To call attention to the question of Railway Rates; and to move a Resolution. [Tuesday 19th May.]

That the continued depopulation of Ireland points to the existence of economic causes capable of removal by improved financial arrangements, and, in the opinion of this House, calls for immediate consideration at the hands of the Legislature. [Tuesday 19th May.]

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps, if any, have been taken to remedy the danger to the public reported by Major Yorke, R.E., to exist at Uffington Station on the Great "Western Railway, in his report to the Board of Trade, dated 11th August, 1894; whether he will state by whose authority the two sidings, required by Captain Rich to be removed from across the high road at that station as a condition of obtaining the sanction of the Board of Trade to the opening of the Faringdon Branch, have been since replaced across the highway, and another siding added to them; and the high road at this crossing rendered not only dangerous but impassable for long intervals by shunting operations upon such sidings; and whether it has been brought to the knowledge of the Department that persons are daily compelled to make a detour of about two miles to avoid the danger and delays of the crossing at Uffington Station?

The Board of Trade are informed that a footbridge has been erected at the station, and fencing put up between the space occupied by milk carts and the main line, so as to give protection when the carts are being unloaded. With regard to the two sidings referred to, the company state that at the time the Faringdon Railway was inspected it was the property of an independent company, and the line did not come into their possession until July, 1886. The sidings were put in again at some date or other without notice of the previous objection. The Company have fully considered the question of the construction of a bridge, but find that it is estimated to cost £10,000. They are unwilling to incur this large expense at a station where the total number of persons booking only average 25 per day, and are urging the Board of Trade to endeavour to make an arrangement by which a portion of the cost shall be borne by the local authorities. The Department have no knowledge of the number of persons making the détour in order to avoid the crossing. The district is said to be somewhat sparsely populated, and, as I have said, the bookings only average 25 a day.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, why a step of temporary rank has not been given to Majors and Captains holding the appointments of Commandant and second in command of regiments under the Government of India, the same as was given in the London Gazette of the 5th November 1895 to officers holding similar appointments in regiments under the Commander-in-Chief in India; and, what orders have been issued in India on the subject?

A few applications have recently been received for the grant of temporary rank to officers of the Hyderabad contingent, but for no others. I will communicate with the Government of India on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the High Sheriff for the county of Carlow called Lieut.-Col. John James Hardy Eustace, J.P., to serve on the Grand Jury of the county of Carlow at the last Assizes, and he was sworn in to act as such, when he had a claim for compensation for malicious injury coming on for the decision of the jury, of which he himself was sworn in a member; if he will take steps in the future to guard against the repetition of such an irregularity; and, whether he will see that in the future, if such irregularities should again occur, some official of the Government will bring it to the notice of the Judge of Assize, and not place such a responsibility on the shoulders of a private individual?

further asked the Chief Secretary (1) whether he is aware that Lieutenant - Colonel John James Hardy Eustace, J.P., of Castlemore, county Carlow, was sworn in a member of the Grand Jury for that county at the last Assizes; that he acted on the jury when a claim of his for compensation for malicious injury was being considered, and that he only left the table at which the Grand Jury were deliberating when he was told that exception was going to be taken to his action; that, nothwith standing the fact that the foreman gave an undertaking that Lieutenant-Colonel John James Hardy Eustace, J.P., would not participate in the consideration of his own claim for compensation, that gentleman did not withdraw from the Grand Jury room, but only retired to a seat about one yard behind that he had just left, and still continued to converse with members of the Grand Jury; and that when the amount of compensation claimed by Lieutenant-Colonel John James Hardy Eustace, J.P., had been granted, that gentleman went to the map hanging in the Grand Jury room with other members of the Grand Jury, when the area over which the compensation was to be levied was being fixed; and, (2) whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has yet come to a conclusion whether the time has yet arrived when it would be necessary, just, and right to amend the Grand Jury Laws of Ireland?

It was open to the hon. Member, who, I believe, was also a member of the same Grand Jury, and present at the hearing of the case, if he thought he had any cause of complaint, to have brought the matter under the notice of the Judge of Assize, but the Crown exercise no control or jurisdiction over the appointment and proceedings of Grand Juries, and have no means of taking any action as suggested. As to the second paragraph of the second Question, I must repeat what I have already stated, that is not the intention of the Government during the present Session to amend the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Local Government Board Auditor's Report on the accounts of the Carlow Grand Jury, with reference to the accounts of the collector for the barony of Forth, that I have now directed him to lodge forthwith the sum of £40 10s. 11d., which he took credit for erroneously, and the further sum of.£61 7s. 7d., which he sets down in his statement of account as discrepancy; (2) whether there was any Resolution passed on this subject by the Grand Jury at the late assizes; and, if so, will he read it to the House; and whether any Resolution was adopted by the Grand Jury directing their solicitor to take the necessary steps to collect the sum of £51 17s. 7d., due by a former collector: and, if so, will he read a copy of it; (3) will he explain who was to blame for the non-fulfilment of the order (as set out in the Auditor's Report) that a claim should be made on the sureties of the late collector for £51 17s. 7d.; and (4) if he will ascertain from the Auditor the date when this deficiency took place, how it arose, and what action has since been taken by the Grand Jury, as shown by the records in that Office?

I have seen the Report of the Auditor to which reference is made. The Grand Jury-propose to carry out his suggestions respecting the arrears of county cess outstanding, and have passed Resolutions relative to the matters mentioned in the second paragraph. Copies of these Resolutions will be forwarded to the hon. Member if he desires to have them. I have no information to enable me to reply to the third paragraph. The Auditor states it would not be possible to ascertain the date of the deficiency (which was not detected for some time after the appointment of the present collector), because of the great difficulty of collecting the county cess, owing to the opposition to payment of the railway guarantee for the Tullow extension line. The Grand Jury passed a Resolution directing their Solicitor to take the necessary steps for the recovery of the sum mentioned in the third paragraph.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of Resolutions, adopted at a meeting of the Oldcastle Board of Guardians on 6th April, unanimously calling for such an extension of the powers and functions of the Congested Districts Board as will permit that Board to purchase estates, consisting of large grass farms which could be easily subdivided into small holdings and on which tenants, whose sons and daughters are now compelled to emigrate to America, could be planted, and so relieve the poverty-stricken congested areas as well as the small towns of Ireland; and whether such powers and functions can be conferred without any further legislation; and, if so, will he inquire of the Congested Districts Board whether such a scheme could be advantageously undertaken?

I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The Congested Districts Board possess power to buy land and settle thereon persons resident in congested districts, but the Board have no power to improve the condition of the population outside a congested district, and no part of the Oldcastle Union is in the neighbourhood of such a district. The Land Bill contains a provision for increasing the means at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of lands and their resale to tenants, and for purposes of migration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that William M'Donnell, a labourer living in the electoral division of Caldra, in the Union of Longford, put seven representations under the Labourers' Act before the Longford Board of Guardians, the last being signed by 12 labourers and lodged in December 1893, but that no cottage has since been erected for this man, who has a large family, and is compelled to live in a most insanitary house, and that, in consequence of a change of ownership, his house and that of some other labourers on the Douglas estate is about being pulled down; and, under such circumstances, will he direct the Local Government Board to order their Inspector to consider this man's representation?

The Local Government Board have been informed by the Clerk of the Longford Union that there is no truth in the statement that M'Donnell's house is to be pulled down, and the Guardians are of the opinion that the house now inhabited by him is a substantial house, in good repair, and that, therefore, another house could not be built for him.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the fact brought to light by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis that so many cows suffering from tuberculosis are giving milk which is supplied to consumers, and that the milk from these cows is dangerous to the health of human beings, he is prepared to institute some system by which all cows whose milk is sold for public consumption shall be placed under compulsory inspection?

While the Report of the Commission of 1895, has dealt fully with the scientific aspects of the matter referred to in the Question, no Report has been made upon the administrative procedures necessary to give effect to the conclusions of the Commission. The Government have assented to the proposal that a Royal Commission should, therefore, be appointed to consider and further report upon these matters. Legislation would be necessary to enable me to order the compulsory inspection of all cows whose milk is sold for public consumption, and I think it should be postponed pending the Inquiry which has been determined on. In the meantime, I may remind the, right boa. Member that it is to be gathered from the Report that by a simple process namely, by boiling the milk—immunity can be insured to the consumer.

asked whether it was not the fact that tuberculosis could not be spread from milk unless there was some disease of the udder of the cow; whether inspection could not be made both easy and effective; and whether during the time the new Commission was reporting many lives might not be lost?

I think the hon. Member should give notice of that Question.

said he had stated that legislation would be necessary to give him the power of compulsory inspection. He had no doubt that there was a great deal in what the hon. Member said, but he could not take action without legislation; and in view of the business before the House it would be impossible this Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will at once lay before Parliament the revised Agreement with the Ameer of Afghanistan by which the Bashgal Valley was given to the Ameer?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, (1) whether he will place in the Library a facsimile of the map referred to in Clause 1 of the Durand Agreement as being attached to that Agreement, and also a facsimile of the detailed map referred to in Clause 3; (2) whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of any document which sets aside the provisions of Clause 3, and transfers the Arnawai or Bashgal Valley from the British to the Ameer's sphere of influence; (3) whether he will state approximately the length and breadth of the Arnawai or Bashgal Valley; and in what other respects, if any, the Durand Agreement has been modified; and, (4) whether he will recommend the Government of India to depute Colonel Holdich, the Boundary Commissioner, or other suitable officer, to superintend the removal of those Kafirs who are being expatriated, and secure for them humane treatment?

The maps referred to in the first Question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire are inconvenient in size, and I have no spare copies; but I will have the line traced upon another map and place it in the Library. I have here a copy of the Agreement, dated April 9th, 1895, as signed by the Commissioners and subsequently ratified by the Ameer, which I will lay upon the Table. I cannot give the information asked for in the third Question at the present stage of negotiations. In answer to the fourth Question, I can only refer the hon. Baronet to the reply given by me on the 23rd March last to the hon. Member for Darlington.

IS not the valley a large one, and estimated to contain a population of about 49,000 inhabitants?

I do not know the dimensions of the valley, but the total population of Kafiristan at the extreme estimate is 90,000, and the Bash-gal Valley occupies quite a small portion of the country.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can state when the Royal Commission on Vaccination will report; and, in the event of further delay, if he can give any advice to Boards of Guardians who are not enforcing the Act pending the Report of the Royal Commission?

As to the Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, I can only remind the hon. Member of the replies which I have given to similar questions previously. I have availed myself, and shall continue to do so, of every opportunity presenting itself to inform Boards of Guardians that they have no legal right whatever to suspend action for the enforcement of the law as to vaccination, pending the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government will consider the desirability of amending the Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, with the object of defraying the expenses incurred by the Committees appointed under that Act out of Imperial funds, instead of, as is now the case, out of the funds of the boroughs and counties on the sea coast?

These expenses were imposed by the Act upon the local authorities without any objection at the time, and I see no reason for altering the law.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Board could offer the same facilities for testing and checking electrical standards as is given by the German Government with so much advantage to the German manufacturers of electrical apparatus?

The Board of Trade have caused new denominations of standards for the measurement of electricity to be made and verified, and they now have under consideration the best method of affording facilities to manufacturers and others for comparing their instruments with these standards.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the Return which he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House of soldiers at present chargeable on the Poor Rates of unions of Great Britain and Ireland will include those in receipt of outdoor relief?

The Return, which is in course of preparation, was intended to comprise only soldiers who are actually inmates of workhouses; but I will endeavour to arrange that the numbers in receipt of outdoor relief shall also be given.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware of the fact that the average railway tariffs for goods and passengers in Ireland are almost the highest in existence, and cause great dissatisfaction to the Irish commercial, agricultural, and travelling public; and, (2) whether the Government will appoint a Select Committee to examine into and report upon the feasibility and necessity of the State acquiring the Irish railways?

I am not aware that the average railway tariffs in Ireland are the highest in existence, but I am well aware that in Ireland, as in England, frequent complaints are heard in the matter from the commercial, agricultural, and travelling public. The second paragraph of the Question opens up a very large question, which, I believe, has been inquired into by more than one Royal Commission. I am not prepared at present to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to examine into and report upon the feasibility and necessity of the acquisition of Irish railways by the State.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government intend this Session to take the necessary steps for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in Ireland?

I replied to a precisely similar inquiry to this subject on Friday last.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, what is the actual amount of the bonuses paid to public vaccinators on inspection of their work during the year 1894, the amount in question being stated on page 154 of the last Report of the Board as £14,286 8s., and on page 448 as £12,171 9s.?

The sum paid to public vaccinators in the year 1894 was £12,171, as stated in the table giving detailed particulars of the payments. I regret that there was an inaccuracy in the total of that table as given on page 154 of the Report.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state what progress has been made in each of the electoral divisions of the Stranorlar and Strabane Unions, within the county of Donegal, in the erection of the labourers' cottages already sanctioned; and, what is the cause of the delay which has taken place?

A Provisional Order of the Local Government Board, authorising the erection of three cottages in the Convoy electoral division of the Stranorlar Union, was confirmed by the Privy Council in January last. Arbitration proceedings are now pending, and until the arbitrator makes his award possession of the lands cannot be taken. In the Strabane Union the erection of 20 cottages has been authorised by two Provisional Orders in the electoral divisions of Urney East, Urney West, Feddyglass, and Cloghard. One of these Orders is not yet absolute, so that no steps can at present be taken to build the cottages authorised by it, and as regards the other Order, it appears that the title of the persons interested in the lands is now being investigated with a view to the payment of compensation and the acceptance of tenders for the erection of the cottages.

What period has elapsed since the confirmation of the Order to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?

I am not able to inform the hon. Member as to the period that has elapsed. I shall be obliged to make further inquiry to satisfy him on that point.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether he requested the High Commissioner at the Cape of Good Hope to inform the President of the Transvaal that the Imperial Government had decided to send out reinforcements to the Cape; and (2), if such is the case, will he state what precedent there is for the Imperial Government informing a Foreign Power of their intentions?

The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. I believe there are precedents, but I have not had time to verify them. There have been of late so many instances in which even official statements have been magnified or distorted in South Africa, that Her Majesty's Government thought it expedient, in order to present misapprehension, to publish at Cape Town the exact nature of the movement which they had decided to carry out, and at the same time to inform the President of the South African Republic of their intentions. ["Hear, hear!"]

Have the Boer Government informed Her Majesty's Government of the massing of a considerable Boer force near Mafeking; and, if so, have they given any explanation with regard to it?

Order, order! That does not arise out of this Question.

I understood the hon. Member to ask whether Her Majesty's Government——["Order, order!"]

The hon. Member for Clare asked the Question on the Paper. The Question of the hon. Member does not arise nut of the Question on the Paper.

Very well, Sir, I will give notice for to- morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he is able to inform the House who supplied the Matabele with ammunition and rifles?

I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to a similar Question asked by the senior Member for Northampton on the 17th instant.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to the reports that a large quantity of cannon, Maxims, and ammunition are being imported into the Transvaal, and that many foreign mercenaries also are being imported; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have asked for an explanation from the Boer Government of these warlike preparations?

My attention has been called to the importation of munitions of war into the South African Republic; but I should not be justified in interfering unless I had evidence to show that these preparations were intended for other than defensive purposes. The Consul-General of the South African Republic has assured me most positively that his Government is not introducing foreign mercenaries; but many of the emigrants to the Transvaal from foreign countries are no doubt persons who, under a conscription, have had a military training.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any report from Her Majesty's Agent in Pretoria upon the importation of arms and munitions of war by the Boer Government, and whether he would inquire of Her Majesty's Agent in Pretoria as to the number of foreign immigrants having a military training who had entered the Transvaal in the last three months?

We have made all possible inquiries into both these matters, and I believe we possess all the information that is to be obtained with respect to them.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any fresh information from President Kruger with respect to the invitation which had been sent to him?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction which exists as to the Irish representation on the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Licensing Laws in Great Britain and Ireland, and to the fact that no demand for such Inquiry has been made by any Irish body, licensed or temperance, he will, before giving the terms of the reference, dismiss from the scope of the Inquiry the Irish Licensed Trade?

The names were announced in the House on Tuesday, March 31, and have been approved by Her Majesty. I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish me to repeat them?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirableness of having on the Royal Commission some gentlemen from Ireland who are familiar with the work of the retail trade?

The hon. Member is aware that the Commission consists only of 24 persons. I know that there has been a certain desire that more representation of Ireland should be on it. Almost every other interest desires to have representation, and if all the wishes were fulfilled evidently the Commission would reach a size which would make it perfectly unworkable. I am afraid it would not be possible to make any alteration now.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman make an addition when the Commission deals with the Irish part of the Question, so that the trade might have a representation?

It is not for me to say how the Commission will conduct their business, but I imagine they will take evidence, and in respect of the Irish branch of the Question I cannot doubt that they will endeavour to obtain the fullest information.

said: It would not be in our power to give directions to the Commission; but, of course, it is open to any hon. Gentleman to make private representations to the Commission, and if those representations are reasonable they will receive consideration, I have no doubt.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, before he takes the Second Reading of the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, the Government will introduce and circulate the corresponding Measures for Scotland and Ireland, in order that the House may be made acquainted with the entire proposals of the Government on the subject.

The Government, of course, are anxious to forward as soon as they can the Measures for Scotland and Ireland, corresponding to the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, but the hon. Member is well aware that there are other large and important Government Measures under consideration, and in those circumstances I cannot name a day for the introduction of the Bills referred to by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury (1) whether his attention has been called to an appeal circulated by the Rev. Dr. Kane in connection with the opening of the, Christ Church Schools, Belfast, in which he calls for support in commemoration of the struggle for the Constitution by the men of the eighties against the forces of sedition and anarchy; and, (2) whether the school in question receives any support from public money?

My attention has been called to the appeal referred to in the first paragraph, and I understand that the schools in question are National Schools. The matter, I believe, is now under the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Her Majesty the Queen had given her consent to the proposal that the building should be called the Queen Victoria Schools and Lecture Hall?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Kane made use of Her Majesty's name in. a very inflammatory advertisement, and whether it was with Her Majesty's knowledge and consent her name was so used to stir up angry feelings amongst Her Majesty's Irish subjects?

Order, order!

I believe it is a fact that these schools have been called after Her Majesty.

asked whether the discussion on the Budget Resolutions on Thursday would be of a general character?

The Budget Resolutions are to be the first Order on Thursday, and on the third Resolution it will be possible to raise, a general discussion.

asked whether it would not be more convenient to have a discussion on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill than on the Resolutions.

It would, no doubt, be more convenient to do that, but it is competent to hon. Members to raise the discussion on the third Resolution.

observed that there was an understanding that there should be a general discussion on Thursday.

I have been in communication with the Leader of the Opposition upon this subject, and what my right hon. Friend has said meets with his approval. The first Resolution is a small one relating to stamps, and the second relates to the Income Tax. The third Resolution is of a general character relating to possible amendments of the Customs and Inland Revenue law, and on that there can be a general discussion.

asked whether the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland would be brought on first on Friday.

We shall begin with Class 2, taking the Votes in their order.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the convict James Morey has been released on account of ill health?

Yes, Sir, the order has been signed for the release of the convict James Morey, and I expect that in all probability it has been acted on.

argued that if an Amendment of this kind were not agreed to it would be next to impossible for Members of Parliament to express adequately the opinions of their constituencies upon draft Orders that might be laid upon the Table of the House. The only remedy they would have would be to move an Address to Her Majesty against a draft Order and such Motions could not be made until after midnight. That placed hon. Members in a great difficulty. Eight or ten years ago there was a Manœuvres Bill under which the military authorities were anxious to have manœuvres at Dartmoor. It was found possible to introduce a clause in that Bill, preserving the water rights of Plymouth and Devonport. Without opportunities for adequate discussion it would not be possible for hon. Members to safeguard in the future the interests of their constituencies in the same way.

said, that the view of the Government was that this Amendment was unnecessary, because there would be ample opportunities of challenging a draft Order. Objection could be taken under the Bill in the 30 days during which the draft Order would lie on the Table of the House, and there would be other opportunities before manœuvres could possibly take place of challenging the policy of the Government with regard to them. Such opportunities would arise in the Estimates and Parliament would have no difficulty in retaining its control over the proposals of the authorities. The experience of the authorities was not favourable to Dartmoor as the scene of manœuvres, and there was no suggestion that there would be any manœuvres there in the future. The question raised by the hon. Member had already been decided on the Second Reading and he trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.

could not admit that there had been a Division on this Question at the stage of Second Reading. There was a difference between passing a Provisional Order and passing a Resolution. He was told in the Second Reading that procedure by Provisional Order would involve a Bill. What he proposed now was procedure by Resolution, which presented no difficulty. There was a precedent for such a Resolution. There was a close analogy in the treatment of Post Office contracts under Standing Orders 63, 64, and 65. Standing Order 63 provided that in all contracts extending over a period of years, making a public charge actual or prospective for the conveyance of mails by sea, there should be inserted a condition that the contract should not be binding until it was approved by a Resolution of the House. He now asked that an Order under this Bill should not be passed until it had been approved by a Resolution of the House. He did not believe that any Government would make attempts which would be inconsistent with public rights, but he did ask that if there were any special interests to be considered, those interests might be provided for under the Order by which the land was taken.

said that he had expressed his sympathy with the object of his hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Bill. The provision made in the Bill to secure opportunities of being heard to those interested in the localities affected was illusory. The Order was to lie on the Table for a certain time subject to the possibility of an Address being moved. If an Address was moved, the House was asked to discuss it after 12 o'clock at night. In the case of a question of some educational charity in which the Government had no strong interest, there was, at all events, a probability that both sides of the House would have full justice done to them; but when it was a question of a proposal of the Government to apply arbitrary powers to a particular locality, the opponents of it would have to face the whole power of the Government, and, at that time of night a Government could do what they liked. He wished some way could be found of giving a better opportunity of being heard to that locality. The hon. Gentleman opposite said there were many opportunities for discussing and criticising the policy of the Government, in fact that there had already been five opportunities this Session. But who at this moment knew where the manœuvres were to be held this year. Without saying that his hon. Friend had invented a perfect way, it appeared to him that a Resolution, if there was any precedent for it—and his hon. Friend seemed to have found one—was a simple and at the same time a definite means of enabling the locality to be heard. That was what was wanted, and he thought it was reasonable, seeing that the House was now laying down a general code, which might be regarded in some respects as oppressive. His belief was that in the vast majority of cases people would only be too glad to have the manœuvres in their neighbour hood, but there might be circumstances affecting the locality which rendered it undesirable that manœuvres should be held in it, and he thought it was only right that while passing this general code, the House should give the localities better opportunities than the Bill afforded them, of having their case heard.

did not think the Government were treating the Opposition quite rightly over this Bill. The Bill was one of great importance, giving large powers to future Governments, and certain safeguards against abuse of those powers were asked for. Very strong reasons had been given why the proposal of his hon. Friend should be adopted, but the Government had not given a single reason to the contrary.

thought that no case had been made out for resisting the reasonable proposal of his hon. Friend. The Bill was very much confused by the Amendments of which the right hon. Gentleman had himself given notice, and it was really very hard to understand it. His hon. Friend had clearly explained that there could be no difficulty in getting a Resolution through. He thought the protection in the Bill was really very illusory, and it seemed to him that very simple words were suggested to take its place. He did not imagine that a Resolution of the kind would be discussed at any length.

said, he should be most anxious to adopt any recommendations coming from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Government were anxious, if possible to give Parliament every proper control over their proposals. They were appointing a local Consultative Commission, and they also proposed to accept the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Tavistock in Clause 5, page 3, line 18, which, beyond the procedure in the Bill, would give to every locality an opportunity of appealing against the decision of the local Consultative Commission.

asked whether the Consultative Commission would meet on the spot, and would avoid putting the commoners and other inhabitants to expense in putting their objections before them.

Certainly, they will meet on the spot.

said he was very glad to hear that the Government were going to accept his Amendment to Clause 5. That would secure that public opinion should be adequately represented on the spot, and he had put down the Amendment as to the Resolution in order that local opinion might be adequately expressed in the House of Commons.

thought that the words of the hon. Gentleman did not cover the whole object he had in view, because it did not include valuable and ornamental timber. Under this proviso protection was not given to trees, unless old trees were considered to be objects of antiquarian interest. He therefore would propose, after the word "with" in the Amendment, to insert "valuable or ornamental timber," etc.

said that this would be to imply that ordinary timber could be interfered with and cut down Neither valuable nor ordinary timber would be interfered with.

pointed out that the forces were authorised not merely to deal with land, but to dam streams.

said, land included land covered by water.

said, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment after the assurance of his hon. Friend.

said, they had put into the Bill every kind of provision they could to protect commoners and owners, but this Amendment which have the effect of keeping large tracts of country entirely outside the possible operation of the Bill, and it would be impossible for the local Committee to go over it.

said, he was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.

accepted the Amendment.

said, he could not accept the Amendment. There might be a tongue of land of this description running out into the middle of the field of operations, and if this were tabooed it would utterly spoil the manœuvres. There was not the slightest difficulty in assessing damages to crops, and compensation would be paid. In some cases where the crops were damaged, the farmers having received compensation earnestly wished that the forces should come a second time. The commanding officers of the forces had the strongest reasons for not damaging the crops.

, thought it was a new way of relieving agriculture to allow armed forces to march over standing crops.

said, the manœuvres would be held too late in the year to pass over standing crops.

said, that was an excellent reason for accepting the Amendment, and he should support his hon. Friend.

said, the Government would have to pay for the damage, and they were thus making a permanent Bill for the taxpayer to pay.

said", this was a matter of experience. As a matter of fact, last year certain owners and occupiers had consented to allow troops to go over their land.

suggested that the Government should accept "standing crops" without the land "bearing roots." He owned that there was not the same amount of damage done in both cases.

proposed to add after "any lands" the words,—

" And for any disturbance of any rights of common, of pasturage, pannage, or turbary, or other rights of common, and for the payment or loss incurred by the owners or licensees on account of the removal or disturbance of their commonable animals during the prescribed period."

explained that this and other Amendments were covered by Amendments which it was intended that he should move.

proposed an Amendment to protect water supplied by any water company, and to provide compensation where necessary.

said this was dealt with in the Interpretation Clause.

It is not a question of damming up streams.

supported the Amendment.

ruled that the Amendment had better be dealt with in the Definition Clause.

said there was a series of amendments which had been placed on the Paper, all of which would be met by amendments he intended to propose. The desire of the Government was to have a Commission representing all those interested in land. There was no desire to have a Commission on which there should be a majority of any particular class. As the Clause stood, the Lord Lieutenant of the county would be a member and would nominate two other members. They had taken the Lord Lieutenant, as he was almost always a large landowner, and generally a large farmer, who held an undoubted position in the county, which enabled him to use his influence for the protection of the various local interests. The elective element consisted of two county councillors, and the Secretary of State had power to add others to represent these interests. What was now proposed, in lieu of this, was that, in addition to the Lord Lieutenant, there would be two elected members of the County Council beside the Chairman of the Council; and instead of the Secretary of State having unlimited power of appointment, he proposed to accept an amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset, which would provide that the power of appointment should not be more than one-half of the whole consultative Commission.

thought it would have been better if these alterations had been in print; but so far as he understood them, he had no objection at all. He should like to point out that the Lord Lieutenant was not one who could speak the opinions of a locality. ["Oh!"] He might be able to speak them wrongly. He begged to move, after "consisting" in sub-section (1), to leave out, "of the Lords Lieutenant of the counties wholly or partly within the prescribed limits, of two persons appointed by each such Lord Lieutenant." The Lord Lieutenant would not be able so well to express the opinion of the locality as the Councillors, who were the representatives of the people. They must not lose sight of the fact that, the Lord Lieutenant was not a representative. He could do just what he pleased. He was far removed from local opinion, and there was no one to call him to book. The Lord Lieutenant was a semi-military appointment, he believed. Surely there was enough of the military element to be nominated by the Secretary of State for War, and besides that they were to have a half military man in the Lord Lieutenant. He attached much greater importance to the opinions of the County Councillors than he did to the opinions of the Lord Lieutenant, for they would, he believed, be able to more adequately express the views of the locality.

said, that he had another Amendment to introduce in consequence of the statement he had made, beginning at the word "of" in line 40, and he would submit that the question should be put to leave out all the words from "consisting," in line 38, to the word "limits" in line 40.

put the question in the form suggested by Mr. Brodrick.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his objection, because he thought the Under Secretary had given them a good deal. He had struck out the two members of the Commission to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, and, though he was strongly against the Lord Lieutenant having such a power of nomination, he was inclined to think there was no very great objection to include the Lord Lieutenant, considering that the Under Secretary had fairly met them by putting on the Chairman of the County Council as a make-weight to the Lord Lieutenant, if they cared to look at it from that point of view. He thought the Committee ought to look at this matter dispassionately, and see that every interest was represented. Undoubtedly the Lord Lieutenant would represent an interest which the Chairman of the County Council would not represent. He thought the Under Secretary had also made them a large and important concession when he expressed his willingness to accept, practically, his Amendment. They had got all they had asked for with the exception of the exclusion of the Lord Lieutenant, and that being so, they could really allow the Lord Lieutenant to remain as a member of the Commission to represent a distinct interest.

said, the hon. Member for Devonshire was labouring under what he might call an absolutely erroneous impression. He seemed to think that the influence and weight of the Lord Lieutenant would be thrown in the scale in favour of the military view, as against the rural or district needs of the county concerned. He ventured to think that exactly the contrary would be the case, and that, so far as the predisposition of the Lord Lieutenant might be supposed to exist, it would be absolutely in favour of the locality for which he was Lord Lieutenant. He was perfectly certain that, taking the rural districts all through, they would be delighted to see the Lord Lieutenant a member of the Commission, because they would know that rural affairs were quite safe in his hands.

said, he presumed that the Lord Lieutenant was put on the Commission to represent the landed interest in any particular locality. If there was a case for the Lord Lieutenant to be put on the Commission, surely the case was far stronger with regard to the tenant-farmers. It was not the landed proprietor who was going to suffer for any damage by these manœuvres, and he thought the Under Secretary ought to go a little further and put a representative of the tenant-farmers of the neigh-bourhood on the Commission. He thought the hon. Gentleman had gone some distance in the direction asked by some of his hon. Friends, but he rose principally to ask him with regard to the position where a town was concerned. Take his own district in Scotland. The military operations would be carried on in close proximity to a particular town, where there was probably better land than there would be some distance away. Would the hon. Gentleman consider, before the Report stage, whether or not it would be advisable to have the local authority represented on this Commission, because it seemed to him that in some cases, the local Town Council would be equally as much concerned in protecting the rights of the inhabitants as any County Council. He would also ask him whether he had taken into account the possibility of the Lord Lieutenant not being in the country at the time these operations were carried on? Some difficulty might arise, in such a case, if the hon. Gentleman did not introduce some provision for the Deputy Lieutenant having the power of the Lord Lieutenant.

said, the only person who could be deemed to be a representative was one who was elected to represent a certain interest. Who did the Lord Lieutenant represent? The Lord Lieutenant was a great nobleman, who was selected because he was a great nobleman and a great proprietor. In a non-elected sense, he might be supposed to represent the large proprietors, but the large proprietors were not affected or touched by this Bill, and surely it was more reasonable to put on a Committee of this sort the Chairman of a County Council, and the County Councillors rather than the Lord Lieutenant, who was appointed very often through Court influence, for Party reasons, or for other such cause, and who very often did not reside frequently in the county of which he was supposed to be Lord Lieutenant. They knew the County Councillors would be there, and as they were the choice of the inhabitants, the tenant-farmers and others of the county, it was better to depend upon them rather than to add to the Committee the Lord Lieutenant.

said, his hon. Friends were anxious that the representative element should be in a majority on this Commission. If the hon. Gentleman opposite could see his way to define and limit the number to be nominated by the Secretary of State, so as to give the majority to the members of the representative bodies in the locality, they might get over the difficulty.

said, he proposed to amend the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Somerset, so as to give the Secretary of State a distinctly less number than half the Commission.

said, as he understood the matter there would be four unelectcd members and three elected members on the Commission.

said, that if the Committee limited them too much they would be obliged to leave out some of the bodies and interests who had already communicated with them, and asked them to see that they were represented specially.

said, a good deal depended upon whom the persons were who would be nominated by the Secretary of State. There was great jealousy on the part of some of his hon. Friends of military interference. Some hon. Members who had seen a Lord Lieutenant in full panoply conceived him to be a great military authority. [Laughter.] He was not surprised at that, because he always regarded with considerable awe the appearance even of a Deputy Lieutenant. [Laughter.] Practically the Lord Lieutenant would represent the landowning class and the local interests generally of the county, but he would have with him the Chairman and two members of the County Council, as now proposed by the Under Secretary, so that the local members of the Commission would be a majority of the representative character desired by his hon. Friends. The concession made by the Under Secretary was a very great one, and he thought it ought to satisfy his hon. Friends. But then they were face to face with the mysterious personages who might be put on by the Secretary of State, and who, for some malign purpose of his own, might put on nothing short of Major-Generals or formidable people of that kind. He understood that that was not the intention, but that it was the intention to get the Secretary of State, in the interests of the public and not of the Army, to put on representatives of outside or peculiar interests in the district who might otherwise suffer by not being represented. If this could be represented in any way, in order that they might have a little more definite characterisation of the members whom the Secretary of State would put on, that might completely remove the objections of his hon. Friends. He thought it was desirable the Secretary of State should have the power of putting on representatives of the commoners or classes of that sort. They must remember that the Secretary of State was not only a person at the head of Army Administration, but he was also a Minister sitting in that House, and he could have awkward questions put to him if he put on the Commission undesirable members who were imported for the real purpose of taking the military view of the questions submitted to him.

said, what was wanted was to have the tenant-farmers represented in some way.

submitted that the best way of meeting the point would be to add the following words after "Secretary of State" in line 3, page 3, "as being necessary in his opinion to represent the local interests affected."

agreed to the principle of special representation in the case of the New Forest, but thought the representation asked for was too large.

thought the New Forest was a most proper place for military manœuvres, but that was no reason why they should have extra protection besides that which they would get from the Secretary of State.

said, the New Forest stood in very special conditions, and it had a special Act of Parliament for its protection. The House of Commons would do well to follow the usual practice by giving it protection in this Bill also. He would accept the words "two persons appointed by the Court of Verderers," leaving out the official Verderer.

said, there were counties which might be affected where the County Council was entirely urban, and any nomination they might make might not be likely to give satisfaction to the rural districts. For that reason the words in the Bill should be maintained.

said, that seemed to be taking it out of the hands of the local authority.

assured the Committte that this case had been most carefully considered. There were counties which it would be invidious to name, and which would be scheduled under this Bill, where all the officers and everybody who took a prominent part in the County Council was an urban person, and their nomination would not command the confidence of the farmers.

suggested that there might be a provision that if there were an urban County Council, there the Secretary of State might have power, but that generally speaking the County Councils would be the body to make the appointment in the circumstances contemplated by the clause.

suggested that if it was thought the County Council did not represent the rural interest, words should be accepted providing that the Secretary of State might appoint a person "being a tenant-farmer."

said, that the point was a small one. He did not see the necessity of the sentence at all as given in the clause. Why should the Committee contemplate the Lord Lieutenant being unwilling to undertake this duty? If he was unable, then the Secretary of State should appoint someone from among outside members who would represent local interests.

said the Government professed to be anxious to safeguard the interests of the tenant farmers, and, as they would chiefly be concerned, he suggested that a tenant farmer should be appointed.

said the reason the Lord Lieutenant was suggested was that it was thought he would best represent the general interests of the county. A tenant farmer might in some cases be appointed, but not as a general rule.

urged that this was a matter in which the Government might meet his hon. Friend.

said he would insert words providing that the head of the Commission should be a resident owner or occupier of land in the county.

accepted the Amendment subject to verbal alteration.

desired to have some information as to Sub-section 11, which provided that "any Order made in pursuance of this section may be rescinded or altered." He should like to know to what extent that provision was likely to be made use of, and whether the interests of the localities were safeguarded?

explained that it was quite possible an Order might be made which would not be required to be voted upon, and this provision would enable it at once to be rescinded.

quite agreed so far as the rescission was concerned, but his point was rather as to the operation of the provision. It seemed to give extensive powers so as to admit of the alteration of the clause to any extent.

explained that this was a very common sub-section to insert, and would not interfere with the rights of any persons to compensation.

suggested that words should be inserted providing that "any alteration made in pursuance of this sub-section shall be subject to the conditions upon which the original Order was framed."

did not think the words suggested necessary, but if the hon. Gentleman thought they were and would put them on the Paper, they should be considered between this and the Report stage.

thought that some such words as his hon. Friend had indicated were necessary in the protection of any interest that might be affected by orders of this character

thought the hon. Member for Somerset had a little forgotten the duties this officer would have to perform. He would have to dispense public money, not derived from the rates, but voted by that House, and under such circumstances he must, of course, be an officer nominated by a Government Department. For his part, in a matter of this kind, he stood upon the words used by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton the previous night, who claimed on behalf of this House that whenever there was an expenditure of public money there should be public control. That was exactly the case here. A reasonable concession had already been made in this clause. In all former cases of this kind it was usual to insert the Treasury as the authority to appoint the officer, but in this case the Board of Agriculture had been substituted for the Treasury. That was a considerable step in the direction the hon. Member wished to go, and he sincerely trusted, under the circumstances, that the Amendment would not be pressed.

pointed out that what he desired to secure was not the power of control, but simply that of nomination. The question of the compensation to be assessed was of great importance to the farmers, and their interests should be safeguarded in the way he had suggested.

said the matter was one which concerned the administration of public funds, and it was necessary the officer appointed for this purpose should be nominated by a Government Department.

admitted that there was something in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to public funds being administered by a public officer, but he would point out that the Government had themselves set a precedent for this Amendment, for in the Education Bill local committees were to be appointed to spend public moneys. His hon. Friend contended that it ought to be within the power of the County Councils to make representations to the Treasury. He would suggest as a compromise that the Under Secretary should consent that due regard should be paid to any representations that might be made by the County Councils. He thought that would leave it optional to the County Council, and it need not be taken advantage of unless when there was a great deal of local dissatisfaction, because, undoubtedly, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, it affected the local people. They complained if they did not get sufficient compensation, so that it was a local rather than an Imperial difficulty.

said that the nominations of the County Council would probably be valuable and due regard would be paid to them. He would accept the following words:—

"Having- regard to any representations made by the County Councils wholly or partially within the prescribed limits."

asked whether the Government would accept the words, "With the concurrence of the County Council?"

No, Sir; that would be impossible.

said that local knowledge was absolutely essential in a case of this kind, and no one would know the requirements of the district better than the County Councils concerned.

said that this was not a question of administration at all. The functions of the compensation officer would be purely judicial. He was to assess the damage done by the troops, and the Government, which was one of the parties to the dispute, was actually to appoint the assessor. The County Council could have no concern but the public interest.

said that in the interests of the farmers it was better for the clause to stand as it was. The best way to make a satisfactory bargain was to deal with an agent of the Government which had to make the payments, and not resort to judicial proceedings. In nine cases out of 10 an agent would settle the claims more generously.

said that if the County Council had a voice in the nomination of the assessor, the farmers would be more likely to regard the settlement as equitable. What would be the Government's objection to the Amendment?

said the Government had already promised that due regard should be paid to the nomination of the County Councils. If the nomination were absolutely given to the County Councils, then the Board of Agriculture could not nominate anyone without the approval of the County Councils. That was an unreasonable demand, seeing that the County Councils would be in a majority on the Commission, and would settle where the troops were to go. Failing agreement as to the amount of the compensation, there was an arbitration court provided, on which the County Council would appoint one member, the Board of Agriculture a second, and the two would co-appoint a third.

urged the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset. All that was asked was that there should be concurrence between the County Council and the Board of Agriculture as to the nomination.

hoped that the words which the Government had promised to accept would satisfy his hon. Friends. If the concurrence of the County Council were necessary, there would be Debates on the qualifications of the person suggested by the Board of Agriculture. Undoubtedly the practice would be to accept the nomination of the County Council.

said that if the hon. Member had been a lawyer he would have known that the words he suggested were utterly futile and ineffective. The successful working of the Act would depend far more upon the manner in which the assessment of damage was made than on any other condition. The person appointed to make the assessment would be practically in the position of a Court of first instance, and the arbitrators would occupy the position simply of the Court of Appeal. There were certain districts—sheep-farming districts—in Wales and elsewhere, which no man could deal with under this Bill, who had not full local knowledge. ["Hear, hear!"] But wherever, or whatever, the district, it was desirable that a man should be appointed who had local knowledge of it, and could speak authoritatively with regard to it. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not understand why the Government did not accept this Amendment, for he believed it would facilitate the working of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, be thought there was some misapprehension on the point under Debate. The officer referred to would not be an assessor, or valuer, or a judical officer, to determine finally; he would be appointed merely as an agent to settle by agreement with the farmer, the extent of damage done. If an agreement could not be arrived at, the case would go to the Court of Arbitration, which was an altogether different authority, and would be appointed in such a way as to secure independence. In these circumstances he thought the Amendment was unreasonable.

agreed that a man, whose duty it would be to go over the land and ascertain the damage done, should have intimate knowledge of the locality. Moreover, having the power, as far as possible, to settle the amount of damage, surely he would be the valuer of that damage?

By agreement.

said, that, nevertheless, the official would be a valuer, and it was desirable that he should be a man in whom, not only the farmers, but the general community, also, had confidence. For it was not sufficient to tell him that the farmer would be compensated. Who was to pay the compensation? Why, the general community would have to pay it, and, therefore, he thought the person selected for the duty should be appointed by the County Council rather than by a Government Department.

would remind the Committee of the position in which Parliament stood with regard to the Bill. If the Measure was not passed into law by the 10th of May, it would be almost impossible to hold the manœuvres this year. There was not a Member of the House who did not desire the Bill to become law with proper restrictions. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, a large number of restrictions had been introduced in deference to the wishes of hon. Members, and the Government had accepted every Amendment to which they could possibly accede, and they had made every possible concession. ["Hear, hear!"] But on principle they could not accept the present Amendment, and he would remind hon. Members that even in this case the conditions were in favour of the tenant farmer, for while the agreement could not be enforced against the farmer, it would be binding against the Government. The passing of the Bill was regarded as a matter of great importance by the military authorities, and after the explanations already given he appealed to the Committee to dispose of this Amendment in order that further progress might be made with the Bill.

said the point at issue was whether or not the official referred to was to be a man who would command the confidence of the farmers and the community. He maintained that it was essential to the working of the Measure that the appointment should be controlled by the local authorities.

said the remarks of the Under Secretary had not met the point he had raised, and, therefore, he could not withdraw his Amendment. He was strongly impressed with the necessity that the farmers should be fully and fairly protected.

said that on the grounds of economy, it was advisable that some person thoroughly acquainted with the locality should be appointed for the duty in question. It was scarcely reasonable to think that any stranger sent down to a neighbourhood by the Central Department would be so well able to understand or appreciate the damage done by the manœuvres as a man thoroughly acquainted with the locality, and he urged, therefore, that it would be in the interests of the Exchequer itself that such a man should be appointed. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the hon. Member was not in order in making such observations.

said all he wished to say was, that feeling that the Bill would very materially affect the interests of the tenant farmers, he protested as emphatically as he could against any attempt on the part of hon. Members to rush it through the House.

Any such discussion is quite out of order.

said that if this officer were an arbitrator the Amendment would deserve consideration. But as the case stood it would be unprecedented to give the right of disposing of public money to an official in whose appointment the Treasury had not concurred. The consent of the Treasury to the appointment would, he believed, be mainly a formal matter.

said that it should be remembered that this was to be permanent legislation. The compensation officer would practically be an arbitrator. He would have to assess damages, to represent the case for the Government, and to pay Government money. He would decide between the Treasury and the farmer, and there was to be an appeal against his decisions to a court of arbitration.

thought that the rejection by the Government of the last Amendment rendered the present Amendment very necessary. They ought not to act in consultation with the Treasury in respect to the appointment of the compensation officer, for the object of the Treasury would be- to out down claims as much as possible. Surely the Board of Agriculture could appoint a fit and proper officer without the concurrence of the Treasury.

said that no expenditure of public money was ever made by any Department without the consent of the Treasury. The Secretary of State for War, for example, could not pay out 5s. without such consent. The Amendment of the hon. Member would introduce a complete change in the practice that now prevailed, and it was impossible to accept it.

supported the view of the Under Secretary for War. The Board of Agriculture had no money to apply to the purposes contemplated in the Bill. When the officer was appointed to disburse large sums of money it was only right that the Treasury that had to find the money should be given a nominal power of concurring in the appointment. The provision practically gave the Treasury very little real authority; but it connected the Department with the process of making good the damage done, and he thought that that connection should not be broken.

appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment. He understood that there was no opposition to this Bill, and that it was generally agreed that it was desirable to give the military authorities power to hold manœuvres this year. The Bill had been put down on the Paper day after day, but very little progress had been made with it. If there was any further delay it would be useless to pass the Measure, for no good would result from it. The object in view was one of great public importance. In the circumstances, he trusted that the remaining stages of the Bill would not be impeded.

said that there was, no doubt, a general desire that the Bill should pass; but there was also a desire that it should pass in the best possible form. He hoped, however, that the speeches delivered by hon. Members would be short, so that the Bill might be got through.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said that the Leader of the House had referred to the special circumstances of one year in support of an appeal to pass a Bill which would be permanent. The reason why the progress of this Bill should be watched very carefully was because it was an innovation constitutionally. Bills relating to the Army had hitherto been annual Bills. There was no desire to delay the Measure unduly; but, as it would apply for all time, they could not consent to take into consideration the circumstances of one particular year.

said it was provided in the clause that, when the assessment of the compensation had been agreed upon, the money was not be paid in the ordinary way, but the person injured was to go to certain places to get his money. Most of the tenant farmers in his district were very poor, and a railway journey of 20 or 30 miles would be a very serious thing for them. He therefore proposed to leave out the words, "and place and date," in line 31.

It is very inconvenient not to have the Amendments on the Paper. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Amendment would make the clause quite incomprehensible. The clause as it stood was really in favour of the tenant. Nobody could suggest that a public department would wish to compel a poor man to make a journey in order to receive his money. It was obviously meant that arrangements would be made for the payment of the money at local post offices and such places.

I do not think the Amendment is in order. It would make nonsense of the clause. [Laughter.]

pointed out that, as the Bill stood, it was required that notice of the damage should be given within one week after the troops had passed over the land. It was quite ridiculous to expect a farmer to make out his claim within one week. He thought he would be very moderate in asking for three weeks. However, he would content himself by moving the substitution of three weeks for one week.

said he was willing to make it a fortnight, though he believed that would be against the locality and the tenant farmer.

said the clause provided that every claim should be sent to the compensation officer immediately after the force had ceased to pass over the land, and within one week after the damage had been done. He referred more especially to the difficulty of ascertaining the damage to cattle within a week. However he did not want to go at length into the matter now, as he felt the force of the appeal of the Leader of the House, and recognised the necessity of getting the Bill through I as quickly as possible.

Take 14 days. [Laughter.]

said he thought a fortnight might be sufficient, but he did not see why the Government should insist on it.

said the Government had chucked in one week; why could they not grant the other? If damage was done on these lands, it could not possibly be found out by what particular corps or party such damage was done.

hoped the Government would meet his hon. Friend in this matter. He did not think he was asking for at all too much time. Of course, in the case of crops, it would be perfectly easy to discover the damage at once: but in the case of cattle he did not think it would be so easy.

said he could not accept the Amendment. He thought that the District Councils did not cover large enough areas. The land affected might be within the jurisdiction of more than one District Council.

said that the same argument would apply to the County Council, as the manœuvres might be extended over several counties. He must press upon the Government the necessity for substituting for the County Council the District Council. His reason for taking that course was that the District Council represented the district affected by the provisions of the Bill better than the County Council did.

said he was willing to amend his Amendment by inserting after the word "situate" the words "or if the common is wholly situated in one district, in such case to the District Council." Beyond that he could not go.

said that he supposed that he must be content to accept the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War proposed in lieu of his own, and, therefore, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

asked whether it was intended that the arbitrator appointed by the occupier should be remunerated by the Government? He begged to move the insertion of the following words: "Charged upon the War Office Vote with the assent of the Treasury."

said that he could not accept the Amendment.

said that he was willing to accept the words "shall, if they think fit."