I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the depositions of witnesses before Metropolitan Magistrates are still taken down in longhand, entailing great labour on the clerk and great waste of time for all having business at police, courts; and if he will confer with Sir John Bridge and his colleagues as to the possibility of adopting shorthand, as in the case of witnesses before many of the superior courts, and Royal Commissions and Select Committees?

I have conferred with the Chief Magistrate as to the desirability of depositions being taken down in shorthand instead of longhand as at present, but find that the practical difficulties are too great to allow my hon. Friend's suggestion to be adopted. Sir John Bridge tells me that to take a deposition properly implies much more than the mere taking down of the words spoken by the witness; it requires, for example, that the clerk should be able to put on the deposition only that which is material, to weigh it before he writes, and to see that the witness clearly understands the questions put to him and gives the answers which he really wishes to be put down.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Civil Service and officers of the Hong Kong Regiment have been granted compensation allowance owing to the depreciation of silver; and, if so whether there is any reason why similar compensation on their allowances should not be granted to other officers of the Army serving in Hong Kong?

Members of the Civil Service in Hong Kong and officers of the Hong Kong Regiment, whose pay is fixed in silver, and who, therefore, are losers by its depreciation, are compensated. The pay of British officers is fixed in gold, and they receive the equivalent amount in silver, according to its current value.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, when, presenting to the House a copy of the Cabul Treaty, he will also include copies of the communications relating to it from the time when the Agreement was drafted up to the time when the Treaty was ratified and the arrangements completed?

The arrangements for delimitation arising out of the Cabul Agreement are not yet all complete or ratified, but when these several Agreements have been executed I shall be glad to place copies of them on the Table.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he can state how many School Boards accept the examination of the Inspector to Diocesan Boards of Education, and how many Managers of Voluntary Schools refuse the same?

The Committee of Council have no information on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, with reference to his statement of 14th February that the question of the reduction of the existing charge for telegrams between England and France was under consideration, representations have been received from the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris; whether he can now state what reduction is contemplated and from what date it will take effect; and, whether the French authorities have expressed a willingness to accept as a basis an ultimate 1d. rate, on which each Government should take the amount of its inland rate, no charge being made for the Channel cable: but that, in order to cover the cost of laying any new cable required, the rate should until such cost had been covered be 1½d. per word, and afterwards 1d. or 10 centimes per word, for all telegrams between England and France?

Representations have been received from the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris, but, having regard to the loss of revenue which would be incurred by the reduction of rates, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to assent to the proposal. No recent representations have been received from the French authorities on the subject of a reduction. I may add that the increase in the number of messages since the rates were last reduced in 1889 does not give us reason to expect that a further reduction would stimulate traffic to such an extent as to recoup the loss of revenue involved.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether an application was recently made to the Board on behalf of the New Zealand Government to allow New Zealand sheep and cattle to be landed alive in this country; and whether, although the officers of the Board admit that New Zealand is perfectly free from contagious diseases of sheep and cattle, the application was refused; whether the chief veterinary officer to the New Zealand Government informed the Department that he has travelled over the whole of the Colony, and failed to find a single case of pleuro-pneumonia or other contagious disease such as is scheduled in Great Britain; and, whether, although entirely free from contagious disease, this Colony is still to be treated as if suffering from contagion.

The application recently made to me was that New Zealand sheep and cattle should be allowed to be landed in this country without being slaughtered at the port of landing, regardless of the fact that the vessel bringing them had entered or been in ports or places in other countries contrary to the provisions of the Foreign Animals Order of 1895. I have no reason to doubt the statements made to me by the New Zealand Government as to the absence of disease in the colony at the present time, but in dealing with the application made to me, it was obviously-necessary to consider the sanitary condition of animals in the other countries with which the vessels trade in the course of their voyage.

asked if any differ-once would be made in the case of vessels coming direct?

Yes, that would make a difference as the position now stands.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, for the convenience of travellers, he will make arrangements for the sale of postcards, letter-cards, and stamps, at the official rates, at the railway bookstalls of Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son; and also for the supply of telegraph forms, and the conveyance of duly stumped telegrams to the telegraph clerk, by Messrs. Smith's employés, at all stations provided with a telegraph office.

Attempts have already been made to induce Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son to undertake the sale of stamps, etc., at their bookstalls, but without success, and it is feared that it would be no use re-opening the question, with them, though the Postmaster General would learn with pleasure that they were ready to reconsider their decision. Inquiry is, however, at this moment being made whether it is possible to arrange for the sale of stamps, etc., at every railway terminus and large stations by some other means, should Messrs. Smith be unable to allow their employés to undertake the duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the mail bags were conveyed from St. Martin's-le-Grand to Euston Station, and vice versa, in four minutes by the pneumatic tube, and whether, from the starting of the vans at the platform at St. Martin's-le-Grand to the starting of the train at Euston at 8.30 p.m., the average time throughout the day is 34 minutes; what was this reason why the working of the pneumatic tube was abandoned; whether, if all the district post offices of London were connected by electric railway arid pneumatically, as in the proposal now before the Postmaster General, letters could be posted at such district post offices, including St. Martin's-le-Grand, almost up to the time of the starting of the trains at 8.30 p.m. from Euston (North Western Railway), St. Pancras (Midland Railway), and King's Cross (Great Northern Railway); and, whether at present letters without extra stamps for same trains have to be posted at or before 6 p.m., or 2½ hours before the starting of such trains?

The average time occupied in the transmission of bags by the Pneumatic Dispatch Company's tube from Euston Station to the General Post, Office was 17 minutes. The time occupied by mail van is 19 minutes. It is understood that the working of the pneumatic tube was abandoned because it was not a practical or financial success. It would not be possible under the circumstances stated, to receive letters at the district post offices almost up to the time of the starting of the mail trains. Time must still be allowed for selection and sorting, and the gain at most would be the difference between the time occupied in travelling by the new method and that now occupied by mail cart. Letters without extra stamps for dispatch by the trains mentioned have now to be posted at 6 p.m. With a late fee of one halfpenny they can be posted at Paddington up to 7 p.m.—at all the other district offices up to 7.30 p.m.—and the General Post Office up to 7.45 p.m.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether there is any intention on the part of the War Office to relinquish the employment of the licensed watermen on the River Thames, and thus seriously injure the prospects of a large body of men who have obtained licenses by servitude?

Formerly a steam launch was attached to Woolwich Arsenal for the purpose of conveying stores on the Thames; and it is now proposed to replace this vessel, and to increase the transport establishment at Woolwich Arsenal by four or five lighters. It is not otherwise proposed to make any alteration in existing arrangements.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that the Dispensary Committee of the Inishowen Union, which ought to consist of 14 members, actually consists of seven ex-officio and one elected member, that gentleman being the only person within the district who is not a justice of the peace, but possesses the requisite qualification; and (2) whether, having regard to this and other cases, he will consider the advisability of repealing or amending the Act which requires a high rating qualification for membership of a dispensary committee, either by amendment to the Public Health (Ireland) Bill, or otherwise?

The Dispensary Committee in question should consist of 14 Members, but at present, I believe, it consists of only 8 Members, namely, 4 ex-officio guardians, 3 elected guardians, and 1 resident ratepayer who possesses the requisite qualification for Membership of the Committee. As regards the second paragraph, the hon. Member for North Leitrim has recently been in communication with me respecting a Bill which he has introduced and which proposes to reduce the rating qualification of Members of dispensary committees, and I have informed the hon. Member that Government accepts the principle of his Bill and would, if necessary, consider the advisability of introducing a clause of similar import into the Public Health Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of his statement that the Telegraph Vote of, £25,000, if divided equally among the counties the share of any six counties would be about £1,300, and if divided according to population the share of the six Highland counties of Inverness, Argyllshire, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland would be less than £240, will he state what would be the share of such counties if the Vote were divided according to area?

The answer is, nearly £3,000, but I may observe that telegraphs are provided for the use of the people inhabiting any district, and population, not acreage, is therefore the more accurate test of their necessity.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of telegraph offices which have been established since the transfer of the telegraphs to the State in England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and in the Highlands of Scotland, viz., Inverness, Argyllshire, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland?

On the day of the transfer the number of telegraph offices of all kinds in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland was 2,932. The number now is 9,915, or an increase of 6,983; 275 of the new offices are situated in the six counties mentioned by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether, in view of the urgency of the claims made by the Scottish Fishery Board Commissioners in their last Report for telegraph extensions in the Highlands in the interest of the fishing industry, lie will make efforts to secure the establishment of additional telegraph offices in the Highlands during the present year?

A sum of £1,000 has been placed on the Highlands and Islands (Public Works) Estimate for 1896–7 for telegraph extensions, and the mode in which the sum can best be utilised will be considered.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, for what reason there are no workmen now at work on the ground near Henry VII.'s Chapel, completing the clearance already begun; and, whether the work can be vigorously pushed forward, the space turfed and fenced in, so that the public may have the earliest possible advantage of the vista of Chapel, Chapter House, and Abbey there newly opened out?

Workmen have been steadily at work breaking in and filling up the old cellars on the ground in question. This was necessary preliminary work. Before any conspicuous progress could be made it was necessary to obtain the consent of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster to certain proposed alterations. I am glad to be able to inform the House that, at a Chapter held on Monday last, consent was given to our pulling down the wall, the property of the Dean and Chapter, which now spoils the view of the Chapter House. The Dean and Chapter have also kindly agreed to the removal of the iron railing from the south of Henry VII.'s Chapel, for the purpose of placing it along the front of Palace Yard. This, I hope, will add very materially to the appearance of the space, which will be turfed and laid out as soon as the ground can be prepared for that purpose. The work will now be pushed forward as rapidly as possible, and every effort will be made to get this open space into perfect order before the summer months. ["Hear, hear!'']

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to Sir John Kirk's statement that the rules in force are practically prohibitory to native trade, and that the Brass people, must be smugglers if they are to trade at all, whether Sir John Kirk has made recommendations as to the future of the Niger Coast Protectorate and the neighbouring territories under the control of the Niger Company; whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared shortly to announce the decision at which they may arrive; and, whether the consideration of the subject will include the desirability of placing the Protectorate under the control of the Colonial Office?

Sir John Kirk made various confidential suggestions as to remedies for the trade grievances dealt with in his Report. Further local inquiries have since been made by instructions from Her Majesty's Government, but we have not yet received the results. It is obvious from Sir John Kirk's Report that there are complicated questions at issue requiring mature consideration, and I am afraid that I cannot give any under taking as to the early announcement of the decision of the Government. It is not proposed to transfer the administration of the Protectorate to the Colonial Office.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that an alarming outbreak of small-pox has now been raging in Gloucester for many weeks, and is still on the increase; how many deaths have occurred in the course of it, and how many persons are now laid down with the disease; whether it has been brought to his notice that small-pox is steadily increasing along the line of the Midland Railway in the direction of Stroud, Nailsworth, Frocester, and Dursley, and that small-pox was recently imported into Leominster from Gloucester; and, whether any steps have been taken for the disinfection of the railway carriages on lines running out of Gloucester?

There has been a very serious outbreak of smallpox in the city of Gloucester. Altogether there have been 495 cases notified; of these 300 are still under treatment for the disease, and 93 have died. I have received communications from the Stroud and Nailsworth Urban District Councils and from the Councils of the Wheaten-hurst and Dursley rural districts, in which Frocester and Dursley are situated, and I find that the cases in those places have been few in number, the majority thus far being isolated attacks. I addressed a letter to the Gloucester Rural District Council, but have not yet received the information asked for with respect to that district. There have been three cases of small-pox in Leominster, but they have not been directly traced to Gloucester. The Local Government Board have no evidence that the railway carriages on the lines referred to have been infected, and they feel sure that there would be no indisposition on the part of the railway company to adopt any disinfection which the medical officer of health might recommend if it was found necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how many unvaccinated children have died in Gloucester?

I have no information on that point.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for Bristol has stated in the public Press that isolation and disinfection are played out, and that the one chance of salvation——

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

Then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question arising out of the Question on the Paper. Is the right hon. Gentleman a ware that, in consequence of this outbreak of small-pox in Gloucester, the recruits of the 4th Battalion of Militia——

Order, order! That does not arise tint of the Question. [Laaughter.]

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been called to the increase by over 40 per cent. in the immigration of aliens at eastern ports for sojourn in this country in January and February compared to the same months last year, and of an increase also in those alleged to be en route for America, as well as of alien sailors to man British ships; and, if he can say when the Government Bill dealing with the subject will be introduced.

Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the increase referred to. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government hope to propose a Measure on the subject; but in the present state of public business it is impossible for me to say when this can be done.

asked whether all third-class passengers coming from Eastern ports were put down as alien immigrants?

Certainly not. ["Hear, hear!"]

On behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford, Viscount VALENTIA, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what is the cost per day of maintenance of inmates of Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum; and, whether inmates who are Government pensioners are required to contribute towards their maintenance; if so, whether it is the intention of the Treasury to punish afflicted pensioners by stoppage of payment of their pensions to their families, though inmates who have not served in the public services, equally culpable and irresponsible, suffer no such punishment.

The total cost of Broadmoor, exclusive of interest on capital expenditure, is shown on page 254 of the Estimates for the coming year to be £34,580, and the number of patients 650; the cost of each patient is therefore 2s. 11d. per diem. Government pensioners are required to contribute towards their own maintenance in accordance with sub-section 2 of section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, which enacts that, if a Government pensioner becomes a lunatic towards whose maintenance a contribution is made out of money provided by Parliament, his pension shall be reduced by an amount equal to that contribution, or shall be stopped altogether if it is less than the contribution. I understand that other inmates having private incomes are equally liable under sub-section 3 of section 10 of the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why any person investing money in the Post Office Savings Bank on the first day of the month receives no interest for that month?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Act of Parliament establishing Post Office Savings Banks provides, amongst other things, that interest on a Savings Bank deposit shall not commence until the first day of the calendar month next following the day of deposit.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is now in a position to place upon the Table Papers relating to the suicide of the late Maharaja of Patna, and the deposition of the Maharaja of Jhalawar.

I have already informed the hon. Member that I do not think it necessary to make any further inquiry as to the death of the late Maharaja of Patna, nor do I propose to lay on the Table Papers relating to this subject. As regards the the Maharaja of Jhalawar, the Report of the Government of India has not yet been received. When it arrives I will consider what Papers pan be laid on the Table of the House.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. EDWARD MOON), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foriegn Affairs, whether the Foreign Office has any information that lines of railway are being built from Nertchinsk to Vladivostok and Port Arthur, via Tsitsikar, at the cost of the recently founded Russo-Chinese Bank, the engineers being French, and that this bank made the identity of the gauge of these lines with that of the Russian railways, which differs from that of other European Countries, the first condition of its advances?

No such information has been received.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he will state when the original design for the breakwater at Port Ness, Island of Lewis, was prepared, and by whom?

The original design of the first pier or breakwater constructed at Port of Ness was prepared by Messrs. D. and T. Stevenson, Civil Engineers, in January, 1883, but another and more extensive breakwater, designed by Messrs. D. and C. Stevenson, Civil Engineers, in 1891, is now in course of construction. But, the latter design has been restricted for the reasons I have already stated to the hon. Member in reply to a previous question on the same subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can now state why the Highland Railway Company have failed to construct Railways No. 2 and 5 (one of which is a Railway of two miles only), as provided under The Highland Railway (New Lines) Act, 1890?

The Highland Railway Company inform me that Railway No. 5, which is only a few hundred yards long, is engaging their attention, and that No. 2 was not constructed because there was reasons for contemplating a change of circumstances in connection with the Military Establishment at Fort George. The Company have a Bill in Parliament to revive the powers to construct this Line, and the Company and the War Department are arranging clauses for the protection of the interests of the latter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any information that within a year a tariff will be introduced by the French Government in Madagascar of a highly protectionist character, and that British merchants trading to and in that island will no longer enjoy Most-Favoured-Nation treatment, and the old privileges enjoyed hitherto, in their commercial intercourse with Madagascar?

We have no such information.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any section, and, if so, what clauses in the Light Railways Bill govern the action of municipalities with reference to the making and working (by taking tolls, etc.) of tramways within the areas over which they have jurisdiction; and, will the Bill, if passed into law, give them full power to place carriages and take tolls on corporation tram lines, and will it have any retrospective action?

If the hon. Member will refer to Clause 3, he will see that—

"The Council of any County Borough or District may, if authorised by an Order under the Act, undertake, themselves, to construct and work a light railway."

The Bill does not deal with existing tramways.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Wexford, Mr. THOMAS HEALY, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that a Sheriff's sale is announced to take place on the 18th instant on the holding of Mr. Harold Lett, of Kilgibbon, in the county of Wexford, for half-a-year's rent due to Captain Philip Alcock, which only accrued due on 1st November last; (2) if he is aware that the rent on Mr. Lett's holding was increased by the landlord, in the year 1866, from £82 to £200, the increased letting value being the result of a large expenditure of money by the tenant and his predecessors in title; and that the rent of £200 was reduced by the Land Commission to £124, which includes £7 10s. a year for buildings erected by the tenant's predecessor out of his own money, though, at the hearing, the landlord was unable to show that he expended a penny on buildings on the holding; (3) is he further aware that an application by Mr. Lett to Captain Alcock for a reduction of the £7 10s., which is fixed on the buildings, was refused, as was also a request for time for payment until the 21st instant; and (4) whether, in the promised Land Bill, he, will insert provisions protecting tenants from being rented on their own improvements, and providing that all improvements shall be deemed to have been made by the tenant unless the landlord is able to prove the contrary?

I am informed that the amount of the writ in this case was one year's rent, with costs, though it appears probable this included the half-year's hanging gale, not payable in ordinary circumstances till May next. I am not in a position to confirm the alleged increase in the rent of the holding in 1866, or the accuracy of the grounds assigned for the increased letting value; but I understand that, in 1887, the rent was fixed by the Land Commissioners at £124, which included a sum of £7 10s. as rent of the dwelling-house on the farm. I have not been able to obtain information to enable me to answer the third paragraph. At the sale announced to take place yesterday, the tenant, Mr. Lett, paid the amount of the writ, and the proceedings are consequently at an end. With regard to the fourth paragraph, I can only repeat that I cannot make any statement in reference to the provisions of the Land Bill prior to its introduction.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the price of timber and underwood has depreciated quite as much through the result of foreign competition and preferential railway rates as agricultural produce, he would consider the propriety of extending relief from the payment of Schedule B under this head, where the occupier (owner or tenant) can prove that there has been no profit?

Assessments under Schedule B are made on the "annual value" of the land assessed. Where, as in the case of lands occupied for the purposes of husbandry, the profit is derived from an annual crop, it is possible to allow relief where the occupier can show that the actual profit realised for the year of assessment has fallen short of the sum assessed. But any provisions having this object in view would be inapplicable to the case of land occupied for the purposes of forestry, where the crop is not annual, and where the profit is derived from the returns of a series of years. In such cases, if the profits over the series of years fall, there might be ground for applying for a reduction of the assessment.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, (1) whether he is aware that the officer in charge of the coastguard station at Youghal, county Cork, recently employed coastguardsmen in order to enforce his claim to a disputed right of way through the grounds of his next door neighbour; and (2) whether it is competent for an officer in Her Majesty's Service to utilise men under his command for the purpose of asserting a private claim?

No such action as that alleged in the first paragraph of the Question was taken in. the case referred to. The occupant of the house adjacent to the one inhabited by the Inspecting Commander of the Coastguard at Youghal, endeavoured to stop a long-established right of way by a barrier of shrubs planted in barrels. A coastguard man, proceeding to the Commander's residence on his daily routine of duty, moved aside one of the obstacles to admit of his passing to the house. I am informed that the barrier has been removed and the right of way confirmed as the result of legal proceedings which have been taken. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cadets on board the training ship Worcester are now suffering from the mumps; whether any of those afflicted take their share of sweeping decks; and, if so, how many; is he aware, that those now suffering or recovering from this disease attend school, mess in the same room, and sleep on the same deck with other cadets not suffering from mumps; and, will he state who is responsible for tins neglect of ordinary sanitary laws?

I am unable to add anything to what I stated on Monday respecting the outbreak of mumps on the Worcester, and can simply repeat that the Board of Trade have no authority over the sanitary arrangements on board the Worcester, which is within the jurisdiction of the Port of London Sanitary Authority. That the statutory powers of the Sanitary Authority do not extend to an outbreak of mumps, but only to certain scheduled diseases of a dangerous nature. That I am assured that the cadets are under strict medical supervision, and that every precaution is taken by isolation and otherwise to prevent the spread of the disease.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, (1) whether his attention has been called to the recent reports of Mr. Longford, Vice-Consul at Tokyo, from which it appears that the value of the foreign trade of Japan had risen from 64 million dollars in 1885 to over 230 million dollars in 1894, and is now more than half the value of the entire foreign trade of China; (2) whether this trade shows signs of still further increase owing to the great opening up of the country caused by the recent war; and, (3) whether, in view of the exceedingly keen competition among the various European Nations and the United States to secure this trade, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Commercial Attaché to our Legation at Tokyo, whose sole duty it shall be to assist British merchants to obtain as large a share in this trade as possible?

The figures are correctly quoted from Mr. Longford's Reports, and from the Return published for the first half of 1895 (Annual Series No. 1,650) the trade would appear to be still increasing. Mr. Brennan, of Her Majesty's Consular Service, has already been instructed to visit the Treaty Ports of China, Japan and Corea, and to report to us to what extent and in what way British trade has been affected by the recent war between China and Japan, and as to what steps should be taken for its promotion in the future. Until this Report has been received it would be premature to consider the suggestion made in the last paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether ho if aware that there is no trained nursing staff in any of the hospitals at Aden, so that the garrison there is at a disadvantage compared with other garrisons under the Government of India; and that one of such hospitals is a general European hospital, in charge of a civil surgeon, to which patients are brought from ships of all nations; whether he will communicate with the Resident at Aden and request suggestions for remedying the above deficiency; and whether he will ascertain the amount of support given to the general hospital by mercantile shipping companies?

I am aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, but I may observe that there arc several garrisons in India to which no trained European nursing staff is attached. I will communicate with the Government of India as to the suggestions made by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the bacon trade of Ireland is suffering from severe competition from Denmark and other countries; that the quality of Irish pigs is rapidly deteriorating; that, owing to the prevalence of swine fever in some districts in Ireland and Scotland, the import to Ireland of breeding swine is prohibited, and that consequently the breed cannot be improved; and, whether he will have an inquiry made into the practicability of effecting the desired importation without danger of spreading disease?

The Irish Veterinary Department has no official information of the effect produced on the Irish bacon trade by the competition of Denmark and other countries. I have no evidence to show that the quality of Irish pigs is rapidly deteriorating; but it is no doubt important to improve the breed of pigs in Ireland in order that Irish bacon may compete successfully with that of other countries. Owing to the prevalence of swine fever in Great Britain, the importation of swine into Ireland has been prohibited since January, 1894. The Department is considering the conditions under which some relaxation of the restrictions upon the importation of swine may be permitted, and a final decision on the subject will be taken at an early date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been called to the great delay in payment of results fees to national school teachers, the time occupied by the Education Office in the calculation of these fees taking eight weeks instead of hours; whether adequate reasons exist why a definite period cannot be fixed within which payment of these fees to the teachers shall be made; and, if he will take any steps to remedy the matter complained of?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, as a rule, results fees are paid to teachers within a month, or thereabouts, from the date of the examination, and that it is not correct to represent that eight weeks is the period occupied in the payment of these fees. It not infrequently happens, however, that payment within the month is not practicable in individual cases owing to the necessity that arises for further inquiries, but delay in such cases is unavoidable, and I am assured that as a general rule the fees are paid within a month.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if inquiry is made, and, if so, of what nature, into the rateable value of a parish before sanction is given to a proposed loan to a School Board, and what limit, if any, is put to the amount of the loan?

The Committee of Council do not inquire into the rateable value of a school district before sanctioning a loan to a School Board. In the absence of special circumstances, the whole cost of the school, exclusive of site, legal expenses, extra rooms for instruction authorised by the Code, residences, if any, and central halls, must be kept within the sum of £10 per child accommodated.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, when the new Warrant in reference to the Ordnance Store Department is likely to be promulgated; and whether the Government will withdraw the notices issued some time ago to upwards of 40 officers of the Department, of less than 10 years service in the Department, requiring them to rejoin their regiments, these officers having equal claims with those of 10 years' service and up wards in the Department, all having entered under similar conditions under the Warrant of 1880?

The Warrant for the reorganisation of the Ordnance Store Department will be very shortly submitted for Her Majesty's approval. It is not contemplated to withdraw the notice, as the officers referred to were, under the existing Warrant, appointed to the Department for fixed terms of five years, on the expiry of which they are due to rejoin their regiments.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, if any date has been fixed for the trial of Patrick M'Quaide, for some time past and still a prisoner in Dundalk Jail; what was the specific charge upon which M'Quaide was arrested; are witnesses procurable to sustain that charge; and if so, does any special reason exist for denying to this man the common right of speedy trial; is he aware that M'Quaide's wife and six children are reduced to a condition of great distress; and will he undertake to have this man arraigned without further unavoidable delay?

This question appears to be based on a misconception of the facts. M'Quaide, who had been evicted from his farm, over which a Receiver had been appointed, was at the instance of the latter summoned before the Receiver Judge for interfering with the possession of the Receiver by trespassing upon and cutting the grass growing upon the evicted holding. M'Quaide failed to appear to the summons to justify or excuse his conduct, and was by the Receiver Judge committed to prison for contempt of court in interfering with the court's officer. The hon. Member will, therefore, see that this is a matter between M'Quaide and the Receiver Judge, and that there can be no arraignment or trial of M'Quaide at the instance of the Executive, who, as the hon. Member has already been informed, are entirely irresponsible for the proceedings in the case. M'Quaide's wife and children are not, so I am informed by the local police, in a state of destitution, as alleged in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General is aware that English periodicals addressed to British marine officers and sailors, care of British Consuls in foreign ports, are in a large percentage of cases lost or stolen; and whether, having regard to the great disappointment of English officers and sailors abroad arising therefrom, it is possible to institute some system of registration or other protection against theft of English newspapers addressed to the care of Consulates at Indian, Chinese, and Japanese ports?

The Postmaster General has received no complaints which would lead him to suppose that losses of periodicals addressed to officers and seamen of Her Majesty's ships at foreign ports are at all numerous, but if the hon. Member has any evidence to the contrary, and will submit it to the Postmaster General, the matter will be inquired into. Newspapers for Her Majesty's ships at Indian, Chinese, and Japanese ports are forwarded in separate mail bags addressed to each ship, and in ordinary course would not come into the hands of the British Consuls at those ports.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. MOON), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, although by 39 and 40 Vic. c. 53 Civil Servants in certain unhealthy places can reckon two years' service as three, many who from length of service would be entitled to receive the maximum pension are detained in unhealthy places in the far East and elsewhere until they reach the age of 60; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of remedying this hardship?

If by residence in an unhealthy climate a Civil Servant becomes permanently incapacitated for duty before 60 years of age, he can retire on a special rate of pension, but if his health does not break down, the Superannuation Act requires him to continue his service for pension till 60. I see no hardship in this.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to meet the expenses of the advance to Akasheh by resort to the Caisse of the Public Debt; and, if so, whether the consent of the six Commissioners has been sought and obtained to such an operation? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether a majority carries a decision?

The Governments of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia, have been informed that the military operations about to be undertaken against the Dervishes will require an expenditure in excess of the amount which the Egyptian Government have at their own absolute disposal, and that Her Majesty's Government trust, therefore, that the Caisse will authorise for this object the expenditure of £500,000 out of the General Reserve Fund of over £2,500,000 which has accumulated, and is held applicable to expenses of an extraordinary character. With regard to the Supplementary Question, I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give me notice.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the Question.

I have answered the first part of it, and the answer to the second part will be given by the First Lord of the Treasury in reply to a subsequent Question by the Leader of the Opposition.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state at what date the telegraphic communication between Korosko and the Wells of Murad, mentioned in Lord Cromer's Report (Egypt, No. 1, 1896) of 3rd February 1896, was established?

The telegraphic line from Korosko to the Murad Wells was commenced in May and finished in June 1895.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he had noticed a statement in the Press that the French Government had issued a semi-official communication in which it is stated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had received a letter from the English Ambassador at Paris informing him of the project of a military expedition to Dongola; and that, on a subsequent conversation with Lord Dufferin, he had called his attention to the gravity of the consequences of such an expedition; whether the letter in question did announce a Military expedition to Dongola; whether the French Minister of Foreign Affairs did call the attention of Lord Dufferin to the gravity of the consequences of the expedition: whether any subsequent communications in regard to the expedition have been exchanged between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government; and, whether he will put the House in a position to discuss this expedition, as suggested, upon the Vote on Account, with a full knowledge of the attitude of the French Government in regard to it?

The French Minister for Foreign Affairs has informed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris that he repudiates all responsibility for the statement in question, that he had not made or authorised any such communication to the Press, and that it must have been made by some misinformed person. The French Government have been informed of the intended advance up the Valley of the Nile, but have as yet made no communication in reply.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have exchanged views with the French Government upon the advance upon Dongola; and, if so, what is the position taken up by France in regard to the proposed expedition?

The French Government were informed by Her Majesty's Ambassador of the proposed operations and of the reasons for which they were to be undertaken. No reply has yet been received as to the position taken by France.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman at what period these representations were made to the French Government?

The representations were made as soon as a decision was arrived at by the Government of this country.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has observed that the Commander of the Italian troops in Africa has received from his Government full powers to evacuate Kassala; (2) whether, in view of this announcement, the Anglo-Egyptian expedition into the Soudan is to be continued with a view to the Italians retaining Kassala; and (3), whether the declaration of the Italian Government that it will regard with pleasure any steps for an advance by the Egyptian Government in the direction of Dongola, with a view to the position of the Italian forces at Kassala, has been renewed by the present Italian Ministry?

No, Sir, the Italian Government have decided not to evacuate Kassala unless military considerations render it impossible to hold it, and have so informed Her Majesty's Government. The declaration referred to in the third paragraph of the question was made by the present Italian Ministry.

Is there any confirmation of the statements in the papers of this morning that the Italians have evacuated Kassala?

No, Sir; we have reason to believe that that statement is incorrect.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Italians are our allies in any sense more than the inhabitants of any other country with whom we are on friendly terms?

There is no agreement of alliance between the two countries, but the circumstances in which they are placed in East Africa are such as to point to the expediency of friendly co-operation between the two Governments in defence of their common interests.

Do I understand, then, that when the Italians are spoken of as our allies nothing more is meant than the friendly relation which exists between this and any other country?

That is exactly the question I have already answered. ["Hear, hear."]

May I ask whether her Majesty's Government were consulted by the Italian Government before they entered upon the expedition?

Order, order! Notice should be given of that Question.

I beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, whether it is the fact, as stated in the Madras Land Revenue Reports, that in the Madras Presidency, during the 12 years 1879–80 to 1890–1, 850,528 tenants of the State had, for the collection of the land revenue, their land sold by auction to the extent of 1,984,985 acres, and that of this area 1,183,851 acres were bought in by the Government for want of bidders at the auctions; whether, in the years 1890–1, 1891–2, 1892–3, and 1893–4, the number of State tenants thus sold up was 10,115, 11,118, 12,400, and 14,198 respectively; whether, in the year 1893–4, property, personal and real, of defaulting tenants, of the estimated value of 795,922 rupees, was put up for sale, and under forced sales realised only 209,638 rupees; and whether, out of this amount, property valued at 25,592 rupees was bought in by the Government for 2,300 rupees; whether, with reference to the evictions noticed in Sir Richard Temple's speech on the Indian Budget in 1892, the Secretary of State in 1893 called upon the Madras Government for a Report, and whether that Report has yet been received; whether nearly 3½ million acres of assessed cultivable land are now lying waste in the Madras Presidency; whether, in the year 1893–4, 5,374,303 notices of demand for land revenue were issued, and 209,517 notices for sale of property, and whether fees upon these notices are levied from defaulters; and, whether, looking to the above facts, he will cause special inquiry to be made with a view to an improved system of land revenue assessment and collection in the Madras Presidency?

I cannot trace any reference to Madras evictions in the speech of Sir Richard Temple on the Indian Budget in 1892, but it is the case that my predecessor invited the Government of Madras to report whether some improvement could not be introduced in the method of dealing with land revenue defaulters. I learn from Madras that the Government are considering the matter, and hope to report shortly. When the Report is received the matter will receive the careful attention of the Secretary of State in Council. I do not propose to trouble the House with remarks on all the figures cited in the Question; some of those figures I have been able to identify in the Reports of the Madras Revenue Board, while others appear to be incorrect. But I may add that the Question has been receiving much attention in Madras for some years past; and the "number of revenue defaulters in Madras whose property, real and personal, was sold for arrears" had been reduced from 130,714 in 1883 to 10,115 in 1890.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is now in a position to state on what day he proposes to introduce the Irish Land Bill?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the apparently authorised statement that the promised Land Bill of the Government is prepared, he can now state when that Measure will be introduced?

said, he proposed to introduce the Irish Land Bill on the Monday following the reassembling of the House after the Easter holidays.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that the Inquiry recently held by the Home Office into the circumstances attending the death of a man named Mahony, of 112, Brandon Street, Walworth, showed that the deceased was attended by an unqualified medical practitioner; whether Coroner Wyatt, in arriving at the cause of death in this case, was guided or supported by the opinion, or decision of a qualified physician; if so, what was his name; and, what were the grounds upon which the coroner decided that death was due to natural causes?

Yes, I am informed that this man was attended at one period of his illness by an unqualified practitioner. I do not know whether the coroner sought the advice of a qualified physician; but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, it has never been alleged that the death was due to other than natural causes, and, under these circumstances, I see at present no ground for further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the promise of the Government that Volunteer officers on joining battalions should receive £10 towards the expense of their uniform, and a further £10 on passing their examinations, whether this second £10 will be paid to officers already joined, but not yet passed their examinations on their successfully doing so?

The object of the Grant is to enable the vacant Volunteer commissions to be filled up. I fear we cannot make it retrospective.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the fact that in the Return of the rating of Government property in the United Kingdom, recently laid upon the Table, the particulars of the valuation of each Government building are not given wherever more than one such building is situated in any one Electoral Division in Ireland; and whether, since the absence of details is, as far as Ireland is concerned, particularly noticeable in the case of the county and city of Dublin, he will lay upon the Table an amended Return showing such details in respect of those two districts?

The Return was prepared exactly in the form in which it was ordered by the House, and, therefore, needs no amendment. The information required by the hon. Member is shown in the Valuation Lists supplied to the local authorities, but if he has any difficulty in obtaining it from them, I shall be happy to send it to him if he will communicate with me.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the method recently adopted to ascertain the views of the constables of the Metropolitan Police Force, as regards the question of a boot allowance in lieu of contract boots, is considered by the authorities to be the best method of ascertaining the views of the constables upon a matter which it is desirable to know whether discontent prevails or not?

The method actually employed to ascertain the opinion of the force on the question of the boot allowance appeared to me to be the most suitable for that particular purpose. I cannot undertake to say whether or not I should consider it suitable in every case.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the fact that 25 days and two Judges have been occupied in trying an election petition, which has failed on every point; whether he is aware that the successful respondent must be mulcted in any case of several thousand pounds; and whether he will consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill to provide that Election Judges shall have the power of summarily stopping petitions which in their opinion are frivolous or vexatious until adequate security for costs has been paid into Court?

I must refer the hon. Member to my answers to previous Questions; I have been in communication with some of Her Majesty's Judges, and the matter will receive full consideration as soon as the pending trials have concluded.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty that we are relieved under the Cyprus Convention of 1878 of any engagement under that Convention to defend the integrity of the Sultan's dominions in Asia Minor, and in view of the statement in the Cyprus Convention that the Island of Cyprus was assigned to be occupied and administered by England in order to enable England to make necessary provision for the execution of such engagement, it is now the intention of the Government to evacuate the Island of Cyprus?

The answer is in the negative. We have no intention of the kind.

May I ask whether it is not the fact that the evacuation of Cyprus depends upon the Russians evacuating their latest conquests in Asia Minor?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, upon consideration, he is willing to grant a Committee to inquire into the charges made against Mr. J. Havelock Wilson, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough?

If I am rightly informed the charges have been and may again be the subject of investigation. I do not think that any Committee of this House would be a proper substitute for the ordinary tribunals; nor do I think it would be expedient to initiate a system by which Members who may be dissatisfied with the ordinary tribunals should be allowed to use a Committee of this House to investigate matters that are quite foreign to its functions.

May I ask if the Rules of the House forbid the formation of such a Committee?

I am not aware of any Standing Order which forbids it; but I should imagine it would be wholly unprecedented, and so far contrary to the practice of the House. More than that I could not say without investigation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have made any communications to Foreign Governments on the subject of the intended Military advance on the Nile; if so, what was the purport of such communications, and whether any communications have been received from Foreign Governments on that subject; whether he will state from what source the expenses of the proposed operations will be defrayed; and, whether any estimate has been formed of the amount?

Her Majesty's representatives at Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Rome, and St. Petersburg were instructed to communicate to the Governments to which they are respectively accredited the grounds upon which it had been decided to make an advance up the valley of the Nile, and they were desired to point out that, in order to meet the expenses of the expedition, a larger sum might be necessary than was actually at the disposal of the Egyptian Government, and that her Majesty's Government hoped the Caisse of the Public Debt would give its consent to the expenditure of half a million, if it be necessary, from the general reserve fund of 2½ millions which has accumulated and is applicable to extraordinary expenses. Replies to this communication have been received from the German, Italian, and Austrian Governments, but no answer has as yet been received from the French or the Russian Governments. The operations being undertaken in the interests of Egypt, the cost will naturally be defrayed out of Egyptian funds. No exact estimate can be formed at this stage and in this country of what the eventual expenditure will be.

May I ask whether the House is to discuss the matter to-morrow without having before it the explanations which have been given to Foreign Governments as to the grounds for the expedition?

I do not think any further Papers can at this stage be laid before the Heuse of Commons.

Perhaps it would be to the convenience of the House if the First Lord of the Treasury would tell us what will be the business next week. I would also ask whether it is intended to bring forward the Education Bill before Easter or after Easter. I would like to point out that the Vote on Account is proposed to be taken for a most unusual period—a period for which I do not recollect its having been asked for before—and I hope at all events that the First Lord will consider whether, regarding the state of affairs generally, it is not inexpedient to ask for a Vote on Account for a longer period than usual?

With regard to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, an appeal was made to me, in connection with the new Rules of Procedure in regard to Supply, not to go back to the ancient practice of the House of taking a Vote on account for a period of four months. The reason why the House has in recent years been unwilling to give so long a period for a Vote on account was that, under the old Rule governing procedure, it was competent for the Government, and it was the habit, not to take Supply during the active months of April, May, June, and July, or at least more than they were positively compelled to take it. Therefore, if the House wished for any control whatever over the machinery of administration, it was necessary to compel the Government to ask for another Vote on account. But under the new Rule that necessity is avoided; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I believe the operation of the new Rule will be to give quite unusual and even absolutely unprecedented facilities for the discussion of any question of public importance, or for any criticism of the administration of the Government which the Opposition desire to bring on.

That may be true with reference to Supply generally; but it would not be true with reference to a particular Vote—for instance, the Foreign Office Vote. If we were to part with that for a period of four months, there would be no other opportunity of discussing it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point.

I think I have already given a pledge to pursue a course which surely would be much more for the convenience of the House than the practice of putting down Votes on account. That pledge is that, whenever the Opposition desire it, I will bring forward some Vote on which this question of foreign policy can be discussed. That pledge I am quite willing to repeat, and I would point out that by the House dealing with the Foreign Minister's salary on the Vote on account, that Vote will not be disposed of, and will remain to be passed in the present year, and therefore it can be put down again if hon. Gentlemen desire to criticise the general foreign policy of Her Majesty's Ministers. As to the question about the course of business, I propose to take the Vote on account tomorrow, and I hope that Committee of Supply also will be taken. Therefore, I will put down the Diseases of Animals Bill as the first order on Monday, and the Report of the Vote on account as the second Order of the Day, so that there may be a further discussion of questions interesting to the House if, as I anticipate, the Diseases of Animals Bill does not take any undue portion of the evening. The next stage of the Naval Works Bill I should also hope to take on Monday. I do not know whether that will be possible; and, if not, it will probably be taken on Thursday. I do not like to give any further pledge with regard to next week's business, until I see how business proceeds at the end of this week; but I certainly intend to afford my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Council an opportunity of introducing the Education Bill before we separate for the Easter holidays. [Cheers.]

A promise was given that on the Vote on account the Protectorates Vote should be put down second. Does that mean that the statement with regard to the Protectorates which was promised is to be made in Committee of Supply?

My right hon. Friend will be ready when called upon to make that statement; but, according to the rumours which have reached me, I do not think we shall be able to deal with the Protectorates Vote to-morrow. It will be put down, however, on the chance that the Debate on the foreign policy of the Government does not take the whole of the evening.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that this is a matter which is to be Debated in reference to Report on Monday? In previous years, when a Vote on account has been for a shorter period, a full night has been given to the Vote, and a full night to the Report of the Vote.

That has occasionally occurred; but I do not think it has been the general practice of the House, and certainly could not be when one night a week is given to Supply. I am anxious to make what progress we can with the financial business before the 31st of March, and if we did not get the Vote on account difficulty would ensue.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he cannot have this statement with regard to the Protectorates made to-morrow or on Report of the Vote on account? Or will he put down the Protectorates Vote first for an early Friday?

I will certainly consider that, especially if I find that the course meets the wishes of a large section of the House.

said, that it could most conveniently be discussed in Committee, and he should not at the present stage go into detailed criticism. But he would suggest that it was quite impracticable to take the Committee stage on Monday, if the Government were to follow the example set by the late Government. Between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Naval Works Bill of last year, all the plans on which the Admiralty proposed to proceed were laid in full before the House, and hon. Members had ample time given for considering and examining them. If similar plans were to be laid before the House in connection with the present Bill, it would be impossible for hon. Members to consider them before Monday. There were many new Members to whom the subject was an entire novelty, and he hoped an assurance would be given that the course of last year would be followed. Explanations would certainly be looked for in respect of some of the new proposals in the Bill—such, for example, as the portentous development of the late Government's scheme for a dockyard at Gibraltar. The original scheme of last year was for a single dock at an estimated cost of £360,000. In Committee the Government agreed to retain the option of making more than one dock. But the present Government proposed to make three docks, and practically four [Ministerial cheers], because the original dock was to be extended in length so as to serve, on necessity, as a double dock. He agreed that if there were to be a dockyard establishment at Gibraltar at all, it was better to have two docks than one dock; but the cost of the new proposals was no less than £2,670,000, or an increase of nearly £2,500,000 over the Estimate of the late Government. The House was entitled to know how the expenditure had reached such a sum, and further, where the additional docks were to be placed. He remembered from the plans of last year that it was with some difficulty that a second dock could be squeezed in; and he thought that great restrictions of space must have been necessary to get in three docks. The only other new point on which he wished at this stage to say a word was the proposal to build a naval college to take the place of the Britannia. He did not object to the idea of substituting for an old hulk a naval college on shore, but he asked the right hon. Gentleman to pause before committing himself to Dartmouth as the site of it. As far as he was advised, there was no reason whatever for the selection of that site, except the utterly irrelevant one, that the Britannia, was lying off that place now. The only good reason which had been advanced in favour of Dartmouth was that there was a cricket field, tennis ground, and other shore equipment there, some of which he assented to himself, and that something would be lost if they departed from that neighbourhood. If he had known that the additions to the shore equipment of the Britannia, to which the late Board assented during their term of office, would be made a reason for making Dartmouth the site of a new college, that assent would certainly not have been given. He did not believe that Dartmouth in itself was a good site. Apart from that, he regarded it as one of the great misfortunes that had to be admitted in the present management of the Navy—a really national misfortune—that all the naval establishments were along the south coast of England. ["Hear, hear!"] There were strategical and historical reasons why the great naval establishments should be where they are; but there were no such reasons why the Naval College for Cadets should be on the south coast, and particularly why it should be at Dartmouth above all other places. Of course, it was quite impossible that every part of the country should share alike in the expenditure of a public department; but, on the other hand, he did not recognise the right to monopoly of any part of the country in regard to naval establishments. It meant that the Navy became very much a south of England force. They lost the brain, energy, and muscle of Scotland, and to a large extent of the north of England. He did not want to make special claims for particular localities, but, as a Scotch Member, he maintained that there were places in Scotland and others in England quite as suitable as Dartmouth, and more so, for a naval college. There was the whole United Kingdom to select from; and, having in view the local interest which the Navy had failed to excite because it was concentrated in the south of England, and the value of such interest in the building up of the Navy, he appealed to the First Lord not to commit himself to the Dartmouth site.

assured the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty, that the Navy deeply appreciated all the talent and energy he brought to the discharge of the duties of his office. He sympathised with the hon. Gentleman in his lamentation that they had not the advantage of Scotch brain and muscle in the Navy, but that was not their fault in the south of England. They would welcome the hard-headed Scotchmen, but they preferred to join the Army rather than the Navy. With regard to the question of substituting a college on shore for the Britannia, he begged to assure the First Lord and his advisers that naval opinion was very much divided upon it. Prominent officers and prominent medical men also had written finding fault with the site proposed; but he held strongly that the Admiralty were almost bound by their own acts in the matter. The Manning Committee recommended the establishment of training ships in every mercantile port round the coast, mainly with the idea that they should be a nursery for seamen for the Royal Navy. It was an illogical proceeding, since this House had sanctioned the establishment of a certain number of reformatory schools and training ships for the supply of the Mercantile Marine, that young officers for the Royal Navy should be trained in a college on shore, while the sons of poor parents were to be trained in ships in harbours. He failed to see that what was good for one class was not equally good for the other. At the bottom of this whole agitation he believed was the desire of the officers and instructors to have comfortable houses on shore, instead of being compelled to live on board ship. But he did not care twopence about the officers or instructors; what he wanted was to see young cadets get such a training as would turn them into future Nelsons of the Service. The proposal, therefore, to have a college on shore would have his continued opposition, but if there was to be a college—which God forbid—then he would rather see it on the Firth of Forth, or anywhere rather than Dartmouth. If there was to be a fixed site then they should have to look all over the country for a good site. There were many advantages for a site on the Solent—either at Southampton Water or anywhere in the neighbourhood. There would be inconveniences, but there would be conveniences. It was close to Portsmouth dockyard, and that would be a valuable addition to the efficiency of such an institution. The lads at Dartmouth saw nothing of the dockyards. He was not oblivious of the fact that the Britannia had been moved to Dartmouth for certain reasons, and that they would have to sacrifice all that had been laid out in that locality if they departed to a new site. But if they were going to build a great college on shore, they must entertain the question of sites, and be prepared to hear arguments in favour of this or that position. So long as they had a ship, those arguments would not prevail, for they could move a ship up and down just where they liked. He had heard nothing and had seen nothing in the Bill to lead him to change his views in opposition to this college. He could conceive later on that naval authorities would arise who would propose that the age should be extended to 17 or 18, and would they then propose to keep them at the college on shore for a year or two? Naval opinion would say no, and that they should be sent straight to sea. There was much to be said for that view, and he did not know that it would not be a wiser course than the present one. He thought the whole matter required more consideration than it had received at present. If they decided to raise the age to 15 or 15½ he thought it would be worth while to very carefully consider whether they should continue the establishment on shore at all, or whether they should not entertain the idea of sending the cadets straight to sea. He ventured to enter his humble protest against this question of a college on shore, for which nearly £200,000 was put down, and which would not be completed until 1900. They needed an institution to carry on their torpedo instruction much more than this college, and it would be far better to spend the money on such an institution than on the proposed college, where everything, he supposed, would be provided to make life happy and comfortable—a very bad preparation for the first three or four years they would have to spend at sea. He did not suppose he should convert the First Lord, but at the same time the First Lord could not convert him.

said, that, in accordance with the notice he had given, he rose to move: ''That this Bill be read this day six months." He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field) that it is futile to imagine that any representations which might be made would influence the Gentlemen connected with the Admiralty. He was quite aware that the Bill would be passed into law, and that all the plans of the Admiralty would be carried out, but that did not, he conceived, release him from what he considered to be his duty of uttering a protest against this increased expenditure in the Department of the Navy. He made this protest from the Irish point of view. Objection might be taken to the programme of the Government from various points of view, such as that taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who objected to the establishment of a college for naval cadets upon shore. He sympathised with what he said, and he thought that nine-tenths of the men connected with the sea would consider it a preposterous proposal to substitute for a training ship a college on shore. He spoke from some little experience of the sea, and he held that it was utterly impossible to train men for the Navy or for work aboard ship in a college on shore. It was an absurdity, to which it was not wonderful to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman object. But he took objection to the Bill from the Irish point of view. He found himself in the position of an Irish representative, representing some thousands of the taxpayers who would have to find the enormous sum which was required for the increase in the Navy. These people objected to maintaining this increased Navy because they felt there was no need for it, and that, so far from tending to keep the peace and preserve the balance of power, it would tend towards war in the long run. His constituents sent him to say that if millions were to be spent upon the Navy, in building docks, in improving barracks and so on, and that if they were to pay their share of the money, some of that money ought to be spent in their country. Nobody could deny that the Irish taxpayers paid their full share. That question was under discussion at the present time, and it could not be definitely dealt with until the Report of the Commission upon the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland was issued. But sufficient evidence was given before the Commission to make it absolutely certain to every impartial man that Ireland unquestionably, for all Imperial purposes, was taxed several millions a year beyond the amount which in proportion she should bear. That being so it made it all the more irritating to the Irish taxpayers that they should be asked to spend all this money, and to receive absolutely nothing in Ireland at all. A few thousand pounds were to be spent this year in improving Haulbowline dockyard, but that was a miserably inadequate share to come to the Irish people. The present Bill proposed to give £2,750,000 towards the programme of the Government, and so far as he could see, not one single sixpence of that vast amount would be spent in Ireland, or in the slightest degree for the benefit of the Irish people. He doubted whether any of the Unionist Members for Ireland would deny that there was a great deal in the claim which was perpetually made in this matter that the Irish people ought to have some share of the expenditure, and if the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Saunderson) and his friends would run the risk of displeasing the Government for a moment, they would be obliged to say that it was only a reasonable and fair demand that the Irish people made. That was to put his objection to the Bill upon what he considered to be the lowest ground. But, a part from the expenditure, they were opposed to the Bill because it carried on what they in Ireland, and a great many people in Great Britain, considered to be a perfectly fatal policy, which was certainly calculated to bring about an expenditure which in the end would be so ruinous as to place this country almost in the position Italy was in at the present time—practically a bankrupt condition—by increasing its Navy and taxing its people to keep afloat an enormous fleet which was of no earthly use to the people, and which was altogether out of proportion to the resources of the country. Italy, as he understood, had the third largest fleet in the world, and the result was that she was practically in a bankrupt condition. And for this country, rich as it was, if this expenditure went on, a time would come when it would find itself in the same miserable condition in which Italy was at present. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing this Bill, denied that any menace, or threat, or defiance was meant to any other country by this increase in the Navy. But, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, it was quite clear other countries in Europe did not take that view of the case. They considered that defiance was meant, because directly after the First Lord's statement they found that in various European countries the Navy of each was to be increased, following the example of England. Next year, if this country further increased the expenditure in the same direction, other countries would follow suit. It was said that the people of England must keep up their fleet and defend their shores. But if England was the highly-civilised country which people considered her sometimes to be, he would suggest that she should set an example by making a new departure in this matter. What would be the effect in the civilised world if, in the morning, instead of coming to Parliament and proposing to spend millions of money in building ships and making guns for the destruction of human life, the First Lord of the Admiralty or some other Minister came down and said they proposed to end this ruinous and extravagant competition by suggesting that the various nations of the world should come to an agreement to stop all warlike expenditure, and settle their affairs by arbitration? The right hon. Gentleman might say that a policy of that kind would meet with derision from abroad, but he himself believed that, if England led the way in this matter, other countries would follow her example, and before very long every nation in Europe would come to the conclusion that it was a barbarous institution to be continually arming and threatening the peace of the world. He objected to this Bill, not alone because he was opposed to this continual expenditure on armaments, but because he and large masses of his fellow countrymen in every part of the world considered that this increase in the Navy was specially directed against the United States of America. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman said that this scheme was prepared in November, before the trouble with Venezuela cropped up at all. But what he (Mr. Redmond) said was, that this Naval programme was commenced years ago, not by this but by the late Liberal Government, who ought, perhaps, to be blamed more than the present Government, because, whilst the latter always held this policy, the Liberals carried it out in the House, and in the country talked about peace, retrenchment, and reform. When he said this policy was directed against the United States, that contention could not be met by the First Lord saying the programme was commenced in last November. This policy of increasing the Navy was started some years ago, but if it had not been started they would not have had any trouble about Venezuela; nor would President Cleveland have sent his famous message had he not been worked up to the belief that this increase in the Navy of Great Britain was meant in the last resort as a menace to and an attack upon the United States. He objected to this vast increase in warlike preparations because he believed it to be an uncivilised way of settling disputes, and he objected to it also because not a single penny of this money would be spent for the benefit of the Irish people. He noticed that the preamble of the Bill stated that the House of Commons most cheerfully granted this money to Her Majesty. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members might be cheerful, but he was not one bit cheerful about it, and the same remark applied to the vast majority of the Irish Members. It would be really asking too much to expect the Irish people to be cheerful about spending millions of money in Gibraltar, Hong Kong, and Simon's Bay. He moved the rejection of this Bill, not because there was any chance of carrying his Amendment, but because he, for one, intended on every opportunity to make an emphatic protest against this policy, which he believed to be ruinous to England, most unfair to Ireland, and which was disapproved of by the Irish people.

seconded the Amendment.

was afraid the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of this Bill forgot one fact, which was, that the British was a living, and not a dead nation, and that their naval policy was practically the maintenance of their national existence. He spoke as a Radical, but at the same time he looked upon the nation and the existence of the nation as far and away above party points and party quarrels. They, as a nation, had to maintain the highways over which their fleets pursued their course. They had the largest and most powerful commerce of any nation in the whole world, and it was well known that Great Britain at this moment was surrounded by many commercially jealous neighbours; therefore it was incumbent upon them, if they were to maintain their existence and their prosperity, and give their millions cheap bread, to have a Navy that could hold the highways of the ocean. There was no comparison between this country and Italy. Italy could not build her ships. England built her ships for her, and British workmen got the Italians' money for building their ironclads. Italy was naturally a poor country, with no iron, coal, lime, or anything of the kind. They were not a race of engineers like the Britons, but were a race of maccaroni eaters, therefore there was no comparison between the two peoples. He himself was strongly in favour of arbitration in the settlement of international disputes, but they could not arbitrate unless all the parties to the quarrel were agreeable to that course. He quite approved of the whole of this Bill so far as regarded the necessity for making provision for these grand ships they were building. He was glad that the necessity for providing docks had come to be recognised. It seemed to him that hitherto the Admiralty had been building ships and entirely neglecting docks. He approved entirely of the Bill, which he regarded as an absolute necessity. He thought, however, the docks that were to be made were far too greatly localised. He saw that three docks were to be constructed at Gibraltar, and this number was necessary; but £63,000, which was the amount stated in the Vote, was not nearly enough for the machinery that would be requisite.

remarked that the amount in question was set a part for permanent machinery. There would be on the ordinary Votes provision made for other machinery as the works progressed. This was only for machinery which was to be absolutely permanent.

asked, why were they not constructing a dock at the Cape?

We have taken money in the Estimates for a survey at the Cape.

thought it would have been better to have gone to the country right off, and told them that these kind of docks were necessary throughout the world.

I said so in my Statement.

said, that a dock was required at Aden, in the Persian Gulf, and at Ceylon. At this moment Great Britain was absolutely without a dock from Malta to Hong Kong. That was a fine state of affairs, and the Admiralty were only just awakening to the necessity of building docks for use in case of accident or other emergency. He considered that a more extensive policy should have been entered upon, and docks provided in the places he had mentioned as well as in several others. They had not a dock, for instance, in the east of Scotland. Suppose they had an engagement in the North Sea, where were they to put their damaged ships? In the same way they had any amount of harbours on the west coast of Ire- land, but not a single dock to put a ship into. He held that the policy of the late Liberal Government was simply scandalous, against the requirements of the age, and not at all in keeping, in spending millions on great ships and then not providing docks to put them into. He would have been glad to have seen this Vote doubled, so that they could have put docks in every part of the world where British men-of-war had to go. He expressed the hope that the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the Bill would withdraw his Amendment, and that the First Lord of the Admiralty would extend the Bill so that provision could be made for the construction of a dock on the Scotch and another on the Irish coast, so as to insure there being places of safety to which their ships could repair in case of any untoward accident happening them.

observed that the present Board of Admiralty was to be congratulated, and the late Board also in a lesser degree, in their being the first that had ever had the courage to face this question of the increase of dock accommodation. Docks were of inestimable importance, for without the accommodation which they afforded ships of the present day could not exist. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead, it would be impossible for the country to establish docks in every corner of the world, still less was it possible to establish docks in territory that did not belong to this country. The dock at Colombo was not large enough to receive, and had not the necessary plant to repair, a first-class cruiser, and he hoped that before long that state of things would be remedied. The late Civil Lord of the Admiralty referred at some length to the question of the Britannia, and the substitution of colleges on shore for the present hulks. Many opinions had been advanced on the question of the site. He would state a few facts bearing on the question. A ship for the training of naval cadets was first [introduced in 1857, the ship being the Illustrious at Portsmouth. In 1858 the Illustrious was found to be too small, and she was replaced by the Britannia, also at Portsmouth. The Britannia remained at Portsmouth until 1862, and was removed to Portland, where she remained more than a year. In 1863 the Britannia was towed to Dartmouth, and had been there ever since. That fact formed a strong case in favour of Dartmouth as a training station. The site at Dartmouth was an excellent one; there was none better. There was an unlimited supply of water, and everything that could conduce to the health and convenience of cadets and staff. It had been urged by some that there were not proper facilities for the cadets to carry on their nautical education. He was acquainted with Dartmouth, as he lived near, and as a harbour for boat sailing it was excellent. There were many boat clubs and private boats engaged in sailing. The harbour was not crowded like the Solent, where a boat could not go out without the danger of being run down by an excursion steamer. It was easily approached in the different states of the tide, and he was sure that the proposed college for cadets at Dartmouth, with a sloop attached, would be of the greatest advantage. Dartmouth, moreover, was not far from Plymouth, where the cadets would have the advantage of going over Plymouth dockyard and Her Majesty's ships. With regard to the suitability of Dartmouth as a site, there had been much correspondence in the newspapers. He saw a letter from the late Director General of the Medical Department, who said he reported against Dartmouth as a naval training station. That was 22 years ago, and——

I must remind the hon. Member that Dartmouth is a small item in the large amount of the Vote, and his observations are more suitable for Committee.

said, he would say no more on that subject, but point out, on the question of a training college, that the weight of naval opinion was in favour of substituting a college for the present hulks. If the Navy were polled, he believed it would be found that only a small minority would condemn the present site.

asked, if the First Lord of the Admiralty had satisfied himself as to the safety of the docks at Gibraltar when ultimately finished. Some were inclined to think there were too many docks at Gibraltar. He would also like to know whether the Admiralty proposed to take any steps towards making the docks at Bombay and Gibraltar large enough to take any of the large-sized ships now used in those waters. He believed the docks at Bombay were too narrow for any of our big ships, and the docks at Colombo were too small altogether. In the past many actions had been fought in those parts of the world, and ships had been considerably damaged. If new docks were built at the Mauritius, he thought the wants of the Navy there would be largely supplied. He was rather unorthodox about colleges and training ships. He did not think it mattered much whether boys were educated on shore or on board ships. They could, moreover, be educated just as well a little older as when they were ''caught'' so very young.

said, that this Vote authorised an expenditure of £2,750,000, whereas the Act of last year only authorised an expenditure of one million. That gave a slight idea of the extent to which this Bill would commit the House if passed. Under the Bill of last year the estimated expenditure was eight millions, but under the Bill of the present year that sum would be increased to £14,040,000. There was a passage in the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary for India on this subject last year, which he would quote to show the utterly unexpected and extravagant way in which the expenditure under the Naval Works Bill was increasing by leaps and bounds, pari passu, with the annual increase for the Navy. The noble Lord said last year's proposals involved an expenditure of £4,266,000, and the new proposals of the then Government a further expenditure of £4,315,000, making a total expenditure of £8,581,000, and it was shown by the Returns that only £13,000 of that sum would be spent in Ireland. The noble Lord said they all knew the Naval Estimates would lie largely added to, and he calculated on an increase of two millions, and doubted whether the revenue would stand it. That language showed that even the increase of last year under the Naval Works Bill was looked upon as a large demand, and he (Mr. Dillon) believed when called upon last year to vote an increase, the House had no idea what was before it, but under the present Bill the tax-payers would be committed to the extent of £14,040,000. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed that anyone who examined the Estimates and compared the forecast, as made by the Minister responsible for the Bill of last year, with the results which had since been worked out and which were incorporated in the Bill of last year, could arrive at no other conclusion than that this Bill, if passed into law, would involve the country in an expenditure immensely greater than the amount set down in the Estimates. ["Hear, hear!"] Last year they were told that the Admiralty, after careful investigation, had decided that it was necessary to build a dock at Gibraltar, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty asked for £360,000 for this purpose. But now, after the lapse of a year, the expense had jumped up to £2,764,000. That was a monstrous increase, and he asked what security the House had that the works would be executed for this sum. ["Hear, hear!"] On the contrary, the whole past experience of the House led them irresistibly to the conclusion that the total cost of these works when finished would exceed three millions of money. ["Hear, hear!" There was a million for the inclosure of the harbour.

said, the expenditure on the harbour itself remained at the same figure as before.

proceeded to speak of the works at Dover Harbour, about the necessity for which there was a general agreement in the House. The sum put down for this purpose was £1,900,000, but he had not the least doubt that this harbour would cost three millions. Taking the whole, of the works included in these Estimates, he believed this Bill would commit the House to an expenditure greatly larger than 14 millions. The First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that money was to be provided for a survey in Simon's Bay and the Mauritius, for the purpose of constructing docks there. The speech delivered by the hon. Member for Gateshead, in which he said it was the business of England to put down docks in every quarter of the globe where her ships were trading regardless of expense—a project which would involve an expenditure of £100,000,000—opened up a terrific prospect for future Chancellors of the Exchequer, and showed into what expenditure this line of policy would inevitably draw the taxpayers of the country. They saw the inevitable consequence of this policy recently in one of the French newspapers, which, commenting upon the increase in the English Navy, said that, as a result of that alarming and immense increase, the French Government had resolved to remodel and enlarge the French Navy. Last year we increased the Navy in consequence of the alliance between France and Russia. Would there be another increase proposed next year, in order to outstrip France1? Apart altogether from the Irish aspect of this question, he believed the time had come when, in order to protect the taxpayers of the country, every man should protest against these outrageous increases in naval armaments, and the consequent increased expenditure. He also desired to draw the attention of the House to the clause in this Bill providing that the surplus of the Revenue was to be made use of, first of all, in paying off any sum borrowed under the Naval Defence Act, 1895. That was a new departure in finance. This Bill captures the entire surplus of the year, which, through the Budget Act of last year, was at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed the time would come very soon when the taxpayers of the country would get sick of this enormous expenditure; and, so long as the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland were not fairly adjusted, the Irish Members were bound to oppose every increase of Imperial expenditure until Ireland got fair play in regard to the proportion she was called upon to pay. For these reasons he would support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill if it was pushed to a Division.

said that he would also support the rejection of the Bill, on the ground that the money ought not to be spent in the way proposed; also, because it was necessary to protest against the system of the Admiralty in submitting guesses in the form of Estimates, which had to be corrected next year. He strongly objected to new dockyards in the South of England, because there are plenty there already. He objected to the new dockyard to be called the Keyham Dockyard; it was really a new dock for Devonport. The Vote last year was £1,900,000; now it was £3,150,000, and it was probable another million would be asked for. This year £1,900,000 was asked for to be spent at Dover; and, if the present Scheme were carried out, six millions might have to be spent. We had plenty of dockyard accommodation at Chatham, Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Devonport; and he understood the new dockyard at Ivoyham was to enable us to build bigger ships at Devonport than we could build there at present. He would like to bear some better reason for the expenditure of these nine millions than bad been advanced by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He was glad to hear the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty say that some of this money should be spent in Scotland. In the last Liberal Cabinet the majority of Ministers were Scotchmen, and the vast bulk of Members returned by Scotland supported that Government. But nothing was done for Scotland while the Liberals were in office, and now, his hon. Friend being unmuzzled, asked that some of the money should be spent in Scotland. That was a matter which he had brought before the House over and over again during the past 10 years. The policy of spending all the money on the dockyards of the south, and entirely neglecting the north and east—the policy of putting all your eggs in one basket—could in the present circumstances be no longer defended by the Admiralty. He could understand the preference shown to the dockyards of the south in former years, when warships were built of oak, for the south was closer to the sources of that material. But all that had been changed. Ships were not built of oak now, but of steel and iron; yet, instead of going to the north, where iron and coal would be at their very doors, where they would get cheap labour and brains (a commodity which they had not got at the Admiralty), the Admiralty proposed to spend a further sum of nine millions on the dockyards in the south, far away from the sources of all the materials used in shipbuilding. Scotland was as heavily taxed as England, and more heavily taxed than Ireland, but she did not get her fair share of the money spent for Imperial purposes. In the Firth of Forth or in the Firth of Clyde there was a splendid position for an arsenal or a dockyard. There was a canal connecting the two Firths, and if that canal were developed by the Government they would have a splendid waterway for their ships from the German Ocean in the east to the west. Iron and coal and skilled labour were to be had there in abundance, so that the Admiralty might save thousands of pounds by building there; and a better place than the Clyde could not be found for training young cadets for the Navy. Besides, the dockyards of the south were difficult to defend, whereas it would be impossible for the enemy to get at a dockyard in the Firth of Forth or the Firth of Clyde. Turning from the home aspect of the question, he had to complain that the Admiralty did not seem to have any scheme in reference to dockyards abroad. It was first said by the late Government that we required only one dock at Gibraltar. The word " dock " in the scheme of the late Government was subsequently altered into docks. Now it was proposed to have three big docks at Gibraltar. As a sample of the way the Admiralty threw away the money voted to them by the House, he might mention that a large sum of money had been spent with a view to carrying out the policy decided on last year, and all the work that was done had to be undone under the new scheme. [Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: "No!"] He had it from a naval officer who had been at Gibraltar, that thousands of pounds had been wasted owing to an alteration in the plans. [Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: "No!"] Official replies, though made in perfect good faith, did not always convey the exact situation; but his experience was that the truth came out ultimately. The late Government were responsible for a blundering piece of work at Malta. Some clerk at the Admiralty looked at a plan of Malta and said, "We must have a fort there." The authorities pointed out that the fort was not required there, as there was a big hill between it and the creek which it was supposed to command. But the clerk wanted to throw away money, so he ordered that the fort should be built, and it was built. An Engineer officer was then sent to direct the placing of the guns on the fort; but he saw that, owing to the intervening hill, it was impossible to place the guns so that they might be able to play on ships in the creek, and consequently the expenditure on that piece of work was absolutely thrown away. He did not see how a dock was required at Simon's Bay. It would be far better to utilise the dock constructed at Cape Town, seven or eight miles from Simon's Bay.

said, hon. Members who had spoken had taken exception to this Bill on grounds contradictory in themselves. They described the proposed expenditure as reckless and extravagant, and in the same breath they denounced the Government for not spending more in the districts which they represented. ["Hear, hear!"] That the naval expenditure should be apportioned among the different parts of the United Kingdom, according to population or taxation, was not a principle on which any Board of Admiralty could proceed. [Cheers.] The present proposals were made after careful consideration of the needs of the fleet, and were thought to be best calculated to serve the purposes in view. He would remind hon. Members that, though this Bill represented the main section of the Government's Works policy, the ordinary Works Vote would also be proposed. The hon. Member for Caithness had at least agreed that money might be wisely spent in making efficient the dock and dockyard at Haulbowline; and in the Estimates there was a proposal to take the sum necessary for that purpose. He need not follow the hon. Member for Clare in the allegation that this policy was a menace to any other country. The First Lord of the Admiralty had answered it in respect of the shipbuilding programme, and the case was even stronger in regard to the Works policy. That case was put very strongly by the Civil Lord under the late Government. The Works Vote had not expanded in proportion to the expansion of the fleet. [Cheers.] One fact ought never to be forgotten—that every expansion of the fleet, whether in ships or in men, every change in armament of the small arms, brought a corresponding charge upon the Works Vote. ["Hear, hear!"] The discussion had shown that the general proposals of the Government in this Bill had the support of the majority of Members in every part of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Some questions of detail could be better discussed in Committee, but there were other questions on which the explanation of the Government could be given at once. The hon. Member for Caithness objected to any project for the extension of Keyham Dockyard; but that objection came too late. The present plan was submitted to the House by the late Government in almost the same form exactly, and the House approved of the plan. It was almost trifling with the House to ask it to reverse its decision on such an important question within less than a year.

explained that, while the late Government proposed to spend £1,900,000, the present proposal was for £3,900,000.

said, that the late Government's Estimate of £1,900,000 for Keyham Dockyard extension was made when the Admiralty could not be in possession of all the information necessary to the formation of an accurate Estimate. Steps were taken by the late Government to obtain that information; and when borings had been taken and the survey completed, the whole scheme was very carefully considered and submitted to the late House of Commons. The present Government had two alternatives. They might have accepted the Scheme, which had received the sanction of the House of Commons and been approved by their predecessors, asking the House to increase the Estimate, as further experience and greater knowledge had shown to be necessary; or they might have abandoned that Scheme and brought in a new one of a much less satisfactory kind, but covered by the expenditure originally contemplated. The Government concluded that it would be best in the interests of the nation and most consonant with the feelings of the House, as really giving effect to the policy which the House had approved, to increase the Estimate to the sum necessary for carrying out the plans. [Cheers.] The other large increase in the Estimate had been with reference to Gibraltar; and there the position was very different. The Works Bill of last year originally contemplated only one dock at Gibraltar with no considerable dockyard extension. But a very strong feeling was expressed in all quarters of the House as to the strategic importance of Gibraltar and the necessity for greater dock accommodation, and the late Government accepted an Amendment to the Bill, inserting the words "or docks" after "dock." The present Board of Admiralty had borne in mind the views expressed on this question by the experts on both sides of the House last year, and had determined to take advantage of the willingness which the House showed to do what the experts thought necessary. They, therefore, proposed to increase the length of the dock originally provided for, and to supplement that dock with two others of a smaller size. The accommodation thus provided would not be more than sufficient for the needs of the Fleet, and it would be difficult to find a position in the Mediterranean where the accommodation could be more easily afforded than at Gibraltar. As to the third dock, from the moment it was decided to lengthen the original dock and to add another, the Admiralty were compelled to alter, considerably, the scheme at first approved. The entrance to the docks had to be brought further into the harbour; and, that having once been done, it was found possible to get a third dock at a cost altogether disproportionate to the cost of building a similar dock independently. ["Hear, hear!"] The Admiralty had, therefore, made not only a useful, but an economic arrangement in building a third dock at Gibraltar. The two docks would be parallel, and the entrances to them would be brought further out in the harbour, and would not be carried as far inland as was at first contemplated. The hon. Member for Caithness, referring to the money which had been already spent by the Admiralty at Gibraltar, had stated that the many thousands of pounds expended would now be entirely wasted through the change of plans; but he could assure the hon. Member that the changes which had been made to meet the views expressed by that House would not involve any loss, but that every penny that had been laid out in beginning the work would have had to be expended in pursurance of the new plans. [''Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Gateshead and another hon. Member had referred to the question of dock accommodation in the East Indies. The question was doubtless one of considerable importance, and the Admiralty were giving very careful attention to it, and were considering whether in this and in certain other cases they could not avail themselves of mercantile docks which already existed, or might be constructed, and thus avoid the necessity of building docks themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the proposal of the Admiralty to provide dock accommodation at the Cape, the hon. Member for Caithness had suggested that we might utilise the docks already there; but the fact was that the dimensions and resources of those docks were incapable of supplying the needs of many of our ships, and would be quite unable to meet the needs of the ships of the future. ["Hear, hear!"] Another question which had aroused criticism in he course of the Debate was that of the proposed new Naval College in lieu of the Britannia. Hon. Members, he contended, would conceive an altogether wrong idea of what the Britannia was, and of the extent of her usefulness as a training school, if they had to rely only on the views which had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne, who seemed to be bitterly opposed to the idea that our future naval officers should begin their training in a college on shore rather than on board a ship. But as to the suitability of the Britannia for the purpose, he might remind the House that the Committee which sat in 1876 to consider the question of naval education, stated in effect that the hulk called the Britannia, bore no resemblance to a battleship, and that year by year she was becoming less like a ship, and more like a floating school. The change, therefore, from a ship like the Britannia, moored as she was to a college on shore, was not of such a great and startling character as the hon. and gallant Member would have led the House to believe. [''Hear, hear!"] There were many reasons beyond those of a sanitary kind why the substitution of a college on shore for the training of cadets would be a great improvement on the Britannia. The hon. and gallant Member had asked why, if this was so, the proposed change had not been made before. The proposal was not of recent date. It was an old one and had been approved by many naval men and different Boards of Admiralty. [''Hear, hear!"] He ventured to say that the main reason why the change had not been made 15 or 20 years ago, was because the Admiralty had not definitely fixed upon a site for the college, but had left the matter open to the House for discussion. The result was that local jealousies were aroused among hon. Members; the suitability of one part of the country was set up against that of another, and every Member whose constituency was on the coast, or who thought that the locality was suitable for the purpose, pushed forward its claims, and the result was that the scheme was not carried out. ["Hear, hear!'' and laughter.] As to the suitability of the site now decided upon at Dartmouth, he thought there could be no doubt on the point, when the facts were fully considered. He could only say that the Admiralty had given the most careful and anxious consideration to the question, and they were strengthened in their decision not only by competent medical and naval opinion, but by the opinion of the Committee of 1876, who, after having gone fully into the matter, stated that the site at Dartmouth was in all respects an admirable one for a college. It was 200 feet or 300 feet above the level of the sea, and was open to the far-famed bracing air of Dartmoor. [''Hear, hear!'' and laughter.] The college, therefore, would be in a better and more healthy position, than that occupied by the Britannia, although the ship had been by no means an unhealthy one. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1875 the Admiralty called for an official medical report as to the suitability of the site, and the medical officers reported that, from a sanitary point of view, it possessed all the advantages that could be desired for the purposes of a college. He had dealt with the principal points that had been raised in the Debate. For the most part criticism had been friendly to the principles of the Bill, and he hoped the House would now assent to the Second Reading. In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, he might say that he hoped to be able to show him and other hon. Members the plans relating to the proposed works at Gibraltar and Keyham to-morrow. He could not say that the Government would bind themselves to every detail of the plans, but those plans would embrace the main features of the works. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, there could be no doubt that the proposals of the Government in the Bill were supported with great weight and authority; they had received it in the admirable speech just delivered by his hon. Friend. [Cheers.] With regard to Gibraltar, as long as it was a question of only a limited and very insufficient expenditure under the plan of the Government last year, there was a great deal to be said for building the docks in the position, where it was contemplated to build them; but now that a larger expenditure was proposed, it was a question whether they ought not to give some consideration to the alternative site on the opposite side of Gibraltar, out of the reach of fire from the land. No doubt there was the objection that that side was open to a heavy sea, but not so heavy as seas which had been successfully resisted by means of breakwaters, as, for instance, the new breakwater at Colombo, where the surf was much heavier than a dock on the eastern side of Gibraltar would have to encounter. Naval policy in the Mediterranean would force us more and more to concentrate great establishments there, and it was worth while at this moment to consider whether we ought not to cut ourselves clear from the old scheme and make a new departure on the eastern side. There was another topic which had not been sufficiently discussed yet, but which would have to be dealt with by Naval Works Bills in future years—he alluded to telegraphic communication with the establishments lying along the Cape route. Plans had been lately pressed upon the Government, not in the name of commerce, but in the name of national defence, for laying a telegraph cable across the seas and from post to post of British territory at enormous expense. He hoped that plan would not be contemplated from the military point of view unless another scheme was taken into consideration first. We were creating great docks at Gibraltar; we had establishments at Sierra Leone, and new docks were contemplated at Simon's Bay and Mauritius. That was the route which trade would follow in time of war, and it was one which would have to be controlled in time of war. So far as any route could be safe in time of war, it would be a safe route. He thought Naval Works Bills of the future would have to make provision for telegraphic communication from point to point along the route. No doubt these Naval telegraphs might be cut in time of war, but every one of the sections would be of the greatest value even if some other section was cut. Apart from the points he had indicated, he heartily supported the Bill.

approaching the subject, as he said, without the slightest bias, and entirely in the interests of Naval policy, asked that Pembroke Dock should receive some consideration under the Bill. Last year there was discussion upon the question, and it was pointed out that of 8½ millions which it was proposed to spend on naval works, not one single penny was to be spent upon that dock. On that occasion the urgency of the question of Pembroke was admitted by Her Majesty's then advisers, and yet this year, although the amount to be spent on naval works was increased from 8½ to 14 millions, nothing apparently was to be expended under the Bill upon Pembroke dock, upon the harbour, which was the finest in the United Kingdom, and upon the dockyard which had, perhaps, greater possibilities within its reach than any other in the country. Her Majesty's Government could hardly take up a negative position in this matter without utterly repudiating the line taken and the declarations made by their predecessors in office less than twelve months ago.

said he was relieved from making many remarks by reason of the excellent speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlaln)—a speech which showed the same ability in the House that his hon. Friend displayed at the Admiralty itself. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to Pembroke, the Admiralty were very doubtful, from information received, whether it would be possible to carry out the plan which was discussed in the House of Commons last year, and consequently a Committee was appointed to inquire into the whole subject. They were now on the point of receiving the Report of that Committee, and it was possible that, as a result of that Report, work would be undertaken in connection with the jetty. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would suspend his judgment until the Report was received.

inquired if the amount to be spent would be inserted in the Bill and not in the Estimates?

said it would not be inserted in the Bill, but if a sum beyond the £5,000 should be required for the work recommended, it was very possible means would be found of obtaining it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had touched a very important point connected with Gibraltar. No subject had given the Admiralty more anxiety than that of arriving at a decision as to the site for the new docks. The question between the west and cast sites had been thoroughly gone into, not only by the Admiralty, but by the highest military authorities whose advice was at command, In regard to the east site there was one great disadvantage, and that was the length of time which would be occupied in carrying out the work. The setting-in of the sea in that direction made it extremely difficult to work more than a certain number of days in the year, and they were advised that 15 years might transpire before the work could be finished. The matter had been examined, not as a departmental question, but with all the scientific knowledge which both the Admiralty and the War Office could possibly command, and after full and thorough consideration, the west site had been fixed upon as the better of the two. He admitted there were arguments on both sides, but the Board felt that the balance of argument and authority was in favour of the west site, and accordingly they had decided to build three docks there.

inquired if it was likely the Government would be able to announce their decision as to Pembroke before the Bill was passed in Committee.

hoped that the Government would be able to do so.

said, he did not contend that this Bill might not be useful in giving opportunities for the gaining of greater experience and in testing the capacities of officers, but he did object to the Bill because he looked upon it as a dangerous Bill—a Bill dangerous to private and public rights. He said, further, that it was an innovation inconsistent with constitutional principles. They had had manœuvres before, and how had they been conducted? There was always some special arrangement made beforehand. If manœuvres were on a small scale, voluntary arrangements were made with the different farmers, landowners, and commoners and others. If the manœuvres were on a large scale, it had been found necessary to have an Act passed for the purpose of acquiring land, giving compensation, and seeing that local opinion was listened to. This Bill proposed to make a complete change. It proposed that by an Order in Council land to any extent and for any period could be proscribed, and this land would be a sort of no-man's-land, but only soldiers' land. The remedy against this seizure was to be an address of that House to the Sovereign, and they all knew that an Address could only come on after midnight, and that it was an extremely difficult thing to carry. They were placing great difficulties in the way of the localities. They were removing the burden from one shoulder to another. At present the burden was on the Government of the day to show the necessity of taking land for military purposes. It was now proposed to move the burden from the shoulders of the Government on to the shoulders of others who would find it far more difficult to carry these proposals than the Government would. They had hitherto kept a careful hand on the military, and both sides agreed that they could not show too great care in preventing the military spirit gaining power over the civil institutions of the country. They had seen in other countries the danger of military ascendancy, but here, the ascendancy had been hitherto kept in check. He would turn to the details of the Bill to show what was the dangerous character of this Bill if made permanent. Of whom would the Consultative Commission be composed? They were to have the Lord Lieutenant of the county and two of his deputies, two local representatives who would be local County Councillors, and any number of men whom the Secretary of State for War might be pleased to put upon it, besides the General in command of the forces. In fact, the Commission would be a military Commission. He pointed out that all common and meadow lands might be taken by the Order in Council, and on these common lands trenches could be dug and earthworks thrown up, greatly interfering with common rights. Besides the consultative Commission would have the power of taking other land, not even excepting cultivated land or land with standing crops. There were certain exceptions, however; he noticed that the preserves of the rich man were regarded with greater care. By this Bill the rich man's park was not to be touched, but it allowed the military authorities to go upon the commons, which were the parks of the people. He could picture to himself many large private parks which would be quite as suitable for a camp of soldiers as a common, and he did not think the difference ought to be made between the one and the other. This Consultative Commission also had power to take water, to decide what roads should be taken, and to take part in the arbitration for compensation. The Commission was not sufficiently representative of the civilian element in the country, and the compensation would not, under the Bill, be adequate. Under the old Bills which had been proposed heretofore, the military forces were not allowed to go upon land which was under cultivation, or which was growing standing crops or had root crops in it; but under this Bill they would be able to go upon any farm land. The special magistrates would have tremendous powers; they had had, he knew, the same powers before, but two wrongs did not make a right. It was proposed under this Bill to make a new law of trespass. A man might be brought before the magistrate for walking about his own neighbourhood, say, to see another farmer. The magistrate would practically be both judge and jury, and if he had seen the man commit the offence, he could convict him without any sworn evidence whatever, and punish him. That was, he thought, very dangerous. The old proposals, moreover, were temporary, whereas this would be permanent. He urged the Government to proceed either by means of a special Bill, or by a Provisional Order, as this would not be so great a change, and the opinions of the localities would then, to a great extent, be taken into consideration. He believed that an Act of 1873, which was passed for the purpose of allowing manœuvres on Dartmoor by a special clause, protected the rights of the people in the locality; but if the present Bill were adopted, these special clauses could not be inserted. He did not object to further facilities being given for the exercise of troops, but he looked upon the present proposal as one likely to restrict the control over these matters which Parliament should exercise, and to endanger the interests of the localities. He concluded by moving:—

"That any such exceptional interference with the rights of property and the liberty of the subject as is contemplated by the Military Manœuvres Bill should, so far as it may be found to be necessary in the public interests, he allowed only alter the sanction of Parliament has been obtained in each case by means of a special Act or confirmed provisional Order."

seconded the Motion. He said the case for the agricultural interests concerned had been ably put by his hon. Friend; but he himself would speak on behalf of a different interest. Besides interfering with the privileges of those who lived in the localities, he thought the Bill would also interfere in no inconsiderable degree with the privileges of town and industrial communities, who took advantage of these common lands for purposes of health and recreation. He thought that considerable discontent would thus be caused. His hon. Friend had pointed out that the Consultative Commission would be practically composed of the land-owning and military interests. The two gentlemen nominated by the County Council would naturally be in a minority, and yet they might represent the popular feeling of the district. He did not see under what circumstances the Commission could be composed of less than five persons, and therefore they must always be in a minority. He ventured to say that it was absolutely essential that there should be some opportunity other than that provided in this Bill for revising the proposals of the War Office in regard to military manœuvres. He was bound to say that his experience of Lord Lieutenants did not lead him to believe that they were the champions of the popular rights of the localities in which they resided. He would suppose that a considerable tract of land was proscribed in Surrey, where the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was a resident, and had a very considerable interest. Let them assume that the property consisted of two kinds, one part being common land, and the other part of agricultural land held by a number of small tenants. How were the latter to obtain compensation for the loss they might sustain by their land being used for the purposes of the manœuvres. Unless the Amendments of the hon. Mover of the Amendment were introduced into the Bill, it would give rise to considerable discontent in the future, and the right hon. Gentleman himself would be the first to deplore that he had not adopted the suggestions that were now made to him.

said that he did not rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, which appeared to him to be an altogether impracticable one. He greatly regretted that the Mover of the Amendment had tacked the Amendment on to his remarks, many of which were well worthy of the attention of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. In his opinion, the Amendment was not only impracticable, but, if carried, it would entirely destroy the whole value of the Measure, but nevertheless he hoped that attention would be given to the points that had been raised by the hon. Gentleman who moved it. For his own part, he was more interested in the preservation of our large commons than in maintaining the rights of private owners who could easily defend themselves. Under the Bill as it stood the "prescribed limits" were to be laid down by the Commanding Officer in conjunction with the Consultative Commission. Clause 2 of the Bill proposed to enact that—

"Within the prescribed limits and during the prescribed period the forces as defined by this Act may:—(a) with their arms, munitions of war and stores, pass over and execute military munœuvres on any unenclosed and any authorised enclosed land, whether public or private; and (b) encamp on any unenclosed or authorised enclosed land; and (c) dig trenches and throw up temporary field works on any unenclosed or authorised enclosed land for the purpose of any encampment or for military exercises."

Under those provisions the whole of Dartmoor might be practically destroyed by having field works erected on or trenches dug in it, and places of interest to antiquarians might be entirely ruined, without any regard to common rights or to the preservation of ancient monuments and local beauties and characteristics. In his opinion, when this Bill went into Committee, some clauses ought to be introduced into it that would give protection, in the cases he indicated. Of course, he might be told that serious dangers were never to be apprehended, and he did not for one moment suppose that trenches would be dug or temporary fortifications erected round Stonehenge. He hoped, however, that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would be prepared to adopt the suggestion he had made, and would propose, some provisions which would protect localities of an interesting character.

said, that when this Bill was originally introduced he had been afraid that it might interfere with the proposed scheme for the purchase of large tracts of land by the Government to be used for the training of our troops. He presumed, however, that notwithstanding the passing of this Bill, that scheme would in all probability be considered within a short time, and therefore he need not fear the passing of this Measure in some form or another. He looked upon the Bill as being of the utmost value to the permanent training of our troops, and therefore he felt it to be his duty to oppose the Amendment that had been moved by the hon. Member for Tavistock. The hon. Member had contended that this Bill was going to be permanent. He had understood the hon. Member, however, to admit that the principle of the Measure was exceedingly valuable, and that in fact it was absolutely necessary for the efficient training of our Army. The hon. Gentleman opposed the Bill because he regarded it as being constitutionally dangerous, and as being an innovation. The hon. Member said that he was afraid that it would encourage the growth of a military spirit in the country, which might render the Army a menace to our liberties. The hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that the country must be defended, and that our Army was absolutely necessary to enable us to exist. In his view there need be no fear that this country would ever again be placed under such a military despotism as we had in the 17th century. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think it possible that a Government might come into office which might use the powers conferred by this Bill to oppress certain parts of the country which were opposed to them. Seeing, however, that a Tory Government represented the landlord interest, the hon. Gentleman might rest assured that they would do nothing to oppress the country. The hon. Gentleman must therefore use his influence with his own side of the House to prevent such a serious result from following the passing of this Bill. He thought, however, that the House might safely-trust any Government not to use these powers unfairly. The hon. Member had said that it was wrong to make use of the commons for this purpose, but commons would be much more useful for carrying out the objects of the Bill than enclosed grounds would be. If they used the farms the claim for compensation would be very large. The hon. Seconder of the Amendment had said that if the commons were used for the purposes of the Bill, a great deal of the enjoyment of the people would be taken away, but his experience led him to believe that the people were very pleased to visit a camp and set up stalls for gingerbread and lemonade there like a fair. The hon. Member for Tavistock had objected to fields in cultivation being taken, but he could assure the hon. Member that nothing so much interfered with the success of military manœuvres as isolated fields of that character, which, if exempted from the operation of the Bill would render all military plans futile. We ought rather to follow the example of the German nation, and pay generously for any damage that resulted to the crops from being trampled upon by the troops. The result was that the compensation, being generous and liberal, the presence of the troops was not unpopular, and he believed that would be the case in this country under the same circumstances. He trusted, therefore, that the compensation given under the Bill would be liberal, and that a return would not be made to the system which had obtained since this Acts which had been referred to were passed. That system had been what he might call a system of amateur manœuvres. Officers had had to go down and make more or less private arrangements with the landlords and farmers to permit troops to manœuvre over their land. This amateur plan was a very bad one. The result of it had been to try and save money on the amount granted by Parliament, and very considerable friction had been caused by the amount of the compensation being cut down. This Bill would remedy that, and he hoped that hon. Members would see their way to support it for the good of the Army, seeing that under the conditions of modern warfare these large massings of the three arms of the Service together were absolutely necessary for the defence of the Empire.

said, he did not oppose the Bill as a whole, because he knew that it was necessary that our troops should be exercised in the way provided by it. He was not one of those who was ready to agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock that the Bill was objectionable, because he saw that there were many reasons why Provisional Orders might be troublesome if the War Office came year after year to Parliament in order to obtain its consent. Not only would this be troublesome to the War Office, but it was worthy of consideration whether it was not possible to relieve the House of additional business being brought before the House which was unnecessary. At the same time he did not agree with many of the details of the Bill. In fact, he thought that if the Bill was to become a permanent Measure, it was necessary that it should be recast in a very drastic manner in the interests of the occupiers of land and houses, whose interests seemed to be prejudiced under it. He would be the last to deny that it was necessary for farmers as well as for others to make any sacrifice necessary for the public good, and it was certainly necessary that our troops should be manœuvred, and every facility given towards that end. He thought, however, that the farmers and occupiers were entitled to ample and generous compensation. The Bill was drawn in a military sense in the interests of the War Office. It could not, be said to sufficiently protect the interests of the farmer from an agricultural point of view. Practically a kind of military despotism was to be set up, because from the constitution of the Consultative Commission and the power given to it to appoint a Board of Arbitration, the whole machinery of the Bill, including compensation, was in the hands of Government Departments. The Compensation Officer was appointed, not by any public body in the district, such as the County Council, which would be an impartial body and likely to give general satisfaction. The officer was to be appointed by the Board of Agriculture. This was a Government Department, and although the interests of the agriculturists might now be safe under the President of the Board of Agriculture, yet as the Bill was to be a permanent Measure, there might be occasions when those in authority might not be so much in sympathy, or have so much practical knowledge, as the present occupant of the office. Those who represented agricultural interests, therefore, should look at this subject from an agricultural point of view, and see that the Government did not rush through a Measure which might be prejudicial to that interest. Clause 5 provided that the officer and the Consultative Commission, which was practically the War Office, should have power to make orders and regulations with respect to cattle and sheep, that was to say, power was possessed by a military body to order a tenant farmer to close his dairy, and shut up his live stock. This might be, most inconvenient, and might mean a great deal of loss to the farmer. A subsection of the same clause provided that an order might be made by public notice for the protection of cattle and sheep, and anyone neglecting this should not be entitled to claim compensation—that was to say, if a farmer dared to let out his cattle in the fields from the farmyard to water them he would be liable to fall under the condemnation of the Consultative Commission, who might deprive him of compensation. It might be said that that would not be put into force, but he took it that farmers did not wish to have an Act of Parliament passed which would give power to such a body to harass them. Then there was another provision, which, to his mind, was one of the most objectionable in the Bill as regarded the tenant farmer, though it applied also to the occupier of houses as well as of lands. That provision was contained in Clause 6, which laid down that immediately after a force had ceased to occupy or passed over the land, the claim was to be sent in at once, or, at the very latest, within one week. It was perfectly obvious that there might be many cases in which it would be impossible for a farmer to make his claim within one week.

Will the hon. Gentleman say in what class of cases it would not be possible?

said, he was surprised at the interruption. He should have thought that the hon. Gentleman as one interested in agriculture, or at any rate in land, would know that there would be such cases as this, for example. Say a herd of dairy cows in a field, which, for some reason or another, had not been shut up. They might be frightened and disturbed; they might be hunted all over the country. They might suffer from that, either by slipping their calves, or, by getting heated and by getting chilled, the results of which might not appear for a considerable time. It was within his own knowledge that such a thing had happened in the case of young cattle who had been hunted about. He did not think that the Under Secretary would tell him that in such a case as that it would be possible for a farmer to make his claim for compensation within one week. Then, again, there was the question of the Court of Arbitration, which was a body of very large powers indeed. If the compensation officer made an award which the occupier of land or of a house objected to, it was necessary for him to make an appeal to the Court of Arbitration. That court had power not only to decide as regarded matters of fact, but also points of law. That might be right, but it certainly was an innovation to set up a court of laymen and give them the power of interpreting points of law, from which there was to be no appeal. He was aware that the object was to prevent expense and to make the procedure easy. But an appeal on any point of law might be made easy and cheap by giving an appeal for instance to a County Court Judge. The expense could not be great, and the appeal would be optional on the part of the tenant or man who was injured. If he appealed and made it expensive for no good reason whatever, the liability would rest upon him. On the other hand, there would be full protection for the claimant that he would not have his case, from the legal point, misunderstood and misjudged by laymen. He could not help thinking that his suggestion was worthy of the consideration of the Government. There was another section to which he might make reference now, as it was really connected with this point—namely, that which said that the Court of Arbitration should not be bound to hear counsel or solicitors. Of course it might be right that the War Office should not have the power of sending down the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, but he could not understand why the Under Secretary should wish to deprive a tenant-farmer, who might not be able to argue his own case, or who might wish to have a solicitor to argue it for him, of the right to do so. It seemed to him very unfair and unjust to give the Court of Arbitration the power to refuse to hear solicitors. There was also another provision which said that the Court of Arbitration "may" in addition to compensation for damage, grant further compensation for costs reasonably incurred in substantiating a claim, or might refuse such costs, wholly or partially, or reduce the amount of compensation to a person claiming who refused an offer from the compensation officer. That seemed very unfair, and put the unfortunate claimant entirely in the hands of the Court of Arbitration. Every clause, every provision of this Bill was entirely in the interests of the war Office. It was quite clear that the framers of the Bill had not taken the trouble to see that this court should give the fullest and the most ample compensation in every respect, and that they should not be given this enormous discretionary power.

I think the hon. Member has not quite appreciated the fact that the compensating officer has nothing whatever to do with the Court of Arbitration.

said, he was appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and that was his argument, that they were appealing from one Government Department to another Government Department. If the Government were prepared to say they would, as regarded the questions affecting compensation and a constitutional tribunal, meet those agriculturists who objected to them, he had no objection to the Bill in any other respect, and he would not vote against it. But if, on the other hand, the Under Secretary said their objections were nonsense, and that they must trust the Government to do everything that was right in the matter, then it would be necessary for him to go into the Lobby against the Bill. He suggested that the hon. Member might consider whether he could not meet those interested in this matter by looking at it a little from an agricultural point of view, and modifying the provisions of the Bill and altering the means by which compensation would be adjudged and assessed.

urged that it was necessary there should be manœuvres every year, and that the House should not have annually to discuss matters of this kind. The system of compensation to farmers should be recognised here as it was in Prussia. There, even before a good harvest, the wish of the farmer was to have some manœuvres on his land. There should be manœuvres every year—each district in turn—and he believed that if the Alder-shot force took part, and every Reserve man was allowed to come up if he would, they would show what could be done under our present Army system, because more could be done than was generally believed in the country. It would be the best answer to those who believed our military system to be lamentably deficient. He should certainly support this Bill, because he firmly believed it would be to the advantage of the country.

said, he desired to call attention to the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction this Bill set up. He understood that the answer of the Under Secretary for War was that these provisions to which he referred, and to which he most strongly objected, were imported into this Bill from some other Acts. He regretted to find this was so. At the same time it could not fairly be contended that the Acts to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and this Bill, were upon all fours. There was a great difference. Those Acts—and he believed the latest was not more recent than 1882—were restricted in point of time and area. He believed it was the local character of those Bills which enabled them to slip through the House without securing the attention they ought to have received. At all events, he trusted for the honour of the House that those provisions which were repeated in this Bill were enacted by the House per incuriam. He regretted that the learned Attorney-General had lent the sanction of his great name to these provisions. The Bill enabled Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to prescribe an area of country of any size, to be used for any period for military manœuvres. Provisions were also made for licensing camp followers, and apparently it was contemplated that two or more counties might be involved. Considerable tracts of country might come under the operation of the Bill. Within those tracts of country the Bill enacted special offences. The provisions of the Bill created new offences of trespass. These new offences would require careful definition and investigation in Committee, and he suggested that by way of compromise this Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law. The Bill also set up special criminal tribunals. What would be the jurisdiction of the new tribunals? Of course, they would have jurisdiction to try any new offences created by the Bill. But not only that, jurisdiction was given them to try and punish any offence whatever punishable by summary jurisdiction if committed by a stranger. In other words, it was proposed to give to these extraordinary tribunals power to sentence a man to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. This jurisdiction was limited to strangers, and it was necessary to inquire what a stranger was under the Bill. He was ''a person not the subject of military law, and accompanying a force for trading, amusement, or any other purpose whatever." It was clear from this that the term stranger would include gentlemen of the Press. He hoped the Press would take notice that its representatives would be liable to six months imprisonment with hard labour at the hands of this special tribunal. Now, as to the power of the tribunal and its freedom from restrictions. In the first place, no information in writing is required on which to found criminal proceedings. It was true that the summary Jurisdiction Acts did not, in express terms, require as a rule that there should be a written information as the foundation for criminal proceedings. But he believed he was right in saying that outside the Metropolis it was invariably the practice to require a written information. Whether it was or not, there was something more. There were many offences punishable summarily, in respect of which the law had specially prescribed that no criminal proceedings should be taken unless founded on a written information. The law had thought right that that special safeguard should exist in those cases, but this Bill came along, and, so far as gentlemen of the Press were concerned, and other strangers, this safeguard of the law was cut away. This was the first extraordinary proceeding. The next was, that a military tribunal was to be empowered to convict and punish upon its own view, without any evidence whatever. That was a most mischievous provision. It was obvious that a person might be well qualified to judge of the effect of evidence who was not an accurate observer of what passed under his own eyes. But this was not all. A person charged with a criminal offence has a right—that was the theory of the law—to cross-examine his accuser in the presence of a third and impartial person—namely, the judge. Here the accuser was himself the judge, and thus justice was defeated. He did not envy the fate of journalists who might be brought before some peppery military J.P., who saw, or fancied that he saw, them committing an offence. Under the ordinary law the jurisdiction of an "occasional Court" was limited to a fine of 20s. or 14 days' imprisonment, but under this Bill a couple of justices, sitting on a drain or a rail, would be empowered to sentence an offender to six months' hard labour. "Thus bad begins, but worse remains behind." Another clause provided that what was done by these special magistrates should not be impeached on the ground of any defect, formal or substantial, so that it was rendered impossible for any accused person afterwards to take exception to the jurisdiction. This was not to make law, but to set up a tyranny. Lastly, these magistrates were to be appointed by the Secretary for War, and he submitted that the method of appointment would be grossly unconstitutional, because the Secretary for War, being interested in the manœuvres, would not look impartially upon personal liberty or personal property as affected by the manœuvres. The alternative to this unconstitutional method of appointment was for the justices of a county or of counties combined to form a panel of magistrates specially qualified to exercise jurisdiction, and from the panel to draw up a rota of attendance. Unless satisfactory assurances were given, he should feel it his duty to divide against these odious and dangerous provisions.

desired, from the soldiers' point of view, to congratulate the military authorities on having brought forward this Bill. In past manœuvres the great difficulties had been encountered from the boundary restrictions placed upon commanders, so that the troops were deprived of the mobility and the officers of experience in the exercise of initiative. In warfare the only certainty was the unforeseen, whereas in the manœuvres there could be little that was not foreseen. Two armies were within a small area, and each knew that the other could not move a yard beyond a certain boundary. Therefore there could be no real manœuvres with the object of carrying out a strategic idea. A clause ought to be added to the Bill to enable troops to be detrained at any point, whether there was a station or not. This would often save time, and prevent needless marching of long distances; but railway companies could not, under existing regulations, detrain troops elsewhere than at station platforms, unless they were freed from the risk of actions for damages should accidents occur.

wished the Government could see their way to extend the provisions and advantages of this Bill to Scotland. If some of the provisions were such as had just been pointed out, he hoped they would be modified. It was true there were not many troops in Scotland, where they were not required to keep order, but more might be concentrated where they could be exercised together. If there was a deficiency of troops, there was a large number of the best volunteers in the island, and they would willingly dispense with some regimental and brigade camps among themselves if they had the chance, every two or three years, of being trained and exercised side by side, and under the same conditions as the regular forces. In the centre of Scotland, accessible by railway, there were tracts admirably suited for manœuvres on a large scale; and, instead of sending Scotch volunteers to Aldershot, it would be easy to give the regulation flavour to a larger body exercised in Scotland under conditions which would be popular, and would be bene- ficial to both volunteers and regulars. He could fully sympathise with the alarms expressed in regard to the Bill by his hon. friends behind him. Several Bills of this nature had been passed dealing with prospective manœuvres in a particular locality in a particular year. His hon. friends had looked into those Measures, and he was afraid that if they had pursued their archæological investigations further they would find his name on the back of the Bills. [Laughter] The provisions of those Bills when read in cold blood were of the most hair raising and blood-curdling character—[laughter]—but when put into effect they had not given rise, so far as he could recollect, to a single case of local grievance. ["Hear, hear!"] All questions of damages had been satisfactorily arranged; and no better proof of the popularity of the manœuvres could be had than the fact that the inhabitants of every locality in which they were held clamoured that they might be held there again. [Laughter and "Hear, hear."] His right hon. friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Sir W. Harcourt) told him that the inhabitants of the New Forest had last year viewed with apprehension the approaching manœuvres in the locality. But the troops had not been long there when it was discovered that it was the best thing that had ever happened to the locality; so much so, indeed, that the people were sorry when the forces left, and would be delighted to see them back again. But, of course, those manœuvres had not been held under the stringent provisions of the Bill now before the House. ["Hear, hear!''] He saw the force of a great deal that had been said against those provisions, and he thought the Government would find that passing a Bill for all time and for a whole country was a very different thing from passing a Bill for a locality and for a fixed time. ["Hear, hear!"] He would also point out that since 1882 not only the House of Commons, but public opinion outside, had become a good deal more sensitive and jealous in those matters. The Government, therefore, could not expect that the Bill would go through the House of Commons without very considerable discussion of its provisions, and it was extremely desirable that they should show every disposition, by accepting amendments and modifications, to meet what might be the popular view of the question. ["Hear, hear!"] But it must be remembered that the great object of those provisions, which seemed so strict, was to make it possible for the manœuvres to be carried out effectively. ["Hear, hear!"] Those provisions were directed, not against the inhabitants—not against the land occupier or the land owner—but against the tourists, the trippers, and the onlookers, who, if they were allowed to roam over the place at their own sweet will, would entirely frustrate the whole object of the manœuvres ["Hear, hear!"]; and, besides, as the provisions were only to be applied to a particular locality for a few hours, perhaps, of one day, they were not so big a thing as they seemed when looked at in the House of Commons. At the same time, he admitted that the Bill did give extraordinary powers, and did interfere in an extraordinary way with the ordinary liberties and rights of Her Majesty's subjects; and as it was to be a permanent law, irrespective of time and place, the House would only be doing its duty in giving serious attention to the details of the Bill, and, perhaps, seriously modifying them. The Amendment before the House was directly addressed to a point which he thought worthy of consideration. He could not support the Amendment in so far as it suggested that the proceeding should be by Bill, because the principle of the Bill before the House was to avoid the necessity of having a Bill in each case; but the suggestion that the proceeding should be by Provisional Order was, he thought, worthy of the serious attention of the Govern- ment. Under the Bill every proceeding was by Order in Council, which was to lie for 40 days and 40 nights upon the Table of the House; and if no one during that time moved an Address to the Crown, it became law. They all knew that sort of proceeding well. It meant a discussion between 12 and 2 o'clock in the morning. It afforded a small chance of the objections of a locality being properly considered; for a Member interested in the locality would find it difficult to get his friends to remain to support him at the sacrifice of staying out of bed till such an hour. On the other hand, if the proceeding-were by Provisional Order, although a Bill would be required, that Bill would come on at the time of private business, at the opening of a Sitting, when nothing else was to be done, and, therefore, while it would not interfere with the other business of the House, it would give a reasonable chance of modifications being adopted to meet the wishes of the locality. He did not, however, speak confidently on that point. He only put the suggestion tentatively before the Government; but he urged fin the Government, in the interest of the Army, in the interest of the manœuvres—in order to keep one and the other popular—to yield as much as they could to the popular feeling of localities affected by the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, the Government had no reason to complain of the spirit in which the Bill had been met, and, least of all, of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. He could assure the House that there was nothing further from the desire of the Government than in any way to show themselves unwilling to meet objections that were honestly entertained. During the last few days he had met several gentlemen who pointed out provisions of the Bill in which they thought amendment desirable; and he had been able, without exception, to satisfy them all. There were, however, few points raised during the Debate which the Government could not entertain. Some hon. Members opposite had taken a very sinister view of the Bill, and of the object of the Government in introducing it. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was glad to hear that disclaimer, for undoubtedly the Member for Somerset had spoken as if the idea of the Government had been to put the localities under the heel of a Government Department. It was urged that if the Government wished to take ground for manœuvres they ought to come to the House for powers every year, and that the burden of proof should rest with the Government rather than the burden of disproof with those who objected to the proposals. The principle of manœuvres was generally accepted, and if the principle were accepted the House should be prepared for some sacrifice in order to carry it out. All the Government asked was that, while every protection was given to local interests and susceptibilities, there should not be the necessity every two or three years of imposing on Parliament the burden of passing a Bill and considering along with legitimate interests the views of all those who wished to make themselves popular by claiming for their own district what they would not think of claiming for any other. He was not alluding to any particular person, because no one knew—he himself did not know—where the manœuvres were to be held. It had been suggested that the Government should proceed by provisional orders; but they were not applicable to this Measure. The object of provisional orders was to enable all persons interested, where laud was to be taken permanently, to state their objections at a local Inquiry. Now a local inquiry was foreign to the object of the Bill. If the opinions of every person interested in every field to be taken were to be heard, there would have to be not one but 20 local Inquiries. And what would be the Parliamentary procedure necessary? First, this Bill would have to be passed; then a Provisional Order must be framed, then local inquiries must be held, then a fresh Bill must be presented to Parliament and carried through Parliament. That would encourage, as nobody desired to do, every person concerned to stand out for the utmost compensation at every point, and it would give such persons the power of threatening to get the Bill blocked and involved in endless discussion. The principle of Provisional Order would prove in this case to be a principle of blackmail. The House would retain effective control by means of Order in Council. If an Order in Council were published, any single individual might petition against it, and then it must lie on the Table of both Houses for 30 days. A discussion on the Order would be raised in either House; but that was not all. It was impossible to hold manœuvres without something connected with them appearing in almost every one of the Army Votes, and on each of those Votes the question could be raised so that hon. Members would have ample opportunity of discussing the grievance of any particular locality.

The Votes may be Closured.

said, that on every question about which the minority showed a strong feeling, there was always ample opportunity given for discussion. It was absolutely foreign to the principle of the Bill to suppose that the Secretary of State was going to act as a tyrant. His object must be to meet the views of all concerned. He would have the difficulty of getting his Votes; he would have the risk of making his office unpopular; and, if interests were injured, compensation would be on so prodigious a scale that he would have difficulty in inducing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money for the manœuvres in another year. The purpose of putting representatives of the Secretary of State on the Consultative Commission was not to swell the number of Government officials, but simply to give representation, to interests which might otherwise be unrepresented—such, for instance, as commoners or the public trustees of large properties. The desire was that the Commission should be purely local. As to the compensation not being adequate, he did not believe that a tribunal had ever been set up in this country so favourable to fair compensation as that which the Bill proposed. It was a purely agricultural tribunal. The complaint was made that counsel was not to be heard before it. That provision was simply to prevent long legal investigations in which a Government must always come off best. As to the suggestion that an appeal on questions of law should be given to the petitioner, but not to the Government, he did not believe there was any precedent for such a course. If past experience could show no cases of complaint arising from manœuvres held under Bills of this kind, that was the best reason for believing that the course proposed would meet all difficulties without an appeal to a higher tribunal. The object of the clauses referred to by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green was not to protect the Government, but to protect the occupiers of the land. The Government, no doubt, might require the use of some land that might be under crop, for it had been pointed out that in previous years the manœuvres had been practically rendered futile, in consequence of the restrictions as to space and conditions under which the military authorities had had to act. But provision had been made in the Bill for the payment of full compensation for damage to crops or to commons, and he had undertaken, in deference to representations made to him, to insert provision for further protection against damage and any disturbance of rights. ["Hear, hear!"] As the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs had pointed out, some of the provisions looked somewhat drastic and severe at first sight, but they would not prove so in operation. They would, moreover, apply to localities often for only a few hours, and were necessary in order to enable the actual operations contemplated to be carried out. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that Scotland should be included in the Bill, he might say that the Government had no desire to keep Scotland outside its scope, if it was the general wish of the Scotch Members that [that part of the United Kingdom should be included in it. He was, therefore, quite prepared to introduce a clause ex-tending the Bill to Scotland, on the understanding that it was not to be insisted upon in opposition, to the wishes of the Scotch representatives. In respect to Ireland, he had had some communication with the Irish Members, and he understood that they were satisfied with the popular representation proposed, only that they preferred that, instead of the Chairman of the Board of Guardians representing the County Council on the Commission, a selected Member of the Board should be put on it; and that he proposed to do in Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] He asked hon. Members to look at the Bill fairly and as a whole; to consider the difficulties and delays which would necessarily attend the other courses suggested; and to look also at the position in which the Government were placed in the matter, and he was confident that if they did so they would come to the conclusion that the Government had adopted the best and speediest means of attaining the object in view. ["Hear, hear!"]. It must be recollected that the right hon. Member for Stirling, whose name had been on the back of two similar Bills, and who had twice been Secretary of State since 1882, when the last Bill was passed, had never found himself in a position to undertake a provision for manœuvres. If they added to the money difficulty an acute Parliamentary difficulty, they were seriously handicapping our forces as opposed to those of foreign nations. The Government had taken care that in the Bill every consideration should be given to local interests. They had provided for a local Commission which they believed, on the highest legal authority, would prove effective and satisfactory, and they had provided compensation for every interest that might be affected by the manœuvres. They were disposed, moreover, to consider all points, or suggestions, or amendments that might be fairly urged in respect to the Bill, and he could assure the House that the Government would not fail to profit by the discussion that had taken place. ["Hear, hear!"] Under those circumstances he hoped the House would now consent to the Second Reading of the Bill. [Cheers.]

said, the two most important points in the Bill were the regulations by which the manœuvres were to be carried out and the question of compensation. He had listened to the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs with some satisfaction, but the right hon. Gentleman had not altogether allayed his fears as to the character and possible effect of some of the more drastic provisions of the Bill. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the regulations to be made, it was possible that they might be made to assume a very serious character in their effect on the locality concerned, such, for instance, as a decision to dam up running water. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not think the proposd Consultative Committee, or Commission, composed of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, two persons nominated by him, and two persons nominated by the County Council, would be representative of local opinion, and in order to make it so to any extent he would suggest that two more members, appointed by the Parish Council of the parishes affected by the manœuvres, should be added to the Committee. As to the point of compensation, it seemed to him that the proposed Court of Arbitration was open to the same objection as the Consultative Committee. It was not thoroughly representative of local opinion, and he would suggest that another member, selected by the County Council of the county affected, should be added to the Court. ["Hear, hear!"] Finally, he thought it would be necessary in Committee to define more completely what was meant by "damage," in order to safeguard the interests of tenants in counties which would be affected by the Bill.

supported the suggestion that the Bill should apply to Scotland. He could not imagine any part of the United Kingdom where the configuration of the country would afford better opportunities for military exercises, and one and all of the Scotch Members to whom he had spoken had concurred in the suggestion which he ventured to press on the Government. He had great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

hoped the Government would consider what the hon. Member for Haggerston urged, and abandon the unconstitutional provisions referred to. He was afraid, too, the Bill as drawn made no provision whatever for adequate compensation being given to County Councils where very considerable damage might be done to main roads, as, for example, by the passage of heavy artillery. Provision ought to be made for that.

Attention, will be given to that point.

expressed his acknowledgments, and assured the hon. Gentleman that he did not bring forward the point without very considerable authority. The damage which might be caused to water supply was another point which was not specifically mentioned in the Bill.

I shall put in words which shall make that also perfectly clear.

wished further to add that the clause which gave the non-representative members a majority upon the Committee would be strenuously opposed.

had no objection to the Bill applying to Ireland, but he thought that some representation ought to be given on the Consultative Committee to the chairman of Town Commissioners.

said, he represented a county in which there was a large extent of unenclosed sheep-walks, and he wished to call attention to the fact that it would be impossible to collect together thousands of mountain sheep.

Provision shall be made for the protection of those flocks.

was glad to hear that, and would say no more.

said, he thought the Committee was quite entitled to ask what the purposes were for which this money was to be expended. They were told it was for "light railways." What were "light railways?" [Laughter.] Where was the definition of light railways to be found? How did they know light from heavy railways? [Laughter.]

said, they were not now discussing the Bill. The proposal now before the Committee was the grant that should be made from the Exchequer for the purpose stated in the Resolution which he had read to the Committee.

said, he should confine himself to what was in the Resolution. If there was to be no Bill, he asked to what purpose this money was to be applied. The money was to be expended, nobody knew why or for what purpose, excepting light railways. That reduced the thing to an absurdity. They were asked to grant this money, and yet they were not told for what purpose it was to be granted. How did they know that a million would be sufficient? It might be too much or too little. A million would not go far in the construction of light railways. There were 667 constituencies in the United Kingdom, and if every one were interested in the matter the million of money would not go very far. It was stated that the authorities were to be paid out of the moneys to be provided by Parliament, and if this was insufficient they were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He objected to this money being paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The principle in that House had always been that whenever grants for public money were to be given under the supervision of Parliament, the money was to be paid by Parliament, and the Government must have the consent of Parliament. In the case of the Irish Light Railways Bill the consent of Parliament had to be obtained to every grant, and every grant was upon the Estimates., The Government were now introducing a principle for the first time, namely, that they should, when, they wished to make certain railways, have power to take the money out of the Consolidated Fund. They must recollect that probably there would be another change of Government, and they would have to face the fact that the powers they were now taking might be exercised in future by a Liberal Government when in office. By the Resolution they were not told what this money was for. Under ordinary circumstances a notice of this kind was, he admitted, a formality, but it was not so in this case. Many hon. Members had not been allowed to speak at all upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and many of them were not upon the Standing Committee appointed to deal with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman argued that upon Report and Third Reading they would have ample opportunities to be heard, but every one knew that after the Committee stage the Government would decline to discuss the matter further. They were entitled, at any rate, to see that if their constituents did not get a share of this money they should at least have Home, voice in regard to the districts which did get the money, he would later on move an Amendment and take a Division on the subject.

said the hon. Member had already had an opportunity of pressing his objections to this proposal at as much length as he chose, and he was astonished that, having had that opportunity, the hon. Member should get into such a state of evident excitement.

Not at all.

said he thought it was not a matter which lent itself to such excitement as the hon. Member had displayed. The matter really was a very simple one; the hon. Member seemed to think that the House of Commons would be placing a million of money at the disposal of the Treasury. This was a purely formal Vote, which must be passed in order to enable the Committee to whom the Bill was sent to go on with the Measure, the Second Reading of which the House had already passed without a division. Unless this Resolution were passed the Committee to whom the Bill was sent could not obey the Instruction of the House to deal with the Measure. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no attempt in this case to take the matter out of the hands of the House, because the whole Question of the application of this money would have to be discussed and decided first in Committee, and then by the House itself upon the Report stage and upon the Third Reading of the Bill. If the House were not content with the manner in which the Committee dealt with the Measure it would be open to them to alter, and if necessary to reject, the Bill altogether. Therefore, to say in these circumstances that there was an attempt to take the matter out of the hands of the House was a most exaggerated statement. The House had already decided that the Light Railways Bill was to be proceeded with, and therefore it was necessary that the Resolution should be passed in order to enable the Committee to deal with the financial clauses of the Measure.

The fact that the Measure involves financial questions is apparent from the terms of the Resolution itself. I have already stated that the details of the Light Railways Bill are not open to discussion on this Resolution. The only Question that can be discussed is whether the Treasury shall be empowered to make the grants in question.

said that he was merely pointing out that if the House desired that the Light Railways Bill should be proceeded with, it was essential that this Resolution should be passed. The House had already decided that the Treasury should be empowered to give pecuniary assistance towards the construction of Light Railways, and this Resolution had been brought forward in pursuance of that decision to enable the Treasury to carry out the intention of the House.

again rose to order. Was the right hon. Gentleman in order in making that statement?