On behalf of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. FARQUHARSON), I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he will be prepared to announce to the House the names of the second Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, together with the terms of reference to the Commission?

The proposed terms of reference to the second Royal Commission on Tuberculosis are—to inquire and report as to what administrative procedures are available and would be desirable for controlling the danger to man through the use as food of the meat and milk (with its products) of tuberculous animals; and what are the considerations which should govern the action of the responsible authorities in condemning or not condemning, for the purposes of food supplies, animals' carcasses or meat exhibiting any stage or stages of tuberculosis. I hope to be in a position very shortly to announce to the House the names of the members of the Commission.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to increase the number of battalions of infantry on the Establishment so as to provide reliefs for those serving abroad; or if the Reserve Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Lords, is the only step which will be proposed in view of the present deficiency of reliefs.

Since my right hon. Friend put his question on the Paper the Secretary of State has fully explained the objects with which the Reserve Forces Act Amendment Bill has been introduced. The Bill does not touch the question of reliefs; its sole purpose is to legalise the employment of a certain number of Army Reserve men in minor wars for which they cannot now be called out. With regard to the earlier part of the right hon. Member's Question, I cannot do better than refer him to the Secretary of State's statement in the House of Lords on the 21st ult. The question is engaging the earnest attention of the War Office.

asked whether it was intended to proceed with the Reserve Forces Bill this Session, and, if so, whether an opportunity of discussing it would be given?

said it was his earnest desire that every Bill introduced by the War Department should be discussed and passed into law this Session, but his hon. Friend was aware that there were considerable difficulties in the way.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the intention to employ women at the Tunbridge Wells post office was anterior to the year 1893, when candidates for appointments in that office were required by the local postmaster to express their willingness to be transferred to another town should the exigencies of the service demand the same; and, whether he is aware that candidates recently appointed have not been, required to express such willingness?

The intention to employ women at the Tunbridge Wells post office was expressed in the year 1892, when candidates for appointments were required by the postmaster, under directions from Headquarters, to give the undertaking referred to. Through a misunderstanding some of the officers who have since been appointed were not required to give this undertaking, but they have now been informed that they must hold themselves in readiness to be transferred later on to some other town should the exigencies of the service demand it. Every care will be exercised, however, by the Department to consult the convenience of the staff in making such transfers as may be necessary; and it must be recollected that, in any case, the Postmaster General possesses the right to transfer officers from one town to another in the interests of the Service.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if parochial incumbents can deduct Income Tax upon stipends which they now pay to their assistant curates; and, if not, whether he will consider the propriety of enabling them to do so?

Where a curate is licensed by the Bishop of a Diocese to a particular charge, the incumbent may deduct Income Tax from the stipend which he pays him. I am afraid I cannot extend this principle so as to allow incumbents under all circumstances to deduct Income Tax from the stipends of their curates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Downpatrick Board of Guardians, on the recommendation of the Ballyculter Dispensary Committee, on 13th July last adopted an improvement scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages; and that Mr. Cowan, County Surveyor, then prepared plans and specifications for the holdings, which have not yet been carried out; and, whether the Local Government Board have taken, or intend to take, any steps with the object of having the scheme put into operation?

The facts are correctly stated in the Question. The Local Government Board have communicated with the Guardians suggesting the carrying out of an improvement scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages, and the matter will be considered by the Guardians at a special meeting to be held on the 13th instant.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the Report on "Military Prisons" of 1894–5, relative to the very unsatisfactory condition of the prison at Mauritius, as detailed in pages 4 of both Reports, and stated also to have been mentioned in previous Reports without any remedy being applied, from which it appears that the water supply is bad, and that all the warders and their families have been invalided home from fever, except one; whether the General Officer Commanding has recommended that prisoners sentenced to 42 days should be sent to the civil prison, if suitable arrangements can be made; whether he has also observed that the Report of the Medical Officer, at pages 44 and 48 of the respective Reports, speaks in strong terms of condemnation of the swampy sites, resulting in constant malarial fevers to the great injury of the health of the warders and others who are compelled to live on the ground floor; and, whether anything has been done to remedy the state of things complained of in the said Reports of the Inspector General?

The provision of a military prison on a more healthy site in Mauritius is one of the services included in the new loan for military works, and it will be commenced as soon as funds are voted by the House. Meanwhile, the prison has been converted into a provost prison, which has enabled the warders to be withdrawn from their unhealthy quarters. The water used is boiled and filtered. A recommendation was made that prisoners with sentences of a certain length should be sent to the civil prison, but satisfactory arrangements to that effect could not be made.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the officials of the House of Commons are paid extra for the additional labours required of them by long sittings of the House, such as that of the 21st-22nd ultimo; and, if not, whether he will see that in future the Fair Wages Resolution is carried into effect in regard to the officials of the House, and that they shall not be required to work overtime without extra payment?

Officials of the House are not entitled to any extra payment on the occasion of prolonged sittings; but the Serjeant-at Arms has been in the habit of giving the attendants of the House a small gratuity on the occasion of sittings of extraordinary length, such as that of the 21st of May last. With the exception of a few occasional assistants, the servants of the House are permanently employed at a yearly salary, and, except a few who are of the nature of caretakers, they are only required to attend on those days and at those hours when the House or its Committees are sitting. It is obvious that the Fair Wages Resolution has no bearing whatever upon their work or pay.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the increasing demand for vaccination with calf lymph, he will consider the expediency of at once taking such steps as may be necessary to facilitate the performance by public vaccinators of calf to arm vaccination, with the double object of meeting the objections of an increasing number of parents to the use of humanised lymph, and the protection of infants from the danger of attack and death by small-pox?

I am fully aware of the importance which is attached to the performance of vaccination direct from calf-to-arm when calf lymph is used. But my hon. Friend must be aware that a system of calf-to-arm vaccination, if practised generally, would involve an entirely new organisation at a very large expenditure of public money. In view of the fact that the desirability of introducing changes "for the purpose of removing objections to vaccination, or making it more effective," is included in the reference to the Royal Commission on Vaccination, who are now engaged in compiling their Report, I donbt the expediency of my making any proposal as to the alterations in the law and its administration which would be involved, before I have had the advantage of considering their Report.

asked when they were likely to have the Report.

said he had made inquiries, and the reply was that the Commission was considering the Report, and hoped to present it very shortly.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can state, or will agree to a Return stating, for the year 1895–6, the gross receipts of all public Revenue, whether from Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, or from any other source of receipt, which were not paid into the Exchequer in the manner provided by Section 10 of The Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, but were paid into any separate fund; distinguishing each receipt under a general head, with its amount, and the Act of Parliament which authorises its payment into such separate fund instead of into the Exchequer?

The information for which the hon. Member asks will be shown in the Finance Accounts for 1895–6, which will shortly be issued. Full details for 1894–5 will be found in the Finance Accounts for that year, pages 18 to 22, and 102–103.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if it be the case that the manager of an Irish National School, in erecting a residence for a teacher, has to provide a site, to pay for the lease, to keep the house in proper repair when built, and to pay the taxes; and, whether the Act of 1892 or any other Act has extended any relief to managers desirous to provide residences for their teachers, or is it the intention of the Government that such residences should be increased?

Applicants for loans under the Acts of 1875 and 1884 to provide residences for National School teachers, have, as a precedent condition of obtaining the loans, to provide the sites, and to bear the legal expenses, including the cost of the leases, etc. The Commissioners of National Education require, as a condition of their paying in relief of the applicants a moiety of the annual rent-charge on the loan, that the residences shall be kept in suitable repair. The remaining moiety may be charged to the teachers as rent for the residences. This is the only relief afforded to managers desirous of providing residences under the Acts of 1875 and 1884, but in the case of grants for residences made directly by the Commissioners the leases are prepared by the Commissioners free of cost. There is no limitation to the number of loans that may be granted each year for teachers' residences. Exclusive of grants for the erection of residences on sites already vested in the Commissioners of National Education or in trustees, the number of applications that have been certified for loans for such residences since 1875 when the loans first become available, is 1171.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction prevails amongst the candidates for the second division of the first class of national school teachers as to the result of the July examinations; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the Commissioners reduced the percentage of marks required for the first division, he will recommend that the same course will be adopted with regard to the second division of the first class?

The Commissioners were made aware last year that dissatisfaction existed among unsuccessful candidates for promotion to higher grades, including candidates for promotion to the second division of the first class. The Commissioners had the exercises of the candidates concerned revised by their Head Inspectors, and where the results of the revision, in the opinion of the Commissioners, warranted it, the promotion was sanctioned. The second part of the Question must be based on some misapprehension. No reduction has been made in the percentage of marks required for the first division, and, therefore, the alleged ground for reducing the second division does not exist.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the disinclination of Officers of the Royal Artillery to accept the position of Adjutant of Auxiliary Artillery; and whether, in view of the great importance to this branch of Her Majesty's Service of securing the best possible assistance, he is prepared to take such steps as may tend to render the position more attractive?

The Secretary of State is fully aware of the importance of attracting good officers to these appointments, and captains who serve as Adjutants of Artillery Volunteers are about to be granted an increase of pay of 1s. per day. The number of officers willing to accept these appointments is being carefully watched by the military authorities.

asked if this increase would be extended to lieutenants?

No, Sir, the position of lieutenants is a little different, and the disparity of pay more largely affects the case of the captains.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Treaties with foreign countries referred to in Parliamentary Paper, "Commercial, No. 3 (1896)," clearly cover the case of the importation of live animals as distinguished from differential fiscal treatment; and, if so, what are the exact words of the favoured-nation clauses in such Treaties, or some of them, and which, applying to the case of such importation?

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The words of Article V. of the Treaty between Great Britain and the Zollverein of May 30th, 1865, may be quoted as an example:—

"No prohibition of importation or exportation shall be established by either of the Contracting Parties against the other which shall not at the same time be applicable to all other nationalities."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Corporate Body of Queen's College, Galway, at meetings held on 25th, 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th March 1882, prepared new draft statutes for that College, and recommended, among other changes, the abolition of the College Council; and whether these draft statutes were ever submitted to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, what decision was arrived at with respect to them?

The hon. Member was good enough to communicate with me on this subject by letter; in consequence of which I have made further inquires, and am now informed by the President of Galway College that in March, 1882, certain suggestions were prepared at meetings of the Corporate Body of the College for alterations in the statutes, including a proposal to substitute the Corporate Body for the Council, as the Governing Body of the College. The suggestions were brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant of the day by the late President of Belfast College, after consultation with the Presidents of Galway and Cork Colleges, but it does not appear that any action was taken on them at the time, no doubt in view of the more general Inquiry held in 1884.

asked whether, now that the right hon. Gentleman was cognisant of these facts, he intended to take any action in the matter?

said he had not considered that question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is it the intention of the Government to reappoint Mr. Walker-Craig, Q.C., locum tenens for Mr. Roche, the County Court Judge for Down, having regard to the fact that Mr. Craig contested one of the divisions of that county at the late General Election?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is intended to appoint a locum tenens for the County Court Judge of Down for the coming County Courts; if so, whether it is intended to appoint Mr. J. Walker-Craig, a gentleman belonging to the county, having relatives in it, formerly a Parliamentary candidate for the same county, and invited again to become a candidate?

Mr. Pakenham Law, Q.C., has been appointed locum tenens for the County Court Judge of Down at the present Trinity Sessions in the county.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, when the guns will be placed in the Needles (Isle of Wight) Fort; and on what principle of economy this fort has been constructed and been left without armament for nearly two years?

The Needles passage is defended by heavy guns, though not of so recent a type as the armament which will be put in the new fort. The money available for the supply of heavy guns has not been sufficient to provide all the armaments required, but the matter is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can now say if he would be willing to allow the Memorandum of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland on the subject of the Education Fee Grant, in reply to the observations reflecting on the Commissioners made by the Secretary to the Treasury, to be published as a Parliamentary Paper?

The Government are not prepared to consent to the publication as a Parliamentary Paper of the communication to which reference is made in the Question?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what is estimated as the probable yield of the licences collected for the local authorities in England, under the Local Government Act of 1888, for the financial year 1896–7; what is the difference between this sum and the amount of the grants which were withdrawn by the Act of 1888; and whether he will propose a grant in aid of local taxation for labourers' cottages, or other purposes, in Ireland, sufficient, together with the £40,000 appropriated by the Land Purchase Act of 1891, to make 9/80ths of such difference between the amount of the licences and the amount of the grants withdrawn?

The amount which the licences collected for local authorities in England are expected to yield in 1896–7 is £3,220,000. The amount of grants which were withdrawn from England under the Local Government Act of 1888 was then put at £2,582,000; and the difference between that sum and the estimated yield of licences in 1896–7 is, therefore, £638,000. But the withdrawn grants were annually increasing at the rate of about £50,000 a year. On that assumption the grants would, during the last eight years, have increased by about £400,000, whereas the licences have increased by about £250,000 only. Accordingly, England's net gain by the financial change in 1888 is now barely £240,000. If Ireland now received 9/80ths of the present estimated English gain, she would thus only be credited with about £27,000, instead of £40,000. Moreover, the Pauper Lunatic Grant, which was retained in Ireland and discontinued in England, has increased by £20,000 a year, while in Ireland the licences, which were not transferred in that country, have remained stationary, so that Ireland has been doubly fortunate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will cause the £40,000 which, under the Land Purchase Act of 1891, will come in course of payment during the present financial year for the purpose of labourers' cottages in Ireland, to be immediately allocated between the various local authorities; and whether, in the case of those Unions where schemes under the Labourers' Acts are actually in progress, he will cause the sums allocated to be paid over without waiting for the passing of the Land Bill of this year?

I have already explained to the hon. and learned Member that under the law as it at present stands any allocation of the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 a year for the purpose of defraying the cost of labourers' cottages could only be applied in respect of cottages to be hereafter provided. This limitation would, I think, bear hardly upon those Boards of Guardians which have already put the Labourers Acts into operation and provided cottages; and in order, therefore, to enable these boards to participate in the relief from their financial burdens which the grant was designed to afford, it is proposed in the Land Bill to amend the Act of 1891 by authorising the Government to apply the grant towards defraying any costs heretofore as well as hereafter incurred on this account. The immediate allocation of the grant is, therefore, undesirable; as, if the money were allocated now, the effect would be to deprive the unions in which the Labourers Acts have been put into force of the share to which they would become entitled if Clause 33 of the Land Bill were passed into law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will communicate to the House the Report of the Land Commission, which also deals fully with the question of cattle in Matabeleland, referred to on page 23 of the British South Africa Company's Report for 1894–5, and there stated to have been approved by the Secretary of State; and, if he can inform the House whether the 79,500 head of cattle, stated on page 77 of the some Report to have been held by the Natives in trust for the Company, comprise or were distinct from the cattle said to have been taken by the Company from the Matabele near the close of last year.

I have no objection to present the Report of the Matabeleland Land Commission and the connected correspondence. I have no official information of any cattle having been taken from the Matabele at the end of last year, but I have a report that in the early part of the year they were pleased at having had some Matabele cattle given back to them. I have called for a full report on the administration of the company's cattle regulations, to be made by Sir Richard Martin as soon as peace is restored.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to reports in the newspapers of recent speeches by Mr. Cecil Rhodes, according to which he is assuming control over military as well as civil affairs in Matabeleland; and if so whether the attitude taken up by Mr. Rhodes is sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will inform the House as to the relative positions and responsibilities in Matabeleland of Sir Frederick Carrington and Sir Richard Martin, as representatives of the Crown, and of Mr. Cecil Rhodes and Earl Grey, as managing director and administrator of the British South Africa Company?

From official information in my possession, I have no doubt that Mr. Rhodes is not assuming control over civil and military affairs, and I am not shaken in this view by any expressions attributed to him in the brief telegraphic summaries of his speeches. Sir Frederick Carrington is the General Officer in command of all the forces in the field who are combating the Matabele. Sir Richard Martin is at present confining himself to his duties as Deputy Commissioner, under the High Commissioner, representing the Crown in Matabeleland. Earl Grey is the Company's administrator in Matabeleland under the Order in Council of 1894, but is not managing director. Mr. Rhodes has recently been leading a column from Gwelo to Bulawayo. I am not aware whether since his arrival at that place Sir Frederick Carrington has assigned to him any further military duties.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to newspaper reports from Matabeleland, to the effect that, besides the capture of cattle from the natives by the British South Africa Company's forces, large quantities of grain have been seized and destroyed; and whether, considering the present scarcity of food in the country, Her Majesty's Government has approved the policy of destroying food taken from the enemy?

I presume that grain is only destroyed by our forces when it is impossible to carry it away for the consumption of our own people. I have not expressed any views to the local authorities on the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the recent discovery by Professor Bilderbeck Gomess, of an alleged method of treating rhea fibre on an economical and effective basis; and having regard to the great importance of such a discovery in connection with both the agricultural and manufacturing industries of India and the Home textile manufactures, if he will cause inquiries to be made with the object of developing the production of this fibre?

My attention has not been called to the process mentioned in the hon. Member's Question; but, if it has a commercial value, I have no doubt that it will receive attention from those who are specially interested in the subject. As at present advised, I see no ground for any official Inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that in the Jubbulpoor Division of the Central Provinces the recent re-settlement enhanced the land revenue and other public charges beyond the limitations prescribed by the Government of India, Letter No. 451, of 24th August 1887; whether 60 per cent. is recognised as a reasonable limit of enhancement; and whether the recent enhancements in Jubbulpoor exceed 60 per cent. and leave no margin of profit to the proprietor; whether there is no canal irrigation in the Central Provinces, and that the principal crops have failed for the last three years; and, whether he will move the Government of India to modify the new settlement, and will suspend its operation for the present, having regard to the existing agricultural distress?

It is the fact that the recent enhancements of land revenue in some of the districts of the Jubbulpoor Division have exceeded 60 per cent. It is not the fact that no margin of profit is left to the proprietor. Speaking generally, the share of the rental left to the landlord is everywhere 40 per cent.; in many cases it is 50 per cent. or upwards. There is no canal irrigation in the Central Provinces. In two districts and part of a third district, out of the 18 districts which compose the Central Provinces, there has been serious failure or shortness of crop for three years. Large suspensions and remissions of land revenue have been granted in the two districts of Saugor and Damoli, and partial suspensions elsewhere. I do not propose to move the Government of India to modify the settlement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether an answer has been received from the Madras Government to his Dispatch of 1893 regarding improvements in the system of dealing with land revenue defaulters; if so, whether a further Dispatch on the subject has been sent to the Madras Government; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the whole correspondence, including the letters of Mr. Alexander Rogers, late Member of Council in Bombay; and (2) whether his attention has been drawn to a tabular statement at page 180 of the current number of the journal India, purporting to set forth, from documents at the India Office, all the material figures as to which he stated that it was necessary to refer to the Government of Madras?

An answer has been received from the Government of Madras, and a further Dispatch has been sent to them on the subject of land revenue defaulters. There will be no objection to laying on the Table the correspondence when it is concluded. I have not seen the paper to which the hon. Member refers in the second paragraph of his Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Times of India of 18th April last, that a military force has proceeded from Wana to Haidari, Tach, and Sarwakai, and that military posts are being constructed at these places; and, whether these places are beyond the external frontiers of British India; and, if so, whether under Section 55 of the Government of India Act of 1858, the consent of both Houses of Parliament will be obtained for this expenditure?

The places mentioned in the hon. Member's Question are not beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions; the section which he cites, therefore, does not apply to the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what was the aggregate value, for each of the last five years, of the wages and effects of seamen, forfeited for desertion, and paid into the Exchequer, in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act?

The returns of fines and forfeitures under the Merchant Shipping Acts are sent to the Home Office by the Justices' Clerks, but I am informed that the entries in the forfeitures column are nil, and that the forfeitures (if any) are lumped with the penalties, and it is impossible for either the Home Office or the Treasury to distinguish the amounts separately. I doubt whether there have been any forfeitures. The Board of Trade, who administer the Merchant Shipping Act, state that a man does not become a deserter until an actual prosecution for desertion has taken place. Masters or owners (as I understand it) have no inducement to prosecute. If no wages are due, there is nothing for them to receive; and if there are wages due, the master or owner is already in possession of them, and retains the whole; whereas, if he prosecuted, he would have to pay to the Exchequer any excess over the expense incurred by the desertion. There is otherwise no power to require them to account for such excess.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it may not be possible that the workmen employed on Plymouth Breakwater should be transported to and from their work in a steam launch, in view of the great discomfort and danger attendant upon a journey of one and a-half to two hours in an open boat in all weathers?

Broadly speaking, the men only work at the Breakwater during the summer. They then live on a hulk moored near the Breakwater and only come ashore on Saturdays as a rule, staying till Monday. They are provided with boats, and ordinarily pull themselves ashore and back; but they often take advantage of a Works Department sailing barge which conveys stone to the breakwater. Funds are provided in this year's Estimate for building a steam barge for the Works Department. When this is built the men will ordinarily use it for going backwards and forwards.

I beg to ask the first Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Scottish Fishery Board has applied to the Admiralty for a gunboat or cruiser to protect the fishermen on the East Coast of Scotland from the depredations of French luggers; and, whether the Admiralty has complied with this request?

Yes, Sir, but the Admiralty could not comply with the Board's recent application, as there was at the time no gunboat or cruiser available to inquire into an isolated complaint.

asked if there was any prospect in the future of such a gunboat being sent?

said it was impossible to cover the whole coast.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the want of drinking fountains which exists within any of the following Museums: South Kensington, British, and Natural History, he will take steps to have a certain number of drinking fountains provided in each of the said Museums?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that there are drinking fountains outside the entrances to the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, but not at South Kensington. With regard to placing fountains within the museums, I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend when the Estimates for next year are under consideration.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works in what year the first plans and elevations were prepared, and by whom, for the completion of the frontage of the South Kensington Museum; how many plans and elevations have since been made, and by whom and when; what is the total sum of money that has been spent on plans and elevations that have never been carried out; and, whether it is a fact that a large sum was paid to the widow of a deceased preparer of plans and elevations; and, if so, what was the amount actually paid, and what has become of the above plans?

I believe that plans were originally designed for the frontage of the South Kensington Museum many years ago by General Scott, a salaried officer of the Department, and his assistants. Sketch plans were subsequently prepared in 1883 by the Principal Surveyor of the Office of Works. In 1891 competitive designs were called for, and those of Mr. Aston Webb selected; and it was in regard to these plans that a special payment of £1,315 was made to Mr. Aston Webb and a sum amounting to 2,500 guineas to the other competitors and to the architect who acted as assesssor. The plans prepared by General Scott, by the Board's Surveyor, and by Mr. Aston Webb are the property of the Office of Works. The model prepared by General Scott is at the South Kensington Museum. No sum was paid to the widow of any architect by the Office of Works.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the specific crime for which Mrs. Maybrick is detained is that of murder, or that of administration, and attempted administration, of arsenic with intent to murder?

Florence Maybrick is detained on a conviction of murder, for which she was sentenced to death. For reasons which the then Home Secretary stated, the capital sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. I have most carefully considered the case, and can see no reason, any more than my immediate predecessor did, for advising a further exercise of the clemency of the Crown.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the allowance of £20, referred to in the Special Army Order of the 15th May 1896, will be granted to officers joining the Volunteer force as captains without having previously held any commission?

It is proposed to extend the allowance for subalterns joining the Volunteer Force to officers who first join as captains.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that the claims for travelling allowances to regiments of the North London Volunteer Brigade, who proceeded at Easter to Canterbury, have been questioned, on the ground that these regiments proceeded by the South Eastern Railway, by which the distance is eight and a-half miles further than by the London, Chatham and Dover Railway; and, whether he can give any explanation of the reason which has induced the War Office to take this step, considering that these regiments proceeded by the South Eastern Railway in accordance with orders received from the Major General Commanding the Home District?

The regulations for travelling allowance provide that corps must travel by the shortest route. In this case the longer route was selected by the corps after communicating with the General Officer commanding, but we are given to understand that the fares charged by both railways to Canterbury are identical, and therefore no case is made out for the higher charge.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can state on what plan there will be allotted to Scotland a grant from the Exchequer which shall secure to that country a sum of money applicable for its benefit equivalent to the contribution which Scotch taxpayers will be required to make to the expenses of education in England under the Education Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government, that Bill not proposing to confer any educational or other benefit upon Scotland; and in what form it is intended to bring before the House such equivalent grant?

said a Bill was being prepared dealing with certain questions connected with Scotch Education. Treasury assistance would be required, and, perhaps, it would be better to defer discussion until the Bill was produced.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give them some intimation as to when the Bill would be introduced and whether he would receive any representations on the subject.

said that if the representations were to be made by deputation they would have to be made by some other Member of the Government. He did not think any advantage could be gained by bringing in a new Bill until some progress was made with the Bills already before the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the notice which had reappeared on the Paper to-day of a Bill to amend the law relating to agricultural holdings, whether the House was to infer from the appearance of that notice that Her Majesty's Government intended to introduce the Bill and proceed with it during the present Session?

replied that his attention was first called to the notice by the hon. Member's Question. He did not think there was any chance of the Bill being proceeded with.

asked whether the Military Manœuvres Bill had been forgotten in the present arrangements of business, or whether it was the intention to postpone it till after the Committee stage of the Education Bill?

I must confess that I have seen indications—the value of which any Member is as well able to judge as I am—that the Bill could not be got through without a large amount of discussion. I greatly regret it, because I believe the Bill to be one of importance, and when I remember that the Under-secretary for War has expressed his intention of accepting any Amendment which the responsible Leaders of the Opposition may think necessary, it seems to me that we cannot be blamed if the Bill receives a large amount of discussion. I do not see any opportunity, I admit, before the Education Bill begins, of finding time for the further progress of the Measure, and, although I greatly regret that, everybody acquainted with the present position of Parliamentary business will feel that the conclusion at which we have arrived is the only one open to us.

asked whether the Government would consider the possibility of giving any early Friday for Army Estimates, in order that the matters which arise in connection with the military manœuvres might be discussed?

I imagine there will be a Friday soon given to the discussion of Army Estimates, but I fail to see how any Debate which may take place on Army Estimates will help the progress of this Bill.

explained that it would give an opportunity for considering the proposals the Government intended to make for military manœuvres this year.

asked whether the Leader of the House would consider the propriety of taking next Wednesday for the Military Manœuvres Bill? [Opposition cheers and laughter.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us what will be the business next week? I understand the Irish Land Bill is to be commenced. Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the whole week will be occupied with Irish business, or, if not, what business will follow Irish business?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question to-morrow, when I can give him a full answer. Of course, the Irish Bill will come on on Monday, and, we may take it, it will occupy two nights. With regard to Wednesday, my hon. Friend will remember that I gave a pledge, when taking Wednesdays, that the first two Wednesdays after Whitsuntide would be given to private Members' Bills.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything regarding the Conciliation Bill?

All I can say about that Bill is that I had hoped that the Debate that took place on my hon. Friend's Bill would be regarded as sufficient, and that the Government Bill might be taken without discussion. This hope, like some other hopes I had entertained of a similar character, has been disappointed. ["Hear, hear!"]

The first Order of the Day on Wednesday is the Coal Mines Regulation Bill. Is it the intention of the Government to take the Bill on that day?

No, Sir.

ruled the Amendment out of order, on the ground that the House had, after long discussion, settled certain conditions on which a special advance could be made, and to insert the proposed words would render nugatory a decision already arrived at by the House.

said he quite sympathised with the object which the hon. Member had in view. But he would refer him to Clause 11, Sub-section 10, under which he would see that one of the duties imposed upon the Board of Trade before they assented to an Order was to fix the maximum rates to be charged. Therefore, the object which the hon. Member had in view was already provided for.

said his object was that the Board of Trade should inquire into the past action of the railway company.

did not think that would be at all fair. If one of these light railways was required in a locality, all the Board of Trade had to do was to see that it was worked in the interests of the locality.

said the point was one of great practical importance, and he was quite satisfied that in many districts it was necessary to impose every possible safeguard. But he believed the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the very development which was the object of his hon. Friend. He heartily sympathised with the reasons which had induced him to move it, but he thought it would defeat the object he had in view.

said the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Board of Trade and the Treasury would have done their duty to a locality when they got the railway made. He would respectfully suggest that that did not at all follow. A district might badly want a railway, and yet it might be made so as to inflict a most deadly blow upon the locality. Everything depended upon the way in which the railway treated a locality. In Ireland, the effect of making a light railway in some districts had been to destroy all the local traffic organisation. His hon. Friend, as he understood, said that when a railway was built in a locality with such serious consequences as that, no grant of public money should be given unless the Board of Trade was satisfied that the railway was going to charge reasonable fares.

pointed out that that was not the Amendment.

begged pardon, and resumed his seat.

said it seemed to him very important to make it quite clear that the Board of Trade was to have distinct authority to regulate not only the rates but all terms. He felt bound to admit that the wording of the Amendment was rather unfortunate, but his experience led him to the conclusion that unless some such words as these were accepted, it would be difficult in many cases for these railways to be built.

said his hon. Friend proposed, that before giving a company this exceptionable advantage, the Board of Trade was to inquire whether it was imposing terms, or conditions, or rates, which were not fair and reasonable to the district. Section 2 provided that the Board of Trade were to lay down, and make part of the Order, the rates and terms upon which the light railway was to be worked, but his hon. Friend referred to the provisions and present action of the main company. His hon. Friend's view was that the special advance which the Treasury had power to make was not to be made to a railway which had disentitled itself to assistance by having imposed rates and conditions which were of an unsatisfactory character. It would be very little use for the Board of Trade to prescribe low rates and easy conditions under Section 2 if, at the same time, the rates and conditions which the main line of railway applied to the district continued to be unfair. He admitted the question was one of some difficulty, but he thought it would be agreed that if the rates which the company charged upon that part of its main line with which the connection of the light railways was made were unfair at present, it would be of very little advantage to the district if the branch railway had low rates fixed upon it.

said the special object of the Amendment was to deal with that portion of the Bill which contemplated light railways being made by existing railway companies. What they wanted to direct the attention of the House to was the fact that all existing railway companies did not assist the special industries which it was the object of this Bill to develop. They wanted to see that if these immense monopolists came to Parliament to obtain the sanction of the State to develop these light railways they should only do so under the strictest regulations and conditions as to the tariff under which the goods in the rural districts were carried. He understood the principle of the Bill was to make a contribution of 25 per cent. by the State where certain conditions were complied with with regard to light railways. What the State must do was to see that they had at least 25 per cent. more control and influence over the making of those railways than they had hitherto possessed. That was the object of the Amendment.

said hon. Members opposite seemed to have an idea that railway directors were both knaves and fools. [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Members dissented, but he was judging from their utterances in the House. They were accused at one moment of neglecting to make branches which would have been profitable to their shareholders, and at another of seeking to make money at the public expense. The object of the clause was how to induce existing railway companies to make unprofitable branches. If the branches were likely to prove profitable, the railway companies would make them without any Bill at all. But the question was, when a district wanted a railway which under existing conditions and laws was not likely to prove profitable, how were they going to induce a railway company to make it? He could assure hon. Members that there would not be any rush for this bonus on the part of railway companies. The difficulty would be to induce them to make these unprofitable branches at all, and the House ought to set to work to make it possible to bring about this result. If they wanted to hamper or obstruct the objects of the Bill, then the best way they could invent for the purpose was to say that as a preliminary they should have an inquiry into the conduct of a railway company for the last 50 years, and if the Board of Trade found anything not in accordance with their wishes they should have the power of revising the whole of the rates of large railways. That would be a bar to the branch railways being made. He thought the Board of Trade had all the powers they could reasonably wish to have given them, and he, therefore, opposed the Amendment, which could serve no good purpose.

, whilst not very strongly in favour of the Amendment, did not see what possible harm could be done by its acceptance. In the first place, the Bill laid down conditions as to the owners of land, who must give the land free; as to the rating authorities, who must not rate a new railway any higher than the land was previously rated, and, indeed, as to every class affected by the Bill, and that being so, why should there not also be some condition or limitation imposed with regard to railway companies? If the Board of Trade had the power it was sought to give them, they might bring pressure to bear on a railway company which had acted unfairly and oppressively in a district, and thus bring about a very beneficial change. The words merely gave a permissive power, and there was nothing obligatory in the matter.

remarked that the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit) had said that this provision would only apply to the railway company that constructed the line. But the language of the Bill was: "If the Treasury are satisfied that a railway company existing at the time will construct and work the railway." The provision, therefore, affected the railway company that worked the line. Replying to a reference made by the hon. Member for Handsworth, he said he had never heard hon. Members on his side call railway directors either knaves or fools, nor did they think they were. The directors were clever men, chosen for their aptitude and business capacity to conduct the affairs of the railway companies. But they properly conducted those affairs in the interests of their shareholders, and the result was they took a slightly biassed view on questions of this sort in favour of their own company as against the people who used their line. It was for that reason it was desired to introduce some such protection as was afforded by this Amendment.

observed that if in his county they were to look for light railways, they would have to look to the existing railway companies both to construct and work them. In Norfolk there were two systems of railway, one of which had treated the agricultural community very fairly—namely, the Great Eastern. The other was a joint line of the Great Northern and Midland, which had not given the same facilities to agriculturists and others as had the Great Eastern. In fact, so far from giving facilities from the points at which they competed with the Great Eastern, they had prevented the Great Eastern giving facilities under some agreement which subsisted between the companies. He did not doubt that the introduction of these words would result in the two companies taking up a different attitude. He felt they had not been quite well treated by the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had replied to something which he thought was the sense of the Amendment, but which was not. It had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen that the right hon. Gentleman had not understood the effect of the Amendment, and that the subsequent clause he had assumed would meet the Amendment, did not really do so. They should now like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some argument as to why the Amendment, in its real sense, could not be accepted by the Government.

replied that when the hon. Gentleman explained what the real purport of the Amendment was, he distinctly stated that in his opinion it would be most antagonistic to the interests of a district which required a light railway. If the Board of Trade were to impose conditions on a railway company with regard to the rates for traffic on their main line, the effect would be to prevent this power under the Bill being exercised, and the district obtaining a railway which was much needed.

remarked that as the clause stood at present, no free grant was to be made for the purpose of constructing a light railway in any district, unless, first of all, terms were arrived at with a railway company. Hon. Members on that side, in previous discussions, endeavoured to obtain the insertion of the words "County Council," and to induce the Government to make the County Councils and District Councils participate in the free grants, pointing out that unless this were done, the districts would be at the mercy of the railway companies. Such an Amendment, however, was refused, and it now became incumbent upon the Government to make some kind of provision for the protection of those poorer districts against the possible tyranny of the railway companies. In his own county there were two or three large agricultural districts where they had not got any railways at the present moment. When this Bill became law, there would be an attempt to put it into operation, though he was doubtful whether, as it was at present framed, it could be put into operation. But he was positive that, unless the Government accepted some such Amendment as this, such districts as he had indicated would be subjected to unfair terms.

said his right hon. Friend only made an abstract statement, to the effect that perhaps, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he ought not to object to the limitation of the amount.

said that was so. He had no intention of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind, and he thought hon. Members should have in their minds, the probability that this was only the beginning of a very large matter indeed, and that in future the House would probably be asked to vote other large sums of money as free loans to railway companies.

said he thought he might save time if he said at once that he was willing to accept the words "not exceeding one-half."

did not think that it was altogether reasonable to exclude this sub-section, because, in the case of a general railway made for the use of a locality, some indulgence should be extended in the matter of rating. If a railway was successful to the extent of being able to pay a dividend of 4 or 5 per cent., then the sub-section should not operate; if it was not a success, then the Board of Trade should have the right to extend its operation for 10 or 15 years, or for any other reasonable period. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that five years should be substituted for 15 years in the sub-section.

said that if it met the views of hon. Members opposite, he was willing to agree to the compromise of ten years. Five years was too short a period.

thought that there was a general inclination on the part of the House to give some encouragement to railways, but when a railway had succeeded to the extent of being able to pay 3 per cent., he thought that the locality which provided the employment should share in the prosperity. He thought that the hon. Gentleman might accept seven years.

pointed out that the words in the sub-section were "not exceeding 15 years." It was not obligatory on the part of the Commissioners or the Board of Trade to exempt at all. The object was to get the locality to show some desire to assist the formation of the line. He thought that his proposal ought to be accepted as a fair period.

thought there was a deal of force in what had been said by the Mover of the Amendment. It had also to be remembered, however, that the House was proceeding with this legislation in a kind of eleemosynary spirit towards the localities, and after having made a grant of public money they did not wish the locality to take the opportunity of raising the valuation. On the whole, he thought that the compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was a fair one.

said he was quite willing to accept the compromise suggested. He withdrew the Amendment.

suggested that the words "by themselves, their counsel, and witnesses" should be omitted.

agreed to omit those words.

said he hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment. He objected altogether to the principle of exemptions or partial exemptions from the rates. Hon. Members forgot that when exemptions were made, the burden fell on the other private ratepayers of the locality. Railway companies had already considerable exemptions from rating. There was a precedent against this provision, which had caused considerable grievance and ill-feeling in rating matters; he referred to the provision in the private Act dealing with the Law Courts. The Strand Union had continuously protested against this partial exemption, and yet a similar provision was to be inserted in the present Bill.

accepted the Amendment.

said that he would undertake to provide before a later stage that where the Board of Trade had power to extend the period, notice should be given to the rating authorities and they should be heard before the extension was made.

said that the Government could not accept the Amendment. The dividend might be earned owing to peculiar and temporary circumstances, and it would be hard in such a case to demand the repayment of the advance.

said that the Amendment might be made permissive to the Treasury.

said that the Treasury would not like the duty of deciding when the time had arrived for the repayment of the advance.

said that the Amendment contemplated the case of a railway, constructed by a free grant, becoming prosperous, and surely such a case should be provided for. It would be exceedingly undesirable that the general taxpayer should make a contribution towards a commercial venture at its start, and should not, when that undertaking became profitable, receive any return for his contribution. There would be no power to lower the rates according to the profit-earning capacity of the railway, and the only way for the taxpayer to share in the prosperity of the line would be to have the State contribution returned. The money so returned could then be employed in assisting schemes in other parts of the country. If they were to have the Bill, let them have as much justice and reason in it as possible.

pointed out that Sub-section (3) provided for special loans being made on such conditions as the Treasury might direct. If that provision were made to apply to free grants also, the object of the Amendment would be fulfilled.

thought that the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade was a distinct improvement on the Amendment. There were different methods of dealing with this question in different countries. The Indian Government, when it made advances to railways, claimed one-half of the profits after a dividend of 5 per cent. had been paid. In Belgium the dividend which might be paid was limited, and all profits beyond that had to be spent on the development of the line or on other public purposes. It was desirable to prevent a repetition of the Highland Railway case, where 6 per cent. was being paid on the ordinary capital, while the Treasury got nothing for its contribution towards an extension of that line.

said that he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that suggested by the President of the Board of Trade.

thought £250,000, the sum mentioned in the Bill, was a reasonable sum, and he should be sorry to see it reduced at all.

opposed the Amendment, and indeed he wished to make it more clear that the £250,000 was for grants, and not for loans.

was strongly opposed to these free grants, because it seemed certain that the prospective benefits under the Bill would go into the pockets of one class—namely, the owners of land in the neighbourhood of these railways; and on that account he wanted to limit the free grants as much as possible.

said the Treasury and the Board of Trade had consulted together, and had come to the conclusion that it would be better that the £250,000 should be lent on easy terms and that it would be a great mistake to give it in grants.

said he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He must express a hope that no part of the money would be given, but that all would be lent.

said he was anxious that any inquiry to be held should be a "public" inquiry.

said that any inquiry held under an Act of Parliament was a public inquiry, and to insert the word "public" in this Bill would raise a doubt in other cases in which it was omitted.

said the inquiry appeared from the wording of the clause to be an alternative to such means as the Commission might think necessary. To make it clear that an inquiry must be held he moved to omit "or" and insert "and."

accepted the Amendment, which was agreed to.

said that the Board of Trade might find it necessary occasionally to remit a portion of Order only back to the Light Railway Commission. But under the clause as it stood they would be bound to send back the whole of the Order. He, therefore, moved to insert in line 23 after "order," the words "or any portion thereof."

said the Order stood as a whole, and must be omitted as a whole; but the Board of Trade could direct the attention of the Commissioners to the part of it to which they objected.

said that under the clause a local inquiry was held by the Light Railway Commissioners, and the matter was sent to the Board of Trade for confirmation. The Board might think it advisable in certain circumstances to hold an independent local inquiry themselves; but they did not have power to do so, and in order to give the Board that power, he moved to add after "consideration," in line 28, the words, "or may themselves hold or institute a local inquiry and hear all parties interested."

did not think the proposed words were necessary. There could be no doubt that the Board had already power to hold an inquiry.

protested against the doctrine that things might be inferred into an Act of Parliament. If they wanted the Board of Trade to have this power of inquiry, let them be given that power expressly under the Act, instead of leaving in a matter of inference.

I do not object.

said that under this clause the Board of Trade might confirm an Order, and the Order so confirmed would be as effective as any Act of Parliament. This was giving the Board of Trade a legislative power which he thought no Government Department should possess. He, therefore, moved to insert after the word "confirmed" the words:—

shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if neither House of Parliament within thirty days passes a Resolution adverse to the said Order it.

Under the Local Government Act of 1894, powers were given to parish councils for the acquisition of land for public purposes without having to come to Parliament. An Order for the purpose had first to be granted by the County Council; and if such Order was refused by the County Council the parish council could appeal to the Local Government Board; but it was provided that if the Local Government Board decided to issue an Order in such circumstances it could only become effective on being passed through both Houses as a Provisional Order. Again, there was at present before the House awaiting its Second Reading, a Public Health (Scotland) Bill. In the clause dealing with the acquisition of land for the purposes of public health—purposes more important than light railways—the Government had carefully safeguarded the interests of owners and occupiers of land. There was also a provision that when the Local Government Board had been approached and had issued an Order for the acquisition of land for public health purposes, if a single person objected, a Provisional Order for the acquisition of land would have to be passed through Parliament. Again, in the Agricultural Rating Bill an Amendment had been inserted on the Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness, providing that any regulation issued by the Local Government Board, not in reference to the acquisition of land but in reference to rating, should lay on the Table of the House ten days before it was made effective. It was because he did not think it was right to give such large powers in regard to the acquisition of land to any Government Department, that he moved his Amendment.

said it was a deliberate part of the policy of the Bill that the Parliamentary supervision which had hitherto applied to the acquisition of land should in the case of light railways be removed, subject to certain safeguards and restrictions and investigation before two tribunals—the Light Railway Commissioners and the Board of Trade—the object in view being to render the acquisition of land more easy and less expensive than it had been before. His hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking that there was no precedent for this course. It was true that under the Original Allotments Act a Provisional Order was necessary where land had to be acquired; but under the Amending Act, the Provisional Order was no longer necessary, nor was any appeal to Parliament necessary. He believed that the safeguards which were set up in the Bill in regard to the acquisition of land for the purposes of light railways were ample and sufficient. He desired that the operation of the Act should be swift, but at the same time he should not have proposed the procedure laid down in the Bill, if he did not believe that under it the interests of all parties concerned would be fully protected. He hoped that in these circumstances the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

said that one of the chief objects of this Bill was to place a limit upon the expense and delay of the present mode of procedure. It would entirely neutralise the advantage sought to be obtained by this Measure if the action of the Board of Trade in this matter were to be upset by a vote of that House, given without having adequate information before them. He had heard the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade with much satisfaction, and he trusted that the Government would strongly resist this Amendment.

said it was evident that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had more confidence in the Board of Trade than he had in Parliament, but for his own part he had more confidence in Parliament than he had in the Board of Trade. In his view, it would be most dangerous to give large uncontrolled powers of this description to any Department. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Gentleman below the gangway both suggested that the Amendment would give rise to great expense and delay. His view, however, was that it would not add a single farthing to the expense, or occasion a day's delay to the procedure. The proposal of the Government was to treat these Orders like a cucumber, that after they had been carefully cut up, salted, and had had pepper, oil, and vinegar added to them, the Board of Trade might throw them out of the window. The Board of Trade might turn the Orders inside out or upside down, and then, having done that, they might forsooth confirm them. The fact was that the Board of Trade already possessed too many of these powers, and they ought to be subject to the control of that House in the exercise of them.

said that he must appeal to the members of the Conservative Party not to support their Leaders on this occasion. Where Parliament had devoted its powers to make Orders of this kind to any Commission or Department, it had hitherto always provided that those Orders should not have the force of law until they had lain upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for a certain period. In the case of the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, the Government had proposed, for the first time, that the control of that House over Orders made by the Board of Trade under its provisions should be done away with, and that the sale powers with regard to such Orders should be vested in that Board. That proposal was strongly opposed, and the Government were compelled to accept the principle that those regulations should not become law until they had lain upon the Tables of both Houses for 10 days. He could not see that there was the slightest foundation for the suggestion that the Amendment would increase the cost of the procedure. Now, for the second time this Session, a Conservative Government were proposing to take away the control of the House over these matters and to give the sole control over them to a Department. Unless the Amendment were adopted, the only control that hon. Members would have over these matters would be by moving once a year the reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, and the opportunity for doing so might not come until after the mischief had been done. He hoped and trusted that there were still some Conservatives in existence, and that they would bring pressure to bear upon the Government to induce them to accept this Amendment.

said that this Bill proposed to give large powers to a Government Department, and it was of great importance that that House should keep control over the exercise of those powers by the Department in question, and that every Order which they made should lie upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for a certain period before they should come into force. The adoption of such a proposal would involve neither expense nor delay. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would see his way to accept the Amendment.

hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment. It must be remembered that Parliament did not sit all the year round, and therefore the regulations made during the Recess could not be enforced until the re-assembly of Parliament. He certainly did not expect to hear from the hon. Member for Caithness a proposal that the House of Lords should have its veto power increased. The Motion might be moved in the House of Lords, and if carried there would absolutely upset any provision for the construction of a light railway sanctioned by the Board of Trade, and they knew that in the House of Lords there was always a Party majority one way. There were strong restrictions placed on the granting of these Orders, and he did not think there was the least fear of the interests of the local landowners being injuriously affected.

thought his right hon. Friend might without much loss of dignity give way in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] The burden of an ill-considered light railway scheme, made without due consideration, would be felt by the locality for a very long time. The Board of Trade was an executive and could not pretend to be a judicial Department.

said that if he felt that there was any necessity for the safeguard which his hon. Friends behind him desired, he should not venture to appeal to them to give way, but in his opinion it would be entirely illusory, and the Amendment, if carried, would have a damaging effect. He must for once differ from his hon. and learned Friend as to the action of the Board of Trade not being judicial, and he was confident that their duties would be regarded as judicial. To consider such a case as that of a landowner who was not allowed enough compensation, could there be any tribunal worse than the House of Commons after 12 o'clock? He would say when there was a Party majority of Conservatives in the House. [Opposition laughter.] No one could deny that it was not a satisfactory way of dealing with such questions by discussions after 12 o' clock, when the House would not have the evidence before it. On such matters as railway rates and the terms on which the money was to be advanced, the protection which it was proposed to give by the Amendment would not only be illusory, but would give to the majority for the time being the power of rejecting a scheme which a locality might be most anxious to have. An Order could not be laid before the Houses of Parliament from the prorogation in August until the sitting of the House in the following February. But he did not wish to base his opposition on any minor ground, and he thought his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill had exercised a wise moderation when he said that he could not allow the proposals of the Bill to be impeded by the course of action which this Amendment would involve. This proposal would not take the place of an Inquiry by Provisional Order or by private Act of Parliament, and he hoped the House would not adopt it.

thought the right hon. Gentleman had gone farther than the Amendment, for his remarks seemed to be directed against the mode of dealing with private Bill legislation. [Opposition cheers.] The argument that there might be delay in dealing with these schemes when Parliament was not sitting appeared to him, as far as it went, to be an argument in favour of the Amendment. It was very undesirable that schemes of this kind should be passed through while Parliament was not sitting, and could have no control over the money which was to be voted. He thought the Amendment was one of very considerable importance, and he regarded these proposals for granting money for local purposes with some amount of apprehension, as in other countries they had led to very great difficulties in finance. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask that that House, which was the guardian of the public purse, should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion, if it thought fit, on one of these grants or loans. What chance would a landowner have, whichever side was in power, if he came to that House to oppose a light railway scheme on the ground that he did not get sufficient compensation himself? ["Hear, hear!"] The real ground of opposition would be that there was not a sufficiently strong case made out for a particular light railway. It would be very difficult to resist a grant once promised by Government, and this would certainly only be done when there was a strong case. In the interests, therefore, of economy and of the public purse, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

said as far as he was concerned, he hoped he had made his meaning perfectly clear. He considered that if this Amendment were accepted by the House it would be an enormous blow to the whole Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It should be clearly understood that he was entirely opposed to the Amendment.

said this was not a mere question between locality and locality; it might be a question between landlord and landlord, company and company. It was simply a plan for getting more public money. But there was another point of much more importance. Under the 5th Clause, special grants might be made to certain railway companies for making railways. No doubt the sum was limited; it was only £250,000. There would be considerable competition between locality and locality, and between company and company, and there would be tremendous pressure put on the Board of Trade, the Railway Commission, and even Members of the Government, to favour one against the other. That was not a mere prospective danger. He could point to a case where it had absolutely occurred. It was that of the West Highland Railway. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1891, there was an election in that district, and the agent of the Conservative Party stated "if you put in——"

ruled that the remarks of the hon. Member now had no bearing on the Amendment.

pointed out that his argument was that where there was a job of that kind, there ought to be an appeal to the House of Commons.

said the hon. Member could not go into matters which had no bearing on the Bill.

said then he would ask the House to suppose that in a district in the Highlands or elsewhere a light railway was required to be made. One political Party might say "We will press the Board of Trade to give a special grant to this district." Electioneering capital was made out of it. He was making no suggestion of jobbery against the Board of Trade, but they could prove that the Treasury was amenable to pressure of that kind. To guard against such cases, the House of Commons should be constituted a Court of Appeal. Take the case of a district controlled by two powerful railway companies, and a district with a weak company. The latter might need the railway most, but the former, with its representatives in that House, no doubt, would get the grant. They were told that this matter would be gone into as a judicial question, but no one knew better than the Attorney General that the Board of Trade was not trained for that work. If it was the Railway Commission that would be a different matter. He did not see whore the Light Railway Commissioners came in. The only safe course was to come to the House of Commons. As the Amendment proposed to give power to the House of Lords to deal with the granting of public money, he should make an Amendment which would make the clause constitutional. He therefore moved to omit the words "of neither House of Parliament," and insert instead the words "unless the House of Commons."

hoped his right hon. Friend would adhere to his decision, and would resist this Amendment, which, he thought, would be more objectionable, instead of being improved by the alteration suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had listened carefully to the arguments of his hon. Friends behind him, and his hon. Friend the Member for the Walthamstow Division know that he always distrusted—though he did not surrender—his judgment when it differed from his, as he had the greatest respect for his opinion. But really, he thought the misgivings of his hon. Friends arose from a misapprehension of the effect of the Amendment which they were going to support. They advocated this Amendment because, forsooth, the Board of Trade, or, indeed, he thought they said any Government Department was not a judicial tribunal. Perhaps they were right. But that was not the issue involved in this Amendment. Suppose he conceded—and he was far from admitting it, on the contrary, he denied it; ["Hear, hear!"] he believed indeed that the Board of Trade would approach these matters with the impartiality they demanded—and suppose he admitted that the Board of Trade would not view these questions judicially, did his hon. Friends believe, would they state in that House that in their opinion, the House of Commons, after 12 o'clock at night without any evidence before it, could, if it wanted, approach and decide these questions more judicially or more impartially than the Board of Trade, with evidence, and counsel representing both sides and all parties, before it, in the more reasonable, and certainly in the more judicial moments of the day. He opposed this Amendment, principally because it would add to, whilst he desired to relieve the burdens which paralyse this House. [Cheers.] He recognised that this was a consideration which would not appeal to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. But even he—perhaps he more than any other Member—must know that the discussions in that House, after midnight, were often heated, were rarely dispassionate, and never judicial. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Caithness said we were taking away from this House the control of the legislative power which was its proper prerogative. He did not think that was an accurate description of the effect of the clause under discussion. In his view this Amendment would give further opportunity to Members to resort to the forms of the House for the purpose of occupying its time, and though he quite recognised that was not a reason which would constitute an objection in the eyes of some hon. Members opposite, it was for that reason that he strongly hoped the Amendment would be rejected by a decisive majority. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Member for the University of London and the Member for Carnarvon argued this Amendment as if it only applied to light railways receiving Treasury aid. If the object of the Amendment was merely to safeguard public money, he should vote for it, and it would have the support of the House; but the Amendment went much further than that. It intended, in the words of the Mover of it, to constitute the House a Court of Appeal from the Light Railways Commissioners and the Board of Trade. Was that House competent to act as a Court of Appeal? They had had some experience. There were a good many cases which came before the House even from public authorities, and they knew that there was a very scanty attendance as a rule. Those who were requested by friends to stay did stay, and the decisions were given, not upon the statements of witnesses, not upon advice given, but upon a series of allegations which could not be tested. He thought that those who had watched these proceedings would agree with him that the House was not the proper tribunal to pronounce upon schemes of that kind. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Board of Trade was fit to carry out the work which the Bill put upon it, it was fit to make these Orders. It must not be supposed that the Board of Trade was not a judicial body. Its inspectors had a great deal of judicial experience, and did their work in a judicial way; while a great deal of the other work of the Department was judicial work. The Parliamentary head was constantly in touch with public opinion, and was amenable to the House. He could not imagine any circumstances under which the Parliamentary head would be likely to override private rights in the heedless and dangerous way suggested by the mover of the Amendment. The position of landlords and of localities and the safety of the public would be perfectly well cared for, and he agreed with the President of the Board of Trade the adoption of the Amendment would strike a grave blow at the whole frame of the Bill. He hoped the House would not undertake the very dangerous functions which the hon. Member proposed to give it; and if it did introduce the principle it would restrict the appeal to cases in which financial aid was given by the Treasury—cases in which, no doubt, the House would have a right of interference.

said that if the Board of Trade were simply to confirm, or refuse to confirm, an Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners he did not think he would vote in favour of the Amendment. But, under the 10th Clause, the Board of Trade might confirm an Order with or without modification, as the case might require. They might entirely remodel an Order without laying that Order before Parliament. The Attorney General preferred the Board of Trade between the hours of 10 and 4 to the House of Commons after midnight. He saw no reason for saying that the House of Commons was not competent to deal with a question of this sort after midnight.

What I said was that the Board of Trade, having the evidence before it, and having heard the witnesses, was in a far better position to judge of the merits than the House of Commons which had no materials before it.

said the Government were making a new departure on a most important matter; and the only reasons they had put forward were, first, a saving of time, and, secondly, that the Board of Trade was the best tribunal to settle these matters. He asserted that the Board of Trade, although, of course, competent to deal with such a matter as this, ought not to have the power given to it, to modify and put into an altogether different shape an Order of the Light Railway Commissioners; it ought to be confined to confirming or rejecting the Orders of the Commissioners.

said that several Members on the opposite side, including his right hon. Friend below him, had argued as if all Orders laid on the Table must be discussed. But that was not so. The Amendment was drawn to safeguard the public interest, as represented by the Treasury and by the locality. Four members of any County Council might put the machinery of the Bill into operation; public money might be handed over to a great railway company, and the credit of the locality might be pledged. The Amendment would give the people of a county an opportunity of appealing to the House of Commons if they disagreed with the action of their County Council. There was no intention to cast doubt on the judicial capacity of the Board of Trade, but it was the House of Commons itself that should hold the purse strings and have the last word with the granting of public money. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would take an independent line, and insist upon the House of Commons being in a position to safeguard not in the interests of the taxpayers, but in the interests of the ratepayers in the counties affected by the Bill.

said if it was a question between the sanction of Parliament by Provisional Order and the proposal in the Bill a very strong argument might be made for the former. In the case of a Provisional Order, the whole question, if there was opposition, came before a Committee, evidence was taken, and the whole matter was investigated and dealt with in the same way as in an ordinary Railway Bill. But when a former Light Railway Bill came before the House it was agreed on both sides that if procedure by Provisional Order were adopted it would cause such expense and such delay as would prevent light railways being built at all. What was the procedure under this Bill? There was, first of all, to be a public Inquiry before the Light Railway Commissioners. Every person must be informed as to how their interests were to be affected, and the Commissioners would be bound to hear all the objections which might be stated. The Commissioners would not represent any official opinion at all, and would not be dependent upon the votes of one Party or another. They would be a perfectly independent body representing the public, and would judge on public grounds of the propositions which might be laid before them. The Order would then come before the Board of Trade, who would be bound to consider again any objections to any of the propositions in the Order, and would, if necessary, hear counsel and evidence upon the matter. His hon. Friend the Member for Epsom objected to the power of the Board of Trade to modify any Order of the Commissioners. How would it be possible for the Board of Trade to act as a Court of Appeal if they had not the power to make modifications? To suppose, as his hon. Friend did, that this power of modification meant reconstruction of the whole framework of the Order, was to make a supposition of the wildest possible character. He was sure that any one who was aware of what the procedure was in matters of this kind would know that no such operation would take place. The Amendment proposed that after the Order had been carefully considered and assented to by these two tribunals, it should be placed on the Table of the House and decided, perhaps by a Party vote, one way or the other, after 12 o'clock at night, without hearing any evidence whatever and without the power of modification. He could conceive no tribunal less capable of performing such a judicial office as this. It was said that there was no question of expense involved in this proposal. He maintained that there was a very large question of expense involved. What might be the result of this procedure? It might mean the destruction of the whole of the work which had been carried on for months, and the waste of the enormous expense which had been incurred in surveying, investigating, and getting up the case. He believed that if any company or body of persons knew they were liable to have the whole of their labour destroyed and their expenditure wasted by a Party vote in the House of Commons, it would materially affect the number of Orders applied for, and would, in his opinion, greatly and almost fatally damage the operations of the Act. ["Hear, hear!"] These were the reasons which prompted him to decline to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and he hoped the House would agree to the Bill as it stood.

asked if it was not a fact that as the Bill was drawn at present the Board of Trade were excluded from hearing viva voce evidence on the objections lodged?

said he had an Amendment down on the Paper on Clause 9, page 6, line 23, to insert after the word "objection" the words "and give those by whom it is made an opportunity of being heard."

said he felt that if this Amendment were carried the President of the Board of Trade might just as well drop the Bill altogether. The greatest part of the value of the Bill was that the matter was taken out of the hands of Parliament. It was the Parliamentary trouble and complication and expense that made it so hard to get a railway passed nowadays. This Measure had got rid of that Parliamentary complication and expense so far as light railways were concerned. It had not got rid of Parliamentary power. Nothing could prevent the House of Commons from passing a Resolution with regard to any light railway, if it was so disposed. The Amendment invited every railway company to lay its scheme upon the Table, in order that it might be considered by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Some hon. Members probably thought that would not very often be done. He believed it would be done in the great majority of cases, and he could well conceive that scheme after scheme would be rejected. Before the scheme would be laid on the Table of the House hundreds of pounds would be spent by the promoters, and the President of the Board of Trade very truly said that they would not get promoters to run that risk if they had to lay the matter again in the Parliamentary cauldron, and stand the chance of a Party vote. He felt the President of the Board of Trade was absolutely right in the position he had taken up, and he would gladly support him.

said the President of the Board of Trade had admitted that a scheme might be materially altered by his Department, and that for all practical purposes the Board of Trade might assent to a new scheme; and if the Board of Trade demanded the right to supervise every scheme, surely there should be some authority which should investigate the schemes of which the Board of Trade had finally approved. He believed the House was capable of giving votes which were not Party votes, and of distinguishing the subjects on which it was right and proper to give a Party vote. The difficulty which this Bill aimed at obviating was the expense of the present system of promotion in the House of Commons. The Bill very properly obviated all that expense, and why should they not be satisfied with that reward, instead of carrying it so far as to suspend the judgment of the House of Commons altogether? He thought the Amendment might with great safety be accepted by the Government. It was quite possible that jobbery of all kinds might occur in the administration of the drastic powers which they were giving to the Board of Trade and to the Treasury, and he said that if there was a disposition to facilitate a scheme that involved jobbery of any kind, the House of Commons would be, on the whole, a very safe tribunal to submit the investigation of the matter to. He believed the opinion of this House would be of the greatest value and would exercise a correcting influence on schemes which otherwise might have a prejudicial effect on the districts concerned. He thought, considering the vast scope of the provisions involved in the Measure, the Government ought to accept this Amendment. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it would not be necessary to do anything, but he thought it was well this protection should be given.

supported the Amendment. He observed that the Board of Trade consisted of a number of permanent salaried gentlemen, and the only responsible man was the President for the time being. He should have every confidence in the present President of the Board of Trade, but cases might arise in which the permanent officials might induce a President to carry out a scheme which would not be for the benefit of the country at large. He was in favour of limiting government by permanent officials, and that was why he should give his support to the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

had not heard one single substantial argument in favour of the Amendment before the House. It seemed to him that the only case that could be made for the Amendment would be if all these light railways were to be made out of free grants. In that event, of course, Parliament would naturally have to take the matter into consideration. But that was not the case; and he agreed with the views which had been presented by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. It was perfectly obvious that they could not reinstate Parliament again without at once re-opening all the questions of evidence and expenditure, and of testing the whole of these proposals, so that they would re-enact and re-start all the cost and expenditure which the machinery of this Bill was intended to obviate. On the other hand, what were local authorities introduced into the matter for except to guard and protect local interests? If the House cared for the Bill at all they would reject the Amendment by a decisive majority.

said that, although the question before the House was the Amendment to the Amendment, he had allowed the Debate to cover both Amendments, because it was somewhat difficult to distinguish between what was specially pertinent to each. The right hon. Gentleman had already spoken upon the main question, and, if he proposed to speak again, he must confine himself to the Amendment to the Amendment.

May I, on the merits, withdraw my Amendment?

said it seemed to him that the Amendment would reader the Bill nugatory, and therefore he should oppose it. The question of Parliamentary control over the public purse was an important one. But here the amount to be dealt with was limited to a certain sum, and there was no danger of financial abuse from the Board of Trade having it committed to their discretion. The adoption of the Amendment would be a serious blow to a Bill which he should very much like to see tried, and, therefore, it was his intention to support the Government.

, whilst admitting the importance of the question raised, thought the Debate had gone on long enough, and, as both sides of the case had been stated, he appealed to the House to come to a decision.

remarked that, as the Government were not prepared to accept the general Amendment, he should like to ask if they would be prepared to accept an Amendment covering those cases only in which special grants were being made?

considered the objections raised by the supporters of the Amendment were wholly illusory, and contended that there was no real danger from putting this matter in the hands of the Board of Trade.

said, he had a strong objection to light railways being made out of public money, but if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to bringing the Orders before the House in regard to the railways that were to be constructed by the aid of these free grants, it would disarm his opposition. Looking at this Bill, he was bound to rise in his place to say it was his intention to support the Amendment. He did so because he strongly objected to free grants being given out of the public funds of this country for the making of railways without the greatest possible checks being placed upon the grants. This Bill was entirely a new departure, and that seemed to him an additional reason why they should not be satisfied with an Order from the Board of Trade sanctioning the making of these railways, but should insist that that Order should be brought for sanction and approval to the House of Commons. He took this action because he believed it was certain the results of the Bill would be detrimental to the best interests of the country. [Cries of "Question!"] That was the question. He had seen hon. Members, who were thus calling out, vote in favour of free grants, because they had admitted to him that among their constituents were a large number of freeholders who would benefit under the Bill. He was astonished at the warmth of the right hon. Gentleman at the idea of bringing forward a Provisional Order to be laid on the Table for the sanction of the House. What did the right hon. Gentleman do when it was a question of supplying the agricultural labourers with a few allotments whereby they might help to eke out a precarious livlihood? Provisional Orders in such cases must be laid on the Table of the House; the labourers might starve in the meantime, but still they must wait until a Provisional Order had passed the House. But now, when it was a case of taxing the poor of this country to find money to make railways in out-of-the-way places where no men of business would think of making them, it was said it was quite good enough that the Order sanctioning the expenditure of the public money should not be laid upon the Table of the House. He should support the Amendment.

could have supported the Amendment to the Amendment had it come before the House. But on the question of the Amendment to the Bill he should have to give his support to the Government, for reasons which he would briefly state. It was provided in the Bill that certain minor legislation should be put into operation by a Government Department. Over this Government Department the House of Commons had a certain control. Surely, also, when the grant included in the Bill was exhausted, the House of Commons would have to vote further money in the way proposed by the Bill. But when for the purpose of making the control of Parliament more complete in every individual case, it was proposed to give the same control to the House of Lords as to the House of Commons, he was bound to vote against a proposal of that kind. Under the present regime the opportunities that would be presented to them of indulging in the happy task of clipping the wings of the other House would be so few, that he did not wish to waste one when it came in his way.

contended that these words were unnecessary.

said he thought the concluding words of the Amendment were a wise safeguard. The reason for inserting the Amendment also justified the concluding words. Power was taken to incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts with various modifications. It was obvious the different undertakings would require various slight modifications. The scheme of the Bill was to take away jurisdiction from Parliament and to confer it on the Light Railway Commissioners; but no Department or Commission ought to have power to vary the general law. Therefore it was desirable that there should be some safeguard or check in order that Parliament, that the general law, was not contravened as it had been sometimes in private Bill legislation. There was an analogous provision in the Electric Lighting Act.

said he was not quite satisfied that the matter was so simple as was explained. On the face of it, it looked as if the Board of Trade was being deprived of the power to relax the procedure under the Lands Clauses Act. He should like to ask in what form a special Report was to be made, and what would be the value of it. What they really wished to do was not to make the cost of land greater by diminishing the power of the Board of Trade to cut out what was really unnecessary and undesirable in the procedure of the Lands Clauses Act. This Amendment wore a suspicious aspect when coupled with another on the Paper, and he feared the effect of them was to compel the Board of Trade to give up powers which he supposed they intended to use, and to make the whole machinery of the Lands Clauses Act compulsorily operate in the interests of the landlords.

said if he thought the Amendment would have anything approaching to that effect he would not move it. It would not in the slightest degree hamper the Board of Trade in the exercise of their powers. An hon. Member behind him objected, by an Amendment on the Paper, to the Board of Trade having the powers to vary the Lands Clauses Act at all; but it was quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment.

said he shared with the feeling that it was absolutely essential the proceedings should not be cumbersome, and this proviso would not encumber them. The Bill incorporated the Lands Clauses Act with such exceptions and variations as might be deemed to be necessary, and the proviso did not touch the exceptions at all. When the variations involved what was really legislation, then there would have to be a special Report to say what had really taken place.

said the Amendment had to be taken in connection with that to Clause 13 to enable 10 per cent. compensation to be given for compulsory purchase. Under this clause power was given to the Board of Trade to make a variation temporarily for a temporary purpose, and there was no power to correct any mistake made by the Board of Trade.

said the Amendment was capable of a mischievous interpretation. To the latter part of it there was no objection; it was desirable there should be a Report to Parliament; but the other part of the Amendment was really mischievous. If it did not limit the powers of the Board of Trade, why should it be introduced at all?

replied that it was said the words of the clause would enable the Board of Trade to vary the general law applicable to all cases. They wanted to make it quite clear that each Order was to be taken by itself, and any variation would apply only to the Order in which it was made.

said the words of the sub-section did not say that. The Bill as it stood gave the Board of Trade the power the right hon. Gentleman asked for, "the Corporation, subject to such exceptions and variation as may be mentioned in the Order."

said the word "variation" was qualified by the word "exceptions."

said that was exactly what he thought mischievous, because the whole Bill applied to special and exceptional circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman might not always have the interpretation of this Measure; and the Amendment was capable of an interpretation which would render it impossible to introduce any variations at all.

, as a member of the Grand Committee, said that no discussion took place there which would lead hon. Members to expect such an Amendment being submitted like that of the Government. His fear was that the Amendment would tend to make the proceedings under the Bill more costly.

supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

proposed that the Amendment should read as follows:—

provided that there shall be no variations of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, except such as appear to the Board of Trade to be required by the special circumstances of the case, and where any such variation is made the Board of Trade shall make a special Report to Parliament on the subject;

said he was ready to accept this Amendment.

assured the hon. Gentleman that the general railway law would apply to light railways; and as therefore all that he desired could be provided for under the Bill, his Amend-was unnecessary.

asked did the hon. Gentleman really think that there ought to be in the hands of the Board of Trade power to revoke an Order they had made, and thus render the whole thing null and void? He could not accept such an Amendment.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for giving a much Letter reason for not accepting the Amendment.

"Hear, hear!"