On behalf of the honourable Member for North Belfast, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although the Tweedmouth Committee reported that at offices where telegraphists rise to 54s. per week clerks should rise to £175 per annum, the telegraphists in Belfast have attained to 54s. per week, but the clerks have been kept at £160 per annum; and whether he will take steps to have this remedied by advancing the clerks to £175?

The statement of the Tweedmouth Committee was a statement of supposed fact, not a recommendation for the future. It was not, however, accurate as representing the actual arrangement in existence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any further steps have been taken with reference to the establishment of a British post office at Salonika?

The Postmaster General has been in communication through the Foreign Office with Her Majesty's Consul-General at Salonika with a view to the establishment of a British post office at that port. This correspondence has not yet been completed, but it is hoped that final arrangements will be made before long. The difficulty is, I believe, in connection with the Consular House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether Mrs. Charles, an assistant in the office and a relative of the late postmaster of Pomeroy, county Tyrone, was strongly recommended for the appointment, in succession to Mr. R. S. Bates, whose orphan children Mrs. Charles undertook to keep and maintain if she were appointed; and if he will state on what grounds the Postmaster General has given the appointment to a man named Grimes, at one time secretary to the Land League, and now acting as local registration agent to the Nationalist party.

There were a good many candidates for the Pomeroy sub-office, several of whom (one being Mrs. Charles) were strongly recommended by various private persons for the appointment, but from the reports which he received the Postmaster General was not satisfied as to her suitability for the post. He selected, therefore, another candidate, Mr. Grimes, who had also been recommended to him, and whose premises were suitable and well situated. The Post master General was not aware of Mr. Grimes' political associations, but he is assured that he is not acting as local registration agent to the Nationalist party?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now say if the War Office can grant any compensation to Mrs. Tingley for the loss she has sustained through the death of her son, Sergeant Tingley late of the 1st Sussex Engineer Volunteers, which was caused by some blasting operations during the inspection of the battalion at Sheffield Park on 3rd June last?

There is a difficulty in this case, because it is not the custom in the Army to compensate mothers for the loss of sons, and it would be very difficult to compensate the mother of a Volunteer for a similar loss. It is possible that if the deceased man had been in the Army there might have been a small grant made from the Patriotic Fund, and the Committee will see if a similar grant can be made to the mother of this man.

On behalf of the honourable Member for Caithness, I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to recent vaccination prosecutions at Aberdeen and at Dundee; whether he is aware that, in the latter case, the sheriff stated that the procedure was oppressive, in view of the English legislation which proposed to give relief to persons with conscientious scruples; whether there has been a recent order by the Scottish Local Government Board in favour of more rigorous prosecutions; and whether the majority of the Parish Council of Abbotshall, in the county of Fife, have resigned in consequence?

My attention has been called to the cases referred to. The case at Dundee was tried before the sheriff-substitute—not the sheriff. I have no knowledge of what he said except from the newspaper reports. The answer to the third paragraph of the Question is in the negative. On the contrary, I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that they have not departed from the line which they have all along adopted, namely, that parish councils are bound to carry out the existing law. It is the fact that, on being called upon to carry out the existing law in regard to first prosecutions, six out of 11 of the parish councillors of Abbotshall resigned their seats at the parish council.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state why the Royal Munster Fusiliers are not allowed to wear the shamrock badge (granted to them in 1881) upon their uniform; whether any other regiment possessing a special badge is prohibited from wearing it; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Royal Munster Fusiliers is the only regiment upon whom the shamrock badge has been conferred, the propriety of permitting this national emblem to be worn upon the uniform will be favourably considered?

I have nothing to add to my reply of Thursday last. This regiment has never been granted a right to the shamrock badge, and has never worn it.

Is the honourable Gentleman aware that the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, who were constituted at the same time and under the same conditions, wear the two badges to which they are entitled, and cannot the same course be adopted in regard to the Royal Munster Fusiliers?

I do not think the honourable Gentleman quite understands. The Royal Munster Fusiliers were given the right to wear the shamrock in their colours; they have never had the badge, it was never conferred on them, they have never asked for it, and have never worn it.

Is it not a fact that the two badges are indicated in the Army List——?

Order, order! The honourable Gentleman is debating the answer. He has received a full answer to the Question.

Is the objection due to the fact that the badge happens to be the shamrock——?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are in progress, or any understanding arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in reference to the future of the Philippine Islands; whether there is any ground for the apprehension that Germany is seeking the acquisition of the island of Luzon, the most, valuable and strategically important of the group; whether he is aware that the possibility of Germany acquiring a further foothold in proximity to their shores is viewed with considerable anxiety in the Australian Colonies; and whether Her Majesty's Government will carefully watch the development of the situation in the Philippines with a view to preventing any portion of a group situated on the great commercial highway between Australia and the Far East from falling into hostile hands?

No negotiations are in progress with regard to the Philippine Islands, and no information has reached us to support the idea that Germany has made or is making any attempts to acqure the island of Luzon. The Government are aware that the future of the Philippines is a subject of anxiety to the Australian Colonies, and it will, of course, continue to receive their close attention.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the pressure that is exercised upon the Chinese Government by the representatives of foreign Powers at Pekin in favour of concessions demanded or procured by their own nationals, and against concessions demanded or procured by the nationals of other countries, Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as may enable the Chinese Government to resist their pressure, and as will secure identity of treatment for British subjects and British undertakings in the Chinese Empire?

Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin was instructed some time ago to press for the insertion in every concession granted by the Chinese Government of proper provisions for equal treatment of all nationals in trade. On July 22nd he was further instructed by telegraph to inform the Yamen that Her Majesty's Government would support the Chinese Government against any Power which committed an act of aggression upon China, because China had granted to a British subject permission to make or support any railway or similar public work.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to obtain the settlement of the claims of British subjects for material losses arising out of the disturbances in the Mosquito Reserve in 1894?

A convention was signed on 1st November, 1895, for the appointment of a Commission to fix the amount due to British subjects on account of the claims referred to. It was, however, subsequently agreed to by an exchange of notes that the matter should be settled by the payment of a lump sum. A portion of the amount then fixed has been paid and distributed to the claimants. But, in spite of repeated and urgent applications, the balance due from the Nicaraguan Government has not yet been received.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that discontent prevails in the ranks of the Belfast Royal Irish Constabulary regarding the practice of lifting junior men over the heads of their seniors on the promotion lists; and if he would cause inquiry to be made into the matter?

My right honourable Friend has made inquiry into this matter, and is informed that no discontent whatever prevails in the ranks of the Belfast police force of the nature indicated. The greatest weight, consistently with the interest of the service, is given to seniority in making selections for promotion, and no senior man who is well qualified for advancement fails in due time to obtain it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will now take off the Muzzling Order for that portion of the county of Sussex which is under the administration of the East Sussex County Council; and, if he cannot do so immediately, whether he can fix any date on which he expects to be able to remove the Order?

My right honourable Friend has asked me to read his answer as follows: I should be glad to see my way to relax the Muzzling Order now in force in East Sussex, but there are indications that rabies, although so substantially reduced, still lingers in the metropolis and the home counties, between which and the district in question there is so considerable a movement of population at this period of the year. I cannot but think, therefore, that the withdrawal of the Order at the present time might easily result in my having to re-impose it at no distant date—a step which I am most anxious, if possible, to avoid. It would not be desirable that I should specify any date for the withdrawal of the Order, but my honourable Friend may be sure that I shall not lose sight of the representations he has made to me on the subject, and I am very hopeful that if the present condition of things is maintained I shall be able to withdraw the Order at no distant date.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the export of arms and ammunition in the way of trade from Great Britain to Persia is contrary to the law of England?

The answer to the honourable Member's Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether men employed by local authorities in working steam-rollers or stone-breaking machinery, and surfacemen employed in spreading road metal in close proximity to steam-rollers, come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897?

The answer to the honourable Gentleman's Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury will he explain why the extensive district of Withington has been removed from the jurisdiction of the Stockport county court and added to the jurisdiction of the Manchester county court; has it been repre- sented to him that the business of the latter court will be largely increased by such removal and by the Workmen's Compensation Act; and will he also state why the allowance to clerks in the Manchester county court has been reduced by £50 this year and an intimation given that a further reduction of £50 will be made in 1899, in spite of the protests of the judge and registrar of such court, and in spite of the fact that the business of the court is largely increasing and will further increase, whilst it is conducted at a decreased expenditure?

I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that the change of jurisdiction has been made in consequence of strong and repeated representations from the locality, which was for all other purposes allied with Manchester, rather than Stockport. It will, no doubt, increase the work of the Manchester county court, but whether the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act will materially contribute to this result seems doubtful. With regard to the last paragraph, I am informed that if the business at Manchester increases the allowance for clerical assistance will be increased in proportion. The payment to the clerks of the county court is based on the average of the payments for the last four years, and it is quite as high as that in other courts which do a similar amount of business.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the St. Marylebone Church Bill was passed by an Unopposed Bill Committee, notwithstanding that two notices of Instructions had by order of the House been set down for consideration on a given day, he will consider the expediency of proposing such an alteration in the Rules and Orders of the House as will prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding?

I cannot make any pledge with regard to modifying the Standing Orders in this matter. If the question is to be reviewed by Parliament the abuses connected with the putting down of Instructions will have to be considered as well as the particular defect which the honourable Member finds in our existing procedure.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether men employed by district councils in working steamrollers and stone-breaking machinery, and surfacemen employed in spreading road metal in close proximity to steamrollers, come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897?

I am afraid I cannot make distinctions. On the 14th of last month, in reply to an analogous Question referring to the same Act, I refused to give my honourable Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs a legal opinion. I must again refuse to do so. But the honourable Member has, no doubt, observed that my honourable Friend the Attorney General has a softer heart, and he is consequently in possession of an English opinion which will doubtless serve his purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the evidence given before the Indian Commission is to be published?

I understand that the evidence taken up to date by the Indian Currency Committee will be ready for publication before the end of the month.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government warned the British manufacturers engaged in the trade of exporting arms to Persia that this trade was illicit, and that arms and ammunition so exported would be confiscated by the Government?

The prohibition of the import of arms and ammunition into Persia was made by the Persian Government in 1880. On June 13th, 1891, notice of the prohibition was given to British merchants in Persia. There can be little doubt that the prohibition and the risks which were incurred by ignoring it have since then been known to the shippers and to the local firms engaged in the trade. The prohibition has on several occasions been mentioned in the British Consular Reports, which have been published from year to year. It was no part of the duty of Her Majesty' Government to issue any notice as to the steps that might be taken for the enforcement of Persian law by the Persian Government.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the nature of the cargo of the Beluchistan and the port of her destination were duly declared by the shippers to the proper Government officers before the Beluchistan put to sea; and, if so, why was she allowed to proceed upon her voyage?

The statements made with reference to the Beluchistan were found to be not uniformly correct. In the bills of lading the names of certain persons or firms were given as consignees, who repudiated all knowledge of the transaction. In answer to the second Question, there is no provision in English law under which the sailing of the Beluchistan with arms intended for illicit import into Persia could have been prevented.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, in consequence of the recent seizure of arms and ammunition at Bushire and on board of the Beluchistan, a considerable branch of British industry has been damaged, and a number of workmen thrown out of employment; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of opening negotiations with the Persian Government with a view to the recognition and resumption of the trade?

I have seen statements of the character mentioned in the first paragraph, but no evidence has so far been supplied to the Foreign Office to establish the contention. Considering that the trade which has been stopped was, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, injurious both to British interests in and beyond the Persian Gulf and to the security of British trade with Persia, while in the opinion of the Persian Government it was equally if not more injurious to Persian authority, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to enter into negotiations for its recognition and resumption.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the export trade of arms and ammunition from this country to Persia has been carried on for a number of years with the full knowledge of Her Majesty's Government; and whether consignments of arms and ammunition for Persia have for years been cleared at British customs houses, and duties upon arms and ammunition so exported regularly exacted by and paid to the Persian authorities appointed for such purposes by the Persian Government; if so, whether he can state when and upon what grounds Her Majesty's Government arrived at the conclusion that such trade was illicit?

The existence of the trade, as well as the fact that it was an illicit trade, and was only carried on by the connivance of the local Persian officials, has for long been known to Her Majesty's Government, and has, as I have previously pointed out, been alluded to in official publications. Her Majesty's Government did not feel called upon to interfere with the matter at an earlier date because, as long as the prohibition was not enforced by the Persian Government, there was no reason to impede a British, trade which would by such action only have been diverted into the hands of other foreign nations. I cannot admit that the duties exacted by and paid to the Persian authorities in respect of these arms have been regularly exacted or paid; on the contrary, the payments made were in many cases irregular and in excess of the maximum duty allowed by treaty.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received information that an active Russian propaganda is now being carried on throughout Crete; and whether the Russian sphere of influence touches Suda Bay?

The Russian authorities appear to have shown considerable activity, principally in the distribution of charitable relief in Crete. The Russian sphere of influence does not touch Suda Bay, which is in the internal sphere. The Russian sphere begins at Cape Drepano.

Is it not the fact that the Russian sphere of influence in the south touches the southern portion of Suda Bay?

No, Sir, the international sphere includes Suda Bay, and also a considerable area south of it, and it is only bordering upon that sphere that the Russian area begins. It does not touch the sea.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Belgian syndicate, which has obtained the concession for the Pekin-Hankow Railway, has sold its rights to the Russo-Chinese Bank, whose capital has been mainly subscribed by the Russian Government?

Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin telegraphs this morning that he has no information to show that the Belgian syndicate has parted with its rights to the Russo-Chinese Bank. The bank is acting as the agent for the syndicate at Shanghai.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Governments of Germany, Austria, and Italy have made an official declaration against a Christian subject of the Sultan being appointed the Governor General of Crete?

The three Governments in question have all expressed opinions unfavourable to the appointment of an Ottoman subject as Governor General of Crete. It was included among certain proposals of the Turkish Government, which were described by Count Bulow as inadmissible. It was absolutely rejected by the Italian Government. The Austrian Government said there could be no question of its being entertained, in a dispatch which will be printed in the next collection of Papers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the undertaking given by China, in compliance with the demand of Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, respecting the non-alienation of territory in the Tang-tsze Valley region imposes any, and, if so, what, obligations upon Great Britain?

I do not quite understand what my honourable Friend means by this Question, for he has seen the text of the undertaking, and he is therefore familiar with its contents. The assurance was requested from, and was given by, the Chinese Government, and I have before stated in the House that Her Majesty's Government regard this as a definite and binding undertaking on the part of that Government.

May I ask whether there is any published geographical definition of the territory included in the Yang-tsze region?

The only published geographical definition is contained in the assurance itself, in which the words occur, "the provinces adjoining the Yang-tsze." That is a geographical definition.

Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman, when he publishes the next Chinese Blue Book, will put in a coloured map, showing what he includes in that definition. I must say that it is almost impossible to ascertain it at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there will be a Supplementary Estimate this Session for the purpose of affording relief to the sufferers from the Waima incident, pending the settlement of the question of compensation with France?

No Supplementary Estimate will be presented during this Session. Should a Supplementary Vote be required it will be asked for next Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the precise significance of the passage in his dispatch to the Australian Governors, dated 22nd March, 1897, and embodied in the recently published official correspon- dence relating to the British New Guinea Syndicate, in which he expresses the opinion that the Australian Governments would be prepared to relieve the Imperial Government of responsibility in regard to the Pacific Islands; whether the Australian Governments have responded favourably or otherwise to this overture; and whether his subsequent suggestion in the same dispatch, that the Solomon Islands be associated with British New Guinea in a common administration, is likely to be carried into effect?

The question of the future adminstration of British New Guinea and of the Solomon Islands is still under consideration, and I am not prepared to express an opinion as to the probable result.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Tweedmouth Commission recommended an increment of 1s. per week to postmen who became sorting clerks in lieu of uniform; what percentage of postmen who have been appointed as sorting clerks have received 1s. per week increment in lieu of clothes; and what qualification is necessary to obtain his increment?

The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that ex-postmen now sorters should be granted an additional half increment as compensation for uniform. This recommendation only applied to London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, but it was subsequently decided by the Postmaster General, in concurrence with the Treasury, to extend the arrangement to officers in a similar position in the provinces. This arrangement is being carried out as quickly as possible, but the actual percentage cannot be stated without inquiry. The conditions under which the half increment is granted are:—(1) That no officer is thereby to receive a rate of pay higher than he would have had if his whole service had been on the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists. (2) That in no case is an officer to receive wages in excess of the maximum of his scale.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the present position of the reciprocity negotiations between the West Indies and the United States of America; and whether he contemplates laying any Papers upon the Table before the close of the Session?

I shall answer the honourable Member's Question fully in the statement which I propose to make on the Colonial Estimates to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the state of affairs in Swaziland, and especially as to the flight of the King and the presence of a large number of armed Boer invaders in Swaziland?

In consequence of the excitement caused by the killing of Mbaba, the chief Induna, by the orders of the Swazi paramount chief, the Government of the South African Republic, who are responsible for maintaining order in the country, despatched a considerable number of volunteers into Swaziland. They state that this was done for police purposes and in order to reassure the European population. The paramount chief was summoned to attend a preliminary judicial inquiry on 5th July, but, instead of appearing, fled to Ingwavuma Poort on the Natal border. A meeting of chiefs assembled on 14th July by the special Commissioner of the South African Republic Government to discuss the situation resulted in the temporary recognition of the Queen Mother as Regent. The Government of the South African Republic profess their desire to act in accordance with the convention, and the High Commissioner is in communication with that Government.

Who is now Her Majesty's representative in Swaziland?

The Consul-General, Mr. Schultz.

Will the right honourable Gentleman consider the desirability of sending a British military officer to be present at these negotiations, so that these Swazis may have full protection?

I do not see the slightest necessity for taking any such course. I have the fullest confidence in Mr. Schultz, and I have instructed him to be present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further information has been received from Sir Claude MacDonald relative to M. Pavloff's objections to the Hong-kong and Shanghai Bank loan for the projected Niu-chang railway extension; and whether the Tsung-li-Yamen has given their decision that in case of Dr. Yung-Wing's failure to find the capital for the Pekin-Ching-Kiang Railway the concession should go to German capitalists?

NO further information has been received from Sir C. MacDonald on the first point. We have not heard of any such decision on the part of the Tsung-li-Yamen as is referred to in the second paragraph of the question.

In case what is alleged n the second paragraph of the Question turns out to be true, are the Government prepared to take any steps——

Order, order! That is a hypothetical Question which cannot be put.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state before the House rises whether Wei-hai-Wei is to be fortified and garrisoned or not?

I answered this Question on Thursday last, and I have nothing to add to what I then said.

May I call the right honourable Gentleman's attention to the fact that he stated he was not prepared to answer it then?

The honourable Gentleman is quite mistaken. I have looked at the answer this morning. Probably he has not.

had on the Paper the following Question, but was not in his place to put it: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are in a position to make any statement as to the military situation in Uganda; and whether troops sent by the Indian Government for the purpose of repressing the revolt in Uganda were detained at the coast by Sir Arthur Hardinge, and only proceeded to the interior owing to the action of the officer to whom the troops were directed and in defiance of the orders of Sir Arthur Hardinge?

As the honourable Member is not in his place, and as the Question contains allegations against a British officer, I desire to answer this Question. The Papers, which will be in the hands of honourable Members to-morrow, bring the history of the military situation in Uganda down to the end of April. Since then we have not received any information justifying the alarmist rumours that have appeared in some quarters in the Press. Both the statements contained in the second paragraph are untrue. Sir A. Hardinge did not detain the Indian troops at the coast, nor did they proceed to the interior in defiance of his orders. On the contrary, he did everything in his power to accelerate the despatch of reinforcements to Uganda, and the success of his efforts has been cordially recognised by the authorities in that Protectorate, as may be seen both from the Parliamentary Papers already laid, as well as those which will shortly be presented.

Can the right honourable Gentleman give us any later information before Parliament separates. There is a good deal of anxiety on the subject?

I need hardly say that any information in our power shall be given. The only information we have later than April is not official, and is obtained from private letters.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can promise any opportunity of discussing, either in Committee or on Report, the Vote for reformatory and industrial schools?

I am afraid I am unable to give a promise upon this subject. I had hoped and intended to take Civil Service Supply to-night, but there appears to have been some mistake, as the Army and Navy Estimates are down upon the Paper. I cannot forecast the future course of Supply with sufficient accuracy to be able to inform my noble Friend whether I shall be able or not to give him the opportunity which he desires.

Will the right honourable Gentleman, bearing in mind the importance of the question of reformatory and industrial schools, give us an opportunity to discuss it on the Appropriation Bill? The discussion need not occupy much time, but we are bound to have one in order to get a reply from the Government to an important deputation which waited on the Home Secretary the other day.

I see no reason why the subject should not be brought forward on the Appropriation Bill. That is a matter which rests with the House and not with the Government. My noble Friend will have his chance like other people.

When will the Report stage of the Foreign Office Vote be taken?

I shall put it down for tomorrow.

Is Thursday to be allotted to Supply? When will the Colonial Vote be taken?

The Colonial Vote cannot be put down as the first Order for to-morrow. I shall put some uncontroversial Bill first, probably the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Will the Report of the Foreign Office Vote be put down next after the Colonial Vote?

I shall not put down any Bills between Supply and the Report of the Foreign Office Vote; but there probably will be Supply in addition to the West India Vote.

When does the right honourable Gentleman intend to proceed with the Nonconformist Marriages Bill?

I believe there was a general understanding that that Bill would be taken on Wednesday.

Will the other arrangements for Wednesday remain the same as were announced last week?

I shall certainly take the Local Government (Ireland) Bill on Wednesday. With regard to the Benefices Bill the case stands thus: On Tuesday last I said, in answer to the honourable Member for Carnarvon, that I could not give a pledge as to when the Bill would be taken. I said that at this time of the Session it often proved inconvenient not to take the first opportunity that presented itself to get necessary business through. Then on Wednesday or Thursday last I stated that in all probability the Bill would be taken next Wednesday; but it would probably be a great convenience to take it to-night. If, however, I should find that honourable Members would be greatly disappointed if the Bill were not deferred until Wednesday I will put it off. I repeat, however, that it might be very convenient to consider the Bill to-night.

Will the Report of the Foreign Office Vote be brought on at an early hour to-morrow?

I certainly should not bring it forward after 12 o'clock. I hope the House will recognise that the fact that there remain comparatively few days, I might almost say hours, before the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, on which I understand the Leader of the Opposition intends to raise the question of foreign affairs, renders it less important to bring forward the Report stage of this Vote for purposes of discussion.

obtained leave to bring in this Bill, and it was read a first time.

formally moved the Second heading of the Bill.

This Bill has been introduced without any inquiry and without the pledges given by three Governments having been carried out. It is 10 years since the new system was inaugurated of giving special grants in lieu of the old system of grants. At that time we were promised that it should be inquired into and determined what was the proportion to be paid and received by each country, and for three years the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day put down a Motion for the purpose of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the matter in order that we might know what our proportion was. It so happened that the Welsh Members were desirous of having Wales included, and owing to their action we had no inquiry for three years. Then, in 1892, another Government came into power, and they also pledged themselves to appoint a Select Committee, and year after year the then Chancellor of the. Exchequer, now the Leader of the Opposition, was always willing to do so, but he was busy with his Budget, and so the Select Committee was postponed by that Government. Then during the present Government we were told the matter should be inquired into by a Royal Commission and the whole subject thrashed out. For two years this has been dangled before us, and now Ireland objects. For three years—because Wales objected, afterwards because the next Government was too busy with other matters, and now because Ireland objects—we have this new system of finance carried out, and Scotland is being ignored. We were put off month after month and year after year, and now we are to have fresh legislation without an inquiry or anything else. All one can do is to strongly object to this course. It is a course which was not attempted as far as England or Ireland was concerned, but I suppose the Government think that Scottish Members will stand anything, and that they can, be ignored. Under this Bill we are to have some more money handed over to the Special Fund. We are to have a sum equal to seven-sixteenths of the amount raised in Scotland. Well, I think, at least, as far as the proportion between the equivalent grant and the similar grant to England is concerned, we are being treated more fairly than I expected. Our demand two years ago was passed by because Ireland wanted the grant, and as Ireland's pressure was greater than ours it was conceded to her. But now that we are about to get it the Treasury is, as usual, acting very niggardly towards Scotland. If it is right new to give us seven-sixteenths it was right two years ago. You refused us justice two years ago. You are now conceding it, and I cannot understand why we should be deprived of the two years' arrears. The estimated amount of the grant is £95,000 a year. That is £190,000 which we have not received in consequence of the action of the Government, and, as far as that amount is concerned, both in Committee and otherwise, we will try to press the Government to give it to us. By virtue of the course taken two years ago we were deprived of it, and I see no reason why we should not have it now. There are some other points connected with the Bill, such, as the distribution of the money, which, however, can be raised during the Committee stage. In the last clause there are two provisions, and I cannot understand why they have been inserted at all, because we thrashed out very keenly, eight or nine years ago, whether these grants should be distributed on a basis of population or of assessment, and after two discussions we came to an agreement that the basis should be partly population and partly assessment. If we distribute an assessment the result will be that rich parishes with a high rateable value and a small population will get a large portion of the grant, whereas poor parishes with a small rateable value and a large population will get less. These provisoes should be put in as clauses. They appear as provisoes, as if they related to some other portions of the Bill, but if they are permitted to remain the effect will be to rob the country districts for the benefit of the boroughs. That is the proposal of the Government. We are getting this money because of agricultural distress, and yet by these two provisoes you propose to rob the agricultural interest for the benefit of the towns. The Lord Advocate has not said a word about the Bill, but I should like to ask him why this course is being taken. The right honourable Gentleman is himself a county Member. These provisoes will militate against his constituents, and I do not see why they should be included at all. I am only now going to again protest against legislation until we hare had a full and complete inquiry. For 10 years our inquiry has been postponed on one pretence or another, and it is time this question should be thoroughly thrashed out, either by a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, and I myself think that a Select Committee is better in some ways than a Royal Commission. I take it that the Government have given up the intention of appointing a Royal Commission to consider the financial relations of the three kingdoms, and surely it is not now too much to ask that we shall have this question thrashed out between ourselves and our great neighbour, England.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading, because that would be depriving Scotland of money to which she is entitled. I must, however, express my disappointment at the statement of the Lord Advocate when we debated the matter last week. There was then a very general feeling among Scottish Members for an alteration in the method of distribution, and also that the money to be given to education should not be distributed in this way, but that the whole matter should be reconsidered and that there should be inquiry and legislation. The very way that the Bill now before us proposes to distribute this money really challenges the opinion of the Scottish Members on that subject. We have gone under the machinery of the Scotch Educational Department since 1890, and there is universal discontent in Scotland at the way in which the Department has been allowed to have the distribution of the money. I do not say there is any want of trust in the Department, but it is felt that Scotland ought to be consulted and that this House should have a voice in the matter. There is no use in laying a Minute on the table of the House and hoping for a discussion after midnight. But another point arises on clause 2, which again suggests the necessity for legislation. It is with regard to the two provisoes, but as I understand some suggestions are to be made in Committee, I will not now anticipate the points which may be raised there. That is a matter which cannot be done without legislation; at any rate, it affords another reason for insisting that the Government shall give us legislation on this subject at the earliest possible moment. I earnestly hope that the Government will reconsider that. I believe it to be the general wish of honourable Members, that they will give some satisfactory answers.

I won't go into the history of the different reasons why the Royal Commission was abandoned. I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether or not he cannot persuade the Government to give us this inquiry into the financial relations between the two countries. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give this matter his attention. We have had it up for seven or eight yeans. If we are going to get it at all, it is time we got it.

The question to which I wish to call the attention of the House is as to the equivalent grant, and the change this Bill produces in giving to Scotland a grant upon the same principle as the giving to England of half of the agricultural rate. We find, on examining the principle on which they give money to Scotland, that they do not adopt the equivalent grant out and out; sometimes they give the equivalent grant and sometimes they give a grant on lines similar to those an which money is given to England. If it were the equivalent grant, or if it were on the lines of similar treatment to England, there would not to so much to complain about. But we find that whilst we might in some cases lose by payment on the principle of the equivalent grant we would gain by the application of the alternative principle. The principle on which the grant is given to Scotland is that you shall give the least possible to Scotland. The Lord Advocate comes forward with this Bill, and says that the same principle does not apply; but Scotland is entitled to half her rates, just as England is. What is the cause of this change of front? Nothing more than that Ireland also objected to the principle of the equivalent grant. We come forward and say that our proper sum is one-half of the rates in Scotland, the same as is given in England, and we are quite entitled to refer to the change of front on the part of the Government. For a policy of their own the Government found it expedient to find money for Ireland in order to relieve Irish landlords of certain rates. We are entitled to say to tine Government, "What principles are you going to treat us upon; are you going to treat us on the principle of the eleven-eightieths? What we object to is that you go between the two; one time it is the equivalent grant, and the other time it is different treatment according to whichever method gives the smaller sum to Scotland." Now, as regards the rate. England gets her money as from the 31st March. You admit that we should have half the rates; and why don't you make the date to run the same as in England? We are entitled to have the benefit of the same date. This sum the Bill proposes to give to Scotland, and you are making the payment to Scotland run from the six months ended 31st March next, after the passing of this Act. Well, obviously we are not getting the same treatment as England. It is no answer to say that Ireland is not getting the same period. Ireland protested against the same period. England has got the whole of her money from the original date of March, 1897. Instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being put up to defend these payments, he puts the Scotch Office into the position of defending them. The Lord Advocate must be satisfied in his own mind that in the interests of justice the date of payment should run from the same day as in the case of England. I don't see why because one Bill happens to be before the other the last ought to suffer. England is always getting money for particular purposes, and then we follow as a matter of legislative order of precedence. Whether our Bill is a year later or not, we ought to have the money at the same date as England. Another point in regard to this Bill is that the payments are to run for five years during the currency of the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896. We are entitled to point out that, while Ireland is getting her payments perpetually, we in Scotland are getting the payments only during the currency of the Agricultural Rating Act. The same reason for making the grant perpetual in the case of Ireland applies equally to Scotland. The money is to be applied to various purposes, including police and secondary education; and in the case of secondary education it is impossible for the money to be properly applied unless it is perpetual. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to complain that these payments are to be made only during the run of the Agricultural Bating Act. I do not, of course, go into the different modes of applying the money; that can be discussed in Committee. The funds available under this Act will be considerable. In all, you will have the sum of £175,000 for the purposes of elementary education in Scotland. That is a very large sum, and it is one that ought to be under some comprehensive scheme worked out to the greatest possible advantage. If the money has once been given to different interests in Scotland, it will be almost impossible to get that money back again if you are going to formulate a general scheme. Therefore, I think that the Government will do wisely if, even yet, they will consider the matter, so far, at any rate, as this money is concerned—consider how far they are able to tie up that portion of the money so that the whole question of secondary education might come up at some future stage next Session, under some comprehensive scheme whereby the money could be utilised to the greatest possible advantage. That, of course, must be the object of the Government, as it is the object of this side of the House. There are no party politics in the question of education, and the whole matter is to have a comprehensive scheme upon such lines as will produce the greatest possible advantage from the money that is given for secondary education.

I do not think that? it is necessary for me to go exhaustively into this Bill to-night, on the Second Beading, because, as honourable Members are well aware, the Resolution in Committee disclosed the whole Bill, and I was able to explain its provisions upon that occasion with a fulness which, I think, leaves me with little to say to-night. The honourable Member for Caithness may, or may not, be under a misapprehension, but I am quite certain that his words would convey the impression to the minds of those who read them that he is under a mis- apprehension as to the question of how the money is to be calculated, because his remarks would lead one to suppose that we were here substituting seven-sixteenths as more liberal than eleven-eightieths as the calculation for the grant. Of course, we are doing nothing of the kind. As I explained, the fractional figure of seven-sixteenths is simply due to the small rectification which is necessary in respect to the agricultural valuation, which in Scotland includes buildings, and in Ireland does not. The honourable Member for Mid-Lanark more correctly apprehended the question when he said the money was going- to be given to Scotland by way of similar treatment. I do not find in his remarks that he has really anything to complain of in the similar treatment. His speech comes to this—he thinks it necessary, more or less, to twit the Government because certain distinguished Members of it have on former occasions dealt with Scotland by way of grant. I do not think, if the honourable Member will look rather more carefully at the words which I used on the introduction of the Bill of 1896, which were read out by himself or by some other honourable Member, that he will find there is very much fault to be found with those words, because I think that in my expressions it will be found I did not say that the equivalent grant was a counsel of what I may call abstract justice, or the logical outcome of justice, but what I did say was this, that it was impossible simply by applying the Bill of England to Scotland to effectuate a just result, because I pointed out that the rating system in England was absolutely different and dissimilar from the rating system of the other countries. If you, in so many words, give relief in the proportion of the English rates, and then calling the rate by the same name, apply it to really something perfectly different in Scotland, if you allow the same words to operate in Scotland, you obviously reach different pecuniary results. That is absolutely plain to anyone who remembers that although there are certain rates which bear the same name, such as the Public Health Rate, and the Poor Rate, common to England and Scotland, those rates in their incidence are perfectly different in the two kingdoms; roughly speaking, the English rate being paid wholly by the occupier, and the Scotch rate half by the owner and half by the occupier. I do not think it very much matters if my words were accurate or not, but as they have been quoted, perhaps I may stand up for the accuracy of my expressions. I think it will be found that what I said about the logical outcome hinged upon the question of the rates being not identical in incidence, and it was not equivalent to a justification of the equivalent grant on the ground of eternal justice. I think the honourable Member for Lanarkshire scarcely gave the Government the credit that in proceeding as we now do in this Bill by way of similar treatment, we wipe out the mistaken course of proceeding by equivalent grant as in 1896, because payment in the present Bill represents the total payment The sum payable under the former Bill is merely treated as a sort of credit item to account. It really does not matter what it was, because what is to be paid is the difference between that and the whole sum, calculated on a basis of similar treatment. The honourable Member, with his experience as an accountant, will, I think, see that it really does not matter what that first sum was; if the balance is paid, it is sufficient. Now, the honourable Member for Caithness illustrated the treatment that was meted out by the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he gave up certain arrears that had accrued. The reason that my right honourable Friend did that was that he was then acting simply according to the letter of his contract. There had been really a miscalculation. It was found that really by the Act of Parliament a certain amount was to be paid year by year to Scotland, and that amount had been miscalculated.

The right honourable Gentleman is mistaken. Instead of giving us 10s. per head, they gave us the equivalent grant. They cease the equivalent grant to give us something equal to 10s. per head.

Really, the honourable Member must not confuse matters. The honourable Member came in the middle of what I said, and has got hold of the wrong end entirely. We are talking about arrears. The 10s. ques- tion is a totally different question. What he said was, "Why do not you give the arrears?" Now, that question of arrears was nothing to do with the 10s. payment. The question of arrears is this: it was found, after a certain number of years, that there had been a miscalculation—that is to say, that it did not amount in fact to the eleven-eightieths. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day could technically have protected himself by this, that all the sums of money are voted annually by Parliament, and, accordingly, the real fault was that too small a sum was put on the annual Estimate. Well, the right honourable Gentleman did) not try to protect himself under that, but said, "I will give you the arrears." In the true moral sense it was carrying out the terms upon the contract. Well, now, of course, you are not in that situation at all. There was no Parliamentary contract in 1896 to give Scotland similar treatment, and my right honourable Friend explained perfectly clearly the other day when he spoke upon the Resolution, that it was no question of arrears, and that the Scotch money only dated from this year simply and wholly because the policy of giving Scotland similar treatment was brought into force at the same time as the policy giving Ireland similar treatment. The position in 1896 was different, because at that time it was not the policy of the Government at that moment to give what I may call similar treatment either to Scotland or Ireland. No doubt they gave a payment by equivalent grant, but when you give a payment by equivalent grant, I take it the reason of that is not because you are going to mete out similar treatment to one country and the other, but because you are simply what may be called giving it as a contribution. If you are giving a contribution to one of the three kingdoms out of the Imperial funds, there may be a certain equitable hardship upon the contributors to those Imperial funds who do not take any benefit from that treatment which has been meted out. That, of course, is the consideration which leads to an equivalent grant, but when giving similar treatment and not an equivalent grant, you get other considerations altogether, and that is why this Bill deals with it, and by the very fact of dealing with it, sweep away, once for all, all consideration of equivalent grant in this payment at all. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen asked me to consider again this question about education. Well, I am sorry that I have nothing more to add to what I said upon the Resolution. I think I have explained that when we come to have the whole question in a systemised scheme before us, it may be that we shall find there are difficulties we cannot face without legislation, and in that case we shall have recourse to legislation. But, what we do object to at this present moment is to legislate until we have first of all seen what sort of scheme it is that the Departmental advisers can evolve with the money now placed to their credit. I think the only other topic in the speeches to-day was this question of the provisoes in the Act. There are two provisoes. One proviso is simply the technical words which are necessary to effectuate the change in the pleuro-pneumonia change from one fund to the other. The second proviso is a proviso which was put in as a sacrifice to the great god of uniformity, but the practical working of it has been brought to my notice by the honourable Member for Renfrewshire, the honourable Member for South Lanarkshire, and the honourable Member for Caithness, and I have come to the conclusion that, at any rate, it is best not to take up that question at present. It will be quite a proper occasion if we should come to attack the question which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen spoke of—I mean the question of taking away the option and putting the money to education. That would be a proper occasion, but at present I think it is not proper to encumber this Bill with any alteration of the pecuniary advantages or liabilities as at present existing, and, therefore, I shall be prepared in Committee to put down an Amendment which will take out that second proviso.

As I had an opportunity in Committee on the Resolution to express my opinion on many points raised in this Debate, I shall not detain the House now. But I should like to ask the few English Members who have been present to-day, whether they have listened with much edification to the elaborate explanation which has come from the Lord Advocate if the present proposals of the Government; whether they understand, whether they really understand, why this grant is being proposed to Scotland now? The Lord Advocate has denied that he defended the equivalent grant system two years ago on the ground of what he calls eternal justice. I will read the grounds upon which he actually did defend it, and I shall venture to say he puts it on much higher grounds; he puts it on the ground of common sense. These are the Lord Advocate's words—

"As obviously the intention of the Government is to confer an equal benefit on the two kingdoms, you cannot let the relief in Scotland be conditional, as it is in England, as to the amount by the rate relieved, but you are driven logically in the Scotch case to the principle of an equivalent grant."

By the rate relieved!

Yes, but two years ago the intention of the Government to confer equal benefit on both countries led to the logical result of an equivalent grant. What is the intention of the Government now in proposing this increased grant? This is what I want English Members to take some cognisance of. Here is the true story of the whole proceeding. If the right honourable Gentleman himself did not defend the limited grant of two years ago on the ground of justice, it was defended upon that ground, and upon that ground alone, by the First Lord of the Treasury, if I am not mistaken, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I am not mistaken. They defended the limited grant for Ireland, as for Scotland, on the ground that justice required so much and no more, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the particular case of Ireland, declared that from this position the Government would not recede. They have receded from it. And why? The account of that transaction is to be derived from the statement of another Minister, a Minister who is not present to-night. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did not disguise the fact that the increased grant to Ireland was necessitated by the fact that the Govern- ment could not pass the Local Government Bill without a grant to the landed interest. That they considered necessary, and that additional grant to Ireland is the price they had to pay for the passing of the Bill. This treatment of Ireland was not on any logical principle, not on any principle of justice at all, but avowedly was the price which had to be paid for the passing of the only possible Local Government Bill for Ireland. Then the Lord Advocate himself admitted that this increased amount having been, given to Ireland, it was impossible to resist on the part of Scotland a demand for treatment on similar lines. It is quite true that the Lord Advocate is not in any way responsible for the Irish policy of the Government in this matter, but the Government, as a whole, is in this position, that two years ago, having defended one sum both for England, Scotland, and Ireland, as doing justice between these countries, has been obliged, in consequence of the Irish transaction, to come down now and ask for a much larger sum; a larger sum having been given to Ireland, the same must, as a logical consequence, be given to Scotland. I do hope that this is the last occasion upon which we shall be tormented with this unsatisfactory mode of dealing with public money. I hope we shall have no more of these grants or doles for local purposes, resulting, as they have done, in muddlement of the whole of our international systems. This is a grant which Scotland cannot refuse, but which we never asked for, and in the application of which the feeling of Scotland has been to a very small extent consulted. I should not have risen on this occasion except that the Lord Advocate appeared to me to be assuming virtues in himself and in the Government, which he so ably represents, to which they are not entitled.

I do not, as a rule, intrude into what I consider Scotch debates. I think an English Member must be rather rash to do so, but after the appeal which has been made by my honourable Friend below me, I think I must put my modesty on one side and enter a protest with him against the whole principle of these grants. I have always been opposed to giving these grants in aid. In principle, they are bad, and the results arising from them are bad. I think that there is nothing that leads to such a waste of money as when people spend money which they have not to raise directly themselves. Whether it is in our Imperial affairs, or in our local affairs, I find that the greatest extravagance takes place on the part of those people who have money to spend which must be raised by other people. Now, Sir, as I have said, I have always been opposed to these grants. What is the origin of the grant that we are discussing now? Simply depression in agriculture. Now, let us go to the foundation of these grants. In two or three counties in England—in Essex, in Hampshire, in Suffolk, and in Norfolk—there was depressed agriculture owing to the low price of wheat, and because there happened to be depression in these few counties the Government, in order to give a benefit to their friends, thought it was a desirable thing to show their interest in agriculture by giving something like a million and a half spread over the whole of the Kingdom. Well, what follows? A large grant is given to Ireland in the same way, and then a further grant is given to Scotland, about £200,000, in the shape of an equivalent grant; and now the Government are going to give something like £93,000 more to Scotland in order to give her some satisfaction, having given to Ireland a large grant with the Local Government Bill. I protest against the way in which this money is given. The Scotch people, who are generally very economical in spending their money, have never asked for this money, and positively they do not know what to do with it. There seems to be a division of opinion between the Scotch Members and the Government as to how they are to get rid of this money—of this generous gift.

No, no!"

Well, I heard the discussion when the Resolution was before the Committee, and I maintain what I say, that there is a difference of opinion. The Government brought forward a scheme to dispose of this money, which evidently does not meet with the approval of Scotch Members. There were Amendments moved, first to one part, and then another, and, as a matter of fact, this money is thrown at them, and they do not know what to do with it. I protest against this policy on the part of English Members. I do not understand this policy when the Government are making no remissions of taxation. Money has been coming in by millions during the last three years, all of which they have spent, and now they are throwing these hundreds of thousands into Ireland's pocket, into Scotland's pocket, at the expense of the general taxpayer. I think that the system is bad, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will, when they come to give an account to the country, find that their recklessness, with regard to the financial management of the concerns of the country, has met with its due reward. Now, Sir, I am not going to occupy the time of the House any longer. I do not as a rule occupy its time. I think, in the interests of my constituency, I may say England generally, this thing should not pass without, at all events, some English Member showing what feeling he has on the whole transaction. I do think that this system of giving these grants, which seems to be peculiarly favoured by tins Government, is thoroughly bad. I think all Governments have committed errors more or less, but I always found that when once we give grants of this kind, we get accustomed to give a great many more, and I protest in the strongest terms against the grant now made.

In spite of what the honourable Member says, I think Scotland in general is thoroughy agreed as to how this money is to be spent. I do not think there is need to discuss that any more. The only thing I wish to speak about is the distribution of the money to be devoted to education. I hope that the Lord Advocate will rise superior, as he said just now, to the great good of uniformity, and will not think it necessary to distribute this money according to population, still less according to valua- tion. It is absurd to offer it to Edinburgh or Glasgow, where the only difficulty is to find people enough to use what there is already, and I think that much more can be done by taking areas, or some other system of that kind, and not taking the system we have had heretofore, based on population. I hope the Department will take care not to commit itself permanently, because, I think, we shall very soon have to discuss an improvement on the basis of legislation. The right honourable Gentleman said that the Government would look into the question, and if it was found necessary to disentangle matters, they would propose legislation. But there is another point of view, and that is the House of Commons point of view. We want to have an opportunity of discussing the question of education and how the money is to be spent upon the Bill, and not merely after 12 o'clock at night, when you cannot get a House together, and have then but very limited time in which to criticise the Education Department. I think we ought to enjoy an opportunity of having the scheme as a whole put before us.

I do not want to go into this question at length, but I wish to point out that the very lucid explanation given by the Lord Advocate and similar treatment does not meet my difficulty at all. My objection to both lines of treatment is this, that they are not founded essentially upon the needs and demands of Scotland in relation to Scotch questions. That seems to me to be the main point of objection to the Government system. We want to have more time and more opportunities for discussing and of expressing Scottish opinion for the guidance of Parliament on all these Scotch, questions.

There is one point to which I desire to draw attention, and that is that we ought to have some inquiry into the whole of these questions. Whilst there is no one desires to understand the Lord Advocate more than I do, that what my honourable Friend has called his lucid explanation has left me in more doubt than ever as regards these financial dealings. It seems to me that the sooner we have an inquiry into the whole question such as we have been promised by several Governments, the sooner we shall come to understand where we are. I hope the Lord Advocate will, if he gets the opportunity, let us know whether he has yet made up his mind to recommend to the Government the necessity for this inquiry. Now, there is another point which I should like to refer to, and it is this: that the Treasury with their usual generosity towards Scotland professes to give us £93,000 or £94,000. Now, as a matter of fact, they have given at the same time some £6,000 in the Estimate of marine superintendence. Now, it seems to me that it would be a very much fairer, and certainly a more honest policy to make it perfectly plain that, in giving this sum to Scotland, that they were getting out of a certain payment for other purposes. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give the matter of this inquiry his careful consideration.

The first three Amendments are on the Paper by mistake, as they were accepted by the Government on Saturday. My object in moving this Amendment is to provide for the next Amendment, and, instead of the cost of carriage of seeds, spraying machines, and spraying material being placed upon the rates, which are abnormally high, and must be paid by the poorest of the poor, I desire that it should be paid out of the Church Temporalities Fund. I think the Attorney General will see that these distressed people should be provided with this relief loan as cheaply as possible.

It is perfectly impossible for me to accept this Amend- ment. The guardians charge no more to the persons supplied with the material than it costs, and they merely wish to recoup themselves, and sell at such a sum as will just cover the original cost of the article plus the interest on capital. I do not know whether the honourable Member is aware that in the distressed districts to which he alludes, materials have been supplied for nothing to all persons engaged in the relief works. It is obvious that the cost must be paid from somewhere. I do not know how or where the honourable Member has discovered that the Irish Church Temporalities Fund is going to assist him, for it is already mortgaged up to its full value and there is no money coming from it at all. I must, therefore, object to the proposed Amendment, because I think that it is only right that the guardians should sell the materials to the persons applying for them at such a rate as will cover the cost.

Is the right honourable Gentleman not aware that already provision has been made for certain payments to the Board of Works out of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund under Clause 2, sub-section 3, of the Bill.

I think it is perfectly clear that the Attorney General has shown by the first part of his argument that he has not read his own Bill. He has trotted this Measure out as giving the most extraordinary benefits to these unions in Ireland at the expense of the British Treasury. The fact is, that the British Treasury is safeguarded from any loss whatever. Now, while the Attorney General has just informed us that it is quite impossible to put any additional charge upon the Church Temporalities Fund, because it is mortgaged to more than it can provide for, we see in subsection 2 it is provided—

"Such loan shall be repayable by the guardians to the board of works by two equal instalments."

"The interest at the rate of two and three-quarters per cent. per annum on such loan, or on so much as is for the time being not repaid, shall be paid by equal half-yearly payments to the Board of Works out of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund."

But that is only a temporary arrangement.

Well, it provides for payments out of a fund which has no assets whatever. The Amendment of my honournble Friend is a very small matter, find I am sorry that the Attorney General does not see his way to accept it. I think the cost of the carriage of these sprayers ought to be borne by the same fund. Of course, the whole justification for this Measure, and the only justification for this Measure at all, is that these districts are in a very exceptional state of distress, and that the rates are very high. If that were not so, the Government would not be justified in bringing in this Measure at all. Now, that being the case, I think that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these materials have been carried free to all parts of Ireland by the railway companies this year, and I think it is very likely that the railway companies will again extend their generosity next year. There is no reason whatever why the same arrangements cannot be carried out next year. This Amendment, in my opinion, is perfectly unnecessary as regards spraying machines.

It is admitted that the people in these districts are in the deepest distress. Therefore I think the Attorney General will see that this is a very reasonable Amendment. This subsection requires that cash shall be paid for the spraying machines at time of purchase, and my object in moving the omission of sub-section 7 is to provide in my next Amendment that they be granted as a loan on the same conditions as the seeds and spraying machines are.

I could not possibly accept this Amendment. The great objection is that in the case of these machines that by the time the second instalment becomes due they will have been used, and then they are of no use. Therefore, if a man desires to buy it he should pay the price, and if he does not wish to pay the price, he can always have it, and for that reason there is a difference made. I have already explained that in distressed districts, both machines and sprayers are given free.

I do not quite understand the position of the Government in regard to this question. The right honourable Gentleman opposed the last clause on the ground that the Irish Temporalities Fund would not stand it, and yet he proceeds now to buy seeds or spraying machines, and pays cash at once. So that you are taking out of the Church Temporalities Fund one-fifth of the value of the seeds and one-tenth of the value of the machines if you pay in cash. Now, in the next clause, on page 4, there is another curious proviso. It says—

"The amount due to the guardians on account of any seed or spraying material sold by them, and not paid for in cash on delivery, shall be paid by two equal instalments."

That is not the question raised by this Amendment. There is another Amendment on the Paper dealing with that point.

But if you are going to draw on the Church Temporalities Fund as far as materials are concerned, surely the machinery for carrying out the work should be placed in the same condition. If not, the result will be that the operation will be a failure. They will try by every means to do it, and the result will finally be that you will probably waste the material, and not have the effect desired. I am sorry the Attorney General has not seen fit to accept the Amendments of my honourable Friend, because they are practically all of the same character as those which he accepted in Committee for the Government, and only apply to the question of the system of paying by instalments instead of paying all at once.

rose to move his first Amendment to Clause 7, when

I move to strike out this clause, because these instructors are already provided for under another fund, and therefore this clause is not necessary.

What fund are these instructors paid out of?

They are paid for out of the distress fund. They practically go round the country districts and give instructions.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to this, that, while professing to be drawn on exactly the same lines, and while apparently drawn, on the same lines as previous Bills of a similar character, it appears to me to introduce a totally new principle, because on all previous occasions of exceptional distress in the West of Ireland, a Bill of this character was introduced, but this Bill has reference only, or the Bills introduced upon this occasion have reference only to the relief of distress given out in the ordinary way, but the Bill authorises or gives an indemnity to the guardians, in respect of relief of distress, of outdoor relief, given in cases in which it would not be legal to give it under the poor law of Ireland as it at present stands. But on all these previous occasions, in addition to the extraordinary relief of distress, they were managed under a totally different administration, and paid for from different funds in the way of relief works, such as the Executive Government found it necessary to establish in those districts. But now, as far as I understand it—and I failed on the last occasion to get any definite statement from the Attorney General for Ireland on this matter—in the present instance this Bill proposes to give an indemnity to the guardians, not only for the relief which they have been obliged to give simply as outdoor relief, but also to give them an indemnity for that proportion of the cost of relief works which the present Chief Secretary proposes to throw upon the rates. If I am correctly informed—and, of course, the Attorney General will set me right at once if I am wrong—under the law as it stands, the guardians in the West of Ireland have no power to throw upon the rates in their districts any part of the cost of their relief works. Is that so?

Certainly, that is so.

That is exactly my point, and that is the ordinary purpose of an indemnity Bill of this kind. But, in addition to that, we have the cost of the relief works, and, as I understand the law, they have no power to institute or pay the wages of the men on the relief works. In previous cases, when relief works were instituted, they were instituted under the authority of the Executive Government, and the whole cost of those relief works were paid out of some special fund supplied by the Treasury or the Church fund, and they were not borne by the rates. But in this Bill it is intended not only to cover the outdoor relief given to occupants of more than a quarter of an acre of land, but it is intended to make it legal, and clear the way for the Chief Secretary to throw upon these western boards of guardians that proportion, and we do not know what proportion of the cost of the relief works, which he has described as a new policy in the West of Ireland in the present year. Now, I have prepared a set of figures showing the condition of one of the unions in the West of Ireland, in order to show what appears to me to be a great injustice. These figures have reference to the Unions of Clifden in the county of Galway, where the rates are at present enormously high. The poor rate alone, according to the rate struck this year, varies from 2s. 6d. in the £ in this very poor union, up to 5s., 6s., 5s. 6d., 5s., 4s. 6d., 6s., and 5s. in the various divisions of the union. Now, in consequence of the great distress in the present year the amount of outdoor relief has been enormously increased as compared with last year. I have here the various figures to the 13th April, and I only extract one or two of the figures ending the 6th March this year, when the amount was £113, as against £6 18s. 6d. last year. Up to 19th April the amount was £104 9s. 3d., against £6 14s. 3d. in the corresponding period of last year. Now, in the last week, for which I have the figures ending the 13th April, it was £136, as against £6 6s. 8d. last year. Altogether, up to the middle of April, the amount expended was £1,192 13s., against £80 6s. 11d., which had been expended in the Clifden Union in the corresponding period of last year. Now that shows a terrible burden, of distress, and, of course, that figure has been largely increased, because the relief has been going on to a rather increasing extent. Now, of the above sum of £1,192, £156 has been given as ordinary relief—that is, such relief as would be covered by the provisions of this Bill under the policy which prevailed this year in these western districts. But, in addition to that £156 for ordinary relief, there has been £1,036 13s. 10d. issued under the labour test, which is equally illegal, as I understand it, with the £156 in ordinary relief, and which, therefore, requires the provisions of this Act to indemnify the guardians for having issued it. But, of that £1,036 13s. 10d. spent under the labour tests in relief works, the Government are going to recoup the guardians a certain proportion. The Chief Secretary gave us to understand that it would be about three-quarters, and in some districts more. But assuming that it is three-quarters, that leaves £250, which is the guardians' share, or might be the guardians' share of the labour test, and that added to the other sum for ordinary relief makes a sum of £415 3s. 3d., as against £80 6s. 11d. for the corresponding period of last year. And that additional burden in the rates in the Clifden Union is in an area of terribly exceptional distress, and where the rates already are at an enormous figure, at an average, taking the rates of the whole union, of little short of 9s. in the £. I think the House will admit that that is a heavy rate for a rural district. Under the old system what would happen would be this: that the guardians under this Bill would have received an indemnity for distributing £156 of ordinary outdoor relief, given in cases which, under the ordinary law, they could not have relieved without taking them into the workhouses. But under the new system introduced by the Chief Secretary they are now receiving an indemnity, and are to be required to pay, unless the Chief Secretary has changed his mind, a sum of £415, instead of £156 up to the 30th of April last, I suppose that amount since that time has been very greatly increased. What I want to know from the Attorney General is, am I right in that statement? Does this Bill apply to the share of the cost of the labour tests which it is proposed to throw on to the guardians? If that be the purpose of this Bill, I must confess that it raises in Ireland questions of policy which I shall avail myself of every possible opportunity of opposing. When I asked for a postponement of this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, it was represented as a most innocent Bill, and it was pointed out that if this Bill was not passed the result would be that the guardians would be individually charged, or rather surcharged, with the amounts of relief illegally expended. Well, Sir, that may be technically the law, but I venture to say that no1 Government would attempt to do anything of the sort. This relief has been given under the direction of the Executive Government, and it is absurd to say that the guardians, having broken the law to save the people from starvation, will be surcharged for it. Their only offence is that their have broken the law in obeying the instructions of the Executive Government. Therefore, the idea of surcharging them I dismiss as preposterous. If the Government intend to raise on this Bill the question of a new policy and a new departure, as the Chief Secretary himself describes his present proceedings in the West of Ireland; if they intend to raise this question, they should have raised it at a much earlier period, and not try to smuggle it through, as an absolutely non-contentious Measure. That is the reason why I asked for an opportunity of stating my views on this Bill the other night. Now, I have no desire to prevent the Bill passing into law, and I have not the slightest alarm upon the question of surcharging the guardians, because I do not think that the Government ever dreamt of surcharging them. As a matter of fact, this money has been spent on wages on the relief works, and it has been found by the Government themselves. I do not suppose that the guardians have drawn upon their bank balances. I do not know, but what I assume has happened is, that the wages of the men on the relief works have been found by the Board of Works or some other Government Department, and that they propose as a matter of account to charge against the guardians a certain proportion of the cost of these works, and then compel the guardians to levy a rate in order to pay this money. That is a policy to which I am entirely opposed, and, therefore, I think it is only reasonable to ask from the Attorney General a statement whether that is the intention of the Bill. Of course, subsequently in Committee, I shall have some opportunity of raising the question.

I must say that I think we had ample opportunities of criticising the relief portion of this Measure. The honourable Member says he entirely disapproves of the suggestion that any of the expense of relief should be thrown upon the local guardians, and suggests that it should be paid entirely out of the Imperial Treasury. Indeed, the honourable Member went further. He criticised in unmeasured terms the relief policy of the Government, and prognosticated all sorts of failure and destitution as the result of our policy. Now, the honourable Member is by no means a good prophet, for the guardians in many cases have administered the fund with great zeal and with great sagacity. To-day, every one of these relief funds are closed, and there is no case where distress has not been relieved.

I deny that.

The exceptions which have been mentioned, where distress is alleged not to have been relieved, have been found to be upon inquiry not sustained. At all events, the relief accounts have been closed, and the boards of guardians have adopted the scheme in most cases with cheerfulness, and have worked with zeal and with a great deal of discrimination, and I may fairly say that in all these cases it has been a marked success. The question of the labour test being applied does not affect the question, because under the law the guardians are not entitled to administer relief to persons occupying more than a certain quantity of land, or who were able-bodied. In cases of this kind the burden of dealing with them is thrown upon the Government, because, hitherto, when the funds have been supplied by the Imperial Treasury, then, as now, an indemnity has been required to indemnify the guardians for having taken illegal action. In these cases public works were established, and labour tests were imposed, and the fact that the money was supplied by the Imperial Treasury did not change the character of the Act, and did not dispense with the necessity of getting an indemnification. The only difference between that and the present occasion is that hitherto in the course adopted the duty has been thrown upon the guardians of making provision for the distress. Hitherto, no doubt, all the funds necessary to deal with exceptional distress have been supplied by the Government, but on the present occasion three-fourths, and in some cases a larger proportion have been supplied by the Government. But in other cases an indemnity Bill is necessary to indemnify the guardians for the illegal action which they have taken. The guardians have given illegal relief to persons who were not entitled to it, and it does not matter whether it was given to labour tests or any other tests. The fact of adopting a test does not alter the illegal character of the Act.

I understood that the Act did not apply to the relief works which were applied by the Imperial Government themselves.

In some cases the relief works were started and worked by the guardians themselves. I think it is much more desirable to start relief works by the guardians, because they have the advantages of local knowledge and control, but even then the character of it remains the same whether they give relief with or without the labour test, and they adopt the labour test as possibly the best means. The way in which the work has been carried out is this: these relief works have gone to what extent I do not know, and I really cannot say exactly, because the accounts of the relief works have been, so recently closed that the statements have not yet come in. I believe, however, that, taking an approximation, the entire outlay for the relief of distress is somewhat about £50,000 or £60,000, and of that sum between £9,000 and £10,000 will fall upon the guardians in the 11 different unions to which I have referred, who are legally responsible for the whole amount. The guardians have administered the relief to the extent of the whole, but the Government will give about two-thirds of it. Now, I call the honourable Member's attention to the third section of the Bill, which enables the guardians to escape from the liability we have placed upon them, by raising all that may be necessary to meet their contribution on the rates in the present year. They are enabled to borrow money, and so spread the outlay over a number of years, instead of having to raise the whole amount in the present year. They will be enabled to borrow, and thus distribute the cost much more equally upon the ratepayers of this and succeeding years. The honourable Member said that the Government would not dare to surcharge the guardians for this outlay. Well, I am not quite sure that it rests with the Government at all, and I think the Local Government Board officer is bound to surcharge it. It is hardly fair to say that this particular system of relief in Ireland has been a failure. The unions of Swinford, Castlereagh, Galway, and other unions have not raised the objections to which the honourable Member has referred. As I said before, it by no means follows that a hard and fast line has been laid down in each case.

I may say that I have no intention of opposing the Second Beading of the Bill.

I desire to call the attention of the Treasury to the fact that taking these funds together does not give a correct idea as to how much will be actually paid, or written off the original loan. The amount previously written off and the amount repaid, of course, you are taking the two ton-ether. Another point to which I wish to call attention is that on that Committee I see you have put the amount. You give the details and the name. Now, there is no particular reason for doing that, and it has nothing to do with the Act of Parliament. I think, when we come to the Committee stage, it might be put into the schedule in that way. I notice that in the time of repayment, that is, the number of years, you are taking power to amend the Public Works Towns Bill of 1875, and I think that is a very serious change. According to this proposal you axe extending the period of repayment from 20 to 30 years. I think that is a very great change, and perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury will give us some explanation why he is changing the period from 20 years to 30 years. It is a very considerable change, because the interest on the money is getting less every year, and less will be required for the loans, proposed than was required 80 years ago, when that Act was passed. These are the only observations I think it advisable to make on the Second Reading, because, in the Committee stage, the Secretary to the Treasury might be prepared to deal with the points I have mentioned.

I have only one or two points about which to ask the Financial Secretary, but I do not see my honourable Friend. I gave him notice of the Questions. One is as to the transport of Volunteers. The Chairman will recollect that a year or two ago there was a Committee appointed by the War Office for the purpose of inquiring into the best means to be adopted for effecting the transport of Volunteers. I believe the Committee reported some time ago, but we have heard nothing more about it, and I think it most desirable, if my honourable Friend the Financial Secretary can give it, that we should have some information on the subject. It is, no doubt, a very important question in connection with the Volunteer force. The question of mobilisation without transport is almost impracticable; therefore, as the Committee has sat, and as, I believe, it has reported, I think it most desirable that we should have some information on the subject. There is another point on which I would like to hear from the honourable Gentleman, and that is the question of the ranges. That is a question of the greatest importance to the Force, and I know the War Office has had it under its consideration for some time past. Probably the time has arrived now when some information may be given as to the number of ranges which are now available for use by Volunteers armed with the Lee-Metford rifle, which has now been served out to almost all the Volunteer rifle corps in the kingdom. One other matter is scarcely a novel one, as I brought it forward some three or four years ago, and that is the question of instructing the Volunteers in the manual exercises, the same as carried out by the Regular Army. Since the formation of the Volunteer Force they have been instructed in the use of the short rifle, but I think, now that there are so many Volunteer battalions existing under the territorial arrangement, the same manual should be adopted by the Volunteers as that in vogue in the Regulars. I am happy to say, now, that Volunteers are vying with the Regular Army in formal manœuvres and otherwise. But what I wish to impress upon my honourable Friend is that it is not desirable that one part of the Forces should be drilled by the manual, and the other part drilled differently; and I suggest that it should be considered whether it is not desirable that one system alone should be general. Speaking as one of the oldest Volunteers in the country, I can safely say that it would be most acceptable to the whole Force. I do not wish, at this period of the Session, to bring on other matters which might have been more properly discussed earlier, and will limit my remarks to these three matters.

I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War a question on the Report of the Committee on the decentralisation of the War Office, which recommended that certain appointments, such as Volunteer adjutancies, should be placed in the hands of generals commanding districts. I would like to know if that recommendation will be carried out, because it seems to me that in these days of auxiliary Forces the appointment of these officers and those on the staff of those regiments should be in the hands of generals commanding districts, because they have a much better opportunity of judging of these officers' qualifications than a decentralised War Office can ever have. There are also two or three returns in that Report which it is suggested should be done away with. I hope and trust that suggestion will be carried out. The other question I have to ask the right honourable Gentleman refers to the organisation of the Volunteers. I know that that Committee had simply to deal with the decentralisation of the War Office, and had nothing to do with the decentralisation of the Army. At present Volunteers are organised in brigades, and that is an important step; and I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is contemplated to group these brigades into divisions, because I believe that divisional organisation will be very much more useful, in case of invasion, than the system adopted at the present time. I think it will be found that that is the system in practice in Germany. The Germans are the most practical soldiers in the world, and they have demonstrated that the grouping of brigades into divisions provides the readiest method of mobilisation in time of war.

The honourable and gallant Member who has just sat down touched upon an important subject, and one which he thoroughly understands—namey the organisation of the Army in time of war. There is no doubt in regard to the question as to the Volunteers—in which we are concerned at this moment—that some brigades are too large, and some of the London brigades in particular, and I admit it is necessary to make some arrangement by which to make these Forces more effective in times of emergency. The case put by the honourable and gallant Gentleman has come under the consideration of the military authorities within the last two months, and I think it probable that before long some important step will be taken. I can assure the honourable and gallant Member that the desirability of assimilating our peace organisation to that which would be employed in war will not be lost sight of. He has also asked me whether this recommendation in the Decentralisation Committee's Report, in regard to the appointments, will be carried out. It is difficult to give general officers complete power, as there are a number of cases in which the adjutant-general must have a voice in the appointment. As my honourable and gallant Friend knows, the post of adjutant should fall to a man well known to the regiment, and the remark applies equally to a battalion at home as to a battalion abroad. The whole scheme has been to give the general officer as much power as possible, with an exception where his authority overrides the authority of some other officer. With regard to the general subject of decentralisation, I may remind the Committee that there has already been a wholesale massacre of returns and references. In reference to the question put by my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes, it is true that here also, a great many changes are contemplated, but no final decision has yet been come to as to Volunteer transport. A difficulty arises, no doubt, but it must be remembered that in the case of mobilisation in time of war, the transport of Volunteers would be more eagerly taken up on the spot than would be possible were they hundreds of miles away. The question has not been lost sight of; I myself have for many years made it my study, and we will see if something cannot be done in the direction suggested by my honourable and gallant Friend. With regard to the manual exercise, I understand that it was never originally intended to be confined to the short rifle. As to the question of ranges, considerable progress has been made in this matter during the year. There are central ranges in several districts, and I am able to announce that on our land upon Salisbury Plain we have laid out two more ranges, which will be available next year, and Volunteer battalions will have every opportunity for practice on Government ground. We have reserved certain space for the Volunteers; they will have their ranges, which they who choose can avail themselves of for class-firing. It should be observed that this is not only a great difficulty, but one of increasing difficulty, as the more the population grows space is diminished. I trust, therefore, that Salisbury Plain will prove of great benefit in the future.

May I ask one more question in regard to the manual exercise? I observe permission has already been given to one brigade, the Hampshire Volunteers, to drill according to the manual of the Regular Forces. I brought forward this question some years ago, and I have also written to the War Office, but have received no reply. Now that that rule has been made with regard to one brigade, why not apply it to the whole Volunteer Force, and issue instructions accordingly? Speaking from long experience and knowledge of the Force, I think it is most desirable that we should only have one manual.

I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War as to this question whether he can give the Committee any idea as to the number of untrained re-mounts which actually come into the ranks. I want to arrive at the real state of efficiency of our Cavalry regiments at the present time. My experience shows me that in regard to certain regiments, 15, perhaps 20, per cent. of those regiments' horses are of no use for active service, because they are so young. I urged upon the right honourable Gentleman before, and I urge upon him again, to say whether, in making a return of the horses belonging to our Cavalry, he discriminates between re-mounts and those trained in the Army, for the efficient fighting strength of our Army must be ascertained. Whether it be in regard to horses or men, this return does not convey to the lay mind any adequate idea of the strength of the Army at the present time. And I would like to know whether the War Office has any substantial reserve of horses other than what is shown in this Vote. There are the horses for which 10s. a year is paid. Great stress is laid on the value of them. Certain horses, which come up for a certain number of years, do their work very well, but I think, if you take the thousands of horses over which we have control, and were to suddenly swell the strength of our cavalry regiments, these regiments would not be fit to meet the French or German Cavalry. With good riders it is utterly impossible to win with unbroken horses in the ranks when charging. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether there has been under consideration any proposal to try and introduce into the Army some more real reserve of horses. In Germany they buy the horse, and train him, and as soon as he is fully trained he is put on to the reserve, and he goes into the country for farm work or other labour. He is carefully inspected by inspectors from time to time, and the Government are able to lay their hands on him at any moment. When I was once in command of a Cavalry regiment, I asked one of the staff if we had everything ready for mobilisation. He said, "Yes." I asked where were the reserve horses, and he said, "Oh, we have not got those." I say it is misleading to the public at large to say that we have all these horses in reserve, when it is not the fact. I suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that it would be far better to have a few thoroughly well-trained horses at a cost which would appear in this Vote than to have a lot of untrained horses upon which we have merely got an eye. The other question I would ask has reference to whether the re-mount department could not supply horses for the mounted officers in the infantry, and whether it would not be possible to buy horses cheaply to do infantry officers' work, and let them out. Again, could not these horses be let out to those infantry officers at a low rate? There is no doubt, where an officer is anything but a rich man, this question of horses is one of very great hardship indeed. I should like to know why the re-mount department cannot supply the Infantry officer. Let there be horses which are suited to them, and by some arrangement with the War Office let the horses be loaned. The Government can more readily lay their hands on these horses, and I do think they might do a great amount of good in this direction. At the same time, it would increase the number of trained horses which the country would have at command.

My honourable and gallant Friend has brought forward the case of re-mounting the infantry officers, and I would remark that in the case of mounted officers, both in the Cavalry and in the Infantry, we have already, to a certain extent, taken a step forward in that direction. A young officer, on joining, is allowed to hire a horse at the cost of the nation——

That only refers to the Cavalry.

True, it only refers to the Cavalry, and whether it is possible to extend that system must depend on how far the State is a loser by the transaction. As to the provision of this extra number of horses, it must be borne in mind that we have no power to control what an officer may do when hunting and so forth. I, personally, have always been in sympathy with what my honourable and gallant Friend says—namely, that a mounted officer has to provide himself with one or two horses at a heavy cost, which is by no means lessened if he has to sell them on changing. Therefore, this is an experiment I would like to see tried more widely. As regards the number of horses, I may mention that we added 400 in the month of March to the Cavalry, and there will be a larger percentage in the future; and it is confidently expected that Cavalry regiments, taking the field, will be able to keep the horses which they already have. I feel, however, that I must speak up a little for the reserve of horses, which my honourable and gallant Friend appears to think is not a substantial reserve. I am inclined to put this question to him: Is it more desirable to have a horse sent out, as in Germany, to do farming work, or to have a horse out of the 14,000 we have got, and of which 8,000 are fully trained? When it is considered what we propose to add to the number of horses, either in the Cavalry or Artillery, I think there is not the slightest fear to be apprehended; and, although it is quite true that the horses in the reserve have not been trained, we believe that, with a large number at our command, we could supply horses for the Cavalry and Artillery which would be fit to do their work within a week. So that I really believe that this country is better off at the present time for meeting an emergency in the matter of horses than it ever has been.

I must apologise for wearying the Committee, but I would like to ask the Secretary for War a question as to the desirability of keeping the full dress of Cavalry regiments distinct from their working dress. The point has cropped up several times in respect to regiments of guards and hussars; and in the amalgamation of certain of these individual regiments they have suffered not a little. As to the 6th Dragoon Guards, I do not quite know how that question has been settled; but I do think a mistake has been made. At one time, there was a tendency to introduce a practical garment, which would be of such a shape as to lose nothing in appearance. I do not think the War Office has always recognised that ours is a Volunteer Army, and that we cannot turn them all out alike, as in Germany, or in France, where everybody is forced into the ranks. There, if they put a man into a nightgown he has to wear it. I do think that the misfortune of our Army has always been, ever since I can remember it, that whenever a practical garment has been introduced, the commanding officer has tried to improve upon it, and failed. Only the other day, my old regiment was sent out in the ugliest garb the War Office ever designed. Instead of having the old bearskin, so famous in history, they had a hideous substitute. I think, if it were more strictly laid down that there should be a show dress as well as a working dress, fewer difficulties would arise. At the same time, we should go on the principle of combining smartness with serviceability. The quality of the cloth should also be seen to. In my own regiment, I hare known hundreds of jackets give down the middle. I urge these facts on the attention of the right honourable Gentleman now, and I know that he will do his his best to devise a remedy.

I concur entirely with the suggestions which have just fallen from the honourable and gallant Member that it is desirable to make some regimental distinction. Unfortunately, there is always the difficulty with us that the short jacket never looks well on some figures. There can be no doubt whatever that in any change of this kind the popularity of the uniform has to be taken into account, and where there is a doubt on the point it is best to let well alone. We are anxious to provide for the exigencies of the Service by giving an interchangeable undress jacket, and yet retain the full dress, with all Its regimental associations.

returned after the usual interval.

I desire to call attention to this Vote. It is in the Navy Estimates, and it ought not to be there. You have got two scientific services. One is a Navy Estimate, and it is generally counted as for the United kingdom; the other is a special scientific service in England. The first item of it is for the Astronomer Royal and for the expenses of Greenwich Observatory. I compare that with what the Scotch Astronomer Royal and the Scotch Observatory get, and I find there is a very great difference. I observe that the Astronomer Royal is generally put down as an Imperial personage and the Astronomer Royal of Scotland as a Scotch official. That shows how inadvisable it is for this Vote to be in the Navy Estimates. It ought not to be in the Navy Estimates at all. It ought to be in for special service. All that is paid to the Astronomer Royal for Scotland is £400 a year, whereas in England the Astronomer Royal is paid £1,000 a year. An assistant is paid £600, or more than the salary of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland. It seems you have a very well-equipped laboratory, and you have a number of assistants very well paid. We vote to the Royal Society £15,000 a year for doing exactly analogous work, and the Royal Society is spending the money very badly. Nobody has any control over it except the Astronomer Royal himself. They pay a small committee £1,000 a year, and they give their secretary £800 a year, which is spending the money very foolishly. The whole thing ought to be changed. I strongly object to the amount coming in this Estimate. There is next an item for the observatory at the Cape of Good Hope. The Astronomer gets £900 a year, or more than twice the amount the Astronomer Royal for Scotland gets. It appears that the Astronomer Royal for Scotland is a much less important personage than one of the assistants out at the Cape of Good Hope, for you pay the chief assistant out at the Cape from £500 to £600 a year. We have just now a very important observatory on Ben Nevis, the highest observatory in Great Britain, and it would have had to be closed this year had it not been for a public-spirited citizen who has come forward and subscribed £500, which will enable the observatory to be carried on for another year. And yet, if we go as far as the Cape, we find as much as £7,000 a year spent on the observatory. I want to know whether the Admiralty will take this very admirable observatory on Ben Nevis under their wing and give us £500 to maintain it. Otherwise we will require to move next year one or two reductions, in order to see if, by a little economy, we can get something to maintain this observatory.

It is rather for the Treasury than for the Admiralty to decide whether the observatory at Ben Nevis shall be maintained at the cost of the State. I have no doubt that very excellent work is being done there. But the work done at the Cape of Good Hope is especially valuable to the Admiralty; it is one to which we attach very great importance, and not too much is paid for it. On the Vote of £237,000 for the Royal Naval Reserves,

I am sure the Committee will be glad of anything the First Lord of the Admiralty can tell us with regard to the progress made with the new Naval Reserve.

The new system has been working admirably during the past year. The essence of the new system is that the men who go to sea are to have six months' training. There was a time when the scheme rather hung fire, but certain slight changes have been made, and we have been able to obtain as many men anxious to go to sea for six months as we have been able to accommodate in our ships. The right honourable Baronet will see that it must be mainly in the Channel and Mediterranean ships and vessels near home that the men must be placed. It is only a limited number of men we can accommodate. I think about 750 men have been afloat at one time—that is to say, quite as many as we were anticipating. What is particularly satisfactory is that these men have been inspected, and they have proved to be most excellent material. I have had an opportunity of seeing some of them; and the Admiral Superintendent of Reserves had seen them in considerable numbers, and his report of them was particularly good—they were amenable and got into the way of the ship. I have also had reports from captains. One captain wrote to the Admiralty—

"If you can send me 50 more men of this class I shall be glad to have them in my ship."

I am sure the Committee will be very glad to hear the satisfactory report the right honourable Gentleman has made on this subject. I should be glad to hear what steps have been taken towards an extension of the Reserve system in the Colonies. In Newfoundland especially you have an enormous class of hardy fishermen whose wages are very low. It appears to some of us that when it becomes necessary to increase the Reserve a substantial and valuable force could be obtained from Newfoundland, if necessary.

Yes; I had an opportunity of seeing the Premier of Newfoundland when he was here, and we went very fully into the subject. We agreed that certain experiments should be made. He offered that all facilities for making an experiment should be granted; and we agreed that we must ascertain whether the colony will submit to it—whether the sea-going population would go to sea for six months for the necessary tests. If they will, I will do all I can to bring about the experiment. If we can arrive at a satisfactory arrangement we will.

I move that the Lords' Amendments be now considered.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to divide the House upon this Amendment, but I wish to call the attention of the House to its absurd and hypocritical character. One would suppose from the fact that so heavy a penalty as £100 is imposed upon anyone who offers an advowson for sale, or anyone who bids, at a sale by auction, of an advowson, that the Legislature means the sale of advowsons to be stopped. The Bill, as it left this House, enacted that—

"It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage, save in the case of an advowson to be sold in conjunction with any manor or hereditament."

"With, an estate in land of not less than one hundred acres, situate in the parish in which the benefice is situate, or in an adjoining parish, and belonging to the same owner as the advowson."

I wish to say, Sir, I do not understand lines 8 and 9. What is meant to be left in and what is meant to be left out? Perhaps the honourable Member in charge of the Bill will explain.

My honourable Friend will see in a moment we are obliged to make the alteration by excepting the two periods—the period between a presentation by a patron and the refusal by the bishop to institute or admit the presentee, and the period between the refusal of the bishop to institute or admit and the decision of the Court upon such refusal—or the thing might go on indefinitely. You might have 10 presentations, and until by gathering up the periods between each you got a period of six months, which might take 50 years, you might have no means of presenting the unhappy parish with an incumbent.

Does that mean at any future time?

It is in respect of the same vacancy.