Commons Sitting of 4 June 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL (QUEEN'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the Third time and passed.

  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 212.]
  Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 271.]

  CHAIRMEN OE DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Friday 12th June.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 272.]
QUESTIONS.

  TUBERCULOSIS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. FARQUHARSON), I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he will be prepared to announce to the House
  406
  the names of the second Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, together with the terms of reference to the Commission?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The proposed terms of reference to the second Royal Commission on Tuberculosis are—to inquire and report as to what administrative procedures are available and would be desirable for controlling the danger to man through the use as food of the meat and milk (with its products) of tuberculous animals; and what are the considerations which should govern the action of the responsible authorities in condemning or not condemning, for the purposes of food supplies, animals' carcasses or meat exhibiting any stage or stages of tuberculosis. I hope to be in a position very shortly to announce to the House the names of the members of the Commission.

  ARMY RELIEFS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to increase the number of battalions of infantry on the Establishment so as to provide reliefs for those serving abroad; or if the Reserve Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Lords, is the only step which will be proposed in view of the present deficiency of reliefs.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Since my right hon. Friend put his question on the Paper the Secretary of State has fully explained the objects with which the Reserve Forces Act Amendment Bill has been introduced. The Bill does not touch the question of reliefs; its sole purpose is to legalise the employment of a certain number of Army Reserve men in minor wars for which they cannot now be called out. With regard to the earlier part of the right hon. Member's Question, I cannot do better than refer him to the Secretary of State's statement in the House of Lords on the 21st ult. The question is engaging the earnest attention of the War Office.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether it was intended to

  407
  proceed with the Reserve Forces Bill this Session, and, if so, whether an opportunity of discussing it would be given?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid it was his earnest desire that every Bill introduced by the War Department should be discussed and passed into law this Session, but his hon. Friend was aware that there were considerable difficulties in the way.

  TUNBRIDGE WELLS POST OFFICE.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the intention to employ women at the Tunbridge Wells post office was anterior to the year 1893, when candidates for appointments in that office were required by the local postmaster to express their willingness to be transferred to another town should the exigencies of the service demand the same; and, whether he is aware that candidates recently appointed have not been, required to express such willingness?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The intention to employ women at the Tunbridge Wells post office was expressed in the year 1892, when candidates for appointments were required by the postmaster, under directions from Headquarters, to give the undertaking referred to. Through a misunderstanding some of the officers who have since been appointed were not required to give this undertaking, but they have now been informed that they must hold themselves in readiness to be transferred later on to some other town should the exigencies of the service demand it. Every care will be exercised, however, by the Department to consult the convenience of the staff in making such transfers as may be necessary; and it must be recollected that, in any case, the Postmaster General possesses the right to transfer officers from one town to another in the interests of the Service.

  INCOME TAX (PAROCHIAL INCUMBENTS).
  MR. ROUND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if parochial incumbents can deduct Income Tax upon stipends which
  408
  they now pay to their assistant curates; and, if not, whether he will consider the propriety of enabling them to do so?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Where a curate is licensed by the Bishop of a Diocese to a particular charge, the incumbent may deduct Income Tax from the stipend which he pays him. I am afraid I cannot extend this principle so as to allow incumbents under all circumstances to deduct Income Tax from the stipends of their curates.

  DOWNPATRICK BOARD OF GUARDIANS (LABOURERS' COTTAGES).
  MR. R. McGHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Downpatrick Board of Guardians, on the recommendation of the Ballyculter Dispensary Committee, on 13th July last adopted an improvement scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages; and that Mr. Cowan, County Surveyor, then prepared plans and specifications for the holdings, which have not yet been carried out; and, whether the Local Government Board have taken, or intend to take, any steps with the object of having the scheme put into operation?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The facts are correctly stated in the Question. The Local Government Board have communicated with the Guardians suggesting the carrying out of an improvement scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages, and the matter will be considered by the Guardians at a special meeting to be held on the 13th instant.

  MAURITIUS MILITARY PRISON.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the Report on "Military Prisons" of 1894–5, relative to the very unsatisfactory condition of the prison at Mauritius, as detailed in pages 4 of both Reports, and stated also

  409
  to have been mentioned in previous Reports without any remedy being applied, from which it appears that the water supply is bad, and that all the warders and their families have been invalided home from fever, except one; whether the General Officer Commanding has recommended that prisoners sentenced to 42 days should be sent to the civil prison, if suitable arrangements can be made; whether he has also observed that the Report of the Medical Officer, at pages 44 and 48 of the respective Reports, speaks in strong terms of condemnation of the swampy sites, resulting in constant malarial fevers to the great injury of the health of the warders and others who are compelled to live on the ground floor; and, whether anything has been done to remedy the state of things complained of in the said Reports of the Inspector General?
  MR. BRODRICK: The provision of a military prison on a more healthy site in Mauritius is one of the services included in the new loan for military works, and it will be commenced as soon as funds are voted by the House. Meanwhile, the prison has been converted into a provost prison, which has enabled the warders to be withdrawn from their unhealthy quarters. The water used is boiled and filtered. A recommendation was made that prisoners with sentences of a certain length should be sent to the civil prison, but satisfactory arrangements to that effect could not be made.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIALS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the officials of the House of Commons are paid extra for the additional labours required of them by long sittings of the House, such as that of the 21st-22nd ultimo; and, if not, whether he will see that in future the Fair Wages Resolution is carried into effect in regard to the officials of the House, and that they shall not be required to work overtime without extra payment?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Officials of the House are not entitled to any extra payment on the occasion of prolonged sittings; but the Serjeant-at Arms has been in the habit of giving the attendants of the House a
  410
  small gratuity on the occasion of sittings of extraordinary length, such as that of the 21st of May last. With the exception of a few occasional assistants, the servants of the House are permanently employed at a yearly salary, and, except a few who are of the nature of caretakers, they are only required to attend on those days and at those hours when the House or its Committees are sitting. It is obvious that the Fair Wages Resolution has no bearing whatever upon their work or pay.

  VACCINATION.
  SIR WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the increasing demand for vaccination with calf lymph, he will consider the expediency of at once taking such steps as may be necessary to facilitate the performance by public vaccinators of calf to arm vaccination, with the double object of meeting the objections of an increasing number of parents to the use of humanised lymph, and the protection of infants from the danger of attack and death by small-pox?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am fully aware of the importance which is attached to the performance of vaccination direct from calf-to-arm when calf lymph is used. But my hon. Friend must be aware that a system of calf-to-arm vaccination, if practised generally, would involve an entirely new organisation at a very large expenditure of public money. In view of the fact that the desirability of introducing changes "for the purpose of removing objections to vaccination, or making it more effective," is included in the reference to the Royal Commission on Vaccination, who are now engaged in compiling their Report, I donbt the expediency of my making any proposal as to the alterations in the law and its administration which would be involved, before I have had the advantage of considering their Report.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked when they were likely to have the Report.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he had made inquiries, and the reply was that the Commission was considering the Report, and hoped to present it very shortly.

  REVENUE RECEIPTS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can state, or will agree to a Return stating, for the year 1895–6, the gross receipts of all public Revenue, whether from Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, or from any other source of receipt, which were not paid into the Exchequer in the manner provided by Section 10 of The Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, but were paid into any separate fund; distinguishing each receipt under a general head, with its amount, and the Act of Parliament which authorises its payment into such separate fund instead of into the Exchequer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The information for which the hon. Member asks will be shown in the Finance Accounts for 1895–6, which will shortly be issued. Full details for 1894–5 will be found in the Finance Accounts for that year, pages 18 to 22, and 102–103.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if it be the case that the manager of an Irish National School, in erecting a residence for a teacher, has to provide a site, to pay for the lease, to keep the house in proper repair when built, and to pay the taxes; and, whether the Act of 1892 or any other Act has extended any relief to managers desirous to provide residences for their teachers, or is it the intention of the Government that such residences should be increased?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Applicants for loans under the Acts of 1875 and 1884 to provide residences for National School teachers, have, as a precedent condition of obtaining the loans, to provide the sites, and to bear the legal expenses, including the cost of the leases, etc. The Commissioners of National Education require, as a condition of their paying in relief of the applicants a moiety of the annual rent-charge on the loan, that the residences shall be kept in suitable repair. The remaining moiety may be charged to the teachers as rent for the residences. This is the only relief afforded to managers
  412
  desirous of providing residences under the Acts of 1875 and 1884, but in the case of grants for residences made directly by the Commissioners the leases are prepared by the Commissioners free of cost. There is no limitation to the number of loans that may be granted each year for teachers' residences. Exclusive of grants for the erection of residences on sites already vested in the Commissioners of National Education or in trustees, the number of applications that have been certified for loans for such residences since 1875 when the loans first become available, is 1171.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction prevails amongst the candidates for the second division of the first class of national school teachers as to the result of the July examinations; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the Commissioners reduced the percentage of marks required for the first division, he will recommend that the same course will be adopted with regard to the second division of the first class?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners were made aware last year that dissatisfaction existed among unsuccessful candidates for promotion to higher grades, including candidates for promotion to the second division of the first class. The Commissioners had the exercises of the candidates concerned revised by their Head Inspectors, and where the results of the revision, in the opinion of the Commissioners, warranted it, the promotion was sanctioned. The second part of the Question must be based on some misapprehension. No reduction has been made in the percentage of marks required for the first division, and, therefore, the alleged ground for reducing the second division does not exist.

  AUXILIARY ARTILLERY.
  SIR EDWARD HILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the disinclination of Officers of the Royal Artillery to accept the position of Adjutant of Auxiliary Artillery; and whether, in view of the great importance to this branch of Her

  413
  Majesty's Service of securing the best possible assistance, he is prepared to take such steps as may tend to render the position more attractive?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State is fully aware of the importance of attracting good officers to these appointments, and captains who serve as Adjutants of Artillery Volunteers are about to be granted an increase of pay of 1s. per day. The number of officers willing to accept these appointments is being carefully watched by the military authorities.
  SIR EDWARD HILLasked if this increase would be extended to lieutenants?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, the position of lieutenants is a little different, and the disparity of pay more largely affects the case of the captains.

  IMPORTATION OF LIVE ANIMALS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Treaties with foreign countries referred to in Parliamentary Paper, "Commercial, No. 3 (1896)," clearly cover the case of the importation of live animals as distinguished from differential fiscal treatment; and, if so, what are the exact words of the favoured-nation clauses in such Treaties, or some of them, and which, applying to the case of such importation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The words of Article V. of the Treaty between Great Britain and the Zollverein of May 30th, 1865, may be quoted as an example:—
  "No prohibition of importation or exportation shall be established by either of the Contracting Parties against the other which shall not at the same time be applicable to all other nationalities."

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY.
  MR. D. KILBRIDEI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Corporate Body of Queen's College, Galway, at meetings held on 25th, 27th, 28th, 29th, and
  414
  30th March 1882, prepared new draft statutes for that College, and recommended, among other changes, the abolition of the College Council; and whether these draft statutes were ever submitted to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, what decision was arrived at with respect to them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member was good enough to communicate with me on this subject by letter; in consequence of which I have made further inquires, and am now informed by the President of Galway College that in March, 1882, certain suggestions were prepared at meetings of the Corporate Body of the College for alterations in the statutes, including a proposal to substitute the Corporate Body for the Council, as the Governing Body of the College. The suggestions were brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant of the day by the late President of Belfast College, after consultation with the Presidents of Galway and Cork Colleges, but it does not appear that any action was taken on them at the time, no doubt in view of the more general Inquiry held in 1884.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked whether, now that the right hon. Gentleman was cognisant of these facts, he intended to take any action in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had not considered that question.

  DOWN COUNTY COURT.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is it the intention of the Government to reappoint Mr. Walker-Craig, Q.C., locum tenens for Mr. Roche, the County Court Judge for Down, having regard to the fact that Mr. Craig contested one of the divisions of that county at the late General Election?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is intended to appoint a locum tenens for the County Court Judge of Down for the coming County Courts; if so, whether it is intended to appoint Mr. J. Walker-Craig, a gentleman belonging to the county, having relatives in it, formerly a Parliamentary candidate for the same county, and invited again to become a candidate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Pakenham Law, Q.C., has been appointed locum tenens for the County Court Judge of Down at the present Trinity Sessions in the county.

  NEEDLES FORT.
  MR. R. B. MARTIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, when the guns will be placed in the Needles (Isle of Wight) Fort; and on what principle of economy this fort has been constructed and been left without armament for nearly two years?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Needles passage is defended by heavy guns, though not of so recent a type as the armament which will be put in the new fort. The money available for the supply of heavy guns has not been sufficient to provide all the armaments required, but the matter is now under consideration.

  EDUCATION FEE GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can now say if he would be willing to allow the Memorandum of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland on the subject of the Education Fee Grant, in reply to the observations reflecting on the Commissioners made by the Secretary to the Treasury, to be published as a Parliamentary Paper?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government are not prepared to consent to the publication as a Parliamentary Paper of the communication to which reference is made in the Question?

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what is estimated as the probable yield of the licences collected for the local authorities in England, under the Local Government Act of 1888, for the financial year 1896–7; what is the difference between this sum and the amount of the grants which were withdrawn by the Act of 1888; and whether he will propose a grant in aid of local taxation for labourers' cottages, or other purposes, in Ireland,
  416
  sufficient, together with the £40,000 appropriated by the Land Purchase Act of 1891, to make 9/80ths of such difference between the amount of the licences and the amount of the grants withdrawn?
  MR. HANBURY: The amount which the licences collected for local authorities in England are expected to yield in 1896–7 is £3,220,000. The amount of grants which were withdrawn from England under the Local Government Act of 1888 was then put at £2,582,000; and the difference between that sum and the estimated yield of licences in 1896–7 is, therefore, £638,000. But the withdrawn grants were annually increasing at the rate of about £50,000 a year. On that assumption the grants would, during the last eight years, have increased by about £400,000, whereas the licences have increased by about £250,000 only. Accordingly, England's net gain by the financial change in 1888 is now barely £240,000. If Ireland now received 9/80ths of the present estimated English gain, she would thus only be credited with about £27,000, instead of £40,000. Moreover, the Pauper Lunatic Grant, which was retained in Ireland and discontinued in England, has increased by £20,000 a year, while in Ireland the licences, which were not transferred in that country, have remained stationary, so that Ireland has been doubly fortunate.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will cause the £40,000 which, under the Land Purchase Act of 1891, will come in course of payment during the present financial year for the purpose of labourers' cottages in Ireland, to be immediately allocated between the various local authorities; and whether, in the case of those Unions where schemes under the Labourers' Acts are actually in progress, he will cause the sums allocated to be paid over without waiting for the passing of the Land Bill of this year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already explained to the hon. and learned Member that under the law as it at present stands any allocation of the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 a year for the purpose of defraying the cost of labourers' cottages could only be applied in respect of cottages to be hereafter provided. This limitation would,

  417
  I think, bear hardly upon those Boards of Guardians which have already put the Labourers Acts into operation and provided cottages; and in order, therefore, to enable these boards to participate in the relief from their financial burdens which the grant was designed to afford, it is proposed in the Land Bill to amend the Act of 1891 by authorising the Government to apply the grant towards defraying any costs heretofore as well as hereafter incurred on this account. The immediate allocation of the grant is, therefore, undesirable; as, if the money were allocated now, the effect would be to deprive the unions in which the Labourers Acts have been put into force of the share to which they would become entitled if Clause 33 of the Land Bill were passed into law.

  MATABELELAND.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will communicate to the House the Report of the Land Commission, which also deals fully with the question of cattle in Matabeleland, referred to on page 23 of the British South Africa Company's Report for 1894–5, and there stated to have been approved by the Secretary of State; and, if he can inform the House whether the 79,500 head of cattle, stated on page 77 of the some Report to have been held by the Natives in trust for the Company, comprise or were distinct from the cattle said to have been taken by the Company from the Matabele near the close of last year.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no objection to present the Report of the Matabeleland Land Commission and the connected correspondence. I have no official information of any cattle having been taken from the Matabele at the end of last year, but I have a report that in the early part of the year they were pleased at having had some Matabele cattle given back to them. I have called for a full report on the administration of the company's cattle regulations, to be made by Sir Richard Martin as soon as peace is restored.
  MR. R. McKENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  418
  State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to reports in the newspapers of recent speeches by Mr. Cecil Rhodes, according to which he is assuming control over military as well as civil affairs in Matabeleland; and if so whether the attitude taken up by Mr. Rhodes is sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will inform the House as to the relative positions and responsibilities in Matabeleland of Sir Frederick Carrington and Sir Richard Martin, as representatives of the Crown, and of Mr. Cecil Rhodes and Earl Grey, as managing director and administrator of the British South Africa Company?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: From official information in my possession, I have no doubt that Mr. Rhodes is not assuming control over civil and military affairs, and I am not shaken in this view by any expressions attributed to him in the brief telegraphic summaries of his speeches. Sir Frederick Carrington is the General Officer in command of all the forces in the field who are combating the Matabele. Sir Richard Martin is at present confining himself to his duties as Deputy Commissioner, under the High Commissioner, representing the Crown in Matabeleland. Earl Grey is the Company's administrator in Matabeleland under the Order in Council of 1894, but is not managing director. Mr. Rhodes has recently been leading a column from Gwelo to Bulawayo. I am not aware whether since his arrival at that place Sir Frederick Carrington has assigned to him any further military duties.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to newspaper reports from Matabeleland, to the effect that, besides the capture of cattle from the natives by the British South Africa Company's forces, large quantities of grain have been seized and destroyed; and whether, considering the present scarcity of food in the country, Her Majesty's Government has approved the policy of destroying food taken from the enemy?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that grain is only destroyed by our forces when it is impossible to carry it away for the consumption of our own people. I have not expressed any views to the local authorities on the matter.

  RHEA FIBRE.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEI beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the recent discovery by Professor Bilderbeck Gomess, of an alleged method of treating rhea fibre on an economical and effective basis; and having regard to the great importance of such a discovery in connection with both the agricultural and manufacturing industries of India and the Home textile manufactures, if he will cause inquiries to be made with the object of developing the production of this fibre?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): My attention has not been called to the process mentioned in the hon. Member's Question; but, if it has a commercial value, I have no doubt that it will receive attention from those who are specially interested in the subject. As at present advised, I see no ground for any official Inquiry.

  PUBLIC CHARGES (INDIA).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that in the Jubbulpoor Division of the Central Provinces the recent re-settlement enhanced the land revenue and other public charges beyond the limitations prescribed by the Government of India, Letter No. 451, of 24th August 1887; whether 60 per cent. is recognised as a reasonable limit of enhancement; and whether the recent enhancements in Jubbulpoor exceed 60 per cent. and leave no margin of profit to the proprietor; whether there is no canal irrigation in the Central Provinces, and that the principal crops have failed for the last three years; and, whether he will move the Government of India to modify the new settlement, and will suspend its operation for the present, having regard to the existing agricultural distress?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is the fact that the recent enhancements of land revenue in some of the districts of the Jubbulpoor Division have exceeded 60 per cent. It is not the fact that no margin of profit is left to the proprietor. Speaking generally, the share of the rental left to the landlord is everywhere
  420
  40 per cent.; in many cases it is 50 per cent. or upwards. There is no canal irrigation in the Central Provinces. In two districts and part of a third district, out of the 18 districts which compose the Central Provinces, there has been serious failure or shortness of crop for three years. Large suspensions and remissions of land revenue have been granted in the two districts of Saugor and Damoli, and partial suspensions elsewhere. I do not propose to move the Government of India to modify the settlement.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether an answer has been received from the Madras Government to his Dispatch of 1893 regarding improvements in the system of dealing with land revenue defaulters; if so, whether a further Dispatch on the subject has been sent to the Madras Government; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the whole correspondence, including the letters of Mr. Alexander Rogers, late Member of Council in Bombay; and (2) whether his attention has been drawn to a tabular statement at page 180 of the current number of the journal India, purporting to set forth, from documents at the India Office, all the material figures as to which he stated that it was necessary to refer to the Government of Madras?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: An answer has been received from the Government of Madras, and a further Dispatch has been sent to them on the subject of land revenue defaulters. There will be no objection to laying on the Table the correspondence when it is concluded. I have not seen the paper to which the hon. Member refers in the second paragraph of his Question.

  INDIAN FRONTIER.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Times of India of 18th April last, that a military force has proceeded from Wana to Haidari, Tach, and Sarwakai, and that military posts are being constructed at these places; and, whether these places are beyond the external frontiers of British India; and, if so, whether under

  421
  Section 55 of the Government of India Act of 1858, the consent of both Houses of Parliament will be obtained for this expenditure?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The places mentioned in the hon. Member's Question are not beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions; the section which he cites, therefore, does not apply to the case.

  SEAMEN'S WAGES AND EFFECTS.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what was the aggregate value, for each of the last five years, of the wages and effects of seamen, forfeited for desertion, and paid into the Exchequer, in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act?
  MR. HANBURY: The returns of fines and forfeitures under the Merchant Shipping Acts are sent to the Home Office by the Justices' Clerks, but I am informed that the entries in the forfeitures column are nil, and that the forfeitures (if any) are lumped with the penalties, and it is impossible for either the Home Office or the Treasury to distinguish the amounts separately. I doubt whether there have been any forfeitures. The Board of Trade, who administer the Merchant Shipping Act, state that a man does not become a deserter until an actual prosecution for desertion has taken place. Masters or owners (as I understand it) have no inducement to prosecute. If no wages are due, there is nothing for them to receive; and if there are wages due, the master or owner is already in possession of them, and retains the whole; whereas, if he prosecuted, he would have to pay to the Exchequer any excess over the expense incurred by the desertion. There is otherwise no power to require them to account for such excess.

  PLYMOUTH BREAKWATER.
  MR. F. B. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it may not be possible that the workmen employed on Plymouth Breakwater should be transported to and from their work in a steam launch, in view of the great discomfort and danger attendant upon a journey of
  422
  one and a-half to two hours in an open boat in all weathers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St George's,): Broadly speaking, the men only work at the Breakwater during the summer. They then live on a hulk moored near the Breakwater and only come ashore on Saturdays as a rule, staying till Monday. They are provided with boats, and ordinarily pull themselves ashore and back; but they often take advantage of a Works Department sailing barge which conveys stone to the breakwater. Funds are provided in this year's Estimate for building a steam barge for the Works Department. When this is built the men will ordinarily use it for going backwards and forwards.

  SCOTLAND (EAST COAST) FTSHERIES.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the first Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Scottish Fishery Board has applied to the Admiralty for a gunboat or cruiser to protect the fishermen on the East Coast of Scotland from the depredations of French luggers; and, whether the Admiralty has complied with this request?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes, Sir, but the Admiralty could not comply with the Board's recent application, as there was at the time no gunboat or cruiser available to inquire into an isolated complaint.
  MR. CROMBIEasked if there was any prospect in the future of such a gunboat being sent?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid it was impossible to cover the whole coast.

  DRINKING FOUNTAINS IN MUSEUMS.
  MR. W. F. B. MASSEY-MAIN-WARING: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the want of drinking fountains which exists within any of the following Museums: South Kensington, British, and Natural History, he will take steps to have a certain number of drinking fountains provided in each of the said Museums?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that there are drinking fountains outside the entrances to the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, but not at South Kensington. With regard to placing fountains within the museums, I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend when the Estimates for next year are under consideration.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works in what year the first plans and elevations were prepared, and by whom, for the completion of the frontage of the South Kensington Museum; how many plans and elevations have since been made, and by whom and when; what is the total sum of money that has been spent on plans and elevations that have never been carried out; and, whether it is a fact that a large sum was paid to the widow of a deceased preparer of plans and elevations; and, if so, what was the amount actually paid, and what has become of the above plans?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I believe that plans were originally designed for the frontage of the South Kensington Museum many years ago by General Scott, a salaried officer of the Department, and his assistants. Sketch plans were subsequently prepared in 1883 by the Principal Surveyor of the Office of Works. In 1891 competitive designs were called for, and those of Mr. Aston Webb selected; and it was in regard to these plans that a special payment of £1,315 was made to Mr. Aston Webb and a sum amounting to 2,500 guineas to the other competitors and to the architect who acted as assesssor. The plans prepared by General Scott, by the Board's Surveyor, and by Mr. Aston Webb are the property of the Office of Works. The model prepared by General Scott is at the South Kensington Museum. No sum was paid to the widow of any architect by the Office of Works.

  MAYBRICK (MRS).
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  424
  Department, whether the specific crime for which Mrs. Maybrick is detained is that of murder, or that of administration, and attempted administration, of arsenic with intent to murder?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Florence Maybrick is detained on a conviction of murder, for which she was sentenced to death. For reasons which the then Home Secretary stated, the capital sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. I have most carefully considered the case, and can see no reason, any more than my immediate predecessor did, for advising a further exercise of the clemency of the Crown.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS (SPECIAL ARMY ORDER).
  MR. HUBERT DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the allowance of £20, referred to in the Special Army Order of the 15th May 1896, will be granted to officers joining the Volunteer force as captains without having previously held any commission?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is proposed to extend the allowance for subalterns joining the Volunteer Force to officers who first join as captains.

  NORTH LONDON VOLUNTEER BRIGADE.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that the claims for travelling allowances to regiments of the North London Volunteer Brigade, who proceeded at Easter to Canterbury, have been questioned, on the ground that these regiments proceeded by the South Eastern Railway, by which the distance is eight and a-half miles further than by the London, Chatham and Dover Railway; and, whether he can give any explanation of the reason which has induced the War Office to take this step, considering that these regiments proceeded by the South Eastern Railway in accordance with orders received from the Major General Commanding the Home District?
  MR. BRODRICK: The regulations for travelling allowance provide that corps must travel by the shortest route. In this case the longer route was selected by the corps after communicating with the General Officer commanding, but we are given to understand that the fares charged by both railways to Canterbury are identical, and therefore no case is made out for the higher charge.

  EDUCATION BILL (SCOTCH EQUIVALENT GRANT).
  MR. JAMES BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can state on what plan there will be allotted to Scotland a grant from the Exchequer which shall secure to that country a sum of money applicable for its benefit equivalent to the contribution which Scotch taxpayers will be required to make to the expenses of education in England under the Education Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government, that Bill not proposing to confer any educational or other benefit upon Scotland; and in what form it is intended to bring before the House such equivalent grant?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said a Bill was being prepared dealing with certain questions connected with Scotch Education. Treasury assistance would be required, and, perhaps, it would be better to defer discussion until the Bill was produced.
  MR. BRYCEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give them some intimation as to when the Bill would be introduced and whether he would receive any representations on the subject.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if the representations were to be made by deputation they would have to be made by some other Member of the Government. He did not think any advantage could be gained by bringing in a new Bill until some progress was made with the Bills already before the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the notice which had reappeared on the Paper to-day of a
  426
  Bill to amend the law relating to agricultural holdings, whether the House was to infer from the appearance of that notice that Her Majesty's Government intended to introduce the Bill and proceed with it during the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that his attention was first called to the notice by the hon. Member's Question. He did not think there was any chance of the Bill being proceeded with.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the Military Manœuvres Bill had been forgotten in the present arrangements of business, or whether it was the intention to postpone it till after the Committee stage of the Education Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I must confess that I have seen indications—the value of which any Member is as well able to judge as I am—that the Bill could not be got through without a large amount of discussion. I greatly regret it, because I believe the Bill to be one of importance, and when I remember that the Under-secretary for War has expressed his intention of accepting any Amendment which the responsible Leaders of the Opposition may think necessary, it seems to me that we cannot be blamed if the Bill receives a large amount of discussion. I do not see any opportunity, I admit, before the Education Bill begins, of finding time for the further progress of the Measure, and, although I greatly regret that, everybody acquainted with the present position of Parliamentary business will feel that the conclusion at which we have arrived is the only one open to us.
  SIR C. DILKEasked whether the Government would consider the possibility of giving any early Friday for Army Estimates, in order that the matters which arise in connection with the military manœuvres might be discussed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I imagine there will be a Friday soon given to the discussion of Army Estimates, but I fail to see how any Debate which may take place on Army Estimates will help the progress of this Bill.
  SIR C. DILKEexplained that it would give an opportunity for considering the proposals the Government intended to make for military manœuvres this year.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Leader of the House would consider the propriety of taking next Wednesday for the Military Manœuvres Bill? [Opposition cheers and laughter.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us what will be the business next week? I understand the Irish Land Bill is to be commenced. Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the whole week will be occupied with Irish business, or, if not, what business will follow Irish business?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question to-morrow, when I can give him a full answer. Of course, the Irish Bill will come on on Monday, and, we may take it, it will occupy two nights. With regard to Wednesday, my hon. Friend will remember that I gave a pledge, when taking Wednesdays, that the first two Wednesdays after Whitsuntide would be given to private Members' Bills.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything regarding the Conciliation Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: All I can say about that Bill is that I had hoped that the Debate that took place on my hon. Friend's Bill would be regarded as sufficient, and that the Government Bill might be taken without discussion. This hope, like some other hopes I had entertained of a similar character, has been disappointed. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The first Order of the Day on Wednesday is the Coal Mines Regulation Bill. Is it the intention of the Government to take the Bill on that day?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir.

  NEW MEMBER MADE AN AFFIRMATION REQUIRED BY LAW.
  John Emmott Barlow, esquire, for the County of Somerset (Frome Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee) further considered.
  Clause 5,—

  SPECIAL ADVANCES BY TREASURY.
  (1.) Where it is certified to the Treasury by the Board of Agriculture that the making of any light railway under this Act would benefit agriculture in any district, or by the Board of Trade that by the making of any such railway a means of communication would be established between a fishing harbour or fishing village and a market, or that such railway is necessary for the development of some definite industry, but that owing to the exceptional circumstances of the district the railway would not be constructed without special assistance from the State, and the Treasury are satisfied that a railway company existing at the time will construct and work the railway if an advance is made by the Treasury under this section, the Treasury may, subject to the limitation of this Act as to the amount to be expended for the purpose of special advances, agree that the railway be aided out of public money by a special advance under this section.
  Provided that:—

  (a) The Treasury shall not make any such special advance unless they are satisfied that landowners, local authorities, and other persons locally interested have by the free grant of land or otherwise given all reasonable assistance and facilities in their power for the construction of the railway; and

  (b) A special advance shall not in any case exceed such portion of the total amount required for the construction of the railway as may be prescribed by rules to be made by the Treasury under this Act; and

  (c) Where the Treasury agree to make any such special advance as a free grant, the Order authorising the railway may make provision as regards any parish that, during a period not exceeding fifteen years to be fixed by the Order, so much of the railway as is in that parish shall not be assessed to any local rate at a higher value than that at which the land occupied by the railway would have been assessed if it had remained in the condition in which it was immediately before it was acquired for the purpose of the railway. The Order may authorise the Board of Trade to extend any such period.

  (2.) A special advance under this section may be a free grant or a loan or partly free grant and partly a loan.
  (3.) Any loan for a special advance under this section shall be made on such conditions and at such rate of interest as the Treasury direct.
  The first Amendment on the Paper stood in the name of Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE (Denbighshire, W.), who proposed in Sub-section (1), after the words "under this section," to insert the words, "or upon any other adequate grounds."
  MR. SPEAKERruled the Amendment out of order, on the ground that the House had, after long discussion, settled certain conditions on which a special advance could be made, and to insert the proposed words would render nugatory a decision already arrived at by the House.
  MR. E. STRACHEY MR. E. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.) moved in Sub-section (A) after the word "railway" to insert the following words:—
  And that the railway company has not imposed any terms or conditions as to rates or otherwise as in the opinion of the Board of Trade are unfair or oppressive to the district.
  His Amendment, he explained, was intended to meet the case of a railway company which had not fairly and adequately dealt with the traders in a district, and the Board of Trade would, he thought, decide the question impartially. He took it, the House would consider that it would not be fair to make a large grant of public money to a railway company which looked solely to the interests of its shareholders, and which had not treated the traders and agriculturists well. If the provision which he proposed were put in the Bill it would act as an encouragement to a railway company to treat traders with fairness and liberality as regards rates, and a deterrent to companies who were inclined not to consider the interests of poor localities. The experience of this country was that in the prosperous districts there was comparatively little trouble as to railway rates. It was in the poor and scattered districts that railways were inclined to charge exorbitant rates.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said he quite sympathised with the object which the hon. Member had in
  430
  view. But he would refer him to Clause 11, Sub-section 10, under which he would see that one of the duties imposed upon the Board of Trade before they assented to an Order was to fix the maximum rates to be charged. Therefore, the object which the hon. Member had in view was already provided for.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid his object was that the Board of Trade should inquire into the past action of the railway company.
  MR. RITCHIEdid not think that would be at all fair. If one of these light railways was required in a locality, all the Board of Trade had to do was to see that it was worked in the interests of the locality.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the point was one of great practical importance, and he was quite satisfied that in many districts it was necessary to impose every possible safeguard. But he believed the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the very development which was the object of his hon. Friend. He heartily sympathised with the reasons which had induced him to move it, but he thought it would defeat the object he had in view.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Board of Trade and the Treasury would have done their duty to a locality when they got the railway made. He would respectfully suggest that that did not at all follow. A district might badly want a railway, and yet it might be made so as to inflict a most deadly blow upon the locality. Everything depended upon the way in which the railway treated a locality. In Ireland, the effect of making a light railway in some districts had been to destroy all the local traffic organisation. His hon. Friend, as he understood, said that when a railway was built in a locality with such serious consequences as that, no grant of public money should be given unless the Board of Trade was satisfied that the railway was going to charge reasonable fares.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that that was not the Amendment.
  MR. LOUGHbegged pardon, and resumed his seat.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid it seemed to him very important to make it quite clear that the Board of Trade was to have distinct authority to regulate not only the rates but all terms. He felt bound to admit that the wording of the Amendment was rather unfortunate, but his experience led him to the conclusion that unless some such words as these were accepted, it would be difficult in many cases for these railways to be built.
  MR. J. BRYCEsaid his hon. Friend proposed, that before giving a company this exceptionable advantage, the Board of Trade was to inquire whether it was imposing terms, or conditions, or rates, which were not fair and reasonable to the district. Section 2 provided that the Board of Trade were to lay down, and make part of the Order, the rates and terms upon which the light railway was to be worked, but his hon. Friend referred to the provisions and present action of the main company. His hon. Friend's view was that the special advance which the Treasury had power to make was not to be made to a railway which had disentitled itself to assistance by having imposed rates and conditions which were of an unsatisfactory character. It would be very little use for the Board of Trade to prescribe low rates and easy conditions under Section 2 if, at the same time, the rates and conditions which the main line of railway applied to the district continued to be unfair. He admitted the question was one of some difficulty, but he thought it would be agreed that if the rates which the company charged upon that part of its main line with which the connection of the light railways was made were unfair at present, it would be of very little advantage to the district if the branch railway had low rates fixed upon it.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid the special object of the Amendment was to deal with that portion of the Bill which contemplated light railways being made by existing railway companies. What they wanted to direct the attention of the House to was the fact that all existing railway companies did not assist the special industries which it was the object of this Bill to develop. They wanted to see that if these immense monopolists came to Parliament
  432
  to obtain the sanction of the State to develop these light railways they should only do so under the strictest regulations and conditions as to the tariff under which the goods in the rural districts were carried. He understood the principle of the Bill was to make a contribution of 25 per cent. by the State where certain conditions were complied with with regard to light railways. What the State must do was to see that they had at least 25 per cent. more control and influence over the making of those railways than they had hitherto possessed. That was the object of the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY MEYSEY-THOMPSON)said hon. Members opposite seemed to have an idea that railway directors were both knaves and fools. [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Members dissented, but he was judging from their utterances in the House. They were accused at one moment of neglecting to make branches which would have been profitable to their shareholders, and at another of seeking to make money at the public expense. The object of the clause was how to induce existing railway companies to make unprofitable branches. If the branches were likely to prove profitable, the railway companies would make them without any Bill at all. But the question was, when a district wanted a railway which under existing conditions and laws was not likely to prove profitable, how were they going to induce a railway company to make it? He could assure hon. Members that there would not be any rush for this bonus on the part of railway companies. The difficulty would be to induce them to make these unprofitable branches at all, and the House ought to set to work to make it possible to bring about this result. If they wanted to hamper or obstruct the objects of the Bill, then the best way they could invent for the purpose was to say that as a preliminary they should have an inquiry into the conduct of a railway company for the last 50 years, and if the Board of Trade found anything not in accordance with their wishes they should have the power of revising the whole of the rates of large railways. That would be a bar to the branch railways being made. He thought the Board of Trade had all the powers they

  433
  could reasonably wish to have given them, and he, therefore, opposed the Amendment, which could serve no good purpose.
  DR. CLARK, whilst not very strongly in favour of the Amendment, did not see what possible harm could be done by its acceptance. In the first place, the Bill laid down conditions as to the owners of land, who must give the land free; as to the rating authorities, who must not rate a new railway any higher than the land was previously rated, and, indeed, as to every class affected by the Bill, and that being so, why should there not also be some condition or limitation imposed with regard to railway companies? If the Board of Trade had the power it was sought to give them, they might bring pressure to bear on a railway company which had acted unfairly and oppressively in a district, and thus bring about a very beneficial change. The words merely gave a permissive power, and there was nothing obligatory in the matter.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERremarked that the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit) had said that this provision would only apply to the railway company that constructed the line. But the language of the Bill was: "If the Treasury are satisfied that a railway company existing at the time will construct and work the railway." The provision, therefore, affected the railway company that worked the line. Replying to a reference made by the hon. Member for Handsworth, he said he had never heard hon. Members on his side call railway directors either knaves or fools, nor did they think they were. The directors were clever men, chosen for their aptitude and business capacity to conduct the affairs of the railway companies. But they properly conducted those affairs in the interests of their shareholders, and the result was they took a slightly biassed view on questions of this sort in favour of their own company as against the people who used their line. It was for that reason it was desired to introduce some such protection as was afforded by this Amendment.
  MR. R. J. PRICEobserved that if in his county they were to look for light railways, they would have
  434
  to look to the existing railway companies both to construct and work them. In Norfolk there were two systems of railway, one of which had treated the agricultural community very fairly—namely, the Great Eastern. The other was a joint line of the Great Northern and Midland, which had not given the same facilities to agriculturists and others as had the Great Eastern. In fact, so far from giving facilities from the points at which they competed with the Great Eastern, they had prevented the Great Eastern giving facilities under some agreement which subsisted between the companies. He did not doubt that the introduction of these words would result in the two companies taking up a different attitude. He felt they had not been quite well treated by the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had replied to something which he thought was the sense of the Amendment, but which was not. It had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen that the right hon. Gentleman had not understood the effect of the Amendment, and that the subsequent clause he had assumed would meet the Amendment, did not really do so. They should now like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some argument as to why the Amendment, in its real sense, could not be accepted by the Government.
  MR. RITCHIEreplied that when the hon. Gentleman explained what the real purport of the Amendment was, he distinctly stated that in his opinion it would be most antagonistic to the interests of a district which required a light railway. If the Board of Trade were to impose conditions on a railway company with regard to the rates for traffic on their main line, the effect would be to prevent this power under the Bill being exercised, and the district obtaining a railway which was much needed.
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGEremarked that as the clause stood at present, no free grant was to be made for the purpose of constructing a light railway in any district, unless, first of all, terms were arrived at with a railway company. Hon. Members on that side, in previous discussions, endeavoured to obtain the insertion of the words "County Council," and to

  435
  induce the Government to make the County Councils and District Councils participate in the free grants, pointing out that unless this were done, the districts would be at the mercy of the railway companies. Such an Amendment, however, was refused, and it now became incumbent upon the Government to make some kind of provision for the protection of those poorer districts against the possible tyranny of the railway companies. In his own county there were two or three large agricultural districts where they had not got any railways at the present moment. When this Bill became law, there would be an attempt to put it into operation, though he was doubtful whether, as it was at present framed, it could be put into operation. But he was positive that, unless the Government accepted some such Amendment as this, such districts as he had indicated would be subjected to unfair terms.
  Question put: "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 183.—(Division List, No. 217.)
  MR. E. STRACHEY MR. E. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.) moved to amend the clause by providing that special advances out of public funds for the construction of light railways should not, in any case, exceed one-half of the total amount required for the construction of the railway as might be prescribed by the rules to be made by the Treasury. When he raised this question in Grand Committee, in identically the same form, he received the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that, speaking as the guardian of the public purse, he himself had no objection to the proposal.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid his right hon. Friend only made an abstract statement, to the effect that perhaps, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he ought not to object to the limitation of the amount.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid that was so. He had no intention of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind, and he thought hon. Members should have in their minds, the probability that this was only the beginning of a very large matter indeed, and that
  436
  in future the House would probably be asked to vote other large sums of money as free loans to railway companies.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he thought he might save time if he said at once that he was willing to accept the words "not exceeding one-half."
  Words suggested by Mr. Ritchie inserted.
  MR. J. CALDWELL MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid) moved to omit Sub-section (c). He said that this sub-section meant the limitation of the local rate in the future so far as light railways were concerned to the amount with which the land was rated before it was acquired for the purposes of the railway. Of course, it might be said that if a railway was constructed through a parish, the parish would benefit so much that it might be content to receive the same rate as it received on the land before the railway was constructed. The same thing might be said of the case of the landowner—the railway passing through his estate benefited it so much that it ought to provide land for it for nothing. It was proposed in the sub-section to compel the parish to abandon its right of rating the railway, but it did not compel the landowner to give his land for nothing. If the principle were adopted at all, it must be in a very much wider sense. When the Government introduced a new principle of this kind into legislation, it was very necessary that the House should consider it very carefully. If the principle had been adopted with regard to all light railways he would not object so much; but it was confined to one particular class only—namely, light railways constructed and worked by an existing railway company. No Imperial grant was to be given when the railway was constructed and worked by a County Council. It was obvious that there might be districts in which it would be impossible to get an existing company to construct a railway, and the County Council or private promoters constructing a railway would not get the benefit of the clause. That was, in his opinion, a most invidious distinction. He objected to this special advantage being given to existing railway companies. The clause seemed to be framed on the idea that railways were assessed on the

  437
  value of their land and buildings. As a matter of fact, railways were rated according to their carrying capacity. They were rated on their earnings. As the clause was introduced by the Government, the period was to be a perpetual one, but now it had been modified to 15 years; therefore they had seen that it was necessary to make some modification as to the period. But even as it stood, 15 years was an unreasonable time to allow for an exemption of this kind. In the meantime there might be a development of coal fields in the neighbourhood, the erection of houses, and, in the course of a few years, the line might become a prosperous one. Then there was the danger of introducing this principle even in the case of light railways, because it was certain that a principle of this kind, applied to any special case, gave a push to the same principle being applied elsewhere. Of all the cases where they gave a privilege in the nature of an exemption like this, a railway company was the very last case which ought to be selected. A branch line would not be. For example, the Mailing railway, about which the House heard something the other night, would not pay the people of the locality to make it, neither would it pay the County Council; but to the railway company a line like this acted as a feeder to their general system not otherwise obtainable. Therefore, the House had to take into consideration the fact that a light railway was being promoted by an existing railway company, the earning capacity of the line, and when once constructed, it would be an important feeder to the main railway system. He also urged that it was unfair to make this Order a compulsory one, that the Board of Trade should be able by an Order, without the consent of the County Council or the rating authorities, to compel local ratepayers to make what was a substantial contribution to the railway. It was a novel principle.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdid not think that it was altogether reasonable to exclude this sub-section, because, in the case of a general railway made for the use of a locality, some indulgence should be extended in the matter of rating. If a railway was successful to the extent of being able to pay a dividend of 4 or 5 per cent., then the sub-section should
  438
  not operate; if it was not a success, then the Board of Trade should have the right to extend its operation for 10 or 15 years, or for any other reasonable period. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that five years should be substituted for 15 years in the sub-section.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that if it met the views of hon. Members opposite, he was willing to agree to the compromise of ten years. Five years was too short a period.
  MR. BROADHURSTthought that there was a general inclination on the part of the House to give some encouragement to railways, but when a railway had succeeded to the extent of being able to pay 3 per cent., he thought that the locality which provided the employment should share in the prosperity. He thought that the hon. Gentleman might accept seven years.
  MR. RITCHIEpointed out that the words in the sub-section were "not exceeding 15 years." It was not obligatory on the part of the Commissioners or the Board of Trade to exempt at all. The object was to get the locality to show some desire to assist the formation of the line. He thought that his proposal ought to be accepted as a fair period.
  MR. BRYCEthought there was a deal of force in what had been said by the Mover of the Amendment. It had also to be remembered, however, that the House was proceeding with this legislation in a kind of eleemosynary spirit towards the localities, and after having made a grant of public money they did not wish the locality to take the opportunity of raising the valuation. On the whole, he thought that the compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was a fair one.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he was quite willing to accept the compromise suggested. He withdrew the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved the omission of ''fifteen'' years, for the purpose of inserting ''ten'' years.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved, in the same clause, an Amendment providing that where any such special advance is made by the Treasury, the local assessment

  439
  shall not be at a higher rate than the value at which the land occupied by the railway would have been assessed if it had remained in the condition in which it was immediately before it was acquired for the purpose of the railway:—
  "but before such provision is made in any Order the local and rating authorities of every such parish shall be notified of the intention to insert such provision, and shall be entitled to be heard by themselves, their counsel, and witnesses in opposition to the same."
  He pointed out that the exemption might be sprung on the local authorities at any time without any confirmation by the Board of Trade. Exemption should not be assented to merely by general assent, but special notice should be given to the rating authority before action was taken. It was a question of abandoning the right of taxation, which otherwise was the legal right of the parish.
  MR. BRYCEsuggested that the words "by themselves, their counsel, and witnesses" should be omitted.
  MR. CALDWELLagreed to omit those words.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment. He objected altogether to the principle of exemptions or partial exemptions from the rates. Hon. Members forgot that when exemptions were made, the burden fell on the other private ratepayers of the locality. Railway companies had already considerable exemptions from rating. There was a precedent against this provision, which had caused considerable grievance and ill-feeling in rating matters; he referred to the provision in the private Act dealing with the Law Courts. The Strand Union had continuously protested against this partial exemption, and yet a similar provision was to be inserted in the present Bill.
  MR. RITCHIEaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved, as a consequential Amendment, to leave out the words, "The Order may authorise the Board of Trade to extend any such period."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to insert the following words at the end of sub-section (c):—
  and the period may be extended by the Board of Trade under the provisions of this Act, after due notice to the local and rating authorities of every such parish, and after an opportunity afforded them to be heard in opposition to said extension.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that he would undertake to provide before a later stage that where the Board of Trade had power to extend the period, notice should be given to the rating authorities and they should be heard before the extension was made.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to add the following sub-section after Sub-section (c):—
  (d) If at any time within ten years after the opening of the railway in respect of which a special advance is made as a free grant, its net receipts produce a return equal to three per cent. on the capital invested in the railway by the company, the said company shall refund to the Treasury the amount so advanced.
  He said that if a railway, for the construction of which the Treasury had made a free grant, came in the course of years to pay a dividend, it was unfair to the general taxpayer that the money advanced on the ground of the impoverishment of the district should not be returned.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that the Government could not accept the Amendment. The dividend might be earned owing to peculiar and temporary circumstances, and it would be hard in such a case to demand the repayment of the advance.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Amendment might be made permissive to the Treasury.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that the Treasury would not like the duty of deciding when the time had arrived for the repayment of the advance.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that the Amendment contemplated the case of a railway, constructed by a free grant, becoming prosperous, and surely such a case should be provided for. It would be exceedingly undesirable that the general taxpayer should make a contribution towards a commercial venture at

  441
  its start, and should not, when that undertaking became profitable, receive any return for his contribution. There would be no power to lower the rates according to the profit-earning capacity of the railway, and the only way for the taxpayer to share in the prosperity of the line would be to have the State contribution returned. The money so returned could then be employed in assisting schemes in other parts of the country. If they were to have the Bill, let them have as much justice and reason in it as possible.
  MR. RITCHIEpointed out that Sub-section (3) provided for special loans being made on such conditions as the Treasury might direct. If that provision were made to apply to free grants also, the object of the Amendment would be fulfilled.
  DR. CLARKthought that the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade was a distinct improvement on the Amendment. There were different methods of dealing with this question in different countries. The Indian Government, when it made advances to railways, claimed one-half of the profits after a dividend of 5 per cent. had been paid. In Belgium the dividend which might be paid was limited, and all profits beyond that had to be spent on the development of the line or on other public purposes. It was desirable to prevent a repetition of the Highland Railway case, where 6 per cent. was being paid on the ordinary capital, while the Treasury got nothing for its contribution towards an extension of that line.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that suggested by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Sub-section (3) to insert the words "free grant or" before the word "loan."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6,—

  LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF ADVANCE AND PROVISION OF MONEY BY NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSIONERS.
  (1.) The total amount advanced by the Treasury under this Act shall not at any one time exceed one million pounds, of which a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand pounds may be expended for the purpose of special advances under this Act.
  (2.) The National Debt Commissioners may, out of any money for the time being in their hands on account of savings banks, lend to the Treasury, and the Treasury may borrow from the National Debt Commissioners such money as may be required for the purpose of advances by the Treasury under this Act, on such terms as to interest, sinking fund, and period of repayment (not exceeding thirty years from the date of the loan) as may be agreed on between the National Debt Commissioners and the Treasury.
  (3.) The sums so lent by the National Debt Commissioners shall be repaid out of money provided by Parliament for the purpose, and if and so far as that money is insufficient shall be charged on, and payable out of, the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof.
  MR. STRACHEY MR. STRACHEY moved to reduce the amount which may be expended for the purpose of special advances from £250,000 to £50,000. It seemed to him that, in making an experiment of this kind, which was so novel to British ideas, it would be well to limit the sum disposable by way of free grant to a very small amount indeed. If, however, the President of the Board of Trade thought the figure he had suggested too small, he should be ready to meet him half-way.
  MR. RITCHIEthought £250,000, the sum mentioned in the Bill, was a reasonable sum, and he should be sorry to see it reduced at all.
  DR. CLARKopposed the Amendment, and indeed he wished to make it more clear that the £250,000 was for grants, and not for loans.
  MR. J. W. LOGANwas strongly opposed to these free grants, because it seemed certain that the prospective benefits under the Bill would go into the pockets of one class—namely, the owners of land in the neighbourhood of these railways; and on that account he wanted to limit the free grants as much as possible.
  Question put, "That the words 'two hundred and' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes. 87.—(Division List, No. 218).
  DR. CLARK DR. CLARK moved to leave out "special advances" and insert "free advances." He said an experiment was about to be tried for the purpose of aiding agriculture and fishing. Of the million, three-quarters was to be lent at the usual rate of £3 2s. 6d., and a quarter of a million was to be used as special advances, which were to be made at any rate of interest less than that named. He thought the three-quarters ought to be lent at lower rates of interest than £3 2s. 6d., and the quarter of a million should be used as free grants.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid the Treasury and the Board of Trade had consulted together, and had come to the conclusion that it would be better that the £250,000 should be lent on easy terms and that it would be a great mistake to give it in grants.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He must express a hope that no part of the money would be given, but that all would be lent.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7,—

  CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BY LIGHT RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
  (1.) Where an application for authorising a light railway under this Act is made to the Light Railway Commissioners, those Commissioners shall, in the first instance, satisfy themselves that all reasonable steps have been taken for consulting the local authorities, including road authorities, through whose areas the railway is intended to pass, and of the owners whose land it is proposed to take, and for giving public notice of the application, and shall also themselves by local inquiry or such other means as they think necessary possess themselves of all such information as they may consider material or useful for determining the expediency of granting the application.
  (2.) The Commissioners shall before deciding on an application give full opportunity for any objections to the application to be laid before them, and shall consider all such objections, whether made formally or informally.
  (3.) If after consideration the Commissioners think that the application should be granted, they shall settle any draft Order submitted to them by the applicants for authorising the railways and see that all such matters (including provisions for the safety of the public and particulars of the land proposed to be taken) are inserted therein, as they think necessary for the proper construction and working of the railway.
  (4.) The Order of the Light Railway Commissioners shall be provisional only, and shall have no effect until confirmed by the Board of Trade in manner provided by this Act.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAWsaid he was anxious that any inquiry to be held should be a "public" inquiry.
  Mr. RITCHIEsaid that any inquiry held under an Act of Parliament was a public inquiry, and to insert the word "public" in this Bill would raise a doubt in other cases in which it was omitted.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid the inquiry appeared from the wording of the clause to be an alternative to such means as the Commission might think necessary. To make it clear that an inquiry must be held he moved to omit "or" and insert "and."
  MR. RITCHIEaccepted the Amendment, which was agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to add after the word "Act"—
  (5) Where an application for a light railway has been refused by the Light Railway Commissioners, the applicants, if the council of any county, borough, or district may appeal against such refusal to the Board of Trade, who may, at any time if they think fit, remit the application or any portion thereof to the said Commissioners for further consideration with or without special instructions.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9—

  CONSIDERATION OF ORDER BY BOARD OF TRADE.
  (1.) The Board of Trade shall consider any Order submitted to them under this Act for confirmation with special reference to—

  (a) the expediency of requiring the proposals to be submitted to Parliament; and

  (b) the safety of the public; and

  (c) any objections lodged with them in accordance with this Act.

  (2.) The Light Railway Commissioners shall, so far as they are able, give to the Board of Trade any information or assistance which may be required for the purpose of considering any Order submitted to them or any objection thereto.
  (3.) If the Board of Trade on such consideration are of opinion that by reason of the magnitude of the proposed undertaking, or of the effect thereof on the undertaking of any railway company existing at the time, or for any other special reason relating to the undertaking, the proposals of the promoters ought to be submitted to Parliament, they shall not confirm the Order.
  (4.) The Board of Trade shall modify the provisions of the Order for insuring the safety of the public in such manner as they consider requisite or expedient.
  (5.) If any objection to the Order is lodged with the Board of Trade and not withdrawn, the Board of Trade shall consider the objection, and if after consideration they decide that the objection should be upheld, the Board shall not confirm the Order, or shall modify the Order so as to remove the objection.
  (6.) The Board of Trade may at any time, if they think fit, remit the Order to the Light Railway Commissioners for farther consideration.
  MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved to insert in Sub-section (5) after the word "objection," the words "and give those by whom it is made an opportunity of being heard."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Board of Trade might find it necessary occasionally to remit a portion of Order only back to the Light Railway Commission. But under the clause as it stood they would be bound to send back the whole of the Order. He, therefore, moved to insert in line 23 after "order," the words "or any portion thereof."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid the Order stood as a whole, and must be omitted as a whole; but the Board of Trade could direct the attention of the Commissioners to the part of it to which they objected.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that under the clause a local inquiry was held by the Light Railway Commissioners, and the matter was sent to the Board of Trade for confirmation. The Board might think it advisable in certain circumstances to hold an independent local inquiry themselves; but they did not have power to do so, and in order to give the Board that power, he moved to add after "consideration," in line 28, the words, "or may themselves hold or institute a local inquiry and hear all parties interested."
  MR. RITCHIEdid not think the proposed words were necessary. There could be no doubt that the Board had already power to hold an inquiry.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESprotested against the doctrine
  446
  that things might be inferred into an Act of Parliament. If they wanted the Board of Trade to have this power of inquiry, let them be given that power expressly under the Act, instead of leaving in a matter of inference.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not object.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10,—

  CONFIRMATION OF ORDER BY BOARD OF TRADE.
  The Board of Trade may confirm the Order with or without modifications as the case may require, and an Order so confirmed shall have effect as if enacted by Parliament, and shall be conclusive evidence that all the requirements of this Act in respect of proceedings required to be taken before the making of the Order have been complied with.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid that under this clause the Board of Trade might confirm an Order, and the Order so confirmed would be as effective as any Act of Parliament. This was giving the Board of Trade a legislative power which he thought no Government Department should possess. He, therefore, moved to insert after the word "confirmed" the words:—
  shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if neither House of Parliament within thirty days passes a Resolution adverse to the said Order it.
  Under the Local Government Act of 1894, powers were given to parish councils for the acquisition of land for public purposes without having to come to Parliament. An Order for the purpose had first to be granted by the County Council; and if such Order was refused by the County Council the parish council could appeal to the Local Government Board; but it was provided that if the Local Government Board decided to issue an Order in such circumstances it could only become effective on being passed through both Houses as a Provisional Order. Again, there was at present before the House awaiting its Second Reading, a Public Health (Scotland) Bill. In the clause dealing with the acquisition of land for the purposes of public health—purposes more important than light railways—the Government had carefully safeguarded the

  447
  interests of owners and occupiers of land. There was also a provision that when the Local Government Board had been approached and had issued an Order for the acquisition of land for public health purposes, if a single person objected, a Provisional Order for the acquisition of land would have to be passed through Parliament. Again, in the Agricultural Rating Bill an Amendment had been inserted on the Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness, providing that any regulation issued by the Local Government Board, not in reference to the acquisition of land but in reference to rating, should lay on the Table of the House ten days before it was made effective. It was because he did not think it was right to give such large powers in regard to the acquisition of land to any Government Department, that he moved his Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid it was a deliberate part of the policy of the Bill that the Parliamentary supervision which had hitherto applied to the acquisition of land should in the case of light railways be removed, subject to certain safeguards and restrictions and investigation before two tribunals—the Light Railway Commissioners and the Board of Trade—the object in view being to render the acquisition of land more easy and less expensive than it had been before. His hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking that there was no precedent for this course. It was true that under the Original Allotments Act a Provisional Order was necessary where land had to be acquired; but under the Amending Act, the Provisional Order was no longer necessary, nor was any appeal to Parliament necessary. He believed that the safeguards which were set up in the Bill in regard to the acquisition of land for the purposes of light railways were ample and sufficient. He desired that the operation of the Act should be swift, but at the same time he should not have proposed the procedure laid down in the Bill, if he did not believe that under it the interests of all parties concerned would be fully protected. He hoped that in these circumstances the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that one of the chief objects of this Bill was to place a limit upon the expense and delay
  448
  of the present mode of procedure. It would entirely neutralise the advantage sought to be obtained by this Measure if the action of the Board of Trade in this matter were to be upset by a vote of that House, given without having adequate information before them. He had heard the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade with much satisfaction, and he trusted that the Government would strongly resist this Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was evident that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had more confidence in the Board of Trade than he had in Parliament, but for his own part he had more confidence in Parliament than he had in the Board of Trade. In his view, it would be most dangerous to give large uncontrolled powers of this description to any Department. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Gentleman below the gangway both suggested that the Amendment would give rise to great expense and delay. His view, however, was that it would not add a single farthing to the expense, or occasion a day's delay to the procedure. The proposal of the Government was to treat these Orders like a cucumber, that after they had been carefully cut up, salted, and had had pepper, oil, and vinegar added to them, the Board of Trade might throw them out of the window. The Board of Trade might turn the Orders inside out or upside down, and then, having done that, they might forsooth confirm them. The fact was that the Board of Trade already possessed too many of these powers, and they ought to be subject to the control of that House in the exercise of them.
  DR. CLARKsaid that he must appeal to the members of the Conservative Party not to support their Leaders on this occasion. Where Parliament had devoted its powers to make Orders of this kind to any Commission or Department, it had hitherto always provided that those Orders should not have the force of law until they had lain upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for a certain period. In the case of the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, the Government had proposed, for the first time, that the control of that House over Orders made by the Board of Trade

  449
  under its provisions should be done away with, and that the sale powers with regard to such Orders should be vested in that Board. That proposal was strongly opposed, and the Government were compelled to accept the principle that those regulations should not become law until they had lain upon the Tables of both Houses for 10 days. He could not see that there was the slightest foundation for the suggestion that the Amendment would increase the cost of the procedure. Now, for the second time this Session, a Conservative Government were proposing to take away the control of the House over these matters and to give the sole control over them to a Department. Unless the Amendment were adopted, the only control that hon. Members would have over these matters would be by moving once a year the reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, and the opportunity for doing so might not come until after the mischief had been done. He hoped and trusted that there were still some Conservatives in existence, and that they would bring pressure to bear upon the Government to induce them to accept this Amendment.
  MR. E. W. BYRNEsaid that this Bill proposed to give large powers to a Government Department, and it was of great importance that that House should keep control over the exercise of those powers by the Department in question, and that every Order which they made should lie upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for a certain period before they should come into force. The adoption of such a proposal would involve neither expense nor delay. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would see his way to accept the Amendment.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANhoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment. It must be remembered that Parliament did not sit all the year round, and therefore the regulations made during the Recess could not be enforced until the re-assembly of Parliament. He certainly did not expect to hear from the hon. Member for Caithness a proposal that the House of Lords should have its
  450
  veto power increased. The Motion might be moved in the House of Lords, and if carried there would absolutely upset any provision for the construction of a light railway sanctioned by the Board of Trade, and they knew that in the House of Lords there was always a Party majority one way. There were strong restrictions placed on the granting of these Orders, and he did not think there was the least fear of the interests of the local landowners being injuriously affected.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYthought his right hon. Friend might without much loss of dignity give way in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] The burden of an ill-considered light railway scheme, made without due consideration, would be felt by the locality for a very long time. The Board of Trade was an executive and could not pretend to be a judicial Department.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that if he felt that there was any necessity for the safeguard which his hon. Friends behind him desired, he should not venture to appeal to them to give way, but in his opinion it would be entirely illusory, and the Amendment, if carried, would have a damaging effect. He must for once differ from his hon. and learned Friend as to the action of the Board of Trade not being judicial, and he was confident that their duties would be regarded as judicial. To consider such a case as that of a landowner who was not allowed enough compensation, could there be any tribunal worse than the House of Commons after 12 o'clock? He would say when there was a Party majority of Conservatives in the House. [Opposition laughter.] No one could deny that it was not a satisfactory way of dealing with such questions by discussions after 12 o' clock, when the House would not have the evidence before it. On such matters as railway rates and the terms on which the money was to be advanced, the protection which it was proposed to give by the Amendment would not only be illusory, but would give to the majority for the time being the power of rejecting a scheme which a locality might be most anxious to have. An Order could not be laid before the Houses of Parliament

  451
  from the prorogation in August until the sitting of the House in the following February. But he did not wish to base his opposition on any minor ground, and he thought his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill had exercised a wise moderation when he said that he could not allow the proposals of the Bill to be impeded by the course of action which this Amendment would involve. This proposal would not take the place of an Inquiry by Provisional Order or by private Act of Parliament, and he hoped the House would not adopt it.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought the right hon. Gentleman had gone farther than the Amendment, for his remarks seemed to be directed against the mode of dealing with private Bill legislation. [Opposition cheers.] The argument that there might be delay in dealing with these schemes when Parliament was not sitting appeared to him, as far as it went, to be an argument in favour of the Amendment. It was very undesirable that schemes of this kind should be passed through while Parliament was not sitting, and could have no control over the money which was to be voted. He thought the Amendment was one of very considerable importance, and he regarded these proposals for granting money for local purposes with some amount of apprehension, as in other countries they had led to very great difficulties in finance. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask that that House, which was the guardian of the public purse, should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion, if it thought fit, on one of these grants or loans. What chance would a landowner have, whichever side was in power, if he came to that House to oppose a light railway scheme on the ground that he did not get sufficient compensation himself? ["Hear, hear!"] The real ground of opposition would be that there was not a sufficiently strong case made out for a particular light railway. It would be very difficult to resist a grant once promised by Government, and this would certainly only be done when there was a strong case. In the interests, therefore, of economy and of the public purse, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid as far as he was concerned, he hoped he had made his meaning perfectly clear. He considered that if this Amendment were accepted by the House it would be an enormous blow to the whole Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It should be clearly understood that he was entirely opposed to the Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid this was not a mere question between locality and locality; it might be a question between landlord and landlord, company and company. It was simply a plan for getting more public money. But there was another point of much more importance. Under the 5th Clause, special grants might be made to certain railway companies for making railways. No doubt the sum was limited; it was only £250,000. There would be considerable competition between locality and locality, and between company and company, and there would be tremendous pressure put on the Board of Trade, the Railway Commission, and even Members of the Government, to favour one against the other. That was not a mere prospective danger. He could point to a case where it had absolutely occurred. It was that of the West Highland Railway. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1891, there was an election in that district, and the agent of the Conservative Party stated "if you put in——"
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the remarks of the hon. Member now had no bearing on the Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that his argument was that where there was a job of that kind, there ought to be an appeal to the House of Commons.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member could not go into matters which had no bearing on the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid then he would ask the House to suppose that in a district in the Highlands or elsewhere a light railway was required to be made. One political Party might say "We will press the Board of Trade to give a special grant to this district." Electioneering capital was made out of it. He was making no suggestion of jobbery against the Board of Trade, but they could prove that the Treasury was amenable to pressure of that kind. To guard against such cases, the House of Commons should be constituted a Court

  453
  of Appeal. Take the case of a district controlled by two powerful railway companies, and a district with a weak company. The latter might need the railway most, but the former, with its representatives in that House, no doubt, would get the grant. They were told that this matter would be gone into as a judicial question, but no one knew better than the Attorney General that the Board of Trade was not trained for that work. If it was the Railway Commission that would be a different matter. He did not see whore the Light Railway Commissioners came in. The only safe course was to come to the House of Commons. As the Amendment proposed to give power to the House of Lords to deal with the granting of public money, he should make an Amendment which would make the clause constitutional. He therefore moved to omit the words "of neither House of Parliament," and insert instead the words "unless the House of Commons."
  MR. COHENhoped his right hon. Friend would adhere to his decision, and would resist this Amendment, which, he thought, would be more objectionable, instead of being improved by the alteration suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had listened carefully to the arguments of his hon. Friends behind him, and his hon. Friend the Member for the Walthamstow Division know that he always distrusted—though he did not surrender—his judgment when it differed from his, as he had the greatest respect for his opinion. But really, he thought the misgivings of his hon. Friends arose from a misapprehension of the effect of the Amendment which they were going to support. They advocated this Amendment because, forsooth, the Board of Trade, or, indeed, he thought they said any Government Department was not a judicial tribunal. Perhaps they were right. But that was not the issue involved in this Amendment. Suppose he conceded—and he was far from admitting it, on the contrary, he denied it; ["Hear, hear!"] he believed indeed that the Board of Trade would approach these matters with the impartiality they demanded—and suppose he admitted that the Board of Trade would not view these questions judicially, did his hon.
  454
  Friends believe, would they state in that House that in their opinion, the House of Commons, after 12 o'clock at night without any evidence before it, could, if it wanted, approach and decide these questions more judicially or more impartially than the Board of Trade, with evidence, and counsel representing both sides and all parties, before it, in the more reasonable, and certainly in the more judicial moments of the day. He opposed this Amendment, principally because it would add to, whilst he desired to relieve the burdens which paralyse this House. [Cheers.] He recognised that this was a consideration which would not appeal to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. But even he—perhaps he more than any other Member—must know that the discussions in that House, after midnight, were often heated, were rarely dispassionate, and never judicial. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Caithness said we were taking away from this House the control of the legislative power which was its proper prerogative. He did not think that was an accurate description of the effect of the clause under discussion. In his view this Amendment would give further opportunity to Members to resort to the forms of the House for the purpose of occupying its time, and though he quite recognised that was not a reason which would constitute an objection in the eyes of some hon. Members opposite, it was for that reason that he strongly hoped the Amendment would be rejected by a decisive majority. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BRYCEsaid the Member for the University of London and the Member for Carnarvon argued this Amendment as if it only applied to light railways receiving Treasury aid. If the object of the Amendment was merely to safeguard public money, he should vote for it, and it would have the support of the House; but the Amendment went much further than that. It intended, in the words of the Mover of it, to constitute the House a Court of Appeal from the Light Railways Commissioners and the Board of Trade. Was that House competent to act as a Court of Appeal? They had had some experience. There were a good many cases which came before the House even from public authorities, and they knew that there

  455
  was a very scanty attendance as a rule. Those who were requested by friends to stay did stay, and the decisions were given, not upon the statements of witnesses, not upon advice given, but upon a series of allegations which could not be tested. He thought that those who had watched these proceedings would agree with him that the House was not the proper tribunal to pronounce upon schemes of that kind. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Board of Trade was fit to carry out the work which the Bill put upon it, it was fit to make these Orders. It must not be supposed that the Board of Trade was not a judicial body. Its inspectors had a great deal of judicial experience, and did their work in a judicial way; while a great deal of the other work of the Department was judicial work. The Parliamentary head was constantly in touch with public opinion, and was amenable to the House. He could not imagine any circumstances under which the Parliamentary head would be likely to override private rights in the heedless and dangerous way suggested by the mover of the Amendment. The position of landlords and of localities and the safety of the public would be perfectly well cared for, and he agreed with the President of the Board of Trade the adoption of the Amendment would strike a grave blow at the whole frame of the Bill. He hoped the House would not undertake the very dangerous functions which the hon. Member proposed to give it; and if it did introduce the principle it would restrict the appeal to cases in which financial aid was given by the Treasury—cases in which, no doubt, the House would have a right of interference.
  MR. T. T. BUCKNILLsaid that if the Board of Trade were simply to confirm, or refuse to confirm, an Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners he did not think he would vote in favour of the Amendment. But, under the 10th Clause, the Board of Trade might confirm an Order with or without modification, as the case might require. They might entirely remodel an Order without laying that Order before Parliament. The Attorney General preferred the Board of Trade between the hours of 10 and 4 to the House of Commons after midnight. He saw no reason for saying
  456
  that the House of Commons was not competent to deal with a question of this sort after midnight.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: What I said was that the Board of Trade, having the evidence before it, and having heard the witnesses, was in a far better position to judge of the merits than the House of Commons which had no materials before it.
  MR. BUCKNILLsaid the Government were making a new departure on a most important matter; and the only reasons they had put forward were, first, a saving of time, and, secondly, that the Board of Trade was the best tribunal to settle these matters. He asserted that the Board of Trade, although, of course, competent to deal with such a matter as this, ought not to have the power given to it, to modify and put into an altogether different shape an Order of the Light Railway Commissioners; it ought to be confined to confirming or rejecting the Orders of the Commissioners.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that several Members on the opposite side, including his right hon. Friend below him, had argued as if all Orders laid on the Table must be discussed. But that was not so. The Amendment was drawn to safeguard the public interest, as represented by the Treasury and by the locality. Four members of any County Council might put the machinery of the Bill into operation; public money might be handed over to a great railway company, and the credit of the locality might be pledged. The Amendment would give the people of a county an opportunity of appealing to the House of Commons if they disagreed with the action of their County Council. There was no intention to cast doubt on the judicial capacity of the Board of Trade, but it was the House of Commons itself that should hold the purse strings and have the last word with the granting of public money. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would take an independent line, and insist upon the House of Commons being in a position to safeguard not in the interests of the taxpayers, but in the interests of the ratepayers in the counties affected by the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid if it was a question between the sanction of Parliament by Provisional Order and the proposal in the Bill a very strong argument might

  457
  be made for the former. In the case of a Provisional Order, the whole question, if there was opposition, came before a Committee, evidence was taken, and the whole matter was investigated and dealt with in the same way as in an ordinary Railway Bill. But when a former Light Railway Bill came before the House it was agreed on both sides that if procedure by Provisional Order were adopted it would cause such expense and such delay as would prevent light railways being built at all. What was the procedure under this Bill? There was, first of all, to be a public Inquiry before the Light Railway Commissioners. Every person must be informed as to how their interests were to be affected, and the Commissioners would be bound to hear all the objections which might be stated. The Commissioners would not represent any official opinion at all, and would not be dependent upon the votes of one Party or another. They would be a perfectly independent body representing the public, and would judge on public grounds of the propositions which might be laid before them. The Order would then come before the Board of Trade, who would be bound to consider again any objections to any of the propositions in the Order, and would, if necessary, hear counsel and evidence upon the matter. His hon. Friend the Member for Epsom objected to the power of the Board of Trade to modify any Order of the Commissioners. How would it be possible for the Board of Trade to act as a Court of Appeal if they had not the power to make modifications? To suppose, as his hon. Friend did, that this power of modification meant reconstruction of the whole framework of the Order, was to make a supposition of the wildest possible character. He was sure that any one who was aware of what the procedure was in matters of this kind would know that no such operation would take place. The Amendment proposed that after the Order had been carefully considered and assented to by these two tribunals, it should be placed on the Table of the House and decided, perhaps by a Party vote, one way or the other, after 12 o'clock at night, without hearing any evidence whatever and without the power of modification. He could conceive no tribunal less capable of performing such a judicial office as this. It
  458
  was said that there was no question of expense involved in this proposal. He maintained that there was a very large question of expense involved. What might be the result of this procedure? It might mean the destruction of the whole of the work which had been carried on for months, and the waste of the enormous expense which had been incurred in surveying, investigating, and getting up the case. He believed that if any company or body of persons knew they were liable to have the whole of their labour destroyed and their expenditure wasted by a Party vote in the House of Commons, it would materially affect the number of Orders applied for, and would, in his opinion, greatly and almost fatally damage the operations of the Act. ["Hear, hear!"] These were the reasons which prompted him to decline to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and he hoped the House would agree to the Bill as it stood.
  MR. BUCKNILLasked if it was not a fact that as the Bill was drawn at present the Board of Trade were excluded from hearing viva voce evidence on the objections lodged?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he had an Amendment down on the Paper on Clause 9, page 6, line 23, to insert after the word "objection" the words "and give those by whom it is made an opportunity of being heard."
  MR. SOUTTARsaid he felt that if this Amendment were carried the President of the Board of Trade might just as well drop the Bill altogether. The greatest part of the value of the Bill was that the matter was taken out of the hands of Parliament. It was the Parliamentary trouble and complication and expense that made it so hard to get a railway passed nowadays. This Measure had got rid of that Parliamentary complication and expense so far as light railways were concerned. It had not got rid of Parliamentary power. Nothing could prevent the House of Commons from passing a Resolution with regard to any light railway, if it was so disposed. The Amendment invited every railway company to lay its scheme upon the Table, in order that it might be considered by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Some hon. Members probably thought that would not very often be done. He believed it

  459
  would be done in the great majority of cases, and he could well conceive that scheme after scheme would be rejected. Before the scheme would be laid on the Table of the House hundreds of pounds would be spent by the promoters, and the President of the Board of Trade very truly said that they would not get promoters to run that risk if they had to lay the matter again in the Parliamentary cauldron, and stand the chance of a Party vote. He felt the President of the Board of Trade was absolutely right in the position he had taken up, and he would gladly support him.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the President of the Board of Trade had admitted that a scheme might be materially altered by his Department, and that for all practical purposes the Board of Trade might assent to a new scheme; and if the Board of Trade demanded the right to supervise every scheme, surely there should be some authority which should investigate the schemes of which the Board of Trade had finally approved. He believed the House was capable of giving votes which were not Party votes, and of distinguishing the subjects on which it was right and proper to give a Party vote. The difficulty which this Bill aimed at obviating was the expense of the present system of promotion in the House of Commons. The Bill very properly obviated all that expense, and why should they not be satisfied with that reward, instead of carrying it so far as to suspend the judgment of the House of Commons altogether? He thought the Amendment might with great safety be accepted by the Government. It was quite possible that jobbery of all kinds might occur in the administration of the drastic powers which they were giving to the Board of Trade and to the Treasury, and he said that if there was a disposition to facilitate a scheme that involved jobbery of any kind, the House of Commons would be, on the whole, a very safe tribunal to submit the investigation of the matter to. He believed the opinion of this House would be of the greatest value and would exercise a correcting influence on schemes which otherwise might have a prejudicial effect on the districts concerned. He thought, considering the vast scope of the provisions involved in the Measure, the Government ought to accept this
  460
  Amendment. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it would not be necessary to do anything, but he thought it was well this protection should be given.
  COLONEL DENNYsupported the Amendment. He observed that the Board of Trade consisted of a number of permanent salaried gentlemen, and the only responsible man was the President for the time being. He should have every confidence in the present President of the Board of Trade, but cases might arise in which the permanent officials might induce a President to carry out a scheme which would not be for the benefit of the country at large. He was in favour of limiting government by permanent officials, and that was why he should give his support to the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGhad not heard one single substantial argument in favour of the Amendment before the House. It seemed to him that the only case that could be made for the Amendment would be if all these light railways were to be made out of free grants. In that event, of course, Parliament would naturally have to take the matter into consideration. But that was not the case; and he agreed with the views which had been presented by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. It was perfectly obvious that they could not reinstate Parliament again without at once re-opening all the questions of evidence and expenditure, and of testing the whole of these proposals, so that they would re-enact and re-start all the cost and expenditure which the machinery of this Bill was intended to obviate. On the other hand, what were local authorities introduced into the matter for except to guard and protect local interests? If the House cared for the Bill at all they would reject the Amendment by a decisive majority.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK SIR J. LUBBOCK rose to speak, when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that, although the question before the House was the Amendment to the Amendment, he had allowed the Debate to cover both Amendments, because it was somewhat difficult to distinguish between what was specially pertinent to each. The right hon. Gentleman had already spoken upon the main question, and, if he proposed to

  461
  speak again, he must confine himself to the Amendment to the Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I, on the merits, withdraw my Amendment?
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MARK OLDROYDsaid it seemed to him that the Amendment would reader the Bill nugatory, and therefore he should oppose it. The question of Parliamentary control over the public purse was an important one. But here the amount to be dealt with was limited to a certain sum, and there was no danger of financial abuse from the Board of Trade having it committed to their discretion. The adoption of the Amendment would be a serious blow to a Bill which he should very much like to see tried, and, therefore, it was his intention to support the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, whilst admitting the importance of the question raised, thought the Debate had gone on long enough, and, as both sides of the case had been stated, he appealed to the House to come to a decision.
  MR. PARKER SMITHremarked that, as the Government were not prepared to accept the general Amendment, he should like to ask if they would be prepared to accept an Amendment covering those cases only in which special grants were being made?
  MR. M. BIDDULPHconsidered the objections raised by the supporters of the Amendment were wholly illusory, and contended that there was no real danger from putting this matter in the hands of the Board of Trade.
  MR. LOGANsaid, he had a strong objection to light railways being made out of public money, but if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to bringing the Orders before the House in regard to the railways that were to be constructed by the aid of these free grants, it would disarm his opposition. Looking at this Bill, he was bound to rise in his place to say it was his intention to support the Amendment. He did so because he strongly objected to free grants being given out of the public funds of this country for the making of railways without the greatest possible checks being placed upon the
  462
  grants. This Bill was entirely a new departure, and that seemed to him an additional reason why they should not be satisfied with an Order from the Board of Trade sanctioning the making of these railways, but should insist that that Order should be brought for sanction and approval to the House of Commons. He took this action because he believed it was certain the results of the Bill would be detrimental to the best interests of the country. [Cries of "Question!"] That was the question. He had seen hon. Members, who were thus calling out, vote in favour of free grants, because they had admitted to him that among their constituents were a large number of freeholders who would benefit under the Bill. He was astonished at the warmth of the right hon. Gentleman at the idea of bringing forward a Provisional Order to be laid on the Table for the sanction of the House. What did the right hon. Gentleman do when it was a question of supplying the agricultural labourers with a few allotments whereby they might help to eke out a precarious livlihood? Provisional Orders in such cases must be laid on the Table of the House; the labourers might starve in the meantime, but still they must wait until a Provisional Order had passed the House. But now, when it was a case of taxing the poor of this country to find money to make railways in out-of-the-way places where no men of business would think of making them, it was said it was quite good enough that the Order sanctioning the expenditure of the public money should not be laid upon the Table of the House. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. T. R. LEUTYcould have supported the Amendment to the Amendment had it come before the House. But on the question of the Amendment to the Bill he should have to give his support to the Government, for reasons which he would briefly state. It was provided in the Bill that certain minor legislation should be put into operation by a Government Department. Over this Government Department the House of Commons had a certain control. Surely, also, when the grant included in the Bill was exhausted, the House of Commons would have to vote further money in the way proposed by the Bill. But when for the purpose of making the

  463
  control of Parliament more complete in every individual case, it was proposed to give the same control to the House of Lords as to the House of Commons, he was bound to vote against a proposal of that kind. Under the present regime the opportunities that would be presented to them of indulging in the happy task of clipping the wings of the other House would be so few, that he did not wish to waste one when it came in his way.
  Main Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 167.—(Division List, No. 219.)
  Clause 11,—

  PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE MADE BY THE ORDER.
  An Order under this Act may contain provisions consistent with this Act for—

  (a) the incorporation, subject to such exceptions and variations as may be mentioned in the Order, of all or any of the provisions of the Clauses Acts as denned by this Act; and

  (b) the application, if and so far as may be considered necessary, of any of the enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act (being enactments imposing obligations on railway companies with respect to the safety of the public and other matters); and

  (c) giving the necessary powers for constructing and working the railway, including power to make agreements with railway and other companies for the purpose; and

  (d) giving any railway company any power required for carrying the Order into effect; and

  (e) the constitution as a body corporate of a company for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Order; and

  (f) the representation on the managing body of the railway of any council who advance, or agree to advance, any money for the purpose of the railway; and

  (g) authorising a council to advance or borrow money for the purposes of the railway, and limiting the amount to be so advanced or borrowed, and regulating the terms on which any money is to be so advanced or borrowed; and

  (h) the manner in which the profits are to be divided, where an advance is made by a council to a light railway company as part of the share capital of the company; and

  464

  (i) the proper audit of the accounts of the managing body of the railway where the managing body is not a local authority; and

  (j) fixing the maximum rates and charges for traffic; and

  (k) in the case of a new company, requiring the company to make a deposit, and providing for the application of the deposit; and

  (l) empowering any local authority to acquire the railway; and

  (m) any other matters, whether similar to the above or not, which may be considered ancillary to the objects of the Order or expedient for carrying those objects into effect

  MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved, in Sub-section (a), after the word "Act," to insert the following:—
  provided that there shall be no variations of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts except such as appear to the Board of Trade to be required by the special circumstances of the case, and where any such variation is made the Board of Trade shall make a special report to Parliament on the subject;
  MR. BRYCEcontended that these words were unnecessary.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he thought the concluding words of the Amendment were a wise safeguard. The reason for inserting the Amendment also justified the concluding words. Power was taken to incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts with various modifications. It was obvious the different undertakings would require various slight modifications. The scheme of the Bill was to take away jurisdiction from Parliament and to confer it on the Light Railway Commissioners; but no Department or Commission ought to have power to vary the general law. Therefore it was desirable that there should be some safeguard or check in order that Parliament, that the general law, was not contravened as it had been sometimes in private Bill legislation. There was an analogous provision in the Electric Lighting Act.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he was not quite satisfied that the matter was so simple as was explained. On the face of it, it looked as if the Board of Trade was being deprived of the power to relax the procedure under the Lands Clauses Act. He should like to ask in what form a special Report was to be made, and what would

  465
  be the value of it. What they really wished to do was not to make the cost of land greater by diminishing the power of the Board of Trade to cut out what was really unnecessary and undesirable in the procedure of the Lands Clauses Act. This Amendment wore a suspicious aspect when coupled with another on the Paper, and he feared the effect of them was to compel the Board of Trade to give up powers which he supposed they intended to use, and to make the whole machinery of the Lands Clauses Act compulsorily operate in the interests of the landlords.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid if he thought the Amendment would have anything approaching to that effect he would not move it. It would not in the slightest degree hamper the Board of Trade in the exercise of their powers. An hon. Member behind him objected, by an Amendment on the Paper, to the Board of Trade having the powers to vary the Lands Clauses Act at all; but it was quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he shared with the feeling that it was absolutely essential the proceedings should not be cumbersome, and this proviso would not encumber them. The Bill incorporated the Lands Clauses Act with such exceptions and variations as might be deemed to be necessary, and the proviso did not touch the exceptions at all. When the variations involved what was really legislation, then there would have to be a special Report to say what had really taken place.
  DR. CLARKsaid the Amendment had to be taken in connection with that to Clause 13 to enable 10 per cent. compensation to be given for compulsory purchase. Under this clause power was given to the Board of Trade to make a variation temporarily for a temporary purpose, and there was no power to correct any mistake made by the Board of Trade.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment was capable of a mischievous interpretation. To the latter part of it there was no objection; it was desirable there should be a Report to Parliament; but the other part of the Amendment was really mischievous. If it did not limit the powers of the Board of Trade, why should it be introduced at all?
  MR. RITCHIEreplied that it was said the words of the clause would enable the Board of Trade to vary the general law applicable to all cases. They wanted to make it quite clear that each Order was to be taken by itself, and any variation would apply only to the Order in which it was made.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the words of the sub-section did not say that. The Bill as it stood gave the Board of Trade the power the right hon. Gentleman asked for, "the Corporation, subject to such exceptions and variation as may be mentioned in the Order."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid the word "variation" was qualified by the word "exceptions."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was exactly what he thought mischievous, because the whole Bill applied to special and exceptional circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman might not always have the interpretation of this Measure; and the Amendment was capable of an interpretation which would render it impossible to introduce any variations at all.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, so as to make it read:—
  provided, where any such variation is made, the Board of Trade shall make a special Report to Parliament on the subject;
  MR. BROADHURST, as a member of the Grand Committee, said that no discussion took place there which would lead hon. Members to expect such an Amendment being submitted like that of the Government. His fear was that the Amendment would tend to make the proceedings under the Bill more costly.
  MR. CHARLES HARRISONsupported the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. RITCHIEproposed that the Amendment should read as follows:—
  provided that there shall be no variations of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, except such as appear to the Board of Trade to be required by the special circumstances of the case, and where any such variation is made the Board of Trade shall make a special Report to Parliament on the subject;
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was ready to accept this Amendment.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed by Mr. Ritchie agreed to.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  MR. CHANNING MR. CHANNING moved, in Sub-section, (c), after the word "purpose," to insert the words:—
  and where a light railway forms a junction with an existing railway any right to any necessary facilities for transhipment and through traffic, and to adjustment of the cost of services and of the rates and charges received therefrom;
  He said that in the Memorandum to the Report of the Committee which sat the year before last, he drew attention to this question, and urged that any independent company forming a light railway should have facilities for these through charges.
  MR. RITCHIEassured the hon. Gentleman that the general railway law would apply to light railways; and as therefore all that he desired could be provided for under the Bill, his Amend-was unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS MR. HERBERT LEWIS moved to insert after "effect," in Sub-section (d), the words:—
  provided that such power shall not be granted unless it is made subject to entire or partial revocation by the Board of Trade;
  He apprehended that an Order once made by the Board would not be revocable. Railway companies were armed at all points; they were well able to take care of their own interests; they asked for more than they were entitled to, and took all that they could get. Under those circumstances it was only right and proper that an Order should be made subject to revocation as circumstances might subsequently appear to warrant.
  MR. RITCHIEasked did the hon. Gentleman really think that there ought to be in the hands of the Board of Trade power to revoke an Order they had made, and thus render the whole thing null and void? He could not accept such an Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLhoped the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for giving a much Letter reason for not accepting the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIE: "Hear, hear!"
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that under Section 22 an Order could be altered or added to by the Board of Trade on the application of any person. That provision rendered the Amendment unnecessary.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. [Laughter].
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: My hon. Friend has destroyed my Amendment, but he has also destroyed the objection of the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter].
  MR. RITCHIE: "Hear, hear!"
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK DR. CLARK moved to insert at the end of Sub-section (j) the words "the time within which the railway must be constructed."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT SIR ALBERT ROLLIT moved to insert in Sub-section (k) after "providing for the," the words "time of making and the."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12—

  APPLICATION OF GENERAL RAILWAY ACTS.
  (1.) The Clauses Acts, as defined by this Act, and the enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, shall not apply to a light railway authorised under this Act except so far as they are incorporated or applied by the Order authorising the railway.
  (2.) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Act and to any special provisions contained in the Order authorising the railway, the general enactments relating to railways (including the Railway Clearing Act, 1850) shall apply to a light railway under this Act in like manner as they apply to any other railway: and for the purposes of those enactments the light railway company shall be deemed a railway company,

  469
  and the order under this Act a special Act, and any provision thereof a special enactment. Provided that a light railway shall not he deemed to be a railway within the meaning of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Victoria, chapter seventy-nine, entitled "An Act to Repeal the Duties payable on Stage Carriages and on Passengers conveyed upon Railways, and certain other Stamp Duties in Great Britain, and to grant other Duties in lieu thereof, and also to amend the Laws relating to the Stamp Duties," and that no duties shall hereafter he levied in respect of passengers conveyed on a light railway constructed under this Act in respect of the conveyance of such passengers upon such railway.
  MR. JACKSON MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.) moved in Sub-section (2), to leave out "including the Railway Clearing Act, 1850." The omission of the words would give effect to an agreement which had been arrived at in the Committee upstairs. The Amendment would have been moved upstairs were it not for a ruling of the Chairman—which he did not at all question—by which the particular point at which the Amendment would have been admissible was passed. The words were unnecessary. The effect of leaving out the words would be to prevent confusion. Light railways made under the Bill would be placed on precisely the same footing as other railways.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13—

  MODE OF SETTLING PURCHASE MONEY AND COMPENSATION FOR TAKING OF LAND.
  (1.) Where any order under this Act incorporates the Lands Clauses Acts, any matter which under those Acts may be determined by the verdict of a jury, by arbitration, or by two justices, shall for the purposes of the Order be referred to and determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, and the provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to the determination of any such matter in lieu of those of the Lands Clauses Acts relating thereto. Provided that in determining the amount of disputed compensation, the arbitrator shall not make any additional allowance in respect of the purchase being compulsory.
  (2.) The Board of Trade may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make rules fixing a scale of costs to be applicable on any such arbitration, and may, by such rules, limit the cases in which counsel are to be allowed.
  (3.) The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any arbitration under this Section.
  MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved to leave out from "thereto" in line 19 to end of line 21. The provision which he proposed to
  470
  omit, that in determining the amount of compensation, the arbitrators should not add anything to the amount in respect of compulsion was inserted in the clause in the Grand Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman. As this provision involved a considerable departure from practice, the Government considered it necessary to ask the House to decide whether or not it should stand part of the clause. It was well known there was no statutory obligation imposed upon arbitrators to add 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase; but he understood it was the custom of arbitrators generally to add 10 per cent. to the estimated value of land to be purchased compulsorily. He did not know what were the historic reasons which were given for this custom, but he understood that now consideration was given to the fact that when a man was compelled to part with property against his will some allowance was held to be due to him for compulsory severance and also for the difficulty and inconvenience attending reinvestment. For his part he had considerable sympathy with these considerations, and they were much more forcible now than when the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes was first introduced. In the Grand Committee, in support of the Amendment there were cited many cases of excessive compensation, and it was said there were instances in which land had been bought for hundreds one day and sold for thousands the next or at some early period after the purchase. The question raised by these cases was simply one of excessive valuation, and, whether 10 per cent. was added or withheld, it was quite certain that variations in valuation would continue. There might be cases in which an excessive valuation was given for land compulsorily taken; but clearly the 10 per cent. question was independent of the valuation, and the question which did arise was the machinery of arbitration by which the amount of compensation was fixed. The machinery at present was trial by jury, and the Bill proposed to adopt the totally different commercial mode of valuing the land to be taken by submitting the question to an arbitrator. He believed that this would have the effect of doing away with excessive valuations, which in some cases had

  471
  amounted to a scandal. By the appointment of an arbitrator these scandals would be got rid of; but the question of the 10 per cent. one way or the other did not meet the grievance. Whether it was added or not, you were always liable to excessive valuation. The precedents that had been quoted were the Housing of the Working Classes Act and the Allotments Act; but in his opinion there was a vast difference in principle between the cases under those Acts and the cases likely to arise under this Bill. Those two Acts were passed for national purposes; the land that was secured under them was taken for improvements which were needed in the public interest. There might be, as he hoped there would be, many similar cases under this Bill. Many railways would be promoted in the public interest; but there were likely to be a large number of cases of pure speculation. Some one would imagine a railway would pay and would project it; and that was a totally different thing from providing land for allotment or dwellings for the working classes. It was not right or fair to say that a man should be debarred from getting the 10 per cent. because the land was wanted for a railway, because he would be compelled to seek for other investments. But if he had other land which would be improved in value the arbitrator would be bound to take that into consideration. ["Why?"] If the other land he possessed be improved, he was certain the arbitrator would take into account the addition to its value. ["No, no!"] He was so informed. Whether it was so or not, what was to become of the small landowner all whose land was taken away from him? The question was constantly argued as if all the proprietors whose land was to be taken were large landowners. There would be a large number of cases in which a man's whole property in land would be taken; and it would be hard to say that in such cases the 10 per cent., should not be added to the compensation. It was because of these considerations, and having regard to the fact that this Amendment was inserted in the Bill by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Grand Committee, he asked the House to reverse that decision and to allow the arbitrators to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case and to give
  472
  the ordinary additional compensation. He moved the omission of the words from the clause.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTBELLsaid he had a paternal interest in the Amendment inserted in the Grand Committee which was now sought to get rid of. His object in moving it was to prevent an arbitrator from being hampered by an obsolete and somewhat clogging custom. What was there to justify these extraordinary payments? There was no particular percentage laid down by custom, and certainly not by statute. There had been arbitrators who had given as much as 50 or even 100 per cent., but now it had become the custom to give 10 per cent. He contended that if the 10 per cent. was to be obtainable under this Bill landowners would be encouraged and advised by their lawyers and agents to assume an attitude of hostility and hold out as long as possible in the hope of obtaining the utmost they could, when otherwise they might be willing to part with their land on reasonable terms; and that the making of these railways was as much a national public object as the housing of the working classes and the obtaining of allotments. But he would ask the House whether the Bill had not been brought in for a great national purpose. If not, why had the Measure been introduced at all? The right hon. Gentleman had further said that unless the Amendment were accepted a large number of these railways would be made for the purposes of commercial speculation, and that that House had no right to spend public money in order to facilitate commercial speculation. He differed altogether from the right hon. Gentleman upon the point, because he thought that the Bill was intended to benefit the farmers and not to encourage railway companies to make these light railways for their own profit. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the arbitrators ought to be bound to take into consideration the value of the property to the person who was forced to give it up, and the injury that he would sustain by the severance of his land. He thought that the small landowners need have no fear that they would suffer under the administration of this Bill, because they were amply protected by the provision of the

  473
  Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, under which the damage to the remainder of the land was to be taken into account in estimating the value of the land actually taken. There was no ground, therefore, for the suggestion that land would be taken under the provisions of this Bill without the landowner receiving full compensation. He thought that he was justified in referring to opinions which ought to carry considerable weight with hon. Members opposite, seeing that they were those of the right hon. Gentleman who was now the Secretary for the Colonies. When the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes sat in 1885, it was presided over by H. R. H. the Prince of Wales, and in the course of the examination of the right hon. Gentleman, H.R.H., in connection with the subject of the payment of the extra 10 per cent. in respect of compulsory purchase, asked him this question:—
  "But I understand your suggestion to go further than that, and that you say that wherever local authorities wanted property they should have the power of taking it without paying the 10 per cent. for compulsory sale?"
  To which the right hon. Gentleman replied:—
  "Quite so, and I would carry it further, but the principle is already established, and established without opposition."
  A few weeks after that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking at Ipswich, said:
  "I would give the local authorities the power of acquiring any land which it may be necessary for them to take to carry out the objects of this proposal or for any other public purposes."
  He occupied a somewhat peculiar position in having to defend this Bill against its promoters. His idea of the Measure was that it was not brought forward in the interests of the railway companies, but in those of the public, and he thought that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman applied with equal force to land to be taken under this Bill. Fair value was that which a willing purchaser would give to a willing seller in the open market. The arbitrators in ascertaining the value of the land taken ought not to be hampered by any ancient custom which required an additional 10 per cent. to be
  474
  given for compulsory sale. The words now sought to be omitted by the Government were inserted by their own Committee after full discussion. If the Amendment were accepted it would give encouragement to bad landlords to resist their land being taken for the purposes of these lines, and therefore he hoped that hon. Members would refuse to adopt it.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that the right hon. Gentleman in proposing this Amendment had treated it as though it merely involved the question of the payment of the extra 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase, but in his opinion it involved a much greater principle, which would become of immense importance in future legislation of this class. He could not help thinking that, although it was legitimate, it was a somewhat strong course for a Government which had had a part in the formation of the Committee to seek to reverse its determination after the full and adequate discussion the subject had received. Parliament had, and he thought rightly, wished that those who had their property taken from them should have full and adequate compensation, but the result had been in practice, that many public undertakings had been very greatly over capitalised, and the railway system had been handicapped to the extent of 30 or 40, or even 50 per cent., and our traders were thus placed under great comparative disadvantages by excessive railway rates. It might be said that 10 per cent. was not a very material item, but it might be the last straw, and he thought that to give 10 per cent., after full compensation, merely for compulsory purchase, was materially to add to the cost of an undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman was under a great misapprehension when he stated to the House that the improvement of the adjoining property of the compensated landlord was taken into account; nothing of the sort could be done under the Lands Clauses Act. The evolution of this matter was very singular. The hon. Member opposite did not put it sufficiently high when he said that originally 100 per cent. was given for compulsory purchase; there had been cases where it had been as high as 150 per cent. The Lords Committee of 1845 was of opinion that as high a

  475
  percentage as 50 ought to be given for compulsory purchase, and yet, in the Lands Clauses Act of the same year there was no provision at all for that principle, so that Parliament advisedly did not sanction such a suggestion. The reason given by the Lords' Committee of that date was that speculators should be called upon to pay largely for the rights which they acquired over the property of others. He hoped all classes would participate in the benefits of the Bill, which was not of a speculative character. It was a Measure of great public value, which had been shown in many countries to be of great benefit to agriculture and to trade, and it was for that reason that he supported it. The fact that aid was to be given from the public purse showed that it was a Bill of public value. It could not be said, therefore, to come under the class of objections referred to by the Committee of 1845, and if the Bill was not a vehicle for speculation, those objections could not, therefore apply. They had two reasons for retaining this principle in the Bill, first, because the principle of the Bill was, he believed, in the abstract, right, and secondly, because, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee he had referred to, Parliament omitted from the Lands Clauses Act any statutory sanction of it. He desired to give full compensation, but he did not desire, at the public expense, to give anything more, and no custom ought to validate such a measure.
  MR. BROADHURSTcould not help joining in the complaint made as to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in seeking to reverse the decision of a Grand Committee. This was the first occasion which he remembered on which a Minister had so acted. Unfortunately, he himself had been engaged on a public matter of great importance at the time, or, as a Member of the Grand Committee, he should have joined his hon. Friend opposite, in rendering it unnecessary for the Chairman to give his casting vote. The object of the Bill was to improve agricultural and rural industries, but the landlords would be the first almost to reap a benefit from it, and they would undoubtedly be paid a very liberal price for the land taken. Consequently, the House ought to withhold its sanction from increasing the cost by
  476
  this additional 10 per cent. They desired these light railways to be cheap railways. Was it likely, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, that it was possible tint any railway scheme would take away the whole of the land of any owner? The probabilities were all in the opposite direction. The owners of the land adjacent would have enormous advantages for the working of the light railway if the railway was successful, which was an additional reason why they should not give them 10 per cent. in addition to the ordinary price for their land which was taken. Railways in the past had been a millstone put round their necks in consequence of the extortionate prices given. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should think it consistent with his duty as Minister to take this retrograde step that he was taking. He was striking a blow with his own hand, and the father was going to slaughter the children of his imagination. [A laugh.] He, above all people in the world, should avoid this, and therefore he should resist the proposed change.
  MR. HARRISONsaid one of the most material motives on which the Bill was based was to be found in Clause 12, which proposed, in the case of purchases of land, to except from the Act that customary allowance which attached when applying the statutory provisions of the Lands Clauses Act. The proviso now sought by the Amendment to be removed from the Bill, had for its object to prevent the additional payment of from 10 per cent., 50 per cent., and 100 per cent. being awarded to the landowner, which by mere custom is now given as an addition to the value and which is now by the words of the statute awarded under the Lands Clauses Act. The words limit the compensation to the value of the land. The addition of this 10 per cent. to 100 per cent. rested on no provision in the statute, but only on the mere allegations and evidence of surveyors and experts. It is an accretion to the value to be awarded as compensation under the Act. That fact was fully established in the Inquiry on Betterment instituted by the other House, over which the present Lord Chancellor presided. As each new public and national want had arisen the old Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was not always applied or necessarily

  477
  incorporated in every scheme. It was a code drawn up 50 years ago to simplify the drafting of private Acts of Parliament, and to avoid the repetition and setting out in extenso of clauses usually inserted by Parliament in private Bills dealing with railways and such like commercial undertakings. In the case of the establishment of the great national and public system of drainage in London, the Lands Clauses Act was not incorporated, but the great system of drainage was carried through miles of freehold in Kent and Essex as easement users, and without making a single penny of compensation for the value of the land—the statutory words in the Act—or of its accompanying 10 per cent. Or 20per cent. for compulsory sale. Again, only two or three years ago capitalists came to that House and proposed to establish electric railways throughout London, stating, by the mouth of most eminent engineers, that their capitalists' scheme could not be carried out if the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act were incorporated. Accordingly that House joined in appointing a Joint Committee with the other House to investigate the schemes and to consider and report, if they should be allowed, on the grounds of their being of public and national importance without making compensation on the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act basis. The Joint Committee reported to the effect that the scheme should be allowed to proceed without applying the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act provisions, or making any compensation at all, or paying either 10 per cent., or any other percentage to the freeholders. [Cries of "Question, question."] The great electric London railways were now being carried out under Acts which gave no compensation to the freeholders.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, has rather deviated from the question involved in the proviso, which relates only to the 10 per cent. which is awarded irrespective of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.
  MR. HARRISONsaid he was endeavouring to show, as each new public want or scheme arose, so equally did the question of whether the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act code should or should not be applied, together with its incidental custom of
  478
  making an additional present of 10 per cent. to 100 per cent. over and beyond the value of the land to the landowner. The proposed light railways were practically no more than tramways, and there was no reason why the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act should apply in the one case any more than in the other. This Bill was put forward as resting upon a great public and national necessity.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment does not relate to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. It is merely a question whether the customary allowance shall be made in the case of light railways.
  MR. HARRISONwas proceeding to argue that the customary allowance carried with it the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, when
  MR. SPEAKERagain interposed, and said: What the hon. Member has said about the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act is not relevant to this Amendment. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. HARRISONconcluded by observing that it was material for the purposes proposed by this Bill that the liability to pay this extra sum for land taken should not be allowed under any circumstances, because its existence might cause the line to be deviated at great expense to avoid having to take properties of landowners who would otherwise have to be given large compensation over and beyond the value of the land.
  MR. BRYCEsaid this was a proposal to get rid of a proviso inserted in the Bill by the Grand Committee. [Mr. RITCHIE: "By the casting vote of the Chairman."] He thought that was an unreasonable slur to cast upon the Chairman's vote. If there was any vote that was of value it was that of the Chairman. He was the one person of whom they could be sure that he had heard the whole of the discussion, and his position of impartiality fitted him to appreciate at their true value the arguments used. Having had charge of the Amendment in Committee, he might say that the Division was not on Party lines, the Amendment being supported by a considerable number of Gentlemen opposite. It was a very unusual course for a Minister to move to disagree with a Grand Committee. He did not deny

  479
  the right; but it was a course only to be justified in very extreme circumstances. If it were often followed it would very much diminish the value and weight of procedure by Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Allotments Bill and the Housing of the Working Classes Bill as the cases in which Parliament had excluded the 10 per cent., and he had endeavoured to distinguish them from this case by saying they were national objects. But light railways were admittedly a national object because the Government had gone further than in the case of the Allotments Bill, and had proposed a grant of public money. Such a grant could only be justified on the ground that this was an object of national importance which it was desirable to encourage. The case really came to this. It had been their belief that light railways would be a benefit to the locality. It had been their hope that landowners would perceive this and would be disposed to give their land upon reasonable terms. ["Hear, hear!"] But the result of continuing the extra 10 per cent. would be that they might have a number of landowners disposed to give their land upon reasonable terms; but one selfish and grasping man might stand out because he knew that if it was taken compulsorily he would get the extra 10 per cent. Therefore a great deal of land which probably would otherwise be taken by agreement upon moderate and reasonable terms would incur the expenses of arbitration and the additional 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase merely because one stiff and selfish man was determined to stand out. They desired to remove from such a landlord the inducement he would have under the existing custom, and that was the reason why the Amendment was adopted by the Grand Committee. It was not a custom which had any Parliamentary sanction. It grew up a long time ago amongst surveyors themselves,
  480
  and it had, unfortunately, become consolidated, so that now it required a declaration of that House in order to prevent surveyors from following it. It was eminently the time for them to put a check upon the proceeding when they were passing a Bill which was for the benefit of agriculturists and which would confessedly benefit the landowners of the district through which the railway passed and for which they were going to vote public money. They desired to give the true value, the whole of the true value, but no more than the true value of the land. Relying upon the precedents of the Housing of the Working Classes Act and of the allotment provisions of the Local Government Act, 1894, he put it to the House that they would not be taking a new or dangerous step, but a step which was in conformity with the recent tendency of their legislation, if they retained the modification which the Grand Committee introduced.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid many hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, had stated it was a common practice to award 10 per cent. for damage and severance. Such a thing had never been done for years—he believed never had been done at all—and he spoke with some little experience of these cases. The compulsory allowance was made simply and solely in respect of the value of the land. He did not think the case was very much improved by the kind of language used by the hon. Member for Leicester. This proviso, be it in the Bill or out of it, had nothing in the world to do with the value, extortionate or otherwise, put upon the land. They had for years past been dealing with these cases under a system under which men of moderation, of integrity, and of credit had acted as arbitrators, and it was absurd to suggest that, during the last 30 years at all events, there had been extortionate or extravagant awards made in respect of the value of the land.

  481
  ["Hear, hear!"] With a full knowledge of his position in this matter, he could say that of the hundreds of cases he had had to conduct both for railway companies and for claimants, he did not remember one award of an arbitrator which could properly be called extravagant or extortionate or justify the language which had been used. It seemed to be assumed, in reference to this 10 per cent., that everybody was a landowner who had a great amount of property, that he was a man who could prevent a railway from being made, and was going to sit down upon his acres and decline to let the railway come unless he received this compulsory allowance. That was not the instance in which this proviso would operate. To a large extent the bulk of the land would be taken, and would require to be taken, for these railways from landowners who would either take shares or would give the land or contribute at a low price the land that was required. The Member for Leicester said it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that these light railways would require to go through property the whole of which would be taken, or that a cabbage garden would require to be taken. If these railways were to be of any use at all they could not end in the open air. They must get to the villages and the towns and into the roads. If they wanted to make a terminus or station, however limited its area might be, they must be in the neighbourhood of a road, and within that area the frontages of small houses and their gardens would be taken. He would undertake to say that for the last quarter or half mile in many of the villages of the eastern counties, where it was most desirable they should be constructed, these railways, if they were to be of use to the public, must run through the back gardens, and cut off portions of the allotments of small owners. Their land would derive no benefit from the railway, and yet they were asked to say that these men should, under no circumstances,
  482
  get this 10 per cent. It would not be equitable or in accordance with those principles of compensation recognised by prudent and moderate men as being just if they were to agree to such a proposition. ["Hear, hear!"] This 10 per cent. did no more than justice, and he could give case after case in his own personal experience where the award had not done anything more than give the bare purchase value of the land, without in any way recouping the owner for the fact that it had been taken compulsorily. ["Hear, hear!"] He was satisfied that in a large number of cases the allowance of 10 per cent. would be just and only just, and therefore he was thankful his right hon. Friend had taken the course of asking the House of Commons to reverse the decision which was arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Grand Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR FRANK LOCKWOODhad listened with the greatest attention, and he hoped with all imaginable respect, to the Attorney General who, no doubt, had very great experience in that class of cases in particular with which those estimable gentlemen, for whom he had such unbounded respect, appeared, on the one side or the other, to give testimony to the value of land. Apparently his hon. and learned Friend, being so well content with the awards that had been made, was willing to give testimonials of the highest description both to those who swore up the land, and those who swore the land down. [Laughter.]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I referred to the arbitrators.
  SIR F. LOCKWOODunderstood the hon. and learned Member to refer to those highly honourable gentlemen who were surveyors.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I said arbitrators distinctly more than once.
  SIR F. LOCKWOODremarked that it did not matter, for, after all, the man

  483
  who was a witness one day was an arbitrator the next. ["Hear, hear!"] During his short experience of cases of that description he had very often seen a gentleman called into the witness-box one day to give evidence before a member of his own profession, and then the week after the position was reversed—the gentleman who was the witness being arbitrator, and the gentleman who was arbitrator witness, whilst his hon. and learned Friend was generally before them. [Laughter.] He did not agree in the least with what his hon. and learned Friend said with regard to these awards. The witnesses who were called on the one side and the other differed in a most remarkable degree. Those who were called on behalf of the claimant exhausted every possible element in estimating the value of the land. There was not a stick, stone, or brick that had not the full valuation put upon it, and then, when everything had been piled up, this 10 per cent. was added for absolutely nothing. ["Hear, hear!"] Although his practice had not led him so much into those exalted spheres in which his hon. and learned Friend had moved—professionally, he meant—[laughter]—his experience of a more limited description had been that these awards were eminently unsatisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] There was an amount of exaggeration on the part of the witnesses which was most strongly to be condemned, and when they had done their best and inflated the price of the land till the bubble had almost burst, this wretched 10 per cent. was added for nothing. It seemed to him to be a remarkably strong order for the House to be asked to reverse the decision of the Grand Committee. Why should they not give due weight to the casting vote of the Chairman of that Committee? If no weight was to be attached to it they had better take it away. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the cabbage garden question, if a man parted with his land as a cabbage garden he was paid for it
  484
  as a cabbage garden, and for his back or front garden, as it happened to be, he got his full price. The 10 per cent. was not in relation to gardens back or front, but was to be applied to agricultural or occupation land. If there was anything in the argument of the Attorney General, the cabbage or back garden proprietor ought to have 20 per cent. The fact was, this was a rule of thumb which had grown up amongst surveyors. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no statutory authority for it. He was glad that the House of Commons had been strong enough before how to put a stop to the practice, and he hoped the House would be strong enough to do so on the present occasion. [Cheers.]
  MR. LOGANsaid that an eminent man, Mr. Samuel Laing, who was for some years a Member of the House, and had been for many years chairman of one of the leading southern railways, had stated on the platform and in print that it was an undoubted fact that the landlords of this country had charged the railway companies,£50,000,000 more than the land was worth for the land they had sold, presumably for the benefit of the community. This, in plain English, meant that they were in receipt of an income of over £2,000,000 a year, which they had derived from the excessive value which they had obtained for their land. There was no analogy between the case of England and continental countries. On the Continent the number of landowners was so great that, allowing them to charge 10 per cent. in addition to the fair value of the land, it did not impose any hardship on the community. In France, there were no fewer than 5,000,000 of proprietors of land, and in Prussia there were 800,000 day labourers who owned and cultivated their own land. The Amendment proposed to give the owners of land 10 per cent. more than the land was fairly worth. The free grants under the Bill were charitable doles from the community. [Cries of"Oh!"] These

  485
  light railways were supposed to be for the benefit of the community. If they were landowners they ought to give the land for nothing; if not, they ought not to expect for it more than its fair market value. If they were paid more, a great injustice would be done to the general community, and particularly to those who lived in large towns. The fair market value they were willing, on the Opposition side of the House, that the landowners should receive; more than that the landlords were not entitled to ask. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was a question of fair market value or artificial value. In 1884 the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said:—
  "I propose that a local authority should have power in every case to take land compulsorily, at its fair value, for any public purpose."
  [Opposition cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman went on to give a definition of fair value:—
  "I think the fair value would be the agricultural value of the land to be taken."
  He asked the right hon. Gentleman how he was going to reconcile his vote tonight with his declarations in 1884, because it would be perfectly monstrous to call upon these poor people to pay an extortionate price to the landlords who had shown them so little consideration. [Opposition cheers.] In 1887, when a similar proposition was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman voted in support of paying a fair price to the landlord as against an artificial value. He also gave evidence before the Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes. In that evidence he said distinctly that a fair market value ought to be paid for cottages. These railways could not be made without subsidies; how could the Secretary for the Colonies vote for the payment of the additional 10 per cent. in these cases? In Section 5 of the Bill it was made a condition that the promoters of a railway should be fairly met by the landowners of the district. The
  486
  majority might act fairly and be content with the fair value of the land; but a minority might hold out and get the additional 10 per cent.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid before the Closure was moved it was well they should endeavour to realise what was the object with which it was proposed they should go back on what had been established as the opinion of the House on several occasions. In 1893, and again in 1894, upon the Scotch Local Government Bill, the House laid down the principle that it would not assent to the giving of this extraordinary compensation in the case of compulsory purchase. What was the reason for the departure which it was proposed to make now? The Bill proposed to take land for public purposes, for purposes which were strictly in the interests of the public in general, as distinguished from anybody in particular. Therefore the public ought not to be called upon to pay extraordinary prices ranging from 10 to 50 per cent. over market value at the dictation of surveyors and expert witnesses. Why was it asked that they should do so? Because in some Bills the word compulsion was used. On that account they were to pay, not for anything lost by the landowner, but simply for the fact that it was a compulsory purchase. They were now asked to reverse a decision which had been come to by the House on two or three occasions. The obvious explanation appeared to be that this Measure, like the Rating Bill and other Bills, was based upon the principle of putting money into the pockets of the landowners.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS MR. HERBERT LEWIS rose, whereupon
  MR. RITCHIEclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 81.—(Division List, No. 220.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:— Ayes, 90; Noes, 201.—(Division List, No. 221.)
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to add at end of the section, the following words:—
  provided that in determining the amount of compensation the arbitrator shall have regard to the extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the proposed light railway.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to insert after "which" in the new sub-section the words "the costs of."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15,—

  EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  (1.) The council of any county, borough, or district may pay any expenses incurred by them and allowed by the Light Railway Commissioners with reference to any application for an order authorising a light railway under this Act, in the case of a county council as general expenses, in the case of a borough council out of the borough fund or rate, and in the case of a district council other than a borough council as general expenses under the Public Health Acts.
  Provided that any such expenses and any expenses payable in like manner under this Act if incurred by a county council may be declared by the Order authorising the railway or, in the event of an unsuccessful application for such an order, by the Light Railway Commissioners, to be exclusively chargeable on certain parishes only in the county, and those expenses shall be levied accordingly as expenses for a special county purpose under the Local Government Act, 1888.
  (2.) Where the council of any county, borough or district are authorised to expend any money by an Order authorising a light railway under this Act, they may raise the money required,—

  (a) if the expenditure is capital expenditure, by borrowing in manner authorised by the Order; and

  (b) if the expenditure is not capital expenditure, as if it was on account of the expenses of an application under this Act.

  (3.) The Board of Trade may from time to time on the application of any council extend, subject to the limitations of this Act, the limit of the amount which the council are authorised by an Order under this Act to borrow, or to advance to a light railway company, and the limit so extended shall be substituted for the limit fixed by the Order.
  (4.) Where an Order under this Act authorises any council to borrow for the purposes of a light railway, suitable provision shall be made in the Order for requiring the replacement of the money borrowed within a fixed period not exceeding sixty years, either by means of a sinking fund or otherwise.
  (5.) Any profits made by a council in respect of a light railway shall be applied in aid of the rate out of which the expenses of the council in respect of the light railway are payable.
  The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. CALDWELL: To move in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act," to insert the words—
  and the amount thereof shall be raised by a rate imposed along with but as a separate rate from the rate imposed.
  MR. LUTTRELLhad put down the following Amendment: After the same word "Act," to insert the words—
  and the same shall be payable one-half by the owner and the other half by the occupier of lands and hereditaments within the said county, borough, or district, as the case may be, and shall be raised by a rate imposed along with, but as a separate rate from, the rate imposed.
  MR. SPEAKERruled both Amendments out of order, on the ground that no proposal to make persons pay a rate for which they were not hitherto liable could be moved on the Report stage of a Bill. Both Amendments would throw the burthen wholly on the ratepayers, whereas the Bill threw it in some cases on the Borough Fund, which was not always replenished solely by rates. The second Amendment also made owners liable where they were not liable before.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: On a point of Order, I desire to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order to move that the occupier should pay the rate as imposed and deduct from his rent part of the amount?
  MR. SPEAKER: No; if the hon. Member will look a little further down

  489
  the Paper he will find two Amendments down to that effect, which I propose to rule out of order. [Laughter.] The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, is out of order as it stands, as it is impossible to make sense of it.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL rose to move to leave out the words "fund or."
  MR. SPEAKER: That, again, I must rule out of order, as it is open to exactly the same objection that I took just now to the hon. Member's former Amendment. The two next Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark and the hon. Member for Tavistock—one of which proposes that the owner shall pay half the rate direct, and the other that it shall be deducted from the rent—are also out of order, for the reason I have already given. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire is also out of order, because it proposes that every occupier shall be entitled to deduct the rate from his rent.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSasked whether he would not be in order in moving the first part of his Amendment, which referred only to the machinery for the collection of the rate?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he had an Amendment that came before that, namely, to leave out from the first "any," in line 19, down to "may," in line 20, and to insert "expenditure incurred by the County Council under this Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL*MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL (Stockton) moved an Amendment to make it compulsory, instead of optional, as provided by the Bill, on the Commissioners to declare the expenses incurred by a County Council with reference to an application for an Order, or any expenses payable, under the Act to be exclusively chargeable on certain parishes only in the county. A District Council might apply and obtain an Order authorising a railway, and the Council would be charged exclusively with the cost of construction. If the County Council were to obtain authorising Orders for the construction of railways,
  490
  and the cost were not charged exclusively to the districts directly benefited, the District Council which undertook to construct its own railway would also pay through the county rate its proportion of the expenses of the railways constructed by the County Council. He contended that unless it was made compulsory on the Commissioners to adopt this course, some District Councils might be very unjustly affected. In a large county, such, for instance, as the county of Durham, it was possible that under the clause as it stood a district which was miles distant from the railway might be charged with some of the expenses. This clause as it stood would stop any progress being made in the construction of light railways, for the reason that if a District Council made an application for powers to construct such a line, the County Council would decline to entertain any other proposal unless the District Council making it undertook to pay all the costs of that construction. In his view, therefore, the Order as to expenses to be made by the Railway Commissioners should be compulsory and not optional.
  Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 68.—(Division List, No. 222.)
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS MR. HERBERT ROBERTS moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), after "1888," to insert the following words:—
  Provided also, that every inc ease of rate levied for the purposes of this Act shall in all precepts for the levy thereof be described as a separate item of rate.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he was unable to accept the Amendment, but he would assent to the principle by moving, at the end of Clause 15, the following new subsection:—
  (6) Where a rate is levied for meeting any expenditure under this Act, the demand note for the rate shall state in a form prescribed by the Local Government Board the proportion of the rate levied for that expenditure.
  MR. ROBERTSsaid he was prepared to accept the Amendment indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved, in Subsection (3) to leave out "Board of Trade," and to insert "Light Railway Commissioners," as the authority whose assent is necessary to any scheme.
  Question, "That the words 'Board of Trade' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  And, it being Midnight, further proceeding on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  EDINBURGH GENERAL REGISTER HOUSE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

  GLASGOW PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)explained that without making any alteration in the law the Bill simply redescribed the wards of Glasgow by means of territorial boundaries.
  Read a Second time, and committed for Monday next.

  TRUCK BILL.
  Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Monday 15th June.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL. [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (PORTS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  CONCILIATION (TRADES DISPUTE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.
  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
  BURGLARY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY [GUARANTEE].
  Resolution reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the interest, at the rate of three per cent. on £260,000 of the capital of the West Highland Railway Company, and to

  493
  pay a sum of money, not exceeding £30,000, to that company; and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be necessary for those purposes."
  MR. STRACHEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury in what respect the Government proposals differed from the previous Bill; whether the Committee of experts had reported upon this matter, and, if so, was he going to lay the Report on the Table of the House; and also, whether the landlords through whose land the railway would pass had given their land free?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)said in reply to the last question, that he did not know, one way or the other, whether the landlords had given any undertaking to that effect. There was no difference in the present Bill as compared with the Bill of the late Government. The only variation was that the deductions from the 50 per cent. of the receipts payable in respect of the guarantee were limited to the Government Duty and certain rates. The report of the experts in 1891, he was informed, had already been presented to the House.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid this proposal was first put forward by the last Conservative Administration. The right hon. Gentleman would not deny that.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do.
  MR. DALZIEL: said that when the matter was last before the House he read an announcement which purported to be a telegram from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself to a Conservative candidate, in which he promised that the Government would bring it forward.
  494
  The right hon. Gentleman would not dispute that fact. It was true the late Government brought forward a Resolution with regard to this matter, but it was stated that they did so not because they were peculiarly in love with it, but because they felt themselves bound by the pledge which had been given by their predecessors. It was, therefore, beside the mark to talk of this Bill as the Bill of the late Government. He was surprised at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the landlords and their land. The landlords were the promoters of this matter, and were bringing pressure to bear on the Government, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the fact of whether they were giving their land free or not. The secret of the opposition to this matter was that, as they contended, the landlords were not showing the public spirit which landlords were asked to show in England, and that they themselves were going to gain a large pecuniary benefit from the very scheme that they were proposing. Then there was the point with regard to representation. Surely, it was not too much to ask, when they were going to pledge the public credit to this enormous extent, that they should have some kind of representation in regard to the money that was to be spent. He would not dispute whether the Report of the experts had been presented to the House or not, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute that that committee of experts reported against the line which they were now proposing to have. It was perfectly clear that there were other considerations in this matter beside that of the line. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if this was allowed to go to-night, he would undertake, when the Bill was brought forward, that they should have an opportunity before 12 o'clock at night to consider the matter in all its bearings.

  495
  In view of the importance of the matter it was not too much to ask.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the hon. Member suggested that the Government were not anxious to hear facts. But the hon. Member's speech was not entirely composed of facts. [Cheers.] He stated that the Bill was promoted by the landowners. As a matter of fact, he himself believed it would be of slight advantage to the landowners. The persons to whom it would be of great and vital advantage were the fishermen of the west coast of Scotland, and by these fishermen, in more than one place, he was informed that the hon. Member was burnt in effigy last autumn. [Laughter.]
  MR. DALZIEL: Immediately after the House rose I was in the vicinity, and had one of the best receptions I ever had in my life.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas afraid the hon. Member had not had much experience of good receptions. However that might be, the hon. Member stated that the late Government were pledged to bring in this Measure on account of the pledge of the previous Conservative Government. That was contrary to the fact. The fact was that the First Lord of the Admiralty, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, made an offer of the precise terms included in this Bill to those connected with the district. That offer was not accepted at the time, and the late Government were perfectly free to deal with the matter as they thought fit. In the exercise of their discretion, having carefully examined the subject, they made the identical proposal to the last Parliament that was being made now. The only change was that in the agreement they concluded with the promoters of the Bill, and which virtually bound them and the present Government to introduce the Bill, certain deductions were allowed from the 50 per cent. receipts from traffic on the railway, which was to go to the Government
  496
  against the guarantee. On inquiry, it appeared to him that the deductions allowed were too large, and after negotiations with the promoters these were cut down, and under the agreement now concluded, no deductions were to be allowed, except for certain rates and taxes. Reasonable opportunity would be given for discussion on the Second Reading. He could not give any promise as to whether it should be before 12 o'clock. If hon. Members opposite would treat the Government reasonably, they would treat them reasonably. He asked the House to confirm the Resolution of the Committee, and allow the Bill to be introduced.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman admitted that they were justified in their opposition.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member is wrong even there. [Laughter.] I may tell him why—because I made an agreement with the promoters last Session by which similar concessions were to be made.
  MR. LOUGHregretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to make an announcement.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: You did not give us an opportunity for the discussion of the Bill.
  MR. LOUGHhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not say that. They were only too anxious the Bill should be discussed. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, hon. Members had to do their duty in the House, whether they were burnt in effigy or not. He wanted to know why this proposal had been kept back so long, and why the arrangements which might be necessary in the circumstances could not be carried out under the Light Railways Bill. The price asked in this Resolution was 3 per cent. interest for 30 years; but he thought that 2 per cent. for 15 or 20 years would be quite enough, and

  497
  would induce the North British Company to make the line. He would be glad to know before the House made up this amount by guarantee under this Bill, whether the Railway Passenger Duty would apply to the line, and whether attention had been directed only to the new line to be constructed, or whether the Government had taken into consideration the advantage that might accrue to the whole system of the North British Railway Company. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had met them reasonably in promising a fair opportunity for the discussion of the Bill, and if the Committee might understand that it would be taken before 12 o'clock at night, the Resolution might be agreed to.
  MR. T. P. WHITTAKERasked whether the landlords were going to provide the land free?
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPEthought it was undesirable in the interests of the House to discuss a Bill in detail on the Motion to introduce it. The proper time was when the Bill was in print.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hanbury.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  "For authorising the Treasury to guarantee the interest on certain capital of the West Highland Railway Company, and pay a sum of money to that Company," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 273.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  CABS (LONDON) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Progress, 2nd June.]
  New clause,—

  WIFE OR HUSBAND MAY GIVE EVIDENCE.
  Page 2, after Clause 4, insert the following clause:—
  Any person charged with any offence in this Act mentioned, and the wife or husband of such person shall be competent, but not compellable to give evidence."—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
  Clause read the First and Second time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to report Progress.
  MR. LOUGHsuggested that some explanation of the new clause should be given.
  MR. GREENEsaid that the clause simply enabled the person accused and his or her wife or husband to give evidence. A similar clause, he believed, was introduced five times last Session, and no objection had been taken to it.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that he specially objected to the new clause, though he had no objection to the Bill. It was introducing a change in the law of evidence for these cases.
  Mr. LOUGHsaid that the clause had better be withdrawn.
  MR. H. LEWISsaid that if the hon. Member refused to withdraw the clause, he had no one but himself to blame for the delayed progress of the Bill.
  Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee to report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Tuesday next.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till to-morrow.
  LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time to-morrow.
  CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday 18th June.
  TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.
  HOUSES IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LIBEL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 2nd July.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) (PUBLIC HEALTH RATING) (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 18th June.
  DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 18th June.
  ACQUISITION OF LAND (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  PRISONERS' EVIDENCE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.