Sitting of 2 March 1896

THE DOVER UNDERCLIEF RECLAMATION (SUSPENDED) BILL.
On the order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
MR. C. E. SCHWANN*MR. C. E. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.) moved, that the Bill be read 2a that day six months. He said the object of the Bill was to obtain powers to build a sea wall or embankment from East Cliff Terrace, Dover, for about three miles towards Ness Point, in St. Margaret's Bay, and also to take a portion of the cliffs in order that residences might be built. He urged that the appearance of the cliffs of Dover, which were historical, would be defaced and altered by the proposed works. He objected to the Bill on two grounds. First, he objected to it on sentimental grounds. The natural beauty of the coast scenery of England was a matter of importance to every Englishman, and he was sure the House would look with a jealous eye on any defacement of coast scenery at Dover, with which our patriotic feelings were so closely associated. Anyone who had visited Richmond in Yorkshire, and had seen how objectionably the beautiful view of moors and glen had been interfered with and spoilt by the erection of gas works, covered with corrugated iron, pitched over, would hesitate to support any measure which would prejudicially affect the coast scenery of England. This House successfully prevented the establishment of railways in the Lake District of Cumberland. If such arguments applied to the Lake District they would apply with even greater force to the coast of Dover of which Shakespeare had written:—
"That cliff whose high and bending head
Looks fearfully in the confined deep."
["Hear, hear!"] Then there were practical objections against the Bill. In those objections the War Office and the Admiralty were concerned, and doubtless those Departments had made the fact known to the promoters of the Bill.

1453
He understood that if the Bill passed it was intended to hold a local inquiry into the matter, but he would suggest that the inquiry should be held before the Second Reading of the Bill, and not after, in order that hon. Members might have the means of understanding the real character of the changes proposed by the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] He begged to move that the Bill be read a Second time that day six months.
MR. G. WYNDHAMsaid, the hon. Member for North Manchester had accurately described the objects of the Bill, the main purposes of which were to build a sea-wall on towards St. Margaret's Bay, and to provide by the contemplated work building plots for the extension of the town of Dover. As to the objection urged by the hon. Member, that by the proposed work the natural beauty of Shakespeare's Cliff would be defaced, he might remark that the cliff called Shakespeare's Cliff' was more than a mile distant from the cliffs which would be affected by the Bill. Then, with regard to the objection that the contemplated improvements were unnecessary in any way as a protection against the further encroachment of the sea, he could confidently assure the House that unless the proposed sea-wall was now built, the Government of the day would in less than five years have to ask Parliament for a grant of money to erect a wall to prevent the Foreland lights falling into the sea. The facts referred to by the hon. Member of the interference with natural scenery in Yorkshire did not apply to the present Bill; it was not a parallel case, and therefore, he would not further refer to the point. The present Bill was a Bill, not of this year, but of last year, and the only reason of the delay for prosecuting this means—and the only means—of expanding Dover was that last summer was spent in drafting clauses to meet the objections of the Board of Trade, the War Department, and other Departments. When the Bill was first introduced it was understood that objections would be raised by the Board of Trade. Every effort was made to meet those objections, and with the view of doing so a proviso of four clauses was drafted last February and inserted in the Bill, and were approved by the Department. Then objections were raised by
1454
the Admiralty, upon which a deputation of the leading men of Dover waited on Lord Spencer. The matter was discussed with his Lordship, and eventually he indicated that if a certain clause was drafted and inserted in the Bill, the Admiralty would waive their objections. That clause was drafted and accepted, and yet, after all, the Bill was blocked by means of the Board of Trade. [Laughter.] He did not mind being made a fool of himself, but he thought it was intolerable that one Cabinet Minister should be made a fool of by another Cabinet Minister in this way. ["Hear, hear!" and Laughter.] The promoters of the Bill, he might add, met with opposition also from the Commons Preservation Society, but their objections were likewise met. So that the promoters of the Bill had really met, by dint of great trouble, all the objections that had been raised against it, and he thought that in those circumstances the House might give the Measure a Second Reading. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill, which was introduced in February of last year, provided for the only means by which Dover could be expanded. With regard to the proposed new road, all that was asked by the Bill was to make good the existing road where it had been washed away. That road was washed away in consequence of the action of the Government in regard to the Admiralty Pier; and if the Government, for their own purposes, washed the road away, they should not prevent the building of a new road now. The Government now in office was, he thought, quite willing that this Bill should proceed, providing there was a local inquiry which should make it clear that it was for the real good of the people, and not for the benefit of private enterprise. Considering that every public body—the Corporation of Dover, the District Councils of the neighbourhood, the Parish Council of St. Margaret's Bay, the Harbour Board, and the Committee of St. Margaret's Convalescent Home—were all in favour of this Bill, he thought he might confidently leave it to the House of Commons.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said, the House would probably desire to know the view the Government took with regard to this proposal. It

1455
had been, he thought, before his predecessor as it had been before him, and after reading all he could upon the subject, and after hearing his hon. Friend on the subject, he had come to the conclusion that, before the Bill proceeded to its Committee stage, it was necessary that the Committee should be fully informed with regard to two points. One was, whether this proposal was in the public interest; and the other was, whether or not the works proposed were of such a nature as would carry out what was proposed, and not be in any shape or form a source of danger. The course the Board of Trade had, he thought, always acted upon, with regard to their rights on the foreshore, had been that if they parted with those rights it ought not to be for the benefit of any private speculator. They were to be convinced that it was in the public interest; and it was only when they were so convinced that they could be consenting parties to the parting with those rights. The inquiry which would have to be undertaken before this Bill went into Committee would have for one of its objects the ascertaining of whether or not this proposal to annex a portion of the foreshore was in the public interest. Then a further inquiry would have to be made, assuming that it was in the public interest that the foreshore should be parted with, as to whether the works to be undertaken were well considered and adequate for the purpose. It would never do for the Crown to part with their rights unless the promoters of the scheme were prepared to show the House of Commons that the works they asked its consent to were sufficient for the purpose, otherwise they might prove a source not of advantage but of danger to the public. After fully considering the matter, he did not feel disposed to object to the Bill being read a Second time on the condition—which he understood his hon. Friend the Member for Dover, on behalf of the promoters, would consent to—that no further progress should be made with it until both inquiries to which he had alluded had been held, and they were in a position to place before the Committee which would have to deal with the Bill the results of those inquiries.
MR. W. ALLANsaid, that, unquestionably, both on practical
1456
grounds and on engineering grounds, there was the broadest necessity for something being done at Dover. The Admiralty Pier jutting into the sea there acted as a groin, and the sea set in a tidal current which was gradually away from the cliff. There was one point in this Bill which must commend it to every hon. Member, and that was that all the inhabitants of Dover were in favour of it. Dover was a very interesting place with a great deal of continental trade, but it had no chance of expansion whatever; and this road in the interest of the inhabitants, was an absolute necessity, apart from its engineering value in protecting the cliff. He would therefore appeal to the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill to withdraw his objection to it, so long as the Board of Trade were perfectly willing to examine the drawings, which they should do. Unquestionably the road must be made of such a staple nature that the sea would not have any effect on the cliffs in the future. He supported the Bill in its entirety.
MR. J. BRYCEsaid, the hon. Member who spoke last seemed to think that the Bill was promoted on grounds of public utility. According to the best information he could gather, it was entirely promoted by a syndicate of private persons who desired to develop a building estate. The advice given to him by the responsible officials at the Board of Trade, who had had great experience in dealing with these questions, was that, according to their judgment the Bill, if carried out in its present form, was far more likely to injure the cliff between Dover and St. Margaret's Bay and to tend to the encroachments of the sea than it would be to prevent it. That was a matter of the most serious possible consequences. The sea had been making encroachments along the coast there, as well as further north, and it had become a matter of the utmost consequence to preserve their coasts from these encroachments, but the information given him was that this Bill would positively tend to increase the wash of the sea on the coast. Under these circumstances he considered, when he was at the Board of Trade a year ago, that it was necessary that an Inquiry should be held before the Bill could go any further. The Board of Trade

1457
were trustees of the foreshore, and they ought not to allow anything to be done which could possibly involve their interests or injure the public. He was glad to hear that the President of the Board of Trade took the same view that an Inquiry was necessary. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman only in one point. He should have thought that this Inquiry ought to precede and not follow the Second Heading. It appeared to him the matter was one of so much importance, affecting so largely the public interest, that the House itself ought to be informed before it passed the Second Reading of the Bill. It was not a question for the Committee only, but when a public interest, such as that of the preservation of their coast at a point which strategically was of exceptional importance, was involved, the House ought riot to commit itself to the principle of the Bill until it had before it the reports which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to obtain. He would suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should modify so far what he had said as to require that the Bill should be postponed until such time as was necessary to obtain the reports of the local Inquiry. He thought it would be unwise for the House to give its sanction to this important Bill without having this information before it.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had already spoken, but perhaps, with the indulgence of the House, he might just say one more word. The information before him was not quite of the same character as that which the right hon. Gentleman opposite said was before him. There was no doubt that the Board of Trade had all along considered that a local Inquiry was necessary both with regard to the foreshore and in regard to the works. In their opinion the course which he had suggested was really the best one. A Committee of the House of Commons was much better adapted for considering the evidence of those who would be sent down to hold the Inquiry than the House as a whole. He would further point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the House would have an opportunity of considering the Bill when it came back for Third Reading, and it would then have before it the view which the Select Committee itself took.
MR. SCHWANNsaid, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Bill read 2a.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (VAUXHALL BRIDGE TRAMWAYS) BILL.
MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) moved:—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom this Bill is referred to take the evidence of the police upon the advisability of constructing tramways over the proponed new bridge, and the probable effect the working of such tramways would have upon the traffic.
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers, and Records."
He said he was not in any way opposed to this Bill, but the position was a somewhat peculiar one. Tramways, when they were once made, could not, without great difficulty, be removed, and it was somewhat of an anomaly that the promoters of a Bill had no power to compel the attendance of the police to give evidence as to the effect these tramways would have. In the scheme for tramways across Westminster Bridge, the promoters endeavoured to get the police to give evidence, but they refused to give evidence against a scheme advocated by a public body. The result was that the scheme went before a Committee of this House and was passed, the Chairman declining to receive any evidence from the police. It then went to the House of Lords. The Lords took the evidence of the police, and the result was that they decided that the tramways ought not to come over that particular bridge. It was to the interest of the ratepayers, at whose expense the Bill was promoted, and also to that of the promoters of the Bill, that the first Committee of this House should have the power, by the Order of this House, to take the evidence of the police. That would save a great deal of time, trouble, and expense to both parties; and he hoped, therefore, the Instruction would be agreed to.
MR. J. W. LOWTHERdid not think there was any technical objection to the Instruction which the hon. Member had moved,

1459
although he doubted very much whether it was necessary. If, in the opinion of the Committee, it was advisable at any time to take the evidence of the police, even though it might not be submitted to them by the promoters or by the petitioners against the Bill, the Committee always had the power to obtain an order of that House to examine any particular individual. He, therefore, should not oppose the first portion of the Motion; but he hoped the hon. Member would not move the second portion, which was really quite superfluous.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the argument of his hon. Friend that the Committee could not take the evidence of the police, because the police refused to give any evidence as against the promoters of the Bill; and it was for that reason he moved the Instruction, so that the Committee might overrule any objection the police might still have by giving power to send for persons, papers, and records. If the right hon. Gentleman took that into account, he would see that the first part of the Instruction was practically useless unless the second part was passed.
MR. SPEAKER: I will put the Instruction as two separate questions.
Question put:—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom this Bill is referred to take the evidence of the police upon the advisability of constructing tramways over the proposed new bridge, and the probable effect the working of such tramways would have on the traffic."
MR. L. R. HOLLANDdesired to say that the County Council and the Westminster Vestry not only had no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for Islington, but they cordially accepted the suggestion there made.
Instruction agreed to.
Question proposed:—
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
MR. BARTLEY, whilst he could see no objection to the acceptance of his proposal, did not desire to oppose the
1460
Government in the matter. Individuals had no power to obtain the police, and could not compel such attendance without the sanction of the Committee, therefore this proposal seemed reasonable.
MR. J. W. LOWTHERobserved that the hon. Gentleman seemed to have misunderstood him. The reason why he objected to this part of the proposal was because the Committee already had the power there indicated. It was unnecessary, very undesirable, and quite contrary to the practice of the House, to give, by special wording, power to a Committee which that Committee already possessed.
Question put:—
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Mr. Bartley.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.
  SHIPPING FEDERATION BILL.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEhad given notice of the following Question: To ask the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, with regard to the Shipping Federation Bill introduced by him, whethe promoters of the Bill will undertake to give a week's notice of the Second Reading. The right hon. Baronet said the undertaking which he suggested had been given, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to put the Question.

  ARMY RECRUITS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the percentage of recruits between the ages of 20 and 25 that pass through hospital; and what is the percentage of recruits admitted sick during their first year of service?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The medical returns do not treat recruits separately from

  1461
  other soldiers. The admissions to hospital vary so greatly in the different foreign commands that any percentage based upon averages would be misleading; but as regards the United Kingdom for the last year for which the returns are made up, 1894, the admissions per cent. of soldiers between 20 and 25 years old was 94·5, and of soldiers in their first year of service 87·6. But these figures include men who were admitted several times over, and we have no returns to show the proportion of men per cent. admitted.

  CARRICKMACROSS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board (1) if he is aware that the Clerk of Carrickmacross Union, on 15th February 1896, informed the Local Government Board for Ireland that seven paupers from England and Scotland had been deported from 1891 to 1895; (2) if he is further aware that Patrick Brady, who was 40 years in Scotland, was deported from Glasgow to Carrickmacross Workhouse in 1892; and Peter M'Enany, who spent 50 years in Scotland, was deported from Kirkcaldy Workhouse to Carrickmacross Workhouse in March 1895; and that these men, after spending the good of their lives in Scotland, are at the present time costing the ratepayers of Carrickmacross Union about £20 per annum; and (4) what steps will he take to relieve the ratepayers of Carrickmacross Union of the support of Brady and M'Enany?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,: I have no reason to doubt the statement in the first paragraph. I have inquired into the two cases specially mentioned. Patrick Brady, after spending 30 years in various places in the south and west of Scotland, became at last chargeable to the city parish of Glasgow in 1892, and, as he desired to be sent home to Ireland, and had no legal settlement in Scotland, his wish was complied with, and his removal took place in September, 1892. Peter M'Enany became chargeable to Abbotshall, in the county of Fife, in December, 1894, and in March, 1895, the local Sheriff, after a careful inquiry, granted warrant for his removal, he
  1462
  having no settlement in Scotland at the time. I am not aware of any means by which the ratepayers can be relieved of their legal responsibility in the matter.
  MR. DALYasked if there was no redress open to the ratepayers in such cases as these? He had proof in his hand of the accuracy of the statement as set forth in the question.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Might I ask the Lord Advocate whether it is not the invariable practice to deport these paupers from Scotland to Ireland whether they desire it or not?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Inquiry is provided for under the Act, and if that inquiry results in its being found that the pauper ought to be removed, he is removed whether he desires it or not. In one of these cases he did desire to be removed.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain what he means by saying whether a pauper ought to be removed or not.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The only question on the Paper is about the case of two particular men. If any general question is to be asked it must be put down on the Paper separately.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it was considered the two men ought to be removed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Statute provides for an inquiry into certain points—first, whether a man is fit to be removed; and secondly, whether he has any legal settlement in Scotland.
  COLONEL WARING: Will the hon. Gentleman say what constitutes a legal settlement?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: That is provided for in the Statute.
  MR. DALYasked if M'Enany was not a householder in Kirkcaldy from 1887 to 1892, and as such was on the list of voters?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I must ask for notice of that question.
  MR. DALY: I shall give it.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (GRESHAM) COMMISSION.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Government will propose

  1463
  legislation in pursuance of the Report of the University of London (Gresham) Commission?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The matter is still under the consideration of the Government.

  HARBOURS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received any recent Report from the Government Engineer as to the progress of the works in connection with the harbours presently being constructed partly under Government subsidy on the north coast of Sutherland; whether there has been very little progress with the harbour works at Talmine, in the Kyle of Tongue; whether he could state the cause of the delay; and whether the Scottish Office are taking steps to have the work expedited?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Several Reports have been received lately by the Scottish Office from the Government Engineer on this subject. Very little progress has been made lately on Talmin Harbour. This is almost entirely due to delay on the part of the contractor. The attention of the Harbour Trustees has been several times called to this, as they alone, by the terms of the contract, can take effective steps to hasten the work.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how much of the grant for the current financial year for Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works, &c.) has been expended up to the present time on piers, harbours, and minor works, and what further expenditure will be incurred up to the end of March; the district in which the respective works are situate, and the character of each such work; the total amount already expended on each work out of the Government subsidy; how much each such work has yet to receive from the said subsidy; and how much from the local authority, or other source to render each such work complete?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: It is impossible to reply to this question within the ordinary limits of an answer. If the
  1464
  hon. Member will send to the Secretary for Scotland a form of the return which he desires, he will be informed how far it will be granted.

  SHEEPSTEALING (SCOTLAND).
  MR. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he proposes to introduce, during the present Session, any special legislation dealing with the evil of sheep stealing, which is alleged to be so prevalent in certain districts in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The subject is receiving the careful consideration of the Government, but no promise of legislation can be made.

  TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES (SCOTLAND).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state in how many instances during last year the Postmaster General demanded guarantees when asked to establish telegraph offices in the Highland counties of Inverness, Argyllshire, Ross-shire, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland; and, whether he will state in how many of these instances telegraph offices were eventually established under guarantee?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): It will take some time to prepare the information desired by the hon. Member, but the Postmaster General has given directions for the particulars to be got out, and they will be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as they are ready.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the statement contained in the last Report of the Postmaster General that 381 additional telegraph offices were opened at post offices in the course of the year, he will state how many of the said telegraph offices were opened during that year in the Highland counties of Inverness, Argyll shire, Ross-shire, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland; whether he will state what sum was placed at the disposal of the Postmaster General for the establishment of telegraph offices

  1465
  during the year above referred to; and, whether he will state how much of that sum was devoted to the establishment of telegraph offices in the Highland counties above mentioned?
  MR. HANBURY: Of the 381 additional telegraph offices opened in the year 1894–5, 16 are in the counties mentioned in the hon. Member's question. The sum of £25,000 was placed at the disposal of the Postmaster General in the year in question for telegraph extensions, and out of this amount the sum of £1,662 was spent in extensions to 12 of the 16 offices. Of the remaining four offices, two were opened at a cost of £200, in connection with the coast communication scheme, and the other two at a cost of £359, out of the Highlands and and Islands of Scotland (Grants in Aid of Public Works and Communications, &c.) Vote.

  BELFAST LOUGH LIGHTS.
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the buoy at present on Briggs Reef, in Belfast Lough, whether, considering that two vessels were lost there within the last two years during fogs, he will inquire whether bell buoys might be placed instead of the buoys now in use; whether there are any bell buoys at present unused in Donaghadee, within a short distance; and, if the wreck of the sunken steamer Emily, the danger of which the managers of the Groomsport lifeboat have frequently called attention to, has yet been removed?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have made inquiry of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Statutory General Lighthouse Authority for Ireland, with regard to the suggestion contained in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, and am informed that the Commissioners are prepared to consider the question of the substitution of a bell buoy for the buoy at present marking Brigg's Reef. They have not, however, at present in their possession any unused bell buoys that would be available for the purpose. I am further informed that the wreck of the steamer Emily has not yet been removed.

  PARCEL POST RATES.
  COLONEL V. MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) whether the attention of the Postmaster General has been directed to the greater advantages enjoyed in France and Germany in the Foreign parcel past rates; (2) whether the following rates are those now current for 11 pounds (five kilogrammes) parcels, viz., England to France, 2s. 2d.; Germany to France, 9½d.; England to Germany, 2s.; France to Germany, 9½d.; England to Austria, 2s. 4d.; France to Austria, Is. 2½d.; Germany to Austria, 6d.; England to Italy, 2s. 6d.; France to Italy, 1s.; Germany to Italy, 1s. 5½d.; (3) whether he is aware that a large and daily increasing portion of the commerce between these countries is carried on by parcel post; (4) whether even heavy goods are divided and sent in 11 pound parcels; and (5) whether he can promise to give to Englishmen the advantages enjoyed by foreigners?
  MR. HANBURY: The figures given by the hon. Member are correct; but he has selected a weight which is most unfavourable to this country for purposes of comparison. Lower weights would show different results. In comparing the charges on parcels between this country and the Continent with the charges on parcels sent from one Continental country to another, the cost of the sea-conveyance must be taken into account, and also the fact that in this country the railway companies are entitled to a fixed sum (10d. on an 11 1b. parcel) for the land conveyance, while in Continental countries the payment for haulage is much less. The answer to the third and fourth Questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. The fifth Question must, I fear, for the reasons given above, be answered in the negative.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the collection and publication of papers and documents preserved in this country, and relating to the first settlement and early history of the Colonies, will come within the scope and

  1467
  functions of the Historical Manuscripts Commission?
  MR. HANBURY: The publication of papers belonging to private persons in this country, and relating to the early history of the British Colonies, is considered to come within the scope of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. For instance, the calendar of the manuscripts of the Duke of Manchester contains documents about Virginia and the Summer Islands, and there is now in the press a volume of some 600 pages dealing with some manuscripts of the Earl of Dartmouth concerning the history of the North American Colonies before the declaration of independence.

  BOMBAY NATIVE INFANTRY.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India (1) whether the 24th Bombay Native Infantry, or other force, has been ordered to proceed to British East Africa to engage in military operations; and (2) whether, as this is an employment of the Indian forces in military operations beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, he intends, at an early date, to submit a Motion to the House, in accordance with the 55th Section of the Government of India Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): My answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. As regards the section of the Act referred to in the second Question, I am advised that its restriction is purely financial—namely, that the revenues of India shall not, without the assent of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operations carried on beyond the frontiers of India by Her Majesty's forces charged upon Indian revenues. I am in communication with the Foreign Office and Treasury as to how the expenditure in connection with this regiment is to be met, and, until this question is settled, I cannot say if it will be necessary under the section to submit any Motion to the House.
  SIR C. DILKE: Can the noble Lord say to whom this regiment is lent, and, if to the Zanzibar Government, can he say whether he has made any stipulation on behalf of India with regard to the
  1468
  command of the force of which it forms part, in fact, under whose direction it is to be?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: It will be under the command of its colonel, who will supersede the officers at present in charge.
  MR. BUCHANAN: If the Secretary of State determines that any part of the expense shall be borne by India, will a Resolution be submitted to the House?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I will take care that the section is not infringed.

  COUNTY CESS (IRELAND.)
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there has been on the whole continuous increase in the amount of Grand Jury Cess levied in Ireland although the population of the country has decreased 33 per cent. during the last 40 years; whether it is the duty of any Government Department to supervise the expenditure or audit the accounts of the Grand Juries; whether there is any power of surcharge; and whether any detailed summary is published annually of the amounts levied and the expenditure of these bodies in some such form as the accounts of the Poor Law Guardians are issued by the Local Government Board?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: There has been considerable fluctuation in the amount of Grand Jury Cess levied in Ireland in past years. The average cess levied in the period of 1873 to 1894 was £1,223,305, the highest levy being in 1876, when it amounted to £1,325,053. In 12 out of the 22 years covered by this period the average was exceeded, while in the remaining ten years the actual levy was less than the average. The duty of auditing the accounts of the Grand Juries in Ireland is vested in the Local Government by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1877, and the audit is carried out in accordance with the provisions of an Order of the Privy Council made pursuant to that Act. The Order gives the auditors the power of disallowance and surcharge, but they have no power to deal with presentments fiated by the Judges at Assizes. Provision is

  1469
  also made in the order for the printing and publishing of the audited accounts in one or more newspapers circulating in the county, and an abstract of the receipts and expenditure in counties is also given in the returns of local taxation annually presented to Parliament.

  CAB INSPECTORS (LONDON).
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state to the House how many new inspectors of cabs have been appointed in London, the salary paid to each, and the qualifications of the men who have received the posts; and whether these new inspectors have been chosen from the ranks of the Police Force, or are men having technical knowledge of the construction of vehicles or of veterinary matters, as recommended by the Departmental Committee?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,: Five new inspectors have been appointed. One of them is a sub-divisional inspector with a salary of 70s. a week; the others receive salaries ranging from 56s. to 64s. per week, according to their seniority. All have been chosen from the ranks of the police and had previous experience of horses or of the construction of carriages, as recommended by the Departmental Committee.

  ENDOWED SCHOOL SCHEMES.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as a Charity Commissioner—(1) whether it is the case that the Schemes of the Charity Commissioners for the administration of Endowed Schools are submitted to the Education Department for approval, or otherwise, before publication; and (2) whether, upon any Scheme for the administration of an Endowed Elementary School, the Commissioners have consulted the Education Department as to the propriety of providing for the teachers of such a school those safeguards against capricious dismissal which are invariably provided in Schemes for Endowed Grammar Schools; and, if so, whether the Education Department have ever disapproved of a Scheme containing
  1470
  such safeguards for the teachers of an Endowed Elementary School for the reason that it contained such safeguards?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: No Schemes are submitted by the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department before publication; but Schemes framed by the Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Acts are so submitted after publication. The Commissioners have not so consulted the Education Department. The Schemes for the smaller Endowed Elementary Schools (not within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners), which have been approved by the Education Department, contain provisions as to the position of teachers identical with those inserted by the Commissioners in their Schemes. The answer to the last Question is, no. It may be added that the question of the teachers in Public Elementary Schools is one with which the Education Department appears to be primarily concerned; and, consequently, is not one as to which the Commissioners can properly take the initiative.

  CATTLE WEIGHING MACHINES.
  MR. M. H. SHAW-STEWART: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the fact, acknowledged in the House by his predecessor on 19th February 1895, that some auctioneers are using in their cattle auction marts dial-weighing machines upon which the graduations are not of sufficient width to indicate the limits of sensitiveness required in the application of the test for sensitiveness under the Model Regulations, 1890, he is prepared, for the guidance of inspectors of weights and measures and in order to introduce uniformity of practice amongst them, and to remove existing doubts as to the propriety of stamping machines of the above description, to state the minimum extent of movement of the dial finger which must take place when the tests for sensitiveness are applied?
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can state, for the guidance and uniformity of action of inspectors of weights and measures, when they apply the test for sensitiveness, as prescribed by Rule No. 55 of the Model Regulations, what extent of movement of

  1471
  the vibrating principle steelyard tongue is necessary to comply with the Regulations?
  MR. RITCHIE: I will answer the Questions of the hon. Members for East Renfrew and Mid Lanark together. I am advised that a general rule to indicate either the minimum extent of movement of the dial finger or of the steelyard tongue is impracticable as regards existing machines, because it must vary with the size of the machine, and I should like to point out to the hon. Members that the local authorities with whom the matter really rests have not in any case applied to the Board of Trade for a modification of the Model Regulation referred to in the Questions.

  WESTPORT WORKHOUSE.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Westport Board of Guardians, passed at their meeting on the 20th February, in which they declare their inability to meet the requirements of the Local Government Board Inspector as to the structural alterations which he ordered them to carry out in the Westport Workhouse, at a cost of £3,350; and, would he, considering the poor state of the Westport Union, postpone the carrying out of those alterations until the Government have arrived at some decision as to the amalgamation of unions in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. For the present, the Local Government Board do not propose to require the Guardians of this union to carry out any structural alterations in the workhouse beyond those which are urgently necessary and which would have to be carried out under any circumstances.

  POST CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether he is aware that the Government of India sells post cards at their face value; (2) whether these post cards are printed in England by the same firm that prints British post
  1472
  cards; (3) what would be the estimated loss to the Government by selling thin halfpenny post cards at their face value, in place of selling them at three farthings each; and, (4) whether the Government take into consideration the claims of the stationers when selling penny post cards at their face value?
  MR. HANBURY: It is understood that the Government of India sells post cards at their face value. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. At the present rate of issue the loss would be £6,500 a year. As regards the last paragraph, the sale of these cards is not so large as to materially affect the interests of stationers.

  RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he can grant a return of the regulations with regard to religious instruction given in public elementary schools other than Board Schools in a selected number of counties, on lines similar to the Return given in February, 1895, by the Education Department in relation to Board Schools?
  SIR JOHN GORST: In the case of Board Schools, the Committee of Council have a right to inquire about religious teaching, under Sections 14 and 16 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870. In the case of Voluntary Schools they have no such right. They consider that to make the inquiry suggested would be justly regarded as an unwarranted interference.

  PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (RATING).
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that theatres and places of entertainment, even when unlet, are deemed to be occupied from the fact that necessary furniture and appliances are left within them, and that they therefore have to pay rates; that, in consequence, some theatres, though earning nothing for their owners, pay hundreds of pounds annually in rates; and, whether he will consider favourably a scheme by which

  1473
  such places of entertainment may be exempted, partially or altogether, from the payment of rates during the period they remain unlet?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I see no reason to doubt that a theatre or other place of entertainment, in which there are the necessary furniture and appliances, must be regarded as occupied, although they may not at the time be let for performances. I shall be very glad to consider any scheme which the hon. Member likes to bring forward, but I cannot hold out any expectation that I shall be prepared to propose legislation on the subject.

  LIMERICK COUNTY MILITIA.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if his attention has been directed to the telegram of the Mayor of Limerick last month to the War Department, expressing dissatisfaction against the contemplated removal of the Limerick County Militia for training to Kilworth, county Cork; whether the Limerick Militia have not up to the present been trained in the city of Limerick, where barracks and every facility exist; and, if he will make an order that the same system should continue?
  MR. BRODRICK: The telegram from the Mayor of Limerick was received and answered. The Limerick Militia has trained at Limerick for some years, but there is no range there which enables them to fire the service cartridge. For this and other reasons of efficiency it is desirable to train them at Kilworth this year, where they can be drilled with another battalion.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a memorial from the Board of Guardians of the Bailieborough Poor Law Union, county Cavan, pointing out the great necessity for making a line of railway between Bailieborough and Carrickmacross, viâ Shercock, to connect with the Great Northern Railway; and whether, considering that the district
  1474
  lying between Bailieborough and Carrickmacross is populous, he will recommend a grant; and, if so, on what conditions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The case of the particular line referred to in the Question will be considered in connection with that of others, but beyond this I cannot make any further statement at the present time.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (METROPOLIS).
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that none of the Justices of the Peace, who act by virtue of their office as Chairmen of Metropolitan Vestries or District Boards, have been nominated for or elected upon the General Committees of Justices for the current year? Is he aware that difficulty has arisen from the fact that the terms of office of the ex-officio Justices do not coincide with the terms of office of the General Committees, the former being elected in May, the latter in January? And will he see if an arrangement can be made to obviate this difficulty?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am aware of the difficulty referred to in the Question, and am informed that, in consequence of it, no ex-officio Justices were nominated upon Committees at the London Quarter Sessions in January along with the Justices in the Commission of the Peace. There are serious difficulties in the way of altering the dates for electing Committees, some of which are fixed by Statute and Statutory Rule; but I will make further inquiry with a view to seeing whether arrangements cannot be made as desired.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (IRELAND).
  MR. P. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a discussion by the Wexford Board of Guardians concerning the appointment of County Councils in Ireland, during which a resolution was proposed by Charles H. Peacocke, Esq., J.P., and seconded by Lord Maurice Fitzgerald, both Conservatives, calling upon the Government to pass into law a County Councils Act on

  1475
  the same lines as that already passed for England and Wales; and, whether he can give any assurance that the Government will take up this question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been drawn to a report of the proceedings at the meeting of the Wexford Board of Guardians at which a resolution was adopted in favour of the extension of Local Government to Ireland. The question is one which no doubt will engage the attention of the Government, but I am not at present in a position to give any pledge in the matter.

  COINAGE (FARTHINGS).
  MR. J. F. OSWALD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it will be possible, in the future coining of farthings, to impress in bold letters the words "A Farthing" on their obverse sides as well as on their reverse sides as heretofore?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer of a few days' ago. There is no room to impress in bold letters the words "A Farthing" on the obverse, without a complete alteration of the design of the coin, which, as I then stated, I am not prepared to undertake. I may, perhaps, point out that, with the exception of one issue at the end of the last century, the farthing never bore its denomination stamped, even on the reverse, until 1860.

  JOHN BRIGHT'S STATUE (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT).
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to a statue purporting to be of the late John Bright in the Central Lobby; and, whether it is to remain there?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The statue of Mr. Bright lately erected in the Central Lobby has been placed there, under an arrangement made with one of my predecessors, at the request of the Committee of the late Statesman's friends, at whose expense and under whose supervision this memorial has been raised to
  1476
  his memory. In the circumstances, I do not think that its removal is a question for me consider.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree to submit to the view of the House the question whether the statue should remain where it was or not?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I certainly have heard varying opinions as to the artistic merits of the statue in question; but, while I am ready to consider the views of hon. Members, I am bound to say I am aware of no such unanimous opinion as would justify my serious consideration of a proposal for its removal.

  CYCLISTS IN HYDE PARK.
  MR. G. C. A. DRUCKER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that between the hours of 12 and 4 in the afternoon, certain roads in Hyde Park are very little used by the general public; and, whether he can see his way to allow cyclists to use these roads during those hours?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am afraid that I cannot at present add anything to the statement which I made in the House as to cycling in the park, in my reply to the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division on the 13th of February. I wish to obtain experience of the working of the present rules during the summer months when the traffic is at its heaviest.
  MR. C. B. B. McLAREN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that, in consequence of his recent statement in the House as to the inconvenience caused to large numbers of bicycle riders using the road on the north of the Serpentine in Hyde Park by horsemen and carriages unnecessarily frequenting that road before 12 in the morning, there has been a very considerable decrease in the number of horses and vehicles passing along that road; and that inconvenience and danger is still caused by empty flys and by private carriages, and horses in charge of servants only passing along and in some cases standing in the road; and, whether, in the circumstances, he can see his way to direct the constables to divert such last-mentioned vehicles and horses along another route, and to

  1477
  intimate to other persons about to ride or drive along that road the inconvenience of doing so until after 12 o'clock?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not see my way, without an alteration of the rules of Hyde Park, to give directions for the diversion of horses and empty carriages in charge of servants from the road north of the Serpentine, as suggested by the hon. Member; but the police will do all they can in the matter; and I would once more appeal strongly to the riding and driving public to show all the consideration they can to the cyclists using that road up to 12 o'clock, by not frequenting the road previous to that hour, and further I would appeal to owners of carriages to give stringent orders to their servants not to use the road in question when driving empty carriages, a practice which can give no pleasure to themselves and which causes great annoyance to cyclists.

  MUNSTER AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in regard to the deputation from the Munster Agricultural Institute, which recently waited upon him for the purpose of obtaining a money grant in order to establish a new model farm, whether he can state the name of the tenant whose interest it is proposed to purchase for the sum of £1,500; if he can also say how long the tenant has been in occupation of the holding and what sum, if any, was paid by him for the tenant right; and, whether, in the event of a grant being made, the selection of a farm will rest exclusively with the Governors of the Institute; and, if so, will steps be taken to insure that no evicted farm shall be acquired for the purpose indicated?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information in reference to the name of the tenant in question, and do not think any purpose, could be served by making inquiry into the matter at present.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not a fact that the scheme submitted not only contained the acreage and rental of the proposed farm, but also the estimated rates and taxes and cost of stocking the farm, and whether this calculation was purely imaginary?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURreplied that he was unable to say.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: In the event of a grant being made for the purpose, in whose hands will the selection rest?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Primarily in the hands of the Government.

  QUEENSTOWN HARBOUR.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he will consider the desirability of utilising Queenstown Harbour as a station for torpedo gunboats?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): In the event of the Service requiring the establishment of additional stations for torpedo gunboats, the question of utilising Queenstown Harbour will be fully considered.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly convey to the Admiralty the fact that Queenstown Harbour is the finest and safest in the United Kingdom? [Laughter.]

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is intended to make the grant to Irish National School teachers per child in average attendance uniform with the figure paid to English teachers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the grants referred to in this question are the Irish School grant and the English Fee grant respectively, the reply is in the affirmative.

  TOURISTS AND EMIGRANTS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it could be made obligatory on shipmasters or shipping companies to forward quarterly Returns to the Board of Trade, differentiating between passengers of the tourist class leaving Great Britain and Ireland and emigrants intending to permanently settle in the Colonies or other countries, with a view to the provision of reliable data on which an accurate statement of the actual amount of emigration from the British Isles might be based?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade have no power to compel shipmasters or shipping companies to make Returns showing whether the passengers they carry are tourists or emigrants. A slight consideration of the subject of distinguishing between different classes of passengers will show the impossibility of shipowners being able to supply correctly such information, because they could know nothing but what the passengers told them; whereas, by giving the place at which the passengers disembarked, they are stating what is within their knowledge or that of their servants. The account of actual emigration now obtained from the balance of emigration over immigration is as accurate as one obtained from doubtful returns made by shipowners showing which amongst the passengers they carried were emigrants.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will state about what date he expects to be able to introduce the Employers' Liability Bill, foreshadowed in the Speech of Her Most Gracious Majesty at the opening of the present Session of Parliament?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am afraid I cannot state oven approximately on what day I can introduce it.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will it be this Session?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Certainly, I hope.

  SALISBURY CATHEDRAL.
  MR. E. H. HULSE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford whether he is aware that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have definitely refused to contribute any sum towards the repair of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral, although they are in receipt of at least £25,000 per annum from the capitular estates in the diocese surrendered in 1864; and whether the Commissioners are correct in stating that the sum of £10,000, granted for the Fabric Fund on such surrender, was from the Capitular Fund and not from the Common Fund of the Commissioners?
  MR. LEES KNOWLESIt is a fact that the Commissioners have expressed their inability to make a contribution out of the Common Fund towards the repair of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral. The Commissioners are not in receipt of an income from the capitular estates in the diocese at all approaching £25,000 per annum. At the time of the commutation in 1864 the Chapter were placed in possession of a larger income than they had previously derived from their estates. It is not the fact that the sum of £10,000 was granted for the Fabric Fund out of the capitular property; but such a sum was advanced out of the Common Fund.
  MR. HULSE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the terms of the Order in Council dated October 11, 1861, expressly stated that £10,000 was to be paid as a further consideration for such transfer, and that due allowance was made for such sum granted to the Fabric Fund in fixing the amount to be paid to the Dean and Chapter; and, further, may I ask my hon. Friend if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners absolutely refuse to assist the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury in their efforts to save one of the best-known architectural monuments in the country?
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: Speaking without notice, I have to say that the Commissioners are unable to admit my hon. Friend's argumentative construction of the Order in Council, and it is doubtful whether the Commissioners have such a power as that suggested in the last Question.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONasked whether the income referred to had not been enormously reduced by the fall in the value of land.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: For some years after the commutation the Commissioners were paying to the Chapter considerably more than they received from the estates formerly belonging to the Chapter. At the present time the income received by the Commissioners is not one-fourth of that named in the question.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE BOOTS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is

  1481
  aware that in many of the large towns throughout the country the local police constables receive their allowance for boots in half-yearly payments; and whether he can state why this system of payment cannot be carried out as regards the Metropolitan Police?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am not aware of the practice which prevails in other police forces; but it cannot, in any case, be a guide to the practice which should be followed in the Metropolitan Force, the circumstances of which are entirely different. The manner of payment was not decided upon without most careful consideration on the part of the police authorities and myself; and I may add that other clothing allowances exist in the Force and are paid weekly, in regard to which no hardship has ever been felt.

  OPIUM COMMISSION.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence with the Government of India in reference to opium, arising out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Opium?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The correspondence to which the hon. Member alludes will be laid upon the Table to-day.

  BENGAL PRISONS.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will lay upon the Table the Report as to the excessive death-rate in Bengal prisons, and the other papers connected with the Inquiry some two years ago; and why the Administrative Report of the Gaols of Bengal, printed at the Bengal Secretariat Press, is marked as not printed for sale, and is not purchaseable, as similar Reports are in this country?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am not aware that there has been any single Report on the subject referred to. The Government of India's proceedings contain several voluminous Reports upon certain gaols in which a heavy mortality had been observed, but the papers are
  1482
  obviously incomplete. I will make inquiries, and let the hon. Member know in due course what papers can be presented upon his making the usual Motion. I will also inquire whether the Administrative Report may not be offered for sale after it has been reviewed by the Lieutenant Governor. The Government Resolution, I observe, has been published in the official Gazette, and it seems to contain all the material facts.

  POPPY CULTIVATION (INDIA).
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he can state what is the quantity of land under poppy cultivation this year in the Behar and Benares Agencies, respectively, as compared with the years 1893–4 and 1894–5?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Information regarding the area under poppy cultivation during the present season, the spring of 1896, has not yet reached me.

  KILLARNEY WORKHOUSE.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to the action of the Vice Guardians of Killarney Union in appointing Head Constable Carty as Master of Killarney Workhouse; was Head Constable Carty in receipt of pay from the police authorities at the time of his appointment; what special experience, knowledge or fitness for the position of Master of a Workhouse did this police officer possess over 13 other candidates, many of whom spent years in the Poor Law service as masters, assistant clerks, and schoolmasters; and, has this appointment obtained his sanction and approval as President of the Local Government Board?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is a fact that the Vice Guardians of the Killarney Union have appointed Mr. Carty, an ex-Head Constable in the Constabulary, to be Master of the Workhouse. Mr. Carty held the position of Head Constable at the time of his appointment, and was therefore in receipt of pay as such. He has since retired from the Constabulary Force. The Vice Guardians,

  1483
  after careful consideration of the qualifications of the several candidates, selected Mr. Carty as the most suitable. He had had considerable experience as clerk and book-keeper in the office of the County Inspector of Constabulary, and was well qualified to enforce discipline and order in an institution like the Killarney Workhouse. The Local Government Board have seen no reason for withholding their sanction to his appointment.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: Are we to understand from the answer that a head constable while in full pay may enter into competition for such a position?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no reason why a head constable should not take an office of this kind.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to his statement that the 35,000 evicted tenants had been reinstated in their holdings since 1879, whether he can say what proportion of those were restored as future tenants, and thereby deprived of their status under the Land Act of 1881; and, whether he can give the total number of tenants evicted since 1887?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have consulted the Inspector General in reference to this matter, and find that no official records exist which would supply the information desired by the hon. Member relative to tenants evicted and subsequently reinstated since 1879, nor has the Government any effective means at its disposal of obtaining reliable, or even approximately reliable, information as to the proportion of such tenants who have been restored as either "present" or "future" tenants. I may add, with reference to the figures mentioned in the question, that they include, in addition to ex-tenants reinstated in their holdings, the cases of relettings to other persons who entered into occupation with the consent of the former tenants; of persons who purchased the interest of ex-tenants; of relatives or connections of ex-tenants; and of sub-tenants who attorned to the head landlord. The total number of evictions from January 1, 1887, to December 31, 1895—a period of nine years
  1484
  —was 13,794, and of this number the greatest number in any one year was 3,869 in 1887, and the smallest 671 in 1895.

  LAND PROCESS (COUNTY CLARE).
  MR. J. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the case of a tenant named Patrick M'Inerney, of Moreens West, near Carrigaholt, county Clare, who was processed by his landlord to Kilrush County Court in October last for recovery of £11 arrears of rent; whether he is aware that before the case came on for hearing the amount was forwarded to the land agent by Father Vaughan, but that, notwithstanding, a decree for the full amount and £2 15s. costs was obtained; that, without notice to the tenant, and despite his protest, his horse was seized on foot of the decree and brought to the common pound; and that eight policemen accompanied the bailiff to make the seizure; and, whether he has sanctioned the sending an escort of police to assist the landlord, under the circumstances where the rent had been already paid?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts appear to be as stated in the question. The occurrence is one which I regret should have taken place, though, as regards the action of the police in the matter, they were bound to afford protection on receipt from the Sheriff of his requisition for protection in the execution of the Civil Bill Decree against M'Inerney. The police were not aware that M'Inerney had previously paid to his landlord the arrears of rent due by him; and had they been aware of the fact before proceeding to escort the Sheriff's bailiff, they would have made such representations to the landlord or to the Sheriff as would doubtless have obviated the execution of the decree.

  TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the amount of revenue annually derived by the Post Office from the guarantees against loss exacted from the largest taxpayers in

  1485
  an outlying country district, before a telegraph wire is laid to such district; and whether, in view of the fact that telegraphic communication with the nearest markets is necessary to enable British agriculturists to struggle against Foreign competition, he will aim at placing every person in the Kingdom, whether near to or distant from a centre of population, as far as possible on an equality in respect of postal and telegraphic facilities and charges?
  MR. HANBURY: The amount paid to the Post Office last year in respect of guaranteed Telegraph Offices was £6,390, this amount representing the difference between the cost of such offices and the revenue derived from them. The cost which is thus repaid to the Post Office bears of course a very small proportion to the cost which would be thrown upon it if guarantees were abolished, and it were consequently bound to extend the telegraph to every place which asked for it. The Postmaster General is anxious to do all in his power to extend postal and telegraphic facilities to rural districts, and he regrets that the number of cases in which guarantees have to be demanded is so great. Guarantees may now be given either by the Rural District or Parish Council.

  KOREA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the New and Anti-Japanese Korean Ministry, having ousted and murdered their predecessors, are now residing at the Russian Embassy, at Seoul, under the protection of Russian marines? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask him also whether it is a fact that the King as well as the Ministry is in the Russian Embassy?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): In the information that we have received the King and Crown Prince alone are mentioned as having taken refuge in the Russian Legation.

  WATERFORD AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. J. J. SHEE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he could state to the House, what was the total capital invested in
  1486
  the construction of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway; whether he is aware that, under The Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway Act, 1873, the Grand Juries of the city and county of Waterford have paid £14,000 annually for the past 22 years towards the dividend of the Company; whether the Grand Juries availed themselves of their power to appoint 12 directors of the Company at the assizes next after the passing of the Act; who are the present directors of the Company; how many of them are nominated by the said Grand Juries; whether the county and city of Waterford are responsible for a further period of 18 years for the payment of a dividend of 5 per cent. on the entire authorised capital of the Company; whether the Board of Trade has appointed arbitrators under the Act; and, whether steps will be taken to make and publish a better and more impartial audit of the accounts of the Company and to control its management?
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the total capital invested in this railway is £393,333, of which £280,000 was raised by shares guaranteed by the county at 5 per cent., and the remainder by loans. I believe that £14,000 has, in accordance with the guarantee, been paid annually by the Grand Juries of the city and county of Waterford. I have no information as to the third point. Only six directors are named in the Company's report for 1894—viz., Francis E. Currey, Esq., J.P., chairman, W. G. D. Goff, Esq., J.P., deputy chairman, Sir James Ramsden, R. J. Usher, Esq., C. Morley, Esq., and H. Villiers Stuart, who has since died. I cannot say how many of these were nominated by the Grand Juries. The guarantee was given for a total period of 40 years. Of the three arbitrators, the Board of Trade appoints one, and the two Grand Juries appoint one each. The system of audit, which, as far as I know, is properly carried out, is laid down by the Act, and under existing circumstances no further control can be exercised over the management.
  MR. SHEE: Is there any possibility of this £14,000 being taken off?
  MR. RITCHIE: That is a question it is quite impossible for me to answer; the only connection the Board of Trade has with that railway is the appointment of arbitrators.

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is now prepared to give an answer to the Petition forwarded on 27th September 1895, by seven sorting clerks of the sorting office, General Post Office, Dublin, with reference to the delay in the granting of their appointments, and claiming that their appointments should date from the time of nomination, and that all increments to which in that time they would have been entitled be allowed?
  MR. HANBURY: The question is now under the consideration of the Treasury, to whom the Postmaster General has referred it.

  ARMY PENSION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Patrick Lynch, late of the 108th Regiment, who gave 18 years' service, 15 years of it in India, and was engaged in battle at Bandah and several other engagements, was awarded four good-conduct badges and the Indian medal and clasp, and discharged in 1872 on account of disease, the result of long service in India, on a pension of nine-pence per day; whether he is aware that Lynch, being unable to work or support himself on his pension, was obliged to go into the Kilkenny workhouse, where he is at present; and whether, in consideration of his good character and distinguished service, he will increase Lynch's pension to enable him to support himself outside the workhouse?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): This case will be referred for inquiry by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.

  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the case that subscribers to the Parliamentary Debates for 1895 have been charged by the contractors an extra guinea (in addition to the regulation price of five guineas) under the pretext that, owing to the
  1488
  occurrence of the Dissolution, there were two Sessions during that year, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament sat fewer days, and consequently there was less outlay involved upon the part of the contractors than has been the case in average years; and, whether such extra charge was justifiable under the actual terms of the contract; and, if so, whether steps will be taken when framing future arangements to protect Members and other subscribers from such exactions?
  MR. HANBURY: From early times the subscription for Parliamentary Debates has been by the Session, and this principle was maintained in the Form of Contract drawn up by direction of the Joint Select Committee of 1888 on the Publication of the Debates and Proceedings of Parliament, and printed in the Appendix to their Report. The contract as first granted, when the old "Hansard's Reports" ceased to exist, empowered the contractors to charge five guineas for a complete copy of the Report of each Session, however long or short it might be. Subsequently the further stipulation was introduced that, "in the event of the Reports of any Session not reaching five volumes, the maximum price to be charged by the contractors shall not exceed one guinea per volume, and proportionately for parts of volumes," and the contractors were therefore justified in charging one guinea for the volume covering the second Session of last year. Under this arrangement it is true that the contractors may gain if there are two Sessions in one year; but, on the other hand, the subscribers gain if there is one long Session in the year. For instance, in 1893–4 they only paid five guineas for a Report extending to 14 volumes. When next the conditions of the contract are under review, I shall be quite prepared to consider whether it would be more for the convenience of the public to make the rate of subscription proportionate to the bulk of the Reports, provided that this can be done without entailing extra expense to the Exchequer.

  NORFOLK ISLAND.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies,—(1) whether the Government of New South Wales has been requested to assume the

  1489
  direct control and administration of the affairs of Norfolk Island; and, (2) if so, whether he has any objection to state the grounds on which it is sought to deprive the inhabitants of that island of the large measure of local self-government they have hitherto enjoyed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second, I have to state that, up to the present moment, the administration of justice, which is in the hands of a magistrate elected by the community, has been partial and unsatisfactory, crime is rarely punished, and debts are not recoverable; and that these circumstances, coupled with the fact that the public buildings have been allowed to fall into a ruinous condition, and that no effort has been made to develop the resources of the island, the condition of which is thus rapidly deteriorating, have, in the opinion of of Her Majesty Government, afforded sufficient grounds for effecting a change in the administration of its affairs.

  OMNIBUS STANDINGS (METROPOLIS).
  MR. MCLAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Police is in the habit of appointing standings for omnibuses in bye-streets within the Metropolitan area when they are not plying for hire, and that the Vestry of Hammersmith, as well as residents in such streets, have objected to his action; whether the Commissioner has any power to appoint such standings, and, if so, under what section of what statute; and whether, if the Commissioner has no such power, he will direct the Commissioner to discontinue the practice of appointing omnibus stands in such cases, and to leave the local authorities, under the Highway and other Acts, to deal with omnibuses standing in bye-streets?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: In dealing with the stopping-places of omnibuses, the Commissioner acts under Section 29 of the Act 6 and 7 Vic. cap. 86. No standings for omnibuses are appointed, but the practice is to allow them to remain at convenient places in various streets for a few
  1490
  minutes at a time; at such times they are still technically plying for hire. In the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, no objection was made by the Vestry; the place at which the omnibuses stand is against a hoarding where no obstruction, and, practically, no inconvenience, can be caused to anyone, and the time allowed for stopping is not more than four minutes.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. A. R. SOUTTAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has been able to make the inquiry, promised last Session, into the conditions under which pensions are granted to the Scottish police; and whether he can now see his way to redress the existing inequality, by raising them to the same level as in England?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Inquiry has been made into this matter, but no decision has yet been arrived at. As the hon. Member is aware, special legislation will be necessary if a change is to be made.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (PROBATE DUTY GRANT).
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if his attention has been called to the serious diminution of the receipts by county councils for the local taxation licences, probate duty grant, and estate duty for the year ending the 31st March 1895; whether he is aware that the arrangement under section 19 of The Finance Act, 1894, has operated to the disadvantage of county councils; and, whether he sees any way of obviating such disadvantage?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My attention has been called to the falling-off in these receipts in the year ending March 31, 1895. The receipts for the present year, however, will not only greatly exceed those of 1894–5, but will also exceed those of 1893–4, which of course were in no way influenced by Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1894. Under these circumstances it seems to me premature to conclude that that Scetion operates to the disadvantage of county councils.

  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
  MR. H. KIMBER: I bag to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, under the laws of the South African Republic (Transvaal), there is any writ of habean corpus, or analogous right, enabling a prisoner to have himself brought up for trial or discharge; whether the four British subjects, Messrs. Rhodes, Farrar, Phillips, and Fitzpatrick, are still in custody under strict military guard, and their trial postponed sine die; and whether although they have deposited £10,000 each, they are not allowed the ordinary freedom of persons who have given, and are willing to give, bail; (2) whether he is aware that this fact is causing great detriment to thousands of other British as well as German and French subjects who are in great measure dependent upon the undertakings in which these four gentlemen take a leading part; (3) what are the reasons alleged for the postponement sine die of the trial, and the continued incarceration of the accused notwithstanding, even after they had given such security; (4) what steps have been taken by the British Government to insure a speedy trial or delivery of the prisoners; (5) whether the Transvaal Government have taken from these and other untried persons no less than £170,000 of money without proving them guilty of any crime; and (6) why an American citizen has been released from custody, while these four British subjects are compelled to linger in prison, notwithstanding they have given the same security that he did?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to answer the legal question contained in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, but a habeas corpus law in the ordinary acceptance of the term might not have much bearing on the case of the accused persons mentioned, who are not in prison, but out on bail under restrictions not applied to the bulk of the accused. I have already telegraphed to South Africa asking that the four persons be given the same terms as the others who were released on bail, and inquiring as to the cause of the delay in proceeding with the trial and when it will be resumed. When I receive an answer I shall be in a position to give further information. I do not understand that the property of the
  1492
  accused has been confiscated, but placed under interdict. The information in my possession leads me to think that the detriment to other persons caused by the absence of the four accused persons is not as great as the hon. Member supposes.
  MR. KIMBER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. [Cries of "Order!"] He has said that these four gentlemen are out on bail——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is making a general statement. He must put a question.
  MR. KIMBER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to his statement that these four gentlemen are out on bail, whether he considers that they have any liberty whatever? My information is directly to the contrary. ["Order, order!"]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that, though these four gentlemen are now allowed to reside in a private house, they are practically under the control of the Pretoria police—that is to say, they are not out on bail?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: They are allowed to reside in a private house, and the private house is guarded by police.
  MR. KIMBER: Without any liberty to go out?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That I do not know. If my hon. Friend wants information on that point, he must put down a Question. No doubt, if they go out, they would be followed by the police. [Laughter.]

  DR. JAMESON'S SURRENDER.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice, whether Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Jacobus tie Wet knew on January 7 of the terms of Dr. Jameson's surrender; and, if so, why Her Majesty's representatives informed the Uitlanders in Johannesburg on that day that the lives of Dr. Jameson and his men depended upon their surrender?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the subject at present; but I have telegraphed to South Africa,

  1493
  and if my hon. Friend will put down his question for Thursday I think I will then be in a position to answer it.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will put it down for Thursday.

  CROWN PROPERTY (LONDON).
  MR. C. A. CRIPPS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests should be granted power to apply to the Crown property in London the system adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in regard to their London property, whereby lessees are enabled, on the payment of an increased ground rent, to acquire a practical perpetuity of their holding?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I find that the Commissioners of Woods consider that there are objections to the application of this system to Crown property in London, and I am in communication with them on the subject.

  CHARGE AGAINST A PUBLICAN (IRELAND).
  MR. T. J. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was responsible for having the charge against James Pelan, of Gorey, of being drunk and disorderly on his own licensed premises amended into a charge of drunkenness; who was responsible for having this case heard in camera, and who supplied the original information that the case was heard in open Court, which was afterwards admitted to be untrue; whether he is aware of any other cases under the Licensing Acts being ever heard in camera, and where they were heard; why a distinction was made between Pelan's case and the cases of three other publicans which were tried in open Court on the same day; and whether he will direct an independent inquiry as to who supplied the erroneous information to him?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The accused, the owner of licensed premises, was summoned for an offence under the 18th section of the Licensing Act, 1872. His solicitor drew the attention of the Resident Magistrate to the great doubt
  1494
  which, he alleged, existed as to whether the accused could, in point of law, be convicted under that Section, and applied to the magistrate to amend the charge into that which could be clearly sustained, namely, drunkenness on licensed premises. He was not charged with being drunk and disorderly. The magistrate, with the consent of the police, complied with the request, and the amended charge being one of a nature he had jurisdiction to decide sitting but of Petty Sessions, and alone, proceeded to adjudicate upon it. All this took place in the Grand Jury Room, and only a few minutes before the Petty Sessions Court was opened. There was free access to this room, and no attempt was made to conceal the case from the public. The local police official who supplied the original report that the case had been heard in open Court and not in camera, explains that what he meant was that the case was not heard privately, and that he looked upon the Grand Jury Room with open doors and the public passing in and out as an open Court. His mistake was regrettable, but I am satisfied he had no intention to willfully mislead.

  SMOKING ACCOMMODATION (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  MR. J. AIRD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, if arrangements could be made to allow Members to smoke after dinner in the two end libraries, otherwise in the deserted tea-room?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to reject this preposterous proposition. [Laughter.]
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I am quite in sympathy with hon. Members in their views as to the inadequate accommodation at the House for smoking, and am endeavouring to find a feasible plan for extending it. I do not think that either of the suggestions of my hon. Friend would be practicable, nor would they be in accordance with the general wish of the House.

  EASTBOURNE MAGISTRACY.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General, whether, in creating

  1495
  a new Bench of Magistrates for Eastbourne, the Lord Chancellor has followed the precedents created by the ex-Lord Chancellor of placing an equal number of gentlemen from both political parties on all new Benches?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): Most careful consideration is always given by the Lord Chancellor to the question of appointment of magistrates, and to any recommendation submitted to him upon the subject. I must decline to express any opinion upon the action of the Lord Chancellor in any particular case, but it would, in my opinion, be most dangerous to adopt the view that political are the only qualifications for that which, in effect, is a judicial office. ["Hear, hear!"]

  DEER FORESTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to stop the creation and extension of deer forests and large grazing-farms in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Government have no present intention of taking any such steps as are suggested in the Question of the hon. Member.

  PROPOSED MALLAIG (SCOTLAND) RAILWAY.
  MR. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of his statement to the House that The proposed extension of the North British Railway to Mallaig, under a Government subsidy, is again under negotiation with the Treasury, he would be prepared to consider the claims to a subsidy of other proposed railway routes to the West Coast of Scotland, which, on expert evidence, are believed to be superior to the proposed route to Mallaig; or, alternatively, whether he would consider the advisability of devoting the large sum proposed to be expended on one district to constructing means of communication either by new roads or light railways in several districts in the Highlands?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It must be remembered that this Bill was introduced by the
  1496
  Government in pursuance of an agreement. If it should be proceeded with, no other Scheme can be considered as alternative to it. I am not at present prepared to make any promise on the general subject, in the event of its not being proceeded with.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS (WITHDRAWAL OF CLAUSES).
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to the second Resolution passed on the 28th February, by which whenever any Member in charge of a Bill in Committee, or on Report, desires to withdraw from the Bill any clause or clauses, he may, at the commencement of Public Business at any sitting before such clause, or the first of such clauses, is reached, move that the said clause or clauses cease to form part of the Bill, upon which Motion a Debate may follow, whether he will bring in a Motion to so amend either that Resolution or the Supply Resolution previously passed that no such Motion or Debate following thereon shall take place at the commencement of public business at either of the two last sittings allotted by Resolution No. 1 to Supply.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is the fact that Amendments were admitted which would allow private Members to take the course suggested by the hon. Member. But such a course would be so obviously an abuse of the intentions of the House in passing the Rule that I do not think it will be taken advantage of; and as the Rule is only a Sessional Order I do not propose to ask the House to reconsider it at present.

  ELECTION OF PARISH COUNCILLORS.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how he proposes to prevent those persons who have come to reside in parishes on last Lady Day (and who would otherwise be eligible) from being disqualified from becoming Parish Councillors at the coming Parish Election?
  MR. CHAPLIN'Sanswer was quite inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  MR. LUTTRELL: Arising out of that answer, Sir, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a Bill is now before the House dealing with the subject of parish elections, he would consider whether he could allow an extra clause to be added to that Bill, which would have the effect of preventing this disqualification?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I should be very glad to consider that proposal, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill before the House merely gives temporary powers, and I greatly fear it would not be in order to move such a clause as he suggests.
  MR. LUTTRELL: If an Amendment is proposed dealing with this matter in a temporary way in order to cover the present year, would the right hon. Gentleman support it?
  MR. CHAPLIN: It would be for the authorities of the House to decide whether such an Amendment would be admissible.

  POSTMASTER GENERAL.
  MR. BYRON REED): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is necessary, in order to obtain the services of a direct representative of the Postmaster General in this House, to pass legislation for that object, assuming such representative to be an unpaid official; and, whether in the event of legislation being necessary to this end, Her Majesty's Government will give facilities for the passing of a Measure if introduced by unofficial Members?
  THE FIRST LOUD OF THE TREASURY: There are legal difficulties connected with this matter which I do not think it necessary to go into. Whether these difficulties can be solved in the way indicated or not, I do not think it would be desirable to have a new unpaid representative of the Post Office in the Government. The matter will be considered.
  MR. BYRON REED: Arising out of that answer, Sir, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to appoint an officer to deal with Post Office questions in this House which would be unconnected with the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir, I think the anomaly of having an unofficial Member would be so great that it would not meet with general approval.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Sir C. DILKE,
  THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURYsaid: I see no reason to depart from the plan sketched out as to the course of business of the other day. It is that the Navy Estimates will be put down first on Thursday.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) (CONSCIENCE CLAUSE).
  Copy ordered:—
  "Of further Correspondence between the Irish Government and the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, with extracts from the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Commissioners, in relation to certain proposed changes in the Rules under which Grants are made by Parliament for Elementary Education in Ireland."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 89.]

  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
  Return ordered:—
  "Showing, according to the Accounts for the 12 months preceding the 31st day of March, 1895, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894—

  1. The sanitary authorities to whom payments under the Act were made in the year by the London County Council;

  2. The total amount of the sums so paid to every such authority;

  3. The total amount of the expenses incurred by every such authority (a) under The Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (including expenses of scavenging streets); (b) in respect of lighting; and (c) in respect of streets (other than the expenses of scavenging streets); and

  4. The amount expended by each authority under each of the above headings out of the sums paid to such authority under the Act."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 90.]

  NAVAL RESERVE.
  Bill to amend the Laws with respect to the Royal Naval Volunteers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macartney and Mr. Austen Chamberlain; presented, and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Thursday.— [Bill 120.]
  BERRIEW SCHOOL.
  Bill to annul an Order in Council confirming a Scheme relating to the Foundation known as the Berriew School, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst and Mr. Attorney General; presented, and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Thursday.—[Bill 121.]
ORDERS 0F THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—(NAVY ESTIMATES).
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,)who was received with cheers, said: My first duty is to thank the House for accepting without demur the suggestion that I should make my annual statement on the Navy before you, Mr. Speaker, leave the Chair. I promise that I will not abuse the privilege by any inordinate length of speech, and I shall not make a statement of such proportions as have been assigned to it by anticipation in some quarters of the House. I wish to approach the business part of my statement at once, and will therefore make but few preliminary observations. I hope I may be relieved of any necessity of dwelling upon what is called the critical nature of the times. These are sober Estimates which we are going to propose. We hope that they will be accepted by the country as adequate to the occasion. They are not proposed with any feeling of alarm. ["Hear, hear!"] The only other preliminary observation I would make is to remind the House of the truism, the truism
  1500
  which is often ignored, that any increase in the Fleet means not only an increase in the number of ships, but must be followed all along the line of Naval preparation by expenditure in various directions. [Cheers.] More ships mean more men to man them, more officers, more seamen, more marines, more engineers, more stokers, more ratings of every kind. And more men and more officers mean more centres of training, more accommodation both on shore and at sea, more schools, more hospital accommodation, and more barrack accommodation; and, therefore, it must be well borne in mind that when an increase in the Fleet is suggested it would be unwise to act simply in one direction. A general survey must be taken of the whole situation, and the corresponding increases must be made where they are necessary. Excessive increase in any one direction would be useless unless it were followed by increases in other directions. [Cheers.] I would enforce that view by stating that now the situation is changed as regards the completion of warships. In old days the building of a warship took four or five years. Then it was necessary to look far in advance, and overtake the building of those ships in respect of men and mighty guns. Now the rapidity of shipbuilding has become such that you can build ships as rapidly as you can construct the large guns that are to be put into them, or train the officers and men who are to manage those ships when they are completed. For instance, a new 12-in. wire gun contains 108 miles of wire. The result is that if we were to push on with our ships more rapidly than the producing power of the country will supply us with armour and armaments, we should have our ships ready for sea but not be able to send them to sea. A further feature in the situation is this, that we train almost every class of men whom we put into our ships. We do not take seamen from the mercantile marine except in very small numbers; and now we train our engineers and stokers, as well as our seamen. Stokers are entered young; they are sent to the various ports; they are drilled as seamen are drilled for a certain number of months; and in that way we get a higher class, a more disciplined class, and a more useful class

  1501
  than we should otherwise be able to obtain. ["Hear, hear!"] But the House must bear in mind the enormous complexity of our armaments. That is a difficulty which must induce us to pay the highest attention to every form of training, to engineering schools, to gunnery schools, and to our naval shipbuilding schools, because these great modern machines are such that the ordinary seaman who was the gunner of the past would certainly not be able to find his way about. ["Hear, hear!"] In the scheme I am about to lay before the House we have not been looking to an increase in one direction only, but we have endeavoured, I can assure the House, to face the great requirements of the Navy in every department, and I may say, in every part of the world. [Cheers.] We have tried to look at this matter as a whole, and the result of that examination, as it stands, I will now proceed to lay before the House. I will, in the first place, deal with the personnel of the Navy, and here I should wish at starting to be allowed to dispel a fallacy which is very prevalent in many quarters—namely, that we have a difficulty in obtaining sufficient men for the Navy. [Cheers.] That view is only held by those who are not acquainted with the actual circumstances, but still it is a very general fallacy, and I have received sometimes touching letters from local authorities and from individuals, offering their services to the country on account of the alleged scarcity of men and difficulty of recruiting for our services. That difficulty does not exist. [Cheers.] On the contrary, I am able to make a satisfactory statement to the House on that point. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course we cannot recruit trained men because it is a special service for which we require them, and therefore we must take them early and train them ourselves. But, as regards the number of men which we can secure by accepting the offers of those who present themselves, we are in an entirely satisfactory position. [Cheers.] When we enlist 3,000 boys for the Navy we take 1 in 10 of the applicants, and the numbers of eligible candidates have been such that we have been able to make a strict selection and to increase the standard and the chest measurement of the boys. The same holds good as regards the stokers. We are now able to secure the number of
  1502
  stokers we desire, and we are training them at the present moment in great numbers. Well, now, with regard to numbers, right hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware, and the House must be aware, that the Admiralty has proceeded not in any haphazard way in order to see how much we can afford to spend on men next year; but for some time past there has been a Manning Committee sitting, and they have examined every ship ready and every ship in course of construction, and have made their plans in advance, calculating what number of seamen, marines and stokers is necessary to man the increased number of ships that we are going to send afloat. Last year the increase in the total number of men was 5,450. I propose to ask the House to sanction an increase of 4,900 to the personnel. We wish to add 1,800 to the seamen class, slightly more than 2,000 to the engine-room ratings, 342 to the artisan class, and 500 to that most useful and valuable force, the Marines. To show what progress has been made with regard to numbers, I will give the House a few figures. Upon the active list there were ten years ago 61,400 men. In 1895 there were 88,850, and, as I have said, the number is now to be increased by 4,900. The Reserve has been increased in the same time from 18,300 to 25,100. One method by which we have recruited for the Service is by the cruise of the Northampton, a ship set aside to visit various ports along the coast and to enter directly a certain number of boys of an older age than usual. That is a system which can only be adopted very tentatively and with care, but we have received reports from the Commanders of the ships in the Mediterranean Squadron, and without exception they speak most favourably of the conduct of these boys. ["Hear, hear!"] There is apparently one deficiency, and that is that only a few of them can swim. Apart from that, they have been extremely well reported upon. We are now going to increase the sources of supply by a method which occupied the attention of the House last year—namely, by the agency of a training-ship, which is to be sent to Queenstown. For this service we have selected the Black Prince, one of the finest ships that could be devoted to such a purpose. In the case of the Marines the recruiting has also

  1503
  been most satisfactory; and here, again, during the last few months, we have been able to raise the standard. I call particular attention to this, as it shows that, both in the case of seamen and Marines, we have a large selection from the youthful population of the country. I may mention that we are arming the batteries, where the Marines are trained with the latest type of marine guns. I stated at the opening of my remarks that there must be consequential expense upon the increase of the Fleet. For example, the number of men being increased, we are bound to provide more hospital accommodation. The accommodation at Chatham is at present insufficient and inadequate, as is also the barrack accommodation. We shall have to propose expenditure under these two heads as well as for further school facilities. I think the House will be prepared to regard such expenditure as capital expenditure, and to add it to the Naval Works Programme initiated by the last Government. I will say nothing now with regard to the Royal Naval Reserve, which is in a satisfactory position, but for information on this subject, I may refer hon. Members to the printed statement which will explain the Estimates, and which will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning, if not this evening. I wish to say a word or two with regard to the position if warrant officers. We have been able to come to certain conclusions affecting their prospects and condition. The list of chief gunners, chief boatswains, chief carpenters and warrant officers will be further increased to meet the extension of the Fleet, thus giving a certain amount of promotion. That increase will be accompanied by a revision of the rules governing their pay, promotion, and training. The chief gunners, chief boatswains and chief carpenters will get an improved scale of pay, ranging from 10s. to 12s. a day, and warrant officers will get from 5s. 6d. to 9s. a day, besides increased store and certain other allowances. Pensions and compassionate allowances to widows and children of officers who retire with the rank of honorary lieutenant will be on the same scale as those granted in the case of junior lieutenants. We trust that this will meet the wishes, to a certain extent, of a body of officers whom the
  1504
  nation values highly, and in whom it takes a legitimate pride. ["Hear, hear!"] I am able to say also that the training of engineer students in the college at Keyham is progressing in a most satisfactory manner. Two members of the Board visited that college not long ago, and they were struck by the general appearance and aptitude of these young recruits to Her Majesty's service. The profession of engineers in the Royal Navy is a fine profession, and the men who enter it now come from all classes of society. They have, when they enter the profession, a certain professional career. They have that advantage over civil engineers. Having once entered the service they are sure of being on full pay until they retire, there being practically no half-pay in their case, as there is in the case of the active list. The prospects of engineer students, who are to mess with gun-room and ward-room officers, are not generally known in the country, yet the number of applicants is such as to meet the necessary requirements of the service. Now I pass to the executive officers. The House will remember that an experiment was made last year, when it was determined that 100 officers should be entered from the Mercantile Marine. The plan was very much criticised at the time, and some hard things, which I regretted, were said with regard to Mercantile Marine officers. It was suggested that there would be difficulty on board ship, and that we should not get the right sort of men. Well, according to the information which we have received from the officers under whom these men are serving, there has been no friction, and they have proved themselves to be a most excellent addition to our Naval Service. [Cheers.] Ninety of these officers were taken from the Royal Naval Reserve; two were taken from the Victorian Naval Defence Force; and eight were taken from the Mercantile Marine direct. There were several hundreds of applicants, and we have a supplementary list. The gaps caused by the plan in the ranks of the Royal Naval Reserve have been at once filled up, 264 young men having sent in their names for enrolment in that service. A great many of these officers, I should add, have had a year's training, and some of them two years' training,

  1505
  on board a man-of-war. This plan, however, we still regard as a temporary expedient, and we shall look in the future as in the past to a system of education such as has been hitherto carried on in the Britannia o prepare the officers of our fleet. There is no subject which has more exercised my mind than the question of the supply of young officers. It is a matter of paramount importance, and I am not prepared to say that I consider the present system as entirely satisfactory. I think we draw our boys possibly from too small an area. Whether the Civil Service Commissioners have been unable to defeat the efforts of crammers or whether the crammers have improved upon their system I do not know; but certainly the main idea of parents still is that their boys must be sent to cramming schools, before they can expect to pass the entrance examination for the Navy. Now, all who have looked into the matter are unanimous in this, that we ought to get boys from the various schools in the country. ["Hear, hear!"] We want to get them straight from school, and we do not approve of that forcing system by which a naval cadet before he enters the Britannia has been put under pressure at a very early age. Holding these views, with which my colleagues at the Admiralty entirely agree, I have communicated with the head masters of some of our great schools, and I find that some of them are anxious to have Navy classes with the object of passing boys directly into the Navy, just as older boys pass into the Army, straight from school. The difficulty in the way hitherto has been the question of age. If boys have to enter the Britannia when they are between 13½ and 14½ the time they can spend at school is too short, and they have to go to school very young. The head masters state that if we advance the age by a year, then they would be able to establish a Navy class. I held a conference with a few of the head masters who have rendered me great assistance, and who have entered cordially into the scheme that we should make an appeal to all the schools in order to get boys, not with the traditions of a forcing establishment, but with the traditions of general British schools where boys are reared. At that conference, besides the head
  1506
  masters, were the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, the Captain of the Britannia, and the chief naval instructor of the Britannia; and they, one and all, came to the conclusion that if we advanced the age of the boys by a year it would be possible to give them a better and a more healthy education before they entered the Naval service, while the age for going to sea would not necessarily be increased. There is an objection in many quarters to increasing the age of sending to sea. The boys, however, would have 16 months of preliminary training instead of 23; but coming so much better prepared, and having done a good deal of school work before entering the Britannia, it is thought that the time can be shorter. This will be amply compensated by the possibility of devoting it more fully to the study of our own technical requirements. If the House approves that proposal, which we could carry out, we should raise the age of entry by a year, substituting shorter courses, but in those courses giving more special attention to the special technical requirements desired, and giving the boys, at the same time, such training in seamanship, in sailing, in boating, and so on, as is now given in the Britannia. [Cheers.] But our views with regard to the admission of boys to the Naval service do not stop there. After the most careful consideration, after a review of the previous inquiries, we have come to the conclusion that the Britannia itself—now an old ship, holding now 270 cadets, whereas it only held at one time 150 cadets—will not, for long, offer sufficient accommodation, or be the best for training which our boys could have. We propose to substitute—as was proposed many years ago—a college on shore for the Britannia. ["Hear, hear!"] The sanitary and disciplinary arrangements of the Britannia are extremely difficult to maintain at the highest point of efficiency. I have, however, on wish to depreciate the Britannia; but, without entering into the argument at this moment, I think better education, a more healthy education, and better discipline will be maintained by the arrangements I have suggested. I know there is no point which the House views with more interest than the period when the boys have passed through the training in the

  1507
  Britannia and training college. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn asked me the other day with regard to the Training Squadron. He thought that the Training Squadron was insufficient, and he stated that he would like to see it increased in order to give more opportunities of seamanship to our midshipmen. I find a very considerable difference of opinion in naval circles on that point. Personally, I think there is a great deal of force in the contention of my hon. Friend. I think that though the Training Squadron has ships which still have sails, the training in ships which have sails is invaluable to sailors who have to combat the elements; yet there are a good many officers of the younger school who believe that our sailors and officers will never take the same trouble with regard to sails with which afterwards they may never have anything more to do. ["Hear, hear!"] They hold that the time so spent is somewhat wasted, as well as the money expended on the trainingships; and their view is that the young men ought to be exercised only in ironclads and torpedo destroyers. Between these two schools of thought it is difficult to decide; but it appears to me that this attack on the training and sailing system is very much like the objection brought against a study of the classics. Though the training may not be of direct use, I believe it to be invaluable. But training is, of course, also necessary in ironclads and in torpedo destroyers, and we have established a system of passing a number of men and officers through torpedo destroyers so as to accustom them to the management of this new form of swift vessel. We have a certain number attached to the Channel Squadron and at various ports, so that while we continue the training in the Training Squadron we are, I hope, meeting the views of the other school by training as far as possible in torpedo vessels and ironclads. I am glad to say that we have been able—and in this respect I am sure the House will agree with me—to increase the number of ships afloat to a very considerable degree. It is costly, no doubt, though scarcely in proportion to the experience which is gained. I pass now from the personnel to the question
  1508
  of mobilisation in the statements which are generally submitted to the House—the question of the number of our ships at sea. We have strengthened our various squadrons; we have more ships in the Channel; we have more ships in the Mediterranean and in China. ["Hear, hear!"] We have also substituted efficient ships for the old coastguard ships, and we have organised the Flying Squadron, which has added largely to the number of our ships afloat. I am glad to be able to say that the organisation of this Flying Squadron created no disturbance whatever in any single dockyard, or in any other way. It was not a question of unparalleled effort. Orders were given that we required so many more ships to be put into commission. They were put into commission without any fuss or difficulty in the dockyards; and the rapidity with which some of the ships were docked and sent out reflected the highest credit on our dockyard authorities. [Cheers.] Notwithstanding that we have this larger number of ships at sea than usual, notwithstanding any necessary criticisms that may have been passed on many of the ships, or the faults that could be found almost with any ship that sailed the sea, the behaviour of our ships at sea has been good and has given satisfaction to the country. ["Hear, hear!"] It is marvellous what people will write occasionally on these matters. I saw an article from a paper—I did not read the paper—which the writer apparently thought important enough to circulate as a leaflet. It was to the effect that our ships were so constructed that it was dangerous for them to go to sea; and, therefore, they generally remained in the harbour. [Laughter.] I think that the number of ships which have been commissioned and floated are much greater in proportion than that of any other country, European or American. I say this in no spirit of boastfulness, but because it belongs to us as a maritime nation to have as many ships as we can. The commissioning additional ships for the Channel Squadron has given us the opportunity of putting into it the two latest results of British shipbuilding, the two latest creations of Sir William White, our most

  1509
  talented constructor-in-chief. They went to sea with the Channel Squadron, and the Admiral commanding the squadron was able to write as follows with regard to the Majestic:—
  "I am thoroughly satisfied with the result of our first cruise in the new ships, and think the result is most creditable to the designers and fitters-out. We went through manœuvres, target practice, and torpedo running, just as if we had been a year in commission; and although it was the first time and everything was new—guns, torpedoes, and engines—all went without a hitch. The ship steers well. She is quicker off her helm than the Royal Sovereign, and does not lose her way so much in turning."
  This comes from a practical sailor, and it is a criticism of the last ships we have added to our fleet, the Magnificent and Majestic. With regard to torpedo destroyers our experience has been extremely satisfactory, and there have been some circumstances which have given us an opportunity of testing their strength. There was the Sunfish, for instance, which came from the north when just completed in a heavy gale, and small as she was she made a good voyage. Some hon. Members will remember the Daring running into Dover. A ship ran into her, but she was nevertheless able to keep at sea, and the naval architects who examined the results were surprised at the manner in which so slight a vessel had been able to stand the strain. I trust that the House will forgive me if I dwell upon these points, because they are of very considerable interest to the country at large, and there are criticisms made which we are not often able to answer. This is another report of the experience gained in a recent collision with another vessel:—
  "The torpedo-boat destroyer Lightning, when proceeding at a speed of 14 knots, collided with another vessel. The collision tore away the whole of the Lightning's bows, and her subsequent grounding twice without material damage, proved that these vessels, though necessarily very lightly built to secure the high speed demanded, are yet capable of withstanding very severe damage without foundering."
  I have thought that these reports on the new types, the Majestic and the torpedo destroyers, would not be without interest to the House. I would now recall the attention of the House to one of my opening remarks about the consequential expense attendant on the increase of
  1510
  armaments. I turn, therefore, to the subject of ordnance—armaments, guns, and ammunition. In this respect I think scarcely sufficient provision has been made in the last two years' Estimates, but I do not wish to attach any special blame for this. I am most anxious we should all co-operate together, without party recriminations, in this work. Probably and naturally the late Government thought that the ships would not make that progress to completion with the immense rapidity which we have seen exhibited. At all events, we have fallen behind in the construction of guns, but I trust we shall be able to pick up what we have lost, and with the view of doing so we have spent £200,000 extra in the present financial year, for which I shall propose a Vote in the Supplementary Estimates. But next year, having gone into the examination ship by ship in the same manner as we have done in the case of the men—and again I say this is no haphazard Vote—I regret to say it will be necessary to ask the House to assent to an increase of no less than £850,000 on Vote 9, for ordnance and ammunition. The Vote, that is to say, will be increased from £1,693,000 to £2,543,000, an increase of more than 50 per cent. That is imperatively necessary [cheers], and we shall look to the producing power of the country to supply us with that amount of guns and ammunition. If there are hon. Members on the other side who think this is too much, let them put themselves in the position of necessity arising and ships being ready and there being no guns or ammunition for them. Check the ships if you wish, but do not grant the ships and refuse their armaments. ["Hear, hear!"] I am afraid this is not the only result of the increased requirements for guns and ammunition. If we have more guns and ammunition, with the corresponding reserves, we require more storage room, more magazines. Fresh magazines are required. I may state that the old hulks in which powder has been stored have become to be regarded as positively dangerous, and the question of magazines must be vigorously taken in hand. For this purpose we think that nearly half-a-million will be required. That, again, I think we may consider as capital expenditure, and provision will be

  1511
  made for it in the Naval Works Bill. It may be convenient for me to state what other expenditure we intend to provide under the Vote. Increased dock accommodation was provided by the Act of the late Government. Amongst other works, there is the long-desired extension of the Mole at Gibraltar, and other works connected with that port. Money was also taken for a dock, but the House may remember that in the Bill of the late Government the word "dock" was inserted in the schedule, but at the instance of the House of Commons the word "docks" was substituted; and a shipbuilder, whose loss we all regret—Sir E. Harland—recommended that the dock which was being built should be increased to 700 feet. Apart from that, another argument has been urged—namely, that if the dock were increased to 700 feet two vessels might possibly be docked in it at one time. ["Hear, hear!"] "Docks," as distinguished from "dock," implies a certain amount of increased accommodation in various ways, and that at Gibraltar means a considerable amount of money. I do not know whether the House of Commons approaches this matter with a light heart. At all events the Admiralty have not done so. If there is one point on which we have concentrated the best attention at our command it was as to what should be done at Gibraltar. The matter involved an immense amount of responsibility, and admittedly there are considerations on one side and the other; but finally we came to the conclusion that an effort must be made to make that necessary accommodation at Gibraltar which its strategic position and the requirements of the Navy render necessary, and we have concluded to build three docks instead of one and to provide the necessary accommodation. The cost of the new works is estimated at 2frac14; millions, in addition to the £361,000 already provided for the one dock. ["Oh!" and a voice, "Shame!"] The amount, I admit, is large; I do not think it is staggering, and I shall be surprised if we do not in this matter receive the support, not of a unanimous House of Commons, but of a very large portion of the House of Commons. [Cheers.] I ought to add that we have not only considered the point by ourselves, but we have
  1512
  called in the experts of the War Office. We have considered all the questions with regard to the strategic position of Gibraltar, and certainly not without the fullest consideration, but with a deep sense of our responsibility, we shall ask the House of Commons to include this additional amount in the Vote. Nor have we confined our attention to Gibraltar. It has been our duty to take a survey of all parts of our Empire ["Hear, hear!"], and to see where dock accommodation was necessary in the changed circumstances of naval policy and strategy. I have no professional opinion upon this, but I am told that modern iron ships require more docking than the wooden ships of olden time. We have had to look to various parts of the globe, where I will not say our interests might be menaced, but where we ought to be prepared to defend them, and it will probably be necessary for us to add to the works which were proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We do not in present circumstances intend to ask for a dock at Mauritius or Simon's Town, at the Cape of Good Hope. We believe a dock at Mauritius is necessary, and we shall ask for money in the Estimates to make a preliminary survey with regard both to Mauritius and Simon's Town. We think that better than putting any amounts into the Naval Works Bill this year, for the following reason—that it is impossible to estimate the cost, and the House of Commons might only be unwittingly deceived if we were to insert any sum in the Bill before the preliminary surveys are completed. In the Naval Works Bill of last year, for example, Dover was inserted. It is highly probable that the amount set down on account of the works there is underestimated by a very large sum. I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite took the figure of two millions from old Estimates made many years ago, having no other figures to go by, and it being impossible to find any others. We shall propose a Naval Works Bill on the lines of the Act of last year—that is to say, a Bill to be renewed in the next financial year—because we feel that at present we have not got sufficient knowledge to estimate as regards Dover or the other docks which I have mentioned. The works which I have enumerated and

  1513
  certain other minor proposals raise the amount taken in the Naval Works Act of last year from £8,500,000 to £14,000,000, which will be the amount laid down in the new Bill. These are large Estimates, but the House will not be staggered by the amount [cheers] unless hon. Members can put their finger on one single item where they think that economy ought to be enforced. It is not lightly that we have included these large sums in our Estimates. It is with a full conviction that this expenditure is necessary. With regard to the finance of the Bill, I am authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that he will put aside the surplus of this year, after satisfying the Supplementary Estimates, to make a fund which, in the first instance, shall supply the expenditure under this Naval Works Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Instead of borrowing with one hand and setting up annuities and perhaps at the same time buying Consols or other securities with the surplus, my right hon. Friend has generously placed the surplus at the disposal of the Admiralty for the purposes of the Naval Works Bill. [Cheers.] I now pass to that which perhaps will be more interesting to the House—namely, the question of ships. Let me in a few sentences review the past; and let us look for a moment at the efforts of the last few years, in order that we may obtain a glance at the whole of the naval shipbuilding which this country has considered to be necessary. I will start with the Naval Defence Act of 1889. Of course in that first year there were certain ships under construction, the expenditure on which I leave out. I start afresh with the Naval Defence Act. There are three periods—that of the Naval Defence programme; then that of the programme intermediate between the Defence Act and what is called Lord Spencer's great programme, which includes the ships built in 1892–3 and 1893–4; and thirdly, that of Lord Spencer's programme of 1894. The Naval Defence Act added 70 ships to the Navy, of which 10 were battleships. The intermediate period supplied three battleships—the Renown, the Majestic, and the Magnificent; five cruisers, including the Powerful and the Terrible, four sloops, and six torpedo-boat destroyers. Then came Lord
  1514
  Spencer's programme, under which the following ships have been or are now being constructed—seven first-class battleships, four first-class cruisers of the Diadem type, six second-class cruisers of the Talbot type, four second-class cruisers of the Arrogant type, two third-class cruisers of the Pelorus and Proserpine type, and 56 torpedo-boat destroyers. No ships of this latter programme are complete as yet—the time has been too short—except some 20 torpedo-boat destroyers. Adding the 70 ships built under the Naval Defence Act, the 12 under the intermediate programme, and the 23 under Lord Spencer's programme, we reach the total of 105 ships and 62 torpedo-boat destroyers which have been commenced, part of them finished and part still under construction, between 1889 and 1896. That is a formidable list—a great list; and yet I shall have to ask the House to add to it. [Cheers.] The effect of the Naval Defence Act is now apparent. Up to now we have only the Majestic and Magnificent of the ships belonging to Lord Spencer's programme. Of course it is not in the first year that one sees the good effect of it; but of the 70 ships built under the Naval Defence Act there are at present in commission 10 battleships, 27 cruisers, nine torpedo gunboats. The Mediterranean Squadron has three Defence Act battleships out of nine, and six out of seven first and second-class cruisers. The Channel Squadron has four Naval Defence Act ships out of six, and the Particular Service Squadron is, except for torpedo-boat destroyers, entirely composed of ships of the Naval Defence Act. Therefore you will see from the present ships afloat how much is due to the effort made at the time of which we are now reaping satisfactory results. There are two ways by which we may increase our force—either by the acceleration of ships building or by the laying down of new ships. I am not sure whether the acceleration of ships building is not as important an element in policy as the laying down of new ships; and that policy of acceleration is a policy to which we are committed, and which we wish the House of Commons to endorse. [Cheers.] During the present year we have endeavoured to hasten the programme which was laid down by the

  1515
  right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have done so by putting more men on the battleships, and so finishing them earlier. We have hurried on the order for armour—a most important fact, if we require more armour in future years; because though, of course, there is a great industry for the supply of armour, yet it is necessarily limited. Therefore we have only taken time by the forelock, and have spent more money upon armour in the present financial year than the original Estimates contemplated. The Supplementary Estimate which it will be our duty to propose to the House amounts to £1,100,000. It includes an excess of £150,000 for wages in the dockyards, that is for the additional men we have put on to make the Majestic and the Magnificent ready earlier, and to have them in the Channel Squadron at the present moment, and for other work. We have spent £300,000 more on armour; £325,000 more on stores, and £200,000 in armaments and munitions for guns and Maxims. By this amount we undoubtedly relieve the burden on the coming financial year. Whether it is fair to do so, hon. Members will be able to judge in a few moments, when I come to that which we propose to place on the Estimates for the year 1896–97. I may say here that we have increased the men in the dockyards up to 23,000; and I think that I ought, in passing, to pay a tribute to the organisation of our dockyards and those who have assisted in building our ships. There is the greatest emulation, I am glad to say, between the various dockyards. They take the greatest possible pride in finishing a ship before the time in which a corresponding ship was finished in another dockyard. The emulation between Chatham and Portsmouth is most healthy and exhilarating, and it is pleasant to see the men taking this interest in their work and their delight in turning out ships well and swiftly. The output of work will bear the closest criticism, in regard to either time, efficiency, or economy. It reflects the greatest credit upon the officers of the yards and on all the workmen. ["Hear, hear!"] The unexampled rapidity in the construction of battle ships has not in the least interfered with the other works in the yards. It is
  1516
  extra work that has been done. I know that it has been said that this rapidity affects the efficiency; that the men have been taken away from other ships. But that is not so. The up-keep of the fleet in commission and the thorough-going efficiency of the ships in the reserve have been fully maintained. With regard to the question of sacrificing efficiency to cheapness, it has been said that complaints have been made by the overseers or captains of newly commissioned ships. The records of the Admiralty contain no mention whatever of such complaints. [Cheers.] I have spoken of the year in which we are at present. Now I come to 1896–97. We start with having under construction a formidable number of ships—eight battleships, 21 cruisers, and 40 torpedo boat destroyers. Let me approach the question of battleships from the points of view of number and class. I am not going to place before the House comparative lists of the navies of foreign countries and of our own. It is, no doubt, a matter which has to be done, and we at the Admiralty have given days and weeks and months to the consideration of the relative strength of the different navies. I propose, not to place before the House the processes or figures by which we have arrived at our results; I propose only to give those results, with some indication of the system which we have followed. One paramount rule which we have laid down in all comparisons is that size alone is no criterion of the fighting value of a ship. [Cheers.] The Leader of the Opposition caused tables to be prepared showing the first-class battleships of various countries. Such lists are illusory to a certain extent, unless they are accompanied by numberless explanations; and even then such controversies would gather round them that it would be impossible to elucidate them. But we have proceeded by analysing, as regards battleships, all such forces as ought to be taken into consideration. We have been aware of this fact—that there are first-class battleships belonging to ourselves which are at present not much more efficient than some second-class battleships; and, on the other hand, that there are some second-class battleships which may be ranked in certain circumstances as equal to first-class battleships. We look at the matter as a whole. We take a second-class

  1517
  battleship which is capable, as regards armament, armour, and speed, of competing with a first-class battleship. You must send a first-class battleship against it. Nevertheless, that second-class ship is unequal to the first-class, because it has not got the coal-carrying capacity, and, therefore, it is only under certain given circumstances that the second-class ship is equal to the first-class. In the construction of battleships there are four desiderate—speed, armament defensive armour, and coal carrying capacity. To secure these objects, if you want to secure them all in their fullest efficiency, you require vessels of a certain size, and when you want to decrease the size of that vessel, you must make up your minds which of those four desiderata you are prepared to sacrifice, and that sacrifice you will choose according to the special circumstances of the nation. Those who are prepared for defensive naval strategy may leave out coal-carrying capacity; those who believe that theirs must be an offensive policy must on no account surrender coal-carrying capacity, and so it happens when you compare one of our ships having large coal-carrying capacity, and also considerable capacity for carrying ammunition with a foreign ship has thicker armour, but what is her coal-carrying capacity? You must make a sacrifice on one side or the other, and it is only when you bear in mind these first principles you will do justice to your own ships, or be able to form a proper opinion. No naval architect is able to combine all these desiderata together under a certain size. I will read an extract from the speech on the French Navy Estimates by the reporter on the French Naval Budget, because it very neatly expresses the doctrine of which I am speaking, and which has a great bearing on the selection of ships. M. Thomson said:—
  "It is certain that if the problem of modern construction is not insoluble, it is at least very delicate and very complex. Naval construction becomes more and more complicated. We are at this moment in a period of transformation, development and trial. Every ship brought into existence puts the type which it replaces in the Fleet into a lower grade, and only bears a distant resemblance to that type. Every armourclad is a compromise. Beyond the multiple and very various requirements, it would be impossible to conceive a type which would not give a
  1518
  handle to any criticism. To instal on the hull of a medium tonnage weapons of war of a tremendous power, to put under the protection of an armoured wall formidable fighting instruments where bronze, iron, and steel are crowded together in every shape, to give to this mass a large radius of action, a high speed, it is almost the pursuit of the improbable. But have the goodness to believe it—the foreigner no more than we possesses the solution of this difficult problem."
  We say the same. No country more than ourselves has power to solve this problem. I thought I would place before the House some of the various differences of opinion which exist with reference to what you ought to sacrifice; but I have already detained you so long—and I have still a certain amount of ground to go over—that I will refrain from doing so on the present occasion. I will confine myself to saying that the whole ship must be taken into consideration, also the differences as regards the disposition of armament. A choice must, therefore be made. That choice must depend on the special requirements of the particular nation for whom the ships are built. It is strongly held by the present Board of Admiralty—I believe it has been held by past Boards—that the range of action in the case of English ships must not be crippled, and that coal-carrying is one of the most vital necessities. We must have ships equal in fighting capacity and we must have coal-carrying capacity also, in order to enable our ships to remain at sea. Consequently, in any ships we may propose we cannot go below a certain size, unless we accept the doctrine that they are to be Channel ships only. Some of our rivals have fine fighting ships, but their inadequate coal-carrying capacity prevents them going beyond the Channel. We think we ought not to build such ships, because we require our vessels not only in the Channel, but in distant parts of the world—we require ships ready to go anywhere and to do anything. ["Hear, hear!"] I will put before the House the number of ships which we propose to add to those now under construction. We propose to add five battleships, four first-class cruisers, three second-class cruisers, six third-class cruisers, and 28 torpedo-boat destroyers. The first-class cruisers will be of the Diadem type, the second class of the Talbot, and the third-class of the Pelorus type. With regard to the torpedo-boat

  1519
  destroyers, I must inform the House, looking to the extraordinary urgency of proceeding with that class of boat—seeing they were sanctioned by the late Cabinet and entered into the programme of Lord Spencer—we have ordered eight of them in anticipation of the verdict of the House of Commons. Of course, if the House of Commons so chooses, they will strike them off the number we now propose. With regard to this list of cruisers, the House will observe that they are to be according to existing types—the Diadem, the Talbot, and the Pelorus. The five battleships are to be improved Renowns. In order to avoid any misconception, I may say these designs were prepared by Sir William White before he left. Sir William White has been indisposed for some months, but before he started on his holiday for the restoration of his health, he was able to approve of the whole of the programme which we now produce to the House. I have his authority for it, and his authority is a great one. ["Hear, hear!"] Sir William White has built 130 battleships, and not one of them has had a deeper draught or has erred in stability from the calculations which he had made. His recent ships, the Magnificent and the Majestic have had 200 tons less weight when launched than his design. The new Renowns will be 390 feet in length, 74 feet in breadth, and have a displacement of 12,900 tons. They are thus 2,000 tons smaller than the Majestic, and draw about two feet less water, a point to which we attach very great importance. They will have the same coal endurance and rather greater speed. They will be fitted with water-tube boilers, and will consequently be able to steam further at a high speed than the Majestic class. The main armament will be the same as that of the Majestic class. The protective arrangements are also similar, but there will be less thickness of armour. We believe that, through the coal arrangements in the bunkers alongside the deficiencies in armour will be amply compensated by the advantages we have gained in other respects. I have compared the new Renown with the Majestic. As compared with the old Renown, the
  1520
  new ships will be greatly superior in armament—namely, 12-in. as against 10-in. guns, and in barbette armour 12-in. as against 10-in., and two more 6-in. quick-firing guns. In citadel protection the principal portion of the protected area has the same thickness in both cases—6-in. The Renown has a little 8-in. armour, but the new ships will have their citadels about 15 feet longer. For continuous steaming over long distances, the new vessels will have an advantage in speed of two knots. These five battleships, added to the seven battleships which are now building under Lord Spencer's programme, and the Renown, will constitute 13 battleships which will be under construction during the present year. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the number of cruisers, I wish to say to those who think it is either too great or too small, it has again not been decided upon haphazard. The First Naval Lord has gone over every station, every trade route, and has considered the composition of the squadrons of the Mediterranean, North Sea, and Channel, on the Irish coasts, and in distant parts. He has allotted so many cruisers to these particular places. This number of cruisers is based not upon a comparison of the number of cruisers other nations have, because their conditions are entirely different from ours, but upon the question what we have to defend, what services will have to be performed, in what direction the food supply will have to be protected, and what resources we have. This number of cruisers, added to those which have gone before, and with the addition of a few third-class cruisers which may still have to be asked for in a future year, represents the deliberate opinion of the Board of Admiralty. Whether we err or not, it is the deliberate opinion of the Board of Admiralty as to the requirements of the day. ["Hear, hear!"] I am now approaching the end of my very long story. I have placed before the House the number of ships which we propose to add to the Navy. We do not propose to proceed by Bill, because it is intended to begin all these ships during the present financial year.

  1521
  I may say that, looking at these additional ships, the House is entitled to know that the cost, in addition to what we have in hand at the beginning of the year, spread over three years, is £10,000,000 sterling. That is for the new ships. We propose to finish the whole of the Spencer ships, and the whole of our own ships, by July, 1899. On the present year there will be a proposed increase of £1,860,000 on Vote 8. Now I have placed before the House roughly the effect generally of our Estimates. There is an increase for men, including the reserve, of £300,000; shipbuilding, £1,860,000; ordnance, £850,000; new works, £70,000 more than last year, exclusive of the Naval Works Bill, and other Votes, £42,000; or a total increase of £3,122,000 on the Votes of last year. The total Navy Estimates are £21,823,000. In 1895–96, they were £18,701,000, there being thus an increase of £3,122,000. In regard to items of new construction, the amount will be £7,385,000, as compared with £5,393,000. In previous years the amounts were—1892–93, £4,050,000; in 1893–94, £2,984,000; in 1894–95, £4,477,000; and in 1895–96, £5,393,000; and in this year, £7,385,000. The amount of increased wages in the dockyards is £294,000. Three battleships, one first-class cruiser, and one third-class cruiser will be built in the dockyards. The remainder will be built by contract. The three battleships to be built in the dockyards will be commenced when the ships on the slips at Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth are completed. This will insure a continuity of work in the dockyards. Tenders for the two battleships to be built by contract will be given out next month. The whole of the third-class cruisers will be commenced at once. Indeed, I have gone so far as to invite tenders, and as soon as Parliament sanctions them the whole will be put in hand at once. Stringent limits as to the date of their completion will be
  1522
  inserted in the contracts. They ought to be ready within 13 months from the time of their commencement. The same holds good with regard to the torpedo-boat destroyers. The whole of the tenders for these will be invited at once. The first and second-class cruisers will be commenced in the autumn. The House will see that the whole of this Programme will be commenced and pushed on in the financial year 1896–97. The Programme on which the Board of Admiralty agree is embodied in the Vote of that year, with the few exceptions I have already stated. A broad view has been taken of the Navy, and we believe that now we have arrived at some point on which we may stand. There will be 13 battleships, 10 first-class cruisers, 19 second-class cruisers, eight third-class cruisers, and 90 torpedo-boat destroyers, which form the joint Programme of Lord Spencer and the present Board of Admiralty. The cost of the whole of this, beginning with 1894–5, added to as it has been by myself, will be about £28,000,000. The cost of the Naval Defence Act was £21,000,000. Five million pounds were spent in the two intervening years on these ships. And now about £28,000,000 is the joint Programme of Lord Spencer and ourselves, forming from the year 1889 to 1899 an aggregate expenditure of £55,000,000 upon new construction. I may now sum up. The House will remember that we ask for a supplementary Estimate of £1,000,000 and for Estimates which this year amount to nearly £22,000,000. I give these figures to the House not in any spirit of boastfulness or exaggeration. That is far from our desire. These are not Estimates of provocation—[cheers]—they are Estimates of self-defence. [Cheers.] They are Estimates based on the special conditions of this country—conditions which are not those of any other country—on our scattered possessions, on the position of our food supply, and on our colonial Empire. They are based on the

  1523
  security of our own shores. [Cheers.] If foreign countries look at these Estimates they must not compare them with what they spend upon their navies. They must consider comparatively what they spend upon their armies—["Hear, hear!"]—because the squadrons which we send to sea are the corps d'armée that we place upon our frontiers as they place corps d'armée upon theirs. [Cheers.] Then they have conscription and their vast military armaments. We have our small, though, I hope, excellent, Army. ["Hear, hear!"] But it is to our ships and our Navy that we look. [Cheers.] And an increase of these, even a large increase in our Estimates, ought not in any degree to excite the jealousy or emulation of any foreign nation. We are doing no more than we consider absolutely necessary for our self-defence. ["Hear, hear!"] Some words of mine have been misconstrued to mean indifference to the maintenance of friendships with other countries. No statesman can feel such indifference. ["Hear, hear!"] When we are taunted, as has been continually the case, with what has been called our isolation, we have a right to tell them how we regard that alleged isolation ourselves. We have a right to explain its nature and limits to our countrymen. But, however that may be, whether we be isolated or not, whether in any great strain that may come upon us—which God forbid—we should be unaided by allies, or whether in any general disturbance of peace, we should take our place side by side with other Powers, the British people are unanimous that our fleets should represent the self-reliance of a great nation. [Cheers.] To that unanimity the Government commend these Estimates, satisfied that their cost will be cheerfully borne by the nation, and trusting that they will be accepted, as they have been conceived, in a spirit of moderation, though framed on a scale which, with a full sense of responsibility, we deem adequate for the occasion. [Cheers.]
  On the Motion of the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY, the Debate was adjourned.

  NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision for the construction of Works and acquisition of land in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums not exceeding in thewhole£2,750,000 for such purpose, and to authorise the application of the surplus of income above expenditure for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1896, towards the repayment of expenses incurred for Naval Works, and the payment of sums to be expended for Naval Works.—(Mr. Goschen.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read 3a, and passed.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. T. LOUGH*MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.) rose to move:—
  "That this House declines to sanction any scheme for the construction of light railways, which will increase the burden of local rates or add to the weight of Imperial taxation."
  He said he desired to refer for a moment or two to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in introducing this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said there were a great number of acres of land—8,000,000 in all the counties of England—which were three or more miles from a railway station, and he suggested

  1525
  that if this Bill was adopted it would bring them all into connection with the great lines and shower upon them a number of blessings. If they remembered that statement and compared it with the small and niggardly provisions of the Bill itself, they could not help comparing it with the statements which were found in a prospectus of doubtful articles which were to be sold at a large price. The calculation generally went—"so many millions of these articles are used in the country, and if we sell such and such a proportion of them, a great deal of money will be made." But, usually, people who put their confidence in such prospectuses were only deluded by these large promises. He thought the President of the Board of Trade was, to a certain extent in that position, and if he hoped, by this small Bill and the petty provisions he had put in it, to effect that great revolution of which he spoke he thought he was bound to be disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman also made some interesting remarks about the railways of Belgium, but he would like to ask why he had not presented a report of the interesting visit he had paid to the Continent in connection with this subject, for they might have learned from it lessons as to the construction of these light railways which might have been most useful to them. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that in Belgium these railways paid; that the average interest paid on the capital invested was something like 3 per cent.; that they were built at a cost not exceeding £3,000 a mile and that they were, if he might use a word to describe them, a sort of domestic railways which ran alongside the roads and which might be stopped by the holding up of a hand. In the Bill before them they did not find any security that any one of the advantages which were the features of the Belgian system would be secured to this country. But they need not go so far as Belgium to consider this question. They had had experience of light railways in Ireland first under the Bill of 1883, and then under the Bill of 1889. It would have been very valuable if the right hon. Gentleman had told them what had been the experience of those railways, but he had been profoundly silent on the subject. He thought that they had just
  1526
  cause of complaint as to the way in which the Bill had been introduced. The Bill was only distributed on Friday, and he had had to work hard in the interval to get to understand its provisions. They ought, he thought to have had a longer time to consider it, and the Bill was of sufficient importance to have been explained in another speech, so that its provisions might have been better understood by the House. He regarded the Bill as a plan for the construction of railways where they were not wanted. A Commission was to be formed to be called the Light Railway Commission. The House had grown very fond of Commissions, but of all the Commissions which were ever suggested to it he thought this was one of the most extraordinary and absurd. Three gentlemen were called into existence. One of these was to be paid at a salary of only £1,000 a year and the other two were expected to work for nothing. All the important questions which were sure to arise under this scheme and all its details were to be entrusted to these three gentlemen. And when they came to consider the duties of the Commission they found they had got no power at all. They were a sort of fifth wheel to the coach. They took a great deal of trouble, and they put the promoters of a Bill to a great deal of trouble, but they could not decide anything. They could only make a report to the Board of Trade, and the whole matter was at the discretion of that Department. He desired to protest against the great interests that would arise under this Bill being entrusted to men, one of whom only was remunerated in the shabby fashion that was proposed. He thought they ought to criticise very severely the constitution of this Commission. Promoters of a Bill under the present expensive system had at least this advantage, that they prepared their case and presented it to a body who could decide on it. That was not the case with the Light Railway Commission, and he thought it was a great pity that business men should be put to the trouble of preparing plans and submitting them to a body which could not approve of them nor express any final decision upon them. He thought it would be better for promoters to go before the Board of Trade at once. Great facilities were given

  1527
  under the Bill to localities for the construction of light railways. He was not against facilities, under considerable restrictions, being given to localities, but under this Bill every step was taken to seduce the locality into the construction of unproductive light railways, and there was no clause at all which would tend to the protection of the locality in the work they had got to do. His Amendment was to protect the rates of the locality. They wanted some such Amendment as that, for there was not a single provision in the Bill which had the slightest tendency towards protecting the local rates from the charges which might be put upon them by authorities which were carried away with the prospects of these railways. If any hon. Member would turn to Clause 15, he would see that there was the greatest facility given for spending the ratepayers' money and that under Sub-Head 4, local authorities were empowered to pay interest on capital, loss on working capital and the repayment of the capital within a given number of years out of the rates of the locality. Under Sub-head 5, even if the railway should pay—which, he was afraid, it was not likely to do in many cases—the locality would not be allowed to use the profit for the reduction of their ordinary rates, for it must be devoted to the extinction of the rate laid for the railway itself. Therefore, it was 99 to one against the locality making any profit out of these things and they were almost certain to incur a large loss. In connection with this matter he would like to call the attention of the House to one extraordinary provision which appeared in Clause 5, and which enabled the Treasury under certain circumstances to facilitate the building of these railways. That clause provided that when a railway was made the locality could never charge any higher rates on any part of the land occupied by the railway than was charged upon it before the line was made; although the Treasury might have practically made a present to the company of £100,000 to construct the line. What might be the effect of that? The effect of the construction of a railway might be to divert the traffic from the high road from which a village mainly derived its rates, and so lead to the ruin of such a village. On this line
  1528
  a station might be constructed around which would spring hotels, shops, and various habitations, but all these things would be the property of the railway company on which the locality could never charge a rate.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Not at all. That is quite a mistake.
  MR. LOUGH: Under Sub-head C, of Clause 5, the rate is restricted.
  MR. RITCHIE: But only to the line itself.
  MR. LOUGHasked why should not a railway if it destroyed the local traffic, contribute fairly to the rates in accordance with the income it derived. The next feature of the Bill was the Treasury assistance given for the construction of lines in cases where it was assumed that a line could not be made without such assistance. In the Bill it would be found that only £1,000,000 was devoted to this purpose whilst only £250,000 was available for grants. That sum was so small as to be absurd when they considered the great work that was to be done and yet it was dealt with on entirely wrong principles. If the Treasury lent money to a locality, it charged 3½ per cent. interest. Why should the localities have to pay such a rate of interest? If the Treasury approached the localities at all it ought to approach them on honest principles and lend them the money as cheaply as the Treasury could itself borrow it, and not try to make a profit in all these transactions. Free grants were made to railway companies to build these lines. He ventured to think this would be found to be a most dangerous provision. What security was taken in the Bill with regard to these advances? The first was that the Board of Agriculture should send a certificate to the Board of Trade stating that they thought the construction of the line would benefit agriculture in the district. What use was that? It was only a benevolent expression of opinion by the President of the Board of Agriculture. He thought there ought to be evidence given on the point or otherwise all sorts of jobbery would arise here. Pressure would be brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman who would be asked to write a letter stating that he thought agriculture would be

  1529
  benefited, and forthwith the, Chancellor of the Exchequer was to provide,£100,000 to some company which might have sprung into existence. What was the next protection? The Board of Trade was to certify that a connection would be established between a seaport and a market. If the Board of Agriculture or the Board of Trade interfered at all they should do a great deal more than this, and should fully explain the reasons why they thought a railway was wanted. The Board of Trade should prove that there was a good market for fish, that the seaport it intended to connect with the market had got a good harbour and that there was some prospect of trade to make the line pay. He thought the provisions under which the free grants were made were dangerous provisions which were only too likely to lead to corruption, and the Government which distributed a largesse like this would be placed in an extremely difficult position in administering this clause of the Bill. He asked the House to contrast the limitations imposed upon the Treasury with the absence of all protection to the locality. There was no single provision to protect localities which were led into every extravagance, and no attempt was made to keep them safe. Again, why was this called a Light Railway Bill? There was nothing in the proposed Measure about the gauge, and he hoped the standard gauge of the country would be adopted. There was nothing about cost to justify the use of the word light, and he thought in that respect they might well have the Bill amended when they came to consider it hereafter. The last complaint he had to make about the Bill was that no real facilities were given to the localities. There was no provision by which the land was to be secured cheaply and the promoters were not even preserved from the extra 10 per cent, which they had to pay for the land. In answer to a question the other day, the President of the Board of Trade intimated that he was not even willing to forego the passenger duty in regard to the light railways. No facilities, therefore, were to be given to the localities, the only difference between these and the great railways of the country being that in the case of the light railways the community would be asked to bear the risk instead of the
  1530
  speculators who had built the line. There was no Member more sympathetic with the difficulties of agriculture than he was, and he was most anxious to see everything done that possibly and wisely could be done for that depressed industry by that House. The localities ought to be facilitated in the construction of the lines, they ought to be protected, and legislation should aim at enabling them to make the lines cheaply and readily without undue risks. He objected to the Bill because it contained none of these conditions. He wanted the localities to give all the assistance they could without risk. It was said they could do nothing without risk. But they had in Belgium, the lines in that country paid, but if the Government here were to adopt the principle that lines ought to be made where they could not pay they would be proceeding in a dangerous direction. There was no effort in the Bill to consider whether the lines were likely to be an economical success, although that was a most important element to take into account in legislation of this character. The rates ought to be carefully guarded and they should do all they could to benefit localities without increasing the burden of local taxation. He thought the assistance given by the Treasury under the Bill was given in the most pernicious form; it charged too high a rate of interest, gave away too freely, whilst the whole amount dealt with was far too small adequately to carry out the purposes for which the Bill was intended. The railways of this country had been constructed by private enterprise, and now when the private speculator had got all the good and promising investments the country was asked to take up what was doubtful. What the Treasury ought to do was to give a small guarantee of about 2 per cent. for 10 or 15 years, so as to induce the private speculators to construct lines where they thought there was an economical demand for them. The Treasury should use its vast resources of borrowing money cheaply and assisting in the way he had suggested without throwing any serious burden on the taxpayers and not address itself to the matter in the wholesale way proposed by the Bill. He thought it would have been quite possible to have drawn up a Bill on safe lines, but this Bill was

  1531
  not so drafted. There were, he believed, some supporters of the Bill, who imagined that if they made a railway in an agricultural district they would do an infinite amount of good, but unless they had something besides agriculture, a railway could not be successfully made and especially a short line of three or four miles, such as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The lines should be allowed to be made in accordance with the wants of the locality and surrounded by the safeguards the locality would suggest. He asked the Members for agricultural constituencies to show why they were so certain that agriculture would be made profitable if these railways were constructed. He would give the experience of light railways of a little town with which he was acquainted in Ireland. Forty years ago, until a railway was made, letters could be posted to Dublin four hours later than now. The reason was there was not enough traffic for the railway company to supply a good service of trains. The first effect of making a railway was to destroy the means of locomotion, that formerly existed. The coaches, cars, and local carriers disappeared. The old—if not perfectly effective—system of locomotion was destroyed, and there was substituted one which did not meet the wants of the district half as well. Under the old system all the profits accrued in the locality; under the new system they deprived the locality of the profits of carrying goods, and they went to a company of shareholders, perhaps 100 or 200 miles away. He was not against replacing the old methods by machinery. But the machinery must be adapted for the work it had to do, and they must introduce machinery where the interests were small, poor, and easily destroyed, with the greatest care, and the Bill involved too great precipitancy. He would describe the effect of two great light railway enterprises in Ireland. Under the first Bill—a Liberal Bill—of 1883, light railways were built under an extravagant guarantee of 5 per cent. to be furnished by the locality in Ireland, and if the Treasury were satisfied that the railway would be kept at work, it refunded the locality 2 per cent, of the guarantee. Since the Bill became law 18 lines had been constructed and they were about 250 miles long and he asserted
  1532
  the worst constructed lines in Europe. The service was irregular and unpunctual and the rates were high. The lowest cost was £2,600 a mile, ranging to £6,000. On every one of the local loans the taxpayers had to pay interest on the whole of the capital, and this year,£30,000 would be voted, to be added to £60,000, or £90,000 in all to pay interest on £1,500,000,sunk in these lines, or 6 per cent. Was it not a wicked thing to plunge Ireland into this mischievous speculation in a time of agricultural distress? The working expenses had never yet been covered by the takings, yet the stock of these railways was among the most prized in Ireland. They sold at 50 per cent. premium. If the lines were pulled up the shares would be merrily dealt in at 50 per cent. The House did not construct appropriate industrial enterprise with these railways, but gave greedy capitalists money which they would stick to for ever. Instead of gaily plunging into light railways in England, they ought to be repairing the mischiefs they had done by light railways in Ireland. A rate of 2s. 2d. in the £1 was being paid for light railways which it was dangerous to travel upon. With such experiences in Ireland the House ought to be careful about light railways in England. It would be said that local authorities in England were not as they were in Ireland. Thank God they were not. There was no local authority in Ireland of which any decent Government ought not to be ashamed. The local authorities in England were no more to be trusted than local authorities in Ireland. It was said they would proceed as safely as capitalists. The latter sought interest on their money, and that made them cautious. But county and district councils were trained in money making, and before they would put thousands into a light railway, they ascertained whether it would pay. In the protection of localities from further taxation, English local governing bodies did not give a bit more protection than Irish Grand Juries did. The second chapter in the history of light railways in Ireland began in 1889. The Government recognised the scandal that had arisen out of the heavy tax imposed by bankrupt railways under the Act of 1883. The plan was then adopted of

  1533
  making grants to the railway companies to make the lines, and £1,500,000 had been distributed for this purpose. He called it a most questionable distribution of public money. The cost of construction ranged from £4,000 to £9,000, and £15,000 a mile. Now, it was proposed to launch a similar system in England. The Government approached private companies and said: "If you are prepared to make a loan we will give you so much money." The companies wanted more and tried to get all they could and grants to the extent mentioned had been made. He believed that most of the companies were paying 5 per cent. on their ordinary shares. He lived near one of these lines when in Ireland. The taxpayers there had no control over the line and the service of trains was most inconvenient. Similar evils to those caused by light railways in Ireland would arise in England if this Bill were passed. Let it not lie thought that the £1,000,000 mentioned in the Bill would be the end of the expenditure. The House would open a little tap that night which they would never be able to close and ultimately £100,000,000 might have to be spent. Because he thought the principle of Bill was unjust to private capitalists who had built over a thousand millions' worth of railways in England; and because he considered the Bill would be oppressive and mischievous to the localities, and likely to be injurious to the State, he asked the House to adopt the Amendment that stood in his name.
  MR. R. W. PERKSin seconding the Amendment said that the Bill in its present form would be of comparatively little use in securing the construction of cheap railways in the rural districts and that unless it was very substantially altered or amended in Committee the House ought not to pass it. As had been pointed out, a light railway was not always an advantage to a district. The use of steam and electricity for motive power must largely diminish the use of horses; there would be a disappearance of carriers' carts; and the customers of country shopkeepers would be tempted to go to the towns. Still, these disadvantages would be outweighed by commercial advantages, although light railways would not be the universal panacea that some anticipated.
  1534
  They would affect but comparatively small areas, and the farmers who had to load a wagon would prefer to send it to the market town if the distance was not too great. The Government had made one improvement in the Bill as compared with last Session. It was an untenable position to lay down that there should be no support from Imperial funds. Increased trade meant increased public revenue, and there was therefore some justification for Imperial support of local enterprises. Light railways ought to lead to considerable economy in postal arrangements. Localities would not like to burden themselves in order to construct, subsidise, or work light railways; and he should like to see in the Bill greater elasticity in the giving of Imperial support. He agreed that with the adoption of the principle of guarantee there might be openings for great waste in construction, and the absence of incentives to earn dividends in working. That was likely to be so, if interest were paid at a high rate; but, if interest were paid at a low rate, then guarantee was a suitable form of aid. If the Bill took power to give, a two per cent, guarantee over 25 years, that would be a more effective and economical way of using the million of money than would be the subsidising of local authorities. He was not at all sanguine that the Bill would be effective in securing the construction of light railways, owing to the principle of guarantee being ignored altogether. He should like to ask whether the Government would not be disposed to guarantee small sums for the construction of feeder-lines. They were not at all likely to be made by local capitalists; and, indeed, they would have to be made by the companies owning the trunk lines; and the construction of them would not be facilitated by this Bill. It was useless to offer money at 3½ per cent. to established companies, who could borrow at a much lower rate. The House ought to do all it could to facilitate the making of light railways by the trunk lines. Twenty miles of narrow light railway had been made between Barnstaple and Lynton at a cost of £42,000, exclusive of land and stations; and this was a marvellously low figure; but feeder lines ought to be on the standard gauge, and they ought to be made and worked in connection with

  1535
  the trunk lines. The trunk lines would go into them with a guarantee of two per cent. if they could work the local with the long traffic. If a local authority attempted to work such a line, they must, ultimately, either leave it or sell it; and if there was a break of gauge, profitable working of long traffic would be impossible. It might be provided that future local assessment should not exceed the rateable value of the land before the making of a railway. In a parish in Kent, 70 per cent. of the rates was paid by a railway company, and the man who got the chief benefit of the expenditure was a railway director living in that parish. But he did not see why light railways should be rated for local purposes at all. They would take a large amount of traffic from off the high roads, the repairs of which would cost much less. In 1889, in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, the House passed an extraordinary provision, requiring a new company to pay a considerable ad valorem duty before it could start business at all. From that charge these light railways might be exempted. They might be relieved from the payment of a Parliamentary deposit upon the cost of construction, and also from the payment of passenger duty, for it might be expected that, as in tramcars and omnibuses, the passenger traffic would be of but one class. Under the present law, passengers could not be carried by goods trains, but there would be no necessity for that restriction in light railways. There was one very important principle in the Bill which had now been adopted for the first time by a Conservative Government—that was, power was given to acquire land compulsorily without the intervention of Parliament. He was glad to see that, under the auspices of the President of the Board of Trade, they had recognised this principle. They permitted, under this Bill, land to be compulsorily expropriated for public purposes without the interference of Parliament. That was a very important step in the direction of a principle which hitherto the Party opposite had opposed. There was another good thing—indeed there were many good things—in this Bill, and that was the abolition of the present costly process of acquiring land. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on this step which would considerably
  1536
  cheapen the method of procedure. In conclusion, he urged the President of the Board of Trade to make his Bill a little more elastic in the financial clauses.
  MR. B. L. COHENsaid, he had listened very attentively to the two interesting speeches which had been addressed to the House, and he thought they could not fail to remark that the Debate, so far, had been characterised by remarkable unanimity in favour of the principle of the Bill, the rejection of which was desired by those who moved and seconded the Amendment. His hon. Friend and colleague who moved the rejection of the Bill, found his most powerful argument against it, if he might say so, in his peroration, where he warned the House that we were only at the beginning of the experiment ["Hear, hear!"], and that ultimately they would have to incur an expenditure of 100 millions sterling. It seemed to him that, if there was any truth in that exaggerated forecast, it must mean that the House of Commons would only be induced to enter upon the gigantic expenditure if its previous steps in that direction had been attended with that success which most of them on that side of the House expected. But surely his hon. Friend could not pretend that he foresaw all this. The expenditure could only become so large, could only be justified, if previous expenditure had been successful in that direction. Might he say one word more? He could not forbear from an expression of his regret that a speech intended to damage a carefully considered effort to ameliorate the disastrous condition of agriculture, should emanate from a Metropolitan Member. ["Hear, hear!"] And it was in his capacity of a Metropolitan Member that he had ventured to rise as early as possible, in order, not merely to testify the interest which London, and he should have thought every representative of London, had in the improvement, and, if possible, the restoration of agriculture, but also to bear his tribute to what was, he thought, generally speaking, the value of this Bill as being well calculated to contribute to the relief of agriculture. There was no Member of that House who had not a sympathy with agriculture, but he thought his hon. Friend's was a remarkable way of testifying sympathy—a mode of doing it for which

  1537
  agriculturists would not be grateful. Having said so much, perhaps he might refer to one point in regard to which he felt a little sympathy with his hon. Friend who had moved the rejection of the Bill. In the first place he thought his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had given too little time for the careful study of the details of the Bill—["hear, hear!"]—but he was consoled by the reflection that all they were asked to do was that which he was prepared to do without hesitation and certainly without much discussion, namely to read the Bill a second time. They were asked to affirm the principle of introducing the experiment of light railways into this country. He said this country advisedly, for there was no force in the comparison between light railways existing in sparsely-occupied districts in Ireland and those that he hoped to see spread over populous districts in this country. He thought a better parallel might be found in Belgium, where it was altogether different from Ireland. If he wanted any proof of that it would be found in the interesting anecdote referred to by the hon. Member. The hon. Member would not give free and unfettered communication so as to enable the agriculturists to come into contact rapidly and cheaply with centres of population. He, however, thought there was great force in what had been said by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment with reference to the 3½ per cent. The hon. Member said he did not think much advantage would be gained to light railways by advancing money at that rate. He shared that view and he thought that more advantage would be gained, and certainly with no more risk to the Treasury, by the proposal of a guarantee. He thought it would be a greater service to the development of light railways, and facilitate the development of these undertakings, if this principle were adopted. He did not think that this rate of 3½ per cent. could be justified by any real or valid argument. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. A. R. SOUTTARsaid, that about 20 years of his life had been spent in connection with railways, light railways, and tramways. He had learnt to regard light railways very highly indeed. He was, therefore,
  1538
  sorry to hear some of the arguments which had been advanced against the Bill from his side of the House. He thought those arguments a little oldfashioned, coming from Liberal Benches. He allowed that some of the criticism, especially in regard to the financial clauses of the Bill, was warranted. But, after studying the Bill in the light of his experience, he had come to the conclusion that it only needed a little alteration in some particulars to make it an excellent and practical measure. He did not think the Bill dealt sufficiently with a case where a light railway had to pass through two or three different areas presided over by two or three different local authorities. For instance, a railway might pass over two areas with two local authorities by one of which it might be opposed. For instance, there might be a county anxious to have a railway laid to a borough and entering such borough, and the borough might refuse to allow the line within its boundary. The Bill seemed to leave it to the Board of Trade to decide in such circumstances whether or not the railway should be allowed. But he thought it likely that the Light Railway Commissioners or the Board of Trade would refuse the responsibility in such a case, and would demand that the Bill should be laid before Parliament; and, as Parliamentary expenses in connection with railway Bills were extremely heavy, it was very desirable to avoid such a contingency. Besides, before a proposal for the continuation of a light railway was put before the Commissioners or the Board of Trade, considerable preliminary expenses in the way of engineering, surveys and lawyers' fees would have to be borne by the promoters, who naturally would not relish the chance of all their labour and expenditure resulting in failure in the end. What he would suggest, in order to prevent such cases, was that the clause of the Tramways Act of 1870, enacting that where two-thirds of the local authorities interested in a proposed tramway were in favour of the scheme, they should override the opposition of the remaining third, should be inserted in the Bill. He thought such a clause would materially help the promoters of light railways. According to one of the clauses of the Bill a local authority was not to be permitted to

  1539
  spend more on a light railway than was justified by the probable profits of such a railway. So far as he could see, that clause would prevent a town, having, as in Scotland, a little fishing village within ten miles of it, and desiring to give the fishermen of the village facilities for the carriage of their fish, from building a light railway, because, while such a railway would be a great benefit to the borough, it might not pay for the money expended on it. He thought it would be better to allow the Light Railway Commissioners or the Board of Trade to judge each case on its own merits. Another point he considered important was that a definite gauge should be fixed by the Bill. He entirely disagreed with the suggestion that the gauge should be 4 ft. 8½ in. Such a railway would not be a light railway; it would be a heavy railway, needing heavy rolling stock, and occupying a considerable area of ground, and would cost £40,000 per mile. He thought the gauge should be three feet. [Cries of "No, no!"] He supposed hon. Members who objected considered that the matter should be left to the local authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that would be a mistake. He hoped that by having a universal gauge a system of intercommunication would be established between the light railways, and while there was very little difference in regard to cost between a gauge 2 ft. 6 in. and a gauge 2 ft. 9 in. or 3 ft., there would, under a system of varying gauges, be a considerable difference in the rolling stock of the various lines rendering intercommunication impossible. Besides, a 3 ft. gauge would allow of the construction of economical light railways. He therefore considered that it would be a very good thing, in the interest of the light railways, that a 3 ft. gauge should be fixed by the Bill, except in such cases where the Board of Trade thought fit to order it otherwise. The Festiniog Railway had a gauge of 2½ feet, but it ran up an ugly road from the engineering point of view. He thought the President of the Board of Trade under-estimated the cost of the lines in stating that they could be constructed for £3,000 per mile. It might be so if the Belgium plan of laying the lines by the side of the road could be followed, but that was impossible in most cases in this country, and
  1540
  as, therefore, a great deal of land would have to be taken, he was convinced that the railways could not be built for less than £5,000 per mile. He did not think that there would be a threat extension of light railways under this system, unless the proposed rate of interest of 3½ per cent. was reduced. It must be remembered that the interest would be a first charge on the railway, and therefore there would not be much cream left for the promoters. As the railways were wanted most where they were likely to pay the least, the Government would have to alter their financial proposals in a liberal spirit. He did not believe in free advances at all. They might be right in a sense, but they were not always economical, for local authorities were inclined to spend freely and unwisely any money they got from the State. Therefore he thought it would be better to give a small guarantee of not more than two per cent. or at least to reduce the interest. He really thought it would be the best thing for the Government themselves to build the railways in the poor districts. Probably, few Members on either side of the House agreed with him in that, but there were Government telegraphs and Government post offices, and, after all, light railways in the rural districts would be but a great extension of the Parcel Post system. He had seen State railways in India which paid well, and he did not see why we should not have them at home paying well also. He did not mean that the Government should build all the railways, but only those in poor rural districts. He hoped, in conclusion, that the Bill would go through, and that it would be a credit to the Government and a benefit to the country.
  MR. E. PRYCE-JONESsaid, that it was very necessary in Wales that the Board of Trade should have ample power of control over what was proposed to be done, as the circumstances of different districts varied considerably. He was glad that hon. Members opposite recognised so generally that this Bill was an improvement on the Bill introduced by the last Government. It was, undeniably an improvement, but he looked forward to an even better Measure. He was not in love with all the provisions of this

  1541
  Bill. He did not approve of the introduction of a Railway Commission, preferring that reliance should be placed on the Board of Trade and Parliament. Then he regretted that the interest to be paid for advances by the Treasury was to be so high as 3½ per cent., rather than a low rate of interest. What he desired was to see effect given to the principle of helping those who tried to help themselves.
  MR. RITCHIE: That is the principle of the Bill.
  MR. PRYCE-JONESsaid, distinctly, it was not the principle of the Bill. It had been laid down that there should be a sort of triple alliance, a co-operation of the State, localities, arid private individuals, but the free grants had no reference to any such co-operation. Clause 13, which gave the Board of Trade, subject to the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, power to make rules fixing a scale of costs applicable in arbitrations deserved warm commendation. He believed that no more useful reform could be made, or one which would do more to make the scheme of light railways successful, than an attempt to reduce the costliness of legal proceedings in connection with them. He should like to see some power added to the clause giving increased power to the Board of Trade, inducing the Lord Chancellor to reduce the legal charges. Though he was not satisfied with all its provisions, he recognised that the Bill was an improvement on that introduced by the late Government, and he could not reconcile the action of hon. Members opposite who, while eulogising the Board of Trade for introducing the Measure, intended to vote against it.
  MR. CHARLES HARRISON, in dealing with the Bill from the points of view of local taxation, said, in his view there were two objectionable points in it. One was the clause referring to loans by the Treasury, and the other was the clause dealing with special advances. The Treasury advances were fixed at 3½ per cent. Hon. Members were familiar with the every-day proposals on the part of local authorities to repay money to the Public Loan Commissioners, because they can now borrow at a lower rate of interest. The clause could be easily amended if the President of the Board of Trade thought fit
  1542
  to adopt the suggestion of altering the rate of interest to be charged. The second class of loan was called a "special advance." He hardly knew why the term "advance" was introduced in the clause. "Advance" implied an advance by way of loan, and was dealt with under Clause 4, but the fifth clause proposed a free advance or grant. The object was for the purpose of making light railways. For some time past, owners of settled estates have had the power to make these railways, and to borrow money and charge it on the fee simple of the estate. If, therefore, they had thought that it would be a profitable transaction, they could have resorted to that system. They might also have borrowed from one of the Land Improvement Companies and have obtained an advance as loan on the estate, and the railway company might construct the line. Owners of settled estates did not adopt that course because the outlay involved only loss. As regards properties not in settled estate, but in occupation, what difficulty, if the outlay had not been a loss, was there in the occupiers or landowners borrowing on their property for the purpose of constructing those railways which were to develop their property and bring their produce to market? Experience had shown that neither the settled owners nor the landowners had adopted that system from the unprofitable nature of the transaction. Hence the proposal in the Bill was that an outlay which had not been successful in private hands, was now to be treated as a free grant out of Imperial funds. It was really a proposal to lend or to give to the landed interest of the country moneys raised from the taxation largely imposed upon the urban occupiers of property. The urban occupiers were to contribute to the expense of constructing light railways for the benefit of the rural landowner. The system of Imperial grants had been introduced since 1888, and the experience of past years showed that no more vicious system than that of grants from Imperial taxation for the relief of local taxation could be devised. The present Bill intensified that vicious system. The urban districts paid the larger proportion of Imperial taxation, whether in the form of house tax, licences, or stamps, and urban occupiers were

  1543
  taxed far heavier than rural landlords. In London and other towns the system of taxation was such that the percentage was no less than 20 per cent. on the rateable value in London, 24 per cent in Plymouth, 34 per cent. in Devonport. The taxation was levied on a system which undoubtedly produced a fair systein of rating at the highest possible maximum rateable value, but in the country it was different. In Middlesex, for example, the Receiver General found that a certain locality in the country was so lowly rated that he had the area revalued so as to bring the valuation up to the level of the Metropolis, and thus equalise somewhat the rating in the area of the police levy. The rateable value in London and the large towns was very different from rateable value in the country. Whilst they had the towns taxed as high as 24 and 34 per cent., on the rateable value, the country was taxed at from 9 to 16 and 17 per cent. And yet in what proportion was the distribution from Imperial Revenue in the form of relief of local taxation? He found that out of Imperial Revenue London received only 15 per cent. on the rateable value, while Westmorland got 32 per cent., Essex 22 per cent., and Norfolk——
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was travelling outside the scope of the Bill.
  MR. C. HARRISON, bowing to the Speaker's ruling, said that, if it was unprofitable for settled landowners or occupiers to raise the money, he failed to see how it could be profitable for the Government to make a free grant or special advance in the way proposed. If the Imperial purse was to contribute to the construction of light railways in arid about London, that was taking money out of the Imperial purse for the purpose of getting into the London market the produce of those adjoining counties, and as all the London markets were in the hands of capitalists and the Corporation, the result would be that London occupiers would be still more excessively taxed than at present for the purpose of paying off the very large sums which had been expended in bringing that produce to market. He trusted the President of the Board of Trade would be induced to omit the clause which related to the procedure of the
  1544
  advance, or, rather, free grant, by the Treasury for the purpose of the construction of the light railways.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEpointed out that, although the advance was in the form of a free grant, it was in the option of the Board of Trade whether it should be by way of advance or by free gift. The Debate had shown very little difference between the two sides. He believed there was a pretty general feeling on the Ministerial side that the rate of interest asked was too high. If it was suggested that it should be left to private enterprise to carry out these railways, he replied that private enterprise hitherto had not been induced to try it. It was hoped that by means of the Government scheme, lines of communication between different parts of the country would be opened up; but hope was not a sufficient inducement for private capitalists. This was a matter of general concern which the Government were taking up, not the hope of immediate or even perhaps of ultimate profit, but in the full expectation that the locality would benefit and the residents be better off than before. The hon. Member opposite had drawn a picture of what the local authorities would do. He had himself some acquaintance with local authorities and he could assure the hon. Member that in England their tendency, at all events in the country districts, had been exactly in the opposite direction. Besides, the local authorities did not take the initiative. It was the people in the localities who went to the local bodies and told them what they wanted, and these local bodies were perfectly able to judge whether or not it was desirable to make the experiment. There was precisely the same security for money advanced by the Government to the local authorities as there was to the Treasury itself. The Treasury and the local authority were placed in exactly the same position. Whatever rate of interest the Government get the local authority will get. He agreed that the powers to be given to the Commission were extremely limited. He should like to see some definition of a light railway laid down in the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is impossible.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: In that case he would like to see the matter left either to the Commission or the Board of Trade. He should like to see included in the Bill as light railways metalled tracks, for traction engines and motor cars, laid by the roadside. The land there was not so valuable to the landowners; and by such lines the steep gradients of a hilly country might be surmounted. He entirely agreed with the Bill in principle, and such details as had been criticised might very well be left for the Committee stage.
  MR. CHARLES GOLD, in a maiden speech, said, he did not propose to take up the time of the House by going into the details of the Bill, as this had already been done so fully by many hon. Members, but to confine his remarks to the main question of granting State aid for the purposes of the construction of light railways. He could quite understand a difference of opinion on this subject, as constituencies varied so much in their local requirements, but that if hon. Members represented such constituencies as his, they would be unanimously in favour of State aid for these railways. Essex, which was a purely agricultural county, demanded that State aid should be liberally given. The landowners had difficulty in balancing their accounts; the farmers were failing in every direction; the wages of labourers had been reduced from 11s. or 12s. a week to 9s. or 10s.; and there was no wealthy commercial class on which to fall back. There were in Essex at least twenty populous places, including one large town, distant from any railway station from seven to ten miles. The result was either that the land was not cultivated at all, or else that the produce cost so much to take to market that there was no profit left for the producer. Any means by which agricultural produce could be carried quickly and cheaply to the great consuming centres must be a great benefit to the country at large. Essex, which was but thirty or forty miles distant from London, had thousands of acres of land uncultivated; and the people of Essex looked to this and to other Bills promised by the Government to bring
  1546
  about a better state of things in the condition of agriculture. He thanked the President of the Board of Trade very heartily for introducing this Bill; but he trusted that the right hon. gentleman would not overlook the insertion of a clause which would enable tenants for life to co-operate in this most important movement.
  MR. CHARLES BILLsaid, that representing a constituency as badly served with railways as any in England, he thanked the President of the Board of Trade for bringing in this Measure. One hon. Member had said that there was nothing in the Bill to protect the local ratepayers. The hon. Member must have failed to observe. Clause 7, which provided that the Commissioners, before deciding on any application, should give a full hearing to any objections. The hon. Member for West Islington contended that the Bill would increase the burden on the local rates; but a little later the hon. Member described the Belgian system of light railways as affording a desirable precedent to be followed in this country; and that system was pretty nearly followed by the Bill He should, however, like to see the contribution of the State placed at one-third; that of the County Council at one-third; and the remainder divided between subscriptions and the District Councils. There could be no doubt that this Bill was a great improvement on that introduced last year by the late Government, and he hoped that it would be passed in its integrity. He agreed with an hon. Member who had urged that, if two-thirds of the local authorities were in favour of a light railway, it ought not to be in the power of a single local authority to put a stop to the scheme. The Government might introduce a provision, which would be most valuable, dealing with this point. He hoped the Government would not attempt to determine what the gauge of a light railway ought to be. Such an attempt would be very ill-advised. It was the great object of this kind of legislation that all sorts of gauges on all sorts of lines should be carried through all over the country. Generally speaking, a light railway was something less elaborate and perfect than a main line as at present constituted. He gave a

  1547
  cordial support to the Bill, which would be of great advantage to many struggling districts in the country.
  MR. VAUGHAN DAVIESearnestly appealed to the President of the Board of Trade not to give way on the question of gauge. It was of the most vital importance to a country like Wales that the decision of such a question should be left to the localities. Englishmen unacquainted with the Principality could not possibly understand how difficult it was to get round the mountains and down the valleys of that country. The Festiniog Railway was of narrow gauge, it annually carried something like 100,000 tons of goods and many thousands of people, and its successful working ought to have some bearing upon the question of the construction of light railways generally. It had been argued that the main line companies ought to make these offshoots or feeders. In his county the main line company had got one leg in the Bankruptcy Court; how, therefore, could it be expected to construct light railways. The people there had nobody but Government to look to. He was very much astonished to find the representative of one of the districts of the Metropolis opposing the Bill. He should have thought every representative of a great town or city would have been very glad, through the means of the Measure, to hold out to agriculture the right hand of friendship. Another argument advanced against the Bill was that it would ruin the van proprietors and small shopkeepers, but, strange to say, a large party of these very classes recently travelled up to London from his district to attend the conference presided over by the hon. Member for South Islington. It was said light railways would set up class distinctions. There were class distinctions now in the case of vans, because first-class passengers rode all the way, second-class passengers walked up the hills, and third-class passengers pushed the vans up the hills. There was one thing he wished to strongly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, and that was the consideration of the question of finance. To ask very poor people in an outlying, wild country to pay 3½ per cent. upon the money advanced was simply to put the last straw oil the camel's back.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT, considered that the Bill marked a great advance in public opinion, and an advance in the right direction. It was only a few weeks ago that, at the Board of Trade, at a Conference representing to a large extent practical experts, resolutions were passed to the effect that there should be no State aid and practically no rate aid. Yet that conference did not contemplate the obvious conclusion that, without those aids, according to all experience, practically no light railways were at all possible. They had to thank the right hon Gentleman for realising that fact in his Bill. His hon. Colleague in the representation of Islington took exception to State aid, and said Ireland afforded instances of the undesirability of it. Yet the hon. Gentleman spoke of some of those railways yielding 5½ per cent.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he stated none of them paid anything.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Is there no return?
  MR. LOUGH: None under the Bill of 1883.
  SIR A. ROLLITthought the hon. Gentleman would find the absence of that return was very largely due to the want of proper connection. For instance, some of the railways did not connect with the waterside when their obvious purpose was to develop the fisheries. The light railways of Ireland were not light railways either in construction, conditions of cost, or in any other form. But so far as they had had a fair trial they had benefited both the fisheries and agriculture of Ireland. Only the other day an hon. Member from Ireland told him his produce from the West of Ireland had been made saleable in London under a permanent contract supply by the construction of the, Headford and Kenmare line. They who advocated light railways did not say they did everything for agriculture, but they did say they would do much, and what, perhaps, would be their best service would be that they would put this country on a par with some continental nations in the adoption of the best modern system of co-operative agriculture. But it was not a question wholly of agriculture. The Chambers of Commerce of this country had for years past carried resolutions in favour of the construction of such lines on the ground

  1549
  of general commerce. His hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) said such lines would extinguish trade. He admitted that in some cases railways passing through a riverside place did not develop trade. The tendency was, perhaps, towards the establishment of long-distance traffic. But the present proposal was to have railways of such a character that they should make traffic as they went on, stop not at a particular station, hut where-ever goods were to be got or conveyed, and form connections with most remote rural districts. He was satisfied that in Yorkshire light railways would be of the greatest advantage in the development of the fisheries. But in the case of fisheries he thought the Bill made a rather undue limitation. It was said a grant was to be given where the railways made a connection with a market. He thought it should be rather where they made a connection with a railway generally. [Mr. RITCHIE: "Certainly."] Then the Bill spoke of connecting a railway where there was a harbour. A mere landing in certain cases was quite sufficient. Another consideration was the increase of movement a system of light railways would develop between town and country. The case of the line from Headford to Kenmare was an instance in proof of this, for it had opened up one of the best districts in the three kingdoms for picturesque scenery. He could imagine no better means for enabling the people to enjoy the scenery of their own neighbourhoods, and for preventing them from travelling abroad. He did not say that the Bill was perfect or incapable of improvement, but it would go far to increase the prosperity of many districts in the country. The proposed Commission, however, was one point to which exception might be taken ["Hear, hear!"], on the ground that it might lead to a double tribunal and a second hearing—first, the local inquiry held by the Commission; and, secondly, the confirmation of the proposal by the Board of Trade.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the idea of the Bill was that the Board of Trade should consider any objection lodged with it in written form, but that would not be a second hearing.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he was glad to hear that explanation, but he doubted whether ultimately the Board
  1550
  would confirm, or reject a proposal without hearing the parties, except, perhaps, in rare instances, and that would involve a second hearing. The local Commission should be made the only tribunal; otherwise the costs under the Bill might be increased to a great extent, and thus become a great objection to it. He should have been glad if the Bill went further than it did in regard to the question of compensation. The compulsory purchase payment of 10 per cent. ought, after full payment, to be reduced, or even extinguished. He admitted that there might be some difficulty in dealing with the point, but he thought it would be well if some average of compensation based on a certain number of years' purchase could be adopted, a plan which would relieve many difficulties in the way of introducing those light railways. A very good proposal in the Bill was that which would make the special grant dependent on the free gift of the land for the lines. He agreed with many hon. Members in thinking that one million would not go very far in constructing such railways, but the amount could be increased. On one point he feared the Bill would be prohibitive; the charge of 3½ per cent. on the loans might make it so. It could scarcely be expected that Government assistance would be asked for, when much better terms could be obtained in the neighbourhood from any railway company or local authority. The rate of interest referred to exceeded that on Consols, and the interest charged on Consols at the time should be the maximum of interest charged by the State. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for West Islington in taking exception to loans by the State in this matter. There was hardly a town in the country that was not greatly indebted to the State for loans which had enabled it to carry out permanent local improvements and necessary public works. ["Hear, hear!"] The only point was to take care that, as far as possible, those public works should be made of a reproductive character. The Bill gave adequate safeguards in respect of the loans that might be applied for under its provisions. They would all approve the principle of private enterprise; it had done much to make the country what it was. But private enterprise

  1551
  could not do everything, and in works such as this Bill proposed State aid might he usefully granted and accepted. They might learn something from the manner in which great public works had been carried out by the power and organisation of the State in several foreign countries, where, for instance, railways had been constructed, and were worked by the State on such principles of economy that the people had the advantage of travelling at much lower rates than were charged in this country. It was for Englishmen to consider whether they were quite in accord with the principles of the day in leaving everything to private enterprise. He thought, therefore, that the proposal to make special grants to the poorer districts of the country was to be commended. Guarantees had been suggested in lieu of them, but the system of guarantees had become much discredited in Ireland. It was a system which was likely to lead to extravagance, and he thought that special grants on the principles proposed by the Bill were preferable in every respect. He understood that his right hon. Friend limited the contributions locally to share capital—[Mr. RITCHIE: "No, no!"]—and he could not understand why debenture capital should be excluded. [Mr. RITCHIE: "It is not excluded."] The best example of light railways was to be found in Belgium, and there the railways were constructed on similar principles to those embodied in the Bill. In Belgium there were 14 of those railways which paid more than 3.½, per cent, In which paid 3 per cent. and six which paid 2½, per cent., and the success of the system in Belgium was the best justification of the lines on which this Bill had been drawn. They all lamented the depression under which the agricultural interest had for a long time suffered. It might not be in the power of legislation to retrieve that position to any great extent, for he believed that enterprise in public and private works could alone raise agriculture to the position it once held, and ought to occupy, as one of our greatest national industries. Left to their own resources, with their funds depleted, neither landlords nor tenants could achieve this result, but if, by the aid of the State, on the conditions laid down in the Bill, that House could help them to do so, hon. Members
  1552
  would, by granting that aid be benefiting, not the agricultural interest only, but the trade and commerce of the whole country. [Cheers.]
  MR. E. STRACHEYsaid, that as the President of the Board of Trade had stated that it was his intention to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee, it was for hon. Members who were not Members of that Committee to take the present opportunity of criticising the Bill. He might say at once that he could not agree with the hon. Member for West Islington in so far as he would exclude State subsidies, but he; did agree with him in his references to local rates. The hon. Member did not object to the granting of subsidies by the State for the purpose of constructing light railways in Ireland, and he was at a loss to understand why he should do so in this case. ["Hear, hear!"] The local Inquiry by the proposed Light Railway Commission, and the part to be subsequently taken in the matter by the Board of Trade, would lead to a double hearing of the proposals under the Bill, and to the expense of taking action, as had already been said, being much increased. He thought the appointment of the Light Railway Commissioners was unnecessary, seeing that under the Bill it would be the duty of the Board of Trade, practically to make an Inquiry in all cases. To his mind, with the provisions in those clauses, this Commission would be little more than a mere branch of the Board of Trade itself; of course, it would mean additional expense. It would have been better, he thought, if the President of the Board of Trade had followed one of the suggestions made in the Report of the Conference on Light Railways of 1894. Briefly, that Conference suggested the relaxation of the requirements of the Board of Trade in the case of light railways in rural districts, and that County Councils should have the power to authorise the construction of light railways in their districts, subject to an appeal to the Board of Trade, except where land was taken compulsorily. That was a much simpler procedure, and would simplify matters very much. The County Councils would be much better judges of the wants of those living in the localities than the Board of Trade or the official

  1553
  who went down to hold the Inquiry, and it would entail much less expense. That recommendation of the Conference was signed by the hon. Member for East Northampton and the hon. Member for North Hampshire, who was at the time the Chairman of of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and by the Secretary of the Chamber. He would like to refer to the question of the loans by the Treasury. These loans were allowed to be made under Clause 4, and he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit) when, he said that the interest was simply prohibitive. At the present moment, Consols only produced 2½ per cent., if they produced that; yet the Board of Trade wished that the depressed agriculturists should pay one per cent. more than the Government paid on Consols. He could not help thinking that the term of years for the repayment was too small. The term for loans given to local authorities under the Local Government Act of 1888 was restricted to 30 years, and under this Act it was 60 years. But he could not help thinking that even 60 years was too short a term for what they must consider would be a permanent matter. It was not fair to expect two generations to pay the whole of the construction capital. In so doing they would be throwing an unnecessary burden upon those two generations for a matter which would last much beyond their time. The maximum loan was to be one-fourth of the total amount, and it was to be entirely permissive. He ventured to think the right way would be—even if they wished to limit it, that there should be some principle of sub-division and allocation to various districts. At any rate, it should not be a mere matter of generosity on the part of the Treasury, whether they would contribute one in one district and not in another district. He was afraid that in some cases partiality might be shown, and that some districts might be unduly favoured in this matter. Anyhow, there would always be a risk of undue Parliamentary pressure on Ministers and of undue pressure on hon. Members by their constituents. He thought it would be much better to make the loans compulsory on the part of the Treasury, and at the same time ho would suggest that they
  1554
  should apply the system of Irish Light Railways Acts with a certain exception. He would make the grants by the Treasury as in the case of Irish Light Railways with this difference, that instead of the local authority having to guarantee the interest, he would substitute private enterprise. An hon. Member on this side of the House suggested that landlords might raise the money under various Acts there were for that purpose. It seemed to him a very proper proposal, and there should be no reason why, in a particular district where a light railway was required, the landlords should not be quite ready to guarantee half the capital required if they knew the Treasury on their part would come forward and supply the other half. Besides, he thought, not only landlords, but other people interested in the locality would be prepared to contribute towards a guarantee. He disagreed with the proposal to encumber the local rates as regarded this matter, and he entirely endorsed the resolution which was carried in the Central Chamber of Agriculture in February of last year. That resolution, which was carried unanimously, approved of the construction of light railways provided no additional burden was thrown on the ratepayers by their construction. It had the support of the hon. Member for Hampshire, of the Vice Chamberlain of the Household, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet. These hon. Gentlemen were all interested in agriculture, and they could have no stronger proof than this that those who represented the agriculturists both on that side of the House and on this objected to the proposals of the Government, by which local rates were likely to be increased. He should not be so much afraid of charging the rates if the County Councils were the sole judge. Under this Bill, however, the matter was not left to the County Council alone, but to the District Council as well. In some cases a particular District Council might desire to have a line constructed in a district not suitable for that purpose, or where such an undertaking could not possibly prove remunerative. In such a case the District Council would have power to construct the railway, and give a charge upon the rates. It was a doubtful thing to place such a power in the hands of a

  1555
  District Council, unless there was an appeal to a higher authority, such as the County Council. The system of free grants by the Treasury also lent itself to the objection that partiality might be shown, or undue pressure brought to bear upon the subject, and, at any rate, it was a very invidious matter for the Board of Agriculture or the Board of Trade to say what districts ought or ought not to have free grants. He hoped that that provision would be taken out of the Bill.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYobserved, that he took it the Bill was introduced practically in redemption of the pledge given by the various Members of the Government to do something to relieve the depression which existed in agriculture. They must all deplore that depression, but, speaking frankly, as a borough Member and as a representative of an urban constituency, and one, moreover, who all his life had been connected with trade and commerce, he said—though with a certain degree of fear and trembling, seeing the locality in which he was sitting—he anticipated these Measures, as foreshadowed, with a certain amount of uneasiness. He was distrustful they might either contain in them thin-veiled or diluted Protection, such as existed in one of the Bills of the Government now before the House, or might, perhaps, lead to a greater transference of the burdens the agricultural shoulders were now bearing to those of the commercial and industrial classes, than he himself should be willing to vote for. With regard to this Bill, he did not think any of the objections he had suggested could arise. He should like, however, to say a word on Clause 5. That clause, which dealt with free advances by the Treasury, contemplated such loans being made for the construction of light railways in districts where such undertakings would benefit agriculture, or where they would open up means of communication between fishing harbours and markets for fish. He asked, why was the clause limited and restricted in this fashion? Why was it not extended to the various industrial communities dotted up and down the country. In the county to which he belonged they had many villages that were industrial communities in which there were one or
  1556
  two mills, but which were distant from the broad trunk lines and away from the general trend of events. These communities, and mills, and manufactories, were gradually dropping out and becoming extinct, owing to the severe competition they had to meet. If the Government were going to benefit agricultural and fishing communities, they ought, also, to extend the same advantages to those village communities such as he referred to. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give his serious consideration to this point. The benefit of the Bill ought not to be confined to any particular section or district, but every section of the community, and every district where light railways were necessary, should share equally in its advantages.
  MR. E. BAINBRIDGE, in a maiden speech, remarked, that he desired to support a Bill of so wise and benevolent a character as this, and would like to refer to one or two points which had not been touched upon by previous speakers. The Bill had been described by its advocates as necessary for dealing with those parts of the country where agriculture was very hopeless and the land very bad. But there was a great need for light railways in districts where the land was rich, but where, from want of capital, it was not properly cultivated. He spoke for a large area of the county of Lincolnshire, where, in farms of 500acres, as much as 7,000 tons of produce and manure were dealt with in one year, and which had to be carried by carts distances of five or six miles. If the development of the land was promoted by the construction of light railways, a large area, which was now practically uncultivated, could be made most productive. It had been said by the Mover of the Amendment that this was a Bill for making railways where they were not wanted. Anybody familiar with the making of railways knew that there were large patches of land where railways had been promoted in the past, but where, owing to the fact that the several railway companies working the district had come to terms, the projected lines had never been made. These districts could be excellently served by light railways. It was, he urged, of extreme importance, if the Bill was passed, that some provision should

  1557
  be made for establishing through rates. Without through rates the Bill would become a dead letter because the utility and success of such railways would depend on the maintenance of cheap rates. With regard to the interest on capital, they should remember that the Government proposed not to make a grant but a loan. This was very different from the grant the House agreed to by a large majority the other night in the case of Dominica. That was a grant of £15,000. This was only a loan to benefit agriculture, and he quite agreed that 2½ per cent was enough to charge as interest. He had pleasure in being able to support the Bill. It seemed a strange coincidence that they had been dealing that night with a question of a large grant to maintain the warlike defences of the Empire. There would probably be general acquiescence with regard to that, and he expected then; would be unanimity with regard to this Bill. The bark of the Amendment was worse than the bite. The Mover of the Amendment only sought to protect the local ratepayers from further taxation.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSONagreed with the hon. Member for Hereford that local authorities might well be trusted to look after their own interests. The hon. Member for Leek had defined a light railway. The difference between light and ordinary railways was that of speed. The latter ran at a great speed, while light railways were limited to a certain speed, because there were a number of stations and sidings. The hon. Member for South Somerset thought it would be a good thing if they set to work to make light railways without outside assistance. It reminded him of saying that you could not make an omelette without breaking eggs.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid he was opposed to pledging the local rates, but was in favour of Imperial assistance.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid, he was sorry he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Then the hon. Member for Plymouth spoke of settled estates, and said the owners had power to make light railways but had not done so. No doubt the supporters of the Amendment, in their election addresses or speeches expressed themselves as only too anxious to do anything in their power for agriculture, but now there was an opportunity
  1558
  for doing so they opposed this Bill. Foreign countries had, with one consent, put on protective duties. There was no question here of protective duties. With the sole exception of the United States, in every other country the State had an interest in the railways, and had given large contributions towards them. In India we had guaranteed interest on railways to the extent of £71,000,000, at an interest of 3½ to 4 per cent. Why should not the Railway Commissioners and the Board of Trade have power to grant loans at 2½ per cent. If the large sum of £100,000,000 were expended, the State was only asked to advance £25,000,000, and a difference of one per cent in the contribution of the State would be £250,000 a year, which was not a large contribution, and the Board of Trade or Railway Commissioners might regulate the amounts according to the circumstances of the district. His own personal belief was that these railways would be made by the existing railway companies. They had all the machinery and understood the business, and would have many more inducements to make them and more; facilities for working them, He had been a railway director 22 years, and had heard this question much discussed by railway experts, whose conclusion generally was that it would be fatal to light railways if they were not of the same gauge as trunk lines. In a very hilly county it might be impossible to adopt the ordinary gauge, but such a case would be a rare exception. Was the paid commissioner to be entirely occupied by the service and to give his whole time to it? If he was to do that £1,000 a year would not be enough to command the services of a first rate man. It would be an important position and he would have to give decisions affecting the welfare and fortunes of many persons. He ought not to be an amateur but a first rate man of business. The price of land was to be determined by an arbitrator; was he to be a permanent official, or was a local man to be picked up casually in each case? For the first time they are going to put into the hands of one man a power hitherto exercised by this House alone. Was there to be any appeal from his decisions, either to the Railway Commission to the Board of Trade or to that House? He

  1559
  might chance to be a man of peculiar opinions or at times he might be a little off his head, and he might decide to hand over property in a way that ought not to be allowed without being subject to appeal. A respectable town council had applied to him to take up a railway they wanted to have constructed, and they made some extraordinary proposals as to the taking of anybody's land at a low market value without allowing for amenities or anything else. If a town council wanted to do this, what might not an individual attempt if there were no appeal from his decision? There ought to be some limitation of the amount of compensation from accident that could be claimed on these railways. There had been amounts awarded in compensation exceeding what would be the capital of some of these lines. Suppose a Lord Mayor of London were injured on a light railway on what scale would he be compensated? One way of limiting compensation would be to say that the maximum should bear a cash property to the fare paid. It ought to be possible for the promoters of such a line to obtain official approval of the general plans without producing the costly engineer's plans and levels which were required in other cases. He could not approve of the suggestion that these lines should be made by the Government because the competition of personal and local interests would lead to a vast amount of lobbying in that House which it was most desirable to avoid. They had been told that it ought to be possible to obtain free grants of land from landowners, but inquiry would probably show that many owners had not the power to give land for such a purpose. There were a great many colleges and trusts of various kinds holding land, and he should like to hear what was to be done with regard to these and other charities. He had gone through all his points. He was anxious that the Bill should pass.
  MR. T. P. WHITTAKERsaid, he wished to express his sympathy with what fell from the Member for West Islington. He thought that it would be well to remove restrictions on construction and working in order to reduce cost, arid it might be well to give local authorities power to raise money. If these undertakings
  1560
  were to be remunerative, there would, however, be no difficulty in providing the money outside the local authorities and outside the Government. They were different from Belgium in that respect. The fact was these railways would never pay where public bodies had to be relied upon to provide the capital. Where they could be made to pay, the railway companies could get the capital at lower rates and would be glad to build these railways. It had been said that 3½ per cent. was too high a rate for the Government to charge. The outside people were to provide only one quarter of the capital. The local authority and the Government were to provide three-quarters of the capital, and therefore he contended on such security, with such a small margin, 3½ was very low. The experience of Irish Light Railways had been referred to, and he thought it was very instructive. There were 16 of these railways in Ireland under the Acts 1860 to 1883. Of 11 of them the accounts were published. The receipts in 1894 were £52,000, and the expenditure was £58,000. There was not a penny for the capital, while the income fell £6,000 short of the working expenditure. All the money taken for goods traffic was £20,000. It would be something like the same here. His great objection to this scheme was, to put it in plain English, that it was part of the policy of the Government to tax trade and manufactures to enable agricultural landlords to get their rents. ["Hear, hear!"] There was one particular reason why the towns objected. They objected to be taxed to pay other people's rents. ["Oh!"] The towns would have to pay the interest on money which was to go to the country districts. Apparently agriculture was going to be subsidised in all directions, and at the same time it was to pay less in rates and taxes. That meant that traders and manufacturers would have to provide more money for the agriculturists to pay their rents with. They all sympathised with, and recognised the very serious trouble which agriculture had to pass through, but it was no greater trouble than many manufacturers had to pass through. ["Oh!"] Yes. Traders had to face severe foreign competition, and in many industries they had suffered a greater fall in prices than had taken

  1561
  place in agriculture. They might, if they went about, see mills and ironworks lying derelict, hut the proprietors did not come begging there. They did object, however, to be taxed in order that somebody else should be relieved from their share of taxation. The fact was that although agriculture had suffered seriously, it had not suffered more than many trading communities had suffered. [Laughter.] The value of agricultural land to-day was as great as it was before the Corn Laws were repealed. [Laughter.] In 1844 the annual value of the agricultural land of England and Wales assessed under Schedules A and B of the Income Tax was forty millions, and in 1894 it was forty millions. In 1815, at the close of the great war, it was thirty-six millions. There had been a bad time, but land had not gone back from where it was when the Corn Laws were enforced. That did not take into account the great increase in the value of land that had been absorbed for building on owing to the growth of great towns. ["Hear, hear!"] It made no account of extra income from land now used for minerals, quarries, and collieries. He would venture to suggest in conclusion, that the root of the agricultural trouble was not to be found in relieving the rates, or light railways, or devices about foreign produce. The evil lay much deeper than that, and in this connection he directed the attention of hon. Members to what had transpired in the case of the Southampton Docks. It was there shown that, so far as a number of articles of agricultural produce were concerned, it was not a matter of railway rates at all. The local farmers could not supply the wants of the neighbourhood in competing with foreign producers. If they were beaten at their own doors it could not be high railway rates that prevented them from selling elsewhere. The solution of the difficulty was not, therefore, to be found in forming light railways. And if they were to be provided at all, they should be provided on a commercial basis, so that they might pay a reasonable return on the capital invested, and not increase the burdens of the commercial classes, which had enough difficulties of their own to contend against.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, the hon. Member for Plymouth had advanced the perfectly true statement that
  1562
  the County of Essex might gain some advantage under the Bill. It was also stated that the eastern counties were worse off now than they had been 50 years ago. Of course, everyone knew that the value of land in the eastern counties had dropped to "£8 an acre. Fifty years ago the value of land in Essex was something like £55 per acre. An hon. Member for a county constituency in Wales told the House that the agriculturists of that county had one leg in the Bankruptcy Court. In Essex they had both legs in the Bankruptcy Court [laughter], and they were not likely to be able to extract them. He could assure the hon. Member for West Islington that they had no "bloated capitalists" in the eastern counties. If the arrangement proposed by the hon. Member in his Amendment were carried out, it would destroy the Bill. It would reduce the Bill to the level of the Bill brought in last Session by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, which if carried would have been absolutely useless. He appreciated the value of the work which had been, done by that right hon. Gentleman. He knew the right hon. Gentleman had done his best for the agricultural interest. The right hon. Gentleman had called a Conference on Light Railways, and had brought in a Bill—not a good Bill, but a Bill according to the right hon. Gentleman's lights. He presumed that the pressure the Treasury brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman was too strong for him. But, as the district railways made in the eastern counties by the Great Eastern Company did not pay; it would have been absolutely impossible under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen for the railway companies to be induced to make light railways. He was, therefore, delighted that the President of the Board of Trade should have the courage to introduce the financial clauses of the Bill before the House. Of course, they were not perfect. He did not know anything that was perfect in the House, or indeed in the world. He would like to have the money given at a lower rate of interest than 3½ per cent., and thought a Treasury guarantee of 2½ per cent. on the capital promised would be better than the arrangement proposed in the Bill But after all they should be glad that

  1563
  they had found a Minister to make the financial proposals which the Bill contained. He thought they should also be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman because, in the case of light railways, he removed the grandmotherly restrictions imposed by the Board of Trade on the working of railways, and relieved the schemes from the crushing liability of a Parliamentary inquiry in the rooms upstairs—rooms in which promoters and shareholders were sweated, and in which the expenses of every project brought into them were almost doubled. They could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to bring in the millennium by return of post, or control the quinoxes, or put up the price of wheat, but the Bill he had introduced was intended to serve the agricultural interest, and as such every Member, on the Government side of the House at least, would do his best to pass it.
  MR. J. BRYCEcongratulated the Conservative Party on the boldness with which they had adopted the two sweeping novelties which the Bill of the late Government contained—he meant the provisions by which some other authority than Parliament was given the power of directing the compulsory expropriation of land for light railways; and by which the too numerous and burdensome inquiries which the Board of Trade, carrying out the intention of Parliament, had hitherto imposed on the promoters of such schemes were removed. He hoped that, by reading the Bill a Second time, the House would sanction those sweeping Measures which he was delighted to see adopted by the Party opposite. Apart from the participation by the local authorities in an Imperial grant, the Bill was substantially the Bill of the late Government. He did not take the credit of that Bill for the late Government. It really belonged to the Conference, which produced a report which so affected public opinion that the late Government were able to bring in the Bill of last Session. One point in which the Bill differed from the Bill of the late Government was in substituting for an inquiry before the County Council an inquiry before three Commissioners. Perhaps that course would be more convenient. There was no doubt that more uniformity would be secured
  1564
  by such an Inquiry than an inquiry before a County Council. In his opinion it would be extremely difficult to obtain the services of a really first-rate paid Commissioner for a salary of £1,000 a year, and they knew very well that if there were one paid Commissioner and two unpaid Commissioners the bulk of the work would fall upon the paid Commissioner. He thought, therefore, that the Government would have to consider the desirability of increasing the amount of the remuneration that the paid Commissioner was to receive. There were several other points to which he would briefly refer. One ground of complaint that had been made against the Bill was that it did not sufficiently define the meaning of the phrase "light railway," but in his opinion the Government were right in not inserting such a definition in the Bill, as otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the Bill and have greatly increased the difficulties of those who had to administer it. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade would give the House some assurance that the passenger duty would not be levied upon these lines. Last year the late Government intended that this duty should not be levied on these light railways, and he had then understood that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was of the same opinion. He, however, found no provision in the Bill exempting the lines from the duty. The discussion on. this Measure that night had turned almost entirely upon questions of finance. Of course nothing could be more popular than for a Minister to come down to that House and propose to give Government grants in aid of these undertakings, and no doubt each lion. Member was willing, in his individual capacity, to go much further in that direction than the House collectively would be inclined to do, the latter being more prepared to keep guard over the national purse. The House ought, however, to look very carefully at these proposals, and to consider whether they ought to be carried out. As to the question of allowing the local authorities to give subsidies towards the construction of these light railways, it depended very much upon the character of the local authority in each case. It was said that

  1565
  the local authorities were sometimes incompetent to conduct financial matters, and that they did not always consist of business men. Moreover, they all knew that County and District Councils were apt to take too sanguine views, and that they were often under the influence of two or three men who had their own crotchets. After subsidies had been granted by one set of Councillors a new Council might come in and change the whole policy, to the disgust of the ratepayers. He did not see any objection in. principle to allowing local subsidies, provided the power of the local authority was safeguarded, with a view to securing that the local authorities should take more precautions and be a little more guarded in their policy. Then he came to the question of a subsidy from the Treasury. The hon. Member for Staffordshire had complained that the State had done nothing for the railways in this country. Might he suggest that, if the State had done nothing, the railways had still done pretty well. There was no country in Europe that had so efficient a rail wax-service as had this country. The only fault that could be found with it was that it was, perhaps, too costly; but that was a fault which they were trying to remedy by this Bill. His view was that they could not rely too much on private enterprise, and he did not think that any case had been made out to show that private enterprise would not deal as energetically and efficiently with this new proposal as it had done in the building of the existing railways. It must be remembered in this connection that these light railways were going to be something entirely different from what we had hitherto had, and the experience they had had of the way in which private enterprise had dealt with the normal railroads led him to believe that it would be as much displayed in dealing with railways of the description proposed in the Bill. He would not deny that, if it were found that under the new conditions which the Bill proposed no light railways were made, a case might be established for the benevolent interference of the State; but there were many points in the present proposal which encouraged the belief that the Bill would be availed of. In the first place, all the preliminary expenses of
  1566
  carrying a Bill through Parliament would be dispensed with. Another consideration was the enormous reductions in cost that would arise from the sanctioning of lighter bridges, lighter rails, fewer station buildings, fewer signals and interlocking points. The Bill simplified and cheapened so much that it brought down the cost of construction by hundreds and thousands a mile. He supposed that the average cost of construction for a normal railway was about £10,000 a mile, and that would be reduced under this Bill to about,£3,000 or £3,500 a mile, and the difference between these sums made all the difference between success and failure. The old companies would find these lines useful as feeders to their established systems; and he thought it was obvious that, if a line like the Great Eastern or the North Western could make further lines at a cost of £3,000 a mile, a large number of such lines would be made. That was why he submitted that no case had been made out for Government intervention. There was also the objection that the proposal to relieve the agricultural industry would excite jealousy between the town and country districts. He was not going so far as to say that there might never be a case in which a particular industry, or a particular class of industry, might not be entitled to special consideration; but he did say that it was a drawback and objection to plans of this kind that they did tend to excite jealousy between town and country districts. Another objection to a State subsidy was that they might be quite sure that people would not make railways without subsidies if they could get subsidies. There would be a great competition between the railway companies for Government assistance, and the probability was that those which had intended to make branch lines would hold their hands until they saw whether they had a chance of getting a subsidy. He understood the proposed procedure to be that the Board of Agriculture was to certify that there was a case of exceptional necessity in a locality. He wished to know whether these grants were to be made to companies like the Great Eastern and the Great Western, simply because their lines passed through some districts suffering severely from agricultural depression. Or were these grants

  1567
  in aid to be confined to cases where the country was poor, thinly populated, hilly or remote, and where it would not be worth while for a company to do anything without a subsidy? If, by "exceptional circumstances," were meant circumstances similar to those which had been thought sufficient to warrant exceptional treatment in the Highlands and the Islands of Scotland and in the congested districts of Ireland, the scheme would be reasonable. But if the intention was to include within the operation of the clause any county where the agricultural depression had been severe—Lincolnshire or Norfolk for example—the sum of £250,000 set aside for this special purpose would go a very little way, and there would be a great competition to share in it. There was a difficulty attending the policy of making grants from the Treasury, a difficulty which was perhaps not sufficiently realised. Undue pressure was likely to be brought to bear upon the Treasury. Inexperienced countries where a ruling of that kind had been adopted, showed that there was great competition between districts for grants, that the pressure exerted took the form of applications by members of the Legislature and others to the Department in charge of the fund, and that they did not refrain from suggesting that Party purposes might be served by an opportune grant. In some of our colonies this policy had been a fertile source of trouble, annoyance, and sometimes even of something approaching to corruption. He felt sure that in this country the Treasury would do its best to resist such pressure, but his view was that the Department ought not to be subjected to it, and of course they could not affirm that it would be resisted in all cases. He hoped, therefore, that the element of free grants would be expunged from the Bill. He feared that the million mentioned in the Bill would not go very far in the direction which the President of the Board of Trade desired, and that the expectations which the Bill would
  1568
  raise would be far in excess of the benefits that could be conferred. He was afraid also that, by establishing this precedent, they were preparing for themselves serious difficulties in future years. He sympathised with parts of the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Islington, and it had been the means of eliciting some very valuable statements. He did not, however, think that it need be pressed to a Division. If the Government sent the Bill to a Grand Committee they would be taking rather a new departure. The questions which had been raised, and which must be discussed still further, were questions of high policy, and were such as they had been accustomed to treat in Grand Committee. Then there were many Members representing both urban and agricultural constituencies who had a claim to be heard, and who could not be included in a Grand Committee. Even if fifteen Members were added to that Committee he doubted whether it would contain all the Members who were justly entitled to discuss the details of this Measure.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had no reason to complain of the tone of the Debate which had taken place, nor of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. A large number of questions of great interest had been discussed, and he was glad to think that, though there had been a great deal of criticism of details, the speeches made against the principle of the Bill and the local and Imperial grants had been confined to one or two Members. The Mover of the Amendment was almost alone in his attack on the proposal to give financial assistance by the State and the local authorities for the construction of the railways. While it appeared as if the Amendment was an attack on such assistance being given, the Mover of it was not averse, under certain conditions, from welcoming such assistance. What there remained to answer in the speech which the hon. Gentleman had not himself answered was answered by the Seconder. A more

  1569
  curious exhibition of divergence of opinion between the Mover and the Seconder on the same subject had rarely been seen in that House. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was rather antediluvian in his views. [Laughter.] The hon. Member called himself an advanced Liberal, but it appeared that he did not like railways, and as for local authorities, he was prepared to vote for the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to give the London County Council complete control of the tramways in London, though apparently he had no confidence in any other local authority in the country contributing towards the construction of a railway. [Laughter and cheers.] There was thus a difference of opinion as to whether or not Parliament should suspend the Standing Orders in order to allow the London County Council to do a thing which local authorities throughout the country had not power to do.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that the authority in London had plenty of experience of tramways to go upon.
  MR. RITCHIEpointed out that the London County Council was only constituted in 1888, that it had not the management of tramways, and, if it was a question of experience in local affairs, he thought that there were a large number of local authorities throughout the country with more experience in the management of their own affairs than the London County Council. He asserted that each local authority might be trusted to consider the welfare of its community and to safeguard its financial security. Local authorities had at present the power to make steam tramways throughout the district if they chose, and to pay for them from the rates. He admitted that he had taken the Bill of the late President of the Board of Trade and had made it as far as he could the basis of the proposal he had now submitted to Parliament. While he would not be blamed for taking advantage of the great attention
  1570
  which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the subject, he had always thought the proposals in his Bill were wholly inadequate. It had been said that the effect of the Bill would be to discourage private enterprise. Well, the main, trunk railway system of this country was almost complete, and yet we were face to face with the fact that large areas of country were without any communication whatsoever, to the enormous disadvantage of those who were engaged in agricultural pursuits. The first consideration of a railway company before making a branch railway would be whether it would pay. If it would not pay, the branch railway certainly would not be made. He hoped that local authorities and landowners in agricultural districts would have regard to other considerations, that they would think of something more than mere return of interest, and would keep in view what was likely to contribute to the well-being of the locality. He hoped that, under inexpensive conditions, some lines would return a moderate rate of interest, but they could not look forward for the present to such a rate of interest as would induce private enterprise to embark in them. In Belgium, where there were a large number of such railways, the average rate of interest was 3 per cent. He doubted whether they would get private enterprise in this country, either in the shape of existing companies or private contractors, to make railways at a possible return of 3 per cent. and a probable return of something much less. He hoped that, where the circumstances of the district were such as were set out in Clause 5, railway companies would come in and ask for a grant, because, unless they were encouraged to do so, the railway in many cases could not be made. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had given abundant illustrations to show that where the State had assisted in making railways in Ireland by means of a guarantee of interest the result had

  1571
  been disastrous. For his part, he objected to guarantees altogether, because, generally speaking, they did not bring about economical administration. The hon. Gentleman suggested a 2 per cent. guarantee, but the result of that would be practically to double the contribution from the Treasury. Why, only last year there was a Bill passed through the House authorising the Treasury to compound with an Irish railway where a guarantee of 2 per cent. had been given in order to get rid of a position which they considered intolerable. The Government believed that the course which they proposed was best. Some hon. Members had urged that 3½ per cent. was too high a rate of interest, and had mentioned that Consols only paid 2½ per cent. But there was a vast difference between advancing money on Consols and on the security of a light railway. The Treasury lent this money at 3½ per cent. practically without security, because the railway could not be of great value if it did not pay; and the Treasury only stipulated for the same rate of interest as the local authority. If the time should arrive when the local authority considered that 3½ per cent. was an onerous rate of interest, the Treasury would be only too glad to have its loan repaid. As to the special grant under Clause 5, it might be open to objection. But there were districts in England, Scotland and Wales where the locality was so impoverished as to be quite unable to contribute money to the expense of making the light railway. It would be useless under such circumstances for the Treasury to say it would lend money on the same conditions as to local authorities in more favoured districts. The Treasury took the power which it had already successfully exercised in Ireland. Hon. Members would admit that the provision had been surrounded with all the safeguards that could be invented, and if any others were suggested in Committee, he should be happy to consider them. He agreed that a time
  1572
  might come when the railway would have become a paying concern, and the conditions of the Treasury loan ought to be revised. As to the gauge and a great many other details, he was sure that such details must be settled on each separate application, acccording to the circumstances of the case. It was said that the salary proposed for the paid Commissioner was too small, and he had been spoken of as a paid chairman. That was not his idea of this Commissioner's position. The intention was simply to render assistance to the localities in forming their schemes. He hoped he would be able to get two gentlemen to join the Commission who would command the confidence of all concerned, and who would hold benevolent inquiries, so to speak, with a view to assisting localities in formulating schemes. It was essential there should be an appeal to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen appeared to think otherwise.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that, on the contrary, he thought the Board of Trade should have more to do with the matter than the right hon. Gentleman contemplated they should.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was agreed by some hon. Gentlemen that an appeal to the Board of Trade was superfluous. The Board of Trade must be the Court of Appeal both as to questions of safety, and whether or not the proposal made was one which ought to come between the four corners of the Bill. As to passenger duty, he stated the other day that in his opinion it would lead to considerable inconvenience to make a charge in respect to passengers. It was really not a matter of practical difficulty, because no duty was levied on fares not over a penny a mile, and it was not likely the fares on these lines would be more than a penny a mile. It was, therefore, not worth while to make any exception from the general law. They had gone very far to meet those who desired

  1573
  to have a simpler and less expensive form of taking land than now prevailed, and they could not go beyond their proposal. His hope and belief was there would not be much difficulty, as landlords would be quite ready to afford facilities for the making of the lines. He had not, as the hon. Member for West Islington suggested, held up the Bill as a panacea for agricultural depression, but he did think the Measure would do something to improve the agricultural industry. There were now large areas in the country from which agriculturists could not get their produce to a market without a large expenditure of money, which made their return almost nil. There were hundreds of thousands of acres of land far away from a railway station which must derive enormous benefit from the operation of the Bill. The State, local authorities, and landowners would be benefited, and he did not think the Bill would have that effect upon the rates which the hon. Gentleman, imagined. He trusted local authorities would take into account what was for the benefit of the community over which they presided, and he believed that in the end they would reap their reward by a condition of things greatly improved upon that which now, unhappily, existed. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. G. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)said, he intended to support the Bill because he believed light railways would prove to be of great advantage in bringing country produce into the towns, and would thus enable poor people to get many articles, especially some descriptions of fruit and vegetables at much less prices than were now charged for them. He regretted that the Bill did not do anything for the Highlands of Scotland, where light railways were needed more, perhaps, than in any part of the United Kingdom. The First Lord of the Treasury was a Scotchman, and it had been said that he laid claim to belong to a particular clan. [Laughter.] Therefore Scotchmen might have reasonably expected that he would have given some
  1574
  special consideration in the matter of Light Railways for the Highlands, especially as, when the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition, he was very loud in his expressions of interest in the welfare of the people of the Highlands. But not one word of promise to do anything for them had he been able to extract from the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] And he confessed that he was much disappointed in consequence.
  At two minutes before Twelve o'clock
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 67.—(Division List No. 23.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2a.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be Standing Committee on Trade, &c"— (Mr. Ritchie.)
  Debate arising.
  And, objection being the taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

INTERMEDIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

  COWBRIDGE SCHOOL.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN*MR. J. M. MACLEAN (Cardiff) rose to move:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to exclude the Cowbridge Grammar School from the Intermediate and Technical Education Scheme of the Glamorgan County Council."

  1575
  He said he regretted to bring forward this matter after midnight, but he had no choice. The question was one of considerable importance to a portion of his constituency, which included the boroughs of Cowbridge and Llantrissant. A Scheme laid on the Table by the Charity Commissioners included the Cowbridge Grammar School; and the objection to the Scheme was that it proposed to confiscate the revenue of a school which was regarded as a distinctively Church School. If this Scheme became law it would prevent the school any longer remaining under the Church of England, because there was a clause in the Scheme which provided that no religious catechism or formula distinctive of any denomination should be taught. [Opposition cheers.] They might say that the Scheme only went so far as the Endowed Schools Act, but that Act provided that collegiate and certain other schools should be exempt from the Act as far as religious education was concerned. He knew what the argument of hon. Gentlemen on the other side would be, and if they had a clear legal right with regard to the revenues of this school they should not be here. That would be settled in a Court of law. But with regard to all these cases, as Lord Salisbury happily said in another place when a similar case was brought forward, "Parliament has reserved to itself the right of equitable jurisdiction in dealing with cases that do not come exactly within the limit of the law." The Charity Commissioners were bound to respect the decision of the Educational Commissioners of Wales with regard to any scheme brought forward under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and those schemes lay on the Table of each House for 40 days. Then, if no exception was taken, the matter was settled, but Parliament reserved to itself this supervision over these schemes. Parliament considered that, in the nature of things, there must be many cases arising where
  1576
  it was extremely difficult to draw the line as to whether it was a Church school or not. That was the position with regard to Cowbridge Grammar School at the present moment. He did not propose to go into the ancient history of that school, which stretched back over a great many centuries. Sir Leoline Jenkins, who, towards the end of the seventeenth century reconstituted and re-endowed the school, and placed it distinctly on the foundation of a school attached to the church, was a well-known man in the reign of Charles II., and was very much liked and trusted by that monarch. He had a most interesting and varied career. He was first a principal of Jesus College, Oxford, next a Judge, afterwards recognised as an authority on maritime and international law, then an Ambassador to many Courts of Europe, transacting very important international business, and finally was a Member of the House of Commons for the University of Oxford, and was Secretary of State to King Charles. In the course of these varied employments he amassed a considerable estate—[laughter]—and, dying in 1685, left the bulk of his property to Jesus College, Oxford, subject to a charge of £450 a year for the benefit of the Cowbridge Grammar School. Jenkins was described in an interesting article in "The Dictionary of National Biography," as a very staunch Churchman, an energetic believer in the divine right of Kings, and, what seems to have been singular at that time, he was a man of the most exemplary life. [Laughter.] The preamble of his will proved that Leoline Jenkins was a man entirely devoted to the Church. He rejoiced that he was in the communion of the Church of England, and hoped it would always prosper for the good of the country. Indeed, he had the courage to write a pamphlet to try to persuade the Duke of York, who afterwards became James II., to give up the Roman Catholic Church and rejoin the communion of the Church

  1577
  of England. There was no doubt, from the whole tendency of the will, that he intended the Cowbridge Grammar School to be an exclusively Church school. He required that the Headmaster of the school should be a man who should devote his whole time to the school, and should not undertake any cure of souls. [Opposition cheers.] That plainly means that the Headmaster should be a man in Holy Orders. Further on in the will there was a very significant passage, in which he provided that if a certain sum of money was saved it should be administered by the Trustees for the Grammar School, or for "any other charities for the better service of the Church in Wales." What other meaning could that passage have but that Cowbridge Grammar School was devoted to the interests of the Church Wales? He maintained that the whole history of this school clearly proved that it had always belonged to the Church of England. It had been asserted that that Church could not have any legal title to its endowments, but its Church of England founder had purchased it from its former owners at its full value, and had established it anew as a Church of England school. He had, therefore, created the school again, and had intended it solely for the benefit of the Church of England. In these circumstances it ought to be shut out from this new scheme for intermediate education in Wales. He thought that it would be difficult for any person to answer these arguments, and he failed to see how it could be shown that this school did not belong to the Church of England. The Church of England was now in such a position that she was naturally desirous to claim her own. What was the position of Churchmen at the present time? They paid the bulk of the taxes, both Imperial and local, a portion of which was devoted to carrying into effect all kinds of fancies—upon them fell the main cost of the Board Schools throughout England and Wales, and
  1578
  at the same time they felt themselves bound by their conscientious convictions to maintain out of their own pockets their Voluntary Schools. In these circumstances it would be extremely hard to compel them to abandon the endowments that had been given to their Church by pious founders in past ages, which mitigated in some degree the heavy burden that was now imposed upon them by the present system of national education. He was aware that a few years ago a strong feeling prevailed among hon. Members opposite that the Church in Wales was not an institution that ought to be supported, as it was in a state of decay. The result of the late General Election, however, had altered the condition of things in connection with that matter.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entering upon matters that are foreign to the subject under discussion.
  MR. MACLEANsaid, that at the last General Election it was evident that the feeling of the majority of the electors was in favour of maintaining Church endowments, and, after having saved those endowments, they were not going to let the Church be robbed of its schools. It was a matter of very great importance that under the guise of promoting the education of the people, violent hands should not be laid upon foundations bequeathed to the Church by pious founders centuries ago. He appealed with confidence to hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches to take are that this valuable educational charity should not be snatched from the Church; and he appealed, not altogether without hope, to hon. Members opposite to act in this case in a spirit of equity and fair play, and not to bring discredit on the scheme for intermediate education in Wales, which on the whole was likely to work for the benefit of the Welsh people, by connecting it with an act of spoliation.
  MAJOR W. H. WYNDHAM-QUIN ()seconded the Resolution

  1579
  He thought it would be generally admitted after the very clear statement just made, that the question of Cowbridge Grammar School was deserving of the attention of the House. Here they had a case of the Charity Commissioners directly interfering with an ancient grammar school, and they were only able to do so by the fact that the managers of the school were not able to produce the original foundation deed. The older the institution, and the longer its connection with the Church, the more difficult it became to satisfy the Commissioners that it belonged to the Church. Apart from documentary evidence, it was their duty to satisfy the House that there was and had been a close bond of union between this school and the Church. This school dated back 300 years, indeed, he believed it was established earlier than that. Shortly after the school was founded, there came the stormy period of the Commonwealth, and no doubt it was during the time the district was distracted with civil war that the foundation deed was lost or destroyed. He submitted that the facts afforded convincing proof of the connection between the Church and this school. In the first place there was the earnest desire of the founder to promote the interests of the Church at a time of great bigotry. It was known that his intention was that the Headmaster should be in Holy Orders. It was known that he connected the school with other pious charities for the better service of the Church in Wales, and that he founded two fellowships at Jesus College, Oxford, and attached a condition that boys coming from the school who gained these fellowships should take Holy Orders. He also insisted that the school pensioners should attend the services at the College. In 1847 the school trustees subscribed £100 towards the restoration of the church on the condition that the members of the school should occupy their accustomed pews. Having regard to the character of the man who did so much
  1580
  for Cowbridge School, surely they must conclude that it was his intention that religious instruction should be given according to the formularies of the Church of England. Then it was on record that it was the chief ambition of boys to gain scholarships at Jesus College, Oxford, and that it was obligatory on the successful candidates to take Holy Orders. The formularies of the Church, including the Catechism and the 39 Articles, had always been taught in the school. What stronger evidence, in the absence of the original deed, could they have as to the denomination to which the school had always belonged? This scheme would certainly not be likely to increase the reputation of the school. It now attracted boys from a great distance, from almost every part of South Wales, in fact. If the scheme were imposed the school would inevitably sink to the level of the ordinary intermediate schools in Glamorganshire. Whilst supporting the scheme as a whole, he protested against the proposed inclusion in it of Cowbridge School.
  MR. DAVID THOMASthought that it was unfortunate to discuss a scheme of this importance at so late an hour, and when it was impossible to place all the circumstances of the case before the House. He congratulated the hon. Member for South Glamorgan on the temperate manner in which he had argued the case from his point of view. His only regret was that the hon. Member had not made his maiden speech with a better case as his topic. The speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff was also a temperate one, though many of his facts were wrong, and he appeared to have been badly coached. He feared that recently the hon. Gentleman had been more occupied in the part of playing friendly critic to the Leader of his own Party, and in denouncing the Secretary for the Colonies over the Transvaal business; but he asserted that the hon. Gentleman no more represented the feelings of his constituents in Cowbridge

  1581
  on this school question than he represented his constituents at Cardiff on the Transvaal. In the first place, he contended that this was not a Church School. His authority for saying so was the Rev. Edward Jenkins, who was, he believed, the prime mover in the agitation for the exclusion of Cowbridge from this scheme. "This is not a religious question or a political question," said the rev. gentleman, "but a question of true and genuine patriotism as to whether the inhabitants of a town and district would allow an educational charity to be alienated from the district." This scheme was the last of fifteen schemes in Wales under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. In Glamorgan they had waited for seven and to-day there was a large number of buildings built at enormous cost waiting to be occupied. Last year the scheme lay on the Table of the House for almost the statutory period, and if Parliament had not dissolved, the scheme would have passed into law. Up to that time no objection had been taken to it in the House. The Welsh Members felt it was so hard a case that the schools should remain unoccupied that they, in the short Session approached the Education Department, and begged them to introduce a short special Act. He believed they should have succeeded had it not been for the action of what was irreverently called the Church Brigade." It was the "Church Brigade," a mere handful of the clergy, who were opposing this scheme now, and he was sorry they had made a tool of the hon. Member for Cardiff. The scheme, which was a compromise, was the creation of the Joint Education Committee, and had been prepared with the assistance of the Charity Commissioners, and had boon approved by the Education Department. The locality never had opposed it. Indeed the opposition to it had come as a great surprise to many in the locality. The whole district of Cowbridge would be immensely benefited by the scheme.
  1582
  £500 a year would go back for the educational purposes of the Grammar School. There was no question of alienation at all, but whereas now this endowment depended very much upon Jesus College, Oxford, whether they would give it or not, the scheme made it obligatory on Jesus College to give this £500 to the school. In addition, they would receive £600 per annum from the general fund of the county. Cowbridge, were it not for the school, would not be made a district at all, having a population of under 8,000, was made a separate district under the scheme, and would receive the £600 just the same as other districts in the county with a population of over 40,000. The scheme had been under the consideration of the Charity Commissioners, and the Joint Committee for several years, and under it, a girls' school, at a cost of something like £2,400, had already been erected. If the hon. Member for Cardiff looked carefully at the scheme, he would see that Christian teaching was prescribed there.
  MR. MACLEAN: I said that there was no provision for the teaching of religious formularies and the Catechism.
  MR. DAVID THOMASsaid, that Clause 88 contained nothing to prevent even religious formularies from being taught by the master of a boarding school. As to local feeling, the Town Council of Cardiff had petitioned the Joint Education Committee in favour of the scheme. A local association of farmers, landlords, and Churchmen had unanimously supported the scheme, and he believed that the School Board also supported it. The leading Conservatives in the district, including two ex-Mayors of Cowbridge, were in favour of it. A public meeting was called by the Rev. E. Jenkins, at which a resolution excluding the school was proposed; but an amendment, including the schools, was moved by a strong Churchman and Conservative, and was carried by an overwhelming majority. That showed very strongly what the local feeling was; it

  1583
  was, he believed, almost unanimous in support of the scheme. The school, they had been told, was a Church school, but his contention was that it was not a denominational school at all. There was absolutely nothing in the will of Sir Leoline Jenkins to show it was his intention that the school should be a church school. The original founder, who was once Home Secretary, was no more a member of the Church Brigade than the present Home Secretary was. He supposed that two centuries ago all were Churchmen [Ministerial cheers], just as four centuries ago all were Roman Catholics. ["No, no!"] He supposed, too, that had Sir Leoline Jenkins lived in these days he would have been a Nonconformist. ["Oh, oh!"] Legally, the hon. Member had not a leg to stand on. The hon. Gentleman had not told them about the Statutes of 1862, under which the school was at present governed. In 1862, when the Charity Commissioners were very largely guided in their actions by the Court of Chancery, statutes were prepared. There was not a single word in those statutes to make this a denominational school, and that fact was rather significant, because the tendency of the Court of Chancery at that time was to drag in every endowment which by any possibility they could claim to be a Church endowment. The fact that they did not do that in this case was strong evidence in his favour. Besides, the governing body at the present were not necessarily a Church body. One, if not more of the Fellows of Jesus College was not a member of the Church of England. No public body of any kind had petitioned the Charity Commissioners on religious grounds against the Scheme. The scheme, as he had already expressed was approved by the Charity Commissioners, and it was a Department scheme which had been approved by the Education Department. It was entirely contrary to Constitutional practice for right hon. Gentlemen in the position of the Members for Cambridge University and the Thirsk Division, to throw over the Department in the way they were doing or intended to do. It was unfair to the Department they represented, because they were making a political matter of this subject, and it was especially hard upon the permanent officials of the Department,
  1584
  who had no opportunity of defending themselves in the House. He urged hon. Members not to lightly throw over a scheme which competent men had taken years to frame, and on the grounds that this was not a denominational school, and that the Mover and Seconder had not brought forward one iota of proof in support of the case they had attempted to make out, he begged the House to pass the scheme in its entirety.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid, that while he fully endorsed the remarks of the previous speaker, he wished to supplement them by some observations on the facts relating to the school, and the presentation of the scheme now on the Table. He wished also to acknowledge the temperate tone that had been adopted by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion before the House. The first and principal argument to be urged against the Resolution was that the school in question, as would be found by the will of Sir L. Jenkins, and the scheme of 1862, as well as the Statutes of Jesus College, Oxford, was not a Church or a denominational school at all. The second argument was that this Motion was an attempt to upset a scheme which really represented a fair compromise of the conflicting interests of parties and creeds in the county of Glamorgan. The third ground they took was that it was unjust at the present moment to exclude the Cowbridge School from the scheme, and persevere in the Motion of the hon. Member, because the County Council of Glamorgan, relying upon the compromise arrived at, and believing it would be carried out, already on the faith of this scheme, had begun to spend the ratepayers money not only in the county, but actually in the town of Cowbridge. The fourth ground was that the scheme had been sanctioned by the Charity Commissioners, and what just cause could be alleged for going against what was always understood to be in the nature of a judicial decision? The last ground was, that the effect of the exclusion of this school from the operation of the scheme would be detrimental to the school, to the best interests of the Church of England in the county of Glamorgan, and to the well-being of the great and yearly increasing population of that shire.

  1585
  He had made it his business, as the hon. Member for Cardiff had done, to read the will of Sir Leoline Jenkins, and also to get the whole history of the School. His hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff had stated the effect of Sir Leoline Jenkins' will, but later on, in the course of his speech, he referred to the sum of £450 as being bequeathed under the will to Cowbridge School. In that, according to the investigations he had made, he was entirely wrong. What he found was this, that Sir Leoline Jenkins, after a formal devise and bequest of what he described as a certain school and schoolhouse (situated and so forth), which was then called the Free School of Cowbridge, to the Principal Fellows, and Scholars of Jesus College, Oxford, said:—
  "The estates and premises by me devised and bequeathed to the said College are intended to bear a, charge of pious and charitable uses. My meaning is that the same shall be charged in the manner and order following, namely: I do appoint that out of the said estate and premises by me aforesaid given and devised to the said College, there shall be paid £100 for ever to the uses following: To the Schoolmaster of Cowbridge aforesaid for the time being, to be named and appointed by the Principal of the said College, so long as ho doth not undertake any cure of souls, but keep himself wholly to the business of the School, £10 per annum."
  And the balance of the £100 was to be applied to Scholarships and Exhibitions. Afterwards the will of Sir Leoline Jenkins came before the Court of Chancery. There was a decree of 1686, by which certain questions were decided, and the effect of which was that the whole estate was vested in the Principal and Fellows of Jesus College, subject to certain rent-charges, the rent-charge of £100 payable to the Cowbridge School being one of them. From 1686 down to 1862 he could find nothing of a public character that affected the question, and he had been informed on the highest authority—the Bursar of Jesus College, Oxford—that there was no document in the archives of the College which in any way altered the effect of this will and the decree of the Court. The scheme of the Charity Commissioners of the year 1862 had never been printed, and he understood that the effect of the scheme was to leave matters practically as they were before. He had, accordingly, inquired how this School had been managed up to the present time in this legal position
  1586
  of affairs. He must beg the House to draw a distinction between the time before 1881 and the time after 1881. He was now going to read what, with the best researches he could make and on the authority of those who knew the College, he understood was the way in which the School was managed before 1881. There was no governing body other than the Principal of Jesus College. The Principal of Jesus College appointed the Headmaster, and not even the Fellows of the College had a word to say as to the appointment. When the Headmaster was appointed he conducted the School as he liked, subject only to an occasional inspection and examination by a person appointed by the College. The College paid £50 annually to the School under the will of Sir Leoline Jenkins, repaired the buildings, and once, in the space of 200 years, rebuilt a portion of them, and, in addition to this £50 and the repairing of the buildings, paid small sums for prizes and scholarships. That was the state of things down to 1881, when the Statutes which at present governed Jesus College were passed. The Universities Act of 1877 came into effective operation, as far as Jesus College was concerned, in 1881. By the Statutes of 1881 power was given to appoint a Headmaster of a Welsh school a Fellow of the College without examination, and to allow him a sum not exceeding £200 a year. By another of these Statutes power was also given to pay and apply any sum not exceeding £200 for the benefit of Cowbridge School, if and when the revenue of the College should be sufficient. These Statutes were not both acted upon at once by the College authority. They acted upon the second almost immediately, but it was only when the present Headmaster of the school was appointed, in 1886 or 1887, that the College exercised the power of making the Headmaster of this school a Fellow of the College. Since the time when the present Headmaster was made a Fellow of the College, the position was this: The College paid the Headmaster in respect of the Fellowship £200 a year, and it paid £100 by way of addition to his salary. That was not obligatory, but was purely voluntary and discretionary on the part of the College under the Statutes of 1881. It had also paid £100 for scholarships at the School,

  1587
  which was also voluntary and discretionary; it had continued to pay £50 a year under the decree of 1886, and it had continued to repair the buildings or make payments to the Headmaster for the repair of these buildings. That was the exact position in which the School stood at present, supposing it was excluded from the operation of this scheme. It had been in the habit of receiving since 1881—if they excluded the £200 to the Headmaster—a total sum of about £500 a year from the College, but it must not be understood that the payment was necessarily to be continued. If and when a vacancy occurred in the position of Headmaster by the promotion of the present gentleman to be a Bishop, or by any other event, the College need not elect the new Master to be a Fellow, and that payment of £200 might cease. That, he said, he had made out to be the legal position after a most minute investigation of the facts of the case. Let them now consider the history of the scheme, and see how the matter came before the House. He observed that his hon. Friend, with that skill which distinguished his advocacy, did not point out to the House the nature of these schemes under the Intermediate Education Act of 1889. Under that Act the County Councils in Wales had a power which did not belong to English County Councils. They had the right of levying a rate not exceeding one halfpenny in the pound for the better provision of secondary education in the Principality. The Act also provided for the creation in each county of a Joint Education Committee, consisting of three members of the County Council and two others, representative of the educational interests of the county. All the Welsh counties took advantage of the Act. The Glamorganshire Council proceeded to consider the whole question of secondary education in the county in a broad manner. It determined in the interests of the ratepayers to do what it could to save expense, and use existing endowments. It opened negotiations with the schools. It appointed a Joint Education Committee, and it would be apparent, from what he had said, that the Joint Education Committee as a committee was representative of all the currents of opinion in the county. On the Committee there was the
  1588
  late Lord Swansea, acting for the Liberal Party. On the other side the leading man in all the negotiations was the present Member for Swansea Town. The Joint Education Committee opened negotiations with Jesus College and the Charity Commissioners, and a meeting took place in London on May 3rd, 1892, between the Joint Education Committee of the county of Glamorgan, which included Sir Hussey Vivian and his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea Town, and a deputation from Jesus College, consisting of the Rev. Mr. Hawker Hughes and Mr. D. Ritchie, and also the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mr. W. N. Bruce. If there was opposition on the part of anyone to the inclusion of Cowbridge School, the point ought then to have been taken. So far from that being the case—and he was speaking after seeing a copy of the report made by the deputation from Jesus College—other points were raised. No one on the Joint Committee—not even the hon. Member for Swansea Town—suggested the exclusion of Cowbridge School. The question was on what terms it should be included? In effect the Committee said, we know the extent of the liability of the College, but we ask you, in the interests of education, to continue the voluntary payments you have been making, and if you agree to the six schools being included in the scheme, we will add a grant of £600 a year. The College did not raise any objection to the inclusion. Their deputation only stipulated that the School should not sink into a second grade school, that the scheme should provide for the sort of education that grammar schools had been in the habit of giving. For instance, they asked that Greek should be a subject which it should be obligatory on the part of the School to teach, and to this the Committee agreed. Not a suggestion was made by the Committee that the School should be excluded. The deputation reported to the College, and on the 14th May the College authorities voted the necessary alterations in the Statutes of the College for carrying out the arrangement made. Such was the history of the scheme. From the time of that meeting no authority of any kind connected with the county had been told there was any opposition to the inclusion in the scheme of

  1589
  Cowbridge School. Last year or the year before, the County Council or the Joint Education Committee entered into a contract, on the faith of this scheme, to build a school for girls; and he did not know how his hon. Friends opposite justified their coming, at the last moment, when nearly £2,400 had been spent upon this girls' school, and objecting to the Cowbridge School being included. It might be ecclesiastical equity, but it was not business morality. If the school was taken out of the scheme, he asserted, having read the Statute carefully, there was nothing to prevent the Principal and Fellows appointing a Nonconformist to be Headmaster. He appealed to the supporters of the Motion to reconsider their position, for he was not without hope they would yet withdraw their opposition. The effect of excluding Cowbridge School from the scheme would be that it would lose £600 a year given by the County Council. It would be left a small school with unsatisfactory buildings fast falling into dilapidation. It would be left relying upon the energies of the present Headmaster, and upon two sums of £50 each; and it had no guarantee that Jesus College would continue the present payment of £400. It would also be brought face to face with the fact that the County Council might proceed to erect, side by side with the girls' school, a new intermediate boys' school, with proper buildings, an efficient Headmaster and assistant masters able to cope with the exigencies of modern examinations. He appealed to the House as practical men to consider the facts stated. It was better for all parties, it was better in the interests of the School and the people of the county and, indeed, of the Church, that this scheme should pass as it stood, and he did not think that any oratorical adornment was needed to increase the effect of the plain statement he had made.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R.,)said, he was willing that the Motion should succeed, but not as a Vote of Censure on the Charity Commission. In this matter the Commission had no option; they were merely an executive body. It was true that they might have submitted to Mr. Acland, their V ice-President, alternative schemes;
  1590
  one including, the other excluding, the School. Mr. Acland would not have accepted the latter.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: Let me ask the hon. Gentleman if the Charity Commissioners ever had any desire to submit an alternative scheme? ["Order."]
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he was speaking of the courses that were possible, not of the course that was followed. This being no Vote of Censure he should vote not as a Charity Commissioner, but as an independent Member of the House. ["Oh!"] It was said by a noble Lord, in 1882, on a similar occasion to the present, that what was strictly legal was not necessarily just. Strictly speaking, this school was not a denominational school. If it was it never would have been before the House. [Laughter.] But the very object of giving appeal in these cases to the House was to see that where moral justice went one way and legal justice another way, moral justice and not legal justice should prevail. [Cheers.] It might be that the Nonconformist would appeal to-morrow and he should vote on the side of those who contended that mere legal quibbles should not deprive any denomination of property which they had held for centuries.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid, the hon. Member had come to the conclusion to vote against the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, of which body he was a Member. He thought the House was entitled to hear from the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea, who was one of the Joint Education Committee which actually proposed this scheme to the Charity Commissioners, whether he still adhered to the views he held two years ago; and if not, what new light had he received on the subject to induce him to change his mind. This scheme, passed by the Charity Commissioners, passed by the Joint Education Board and passed by the Glamorgan County Council, came before the House as a complete scheme for the County of Glamorgan, and he submitted that the onus of proof that the Cowbridge School was a Church School, lay with those who desired that it should not form part of this comprehensive scheme for the County of Glamorgan. Those who made such a request

  1591
  to the House were bound to admit that in fact and in law the Cowbridge school was not a Church School. What could be stronger proof of the undenominational character of the school than the fact that the Charity Commissioners, acting in their judicial capacity, decided that the school did not come within the operation of the 19th Section of the Act of 1869, which excluded Church schools. The hon. Member who moved the Motion, had said that it was the clear intention of Leoline Jenkins' will that the school should be a Church School. If that were so the Charity Commissioners would have decided that such was the intention of Leoline Jenkins. But any impartial person who read the will must come to the conclusion that Jenkins never intended that the school should be a Church school. The hon. Member for Cardiff relied on two passages of the will. In the first passage Jenkins undoubtedly recited that he was of the Church of England, which he said he believed was a "true and sound member of Christ's Catholic Church"—not be it noted "the true and sound member," but "a true and sound member." The hon. Member for Cardiff went on to say that the founder obviously intended that the Headmaster of the school should be a man who had taken Holy Orders because he actually prohibited the Master from having a cure of souls, and he actually took the stipend from the Master if he undertook the cure of souls. He did not mean to suggest that under the will of the founder the Headmaster of the school might not be a clergyman of the Church of England, but he contended that there was no necessity that he should hold that office. As regarded the question whether the founder intended the school to belong exclusively to the Church of England, he might refer to one paragraph in the will in which the founder stated that the scholars were to be children of such inhabitants of Cowbridge, who were too poor to pay for their children's schooling. Was it to be supposed in these circumstances that the benefits of endowment of the school were to be confined exclusively to one class—namely the members of the Church of England—of inhabitants of Cowbridge. In his view all the poor children of the place were to benefit equally by the endowment,
  1592
  whatever religious denomination they might belong to. The hon. Member for Cardiff had told the House a great deal about the founder, but very little about the school. The hon. Member said that the founder was a person who had been held in great consideration by King Charles II., and that he was desirous of conferring this endowment upon an exclusively Church school. But there were a great number of people who did not regard this Cowbridge School as a Church school at all. He did not for a moment contend that the fact of a boy being a member of the Church of England was disqualified in any way from sharing in the benefits of this endowment, but what he did assert was that the Church of England children had no exclusive rights to those benefits. In his view this endowment ought to be absorbed in the great educational scheme for Glamorganshire. The 45th Section of the scheme showed how careful the founders of it had been to preserve all the endowments which the school had enjoyed up to now, whether by right or by matter of favour. As to the question of religious formulary, this school was not to be turned into a school where no religious education should be given. It was provided that there must be religious education given in the school. There was no provision at all with regard to boarders which would prevent the Headmaster, if he liked, teaching them one particular formulary of religion. He would not weary the House with any further remarks on the matter, but he did ask in whose interest the Motion was made? And for what purpose, public or otherwise? It could not be for the interest of the school, because under this scheme, the school, instead of having an income of £500 a year would have £1,100. There would also be building grants and additional benefits in the way of bursaries and scholarships and so on. Was it for the interest of the district? It was perfectly clear that it was not. His hon. Friend was careful to avoid saying what the feeling of the district was; but the decision of the Town Council was against him and the feeling expressed at public meetings was against him. Therefore the House must come to the inference that the Motion was not made in the interest of the district. The Motion was brought

  1593
  forward entirely in the interest of the Church of England. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan, whom, if he would allow him, he wished to congratulate on a very successful maiden speech, had said that the supporters of the Motion were anxious that the school should not become a worse school than it had been, that they wanted to continue the school as it was, that they did not wish the school to sink to the level of the intermediate schools. He ventured to tell the hon. Gentleman that in the future it would not be a matter of sinking to the level of the intermediate schools, for the intermediate schools would be raised to a very much higher level than the Cowbridge School. On the contrary they desired that Cowbridge School should be raised to the level of the other schools which they hoped to see planted all over the country.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 45.—(Division List, No. 24.)

  GELLIGAER SCHOOL SCHEME.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON*MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry) moved:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from so much of the Intermediate and Technical Scheme of the Glamorgan County Council, as relates to Gelligaer School."
  The scheme in question, he said, affected not only Gelligaer in Glamorgan, but also two parishes in the County of Mon-mouth. The value of the property was now £1,100 a year, but would shortly be £4,000. The proposal in the scheme was that the whole endowment should be used exclusively for assisting 21 grade schools scattered over Glamorganshire, that it should, in fact, go in relief of the rates—and save perhaps a fraction of a farthing in the education rate. Now, one of the principles laid down by the Charity Commissioners and all other educational authorities was that educational endowments should not be used in relief for rates. The counter proposal of the petitioners was to establish a great public school at Gelligaer with a classical and modern side. There was not a single such public school in Wales. There was no wish to parochialise the endowments, but to create a school from which the boys might pass to the Universities. It was not the case that if Gelligaer was
  1594
  taken out of the scheme, the scheme was ruined. On the contrary, £400 a year would immediately be liberated for the purpose of secondary education. Petitions in favour of his Motion had been presented from the local School Board, the District Council, and from 3, 117 people.
  MR. W. T. HOWELLseconded the Motion. He said that the endowments at present amounted to £1,100 a year, but the property of the charity was coal-bearing, and became more valuable every year. In a very few years the yearly value would have increased to £4,000, and the present purchase price of the land would yield that income. Yet the Joint Education Committee offered to give only £1,500 a year in exchange for this property. They wanted to preserve an endowment which was not left to Glamorgan, but to the parish of Gelligaer, and they mentioned they had plenty of opportunity for a proper use of the funds. Glamorgan was a rich country, yet the funds belonging to Galligaer were under this scheme to go not to poor places, but to some rich places, such as Penarth, Barry, Pontypridd, and Bridgend. Galligaer was a growing neighbourhood. They had a population of 15,000, and they wanted to have money for scholarships which would take boys up to the old Universities and also the new University of Wales. This scheme seemed to him a very unjust way for the Glamorgan County Council to get their intermediate education.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R.,)said, it was with much regret that he had to ask the House to reject a Motion made by his hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire. But he was bound to do so on this occasion. In this matter there was no question whatever between his hon. Friend and himself from the religious point of view. The only question between them at that moment was whether the House would, or would not, support the Charity Commissioners in a loyal attempt to carry into effect an Act of Parliament passed by a Unionist Administration and loyally accepted by the Radical Party. Under the scheme as it stood Gelligaer would have a better secondary school for boys than it had ever had, a new girls'

  1595
  school, and £1,500 a year to support the secondary education of the children of 15,000 people. Under the will of Mr. Lewis it had originally a school worth £40, and £10 a year for a master. Under the scheme it was to have the advantages he had mentioned, and yet Gelligaer was not satisfied. Why not? His hon. Friend said that Gelligaer wanted the money in order to erect there a great public school like Eton or Harrow. If the Charity Commissioners had allowed this charity money to be used for such a purpose a volume of "Hansard" would not have contained the reproaches which would have been cast upon them from all quarters of that House. The purpose of the Motion was a greedy and selfish one for Gelligaer, although it would still be rich, educationally speaking, under the scheme, wanted even more, than was necessary, and would refuse to allow other parts of the county that needed help to share a little in the riches it derived from this endowment. Ho therefore hoped the Motion would be rejected, and that the House would act on the principle it had always observed in similar matters—that in cases where the fund given by a pious founder had, in the course of years and through change of conditions, outgrown the objects for which it was given, the area of benefit should be extended. A Motion, opposed to this principle had met recently with little support in another place. It was negatived on the suggestion of Lord Cranbrook. The principle might be right or it might be wrong. But if it was wrong this was not the way to deal with it. Let it be dealt with by legislation as a whole and not piecemeal by Motions of this sort. If this Motion were to prevail, every education scheme made by the Charity Commissioners would be brought down here after 12 o'clock and discussed. He hoped the House would not encourage this new mode of procedure and that it would, if for this occasion only, support the Charity Commissioners in endeavouring literally to carry out the duties laid upon them by Acts of Parliament.
  MR. ALFRED THOMASsaid, that the great point of the objection taken to the inclusion of the Gelligaer Endowment in the Glamorgan County Scheme was that by the provisions
  1596
  of the scheme, a large and growing charity would be diverted from the purposes and intentions of the founder and that the poor children of Gelligaer would be robbed of the magnificent inheritance left them by their generous benefactor. He freely admitted that there would be some ground for the contention, were the terms of the bequest carried out from the foundation up to the present time. But instead of this being the case there had been at least six schemes formulated, each differing from the preceding one, and so much was this the case that all that was left of the original will and testament of the founder were the words "Lewis' Endowment." And this must have been the opinion of those gentlemen who signed the two petitions against the Scheme of 1874, when they said among other things:—
  "That under the proposed Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, all such poor children will be deprived of the advantages they have hitherto enjoyed, both under the will of the Founder and the said Scheme of the Court of Chancery,"
  As expressed in the will, provision was made for building a school near the Church of Gelligaer, in which 15 poor boys were to be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic— "poor boys of the said Parish of Gelligaer." In 1849 the Court of Chancery formulated a scheme to meet the increased income of the Charity in which they introduced many modifications. Among the most important was that of abandoning the school built in the village of Gelligaer, and building a large school at Pengam, close to the boundary of the parishes of Bedwellty and Mynyddislwn, to accommodate 150 poor boys and 100 poor girls of the parish of Gelligaer. But as the parishes of Bedwellty and Mynyddislwn were then, as now, thickly populated, and Gelligaer at that point and time having but few residents, though ostensibly built for the parish of Gelligaer, the school was almost entirely filled by boys and girls from the neighbouring parishes of Bedwellty and Mynyddislwn. And as a result they claimed a prescriptive right to participate in the educational advantages of the charity and in the Scheme of 1874. This claim was recognised in giving each parish the right to nominate a Governor on the

  1597
  Governing Body and this was the beginning of the diversion of the benefits of the charity, which was no longer limited to the boys and girls of the parish of Gelligaer. Against this he made no complaint. The benefits of education could not be too widely extended, and he felt very proud of the fact that many gentlemen now holding distinguished positions, who though not natives of the Principality, were Grammar School of Gelligaer. But the greatest change was that effected in the Scheme of 1874, when the school was changed from the elementary to the secondary grade, and the school made a public school, without any restriction as regards the locality in which the scholars resided. That was quite a revolution from the terms and provisions of the will of the founder, though the circumstances and conditions of the time, contrasted with those existing in 1817 quite warranted the innovation; and was he believed strictly in the spirit, though far from the letter of that document. Since 1715 they had their present poor law, which though anything but satisfactory, placed the poor, the destitute poor, in a very different position from that existing some two hundred years ago. As the State had stepped in and filled the place of the founder, his charity was wisely used in supplementing the aid given by the State to the talented boys and girls of the Gelligaer district. What was the present position of the Gelligaer Schools? There were 134 boys attending the school, of which number only 37 were residents of the parish of Gelligaer. There were 25 female pupil teachers who attended the Higher Grade Elementary School at Pontlottyn to receive instruction in French and Domestic Economy—for which a payment of £200 per annum was made by the Governors. At present there were seven female teachers holding Queen's Scholarships who were exhibitioners of £15 each for two years; and prizes were given to female pupil teachers to the amount of £30, making
  1598
  in all a sum of £480 per annum. That went directly to the benefit of boys and girls of the parish of Gelligaer. The balance of the £1,100 was common to the rest of the country. With regard to the income of the charity, the income at the present time was something over £1,100 per annum, and it was contended that it would soon be between £3,000 and £4,000 per year. But what were the facts? The present working, from which they had drawn the major portion of their income, was fast disappearing and it was only a question of a few years before the celebrated Brithdin seam would be quite exhausted. It was true that there was an agreement by which a dead rent of £800 per annum was secured; but it was also a fact that a 12 years' clause was inserted by which it was inferred that it was probable that 12 years would elapse before the output of coal would exceed that amount of royalty. He did not wish it to be inferred that ultimately the income would not be all that was contended; but at present the sinkings for deep seams had not been commenced, and an eminent mining surveyor stated at a late inquiry at Gelligaer that it might be 12 or more years before the projected colliery would be in full working order. There was every probability that for the next 10 years little if any increase would be made in the income of the charity. By the scheme now laid on the Table it was proposed to take the endowment—and what did they find was offered in exchange? First, an immediate endowment of £1,500 per annum; then a grant of £3,000 to build a school for girls who would receive the same instruction as the boys. Many other advantages the scheme offered which would increase the sum of £1,500—first, the participation in the surplus of the County fund which he was told would not be less than £100 to each County school. Then the County Governing Body would undertake the examination of the schools, which would be something

  1599
  like £45 per annum for the two schools. The management of the property of the charity would fall upon the County and thus another advantage of £40 a year to the new managers. The keeping in repair of the farm and other buildings was no small item in the charity, and he was told that £100 per annum would not be a large average to put down for that item. Lastly, the County Governing Body would allow their travelling lecturers to lecture on four subjects, which would be equal to a cash payment to the two County schools of £200 per annum. All these items added to the £1,500 would, in round numbers, be £2,000, or an increase of some £900 over the present income. But those would by no means exhaust the advantages that Gelligaer would obtain under the scheme. It was a fact that but for the inclusion of the scheme there would be no County scheme proposed for Gelligaer. The boys and girls of that district, if they wished to attend a County school would have to go to Merthyr or Caerphilly; and for this reason Caerphilly was denied the advantage and prestige of a County School. The scholars of the new schools would participate in the exhibitions offered by the County Governing Body, and they would have the advantage of the examination under the Intermediate Education Act. What were the objections urged by those who led the attack in Gelligaer? The House would sooner find what they did want by ascertaining what they did not want to be accomplished. The Rector of Gelligaer and a friend, who accompanied him to London for the purpose of opposing the scheme, published a leaflet further explaining his position. Among other things he said—
  "It is not sought to keep Gelligaer apart from the county scheme; what is sought is that a classical side should be added to the boys' schools, and that it be raised to a level with Cowbridge, i.e., into the first class of intermediate."
  Under the scheme the only difference that existed as between the curriculum of the two schools was that Greek might be taught in the Cowbridge School. Gelligaer was deemed to be a good field for teaching mining, metallurgy and engineering; and in this way it would have a superior place to any other County school. But there was no reason why
  1600
  Greek should not be taught if there were any demand for it, as he believed there would be. That teaching could be obtained through the Charity Commissioners on it being shown that there was need for that extension of the curriculum. So now they find that the issue was narrowed down to the question of teaching Greek; and, though they were told that it was an easy matter to obtain the power to teach Greek, yet, because it was not included in the scheme, it was proposed to wreck the scheme. Those who did that would be the worst enemies of the boys and girls of Gelligaer. No worse calamity could befall them than to wreck the, present scheme; for what did it offer?—a school with a higher endowment than that of any other county. They would be brought under the Welsh Act, and into line with national education; they would have every facility and advantage to equip themselves to fight the battle of life, arid win its highest prizes. His hon. Friend pleaded for paupers. He himself pleaded for his young constituents as citizens who wish to participate in the benefits of the Welsh Intermediate Act and not to be disfranchised, as they otherwise would be, if this scheme were not passed by the House of Commons. [Cheers.]
  The House divided:—Ayes, 21; Noes, 140.—(Division List, No. 25.)

  PLACES OF WORSHIP (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT).
  Bill for the enfranchisement of leasehold sites of places of worship, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. Bryn Roberts, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), and Mr. Abel Thomas; presented accordingly, and read 1a to be read 2a upon Monday next. [Bill 122.]
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Three o'clock.

LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES (PAYMENT INTO COURT) BILL.— [H.L.]
A Bill to enable Life Assurance Companies to pay money into Court in certain cases—Was presented by the Lord Macnaghten, read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 21.)

POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND)— (WOMEN)—BILL.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it was of an extremely brief and simple character. It consisted of one clause only, and merely proposed to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England in connection with the subject of the qualifications of women to sit on the Board of Guardians. As far as Ireland was concerned, the Measure was of a non-controversial character, because the principle upon which it was founded had received the support of all sections of Irish representatives in the House of Commons. In England before the year 1894 there were 169 women Guardians, and now there were 887, and out of 648 Unions in the country women sat as Guardians in 342. There was a strong feeling in Ireland, especially in Ulster, that there was a certain sphere of work in which the services of women on Boards of Guardians would be of great value. Thus they could look after the pauper women and children, the training of girls for service, and the food and sanitary arrangements far better than men. Seeing that the principle of the Bill had been carried in another place by a majority of 272 to eight he did not think that the matter could be regarded as a controversial one. He begged to move that the Bill should be read a second time. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid that on behalf of the Irish Government he did not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. He saw no reason
1450
why the law of Ireland should not be assimilated to that of England on this subject. ["Hear, hear!"]
VISCOUNT CLIFDENsaid that he wished the. House to remark that the two noble Lords who had just spoken came from the north of Ireland, which he understood was a wild and savage country near Scotland. [Laughter.] In the south of Ireland this Measure would be a most mischievous and pernicious one. He did not like to see spouting women out of their place and doing men's work. One reason given for this Bill was that the like obtained in England. Certain things might be done in England with impunity that could not be done safely in Ireland. The noble Marquess who had moved the Second Reading of this Bill would scarcely like to see the provisions of the Irish Land Act applied to England, especially in the county of Durham. [Laughter.] The effect of this Bill would be to largely increase the powers of the priests on Boards of Guardians. He should oppose the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CHITRAL.
LORD REAYasked the Under Secretary for India whether any further papers would be presented to Parliament referring to the final settlement made with Chitral; to any arrangements entered into with the tribes through whose territories the road from Peshawar to Chitral was made; stating the expenditure on the road and the estimated annual expenditure on the military posts entailed by the construction of this road; and the estimated annual expenditure on the occupation of Chitral?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The EARL of ONSLOW): Papers showing the final settlement with Chitral and the tribal agreements are in the Press for presentation to Parliament. The additional annual military expenditure upon the occupation of Chitral and upon the line of communication will be shown in one of the Dispatches included in the return. ["Hear, hear!"]

INDIAN COTTON DUTIES.
LORD REAYasked the Under Secretary for India whether the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Government of India relating to the alteration in the import and excise duties on cotton, the memorials addressed to the Government of India by the Indian Chambers of Commerce and the Indian Millowners' Associations, would be included in the papers which were to be laid on the table by the Secretary of State?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The correspondence with the Government of India and the memorials, so far as they have reached the Secretary of State for India, will be included in the Cotton Duties Papers to be laid on the Table. ["Hear, hear!"]

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY), moved, That a Committee of Six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session.
Motion agreed to. The Lords following were named of the Committee:—Lord Chancellor, Earl of Morley, Lord Watson, Lord Herschell, Lord Thring, Lord Welby.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint Six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee pursuant to the Resolution of this House of the 17th of February last and to the Message of the House of Commons of Friday last signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN took the Oath.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.