To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why the Sanitary Inspector at Waltham Abbey is not allowed to visit the Government houses and cottages, as well as the houses of private owners. {Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Under Clause 327 of the Public Health Act of 1875 War Department property is exempted from disturbance or interference on the part of the local authority. It does not appear, moreover, that the local sanitary inspector has ever made any attempt to visit Government houses; at Waltham.

To ask the Postmaster-General what steps, if any, have been taken to improve the sanitary arrangements of the Dewsbury Post Office; and whether, in view of the overcrowding and the accommodation afforded for telegraphists, telephonists, and postmen at the present premises, he will say what steps are being taken to extend the building or to secure new premises. {Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Some minor improvements were effected in the sanitary arrangements of the Dewsbury Post Office during the past year, and though the accommodation is not so ample as could be desired there is not at present any serious overcrowding. In view of the approaching expiration of the lease, inquiries have been going on as to the best method of improving the accommodation, and a scheme for a new post office is under consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the rector of Thaba'nchu has stated that, upon the visit of inspection by the Governor, all able-bodied men not at that moment employed have been sent away to work in various places at the discretion of their captors; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a system of forced, labour and slavery being set up in British South Africa. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) My attention has been drawn to a letter which appeared in the Press on the 17th instant, signed by the rector of Thaba'nchu, and inquiry will be made with regard to it. In reply to the second Question, I would refer to my remarks last Thursday. †

To ask Mr. Attorney-General how many judicial trustees have been; appointed under the provisions of the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896. (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) Forty-nine judicial trustees have been appointed under the provisions of the Judicial Trustees Act up to the 20th March, 1903.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what sum has the Board of Works spent on extra labour, and how many extra workmen have been employed, since the devastation of the Phoenix Park by storm; what provision has been made for the removal of the 3,000 fallen trees which encumber the park; why was no effort made to save some of the younger trees by uprighting and trimming them; who will consider the question of the refurnishing of the park with trees and shrubs; why only young trees of the cheapest and commonest variety were planted two years ago, and why no effort was made to obtain ornamenta † See page 1257. trees and shrubs such as are planted in the London Royal Parks, although a list of these was supplied to the Irish Board of Works; and whether the Treasury will give instructions that estimates should be obtained from expert land-scape gardeners and nurserymen with a view to the future laying out of the Park on a proper scale. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) By the kind permission of the Colonel of the 21st Lancers, about 400 men of that regiment were occupied for two days in clearing the road behind the Viceregal Demesne, in order to enable the regiment to use that road in passing to and from the park. In addition to these, twenty extra men have been employed and £40 expended on extra labour; fifty-four of the permanent labourers of the park have also been employed in clearing fallen trees from roads, park gardens, and other places where their removal was urgently required, at a cost of about £125. Advertisements were inserted in the public Press inviting offers from timber merchants and contractors for removing the timber. Only one offer was received, and, as the price was inadequate and the time required excessive, the offer was declined. The Board have now decided to employ a number of extra labourers' and deal with the matter themselves. Owing to the universal destruction of trees throughout Ireland, the consequent glut in the timber market, and the difficulty of procuring export woodcutters, there will be some delay in getting the park entirely cleared. In almost all cases the extra labourers have to be taught the art of woodcutting and sawing. There are no trees now encumbering the park in the sense of blocking the roads and pathways. There are no young trees blown down in the open park that are capable of being uprighted with any hope of success. A few small trees in the park gardens have been so treated. I presume that the trees planted two years ago, to which the hon. Member refers, are the avenue of sycamore trees planted on each side of the road west of the Wellington Memorial. These trees were planted in pursuance of a general scheme drawn up some years ago, and I am informed that, having regard to the soil and surroundings, they are quite suitable for the position. Some hundreds of new, rare, and ornamental trees and shrubs have been planted in the park gardens and in the vicinity during the last two years. Almost all the trees and shrubs mentioned on the list supplied from the London Royal Parks, which are suitable for the exposure and soil conditions of the Phoenix Park, are already represented there. There are also, in addition, many varieties of trees and shrubs in the Pluenix Park which are not named on that list. The Phoenix Park differs in many ways from the London parks, and it must not be assumed that the treatment which suits one will suit the other. I will consider whether, in arranging for the future planting of the Phienix Park, the Board of Works should not be allowed to obtain the assistance of experts, whether professional or amateur. If this were done, it might be possible to lay down a general scheme which could be gradually carried out in future years.

To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to give to head schoolmasters in the Navy the same opportunities of promotion as have been promised to the other ranks of Naval warrant officers in Lord Selborne's Memorandum of 25th December, 1902. (Answered by Mr. Pretymau.) Representations have been received on the subject and the matter is now engaging the attention of the Board of Admiralty.

(Devonport): To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the pay and status of plumbers and plumbers' mates serving in the Royal Navy who have received no increase in their pay for thirty-five years, notwithstanding that the pay of plumbers of the Royal Dockyards has advanced in the same period from 24s. to 32s. 6d. per week. ((Answered by Mr. Pretymau.) Nothing is known of any proposal to improve the pay and status of plumbers and plumbers' mates serving in the Fleet.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision of the Admiralty to present medals to the best shots in each ship, the winner's name, with score and nature of gun, will be displayed on the lower deck of each ship as an encouragement to the men of the Fleet. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) It is not proposed to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the revision in the dietary scale to take effect next October will be accompanied by improvements in the system of cooking and serving food now in force in the Royal Navy. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) There are three cookery schools for the Navy, one at each of the principal Home ports. Ships' cooks are specially trained at these schools in the best methods of cooking whatever articles are supplied in Navy rations. Improved arrangements have been made for preparing tea, which will enable each mess to prepare its own. Arrangements have been made for improving the method of serving the food by adding knife, fork, basin and plate, and improved spoon to the present scale of seamen's mess utensils.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether it was by order of the Lords of the Admiralty that a notice was recently put up in Chatham Dockyard to the effect that the footpaths in the yard were reserved for the use of officers only; whether any, and if so how many, men have been punished for breaches of this order; and will he explain why this notice was removed just previous to a recent visit to the yard by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and was replaced immediately after the visit. (Answered by Mr. Arnold Forder.) No notice to this effect has recently been issued in Chatham Dockyard, nor have there been any recent instances of men being punished as suggested by the hon. Member. There is a footpath opposite the official residences in the yard which has been reserved for many years past for the use of officers, but I am not aware that the notice was taken down and replaced as suggested in the Question

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether the glass balls affixed to the mastheads of men-of-war are purchased by the State; and, if not, by whom are they supplied and paid for. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forder.) Glass balls are occasionally placed on the mastheads of ships for the purposes of decoration. They are not purchased by the State, but are placed there by the officers, who, I presume, pay for them, unless, as I believe frequently happens, they are presented by friends who have a special admiration for the ship, or for those who sail in her.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of extending the benefits of the Special Greenwich Hospital Pensions, now granted to officers and warrant officers only, to fifty chief petty officers, and of making the pensions so granted £20 per annum each. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) All chief petty officers are at the present time eligible for assistance from Greenwich Hospital Special Funds and for the Greenwich Hospital Age Pension. The establishment of a fixed pension for fifty chief petty officers similar to the Greenwich Hospital Pensions at present in force for warrant officers would necessitate the withdrawal of the above privileges which the whole class at present receive. In view of these facts, and of the recent considerable increase in the rate of pension awarded these men from Naval funds, there appears no sufficient reason to grant the further privilege suggested in the Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to improve the Naval Medical Department with respect to promotion and pay, so as to place it on a like footing with the Army Medical Service. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) On 24th March, 1902, an Order in Council was issued raising the pay of Naval medical officers and placing it practically on an equality with that of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Promotion both in the medical branch of the Navy and in the Royal Army Medical Corps is by seniority until the administrative grades are reached, when promotion by selection is practised. Special promotions for conspicuous professional merit or for war service are made in the Naval Medical Service. Owing to the great differences between the Navy and Army it is impossible to conduct the medical services on exactly similar lines.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the new victualling scheme will cost more than the old scale, it is proposed to increase the present allowance of 1s. 1d. per day to pensioners. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The, reply to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. The amount of the allowance was fixed more than thirty years ago with reference to the value of the ration at that date; and owing to the subsequent falls in the prices of various articles of food, the allowance has for some years exceeded the actual value of the old ration, and will still be higher than the estimated value of the new ration.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what is the approximate amount issued, during the year ending 31st March, 1903, for the purposes of the Naval Works Acts. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The following advances have been issued by the Treasury: Midsummer, 1902, £900,000; Michaelmas, 1902, £748,000; Christmas, 1902, £610,000; Lady Day, 1903, £890,000; Total, £3,148,000. unexpended balance of advances on 31st March, 1902, amounted to £221,404.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education how many applications under Section 11 (1) of the Education Act, 1902, have been received by the Board; in how many cases the application was to modify the trust deed; and in how many cases it was for an order where no trust deed existed; whether any orders have been made which have the effect of rendering the religious teaching in a school denominational where it has hitherto been undenominational; and, if no such orders have been yet made, is it the intention of the Board of Education to make such orders in cases where existing schools are undenominational. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Up to 21st March, 10,214 applications for orders under Section 11 had been received by the Board. As the classification of the applications has not yet been completed, it is not possible at present to say how many are for orders to modify the trust deed, and how many are for orders to meet cases where no trust deed exists. No orders have been made which will have the effect of rendering the religious teaching in a school denominational where it has hitherto been undenominational. Nor have the Board power under Section 11 to make any such order or to give any directions as to the form of religious instruction to be given in schools.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it has been decided that there shall be no practical examination in science at the training college examinations this year; and, if so, whether the Board will reconsider their decision in view of their circular issued to the training colleges in June, 1901, prescribing that the science teaching should in future be of a practical and experimental character. men sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. Recent elections had ratified the protests made in the House, but if they chose in this reckless manner to add 27,000 men to the Army surely it was a bad moment to add also to the Navy. His hon. friend had asked why the Government did not follow the precedents of former times and reduce the armaments when they came to the end of a war. It was simply because the Government had come to the conclusion, since Imperialism had been in the ascendency, that all the great Ministers who had had the destinies of this nation in hand before the present Government came into power, were nothing but idiots and fools, and the Government had decided that it was necessary to keep up armaments sufficient to fight the whole world. They had got to accept the fact that if this country went to war they could not control the entire seas, or block up all the navies of their enemies, and they would necessarily have to submit to a considerable loss in trade. He was not sure that such a calamity would not be a good thing for the country, because all countries were too apt to recklessly plunge into war. All the promises and assurances made that this country was going to better its position by the late war in South Africa had not proved correct. It had been suggested that they should make an appeal to other great Naval Powers to come to some arrangement in regard to the strength of their Navy. Those suggestions were not practical if based upon the present balance of power, because it practically meant saying to other countries: "We want permanently to assume the position of being masters of the sea, and therefore you must have a Navy not able, with two or three other navies joined to it, to defeat the British Navy." No foreign country would accept such a scheme. Napoleon sought universal Empire, and the whole world united against him. Although this country had more colonies than foreign countries they must not forget that foreign countries also had their carrying trade, and they had realised that it was necessary for all manufacturing nations to be able to export their goods. Consequently they would never assent to a claim that their colonies and trade should be held at kind of hostages by this country. It was often urged that they must have command of the sea in order to ensure their food supply. He denied, in the first place, that it was necessary for them to obtain command of the sea in such a way. This country might build ships, and foreign countries might also build, but although England had a long purse, it-was not longer than the rest of the world. He did not think it necessary, in order to obtain food supplies, that we should be in such a position. Supposing we were at war with France, Germany, and Russia, we should get our provisions from America. Why? Because the Americans would claim that they had a perfect right to send food here: they would not accept the doctrine that food was contraband of war. Then these three Powers would know that they would have the United States against them if they attempted to enforce any such doctrine.

What would happen if the United States refused to accept that view?

What would happen if they refused to send us food?

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether holders of licences of public houses which are being closed will have such portion of the money paid for their licences refunded to them as may have been paid for the time subsequent to the closing of the house. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) When a public house is closed in consequence of the non-renewal of the magistrates' certificate, and not in consequence of any conviction recorded against the holder of the certificate, so much of the duty on the current excise licence for the premises as is applicable to the complete unexpired quarters of the year covered by the licence is repaid, in accordance with Section 24 of the Act, 6 Geo. IV. c. 81, on application being made to the Board of Inland Revenue through the local supervisor. Thus, in the case of a public house in England closed on the 5th April (i.e., a full six months before the 10th October, when the excise licence would ordinarily have expired), a repayment of half the excise licence duty would be allowed.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the reasons for which it was decided not to follow existing Indian precedents in regard to the qualifications for the post of the Chief Judge of the Chief Court of Lower Burma. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that existing Indian precedents have not been followed in the case of the Chief Court of Lower Burma. In the Punjab, the only other province where a Chief Court exists, the Chief fudge may be, and often has been, a civilian and not a barrister. Before the Chief Court was established at Rangoon the Appellate Court of that city consisted of only one barrister Judge, the Recorder; there are now two barrister Judges in the Chief Court besides two civilian Judges. Beside? the judicial business of the seaports, which forms but a small portion of the work of the Court, the Chief Court has the control and supervision over the whole of the Courts of the interior of the country, and it was thought necessary that the Chief Judge of the Court, in whose hands rests the distribution of business and the inspection and supervision of the Courts, should be an officer well acquainted with the customs and language of the people and with the practical working of those Courts. For this reason it was decided that the Chief Judge should for the present be a civilian.

To ask the Secretary of State for India what action the Viceroy or the Military authorities intend to take with regard to Captain Winter, who was convicted and fined by the Bombay Police Court for a gross insult to a native barrister and his wife in a railway carnage on 10th February. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have observed a report in the newspapers of the case referred to, and of the decision of the magistrate. I have no doubt that the Government of India have taken due notice of the very reprehensible conduct of Captain Winter, but it does not seem necessary to make special inquiries on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of dogs sold by the police, he will direct that every purchaser shall give his or her name and address, and shall be required to pay the dog tax before taking possession of the dog. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Alters Douglas.) No, Sir; I do not see my wav to issuing any such directions.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with whom the arrangement has been made to obtain 1,000 labourers in Central Africa for South Africa; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Papers explaining the nature of that arrangement and the instructions that have been sent to the British authorities in Central Africa with respect to it. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The arrangement made to obtain labourers not exceeding 1,000 in number in British Central Africa for South Africa has been made with the Native Labour Association through the High Commissioner for South Africa. The Papers will be laid without delay.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government adheres to the declaration of Count von Bülow in the German Reichsrath that it is a principle of British commercial policy that Englishmen invest their capital abroad at their own risk; and whether this principle will be fully acted upon in regard to Venezuela. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The principles of our commercial policy in the respect mentioned are sufficiently explained by the recent action of His Majesty's Government in the Venezuelan controversy and by their declarations in regard to it made in both Houses of Parliament. We cannot undertake any responsibility for the statement attributed to Count Bülow.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the statement made in the Italian Chamber by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and whether Lord Lansdowne has assured the Italian Ambassador in London, and His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Rome has assured the Italian Government, that there is no intention to establish British coal depôts either at Bombah or Fobruck, or at any other point on the seaboard of Tripoli. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to both Questions is in the affirmative. The rumour is absolutely without foundation.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction will exercise its powers under Section 17 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, of appearing before the Railway and Canal Commissioners on behalf of the boat-owners on the Royal Canal who feel aggrieved by reason of the tolls charged by the Midland Great Western Railway on. canal traffic, when added to working, expenses, being in excess of the freight, charged on that company's railway for the same class of goods, thereby destroying the competition of the canal. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Department is in communication with the railway company on the subject of the complaints of the boat-owners. Until the correspondence has concluded the department cannot say what further action it may be necessary to take.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to resolutions passed at conferences recently held in Dublin, at which delegates were present representative of educational associations of every denomination, concerned with secondary education; and whether, in apportioning the equivalent grant, he will take these representations into consideration. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply to this Question is in the affirmative. As already stated, I hope shortly to make an announcement on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will favourably consider applications from corps now equipped and trained as mobile Artillery to be continued as such under the same conditions as Imperial Yeomanry, that is, on the basis of twelve battery field drills, to be paid as half-days, and a fourteen days' minimum camp, giving a total of twenty days' minimum training per annum in addition to the usual evening drills. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member presumably refers to Volunteer Artillery. Any proposal of the kind indicated would certainly be considered.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the terms of the meat contracts; and whether he will alter them to make it clear as to whether they are for British and Irish grown meat, or for frozen and chilled meat, or meat from animals killed at Deptford, the wharves, or other places within ten days after arrival from abroad. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The existing conditions for dead meat contracts show quite clearly that the supply of beet must be British or Irish grown, not frozen or chilled, and not from animals killed at Deptford or else- where within ten days of arrival from abroad, and that the supply of mutton may be frozen provided that it comes from a British Colony, and that, as regards hospital supplies, the medical officer approves. It would not appear that anything is required to make the terms of the contracts clearer.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if ho will have a map of Somaliland placed in the tea room for the information of Members. (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Yes, Sir.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that Commissions for the Royal Artillery are to be avail-j able for all University candidates who take honours, or only for a certain; number to be selected by competition. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Until the details have been worked out with the Universities no definite announcement can be made in regard to them, but it may be stated that Commissions in the Royal Artillery cannot be made available for all University candidates who take honours.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the approximate amount issued during the year ending 31st March, 1903, for the purposes of the Military Works Acts. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is estimated that the expenditure during 1902–3 under the Military Works Acts will amount to about £1,700,000.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a drummer-boy of 1st Grenadier Guards, having left the barracks on Coronation night to see the illuminations, was on his return severely flogged by Sergeant Drummer Sinclair, and afterwards handed over to his fellow boy drummers, who tossed him in a blanket, with the result that he was unable to stand upright on parade next day, and was then sent to hospital; and that Sergeant Drummer Sinclair was, in consequence, reduced to the ranks one day and re-instated in full the next; and will he state what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition of these practices.

A boy of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards broke out of barracks on the evening of the 9th August, 1902. The fact was discovered and reported to the sergeant drummer of the battalion, who failed to report the matter to superior authority, took the law into his own hands, and personally chastised the boy. The boy's back was examined by Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch and by a surgeon, and they were of opinion that the boy had received a severe caning. The bruises on the boy's back were stated not to have been inflicted by Sergeant Drummer Sinclair, but at the hands of a certain number of drummers of the battalion, who, it was feared by Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch, had been instigated by the sergeant-drummer to do so. Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch stated that he feared the sergeant drummer had been in the habit of carrying out the duties of his responsible position in a most improper and reprehensible manner. Sergeant Drummer Sinclair was tried by a District Court-martial on the 29th August, 1902, in connection with this matter, and was sentenced to be reduced to the rank of corporal, but was recommended to mercy on account of his previous excellent character. It was stated in evidence before the Court-martial that, after the boy had been beaten by the sergeant drummer with a stick, some of the other boys tossed him in a blanket and beat him. The boy himself stated before the Court-martial that, as his back was all bruised, he asked leave from church, but was refused. Sergeant Drummer Sinclair's reduction to the rank of corporal bore date 29th August, 1902, and it has only now been brought to the notice of the War Office that he was re-appointed sergeant drummer on the 4th September, 1902, by the officer commanding the Grenadier Guards, on the recommendation of the officer commanding the 1st Battalion. The circumstances under which this reinstatement was made are being investigated by the adjutant-general.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return relative to established (certificated) Civil Service clerks on the Paper this day.

I am afraid my right hon. friend cannot consent to grant the Return on the Paper.

Last year I was refused a Return owing to the progress of the war. Why is it that, now the war is over, I am still refused?

The Return cannot be granted.

Then I shall become a member of the Fourth Party, and make further inquiries.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the age and size of the later drafts sent to (South Africa, and whether he will call for a Report upon them.

My hon. friend is perhaps unaware that there is no limit for age as regards drafts for South Africa in peace time, and therefore recruits are despatched to their units there as soon as possible. South Africa is considered a very suitable training ground for the young soldier. The paragraphs recently furnished to the Press appear to be exaggerated.

Are recruits of seventeen or eighteen sent out to South Africa?

Yes: they are sent there just as they are sent to home battalions. We are testing the system in order to decide whether it shall be continued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the result of the trials of eight range finders that took place at Aldershot in November last.

None of the instruments were considered altogether satisfactory, and further trials will be carried out as soon as the improved instruments, as ordered, have been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what amount of money will be required under the proposed Army Works Bill, and how much of the total sum will be expended within the next financial year.

If the hon. Member will kindly refer to my reply to a (Question put by the hon. Member for East Perthshire on the 10th instant, he will find that I stated that I could not at present answer this point.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he, in conjunction with the Admiralty, will grant the Return as to Acquisition of Land for National Defence.

A Return of the property purchased on Salisbury Plain has been given. I am not prepared to promise a Return involving any considerable labour and the publication of the exact locality of a number of sites specially selected for defence work.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give the names of the six signal stations of the coastguard already fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus and of the eight others to be fitted with such apparatus during the coming financial year, and state whether these stations are available for communication, when required, between mercantile vessels and the shore.

The following stations have been established:—Dover, Culver Cliff, Portland, Rame Head, Scillys, and Roches Point. The following are proposed to be fitted during the next financial year:—Bere Island, Spurn Head, Alderney, St. Abb's Head, St. Ann's. Head, Landguard, Port Patrick, Duncansby Head. As regards com mercial signalling it is proposed to carry this out from the stations which will be included in the new Lloyds Admiralty agreement, which are:—Culver Cliff, Scillys, Spurn Head, St. Abb's Head, Portland, St. Ann's Head, Duncansby Head, and Roches

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is proposed to be the character of the new Naval College at Osborne; will it be a branch of the Dartmouth Naval College and receive the same cadets, entered under the same conditions, for the same training; or, if not, in what respects will it differ from the Dartmouth College; how many cadets will be accommodated at Osborne; and when is it proposed that the first batch shall join.

Cadets entered under the new scheme will in the first instance be sent to the Naval College at Osborne, whence a portion of them will proceed to Dartmouth on the opening of the new Naval College. Cadets entered under the hitherto existing arrangements will proceed to the "Britannia" as long as the entries continue to be made under that system. I cannot at present say how many cadets Osborne College will ultimately accommodate. It is proposed that the first batch shall join on the 15th September.

Do I understand that all the Naval cadets under the new scheme will go to Osborne?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, was the tender for the new Admiralty yacht one based on a definite specification and design, or were the conditions of that tender that each firm was to submit its own proposed designs and specifications and a tender for carrying them out; and, if the latter, will the Board of Admiralty consider the advisability of adopting a similar plan of tender for harbours, breakwaters, and other works, with a view of obtaining alternative designs and specifications for these works.

The firms were asked to tender for a sea-going vessel of a certain speed suitable for use as an Admiralty yacht. Certain definite conditions were laid down, but no complete designs and specifications were supplied. I n reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, the practice usually followed at the Admiralty is to obtain a tender on definite specifications and design, but the Admiralty would be prepared to adopt the system under which the design and plan of works are made the subject of competition in any case in which in their opinion it offered distinct advantages.

May I ask if the Board of Admiralty submitted specifications and designs to the various firms who were asked to tender?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Convention signed at Washington, 24th January, 1903, for the adjustment of the boundary between the dominion of Canada and the Territory of Alaska aims at arbitration for a settlement of the dispute or is to be confined to a judicial interpretation of the boundary line.

The duties of the tribunal established by the Convention is stated in the Convention itself to be to consider judicially the questions submitted, and its decision is to be final and binding upon all parties.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is he aware that on the 18th February last a Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council of the Crown Colony of Jamaica by the Colonial Secretary of that colony, empowering the guarantee out of the general revenues and assets of the colony, and the payment by the island treasurer of the interest on the capital employed in establishing central sugar factories; has he considered whether such guarantee and payment of interest will constitute the grant of a direct or indirect bounty on the manufacture or exportation of sugar such as His Majesty's Government have undertaken by Article I. and Protocol A of the Sugar Convention shall not be established in the United Kingdom or any of the Crown colonies; and will the question be submitted to the Permanent Commission at Brussels.

The Bill referred to, which amends a previous law, has not yet been received from the Governor, nor am I aware whether it has been passed into law. In these circumstances perhaps the hon. Member would postpone his Question for about a fortnight.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when do His Majesty's Government propose to fulfil their obligation, under Art. VII. of the Brussels Sugar Convention, to communicate to the Brussels Permanent Commission the Laws, Orders, and Regulations on the taxation of sugar in Great Britain and the Crown colonies, in order to enable that Commission to pronounce whether any direct or indirect bounty on the production or exportation of sugar is granted in Great Britain or British Crown colonies; do His Majesty's Government propose similarly to communicate the Laws, Orders, and Regulations in question existing in the self-governing colonies; and can he say when it is proposed that the Permanent Commission shall hold its first meeting.

The obligation in question I will be fulfilled as soon as possible after the meeting of the Commission. His Majesty's Government will also be prepared to communicate any laws, etc., of the self-governing colonies which may be desired by the Commission. It is hoped that the Commission will meet at an early date.

Must it not meet before the 1st June?

I am not able to give more precise information.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Reports of Prince George of Greece, High Commissioner for Crete, on the administration of that island for 1899 and the three following years will be laid upon the Table.

There are no communications from the High Commissioner which His Majesty's Government are at present prepared to lay before Parliament.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate any information as to the progress of the steps taken for securing the proper execution of the joint scheme of reforms for the Macedonian vilayets.

We have no special information to report; the British Consuls have been instructed to keep in communication with their Russian and Austrian colleagues, and to assist and support them, both in obtaining information and in joining in any representations calculated to promote the effective application of the reforms.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what representations have been made to Portugal in respect to the proposed duties to be placed on the import of British machinery.

While the late Portuguese Government was in office His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon was instructed to urge that such of the proposed duties as were specially injurious to British trade should be reduced. Sir M. Gosseling has been informed since the change of Ministry that the scheme of the late Government is being carefully examined by the new Minister of Finance.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, what are the general lines of agreement between His Majesty's Government and Mr. Pierpont Morgan's Shipping Trust, now known as the International Mercantile Marine Company, which had been settled and accepted by both parties on 23rd February last; does this agreement relate to the transfer by British owners to that company of nearly one million tons of British shipping, and is that company a foreign company; and, if so, can he explain on what grounds the ships in I question continue to fly the British flag and to sail under a British register, i contrary to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and, in view of the delay of over five months that has occurred, will he now undertake to lay the agreement upon the Table within a definite period.

The general lines of the agreement are in the terms announced by me in my speech at Sheffield on September 30th last and reported in The Times of the following day. I have explained on previous occasions that the arrangements entered into with the British companies that are associated with the combine do not involve the transfer of ships, but the transfer of shares in those companies. Without being able to state definitely when the formal agreement will be laid before Parliament, I think I am in a position to undertake that it will be ready for execution by the parties before Easter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman favour me with a copy of his speech at Sheffield? I have not seen the report.

I dare say it can be seen in the Library, in the file of The Times.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been any increase in the export of offals from the United Kingdom since the corn tax was reimposed as compared with the corresponding period in previous years and, if so. If he will say what has been the amount of such increase; and what is the amount of rebate allowed per ton on offal exported.

It is impossible to make a trustworthy comparison between the periods before and after the imposition of the Grain, etc. Duty, because there is no exact statistical record of the export of offals before April, 1902. A drawback of 2s. 6d. a ton is allowed on the export of wheat offal produced from imported grain.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to an accident caused by a motorist whereby a cyclist was carried into hospital unconscious; and whether, in view of the rate at which such vehicles are constantly driven, the Government will introduce legislation with the object of compelling all motors to be so marked that they will be capable of identification.

My right hon friend has asked me to answer this Question. As regards the accident referred to, I am informed that the driver of the motor car was apprehended by the police a few hours after the accident and charged at a police-court. He is now under remand. As was stated on Wednesday last† in reply to a Question put by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield, the subject of motor cars is (under consideration. I shall be glad if it is found practicable to introduce legislation for the purpose of dealing with the matter.

I beg to ask the, Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the fact that two female technical officers appointed in connection with the recently introduced intercommunication switch system in London, were selected over the heads of seniors possessing equal technical qualifications; and whether, seeing that in one case the official selected was taught switching duties by a telegraphist who is now passed over, he will state the reason for the selection of these officers.

The hon. Member has been misinformed. There is no question of promoting or passing over any officer. All that has been done is to assign to particular duties, carrying no special rank or pay, two officers who were believed to be competent to perform them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state whether he will take steps, in the Finance Bill or otherwise, to define the term internal communication, occurring in Section 10 (1) of the Licensing Act, 1902, so that it shall not apply to the self-contained premises of wine and spirit merchants holding off-licences, and located in buildings in which other traders are carrying on their respective trades or business.

The Law Officers of the Crown have been asked for their opinion on the point: and in the meantime I cannot add anything to my former answer.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Report of the Commissioner who heard the recent municipal election petition at Shrewsbury has been received by him; whether he will furnish Members with a copy of the same; and whether he will, in regard to the terms of the Report, consider the advisability of directing the persons mentioned therein as having been guilty of bribery to be prosecuted.

The Report has been received and will be laid on the Table. The Director of Public Prosecutions has been inquiring into the matter, and has instructed that in certain cases proceedings shall be instituted forthwith.

The circumstances of the prosecution have been considered, and I do not think I should be justified in sending a Bill to the Grand Jury.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the qualification for a justice of the peace for a county, for any eldest son of any person qualified to serve as a knight of a shire, by 9 Anne, c. 5, and renewed by 18 Geo. 2, c. 20, s. 1, is still accepted as a qualification notwithstanding the repeal of the statute of Anne by 21 and 2 ic, c. 26.

I shall be happy to discuss the question privately with my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Shipley Division of the West Riding if he will state what course he proposes to take with regard to the Motion standing in his name for Wednesday evening next.

I had intended to draw attention to the state of the law in regard to trade combinations, as regards both employers and employed, and to invite the House to pass a Resolution in favour of equal treatment, but I find that under the Rules of the House it will be impossible to get an adequate discussion of the Motion, and under the circumstances I propose to postpone the matter until the House has before it the Bill of the right hon. Baronet dealing with the subject.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the defective condition of the carriage way through Birdcage Walk; and whether he will consider the advisability of transferring its maintenance to the local authority.

The answer to the hon. Member's first query is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative. The usual repairs could not be carried out last autumn, owing to the sittings of Parliament rendering it impossible to close the road; but it is proposed to put it into better condition as soon as possible. It is in contemplation to lay down wood pavement; but the funds for this are not at present available.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works has any jurisdiction over the houses about to be built north of the footpath in Church Street, Kensington, so as to ensure architectural uniformity and good taste; and whether arrangements will be made to retain the fifteen fine lime trees now fringing the present open space.

The conditions for letting provide for the erection of the houses according to designs to be approved by the Commissioners of Woods and for the preservation of the trees (planes and not limes) on the front of the land.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say by what authority did the Commissioners of Education spend £198 on the repairs of the Roxboro' Road Schools, that the tenant, by the terms of the agreement, was bound to keep in repair.

The Commissioners expended this money in the exercise of their discretion and in conformity with the law as administered by the Court of Chancery with reference to the management of trust property by trustees.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cause of the delay in the payment of the residual Capitation Grant due to national teachers for the year ended 31st December, 1902; and whether arrangements can be made by the Commissioners of National Education whereby those payments would be completed before 31st March, as was the custom up to the year 1900.

On Thursday last I replied fully to a similar Question put to me by my lion, friend the Member for South Belfast.†

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what grounds the Inspector of the Local Government Board decided that Denis Healy, who applied for a labourer's cottage (Scheme No. 6) on the farm of Mr. R. Barter, townland of Coolflugh, Matchy division of the Cork Rural District, was not an agricultural labourer within the meaning of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts.

One of the District Councillors for this Division stated on oath at the local inquiry that Healy was employed in the factory at Blarney.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the injuries recently inflicted by trawlers on the nets of long-line fishermen off the coast of North Dublin; and whether any steps have been or will be taken to inquire whether in this instance the law has been violated; and, if so, to secure that the guilty parties shall be made amenable.

Four prosecutions are at present pending in respect of alleged infringements of the by-laws prohibiting trawling in these waters.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how the Fitzmaurice estate as regards sale to the tenants stands; has the Queen's County portion of it as yet been disposed of, and if so, at what average price in the number of years purchase and on what basis has the price been fixed; have any preliminary steps as yet been taken for the sale of the portion in Limerick and Tipperary, known respectively as the townlands of Coolnadhoun, and Clogheready North and Clogheready South; and if so, how far have they been carried.

The Queen's County portion of this estate has been inspected pursuant to the request issued by the Land Judge. Pending the result of the sale of this portion no further proceedings will be taken in the matter of the sale of the remaining portions in Limerick and Tipperary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the investigation into the alleged encounter between the police and people near Templemore has been completed; and, if so, will he state the result.

The preliminary investigation into the circumstances connected with the rioting that took place on this occasion has concluded. The report of the investigation is now before Government, and the question of the further steps to be taken will shortly be decided.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the length of service, pay previous to promotion, and present salary of the second division clerk recently promoted to the position of first-class assistant superintendent in the Dublin sorting office; also the number, length of service, and pay of the sorting office second-class assistant superintendents passed over by this officer.

The second division clerk referred to has had twelve years service, including six in other Departments than the post office. His pay prior to promotion was £130, and £250 on promotion. The number of second-class assistant superintendents in the Dublin office is twelve. Their pay ranges from £200 to £250—one officer, however, receiving £300, the maximum of an old scale. Their service up to the 1st instant ranges from fourteen to forty-three years.

May I ask what Estimates are to be taken on Thursday?

It is proposed to take Vote 10 and other Votes of the Army Estimates in Committee of Supply on Thursday, and afterwards a stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

said he desired to move that the Vote be reduced by 4,600 men—the proposed increase in the current Estimate. The question was a large one, and no opportunity had so far been afforded of discussing that particular point. He deplored the action of the Secretary to the Admiralty the other night, in following the bad precedent of the last two or three years, in himself opening the discussion on the Estimates. The result had been to deprive hon. Members of the precedence they obtained in the ballot, and to produce merely disconnected debates. During the last few days an interesting Report had been issued by the Committee appointed by the Admiralty—and provided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick—to deal with the question of the numbers in the Navy, and the difficulty likely to be experienced in recruiting the vast forces now required. It was desirable that the House should give a little attention to the findings of that Committee. In moving the reduction of the Vote he wished particularly to call attention to the way in which the Navy Estimates had been swollen this year. He had desired that day to put a question as to the amount of money to be spent under the Naval Works Bill this season, but did not get an answer owing to the absence of the Minister.

It is impossible to give an Estimate at present.

said he desired to second the Motion. They had been told that the Committee of Defence was to be reorganised because it was felt that there was no concord between the Army and Navy authorities, and because it was thought necessary that they should look into what ought to be spent on the Army and on the Navy respectively. It was extraordinary that before that Committee had had an opportunity of seeing exactly what was needed for the Army and the Navy the Government should rush into this new-expenditure. If it were true that the Navy required this new increase now, what were they to say about the Government for not proposing it last year? They had just added 27,000 men to the Army, not only against the united protest of hon. Members on the Opposition side, but also against the protest of a large number of hon. Gentle- men sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. Recent elections had ratified the protests made in the House, but if they chose in this reckless manner to add 27,000 men to the Army surely it was a bad moment to add also to the Navy. His hon. friend had asked why the Government did not follow the precedents of former times and reduce the armaments when they came to the end of a war. It was simply because the Government had come to the conclusion, since Imperialism had been in the ascendency, that all the great Ministers: who had had the destinies of this nation in hand before the present Government came into power, were nothing but idiots and fools, and the Government had decided that it was necessary to keep up armaments sufficient to fight the whole world. They had got to accept the fact that if this country went to war they could not control the entire seas, or block up all the navies of their enemies, and they would necessarily have to submit to a considerable loss in trade. He was not sure that such a calamity would not be a good thing for the country, because all countries were too apt to recklessly plunge into war. All the promises and assurances made that this country was going to better its position by the late war in South Africa had not proved correct. It had been suggested that they should make an appeal to other great Naval Powers to come to some arrangement in regard to the strength of their Navy. Those suggestions were not practical if based upon the present balance of power, because it practically meant saying to other countries: "We want permanently to assume the position of being masters of the sea, and therefore you must have a Navy not able, with two or three other navies joined to it, to defeat the British Navy." No foreign country would accept such a scheme. Napoleon sought universal Empire, and the whole world united against him. Although this country had more colonies than foreign countries they must not forget that foreign countries also had their carrying trade, and they had realised that it was necessary for all manufacturing nations to be able to export their goods. Consequently they would never assent to a claim that their colonies and trade should be held as kind of hostages by this country. It was often urged that they must have command of the sea in order to ensure their food supply. He denied, in the first place, that it was necessary for them to obtain command of the sea in such a way. This country might build ships, and foreign countries might also build, but although England had a long purse, it was not longer than the rest of the world. He did not think it necessary, in order to obtain food supplies, that we should be in such a position. Supposing we were at war with France, Germany, and Russia, we should get our provisions from America. Why? Because the Americans would claim that they had a perfect right to send food here; they would not accept the doctrine that food was contraband of war. Then these three Powers would know that they would have the United States against them if they attempted to enforce any such doctrine.

What would happen if the United States refused to accept that view?

What would happen if they refused to send us food?

We don't get all our food from the United States.

said that Cobden stated that if it were necessary to spend £100,000,000 on the Navy for the protection of our trade and commerce, we would be making a cheap expenditure.

said that the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a very interesting contribution—he had made it before—to the general principle that this country ought to lie sufficiently armed for warfare on the sea. That was not disputed here. The real subject of consideration was whether it was not possible to have some alleviation of the enormous burdens at present laid on the people of the country. This was, after all, an assembly whose; business it was to attack questions of this kind in a business sense, and with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, he did not think that it furthered the inquiry by alluding so often to a principle on which all were agreed. There was a certain unreality with regard to most debates on the Estimates It was very difficult to cut them down. The right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Army Estimates said "Tell me where you can cut these Estimates down"—and he showed the House a book an inch thick. How was it possible for any private Member, or any person not conversant with the full details of all that went on at the Admiralty, to say what item should be cut down? If that argument was to prevail, it would prevent all useful criticism of expenditure in this House. There had been speculations on the contingencies of this country being engaged in war, of not having the complete command of the sea, and our not being able to be supplied with food from America. He would not enter into the extraordinarily difficult questions that arise out of that; but he would make one observation. The United States Government had, for many years been urging that private property at sea ought to be respected in time of war the same as private property on land. On that point the hon. Member for Northampton had been challenged by the hon. Member for King's Lynn who had written a book on the subject very full of information. But it was well worth consideration whether the conditions of naval warfare, in reference to the capture of private property at sea, should not be revised by this country in view of the increase of naval expenditure in this and other countries We should not then be under the fear, we now were in, lest we should be starved out on account of our inability to get food. It was of the utmost importance, with a view to that danger, to maintain as strongly as we could two doctrines. One was that food supplies, except in the case of effective blockade, were not contraband of war. He did not think that our statesmen had yet realised the importance of that doctrine. The second was, whether we should not accede to the doctrine laid down by the United States in regard to private property at sea? He would further point out that many speeches had been made on the subject of the Naval Estimates, but tie House had not received from the Government what they had asked for—any reason whatever for any increase of expenditure on the Naval Estimates of this year. The increase was very large. He had the utmost reluctance in voting against Estimates presented on the responsibility of the Government of the Jay, but the House of Commons ought to be told whether there were any particular reasons of policy—without prying unduly into them—which dictated so large an increase in this year's Estimates. There was one other matter. There was no means by which they could be enabled to> judge what was the proper policy of this country in regard to Naval armaments. They ought to be in a position to know what were the relative strengths—he would not say in ships, because they were not competent to judge of that—but the relative sums spent by this and other countries on Naval armaments. He believed that a Return recently made contained a description of the ships afloat; but experts, with these figures before them, were liable to differ from each other as to the value of the comparison. It all depended upon the strength of the ships, or upon this, that, and the other particular which a private person was quite unable to judge of. But there was one method of gaining useful information and aiding their judgment which they did not possess at the present moment. If an official Return were presented of the sums of money spent (luring the last ten or twelve years; by France, Germany, Russia and the United States on Naval armaments they would be able to form some opinion on two points—First: What was our probable relative strength compared with that of other Powers, assuming the money went the same length; and second: Who was it who began this race of expenditure? He had looked at the figures so far as they were accessible to him, and he was sorry to say that this country had something to do with the beginning of this race in enormous expenditure. It told against this country more than against any other, because our particular needs absolutely required that we should be sufficiently prepared; whereas it was more or less of a luxury with the other Powers, unless it were for the purposes of aggression. It was therefore most important to be able to follow in an intelligent manner the expenditure of the other Powers, and to estimate who were the people who proposed this race, and how it fared with this country in the struggle. He believed that after ten years of expenditure on competitive armaments this country was, relatively speaking, weaker than it was ten years ago; and that the whole of our money had been wasted, and worse than wasted. If that were the case, if we had doubled our Naval expenditure in ten years, if we, by reason of that increased expenditure, had induced other Powers to increase their expenditure, it would have been better on all hands had the whole of the money been thrown into the sea. [Laughter from hon. Members on the GOVERNMENT Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not do justice to his argument. Of course he was assuming that if we did not go on, the other Powers would not go on. [Renewed laughter from the GOVERNMENT Benches.] He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not trifle with the argument, which he maintained was a very intelligent one. There was one other matter. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Northampton that we ought to make an approach to the other Powers, or at all events to avail ourselves of every opportunity—which he (the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs) had some grounds to think would be readily offered—to see whether we could not secure that there should be a diminution of, or a limit to, Naval expenditure all round. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, on the occasion of the last debate, said that that had been done, and that what had been done by a prudent and wise Government should not be regarded with derision by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not, however, quite understand the language used by the hon. Gentleman, and he would therefore ask him for further information on the subject. Mr. Goschen suggested some years ago that he was prepared to abate some of the now construction programme of this country if Russia did the same. He was not aware whether any negotiations had taken place, or whether there had been any communications on the subject; and he should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would toll the House whether there had been any such negotiations within the last six or seven years; and if so, whether he would lay Papers on the Table showing what had been done. Ho believed that other Powers would be prepared, in one form and another, to agree that this country should have what she was legitimately entitled to claim, a position of sufficient strength to secure her safety and security on the seas. Otherwise it would, of course, be impossible to come to any terms at all. But other Powers would only be prepared to agree if they believed that the power of this country on the seas would not be used for aggressive purposes, and if they had faith in the pacific disposition of this country. The fact was everyone was agreed that this country must have adequate and full Naval strength; and, for that reason, ho was not disposed to put difficulties in the way of the Government. But he thought it was a false and mistaken patriotism altogether to ignore the difficulties that lay in the way of providing further funds for Naval or Military armaments. That would be foolish, and would tend to defeat their own purpose, as it was certain that when the pressure of very heavy taxation came upon the people, they would insist upon economy, and economy might then not be either in the right direction or at the right stage. That was the reason why he strongly urged on the Government all the considerations he had laid before them. It was lamentable that these debates did not attract the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or First Lord of the Treasury, or of any member of the Naval Defence Committee, although they were being asked to vote enormous Estimates, amounting to £34,500,000, to say nothing of Naval Works, which would amount to £2,500,000 more. It was deplorable that the House and the country did not face the real difficulties and the real dangers in this matter; and that they were not prepared to use all reasonable means to reduce expenditure. He was perfectly certain there was only one way to do this, and that was to keep pegging away in the House of Commons and in the country until people came to realise the enormity of this expenditure, the vast degree in which it had increased within ten years, and the great probability that, unless the House of Commons interposed it would go on increasing, until it was brought down with a run which would not be consonant with the feelings of this country.

Order, order! This docs not relate to the question of the number of men to be voted for the Navy. The attitude of the United States was referred to as the justification for an increase in the Navy; but that does not allow hon. Members to enter into a discussion as to what is the true view of a question of international law.

said that, heavy as they all felt the Estimates for the year to be, there was a general feeling on the Opposition side, as well as on the Ministerial, that a reduction might have been made in the men for the Army with greater satisfaction than in the men for the Navy. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) had indeed been unfortunate in the choice of the opportunities he had taken to protest against our increasing expenditure.

Order, order! I think this would come rather on the shipbuilding Vote than on the question of men. No doubt the number of men is connected with the number of ships, but the hon. Member is now going into a comparison with the number of ships of foreign navies.

said that although the Motion was one to reduce by 4,000 the number of men asked for in the Vote, the House had had a discussion upon history, political economy, and naval policy, which had gone far outside the question of reduction, and he would perhaps be pardoned if he did not follow lion. Members in all the excursions they had made. The mover of the Amendment had asked what was the justification for the increase in the Votes generally, and in this Vote in particular. On a previous occasion he had pointed out the enormously increased cost of the ships and the great exertions that were being made by other countries in the way of shipbuilding, and he could now give an explanation with regard to the men which he thought would carry conviction, at any rate, as far as the Vote this year went. Every additional man for which the Admiralty were asking was being voted in pursuance of a regular actuarial study of the requirements of the Navy, and for the purpose of manning the ships already voted by the House, most of which were in progress of construction. This was not, as seemed to be supposed, a spasmodic series of actions on the part of Admiralty. The standard to which they were working was that to which, as far as he knew, they had worked for many years past—a standard which had been often enjoined upon them by the House of Commons, viz., that of putting the Navy in such a condition as to be able successfully to contend with any two other naval Powers. These matters could not be judged off-hand by taking a list of the ships. We had to defend our interests in many places and under circumstances which did not attend the naval operations of any other Power. While our risks were far spread, those of other countries were concentrated. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries had said that the matter could be tested by the expenditure. But exact official returns of the naval expenditure could not be given. In many countries the naval expenditure did not correspond with the amount which appeared in their published Estimates, and in addition to that, our naval expenditure included many things which were not at all necessary for other countries, and did not appear on their Naval Votes at all. For instance, no one would contend that the naval expenditure of Germany, with her fleet concentrated at two ports, and two alone—in the North Sea and the Baltic—could have any actual correspondence with that of this country, which had to maintain fleets in the Channel, the Mediterranean, and on the North American coast, and to provide depots, arsenals, and docks for those fleets. Therefore, even if an accurate estimate of the cost could be prepared, it would not be a fair criterion. But so far as it was a question of number, if the administration was to be trusted at all, it must be left to the Admiralty to decide the force needed under the conditions stated to combat successfully any force that might be opposed to us. The hon. Member for Islington had asked what was to be the limit of the number of men, and why a reduction could not be made. In the report to which the hon. member had referred there was an indication of the method by which it hoped some alteration would be secured. It was there suggested that non-continuous service should be introduced under proper precautions, and to a limited extent. The hon. Member, however, had not stated the reasons given in the Report why the suggestion could not be carried out at once in its entirety. The Committee agreed that the increase of the active service ratings must be continued until the necessary minimum of active service ratings for the war fleet had been reached. That was the key of the whole situation. Everyone agreed that it was a moderate and reasonable calculation as to the number of men who must be active service ratings in each ship on mobilisation. The Admiralty knew the number of ships they had, and the number they would have at a given date, and they knew the number of active service ratings they would have without any further increase to provide the crews for those ships. It was the intention of the Admiralty from time to time to make such additions to the active service ratings as would enable them to put a crew on each ship on mobilisation, having active service ratings and non-continuous service men in their proper proportions. The hon. Member for Dewsbury had asked why the Admiralty were not relying on the mercantile marine, particularly mentioning the fishermen.

To the extent to which

Yes, of course. He came back now to this; question of the men. He invited hon. Members to read the Report of the right hon. Baronet's Commission, which gave a very fair statement of the problems and conditions attending the manning of the Navy. They would then see the principle upon which the Government were attempting to meet a very serious responsibility, and they would recognise tint there was now for the first time for many years a definite proposal for relieving the strain of the men. In justice to this Committee and to the Admiralty this should not be passed by. It ought to have a very great effect upon the strain of manning the Navy. In the first place there was the introduction of the Volunteer forces and the non-continuous service plan, which would give them an exceedingly well trained class of men in time, who would be enlisted in the service, but who would be available for active rating and active service on mobilisation. There were other sources such as the Fleet Reserve. When they were attacked, as they had been attacked that afternoon, for adding 4,000 men of all ratings to the Navy, he thought they should be given some credit for this bond fide attempt to relieve the country of this great strain. He expressed his regret that the hon. Member for Dewsbury thought it necessary to say that he had looked at these matters with a light heart and with a pride in accordance with their magnitude. He thought he had done his best to explain as to that.

said there was one disadvantage connected with this debate which it seemed impossible to get rid of. His hon. friend proposed to strike out the increase for this year in the men because they were not necessary, and because the Navy Estimates were too large already to justify it. He thought the answer was that the increase proposed this year had no connection with the increase in the Naval programme; generally. They wanted these 4,700 men because three or four or five years ago they increased the number of their ships. If they built new ships they must find the men necessary to man them. The question was whether this number of men was necessary to man the new ships that were passing into the Fleet this year, and which had been sanctioned by the Estimates passed five or six years ago. He had criticised the right of the Admiralty to decide the magnitude of the fleet, but when it came to technical problems like the manning of existing ships and the number of active service men necessary, then he felt that he was not in a position to criticise the judgment of the Naval experts. That fact made it difficult for him to support a reduction in this Vote, although he sympathised with the. general grounds put forward by the mover of this Motion. But when they came to the other point that this increase was typical of the vast increase in the Navy Estimates which had no special justification, then he was entirely with his hon. friend. As he had an opportunity of stating his views the other day he would not repeat them now, but he would ask those hon. Members who heard his remarks to remember that the size of the Estimates for any particular year was a question of Government policy for this House, and the Secretary to the Admiralty could not give them a conclusive justification of that policy. It appeared to him necessary and proper that the First Lord of the Treasury, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, should be present to advise them upon the great questions of policy which underlay these Estimates. The real issue was not upon automatic or non-effective Votes like this one on which they could not call upon the Government to defend the Naval Estimates, but rather on the Vote for shipbuilding which contained a vast increase this year and which must involve a corresponding increase in following years. These Estimates were so great that they ought not to accept a comparatively small increase without demurring to it. The Estimates for the Navy had now reached £36,000,000 a year, and the colonies had been given as a reason for that great increase. He thought they were entitled to ask the Government what area they sought to protect by these steps, and what standard they wore working up to and what particular justification they had for the particular increase made this year. That justification they had not had from his hon. friend, and he could not give it because it must come from the Government as a whole, and from the head of the Government. The hon. Member for Dumfries and others who had protested against these Estimates had claimed and asserted that it was the duty of this country to make representations to other nations in the direction of arranging a mutual scheme of disarmament. The hon. Member for Shipley jeered at that as a millennial proposal, but it was a proposal to which this country and this Government had already committed themselves. Lord Salisbury undertook obligations in this respect, for upon this point on the 14th of February, 1899; referring to the Russian invitation to consider this question, he said that His Majesty's Government would gladly accept that invitation for a conference to discuss the best methods of attaining the two objects specified, namely, the diminution of armaments all round by land and sea, and the prevention of hostilities by diplomatic negotiation. He would not go into details. He would just give the result as stated by the British representative on that occasion. There was no proposal of general disarmament, or even the limitation of armaments. The object which was put in the forefront in the Czar's circular presented so many difficulties, from the practical point of view, that it was necessarily abandoned for the present. That was not a definite abandonment of the scheme. He wished that the First Lord of the Treasury, as Chairman of the Cabinet Committee of Defence, had done them the honour of listening to this debate. If the right hon. Gentleman had been present, he would have asked him: "Do you hold by Lord Salisbury's expressed determination to bring about disarmament by common; consent, and do you accept the statement of Lord Pauncefote that it was only postponed and not abandoned?" If that was the right hon. Gentleman's position, the country would be relieved. He was sorry the House had not the opportunity of hearing an answer to that question from the right hon. Gentleman to-day. The underlying interest in this question was not the number of ships or men, but the financial position into which these great Estimates had gone. Might he just mention the extraordinary fact that seven years ago, when the present Government came into office, the National Debt stood at £660,000,000.

said the hon. and learned Member for the Dumfries Burghs complained because a previous Speaker had dealt with the whole question of expenditure, and not with the particular directions in which economy might be practised. He understood from Mr. Speaker's ruling that it was to the general principle and the magnitude of the whole Estimates that they must address themselves. Hon. Members would sympathise with him when he said, as the representative of a naval constituency, that his natural inclination was to advocate a large increase of expenditure on the wages of men. It was in connection with the increased size of the Navy that the question of the number of men arose. The objection raised by hon. Members opposite, he took it, was that if we were going to increase our Navy we would be confronted with what was little short of ruin. The question he desired to ask was that, if that were true, what was going to happen if we did not keep up our Navy to the necessary state of efficiency? In effect the position was—"if we go forward we die, if we go backward we die; better go forward and die." He was sustained by the authority of Dr. Johnson, who said:

"It is sad to pass through the quagmire of parsimony to the gulf of ruin. To pass over the flowery path of extravagance is very well."

Surely it was premature, and it would be a most dangerous thing, for the House to give in to the objections which had been raised. More than once in the course of this discussion they had been told what Sir Robert Peel said sixty years ago as to the alarming expenditure on naval and military preparations. We were still alarmed at the growth of that expenditure, and he believed the House would continue to hear complaints of the increased expenditure on the Army and Navy. He hoped it would be so, for if not it would show that something serious had happened to our position among the nations of the world. He had endeavoured to make a collection of the prophecies of alarm in regard to this country, and only yesterday he opened Greville's Memoirs, in which he found the following, which was written in January, 1856—

"The only certainty is that we are blindly going on spending our wealth and our blood. Lewis says that our financial position is very bad, a declining revenue, rising prices…. Everything looks as black as possible."

I hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way, and if, owing to their policy not to increase our naval expenditure, we were some day involved in naval disaster and subject to an enormous war indemnity, what would be their feeling? Hon. Gentlemen would begin to wonder whether, to use a favourite phrase, they had not put their money on the wrong horse, or rather taken their money off the right horse. He thought no one had a right to come down to the House to advocate a reduction in the number of men and expenditure on the Navy, unless he could prove to demonstration that the project could be carried out without danger to the country lie thought that had not been done.

said the hon. Member for Portsmouth had assumed that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House were in favour of cutting down the Navy. He did not himself understand on what foundation the hon. Member made that charge. He thought some of the strongest speeches in support of the Navy had been made from this side of the House. In this and previous debates there had been sufficient support given to the proposals of the Government with regard to the Navy as to render the assumption of the hon. Member opposite quite unjustifiable. Although he for one cordially supported the proposals of the Government, he thought that they themselves could not be surprised that a certain amount of restiveness should be shown with respect to the financial burdens which the country was called upon to bear. At a time when the expenditure for the defence of the Empire had gone up to £90,000,000 they might be sure that reductions would be moved, and that these reductions would not command the support of those who gave more special attention to the sub- ject. He was afraid, too, that there would be occasions when reductions would be I moved which would not tend to provide for the adequate defence of the Empire. He thought that in discussing the question of the number of men required the House laboured under two very serious disadvantages. One was that they had received no guidance from the Council of Defence as to the general policy for the defence of the Empire. Many of them were discussing this matter also under the conviction that the Army Estimates had largely tended towards making the burden more than could be borne permanently by the Empire. He hoped those responsible for the Admiralty business would take due note of the opposition which would undoubtedly arise, not so much against their proposals, but in regard to the general burdens the country was asked to bear, and also from the want of any clear policy being put before the country by what he called the sham Committee of Defence. For want of that direct guidance the people were not sufficiently educated as to what wore the adequate requirements of the country for naval defence.

said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had commenced by repudiating on behalf of the Party he represented any diminution of expenditure which would cut down the Navy. That was a matter which really was of very little importance; but he would point out that from that side a direct set had been made by formal motion against the number of men asked for for the Navy. Then the hon. and learned Member for Leith Burghs complained, or at all events pointed out in querulous tones, that they had had no direction from the Committee of Defence. Of course not. The Committee of Defence had been only recently created, and they had practically to review the mass of confusions of the situation, which could not be done in a few weeks or months. Moreover, he apprehended that on any matter of general policy affecting the Army and Navy, the Prime Minister, who was Chairman of the Committee of Defence, would, by the Rules of the House, be precluded from giving its directions to the Committee of the House or reasons for it.

said he should like to say a few words on the Vote, as he had some direct connection with the men. He was sorry to have heard so many irrelevant subjects discussed in connection with the Vote. They had had food supply, continental Powers, the shadows of war and destruction all round, talked about, when they should have been talking about the men. The question simply was, was the Vote right. He was sorry that his hon. friend had moved the reduction, as he held that they had not a sufficient number of men at present, and he would be prepared to prove it. Great Britain with her large and increasing Navy should always be in a position when called upon at any time to use her Fleet for warlike purposes. She should be in a position, not only to man the Fleet which was afloat, but also, to man the reserves. She was not in that position. A great many of the ships at present afloat were undermanned; and they could not man the reserves in case of necessity. He doubted if they could man half the Fleet properly. He thought he was within the mark when he said that the Navy was short between 8,000 and 10,000 stokers, 1,500 engine room artificers and 700 engineers. He was not dealing with the bluejackets, but with the men he knew; though it might be taken for granted that there was a shortage in the bluejackets also. What was the meaning of moving a reduction in the number of men? What was the use of building ships if they could not man them? It was simply absurd to compare the present with other days. They were now living in a steam age, and required a totally different class of man for the Navy. The men had to be very highly trained; and he had come to the conclusion that in the near future every man aboard a man-of-war would be more or less a mechanic. Therefore, the condition of things after the Napoleonic wars was not comparable with the condition of things to-day. If, for instance, they tackled the fleets of France and Spain and smashed them up, then they might reduce their personnel, because they would have crushed their enemies. He objected to the reduction because it was unnecessary, and because it would be detrimental to the interests of the Fleet. He held the Admiralty was now short of men, required more men, and would continue to require more men. He thought his hon. friend would be well advised to withdraw his Amendment, because, from a practical point of view, it could not stand. He would not like to see the British Fleet sent to sea undermanned and unfitted for its work. The moment they lost command of the sea then they might say "Farewell to the greatness of our country."

said he sympathised with his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Yarmouth in the unfortunate position in which they were placed by being obliged to discuss the Vote for the men first, and the Vote for construction later. He might carry it further, and say how awkward the position was when they were forced to discuss the Army Estimates first, and the Navy Estimates second. He did not desire to discuss the proportion between the Navy and the Army Votes; but he thought the discussion, narrow though it necessarily was, brought them back to the really fundamental issue which lay before the country, namely, what ought to be the proportion between naval and military expenditure. By an unwritten rule of the House, they were compelled to take the Navy Votes after they had committed themselves to certain expenditure on the Army. He thought that was a disadvantageous position, because the discussion to-day had brought them to realise, more than ever, the enormous importance of the Navy, the enormous importance of keeping up construction, and the even greater importance of manning the Fleet, so that it might be able to take to sea for war. He vas sure they could all accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the men now asked for were required for ships already on order. He was sure they all welcomed the idea of adding to the personnel of the Fleet reserves with non-continuous service; but that should be only on condition that the personnel of the Fleet should have a sufficient proportion of men trained for active service. He was sure his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty appreciated as much as anyone the necessity of having a large proportion of the personnel of the Fleet not merely available on mobilisation, but accustomed to go to sea, so that when war broke out the Fleet would not be hampered with crews who had to be trained to their work, but would be manned by men who, from practice, were able to work enormous engines of war. He felt very strongly that the nation which, on the outbreak of war, could mobilise the largest number of ships would probably be the nation to which victory would fall. But he felt equally strongly that the victory would fall to the Navy which kept the largest number of ships in commission; and, thereby, gave their men the most ample opportunity to practise operations which would occur in actual warfare. In considering the supply of men for the Fleet, and the increased number of ships, they were naturally led to consider how it was they found themselves as a nation in a position of having to vote such huge sums of money. He was amused and instructed by some of the speeches delivered by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the course of events which had brought this nation into a position of naval expenditure of which the Vote before the House was a sign. It was really waste of time to inquire how it was that they were committed to such extraordinary naval expenditure. It was still greater waste of time to ask which among the nations of Europe first started this country on its career of naval competition, He thought there was a more simple explanation; and it lay in the changed standpoint of all the nations of Europe, including this country, towards the value of the carrying trade, collieries, and commerce, once the unique possessions of this I country, but now shared in ever increasing proportions by its rivals in both hemispheres. It was based on the increased value attached by other nations to shipping, colonies, and commerce. This was entirely the result of the monumental works of Captain Mahan, which, published first in America, had been translated into every language of Europe, into Japanese, Chinese, and other languages of the Far East, and which had exercised a most potent influence in the revolution of nineteenth century thought as to the value of oversea possessions. I That revolution of thought had come to stay. Other nations had acquired fresh I ideas of the value of these possessions.

said that, notwithstanding the amount of men who had been voted by the House during the last two years, he agreed with the hon. Member for Gateshead that they still wanted more men for the Navy, rather than with the hon. Member for Islington, who had moved the reduction, with whom he had no sympathy whatever. From the point of view of the future construction alone, of which notice had been given in the Estimates, he did not think sufficient provision had been made. For those ships alone, it would be necessary to have 9,000 additional men in preparation against the time when those ships would be launched. A most important and interesting statement had been made by the Secretary to the Admiralty during this debate, when he referred to the system on which the Admiralty had embarked of running a short service system side by side with the old and popular long service system. We were this year entering 1,000 non-continuous ratings for the first time. That was a departure of a very novel character to this generation. The hon. Member had given some information, but the House was entitled to a little more, and he would like to know before the debate closed, if it were possible, what decision the Admiralty had come to, if any, as to what was to be the future limit in numbers of the long service ratings. The Financial Secretary had said the Admiralty had arrived at what they considered to be the necessary minimum—could the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of what the numbers were? This year the House had voted 127,000 men, and in the previous year they voted 122,000. The hon. Gentleman or his predecessor stated a year or so since that the time was approaching when the limit would be reached for long service ratings. Now that the number of 127,000 had been reached, the Admiralty had in view the fixing of some necessary minimum, and it would be of interest to know whether the Admiralty had formed any idea of the numbers. Secondly, he would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty had arrived at any standard which was to govern the short service, so a, to work the short service and the long service together. Although 1,000 non-continuous ratings had been entered in the Estimates, the House did not know what proportion they were to bear to the long service ratings. The Report of the Manning 'Commission had suggested that with regard to the stokers the proportion should be one-sixth, and with regard to the seamen it should be one-fourth. The Report also attached the greatest importance to establishing a reserve of stokers. There was no doubt that in the Navy at the present time there was a great dearth of stokers, and the Manning Committee pointed out that that was one of the ratings it would be necessary to build up in considerable strength. The difficulty in getting a sufficient number of stokers, as he had pointed out over and over again, was the bad inducements offered to those who came into the Navy. The stoker class has the hardest worked and the worst paid rating in the Fleet. The Admiralty were now going to give a new rating to a class they termed mechanicians, but if they paid an inferior price for the raw I material, they were not likely to attract I the best men. It was under these circumstances he thought the moment was opportune for asking the question he had put to the hon. Gentleman.

said the decision of Mr. Speaker had made it impossible to discuss the general question with regard to the Navy Estimates, and particularly as regarded the Army Estimates, for which he thought it was desirable they should find an appropriate occasion. He rose, therefore, merely for the purpose of saying that he disassociated himself altogether from the suggestions I that had been made, that we could safely reduce the number of men employed in the Navy. He was satisfied, not only that the number at present proposed was not more than was automatically necessary, in order to man and equip the ships for the building and maintaining of which the House had committed itself, but that we must most carefully guard against any premature unnecessary reduction of that which was, after all, I the one source of the ultimate strength of the country. He did not in the least prejudge the questions which might arise when they arrived at the shipbuilding Vote, but he wished, so far as he was concerned, to say in the most explicit terms that he saw no reason whatever to reduce the number of our fleet by a single man. Resolution agreed to. Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 18th day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read.

"That a number of Land Forces, not I exceeding 235,761, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and' Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding his Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Brodrick, Mr. Arnold-Forster, and Lord Stanley do prepare and bring it in.

said he understood that this Vote wag not to be taken until the evening sitting, and many Members had probably left the House under that impression.

said he had no desire to use the House unfairly. The opportunity for discussion at the evening sitting would probably be somewhat curtailed by private business, and he thought it would be for the convenience of the House to devote the remaining hour and a half of the present sitting to the Report of the Resolution.

I might point out that a question of some difficulty arises on the Standing Order. The Standing Order says:

"Of the days so allotted, not more than one day in Committee should be allotted to any Vote on Account, and not more than one sitting to the Report of that Vote. At midnight at the close of the day on which the Committee of the Vote is taken, or at the close of t he sitting at which the Report of the Vote is taken, the Chairman of the Committee or the Speaker, as the case may be, should put every question to dispose of the Vote or Report."

The question arises whether, if the Vote is taken now, I should be compelled at half-past seven to put the question, or whether the discussion could be continued at the evening sitting. It seems to me that the intention of the Standing Order is that there should be a sitting allotted to the Report, and that the sitting allotted to the present Report is the evening sitting. Therefore, the "allotted sitting" being the evening sitting, I should not be entitled to apply the automatic closure to the Vote at half-past seven, if it is taken now. Accordingly, though the construction of the rule is very doubtful, I should be prepared to rule that the debate might go on now, if the House chooses to take it, until half-past seven, and that it would be in order to resume it at the evening sitting, and apply the automatic closure, if necessary, at twelve o'clock.

thought the House would be much relieved at the interpretation of the Order just given, because, if the Standing Order had been Otherwise interpreted, it would have been possible for the discussion to commence at seven o'clock, and then at half past seven to be automatically closured. Many Members were under the impression that the Vote on Account would not be taken until the evening sitting, but, on the understanding that the discussion could be then resumed, he did not see any objection to proceeding with the Vote until half past seven.

commented on the small amount proposed to be spent in connection with the St. Louis Exposition. France, Germany, and all the other principal countries had set aside amounts much larger than the £30,000 here proposed, and it was not at all creditable to the Government that they should have suggested a sum totally insufficient to be of any real service in the encouragement and the provision of British representation at the Exposition. If ever there was a time when Britain ought to do everything it possibly could to encourage friendly relations with America, it was now. Although late in the day, the Government would be well-advised to revise its Estimate.

said that last year it was arranged that the Board of Agriculture should consult with the War Office and, if possible, devise some means by which to enable the War Office to purchase horses for remounts direct from the farmers. Recently the Secretary of State had said a circular was about to be sent to the various County Councils on the matter. He desired to ask whether the President of the Board of Agriculture knew about that circular, and whether it was sent out with his approbation. It was most important that farmers in the horse-breeding districts should know exactly the stamp of horse required. He regretted that the President of the Board of Agriculture had stated he had very little money a his disposal, but the idea could bi greatly assisted at a very small expense by classes being instituted in the various local shows for horses suitable for tin Army, every exhibit in such classes being entered for sale at a certain price. Another question was that of railway rates. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the farmers had a grievance in this matter, rat what steps was he going to take to remedy it? If he going to proceed by legislation or by administration? If tie intended to proceed by means of administration it would be well to commence at once, so that the effect of his operations would be known by the end of the year, in time for legislation to be prepared for next session if necessary. He also desired to know the number of prosecutions and convictions which had taken place under the Order prohibiting the sale of butter containing more than 16 per cent, of water.

said there was a strong feeling in the country that some of the regulations with regard to swine fever were working very hardly. In some cases where swine fever seemed to have been stamped out it had suddenly re-appeared. If the right hon. Gentleman could hold out any hope of swine fever being put an end to very shortly, farmers might be willing to put up with the inconvenience of the regulations, but at present they felt that they pressed with undue hardship and were not really necessary. As to the question of railway rates, the right hon. Gentleman had recently stated that if the companies did not come into line he had a rod in pickle for them. No action, however, had as yet been taken, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would soon exercise whatever powers he had. The "owner's risk" rates required looking into. Railway companies were inclined to give cheap rates at owner's risk, but they took away with one hand what they gave with the other. In the milk traffic the companies practically took no charge and acknowledged no responsibility. If milk got spoilt in transit or churns were lost, farmers were not able to obtain compensation, the plea of the companies being that it was sent at owner's risk. It was no answer to say that it could be sent at the risk of the company, because in that case the rates were doubled, which rendered it absolutely prohibitive. If the right hon. Gentleman intimated to the companies that if they persisted in their course of action he would have to interfere, or obtain power to interfere, it would probably do some good. Then the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he intended to set up in different parts of the country fifteen or twenty advisory boards, with the object of getting special information of special wants in particular districts. There was a good deal to idea to be said for the idea if the wish of the right hon. Gentleman was to get to know what was going on in the districts, especially as regarded the small men who, perhaps, make their voices Chambers of Agriculture. But would not that object be equally well attained by the appointment of correspondents in different districts, such as the Board of Trade had appointed for its purposes? The idea of setting up official or semi official boards was entirely against the general practice of the country. Hitherto it hid been our boast that we had not agricultural boards or establishments under State aid control, such as existed in continental countries, and great bodies like the Royal Society, the Bath and West of England Society, and some of the small bodies had been absolutely untrammelled by red tape, and able freely to express their opinions to the Minister of the day. In connection with advisory boards there was bound to be a certain political element, as a number of the members would be nominated by the President of the Board of Agriculture for the time being, to whom those members would necessarily look for the continuance of their appointment. That was hardly a desirable state of things. Special information on small points could be better obtained either through correspondents, or by means of the farmers' clubs which were scattered throughout the country. The more he thought of it the more he felt that the establishment of such boards would be a dangerous step. He had every confidence that as long as the right hon. Gentleman held his present office such boards would be kept within proper limits, but future occupants of the office might so use the boards as to disregard the opinion of the House of Commons, on the ground that they had their own advisory boards by whom they would be guided.

supported the suggestion of the hon. Member connection with the St. Louis Exposition should be considerably increased. Much had been heard recently about economy, but this was not a matter in which it should be unnecessarily practised. Our national credit and prestige were largely concerned in this question, and during his last visit to the United States he found, both in the highest quarters and among the "men in the street," a very keen desire that this country should be adequately represented at the Exposition. A very bad effect would be produced in the United States if the English grant was one of the smallest made by any of the civilised Powers. It would be hardly creditable to the Government to suggest a contribution one-fifth of that of Germany, and less than one-half of that of China. He hoped before all the space was taken the grant would be increased, at any rate to the amount appropriated by Germany.

asked for information as to the advisory boards, which were quite new institutions. He understood that these boards were to have a majority elected by the farmers, and a minority to be nominated by the President of the Board of Agriculture. lie would like to know what proportion the minority would bear to the majority; whether any of these members were to be paid, and if so, at what and whose expense; whether there would be a special Vote for them and under what Estimate they would come. So far as he understood the present methods of obtaining information, a man like the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the department had little difficulty in obtaining it, because he had gone into the matter thoroughly, and could get his information at the local farmers' clubs. If in the future they had not an equally energetic and careful President of the Board he did not see how the required information would be obtained, by means of which the President could nominate the proper men on these advisory boards.

said that with regard to the Sparks from Locomotives Bill and the question of forestry, which the Government had been recommended to take up, he was considering how far it was possible to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the subject, but he could not yet give a definite answer. With regard to the question of the advisory committees he had proposed, he thought there was rather an exaggerated importance attached to those bodies, as though they were to control in any way the Board of Agriculture, and the Board must necessarily be governed by their advice. He was afraid that that was the last sort of council he should think of appointing. He was struck by the fact that at the present moment the Central Chamber of Agriculture dealt rather with general agricultural questions than in trying to obtain definite information regarding local questions. No Society or Central Chamber met so constantly as to be within touch of the agriculturist, so that he could at a moment's notice get the information he wanted. Then, again, the societies had acquired the bad habit, instead of discussing local requirements, of taking up kind of snowball resolutions from one another, which they debated and which had no effect whatever upon him. That being so it occurred to him it was necessary to be, from day to day, in touch with those who represented, and could speak for, the local requirements of a particular district. There was no industry which varied so much from county to county, and almost from district to district, as agriculture. Then with regard to the politics of agriculture he thought the less they brought politics into the question the better it was. He hoped the advisory boards would keep politics at arm's length and would only be business bodies to deal with actual hard facts and farming life in their particular district. He agreed with the hon. Member for Somersetshire that a better name would be correspondents, and although he was by no means anxious they should meet very often, he wanted to get representative men in all districts of England with whom he could be in actual touch. He did not want there to be any idea that these gentlemen would control him in any way. It was proposed to divide Great Britain into twenty divisions and appoint fifteen or sixteen gentlemen to each division. It was no matter how they were to be appointed so long as they really voiced the views of their district. Out of the fifteen or sixteen the great bulk should be elected by the Agricultural Societies of their districts. He only retained the power to nominate a certain number because he felt that too often in those societies there was not a sufficient representation of the smaller men who, after all, represented the great proportion of the farmers of England. He wanted to he brought into touch with them just as much as with the larger farmers. As to payment, he knew it was rather difficult to extract money from the Treasury, and he thought that except for the expense of travelling they ought not to call on the Treasury to provide the money. He was quite sure he could appeal to those gentlemen to have sufficient interest in their own industry to assist him in the way described. The question of railway rates was a difficult matter for him to handle, because railway companies were not in his department. He should like to say that, before coming to Parliament, there were two things to be done before he pressed his colleagues to make any alteration in the present law. He must collect facts. General grumbling was of no use whatever; he must have facts, and plenty of them. In Scotland and Yorkshire he had been assisted by the County Councils. In Scotland especially a vast amount of information with regard to rates had been laid before him and had been of great service. The information he had already collected had shown him that a great number of complaints arose from misunderstanding of both the actual facts of the case and the law. It had convinced him that when all had been said or done, the railway companies might be fairly approached and would deal with the matter. In Scotland that had already been done, and to a large extent the railway companies had met the case fairly; alterations in the rates had taken place and the farmers had been relieved. It all depended upon accurate information, and he was sure his hon. friend, as a Member of the House and Chairman of the Central Chamber, would do good service if he would take steps to assist him in getting more information, which would justify him in approaching the railway companies with sufficient evidence. He proposed to approach the railway companies first in a friendly manner, because it was not to the interests of the railway companies to neglect this important branch of trade. It was a fact that great pressure was put upon the railway companies to encourage the importation of produce from abroad, because in the first place they were sometimes owners of steamers. It was a remarkable fact that whilst this House laid upon the railway companies, so far as land rates were concerned, certain limitations which required them to show equal justice all round, there was no such limitation with regard to steam ships, and it was possible for a railway company owning a line of steamers running from Copenhagen to Hull, and carrying goods from Hull to Birmingham, to charge exactly the same amount from Hull to Birmingham as from Copenhagen to Birmingham, via Hull. As a rule the farmer was confined to a particular railway, whereas the foreigner was in a position to choose his railway, and consequently got the benefit of competitive rates. He hoped that when the facts were brought sufficiently before the railway companies they would see that it was to their own interest to cultivate the home trade more than they had done in the past. The difficulty was that the railway companies varied so much in their charges. The Great Eastern Railway Company dealt generously with parcels up to 7 lbs., but other companies did not, although they treated larger parcels favourably. Surely they might find some system which would bring them into line. With regard to swine fevor, it could not be stamped out without drastic regulations; but his desire was to make his regulations work with as little friction as possible, and he was always open to listen to advice from local authorities, or even from individual farmers, if he could do so reasonably. There was, no doubt, much grumbling with regard to the regulations of local authorities which were not under his control; but he hardly knew a single case in which a farmer had any real reason to complain of their action. He knew it was said that the areas were too large and that the boundaries were not prescribed as scientifically as they might be. It was thought necessary to have the boundaries of the petty sessional divisions because the police were acquainted with them. He was quite willing, however, if he could find other boundaries well-known to the police and the public, to alter his regulations in that respect. As to the question of remounts, that matter, after all, rested entirely with the War Office, and he had no control over it. His duty solely consisted in conveying to farmers what the War Office required with regard to the purchase of remounts. As the hon. Member was aware he had been pressing the War Office to deal directly with the farmers, as far as possible, and give them all the information possible. He was sorry to say that the requirements of the War Office in this respect were not very large, and he did not think the question was of great interest to farmers. It would be if the War Office bought on a large scale; but when they required only 2,500 horses a year, and only 1,600 from Great Britain, it did not seem a matter of very great interest to the farmers either of Great Britain or Ireland. No doubt, however, farmers ought to have the fullest information. He understood that the War Office would in about a fortnight send their regulations to the Board of Agriculture, and they would be sent to the farmers. As to prosecutions under the butter regulations, they were in charge of the local authorities, and, so far as the Board could collect information, he believed there had been some thirty-five prosecutions since the order was issued last May. Of course he might obtain full information be applying to the local authorities, but he hardly thought it would be worth while to do that. He thought he had now answered all the questions put to him.

said they were all interested in the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman, especially in regard to the work he had been doing connected with the advisory boards. They all knew how the right hon. Gentleman had thrown himself into the practical work of his Department. But while he said that, he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman might have taken a dangerous course in creating these advisory boards over the length and breadth of England and Wales. It conveyed too much the idea of powerful organised bodies in particular localities. He thought the advantage to be obtained from the districts could be obtained by responsible correspondents. The difficulty about advisory boards was that they to some extent diminished the responsibility of headquarters and were apt to take upon themselves functions which did not properly belong to them. The right hon. Gentleman would get the information he wanted more thoroughly by the appointment of one or more correspondents in each centre than by such boards as he suggested. They were all agreed that the information was very important, in a comparatively new department like the Board of Agriculture, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might try to bring about remedies for the grievances in the different parts of the country. With reference to the question of railway rates the right hon. Gentleman said the Board laboured under the disadvantage of a deficiency of exact information. He himself knew that. Some years ago there was some difficulty in getting to know exactly the grievances in particular localities. It seemed to him that accurate information could be better obtained and tabulated by a responsible correspondent than by any committee of gentlemen forming an advisory board. He was very anxious that railway rates should be equalised all over the country in the interest, especially, of small holders, of whom there was an increasing number. He hoped that as years went on there would be a still greater number of people holding small plots and producing perishable food produce. It was of the greatest importance that such produce should be conveyed on the easiest possible terms by the railway companies. Light railways had not given the advantages which were expected from them in connection with the conveyance of produce of this kind. He was sure that any pressure the Board of Agriculture could bring to bear on the great railway companies to try to equalise their rates, in order to give impartial terms to producers in various parts of the country, would be of great benefit. The right hon. Gentleman made a remark which suggested to his mind a possible danger of interference on the part of the Board of Agriculture. He said that produce might be conveyed from Copenhagen to Birmingham via Hull almost as cheaply as produce could be sent from Yorkshire to the same Midland city. He believed there were many examples of that kind. He thought it pressed hardly on the producer of articles within our own shores that farmers in Denmark should be able to send produce to markets in this country for about the same cost. While endeavouring to remedy an injustice the right hon. Gentleman must not remedy it at the expense of the consumer, because, after all, this country depended very much on the cheapness of the food of the people in order that we might maintain our supremacy in manufacturing industries. The right hon. Gentleman must be careful not to take any step to make the food of the poorest portion of the community dearer by kindly interference on behalf of another class of citizens. With regard to the St. Louis Exhibition, he hoped that something a little more liberal might be done than hitherto in connection with that project. This country ought to be represented in a way worthy of our traditions and of our industrial and commercial position. Germany was able to give five times the amount we had granted in order that that country might be well represented at that Exhibition. He thought it was time that we were a little more alive in this matter. He believed that the money would be well spent, and that it would be brought back to this country over and over again in the shape of orders for our productions.

said that hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had expressed the hope that the £30,000 which stood on the Estimates for the St. Louis Exhibition, did not represent the final decision of the Government, and they sounded a warning note that it would be regarded as entirely inadequate. Speaking on behalf of the Government, and entirely sharing the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen, he could assure them that this sum of £30,000 appearing on the Estimates was not a final but a preliminary sum. It was calculated that they could only, in all probability, spend that sum this year, but the final amount had not, yet been fixed. He agreed with the views expressed that it was most essential we should do everything to maintain our friendly relations with the United States above all other countries, and it was his opinion that exhibitions of this kind were one of the most valuable means of establishing such friendly relations. He knew that the American nation attached very great importance to this coming exhibition. He understood it would be conducted on a magnificent scale, and he believed it would have far-reaching results. What was exactly the amount of money that would be demanded in connection with the representation of Great Britain at the exhibition was now under consideration, and he thought that the opinion expressed that day by the House of Commons would have some influence with his right lion, friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was necessary that the Government should know what amount of money Germany and other foreign countries intended to spend on the exhibition, and inquiries to that effect had been made during the winter, so that they had now some means of gauging what our contribution should be. Above all, what the Government wanted to know was, how far their expenditure was going to be backed up by private manufacturers and collectors in this country; he hoped this short debate might be the means of bringing this St. Louis Exhibition to the notice of the great leaders of commerce and industry in this country, and that they would unite in putting forward their best efforts to worthily maintain the position and industrial prestige of Great Britain in the exhibition.

said he wished to call attention to a matter in the Colonial Office Report in regard to native labour in South Africa. On Thursday of last week he asked from the Colonial Secretary an assurance that the old law under which gold-mining claims in the Transvaal were allocated would not be abrogated†, f and the right hon. Gentleman said that no such law had ever been in existence, and then went on to describe the methods by which these claims were allocated. A great deal of disorder, the right hon. Gentleman said, had arisen in connection with these claims, and there had been some suggestions or proposals for a lottery law, but the right hon. Gentleman indicated that they had come to nothing. Since then he had had an opportunity of discussing the documents bearing upon the matter, and that was his excuse for again troubling the House by referring to it. The earlier custom in the Transvaal, as on all other goldfields, was that when a farm or a bit of land was proclaimed a goldfield it was open to all and sundry to peg out claims. Consequently, if the field turned out rich, there was a great deal of disorder, and sometimes lives were lost, in the scramble which took place for claims. In 1895 such a scene took place in the allocation of the claims on a farm in the Transvaal, and serious apprehensions were raised in the minds of the people as to what the consequences might be if the old method of allocation were adhered to. Two farms, supposed to be especially valuable, were declared to be goldfields, and a new method was introduced by which claimants had to present themselves at the Field Cornet's office to obtain a licence, on which they could proceed to the goldfields and peg out a claim. In this particular case the applicants for licences numbered many thousands, and it was known that some of the big gold companies hired prize-fighters to stand outside the Field Cornet's Office to prevent smaller and weaker men from getting into the office and obtaining a licence. These companies also hired blood horses to carry the licences from the Field Cornet's Office to the gold-fields; and some of their rivals, it was said, employed other desperadoes to shoot the horses and obtain possession of the licences. As a result of this state of affairs the Executive Council of the Transvaal Republic passed an Emergency Law which legalised the lottery system in allocating claims. An American named †See page 1252 Brown disputed the validity of the new law, and raised an action against the Government before Judge Kotze, in which he was successful, whereupon the Transvaal Government dismissed the Judge, and that became one of the justifications for the war. The lottery method was continued from 1895 down to the outbreak of the war. He had a copy of the Standard and Diggers' News for April 6th, 1899. That paper contained one and a half columns describing the terms on which claims were to be allocated. It was an official document; was signed by Mr. Reitz, the State Secretary; and was dated Pretoria, April 4th, 1899. Under the form of lottery mentioned in that document every citizen over the age of sixteen, and every outlander who had paid his poll tax, was entitled to apply for a ticket and to share in the lottery. As a matter of fact, some 30 000 burghers and outlanders did apply, and received lottery tickets towards the close of the year 1899, in connection with the allocation of claims on the particular farms mentioned. The outbreak of the war stopped the ballot taking place, and it was still in suspense. The point he desired to make was that unless those claims were to be allocated by lottery, as under the old Transvaal law, the working people in the Transvaal would stand no chance whatever of competing for claims put up to auction to the highest bidder. Under the old law, everyone, rich and poor, had an equal opportunity of becoming the possessor of a claim. He was advised that on the two farms to which he was referring, gold deposits of enormous value had been found; and that many of the claims might be worth anything up to £500,000 or £600,000" The people who had applied for tickets were entitled to their chance of obtaining one of those claims, and would feel it very hard indeed if one of the results of the war was that they would be debarred from the right which they possessed under the old Transvaal Government. He asked from the right hon. Gentleman some assurance that the allocation of claims in the Transvaal should be conducted on the lines of a lottery, as otherwise the monopolists would be able to extend their sphere of influence over every yard of ground worth purchasing, and the small financier would have no chance of competing with them. He hoped that one charge more would not have to be brought against those responsible for public affairs since the war—namely, that they were playing into the hands of the rich, and were barring others from opportunities they possessed before the war. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see to it that the new gold laws should be so framed as not to put a monopoly of the paying parts of the country into the hands of the present mine-owners; but that every citizen of the Transvaal should have at least an equal opportunity of trying his luck.

Though I do not think the hon. Member's facts are quite accurate, I do not dispute them. I was certainly under the impression that, although the late Transvaal Government had passed legislation to enable a system of allotment of claims by lottery to be carried out, that legislation had not in practice been applied in any single case. But I may be wrong, as the hon. Member speaks of one case in which the lottery system was adopted. He may be more accurate with regard to that matter than is my memory. At any rate, it was adopted in very few cases. The system which is to take the place, of the old system is not yet settled. It is clear that, in the first instance, it concerns the people of the Transvaal. As I explained to the hon. Member when the Vote was under discussion before, it is intended to propose the system in the new gold law, which will be brought before and discussed by the Legislative Council in public, and probably passed as amended by the council. But the people of the Transvaal will have a full opportunity of criticising any proposal which may be made. I should not like to express any final conclusion on the subject; but I may tell the hon. Member that his idea that it is a question between the monopolists and the working classes is certainly an entire mistake. Whatever system you have—lottery, pegging-out, or sale by auction—the working of these c aims must fall into the hands of the large capitalists. A gold mine in the Transvaal requires something like half a million, or a million, of money to establish and start the necessary machinery; and therefore it is not comparable to alluvial gold-mining, where the first workman who comes can wash his gold and take his profit. The only thing which the pegger-out got under the old system, or which a lottery-holder got under the new system, was a claim which he could offer to the capitalist; and if, as the hon. Member suggests, the capitalist was a monopolist, the capitalist would be able to fix his own price, and so get the claim at a low value. No doubt, if things of this kind are going, we should all desire that as many people as possible should have an opportunity of making a profit out of them; but they cannot make much profit, because ultimately the claim must come into the hands of the capitalist.

One claim was drawn by a miner and sold for £101,000.

I should doubt that. But, assuming that that is true, it does not strengthen the argument in favour of any of the existing systems. Will anyone tell me why that miner by a mere chance should have obtained £101,000? What had he done to deserve it? He had not worked for it, or spent money on it, or shown any intelligence. He had simply bought a lottery ticket for a few pounds or pence, it had turned up trumps, and he had made £101,000. That is a gigantic gamble; and I do not think that it is in the interests of the working classes, or of any other class, to encourage gambling of that kind. What is desirable is to see that in future the community at large, and not the individual miner, should have a larger share of the advantages of the wealth that is hidden under the surface. Under the old system the State did not get enough. The profits went to private people, and the community did not receive a sufficient proportion. One of the objects of the new law will be to secure, if possible, a larger proportion for the State, of the value of the gold. If that can be accomplished it will be not the advantage of the individual, but the community as a whole, and that I take it is the object which the lion. Gentleman has in view. But I ask the House to postpone any judgment on the subject until it has been discussed by those best qualified give an opinion, and until legislation has been under the consideration of the Legislative Council.

called attention to the condition of lawlessness in the Highlands and islands of Scotland, and said that in South Uist there should be no difficulty in making the land suitable for the crofters to settle upon. He had urged the Secretary for Scotland to take action, and the Congested Districts Board had been petitioned for years, but nothing had been done. The Secretary for Scotland had told them that no inquiry could be made. That decision, he thought, would not conduce to the peace and good government of the district, and he would ask the Secretary for Scotland to reconsider his decision and make some inquiry into the condition of these poor unfortunate people. If the same condition of things existed in England, it would not be tolerated for a moment—public attention would lie drawn to the matter, and the grievance would be redressed. They had there 115 excellent citizens anxious to settle on the land, and yet could not do so. Under similar circumstances in England, public opinion would insist upon their demands being attended to.

I really must protest against part of the language used by my hon. friend when he speaks of the petitions of the cottars in this neighbourhood having been ignored, and it is especially hard when that accusation is made against the pro-prietrix in South Uist, because I venture to pay that however much you may disagree with Lady Gordon Cathcart's views upon how far it is advisable to set up still more cottages and small holdings, no one who knows the history of her life for many years past but must acknowledge that she has really tried from her heart to do her best for the people of that neighbourhood, and it has caused her much heart feeling, trouble, and anxiety.

I am very glad to have that admission. On the other hand, I am very far from meaning that the condition of the people in this part of the world is what one would like it to be. But it is the old, old story of the multiplication of a population on ground that will not properly support them, and the misfortune always has been, and always will be, that the more kind-hearted the proprietor is in not putting in force with draconian severity the estate regulations against squatting, the more the grievance is felt. I can assure the lion. Member there is no wish on the part of my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland not to make every inquiry to see whether the position of these particular cottars can be helped by the Congested Districts Board; but as my hon. friend knows well, the Secretary for Scotland was in the very condition of making preparation for enquiry when the news came that these cottars had taken forcible possession, not of ground that was going to waste, but of ground in the occupation of another farmer. They had begun to assert their rights by putting seaweed on ground which was admittedly not in their holding. Everyone knows that putting seaweed on the ground is an intimation to all concerned that they are going to dig up the ground My noble friend stated that he would not allow the inquiry to go on so long as there was this overt action on their part to take the law into their own hands. I am exceedingly glad to hear from the hon. Member to-night that some of them have receded from that attitude, but the receding from that attitude—certainly the last time I spoke to my hon. friend, which was only this morning—had not then been communicated to him. That is a change of circumstances I am very glad to know, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the attitude is changed, and it is made perfectly clear that they are not going to take the law into their own hands, he will find there is not the slightest disinclination on the part of the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into the matter, and to do all in his power to meet, as far as possible, the wants of these people.

said the argument of the Lord Advocate with regard to these unfortunate people would lead the House to believe that the fault was entirely with the landlord in not behaving with sufficient draconic severity. The real trouble was that they could not get an acre of land to cultivate, and thus obtain food for their families. A large quantity of this island was taken up by one or two sheep farmers, and it was exactly the same in his own constituency. The poor unfortunate crofters and cottars were driven to the worst parts of the island. For his own part, he did not see the necessity for any inquiry, because the facts were already before the House and Government. The people were more or less in a state of starvation, and what was needed was a law giving the power of taking land compulsorily for the benefit of the people. The House would admit that landlords' rights could only be exercised to a certain extent. In this case the bailiff put down his foot, and said: "The land is mine, and I will not sell it." Whilst that action was allowed in Scotland, in the case of Ireland the Government came down with a scheme providing millions and millions of money. The right hon. Gentleman ought to induce the Government to pass a short Act giving the power to purchase this land on satisfactory terms for the people who wanted it to live upon, and also to the owner. He thought they might have had a little more sympathetic answer from the right hon. Gentleman. It was quite time that a check was put upon the system under which one or two wealthy people, because they were rich and did not care what became of the people, let the land to one large farmer instead of giving the poor cottars the right to the land to which they were entitled. The sympathy of the whole House ought to go out to these poor people, and everything possible ought to be done to relieve them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to send some one to inquire into the whole circumstances, or he might spend his Easter recess in the neighbourhood. And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.