat were placed in the port of London, it would be manned by men who would soon be competent to handle it; and the system could be extended all round the coast. There were thousands of young men who went to sea between Saturday and Monday in little boats, and it was marvellous that they kept above water. These are the men who were wanted to man torpedo-boats that would otherwise be useless. In conclusion he would ask whether, before another series of Estimates was presented, an assurance could be given that they might have an opportunity of discussing the defence of the Empire as a whole.

said, that so far as he could gather, the last speaker was prepared to build a fleet, to man a fleet, or to command a fleet. [Laughter.] As to the last suggestion of the hon. Member, it had always been held to be necessary to catch boys when they were young in order to make seamen of them. The hon. Member's plan might give work to the unemployed of London, but whether it would benefit the Navy or not was a different matter. Unlike the hon. Member he was not a strategist, and his great difficulty was that it seemed to him, no matter who was First Lord of the Admiralty, he was deemed to know nothing about the Navy or about our requirements. He readily admitted that private Members without special knowledge ought to vote for what those who were in official positions said was necessary for the safety of the country; but if you went back a little you saw that each First Lord had proposed a scheme entirely different from that of his predecessor. Lord Northbrook declared that the Navy was equal to all requirements, and that if he had an extra million he should not know what to do with it; but a few months afterwards he produced ascheme for increasing the Navy. The Opposition supported him; and when they came into office the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) reduced the Estimates on the first year, and a few months afterwards repudiated all that he had said, and proposed the Scheme carried out under the Naval Defence Act, at a cost of £21,000,000. As usual, the Leaders of the Opposition applauded that, and it was carried against the protests of a few Members below the gangway; but it was thought that this was to be a settlement of the question. Then came in Lord Spencer, who in the second year added £3,000,000 and in the third year £3,000,000; and now the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated his tenure of office by proposing a Scheme even more monstrous than any that had been suggested before. And this lavish outlay was but a sop to those who advocated still larger expenditure. Did not all these facts show that First Lords of the Admiralty had never taken a really large and broad view of our naval requirements? They seemed to think that, if a newspaper demanded that more money should be spent upon the Navy, they ought at once, because it was a popular thing to do, to spend more money. Whenever Ministers wanted to be popular with the nation they came down to the House, and in a blustering, swaggering fashion declared that they were prepared to build a few more ships. [Laughter.] He trembled to think what would occur when the present Ministers became somewhat unpopular, as Ministers always did when they were some time in power. Heaven knows what numbers of ships they would build in order to recover their popularity. [Laughter.] He spoke not as a strategist like the last hon. Member but as a plain, simple taxpayer, and as such he would ask the Government "what are you trying for?" The noble Lord the Secretary for India when first Lord of the Admiralty in the late Conservative Government had said the idea was that we ought to have a fleet which would be equal to any two fleets in the world. But that was an absurd plan, because it would be possible for two countries to be at war with us. Now the plan of the present First Lord seemed to be to build a fleet that would be able to cope with the united fleets of the entire world. The First Lord did not put it in that way. He said the plan was defensive and not offensive—that it was to protect our commerce, our colonies and our coasts; but it must be remembered that a fleet of this great power could be used, and would be used in all probability, for offensive purposes. Having the greatest fleet in the world we would have practically the absolute dominion of the sea, and if we fell out with any Power we could close all her ports and bombard her towns. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] Yes, that was what hon. Members opposite were in favour of. But it must not be forgotten that this vast dominion was attended by positive danger—the danger that other Powers would combine against us. What led to the fall of Napoleon was that he had too great an ambition—he wanted to be master of Europe and in the end Europe combined against him and overthrew him. Then there was another objection to the plan. Let us not suppose that we had got a monopoly of the wealth and shipbuilding of the world. Every nation would compete with us in shipbuilding. We were engaged in a ridiculous game of "beggar my neighbour" against the world. We must in the end be broken in such a game. As we spent this money on our Navy, the other Powers would spend money on their Navies; and in the end the relation between us and the other Powers would be the same as it was before this competition began. He therefore thought a more dangerous suggestion had never been made to the House than the suggestion that we would build ships, no matter what other countries did, so as to keep our Navy equal to any two Navies; and a still more dangerous proposal was the present proposal which seemed to substitute for any two Navies the Navies of the entire Powers of the world. The object in view seemed to be this—that if we unfortunately found ourselves at war with any Great Power we should be able to carry on our whole commerce precisely in the same way as if there was no war. But that was absolutely impossible. We must accept the consequences of being at war. We would have to defend the channel, and to have fleets in various parts of the world; but besides that, in order to protect our commerce, we would have to have a fleet to patrol the entire ocean to that British ships would be able to go from one port to another. That could not be done. In the wars with Napoleon when we almost cleared the sea of the enemy, two million pounds worth of English ships were destroyed by privateers sent out by France; and it was certain that if we were at war with a Naval Power, our merchant ships would be attacked by privateers in the same way, with the result that our carrying trade would be taken away from us and given to a neutral country. It was said also that unless we had the absolute command of the sea during war we would be starved. He did not believe that. The food would come into our ports in neutral ships. It might be said the enemy would object to that. No doubt; but the enemy would not be able to help it, because if she took any hostile action against the neutral she would turn the neutral into an enemy. He agreed with the very sensible speech recently made by Lord Wolseley who pointed out that it would be absolutely impossible in war to blockade all our ports, and with one or two ports left open our food supplies would come in without any difficulty. He had no doubt that food would be dearer, and he hoped it would be dearer in the event of war. He agreed with John Stuart Mill that war ought to be made as terrible and as injurious as possible to every human being of the countries engaged in it; and he trusted that the fact that food would be dear would deter working men whose means were mainly devoted to getting the necessaries of life from joining in the wild ridiculous Jingo cry that was now going through the country. A good deal was said about our great and noble Empire, about the loyalty of our Colonies and how they loved us. But he wanted that love of the Colonies to have a cash basis. [Laughter.] He did not care about a union of hearts—what he wanted was a union of purses. [Laughter.] An hon. Member had told the House that the expenditure on the Navy per man in Great Britain was 10s. 1d. The expenditure on the Navy in Australia per man was 1s. 3d; in Canada, one farthing per man; and in Africa, that land of gold, it was zero. The whole thing was thrown entirely upon Great Britain. One would suppose that we were spending it entirely on ourselves and that the Colonies had no share in the benefit. What were the facts about our carrying trade The trade was worth roughly £1,100,000,000 per annum, and one-fourth of it was the carrying trade of the colonies, not between the colonies and this country, but between one colony and another, and between our colonies and foreign countries. And yet it was said we were to find all the money. That was not all. If we ever did get to war with another country it would be on account of some miserable dispute with regard to our colonies. Take the case of Venezuela. Who cared to whom that miserable bog belonged? He only feared the possibility of its being made out it belonged to us, and our being dragged into a great war. We were to have a vast Navy in order that we might dictate, not to Venezuela—that would be simple enough—but to the United States, to whom that bog belonged. Our taxation was now enormous; it had reached £100,000,000. Although there was a surplus there was to be no remission of taxation; nothing was to be done to brighten and better the lot of the poor man. And this expenditure would oblige us to levy not merely the present taxation but £10,000,000. Where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to get the money from? Not from his agricultural friends. From the brewers? Not a bit of it. Depend upon it, it would come, directly or indirectly, out of the pockets of the poor man. It was said that our requirements depended upon our policy. He had observed that our policy depended upon our expenditure. The more we spent the more bragging and blustering we were, and the more we continued to spend the greater would be our brag and bluster, and the greater our attempts to grab countries all over the world. All our wars during the last 500 years had been the consequences of our own meddling in matters which did not concern us. Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone, two of the most popular Ministers that we had had in the present century, argued that we ought not to incur in times of peace a perpetual war expenditure, but, ought to run some possible risk or contingency. He forgot who it was who said that was a pre-historic view, but, pre-historic or not, it was a very sound and sensible view. Mr. Gladstone had always been against large expenditure; and unless rumour was entirely wrong, Mr. Gladstone was not quite satisfied with the expenditure proposed by Lord Spencer. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed this Jingo craze was merely temporary, and ascribed it, to a great extent, to the Liberal Party not having proved faithful to their traditions. Formerly there were two Parties. When the Conservatives were in Office there was a tendency to lavish expenditure, and on the Liberal side there was a tendency to economy, particularly in regard to military expenditure. He did not doubt that many of the Gentlemen now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench would rise and deplore this expenditure—they were quite capable of it—[laughter]—but what did they do when they were in power? Did they vote for reductions then? Not a bit of it; each shrugged his shoulders, said that it was the fault of his wicked colleague, and submissively voted as the Whips told him. The people of the country had no confidence as regarded economy, either in the present or the late Ministers. He found that both set of Ministers tried to see who could acquire the greater amount of popularity, and when he spoke of popularity on this matter he meant that of the music halls, of experts about guns and about vessels, and of ardent problems like the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield. The country was opposed to this expenditure, and he warned his right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench that if they ever hoped to re-acquire the confidence of their country they must revert to the old sound Radical principles of peace and reform. They had seen the result of the last General Election. Where were they now? Whose fault was it? Their own; and he thought they deserved to be landed where they were. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by 1,000 men and boys. He would infinitely prefer a reduction by the whole 4,900. He made it 1,000 because he wished this to be a test question. If the Navy was inadequate for our requirements, or if the Army was inadequate for our requirements, let some Minister come down with a clear scheme. This was not a scheme which had been thought out by the Ministry or which was understood by the country. It was certainly not a scheme which was appreciated in his quarter of the House. He wanted the House to have an opportunity of saying they were ready to accept the fact that it was necessary to have a Navy for defence, but they were not going to attempt a scheme of beggar-my-neighbour against the actual world. What he and his Friends wanted was, not a Navy which might compete against the Navies of all the world, but a Navy sufficient for our honest and peaceful requirements.

said, the Committee knew perfectly well what the views of the hon. Member for Northampton were, because they had heard most of his remarks before. What he would like to know was, where did the hon. Gentleman get his facts from? The hon. Gentleman told them amongst other things that our carrying trade was worth £1,100,000,000. That was perfectly absurd. The hon. Gentleman must have been thinking of tonnage. [Laughter.] To say that this country earned by carrying £1,100,000,000——

I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman should not only speak in this House, but listen. [Laughter] I spoke of the amount of the value of what is carried.

Then the whole thing became doubly absurd. He understood the hon. Member to speak of the value of the carrying trade. These were the words he used. He now said he meant the value of the goods. But he was not right there either. If he would refer to the Trade Returns, he would find that the value of the goods carried was nothing like £1,100,000,000. One other point. The hon. Member said it was dangerous for one Power to have this stupendous preponderance of naval force, and then he immediately proceeded to argue that there was no danger at all, because he told the House that as soon as we increased our naval power, others would increase theirs in proportion, and we should remain where we were, as little dangerous as when we began. It was true that two neutral leagues were formed against this country in 1780 and 1880, but we defeated both these neutral leagues, and it was his desire that, if ever another neutral league was formed, we might be in a position to repeat the experience of the past. The hon. Member accused the First Lord of the Admiralty of coming down blustering and swaggering. He had never heard less bluster and less swagger in the mouth of a First Lord than the right hon. Gentleman showed. Why, he spoke more like a village maiden—he positively bleated. He was surprised at the mildness of the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman commended to the House the largest naval expenditure the House had ever had to discuss. They had had very little assistance in that Debate from the official Opposition. The late Secretary of the Admiralty, indeed, apologised for speaking at all, and he explained that he would not have spoken except that the House expected a person in his position to make a speech. Of course they did. The Leader of the Opposition averred what was perfectly true, that armaments must depend upon policy; and he said that, as the Leaders of the Opposition knew nothing of the policy of the Government, they could not discuss the Estimates—a very unfortunate position for leaders to be reduced to. But the right hon. Gentleman did not stop there. He said the reason for this increase in the Navy Estimates was that we had not learned how to make the world our friends. No, we had not, and he did not believe we ever should. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and preach the policy of the early Christians. But he must remember that the kingdom of the early Christians was not of this world, and ours was. He had never known the right hon. Gentleman himself to show much of the character of the early Christian. He would rather have taken him for a late Pagan. When he was smitten on one cheek and turned the other, there was generally a closed fist with it. But suppose the right hon. Gentleman was right in all this, and that this early Christian policy was the proper one to be adopted, he was one of the very greatest sinners against it. When he was in office he consented to a very large increase in the Naval Estimates, and having increased the Navy in order to defend the country against the enemies of England, he clapped the whole cost on the landed class and those against the Government in order to defend himself against his own enemies. He now came to the unofficial Opposition, most ably represented by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He did not share the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that too little provision was made in this year's Estimates for the wants of the Navy. He thought the provision was ample. In some respects, indeed, he thought too much provision was made—that a large proportion of the money was going to be spent in the wrong direction. He thought the right hon. Gentleman greatly overrated what he called our position of isolation. It was true we were isolated in time of peace, and he for one would rather be isolated, because he should prefer to make his own choice of allies in time of war. But, at the first sound of the trumpet announcing war, our isolation would and necessarily must cease. Suggest any combination of Powers you pleased, it must be such as to insure, either on or soon after the outbreak of war, at least one, and probably two Powers on our side. He thought too that the right hon. Baronet underrated our present strength. It could not be forgotten that in six days, one of which was a Sunday, this country fitted out a Flying Squadron which, in point of strength and fighting power, was equal to, say, the whole Navy of Germany. That was an exploit which could not be matched by any Power in Europe; nay, by any two Powers. Then, comparisons between our ships and those of foreign nations, were entirely fallacious. It was a fact that while foreign navies and foreign crews largely consisted of paper, ours all consisted of the real stuff. Foreign ships did not go very much to sea. Ours were almost always at sea. We manœuvred our vessels in closer order, we exercised our men oftener, and we fired more ammunition; our ships and our men were better than those of foreign nations. Any comparison, taking ship by ship, between our ships and those of the foreigner was therefore necessarily fallacious, and the true comparison, if it could be properly made, would be much more to our advantage. Now he came to the men. The right hon. Baronet thought 100,000 men was the right number. He maintained that they had that number. The provision in the Estimates for next year was 85,818. Then there were 6,883 in training; and in an emergency a considerable number of these, who were near the end of their training, might be taken. Consequently, they might reckon at least 86,000. Then there was the Naval Reserve numbering 25,800. It was true that Admiral Tryon's Committee reported that only 10,000 of the Reserve would be immediately available; but it also reported that a very large additional number would be available in two months. And at that time the total of the Reserve was only 20,000, so that he thought he was justified in concluding that they might fairly reckon on 13,000 being immediately available now. This would give a total of 99,000. He was quite prepared to allow 3,000 as the number that might contingently not be immediately available, but he thought 96,000 was sufficiently near the strength which the right hon. Baronet required, because, certainly, within two months the remaining 4,000 would easily be obtained. The right hon. Baronet had introduced the Mercantile Marine, and described the number of 240,000 British seamen as a myth. But, if so, it was in the direction of moderation. He believed that there were 400,000 British seamen all told. The fishermen, who were the very best seamen in this country, numbered some 100,000, and they were the last men he would exclude in any calculation of British seamen. But whatever the right hon. Baronet might be able to prove as to the Merchant Navy not containing a sufficient proportion of men of British nationality, none of that was true about the Navy. The men in the Navy were all British. The fishermen were also British, and so were the Naval Reserve. He now came to the question of Belleville boilers. He confessed that when these boilers were first introduced, he had considerable doubts as to the experiment which the Admiralty were making. The first reason was that the Mercantile Marine had not adopted the boiler; and it seemed that the experiment appeared to be made only in small vessels. He had since been alongside the Sharpshooter and seen the Belleville boiler, and he felt bound to say that he thought those reasons were not valid. The Belleville boiler was such that if it succeeded in a small ship it must succeed in a large ship, and although it had not been adopted in the Mercantile Marine, that was because its qualities were such as were intensely and enormously valuable to the Navy, yet perhaps of very little extra value at all to the Mercantile Marine. These boilers were entirely broken up, and one tube or one element might be taken out or injured, the rest remaining complete. Then they could be examined and cleaned with the greatest possible facility. Special advantages of these boilers to men-of-war were that steam could be raised with the greatest rapidity; and that the most sudden stoppages and startings could be made. The furnace doors were all knee high, and thus there was greater facility for stoking. There was an almost entire absence of foul tubes, and sea-water could, in an emergency, be used. There was a considerable economy of fuel in these boilers, amounting to nearly two pounds per indicated horse-power per hour.