I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, has any person been yet appointed postmaster of Croshea, county Longford; and, if so, who?

): An appointment has been made to the sub-office of Croshea, Co. Longford. The person selected is Mrs. Heavy, and the office has now been opened.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dealers in old metal are now registered on the police books within the Metropolitan Police District, in accordance with the provisions of the Old Metal Dealers Act, 1861?

One, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to a recent case of promotion in the Telegraph Department of the Belfast Post Office of an officer who had upon three successive occasions been superseded in promotion by other members of the staff considerably his junior, will he state what were the particular circumstances that led to his supersession in each instance; and will he cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?

There is no recent case at Belfast which fulfils the conditions specified in the Question which the hon. Member asks.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into horse breeding in Ireland; and, if so, how will the Commission be composed; what will be the terms of reference; and when is it likely to be appointed?

It is the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the question of horse breeding in Ireland, but I cannot at the present moment make any further statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the German Government has with the assent of the Prussian Parliament, greatly increased the large bounties heretofore granted upon the manufacture of German sugar, particularly on its export to England; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken or are taking to safeguard the interests of Her Majesty's West Indian and other possessions pending the final consent of the Bundesrath?

The bounties are apparently increased by the proposed new law, but the Foreign Office are obtaining further information on the subject, and Sir Frank Lascelles has been instructed to report on the differences between the old law and the new Bill.

asked if Her Majesty's Government would make representations as to the injurious effect of the tariff upon British industries, and particularly upon Her Majesty's West Indian possessions?

The sugar bounties question is by no means a new one, it is an old one. [Laughter.] Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly been making representations on the subject. I do not think any further representations of that kind suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would be likely to have a good effect, and I am sure he would not desire us to make any representations of this sort unless they were likely to have some effect.

Am I to understand that Her Majesty's Government have no power to negotiate commercially on these matters?

They have power to initiate negotiations, but negotiations have repeatedly taken place on the subject and many conferences have been held.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that the delay in restricting the importation into England of Foreign prison-made goods is leading the German Government to develop still further this traffic, and has also led the Belgian prison authorities to extend their industrial operations from mat-making for the English market to that of brushes also?

I have no information to the effect mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I am making inquiries on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now lay upon the Table any Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Germany and Italy, relating to recent affairs in the Soudan. In putting this Question to the right hon. Gentleman I will ask him whether he is aware that the Italian Government have laid before the Italian Parliament a Green-book containing Dispatches and communications bearing upon this very important subjert which may perhaps guide Her Majesty's Government?

Yes, Sir, in reply to the last Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I am well aware that a Green-book has been laid before the Italian Parliament, and I am also familiar with its contents, but it cannot be accurately described as relating for the most part to recent affairs in the Soudan—[cries of "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"]—and therefore it does not bear upon this question. In reply to the first Question I have to say that there has been no correspondence answering this description with Germany. The correspondence with Italy has referred almost exclusively to military operations, and could not, therefore, at the present time be produced.

In reference to the right hon. Geutleman's answer to my second Question, we, of course, in this Parliament have had no opportunity of reading the Green-book, but some of us, I believe, possess copies of it privately procured, and we have had access, of course, to the précis of the contents of that book published in one or two of the London newspapers. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers it possible for us to enter into the discussion which we hope to have on the subject on Thursday next without knowing what communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, and without knowing whether the précis of these communications as reported—the précis of the Reports in the Green-book—are authentic or not. Surely it is impossible—[cries of "Order!"]— for us to discuss the matter unless we are placed on equal terms with the Italian Parliament?

That is rather a difficult and complex question to answer without notice; but it does not occur to me that the discussion on Thursday next on the question of the employment of Indian troops in Suakim is at all necessarily connected with matters that have already appeared in the Italian Green-book. ["Hear, hear!"]

I should, of course, be out of order if I were to attempt to argue that point. Thursday will be the occasion for arguing it. But are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that we are not to have the same communications that the Italian Government thought proper to make upon the African question to the Italian Parliament?

No, Sir; I believe there is no present intention of laying before this Parliament the papers which have already been laid before the Italian Parliament.

I beg to ask whether, having seen the Italian Green-book, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in that book there are several Dispatches, and drafts of Dispatches, by Lord Salisbury, and that in one case when the draft of a Dispatch was submitted to the Italian Government, they complained of it, and it was subsequently corrected by Lord Salisbury? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware——

Order, order! That is a Question of which notice should be given.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, on the same subject, whether he can lay in the library of the House a copy of the Italian Green-book? I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he has it.

I do not know whether any copies are available in the Foreign Office; I have only seen one myself, but if there are any available I shall be very happy to comply with the request of the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us those English Dispatches which are published in the Green-book?

I cannot, without the authority of the Secretary of State, agree to give any Dispatches at all. I have already answered the Question put to me on that point, and have endeavoured to explain that the discussion on Thursday does not appear to me to turn on the Questions arising out of the Green-book.

I will put down the same Question for to-morrow.

I do not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but is he not aware that Lord Salisbury in another place, on the 17th of March, said that there had been considerable communications—that was his expression—with the Italian Government? However, I will put another Question on the Paper to the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow.

Yes, Sir; but may I just on that point say that the considerable communications have been for the most part by word of mouth, and such communications it is impossible to lay before the House?

With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, has not Lord Salisbury's assent to the publication of all Dispatches been asked in the usual way by the Italian Government; and may not the Under-secretary of State therefore assume that the Dispatches laid before the Italian Parliament may be laid before this House?

I think it must be evident to the House that it is very inconvenient that the Under Secretary should be pressed without notice for an answer to such Questions. After all, there are two days before the Debate comes on in regard to the Suakim troops, and I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to put the Question down on the Paper.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he has any information as to whether the accident on the Snowdon Railway was caused by a depression or settlement in the permanent way; who certified before the line was opened that it was safe for traffic; when any reports relating to the above will be published; and, will the line be thoroughly tested before being used in the holiday traffic, and by whom?

The engineers are of opinion that the accident was caused by the locomotive mounting the rack probably in consequence of a subsidence of the permanent way caused by the melting of snow in a cutting. As the line was not constructed under any statutory authority the provisions of the Railway Acts as to inspection do not apply. On the recommendation of the Company's engineers, no passenger traffic has been carried since the date of the accident, and none will be carried pending the adoption of certain additional precautions suggested by the engineers to prevent the engine mounting the rack.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will represent to the Land Judges in Ireland the desirability of not accepting offers from private individuals for bankrupt estates situated in the congested districts, in view of the compulsory powers which will be conferred upon the Congested Boards by the Land Bill now before Parliament?

The Land Bill does not confer compulsory powers upon the Congested Districts Board, and in any event it would be quite irregular for me to make a representation of the nature suggested to the Land Judge.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, has it come to his knowledge that, at the Ballygawley Petty Sessions, on the 19th inst., the Ballygawley Loan Fund Society were granted committal orders on summonses issued by them against a number of defendants, under the Employers' and Workmen's Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Viet., c. 90); and does this Act apply in the cases of persons borrowing money from loan fund societies, or in that of the sureties of such persons?

Yes, Sir, I find that the facts are as stated in the Question. The Act referred to does not apply to borrowers or their sureties.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can give an assurance that the proper authorities will take all such steps as may be necessary to vindicate the law by the prosecution of persons concerned in the outrages on East Coast fishing boats at Newlyn?

also asked the Home Secretary, whether any steps had yet been taken for the prosecution of the rioters at Newlyn, and in the event of the local authorities having failed to do their duty by instituting prosecution, whether he would give instructions for the Treasury to prosecute the offenders, and whether he would direct the police authorities to assist in procuring the necessary evidence?

I have instructed the Treasury solicitor to render such legal assistance as the police may require in the prosecution of those concerned in the recent disturbances. I have heard from the Justices this morning that 15 informations have been laid.

I beg to ask the Attorney General, under what acts, by what procedure, and from whom can compensation be obtained by the East Coast boat-owners and fishermen for loss inflicted upon them by unlawful acts done on the Cornish coast within the limits of area under the control of local authorities, and beyond these limits?

My only knowledge of the facts is from the reports in the newspapers. As I understand them, there is no means by which the East Coast boat-owners can obtain compensation for the losses inflicted upon them, except by civil proceedings against the persons who were guilty of the acts complained of. The only statutory provisions applicable in such cases are those contained in the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886, and Section 515 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, neither of which have, I believe, any application to the case in question.

asked whether, in view of the serious defect in the law to which the hon. and learned Member had just called attention, Her Majesty's Government would bring in a Measure for the purpose of remedying this defect so far as shipping property was concerned.

My hon. Friend will recognise that a Question asking Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill for such a purpose must be addressed to the Leader of the House; but I will say, on my own behalf, that this question of making a neighbourhood liable is one of very great difficulty, and could only be undertaken after the very gravest consideration.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how it is proposed to meet the additional outlay of £500,000 in the present financial year on the Uganda Railway?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer that question? A Bill will at once be introduced authorising the necessary payments from the Consolidated Fund, and authorising the Treasury for that purpose to borrow by terminable annuities for periods not exceeding 30 years. Those annuities are to be paid out of the moneys annually provided by Parliament for the foreign and colonial services, and, if these are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund. The excess of receipts over annual working expenses will be paid into the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that conveyances and horses belonging to the Army Department as the Curragh Camp have for some years been used for private purposes, in contravention of the Army Regulations and to the injury of the hackney car trade in the towns of Newbridge and Kildare; and, whether he will see that the practice is discontinued?

There appears to be some divergence of practice in the different branches of the service, and the employment of Government horses for purposes not of a strictly military character has from time to time been sanctioned by commanding officers, such employment being specially brought to notice in the inspection reports. The attention of the Commander-in-Chief has been drawn to the question, and the matter will be further considered.

asked whether the order of business would be at all altered or interfered with owing to the all-night Sitting. What Supply would be taken on Friday?

asked that a Question should be put on the Paper for to-morrow. The Supply taken would not be of a very controversial character.

asked if it was intended to proceed with the third Order to-night?

hoped that they would make progress with the Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Bill, which is uncontroversial.

said that it would save time if they had some idea given them of the Bill as it now stood as compared with what it was when it was read a Second time. Into the details of the alterations made he did not care to go, but Members generally had a very meagre means of becoming acquainted with what took place in those recesses of the House—[laughter]—to which this Bill had been referred. This Bill had been relegated to one of the purlieus of the House—[laughter]—and he thought the Minister in charge of the Bill should inform them of the changes made in it. They should have some evidence that the Bill now before them was the same Bill which obtained the sanction of the House on the Second Reading. As to the subject generally, he thought there was a great deal of misconception. It was said that these light railways would confer an enormous boon on agriculture, but he could only say from his experience of the views of agricultural bodies that there was a very strong inclination not to accept any Measure which increased agricultural burdens. It was a sine qua non that no addition should be made on any pretence to the rates. Again there were those who thought that the time was hardly well chosen for dealing with this question. The whole matter, it was urged, was being revolutionised at the present moment. He was not speaking on behalf of what was called motor power. Pending their decision that they were proceeding in a right groove, they ought at any rate, to protect the public funds from being engaged in enterprises of this kind. The railway system of the country had hitherto been developed at the cost of private enterprise, and before they agreed to rates being placed at the disposal of those who desired to engage in railway speculation, they ought to be told whether the plan met with the approval of the responsible Government of the day. If the Government intended to keep the Measure in safe and narrow limits no great harm would be done, because he believed the ratepayers' representatives would, as a rule, take good care their money was not spent recklessly in light railway enterprises. As to the question of gauge, there were many persons who thought that the extension of our existing railway system, in certain districts, at any rate, upon the same gauge as the present lines would be a very useful addition to our system of locomotion, but that the moment there was an alteration in the gauge, nine out of ten of the advantages which were supposed to result from the introduction of light railways would be destroyed. He did not, ask the President of the Board of Trade to commit himself in the abstract to the principle that under no conceivable circumstances should a railway up a mountain side be allowed to vary in gauge from the regulation; but if there were to be little paltry tramways constructed all over the country, so far from developing the system of locomotion, a retrograde step would be taken which it would take years to overcome. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that this Government would at the outset show they were desirous of safeguarding the interests of the public, and that above all things they would lend a ready ear to those who discountenanced, as he most distinctly did, the tendency of the Bill to place private property at the disposal of speculators or ambitious local authorities without the safeguard of Parliamentary control. It was true that property could only be taken after inquiry by a Board of Trade official, but he reminded the House that, after all, such an official was a nominee of the Crown.

was very much afraid his right hon. Friend and he were at issue on one of the most fundamental principles of the Bill, and he accordingly expected that any explanations he might give were not likely to remove the objections the right hon. Gentleman entertained to the Measure. The provision as to the setting up of a tribunal regarding the acquisition of land other than the Parliamentary tribunal which now existed had been cordially assented to by the House. It was either a good thing or a bad thing that light railways should be constructed. If it was a good thing, as he thought it was, it was evident light railways could not be promoted at such a low cost as would enable them to convey goods at a cheap rate if the present Parliamentary procedure were to be adhered to. As to the official of the Board of Trade being a nominee of the Crown, ho reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Trade was responsible to Parliament for everything that took place in his Department. He further reminded his right hon. Friend that by the Bill they set up a body of Commissioners who would be representative more of public opinion than of officialism. Any scheme, he thought, which passed investigation at the hands of those Commissioners of the Board of Trade would be one which would meet with the approval of the Parliamentary tribunal if that were called in. In respect to gauge, every scheme woud be treated on its own merits where possible. It was well the gauge should be the same as the present railways in order to avoid the expense of transhipment; but the right hon. Gentleman would admit there were conditions to which that would not apply; if they were to insist upon the ordinary gauge in mountainous districts, it would mean that there would be no light railways constructed there at all. Again, he assured his right hon. Friend that the Central Chamber of Agriculture had passed a resolution in favour of the Bill, and that the Board of Trade had received copies of resolutions passed by a very large number—40 or 50—of local bodies in agricultural districts in which the desirability of rates being available, under circumstances, was recognised. His right hon. Friend spoke of the rates being used for railway speculation, but in the next sentence he really answered himself, for he there said the ratepayers' representatives would take good care their money was not recklessly squandered. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: "In most cases."] He did not think they could do much more than provide for the majority. Then his right hon. Friend desired to know what the Government intended to do with regard to the Amendment on which he was in a minority in the Standing Committee, and asked the Government to stick to their Bill. That was exactly what they were going to do. When he was in a minority he was rather in favour of some Amendment of the Bill, and the majority approved of the provision then under discussion. There were two classes of railway which, it was anticipated, would be made under this Bill—namely, branches of main lines and steam tramways. He did not think any material alteration had been made in the Bill. The Grand Committee went thoroughly into all the questions involved, and, he thought, disposed of the Bill in a satisfactory manner. ["Hear, hear!"]

could assure the House that no Bill had ever gone through Committee with fewer changes than had the present Bill. The Bill, as it left the House on the Second Reading, allowed the local authorities to construct and work light railways. The right hon. Member for the London University came down with an Amendment to omit the words "construct and work," and in a moment of weakness the President of the Board of Trade was disposed to make some concession, but the Committee stood by the Bill. So far from the proposal in the Bill being one for the speculation in railways by the local authorities, it was one which provided that local authorities should have the power and control over the matter, and not railway companies. Surely they had heard enough from Members representing agricultural constituencies during the last few years, of the harsh dealing of railway companies with the agricultural interest. Here was a Measure introduced with a view to benefit agriculture. The demand for it came entirely from the agricultural interest, the Bill was promoted in the agricultural interest, and he said that if the local authorities were to have power to construct and work railways they would simply hand over the working and construction to the railway companies, they would place the local authorities entirely at the mercy of the railway companies, and very few tramways would be constructed unless they gave some guarantees to the railway companies. He thought his right hon. Friend need be under no apprehension that the local authorities would enter into railway speculations. He was bound to say that the Bill had come back to the House mainly in the condition in which it left it, with some beneficial changes, and if other changes were to be made, they must be in the way of enlarging the scope of the Bill and not of restricting it.

said that as he moved the Amendment in the Grand Committee to which reference had been made, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet in deprecating the proposal that local authorities should be allowed to make railways with ratepayers' money; and believed also that the existence of this power would discourage their being made either by railways or independent companies. That question, however, would, no doubt, be discussed when Clause 3 was reached. In fact, however, the Bill on this point stood as it was on the Second Reading, and, while, therefore, agreeing in principle that the power given was dangerous and would diminish the value of the Bill, he thought the result of the proceedings in the Grand Committee was no reason why they should not now proceed to consider the Amendments.

could not discover from the Bill what a light railway was. That was a matter which deserved consideration at the very outset. They had heard from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure that what was expected under the Bill would be either that short branches would be made in connection with main lines, or that something in the nature of steam tramways would be constructed. But, unless he had overlooked something in the perusal of the Bill, it appeared to him it was left entirely to the discretion of the Board of Trade to say whether or not an undertaking, however great—even supposing it was a railway of the ordinary gauge running from Land's End to John o' Groats—should be a light railway under the Act. He found Sub-section 3 of Clause 9 stated:—

"If the Board of Trade on such consideration are of opinion that by reason of the magnitude of the proposed undertaking or of the effect thereof on the undertaking of any railway company existing at the time, or for any other special reason relating to the undertaking, the proposals of the promoters ought to be submitted to Parliament they shall confirm the Order."

alluding to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Essex, said for his part he thought, on the whole, the Bill was better as it was, with this matter left in the discretion of the Light Railway Commissioners and the Board of Trade. He was seldom able to support the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Thanet on economic matters, and he was not able to support him on the present occasion. In the defeat of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, he regretted to say that he supported the Government, and found himself in rather an awkward position. He had learned a lesson from it. His idea then was that too much temptation was being given under the clause of the Bill they were considering to local authorities to plunge into speculation in the matter of railways which might lead them to impose important additions to the rates. His right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield said he did not think the local authorities would plunge into such extravagance. But in Ireland there had been tremendous extravagance with regard to this experiment, and many local authorities were labouring under serious difficulties because of the speculations they had been obliged to take up in connection with light railways. In the vote he gave on the Committee he was thinking of protecting local authorities. But those who voted for the Amendment, which was carried, were thinking of the general principle of allowing the local authorities of Great Britain to carry out the works themselves. He was in favour of that general principle, and he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he would not go back upon what the Committee did, but would stick to the Bill in the shape in which it had come down to the House. He wished the right hon. Gentleman had given them a little more information on other defeats he sustained, because that was not the only one. There was an Amendment introduced to exempt light railways from the Railway Passenger Duty, and the right hon. Gentleman voted against it, but it was carried. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the same decision here as he had announced in the case of the previous defeat, and that he would support the Bill in its present shape, and exempt these light railways from the operation of the Railway Passenger Duty. There was another Amendment carried which provided that wherever there was a compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of constructing railways there should be no compensation paid for compulsory disturbance.

It was carried only by the casting vote of the Chairman.

said that was a very suspicious remark, and he hoped it did not indicate that the Government were going to go back on their defeat on that point. He hoped they would not do that, but that they would support the Bill as it came back from the Grand Committee. But the main ground of his objection to the Bill, as he stated on the Second Reading, had never been met at all, and at the last moment he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and ask whether he could not do something to consider it. He thought the financial clauses of the Bill were far from right. The interest which the Treasury would charge the local authorities, it was true, had been reduced from £3 10s. to £3 2s. 6d., but that was a very slight Amendment. He thought the principle on which assistance should be given was that the Government should furnish a small grant at interest not exceeding 2 per cent. for a certain number of years—say 10, 15, or 20—on condition that the line should be built. He was told by one of the highest railway authorities in the House that all the railways that were required in many districts in England could be built if a guarantee of this kind could be given. He might be met with the experience of Ireland in the matter of guarantees, but what was wrong there was not the principle but the amount of the guarantee. The guarantee given was 5 per cent., which allowed the greatest extravagance. What would be the effect of a guarantee from the Treasury of 2 per cent.? Any profits that might be earned—whether they were ½, 1, or 1½ per cent.—would go to meet the guarantee, so that the £1,000,000 proposed under the Bill would go a very long way if this principle of guarantee were adopted. He desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with reference to the answer he had given as to the Snowdon Railway. He created a feeling of alarm in his mind when he told the House that the Board of Trade had no control whatever over that railway. He thought the House should know what were the circumstances under which a railway could be constructed and carry passengers, and yet entirely escape from the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. It seemed to him a very extraordinary thing that this should be the case, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should take some steps to bring such an enterprise within the purview of his Department.

said he could not see what was meant, under the Bill, by "light railway." He would have liked to see the President of the Board of Trade defining exactly what a light railway was—whether it was to be a 30-inch or 36-inch gauge. According to the Bill it seemed quite possible for a company, having power, to construct or to work a railway that might be authorised by Order under this Act, to construct and work, or to work that railway. Having got power to construct a 4 ft. 8½ in. railway, how could they make that a light railway? He could not see that the clause giving this power was applicable at all to the title light railway, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman required to alter it so as to say what gauge the light railway was to be. The late President of the Board of Trade had spoken about the railway companies not having the working of these lines. His own view was that County Councils could not work these railways. It would be a failure, and he would tell the House why. No light railway made and worked by a County Council would be a success unless the railway company that may join the line were agreeable that the County Council should run the railway. The larger company would kill the light railway by rates. Again, who was to decide what rates were to be charged? He thought the Bill was very weak in not defining what a light railway was in contradistinction to the general 4 ft. 8½ in. gauge.

thought his hon. Friend was not quite aware of the great difficulty there was in defining a light railway. The real fact was that a light railway was a cheap railway, and the question of the gauge did not enter into the matter at all. One way of making it cheap was to relax the restrictions of the Board of Trade. Those restrictions were absolutely necessary for their great trunk lines, but they were absolutely unnecessary on little lines running into remote rural districts. The question of gauge was one which must depend entirely upon local circumstances. For instance, in North Wales, where they had a homogeneous traffic of slates from the quarries down to the main line, it was carried with very great cheapness and very satisfactorily on a gauge of 1 ft. 11½ in. On the other hand, where they had agricultural products which were not destined for consumption at the next market town but were merely being collected to be forwarded on to great centres, there, in order to avoid the cost of transhipment, it would be necessary to have the standard gauge of 4 ft. 8½ in. throughout, otherwise the cost of transhipment might entirely destroy the value of the line. He hoped the Government would not in this case embark upon the very difficult, if not impossible, task of attempting to define what should be a light railway, but would offer every facility for making the railways as cheaply as possible.

said on the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, he would like to say that he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend who had just spoken, and thought the Government had exercised a very wise discretion in not attempting to define a light railway. The whole scheme and plan of the Bill was to leave a very large discretion to the authority it was proposed to constitute, and the cases in different parts of the country were so various that no definition would suit them all. He hoped, therefore, the Government would stand firm on this point. As regarded the general question, all he wished to say at this stage was that, having attended carefully the Debates of the Grand Committee, he did not think it could be said that the Bill had been altered to such an extent as to make it substantially different from the Bill which was read a Second time. A good many minor changes were introduced in Grand Committee, and he thought, on the whole, the Bill had been improved, but these changes were not those which went to the principle of the Measure. Although he did not at all deny that there were many important questions which remained for the House to settle at this stage, and although he still regretted that the Bill was referred to a Grand Committee at all, still he did not think it was competent for anyone who had followed the discussions there to say that the Bill was so substantially altered as to make it necessary that they should reconsider the main points which the House had already affirmed.

said he did not think the question of gauge was of paramount importance. The great expense of making railways at present in agricultural districts was caused by the requirements of the Board of Trade. The real way in which to get a cheap railway was to have very little official restriction, but if they were compelled to make platforms, as at present, that cost £300, to have signal-boxes all over the place, a station house, and conveniences for everybody at every station, they must necessarily be involved in a large expenditure. The information laid before the National Railway Congress showed that the distinguishing feature of local lines in Holland was the special privilege given in the matter of regulations affecting their construction and working, and if they did not run faster than 12½ miles an hour they were hardly subject to any special rules as railways at all. They were treated as though they were ordinary vehicles drawn by horses or in any other way. He hoped that Members of the House would try their best to pass this Bill into law. There were many districts, he was sure, in which it would be extremely useful, and he believed that what they had to aim at was to enable the railways to be constructed so cheaply that they would pay their way. If they surrounded them with regulations and difficulties, it would pay no one to make them, and the result would be that they would not be made.

said it seemed to him that the doing away with the restrictions now imposed by the Board of Trade upon the construction of railways was a new departure of a serious character. He took it that these restrictions were imposed in the interests of the community, and as these light railways would have to go through more or less populous districts it seemed to him there was very great danger in relaxing the well-considered regulations which had been found necessary up to now for the protection of the public. These railways must cross highways upon which there was a considerable amount of passenger and vehicular traffic, and, in view of the fact that there was a strong desire on the part of a large number of people to make it compulsory upon railway companies to put bridges over main roads where they crossed them instead of the old dangerous system of level crossings, he thought they should be subject to some restriction. Or were they to make their light railways upon the lines on which they were made in Chicago, where all that was considered at a level crossing was that a man or woman should stand there and let down a stick across the road when a train was approaching? He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would realise that the relaxation of these restrictions was a very serious matter. As to the question of gauge, no doubt there was very considerable difficulty in saying what was a light railway, but still he did not agree that a 4 ft. 8½ in. gauge was not a light railway. He had had considerable experience in the construction of light railways, and he had never laid down any other than a 4 ft. 8½ in. gauge. In his opinion, it would be a very great mistake for County or District Councils or any other authority to lay down railways under this Act of any other gauge that 4 ft. 8½ in., because, speaking with considerable experience, he could assure the House that the cost of transhipment was a most serious matter. It was foolish for any man to tell him that joining up to a 4 ft. 8½ in. existing main line with a 3 ft. or 2ft. 6 in. gauge railway was not handicapping that railway from the very commencement. He desired to enter his protest against the new departure to which he had already referred, without carefully considering what they were doing, and to express a hope that it was not too late even now for the President of the Board of Trade to put a clause in the Bill declaring that all light railways constructed under this Bill should be of a 4 ft. 8½ in. gauge, so as to be able to join up to their existing railways. If he did that, he would never regret it.

said that if they tried to define too much they would make the Bill an absolute dead letter in many parts of the country. He could not imagine anything more destructive to a Bill of this kind than to lay it down that one particular gauge should be adopted. Wherever it was possible, it was perfectly obvious that the main trunk line should be utilised for the promotion of the objects of the Bill, and that the same gauge should be adopted for the light railways. On the other hand, there were cases, as in Wales, where a railway with a 2-foot gauge might be of enormous utility. It was, therefore, absurd to lay down a hard-and-fast line as to gauge. He would, however, suggest to his right hon. Friend whether it would not be advisable to so far define a light railway as to say that it should not have a greater maximum speed than 12 miles an hour. Such a restriction would not only be a precautionary measure as regarded human life, but it would also be a protection for stock, and would do away with the necessity of erecting expensive fencing.

said they were agreed that in order to get light railways to work they must relax the expense caused by Parliamentary inquiries, and also the expense caused by the Board of Trade restrictions. But there was one duty that he did not see imposed by the Bill either upon the Commissioners or upon the Board of Trade. That was the duty of inquiring into the solvency of the projectors of a scheme. He thought it a matter of the highest importance that the financial aspect should be looked into both by the Commissioners, who had no duty of that sort put upon them at present, and also by the Board of Trade when the matter came before them. He could not conceive anything more mischievous than that people should take up wild-cat schemes, getting them in a cheap way from the Board of Trade, without the prospect of being able to actually carry them out, and merely to use them as a block against other schemes. The position of the Commissioners did not seem to him large enough to attract the class of men whom they wanted to serve upon such a Commission. Only one of them was being paid £1,000 a year; the other two they expected to get to serve voluntarily. But they did not give sufficient dignity to the position, sufficient power to inquire into the whole aspect of the case when it was brought before them, to get the best class of men.

remarked that, though the narrow gauge lines in Wales had been of great service, it was generally admitted that the wide gauge would be much more satisfactory both for agricultural and mineral purposes. Many of these lines had been constructed originally for the purposes of slate quarries. The slate quarries had stopped work, and the lines had fallen into disuse, for the simple reason that it cost too much to tranship goods brought down by them. If those lines had been originally made on the same gauge as the Cambrian line, they would have been of considerable service. He was told, too, by those who understood the subject, that there was no substantial difference between the cost of laying down a wide gauge railway and that of laying down a narrow gauge line. At any rate, he was positive that in the two or three cases that had come under his observation it would be very easy to lay down the wide gauge.

contended that it was essential that all the details of the Bill should be discussed in order to make it a practical Measure. The desirability of having these railways at all was not altogether very clear. A large amount of produce was now brought into London by road even from a distance of 30 miles, and in other districts tramways had been laid along the roads for convenience. If it came to a question of these railways being placed in opposition to the other railways in the country, he was quite sure that the cost of transhipment would be fatal to them, and, in addition to that, in many cases the existing companies would construct them themselves. It would be very difficult to get people to invest their money in them; and he strongly advised the House, before committing themselves to the details of the Bill, to be assured that they would be carefully thought out.

said he did not know what the intentions of the Government with regard to this clause might be, but he thought it ought to be opposed. To begin with, it was rather indefinite in its terms. It appeared to have no reference to that kind of property the hon. Gentleman wished to protect, but to refer only to property belonging to a railway or canal company. The question of whether private property was to be interfered with or not was the whole essence of an application for an Order under the Bill, and was the question which the Commissioners would have to decide. This was the first time it had been proposed to put any legislative restrictions on applications from railways. If a light railway company was to be prevented from acquiring any property of an existing railway company the whole object of the Bill would be defeated—namely, to enable a light railway company to obtain communication to existing lines. The clause said that land was not to be acquired when, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, it might be wanted for the extension of a factory or public work. On this there arose the question, what was the meaning of the expression "public work"? Was a school a public work within the meaning of the clause? If it was not why should it be excluded from the operation of the clause? In his opinion, the provisions of the clause were most invidious.

said that it was impossible for the Government to assent to this clause. The object of the Bill was to promote light and, therefore, cheap railways. He thought it might safely be assumed that no railway company or corporation would ever apply to acquire property of great value if they could possibly avoid taking it. Cases such as the hon. Member wished to provide against would, therefore, seldom arise. The Government, however, could not agree to the insertion of the clause, because, in exceptional cases, it might have the effect of preventing the acquisition of necessary land and the construction of a railway.

hoped the clause would not be added to the Bill, as it might prevent very desirable railway extensions. Owing to the restrictive action of certain large proprietors of parks and pleasure grounds when railways were first made, some districts of the country remained to this day undeveloped by railway communication.

regretted that the Government should refuse to agree to this clause, which was similar to one which appeared in the Public Health (Scotland) Bill.

was glad that the Government opposed this clause, because it would place difficulties, amounting in some cases to an absolute veto, in the way of the construction of light railways. If the clause were carried some one owner or occupier in a district, might, by his action, prevent the construction of a railway in that locality.

had placed the following new Clause upon the paper:—

said that the Bill sanctioned the preparation of orders making exceptions and variations in the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, but did not go as far as this Amendment, which would really negative the provisions of those Acts. The question was whether the Lands Clauses Act should be amended in the way suggested? He hoped that the House would not amend the Act in this way or in this form. If any alteration had to be made, there was no reason why it should not be done by an amendment of the Lands Clauses Act, but this was a much more serious matter than probably the hon. Baronet thought. It would not be within the purview of the object of a Light Railways Measure to sweep away the whole restriction as to the method in which the money should be dealt with.

admitted that his sympathies were with the object of the hon. Gentleman opposite. There would be a large number of cases under this Bill in which it would be extremely desirable to save expense and avoid cumbersome procedure. If the Attorney General could hold out any hope of bringing in a one-clause Bill to amend the Lands Clauses Act in the way suggested, there would not be any objection to it, nor would it take up much time.

I will consider it.

supported the Amendment. He pointed out that this Bill altered the present system of railway promotion. It was not an argument against the suggestion that they were interfering in a tinkering way with the system which at present existed. He had always understood that the object of the Government was to allow Light Railways to be made immediately in the different districts of the country where they were now longing for better communication with the trunk lines. If they had to wait until another Act was passed to enable these lines to be made cheaply, it seemed to him that the delay would be fatal so far as assistance was to be given to agriculture by the making of Light Railways. But immediately a proposal was made to amend the Lands Clauses Act, other amending suggestions would be brought forward, and the reform would be a more laborious affair than was imagined.

pointed out that it was not a question of getting the land more easily or not. The real question involved was whether they were to deal with moneys of a certain amount in a different way in the case of heavy railways and in the case of light railways. It seemed to him that the reasoning of the Attorney General was just, and that the protection of the funds was equally necessary in both cases.

suggested that the clause should be amended by inserting the words "any moneys not exceeding the sum of £500 or £1,000." If Light Railways were to be constructed, it was desirable that facilities should be placed in the way of those who promoted them. Corporations, for example, competent to promote light railways would be substantial concerns, and the Board of Trade would have ample power to see that the bodies constructing railways would have ample means to carry out the work. Some sum should be inserted in the clause.

thought that the Government would do well to accept the clause as it stood, at least as far as the Second Reading of it was concerned, some words being inserted afterwads to make it workable. Chancery proceedings were exceedingly expensive and cumbrous. It was not only a matter of cheapening the process for the constuction of light railways, but also for those who had to sell their land or other property. He invited the Attorney General to say now whether he would introduce the one-clause Bill which had been referred to for amending the Lands Clauses Act. If no such undertaking was given he hoped that the hon. Gentleman opposite would go to a Division.

said there was one distinction under the Lands Clauses Act as to heavy and light railways. When money was paid into Court it waited there and whenever it was reinvested the promoters had to pay the cost. The money often lay in the Court for ten years. If they were dealing with a railway like the South Western or the Great Western, it did not matter whether the costs were paid now or ten years hence, but in the case of a small light railway there might be no capital funds available ten years hence out of which costs could be paid. He hoped, therefore, the Government would reconsider the point.

warned hon. Gentlemen who desired amendments in various Acts of Parliament connected with railways, that it would be extremely inconvenient to attempt to do so by means of the Light Railways Bill. If, however, his hon. Friend would consent to a limitation of the amount to £500, he should be prepared to aceept the principle of this particular Amendment.

, in pursuance of the declaration of the President of the Board of Trade, moved to amend the Amendment by inserting the words

"any Order under this Act may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Act, authorise the payment to trustees of any purchase money or compensation not exceeding £500."

said that he always differed from the right hon. Gentleman with hesitation and regret, but on this occasion he could not agree with him. As to whether the Railway Commissioners were fully employed or not he would not argue; but the last figure quoted by the right hon. Gentleman showed a very remarkable increase upon the sittings in any previous year, although even then the number of sittings was I not formidable. He was informed, however, that the Commissioners had many other duties, and that it was extremely likely that in future the number of cases which they had to hear would be largely increased. But whether these gentlemen were fully employed or not, he did not think that to appoint one of them as the paid Commissioner under the Bill would conduce to the proper working of the Measure, or to the solution of the many difficulties which would arise. No doubt Lord Cobham, the Commissioner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, had had valuable experience as the chairman of the Great Western Railway, but that was not quite the experience which would be required by the paid Commissioner under the Bill. It was not so much experience of railway management as knowledge of railway construction that was wanted; and that could only be found in some eminent engineer who had superintended the construction and working of light railways, and who would have a thorough knowledge of all questions affecting expenditure. He must be able to advise those who came before the Light Railway Commissioners as to the best means of carrying out their projects. If Lord Cobham were appointed as paid Commissioner it would be impossible to find a gentleman with sufficient engineering experience to act unpaid. Then, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, it might very well be that cases would come before the Railway Commissioners for review which had been settled by one of their number under an Order under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Railway Commissioner who was concerned with the Light Railways would take no part in reviewing his own decisions. But that would mean, in the case of Lord Cobham, that the very man who thoroughly understood railway affairs would not be able to hear appeals from the Light Railway Commissioners. Then it was expected that those Commissioners would travel about the country for different purposes.

said the House was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton for drawing attention to a great scandal in the administration of the Railway Commission. The matter had been discussed frequently in Supply and the answer always was that though the Commission sat only 20, 30, or 40 times in the year they had other work to do. If the cost of the Commission was calculated it would be found that each sitting, apart from administrative expenses, cost between £300 and £400. That, he thought, was a very serious matter. But he found from the Report of the Commission that their whole work consisted of receiving and reviewing 104 applications during the year. Indeed if one was to accept their own Report to Parliament they had done nothing at all. It was a very brief Report. It simply said, "May it please your Majesty, we the Commissioners under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, beg to make our Report of our proceedings during the year." There was not one word more. That sentence was only followed by an appendix to the so-called Report containing a tabulated list of 104 cases. But, nevertheless most important questions had been brought before the Commissioners. The hon. Member for Scarborough, for instance, brought before them the attempt of the railway companies to increase their rates indirectly by a reduction of the quantities to be carried. The hon. Member succeeded in upsetting that attempt; but in the report of the Commission there was not one word of allusion to that leading case. That was a striking indication that the manner of transacting work by the Railway Commission was very perfunctory. Therefore as it was of vital importance that all applications in respect of light railways should be disposed of speedily, he believed that the worst fate that could happen to the light railways was to hand them over to a Commission against whose administrative work many of them had been protesting for many years. He doubted, too, whether an ex-chairman of a great railway company would be a good element to introduce into the Light Railways Commission. Such a man would be imbued with the old spirit of railway management and would regard rates and charges in dividends instead of in the interest of the public. For those reasons he doubted whether it would be an economy either in time or money to hand over the light railways to the Railway Commission. He desired to see the light railways speedily constructed not in the interest of agriculture alone, but in the interest of the towns, and of fishing and other industries as well, and he consequently thought that what was needed was a body which would be speedy and practical in its operations and which would set its face strongly against technicalities, and especially against any idea of unduly increasing the rates.

said it seemed to him that the Amendment afforded the only opportunity the House would have of discussing the whole nature of the proposed Commission with a view to strengthening it, because under the rules and orders they were not at liberty to move any increase in the salaries of the Commissioners. The advantage of the Amendment was that it would put the Commission on a more adequate footing than was proposed by the Bill. The scheme of the Bill by which one gentleman was to be paid £1,000 a year and two other gentlemen sitting with him were to be paid nothing at all would not give a strong Commission; and he thought that if one of the Railway Commissioners was added to it he would command more respect through the country. The President of the Board of Trade had argued that it was necessary to have an engineer of skill as the paid member of the Commission. What sort of an engineer did the right hon. Gentleman expect to get for a salary of £1,000 a year?

First class.

And one who would give his whole time?

Certainly.

doubted whether it was possible to get for such a salary a man for whom those whose interests would be involved in the work of the Commission would have respect. He doubted also whether it would be possible to get two other gentlemen with the necessary qualifications who would be willing to become members of the Commission and to go over the country holding local inquiries without any recompense for their services. He thought the Commission which the Bill proposed to constitute was not likely to command respect in the country, and as the Amendment would do much towards giving it the qualifications that would command that respect he hoped the Government would still see their way to accepting it.

said he would naturally desire to be on the side of economy, but he could not but feel that the President of the Board of Trade had taken up an impregnable position in regard to the Amendment. In the first place the Railway and Canal Commissioners were not men of special experience in regard to light railways. If the Act was to be a success there must be at least one man of experience on the Commission and that man must be paid. It was also essential to the success of the Act that the members of the Commission must be men of a considerable amount of energy. He did not think the greatest enemy of the Railway and Canal Commissioners could accuse them of a superabundance of energy. He did not think it would be possible to get a competent practising engineer for £1,000 a year; but there were men of first-rate engineering ability who had retired with pensions from service in India who would be uncommonly glad to have this post at £1,000 a year. It would not be wise to hamper the experiments to be made under this Bill with the supervision of a Commission whose position did not seem to be a satisfactory one.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that a member of the Railway Commission was to take the place of the paid member of this Commission. (Sir H. FOWLER: "Yes.") He did not think the experience of a member of the Railway Commission would be of a kind which would enable him advantageously to take the place of a professional engineer on the new Commission. When applications were made to it, it would be absolutely necessary for a member to go down to the locality in possession of certain technical knowledge which would enable him to advise whether a primâ facie case had been made out. If a man with certain special knowledge and experience was not appointed, expense otherwise unnecessary would have to be incurred. He should have been inclined to offer a high salary, but he was content with the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that he would have no difficulty in obtaining the services of a qualified man for the salary named.

inquired what class of man the head member of the Commission was to be, and whether he was to be skilled in agriculture?

asked whether the names of the Commissioners could not be given. It was usual to give names during the Committee stage of a Bill appointing them.

said he was not in a position at present to give all the names. He expected to have been able to do so; and he yet trusted that difficulties might be overcome with respect to two gentlemen who he hoped would permit themselves to be named. The Earl of Jersey had consented to be chairman of the Commission—[cheers]—and he was sure the noble Lord would be acceptable to the House as a gentleman eminently fitted for the position. [Cheers.] One member of the Commission would be an engineer, and he had not the slightest hesitation in assuring the House that he should be able to obtain for the salary named a man of eminence who had had a large experience in matters connected with light railways. He did not believe that any sum he could name would obtain the services of a better man. For the third position he did not doubt that he should be able to obtain the services of a patriotic lawyer [laughter] who I would be content to devote his ability and some portion of his time to the service of the country in this capacity.

said he was willing to accept an Amendment providing that the Commissioners should "be removable" as well as appointed by the President of the Board of Trade.

said, that he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. The Board of Trade had already sufficient work on its hands without having to appoint the Chairman of this Commission. He wished to say that he thought that he himself and the Committee had been very hardly treated by the hon. Gentleman, who had handed in a long string of written Amendments to the Bill, which he had full opportunity for placing upon the Paper.

said that in the circumstances he would not press his Amendment, which he begged leave to withdraw.

said that he cordially supported the Amendment, which he considered met the requirements of the north of Scotland where the parishes were large, and the Parish Councils occupied the position in many respects of District Councils in England. In his district there were schemes for more than one light railway which mostly would run through one or two parishes only. He thought that Parish Councils should be allowed to take the initiative. The intervention in such cases of the County Council was like a fifth wheel in a coach.

said that he understood that under the Bill County Councils, Borough Councils, and District Councils would all have power to provide the necessary capital for the construction of these light railways. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether parishes would be liable to pay rates in respect of the action under this Bill of all those bodies.

said it would be exceedingly unwise and undesirable to extend to parishes in Scotland what the Committee had agreed to extend to District and County Councils. He hoped the Government would not agree to this proposal.

said it was strange that a liability should be placed on parishes, and yet that parishes should have no say in the carrying out of the order. It was invidious that parishes should not have the power to apply for light railways. The only object of the Amendment was that as parishes might be assessed in respect of these light railways they should be able to be applicants for them when their interests required it.

supported the Amendment. He thought the cases given by the hon. Mover were extremely strong. The Bill itself permitted the application to be made by the Council of a Borough, and there were a large number of boroughs in this country which were very small in population and very restricted in area. A parish might be in great need of a light railway, whereas the district of which it formed a part might take no interest whatever in the proposal. The interests of a rural parish would, in many cases, be greater in such an undertaking than those of a municipal borough.

said the Government could not consent to enlarge the area any further. Parishes were of varying size, and some had an extremely small population. They were trying an experiment, and he thought they should endeavour as far as possible to make quite sure that the bodies applying for these powers should be bodies representing a large number of interests. It would be extremely injudicious to authorise parishes to apply. He was aware that there were large parishes, but he could not conceive that a District Council, which, after all, was elected by the same electors, could be indifferent to the establishment of a light railway in a district.

regretted very much the decision of the Government. He could not see that any harm would be done by the Amendment, because they had in Scotland parishes with interests quite separate from those of the county. He instanced the cases of the parishes of Lairg and Wick. The former parish, which was 20 miles from the sea coast, was very anxious to have a railway for the fish traffic, but as far as the rest of the county was concerned, the inland counties did not want such a railway, although they might want a railway for agricultural purposes. In such cases as this the fishermen on the coast might object to an inland railway for agricultural purposes, while the agricultural interest might oppose a railway for the fish traffic. This was principally a question affecting Scotland, as the Parish Councils there were of an entirely different character to those in England, with much more extensive powers. He had had a number of letters from the Parish Councils of Scotland desiring that this change should be made.

hoped his right hon. Friend would not give way on this point. He would rather that the word "district" should be excluded than that the word "parish" should be included. This matter had been thoroughly discussed in the Committee, and the Committee decided to omit the very word "parish" which it was now proposed to insert. There were many Parish Councils in England where there was not a single ratepayer, and it would be a monstrous thing that such a parish should be able to saddle the ratepayers with the cost. As far as he could see, there was no demand for this proposal, at all events, in England.

said the Amendment was simply to enable Parish Councils also to have powers for asking for light railways.

To apply for an order.

Yes. The Bill, as it stood, gave this power to a single individual.

said that if a single individual, or a number of individuals applied, they had no power to make any portion of the cost fall on the ratepayer.

said the Amendment, as he understood it, was to give that power to a Parish Council which was given by the clause as it stood to a single individual—namely, to apply for the construction of a light railway. He could not see what harm would be done by giving Parish Councils this power, and if the Bill was to be operative in the large parishes of Scotland such a provision must be inserted.

said the attempt now being made by the Bill before the House to legislate on similar lines for England, Scotland and Wales, although the wants of the localities interested were so absolutely different, afforded an interesting object lesson as to the necessity for what was known as "Home Rule all round." [Laughter.] Now, speaking as one who, during the short time he had been in that House, had endeavoured to extend the powers given to Parish Councils, and believing that the powers they now enjoyed were far too limited, he approached this question from, he hoped, a disinterested point of view. He saw a great deal of difference between giving the Parish Councils the power and compelling them to use it. He saw no objection to the insertion of the words; he did not think the power would be used in England, but in Scotland the power might be used, and he desired to join with the Scotch Members in pressing this Amendment on the Government. It could not possibly do any harm.

said he regarded the proposal as most dangerous, and he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.

could see no harm in giving the power, and he should support the Amendment.

pointed out that the first question which would be asked would be, "Have you got the money?"

said the inference was that the persons who applied would be able to carry out the scheme. He did not see what harm would be done. Some of the parishes were large enough to build railways which would be very useful for fish or agriculture.

said this was one of the curious cases which showed that the same rule should not apply all round. They had had from England strong opposition to the proposal, but from Wales and Scotland there was a strong advocacy of the Amendment. There would be no good in giving the power if it could not be carried out. They had gone a long way already. They had given a recognition to local authorities which they had never had before. In England the parishes were so small that they could hardly be expected to get advantage from this Bill, and he confessed he could not see his way to take the great additional step of supporting this Amendment if it were applied to England. They were in a different position altogether with regard to Scotland and Wales, where the parishes were larger. He would suggest, therefore, that the Amendment should exclude England, and deal with the other two countries only.

did not think there was a single parish in Scotland capable of carrying through light railways. The parishes that might be able to do it would not make light railways, and those that wished to have light railways would not be capable of doing it. The opinion of Scotland on the subject had already been clearly expressed.

said it was a question of the combination of Parish Councils. [An HON. MEMBER: "District Councils."] They did not cover it. If this Bill were passed in its present form rural and urban parishes could not combine to have a light railway.

explained that if a District Council applied for an Order to make a light railway and made a light railway in certain parishes of their district, the Order might confine the expense connected with the railway to those parishes through which the line ran.

said he would be glad to respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and, if the House would allow him, withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]

said the hon. Member was prepared to give the local authority power to construct and work any light railway, and find the whole of the capital. But if the local authority, not desiring to take the responsibility upon itself of constructing and working a light railway were met by a body of gentlemen who were desirous of taking upon themselves a large share of the responsibility, then the local authority would be limited to a contribution which, according to the hon. Member, would be such as would give no controlling or guiding power whatever to the County Council that had embarked its money. If the House were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the result would be that the whole of the controlling power of the light railways in which the local authorities had embarked a large share of capital would be in the hands not of the County or District Council, but of someone else altogether. If the County Council, not desirous of constructing and working the line, should be desirous of investing local money in an undertaking promoted by others, it was desirable that they should not be restricted to such an amount as would give them no power in controlling the policy or expenditure of the railway. If they were to embark capital it would be better they should embark such a sum as would give them a controlling power, not only with regard to expenditure, but administration, and a power to see that the line was worked in the interests of the districts they represented.

said he objected to the Bill altogether, and was therefore in favour of limiting as far as possible the amount of money which the County Councils should subscribe. The effect of the Bill must be to enhance the value of land, and so benefit the owners of land, and these were the persons who should pay. If the powers of the Bill were applied at all it would be purely in the rural districts. If a light railway would benefit any urban district he was convinced that any number of our railway companies would be only too willing to construct it. The Amendment was aimed at limiting the amount of money which District Councils might subscribe towards the share capital of any railway. He had no fear that District Councils would undertake the making, working, and maintenance of light railways. His only fear was that they might be tempted to subscribe towards the making of them, and this Amendment was aimed at limiting their power of doing so.

said that in his county the Bill would not benefit the landlords, but the occupiers. Hence he was in favour of the Bill being passed on as broad and liberal lines as possible, and he did not wish to see the power of the County Council limited by Parliament. The principle of democracy demanded that whatever the County Councils desired to do with their own money they should be allowed to do.

observed that the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to this Amendment seemed to be that the majority of the directors would not belong to the County Council, and, therefore, so far as the power of the majority was concerned, it would not reside in the County Council. He would suggest that the objection should be met by making the proportion two-thirds instead of one-third, and if he was in order he would move to amend the Amendment by striking out "one-third" and inserting "two-thirds." He thought it very undesirable that after incurring the whole of the expense of constructing a railway a County Council should be allowed to farm out that railway to a private body of persons. There ought to be some restriction on the power of the County Council to advance the whole of the loan or share capital that would be required; and if it was right to restrict the Treasury to the extent of 50 per cent., it would also be right to restrict the local authority to the extent of 33 per cent. He therefore moved to amend the Amendment by omitting "one-third" and inserting "two-thirds."

suggested that the shorter way of dealing with the matter would be for the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, if he agreed to this proposal, to withdraw his Amendment and allow the present proposal to come up by way of a new Amendment.

, assenting to this clause, by leave, withdrew his Amendment, and the proposal of Mr. Lewis to insert "two-thirds" in place of "one-third," was submitted as a new Amendment.

intimated that the Government could not accept the Amendment. Having given the local authority the power to find the whole of the capital, they could not in the very next clause say it should only find two-thirds.

assured the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment was really unnecessary. The word "council" under the Interpretation Act, would include more than one council.

said he would accept the Amendment without the words "entitled or," so that it would read "in the event of their being authorised so to do."

assented, and the Amendment, as thus altered, was agreed to.

pointed out that at this (the Report) stage of the Bill it was not competent to the hon. Member to argue that the amount of interest ought to be reduced, as that would be an attempt to increase the charge upon the public.

maintained that the clause as at present framed would lead to considerable extravagance, and expose the Treasury to considerable loss. It was true that Sub-section 2 of the clause provided that any loan made under it should bear interest at not less than £3 2s. 6d. per cent. per annum; but how was this interest to be collected? There was no guarantee that it would be paid, and the localities, the private investors, and the Treasury might all lose their money. Then he objected to the stipulation that the interest should not be less than £3 2s. 6d. Why should it not be less? If the Treasury made an advance it ought to be satisfied if the money was repaid.

said that as the hon. Member had by his own confession spoken twice on the same subject, it would not be necessary for him to do more than refer briefly to his argument now. Though the hon. Member had moved the rejection of the clause and had spoken of other schemes, no Amendments had been put on the Paper to indicate the nature of those schemes, nor had he suggested any alternative course which should be adopted in the present state of the Bill. It was, however, not possible for the Government to assent to the rejection of the clause, and he denied that the method of raising money provided thereby would be productive of expense and extravagance. He appealed to the experience of hon. Members who knew anything about guaranteed lines to say whether it was not the fact that guarantee was the most expensive way of providing for the power of raising money. There was no direct control over the expenditure, nor was there any incentive forthcoming to cause economy to be practised.

did not think that the omission of the clause would affect the value of the Bill. The risk of the Government only reached to the extent of one-fourth of the loan; in reality, one-half of the capital was made up by share capital, and the other fourth was lent by the County Council.

supported the omission of the clause. As a trustee of an insurance company, he said that he had been instrumental in lending over a million to local bodies on the security of the rates. They used to get £3 10s. per cent. and £3 7s. 6d. per cent.; but the value of money had fallen so much that it was nearly impossible to get 3 per cent. Insurance companies would lend money to county or borough councils at less than 3 per cent.; probably at £2 18s. 6d. The clause would limit and restrict the Treasury and the Public Works Loan Department—first, by the limitation of one-fourth; secondly, by the position to be taken by the County Council; and, thirdly, by the high rate of interest. Its effect would be baneful.

said his hon. Friends suggested that the clause would be useless, and if that was the case he should not regret it, because he did not look with any satisfaction or sympathy on the plan of bringing the Treasury into these enterprises. It might be said that the clause would not do much harm; he was not so sure of that. It would raise expectations that would not be realised. In his opinion, however, the clause was entirely unnecessary, and the Bill would be far better without it. The House might strike out the two financial clauses, and still leave the Bill a useful working Measure. It was absurd to suppose that a million of public money was going to cover the country with light railways. That sum would have no substantial effect in hastening their advent. The truth was this Treasury grant was put in, not with any impression that it was necessary or desirable, but as part of a settled policy which seemed to prevail in the present Government of trying to do something for their agricultural supporters, and, unfortunately, their agricultural supporters were so simple and innocent, and so easily beguiled, that they expected an advantage from this contemptible grant which assuredly they would not receive. He believed the tendency of this system of Treasury grants would be to discourage rather than to encourage private enterprise. It would be better for the State to reserve its money gifts for the time when, having tried what could be done by the obvious methods of cheapening the initial cost of construction and also of working it could be shown that those methods were not sufficient. If it were found, after the passing of the Act without the financial clauses, that no light railways were being made, then it would be soon enough for the Government to come with their money bags and open them to their agricultural friends. To win popularity the Government had adopted a policy which was not calculated to attain the object in view, and which would open up a dangerous era in our financial policy.

said the last two speeches were inconsistent with each other. Firstly, the hon. Member for Caithness had told the House that he, as a trustee, was lending millions at 2½ per cent. If that were so, the promoters of light railways would borrow of him instead of paying the Treasury £3 2s. 6d. per cent. But the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said the clause would open the door to extravagance, and that promoters would come knocking at the Treasury door to borrow millions at £3 2s. 6d. per cent., which he called a glittering lure, and therefore the clause was baneful. The two arguments were absolutely inconsistent.

dissociated himself from the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman could, perhaps, speak for Scotland, but he had no right to speak in behalf of English agriculturists in this matter. And even as regards the poorer country, he should be surprised if Scotch agriculturists were not most anxious that they should be treated exactly in the same way as Ireland had been treated. The Irish farmers were assisted to bring their agricultural and dairy produce, not only to the markets of their own country, but to the markets of England. The agriculturists of the West of England had suffered severely from this competition, and it was only fair when Irish farmers were assisted by Treasury grants, that English agriculturists should have the like assistance. There might be many arguments against all State aid whatsoever, but he was not ready to argue that point at all, as long as the last Government, or this Government, or any future Government favoured Ireland by giving it assistance from the State for the construction of light railways. He supported the clause because for the first time in the legislation of this country it did something to put English agriculturists on the same footing as those of Ireland in this matter.

ruled out of order a number of Amendments on the ground that they proposed to give power to increase the public charge.

said the speech the hon. Gentleman had just delivered was entirely antagonistic to the speech which he made on Clause 4. In the latter speech the hon. Gentleman asked, was it to be tolerated that assistance was to be given for the construction of light railways in Ireland and that no assistance was to be advanced for a similar object in England? As a matter of fact, the clause was largely based upon the Irish principle, and it so happened that the light railways so assisted in Ireland were the only light railways which had been successful in that country. The hon. Gentleman also objected to railway companies working the light railway lines. If the State gave a free grant or a grant at a reduced rate of interest there must be some guarantee that the light railways would be properly worked, and in the opinion of the Treasury the only proper guarantee was the guarantee of an existing railway company.

said the only explanation he could give of the opposition of the hon. Member for Somersetshire was that his hon. Friend did not understand the clause. [Laughter.] In his opinion, it was the most valuable clause in the Bill, He did not think that there would be many light railways built by the County Councils. What would happen in most cases would be that a number of districts would combine and would come to terms with existing railway companies, who would be induced by the terms offered by the clause to build the light railways as small feeding lines for fishing and agricultural purposes.

did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire was guilty of any inconsistency. The hon. Member for Caithness could hardly have read Clause 5. [Laughter.] It was totally different from Clause 4. Clause 4 proposed to lend money on strictly business principles. Clause 5 proposed to give money as a free grant, and he opposed the clause because he objected to the whole system of free grants. He believed that this offer of free grants to the railway companies was not needed to encourage the construction of light railways. He knew something about railway companies, and the objection which railway companies had to embarking on these undertakings was not because they wanted to get money from the Government, but because of the enormous expenses they were put to in order to get the necessary Act; the expenses of local opposition; the claims of landlords, and the unreasonable conditions of the Board of Trade. The Bill got rid, save perhaps, in one respect, of all those difficulties. He therefore thought the Government would have done well if they had waited to see the effect of the Bill before giving the free grants; and then if they found, in the course of a few years, that it was absolutely necessary in the interest of agriculture or fishing to give those free grants, they might do so with a good grace.

said the principle of giving free grants uncontrolled by Parliament and controlled only by a Government Department, was a vicious principle. The Irish precedent had been appealed to; but the real justification for taking such a course in Ireland was that there was a large number of people needing relief, and whom the Government were bound to relieve either by eleemosynary grants or by public works. The principle of giving free grants uncontrolled by Parliament which the clause introduced for the first time in English legislation was a dangerous principle. It had been tried in the Colonies with pernicious results, for it had been found that the grants were given to districts for political reasons. The clause was unnecessary, and, with its other admirable provisions, the Bill would work without it, and he trusted that it would not be pressed. One condition only would make it possible for some of them to support it, and it was that, before any such grants were made the scheme authorising them should lie on the Table of the House for the usual period. If that were accepted by the Government it would be a great safeguard; if it were not, he thought the clause embodied a principle which it was dangerous for the House to adopt.

said it had been assumed that the Irish precedent was not in point, because it was said the Irish grant was given to employ people who, but for this work, must have been employed in some other form. This was an entire mistake. It was the fact that, the Bill having been passed, the works were to some extent hurried forward in order to meet an emergency which had arisen in the meantime. It was an entire mistake to suppose that that emergency was a reason for the passing of the Bill. Hon. Members who looked with dread upon this clause seemed to have overlooked the fact that the amount to be given in the shape of special grants was limited to £250,000. The House need be under no feeling of alarm as to the expenditure of that amount, especially as it was to be under the control of the Treasury. It was a pity the hon. Member who objected to free grants was not in the House when it passed a Bill for Scotland which included free grants. The districts intended to be benefited by this clause were districts in which, unless some financial aid were given by the Government, no railways would ever be made; yet they might be districts in which there ought to be railways; and the one object of the Bill was to secure the making of railways where they were needed. He was as strongly opposed as any Member to the giving of free grants in England, but they were told that in some districts the difficulties of agriculturists were so great it was desirable to try to help them, and that could be the only justification for making the grants contemplated by this clause. It was a bad principle, and he doubted whether the application of it would stop at £250,000. Yet the clause as it stood might be fairly accepted by the House as part of the general scheme of a Bill which was well-intentioned, and which was only an experiment to see whether any good would result. In these circumstances the House might well agree to it.

said he was glad to see that the patience of some of the supporters of the Government was being tried by the long succession of doles to landowners. The clause provided that free grants were to be made by the Treasury in cases in which certain representations were made as to the necessity for a railway for the benefit of agriculture. In plain English, that was a free grant to the landowners of this country, for it was they and they alone who would benefit. No doubt, in a few districts of England, agriculture was in a bad state, and the people who ought to come to the help of these districts were the landowners, who were making a good thing of their land at the present moment. The districts which were suffering from agricultural depression were few in number. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he had made his own estimate after a careful study of the evidence given before the Royal Commission. Be the districts few or many, there was this fact, the landowners to-day were receiving in rent £40,000,000. ["£45,000,000."] Why, then, should the poor taxpayers come to the relief of the landowners? This Bill set a very bad precedent indeed, and it was one likely to be followed later on in a direction that its present supporters little anticipated. If these light railways were made in districts where agriculture was in a bad way, the result would be to improve the position of the men who owned the lands, to prevent a fall in rents, and eventually to raise them. As representing the poorer men who were to find the money, he said it was monstrous to tax poor people in England for this purpose.

said the proposal had been defended on the ground that the rent was limited, but if the proposal were bad in principle the question of the amount did not come in at all. If the sum was only £10,000, the thing was just as bad in principle and ought to be condemned. If the grants were made, it ought to be with the sanction of the House and not that of the Treasury alone. It was a dangerous thing to place the Treasury in a position of that kind. Allegations were freely made that, under the Scotch Act, grants were not unaccompanied by political considerations. Be it so or not, the allegations indicated what would arise if the principle of the clause were adopted without the qualifying operation of the control of the House of Commons.

said that one of the principles upon which this clause had been framed was that the lines should be made and worked by existing railway companies. The object they desired to attain was twofold—first, that there should be a guarantee on the part of some existing railway company that the railways so assisted by the State should be worked in perpetuity; and, secondly, that they should be worked as part of a great system. There would be no guarantee if the railways were made by the local authorities suggested. Their proposal was based upon experience in Ireland, and whether the system of free grants were good or bad it ought to be made upon some basis that would guarantee a good result. That result had been achieved in Ireland, and conditions which existed in Ireland were those which they desired to see in England, and, therefore, they could not accept the Amendment.

said he did not see where the guarantee came in. When they were giving a sum of money like this for nothing there ought to be some popular control. If they were to give the subsidy only to railways constructed by the local authorities as required, this money would be given strictly to commercial enterprise. The great railway companies, he contended, were rich enough to do without subsidies.

said that the intention of this clause was not to benefit the great railway companies, but to protect the ratepayer. If the Amendment were carried a district might find the money, which would be supplemented by aid from the Treasury, and construct a railway, and then find that the loss on working the line every year was more than the total amount of the rate which they were enabled to levy. The clause was really based upon the Irish experience, that in many districts where these railways were provided partly at the cost of the ratepayers, there was still a large loss left on working in some cases.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether the experience in Ireland had not been in the case of these lines that there had been a considerable increase in the receipts and profits of the great trunk lines? If the great trunk lines were to have feeders, what he said was that if these feeders were to be constructed largely for the benefit of these great railway companies, then at all events free grants from the State ought not to be given.

said that under the Bill power was given to the County Council or local authority to construct light railways, but under this clause there was no proviso that the local authority should be responsible for the working of the railway. Did they think it fair that while they advanced money to a railway company they did not advance one copper of free grant to the County Council which was going to construct the railway? What was proposed to be introduced then by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire was that the privileges should not be limited to the case of a railway company which agreed to construct, but should also be given to the case of County Councils who had undertaken the construction and working of light railways. It would be better not to give them any power if they had any doubt whether it was safe to advance the money. The result would be, if the Bill stood as it was, that the local authority would have no power to approach the Government and get assistance for the railways unless there was a particular railway company willing to work the railways. He thought that the clause was far too limited, and that the Amendment was quite justifiable. ["Divide."] There was no reason why the County Councils should not have the same privileges and claim the same privileges as a private company.

wished to know whether any County Councils would meddle with light railways at all under such conditions. Whichever party made the line, how were they to compel the company to work it? How could they compel an old company any more than a new company to work the line? As to finance, nothing was being done to aid the County Council. There was no necessity to keep in Sub-section (a).

said the clause was open to two great objections—they were offering inducements to railway companies to construct when there was a doubt of the lines succeeding as commercial lines. As the grant was to come out of the Imperial Treasury, if there was a loss it would fall on the taxpayers of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said this free grant was to relieve the ratepayers. No doubt it would, but was that it would his chief objection relieve the ratepayers at the expense of the general taxpayer. He could not understand why, if free grants were to be given at all, they should not be given to the local authorities instead of to the rich railway companies who were quite able to take care of themselves, and who had sufficient business capacity to make any light railway pay which had a ghost of a chance of paying.

said the right hon. Gentleman stated that one great reason for making this exemption in the favour of the great railway companies was that the railway companies would have to work the lines in perpetuity. He could not see anything in the clause or in the Bill which compelled a great railway company to work a line in perpetuity. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield was quite justified in asking whether there was any guarantee that the railway companies would use these branch lines to the best advantage. No valid reasons had been given why the County Councils should not be allowed to have these free grants and be allowed to make light railways with State aid. Although the Government had made some objection to it, it was rather surprising that no Gentleman sitting behind them, save one, who was a railway director, had ventured to say that County Councils could not be trusted. He believed that if hon. Gentlemen representing agricultural constituencies and sitting on County Councils had spoken, they would, if they were not also railway directors, have advocated the giving to County Councils the same assistance it was proposed to give to the great railway companies, who had already too great power. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division in the interest of the County Councils, and as a protest against the Government giving them no explanation as to the working of the lines in perpetuity, which they said was a great safeguard which would not be obtained in the case of County Councils.

said the hon. Gentleman had stated that no supporter of the Government who was not connected with a railway company had supported the action of the Government in regard to this matter. What he thought was not sufficiently understood was that if local authorities were to spend their own money, it might be taken for granted they would have some regard for their expenditure. A free grant would be extremely popular, inasmuch as its expenditure would mean the employment of labour in the district. In his opinion, if the Government were to fling sums of money at the heads of local authorities in the way suggested they would do no end of mischief.

said the Amendment of which he had given notice was very largely covered by the present Amendment. He had had considerable experience of County Councils, and he was not much in love with grants in aid or free grants, but if they were to be given by the Government of the day he did not see why they should not be given equally to all portions of the country. The Island of Islay had a rent roll of £47,000 a year, and, therefore, under Clause 5 it would not be able to take advantage of the free grant. It was, he thought, a hardship that portions of the country should be shut out of benefit by the clause as it now stood. He had no intention of in any way opposing the Government in the introduction of this Measure, because he believed it would be of considerable benefit to agricultural districts whether in reference to agriculture or fishing. But he did say they should offer some facilities to these districts, which were as much entitled to the benefits of the free grants as other portions of the country. He hoped the Government would see their way to remove this anomaly, and give the benefit of these free grants equally to all parts of the country.

said the discussions they had had showed the dangers of the course which the Government had embarked upon in Clause 5. It had been pointed out with great truth that it would be a very dangerous thing to encourage County Councils, or other local authorities, by grants of Imperial money to enter upon enterprises which might prove unremunerative, and it had been pointed out, with no less force, that it was very hard on some of the poorest districts of the country that they should be deprived of any share of the grant which was to be made from the public Treasury because they had no railways to which they could make branch lines. Take the Island of Lewis. There was no railway there, and the people there could not possibly have any benefit from this grant. They were by a clause of this kind, which introduced the novel principle of Treasury subventions, raising a very great difficulty between different parts of the country, and creating a sense of injustice. He was unable to support the Amendment because he did not think they would be doing any service to County Councils if they were to tempt them with this Treasury grant, and still less could he support the proposal of the Government.

could understand an hon. Member moving such an Amendment if his object was to make it difficult to obtain a grant. The hon. Member was anxious to put in words which would make it necessary that the Treasury should be convinced that the money was absolutely required in the interest of agriculture. The Government considered that where a claim could be established that it would be for the benefit of agriculture, that ought to be sufficient ground for the Treasury making the grant under the clause. Agriculture was a great national industry, and if in order to benefit that industry it could be established that a grant under this clause was necessary, they considered the Treasury should be empowered to give that grant. The hon. Member desired to make the conditions much more stringent, and he trusted the House would not accept the Amendment.

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Amendment was intended to make these grants as difficult to obtain as possible. What the hon. Member desired however was that some discrimination should be exercised in the making of the grants, and such discrimination was absolutely necessary when dealing with the sums of public money that would be voted under the Bill. What was asked was that the same words which were used with reference to agriculture should be equally applicable to any other industry.

I will accept the word "necessary."

assented, and an Amendment to that effect was agreed to.

could not accept the Amendment, as in the opinion of the Government the word "benefit" was not applicable to industries other than agriculture. It must be shown that a railway was necessary for the development of some definite industry, and it was not intended that railways should be constructed merely because one person here and another there had a business and would like to have the advantage of improved railway communication.

said that last autumn he asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Bill would benefit districts like the lead district of Flintshire, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Measure would certainly apply to such districts. He maintained that the Amendment was necessary in order to place localities of that kind and agricultural localities upon the same level.

observed that if any lead district in Wales was undeveloped through the absence of means of communication the Bill would apply to it. All he had said to the hon. Member was that the Bill would assist Wales as it would other parts of the country.

supported the Amendment, and contended that the Attorney General had not answered the argument of the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire.

hoped the President of the Board of Trade might see his way to meet the objection raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite by expunging the word "development" from the clause. There were many cases in manufacturing districts where it was desirable to assist industries and keep them going.

said that the question had been already argued. In giving a grant under exceptional circumstances, the Treasury ought to have the assurance that the end in view would be secured; and that assurance could only be given where an existing railway undertook to work the lines. He did not understand what security the Treasury could have that a light railway in the Island of Lewis, assisted in a small degree by the State, would continue in existence. Even after the passing of the Bill there would possibly be localities and conditions requiring special consideration on the merits of each case. But they could not be treated in a general Bill, where the security required by the Treasury should be insisted on.

supported the Amendment. There were other districts, such, for instance, as Mid Cornwall, where there was a great deficiency in railways, and yet these were to be the very districts where no light railways were to be built.

hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. An exceptional state of circumstances such as was mentioned by his hon. Friend would not come under the provision at all. As to the Island of Skye, the Highland Railway had reached a point on the mainland almost opposite to the island, and separated from it by a very narrow isthmus.

said he was sorry he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness. [Laughter.] He opposed the clause because it placed the districts absolutely at the mercy of the railway companies. In order to get a grant from the Treasury the district must first go to the railway company and ask them to construct the light railway. The company might then say, "before we agree to construct the line you must consent to certain terms in regard to rates and tolls." The company would then be in an autocratic position in the matter of conditions. If this Amendment was not accepted the President of the Board of Trade ought, at least, to preclude the possibility of a railway company imposing unfair conditions on a district.

, in reply to Mr. BRYCE, said, the Bill would not be the first Order To-morrow.

said that he objected to the Bill because it proposed to incorporate within it the provisions of other Acts of Parliament, and he felt bound to oppose all legislation by reference. In these circumstances he moved to report progress.

said that the clause that the hon. Member was opposing was merely a definition clause. He hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his motion for reporting Progress. He was not, however, going to make an appeal in the matter to the hon. Gentleman, because he knew that it would be useless for him to do so.

Does the hon. Member ask leave to withdraw his Motion?

replied in the affirmative.

said he hoped the 12,000 members of the working classes who were waiting for this Bill would note the character of the opposition which was offered to it.

said the Government had got the whole time of the House, and might devote to the working classes some of the time which they now devoted to the landlords.

asked what would be the second Order To-morrow.

The Finance Bill.

inquired what Estimates would be taken on Friday.

said he would answer the Question to-morrow.

asked if it was proposed to proceed with the Finance Bill to-morrow?

replied that the Bill would be proceeded with directly after the Diseases of Animals Bill was disposed of, and would be taken any hour it was reached.