Commons Sitting of 9 March 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  On the Order for the adjourned Debate on Instruction to Committee (6th March),
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He desired Mr. Speaker's decision as to whether he could move the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry.
  MR. SPEAKER: No. The Rule is strict, that the Instruction must be moved by the hon. Member in whose name it stands.

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Resolution of the House of the 21st day of February relative to Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills, and the Message from the Lords of the 28th day of February signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read;
  Ordered, That the following Bills be committed to a Select Committee of five Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of the Lords:—
  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (Strabane Canal) Bill.
  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Caledonian and Crinan Canals) Bill.
  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (River Ouse) (Beds and Hunts, &c.) Bill.
  Ordered, that all Petitions in favour of or against the Bills or Orders scheduled thereto presented five clear days before

  421
  the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard in favour of or against the Bills, and Counsel heard in support of the Bills.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their Lordships that the said Bills have been committed to five Members of this House, to be joined with a Committee of the Lords, and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of this House.—(President of the Board of Trade.)

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (ADVANCES.)
  Committee to consider of authorising the Treasury to make advances, under any Act of the present Session, to facilitate the construction of Light Railways in Great Britain, and for that purpose to borrow from the National Debt Commissioners the sums that may be required, such sums to be repaid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund; and also of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salary, remuneration, and expenses of the Light Railway Commissioners, and the expenses of the Board of Trade under the said Act (Queen's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(President of the Board of Agriculture.)
QUESTIONS.

  BADEN TARBET PIER, ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Baden Tarbet Pier, Ross-shire, has been completed for six months, will he state the cause of the delay in granting a certificate for the pier?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): The delay has been on the part of the Piers Committee
  422
  of the County Council, whose duty it is to apply for the certificate. I am informed that the Piers Committee is to meet this week to take the necessary steps.

  ACCIDENT TO A WORKER.
  SIR WILLIAM DUNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether his attention has been called to an accident which occurred on the 14th July last, whereby a lad of 16 years of age, named George Wylie, in the service of Messrs. Lobintz and Company, Renfrew, lost his life by falling from a loose gangway; (2) whether Wylie, who had only been a few days in the service, was working overtime, contrary to the provisions of the Factory Acts; and (3) whether any action is proposed to be taken by the Department in regard to the alleged contravention of the Statutes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The answer to the first two paragraphs of the Question is in the affirmative. Wylie gave his age to the foreman of the works as 18, and it was owing to this misrepresentation—supported as it was by the lad's appearance—that he was employed overtime. Special inquiry was made into the case by the Inspector at the time, who did not think it one where the employer was to blame, and therefore did not prosecute. In any case, proceedings could not now be taken after the lapse of more than six months.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether a Return for 1895, showing the classification of persons employed in the mercantile marine, similar to that for 1891, put in by Mr. Howell of the Board of Trade before Sir Edward Reed's Committee, could be laid before Parliament?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The return for 1891, referred to by the right hon. Baronet, was taken from some tables which were compiled by the Registrar General of Shipping

  423
  and Seamen, and printed for the use of the Department in 1893. I have already decided to have a similar return prepared this year, and I see no objection to its being laid upon the Table. The information has, however, to be extracted from the log and list of each vessel, and a very considerable period must therefore elapse before the Return can be completed.

  BISHOP MONKTON CHURCHYARD (YORKSHIRE).
  MR. T. WAYMAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of the West Riding of York, Mr. HENRY J. WILSON, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that at the recent burial, with a Nonconformist service, of Mr. William Simpson, in the churchyard of Bishop Monkton, near Ripon, the sexton was not in attendance, and the main entrance was closed against the funeral party, which had to enter by a side gate which is but rarely used; and, whether he can take steps to prevent a repetition of such an occurrence?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have made inquiry and am informed that the sexton properly fulfilled the duties which were required of him—namely, to dig the grave, and to be ready to fill it in at the close of the service. I am also told that it was the main entrance, and not a side gate, which was used on the occasion of Mr. Simpson's funeral; and that the main entrance leads directly into the burial-ground, while the entrance by the side gate, though more commonly used as leading to the church door, was not needed on this occasion, when no service was held in the church. I have no authority to interfere in the matter.

  DOCKYARD WORKMEN.
  DR. TANNER,: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether means will be found to meet some of the grievances in the coming financial year of which the Dockyard workmen have complained in their recent annual petitions; and, if so, which of the grievances complained of do the Admiralty propose to redress?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): As announced in the First Lord's statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1896–7, "certain grievances of which the Dockyard workmen had complained in their recent annual petitions have been under consideration, and it is hoped that means will be found to meet some of them in the coming financial year." A statement will be made on the subject when a decision has been come to, but other Departments as well as the Admiralty have to be consulted in the matter.

  PORTAVOGIE FISHERMEN (COUNTY DOWN).
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the application of the fishermen of Portavogie, county Down, (which place he visited on the 2nd November last), has been considered by the Treasury and the Irish Office, and with which of these Departments the matter now rests; and, whether the officer of the Irish Board of Works has made any report on the subject, or furnished any plans or estimates; and, if so, whether the Secretary to the Treasury will permit them to be inspected?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): No communication on this subject has been received by the Treasury from the Irish Office, and, therefore, no inspection or report has been made by the Board of Works. It is not for the Treasury to initiate expenditure in such cases, but I will consult my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to whether any, and if so what, steps should be taken in the matter. I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that, so far as I am aware, he has not furnished the Government with any memorial from the locality showing how it is proposed to provide for whatever expenditure is suggested, though he has already brought before me the claim which the enterprise and rapidly-increasing number of fishermen at Portavogie give for favourable consideration, should funds be available.

  FOREIGN MEAT.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to compel the seller of foreign meat to expose in a conspicuous place a notice to the effect that he is a dealer in such foreign meat?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG, Liverpool,): Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the proposal of the Hon. Member, and, inasmuch as a Bill on the subject now occupies a favourable place on the Paper, it would be more convenient that the views of the Government respecting it should be explained when the Bill comes forward for discussion.

  BARROW DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has come to any decision on the question of the drainage of the River Barrow, Ireland; and whether there is in existence a complete survey of the lands that would be affected by the proposed drainage scheme; and, if not, if he will take steps to have the necessary survey and Report prepared?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have not arrived at any final decision with regard to the drainage of the river Barrow, but the inquiries I have made point to the conclusion that it is very doubtful whether the outlay involved would be sufficiently remunerative to make it worth while to undertake the work. Complete Papers and plans in connection with the drainage scheme exist at the Office of Public Works.
  MR. ENGLEDOWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have the necessary legal notices served on the local landlords and tenants, and the necessary notices inserted in the local papers before November next, so that if it were decided to proceed with this important work next year, the necessary legal preliminaries would have been undertaken.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid that cannot be done. If I were to do so I might raise hopes I would not be able to fulfil.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether this had not a serious effect on the sanitary condition of Portarlington, owing to the non-drainage of the Barrow?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURhad not seen that stated.

  CUSTOM HOUSE (DUBLIN).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Secretary of Public Works has issued a notice for bidding the use of the steps of the Custom House for meetings; and whether it is intended to interfere with the right of public meeting so long exercised at that place by the citizens of Dublin?
  MR. HANBURY: The use of the Custom House steps for meetings causes serious inconvenience to the public service. It is difficult for persons requiring to enter or leave the premises to do so during the meetings, or for the watchmen and police effectually to safeguard the Custom House, and damage has been done to the building. It has, therefore, become necessary to prohibit the holding of meetings on these steps, but there is no intention of interfering with any right of public meeting in the open space adjoining.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. J. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether mounted acting sergeants and sergeants are compulsorily transferred to the Infantry force after 30 years' service, while head constables and constables are allowed to remain to complete the term which entitles them to full pension; (2) whether the want of knowledge of Infantry duty compels the men so transferred to retire at an earlier period than they would be obliged to had they been allowed to remain in the mounted force; and (3) whether, if such a grievance exists, he can see his way to have it remedied?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that mounted sergeants and acting sergeants are compulsorily transferred to the Infantry force when they have completed 30 years' service, and though the rule does not, at present, include mounted head constables, of

  427
  whom there are three, yet it will also be applied to them should they remain so long in the force. The Inspector-General thinks it not unlikely that the effect of the rule may be as stated in the second paragraph, though it is to be borne in mind that all men on attaining 30 years' service are eligible for full pension, and the maintenance of the rule is considered by him to be necessary to ensure the efficiency of the mounted force.

  ELECTION PETITION TRIALS.
  MR. EDWARD MOON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras, Mr. R. G. WEBSTER, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether he is in a position, to inform the House the number of days the Judges have been withdrawn from their ordinary duties during the past six months to try election petitions; and (2) if, from this or other causes, the ordinary administration of justice has been retarded?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am not aware of the exact number of days the Judges have been engaged in the trial of election petitions, but I suggest to the hon. Member that when all the petitions have been disposed of he should move for an address for return of the number of days they have occupied. The hon. Member's reference to the ordinary duties of the Judges is somewhat misleading; the trial of election petitions is a part of their ordinary duties, an addition of three having been made to their number many years ago to meet the requirements of these petitions. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is that there has undoubtedly been some interference with the ordinary course of the administration of justice; it became necessary to appoint Commissioners for some of the Assizes to prevent the arrears which would have arisen if more Judges had been withdrawn from the Courts in London.

  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, how many clerks are paid out of the Votes for clerical assistance in the various departments; and, whether it is intended to place any of the clerks so employed on the permanent estab-
  428
  lishment of any Department; and, if so, whether they are to be granted certificates by the Civil Service Commission, and under what Order in Council they are to be promoted?
  MR. HANBURY: Personal allowances for clerical assistance in the various departments are made to provide for work likely to vary in quantity from time to time, and the number of such persons is therefore continually changing. I cannot give the information asked for. Persons so employed are occasionally admitted to the establishment with certificates issued by the Civil Service Commissioners under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of June 4, 1870, but such admissions are only possible in the special circumstances stated in the Order. I am not aware of any proposal before the Treasury for placing such clerks on the establishment.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can state what clothing allowances at present exist in the Metropolitan Police Force, and to what proportion of the constables of the entire force these allowances are paid?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The only clothing allowance is an allowance for plain clothes; the duties in respect of which it is made are very various. The number of men receiving it varies from day to day, but one in 17 may be taken as the average proportion.

  ARMY CLOTHING.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the proportionate quantity of shirting material supplied to all the Home garrisons by the Army Clothing Department during the last three years; and, whether this is the total quantity of material annually given out; and, if not, to whom the difference has been given; what that difference is; and, what are the prices paid for making up?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The proportion of shirting material supplied from the Army Clothing Department to the Home garrisons during the last

  429
  three years has averaged 96 per cent. of the whole issue. The balance has been given to the Alford Needlework Association and to the Spitalfields Shirt and Clothing Factory. The prices paid for making up are 8½d. for ordinary shirts and 7½d. for hospital shirts.

  SEA CARRIAGE OF MAILS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1), whether the contracts for the sea conveyance of mails to India, the East, Australia, West Indies, Canada, and South Africa, are made irrespective of weight, no more being charged for any additional quantity of letters; (2) whether he has been informed that the requirement fixing half an ounce as the limit of weight in a letter to be carried for 2½d. to the countries included in the Postal Union necessitates the use of flimsy paper, inconvenient in use, without corresponding gain to the Department; (3) whether the United States and Canada long ago entered into a "restricted Union" (under the authority of the Postal Union Convention), by which the minimum rate of postage covers the transmission of a letter weighing one ounce from one to the other of those two countries; and, (4) whether he will take the necessary steps for raising the weight of a letter to India, the East, Australia, the West Indies, Canada, and South Africa, from half an ounce to one ounce for the present minimum rate of postage?
  MR. HANBURY: The facts are not exactly such as the hon. Member supposes. The Postmaster General has at present contracts with shipping companies for the sea carriage of mails to and from India, Australia, the East, and the West Indies, irrespective of weight; but he has no contracts for mails to Canada and South Africa, and pays the Colonial Governments by weight—a ½ d. on an average for each letter in one case and 1½d. in the other. The hon. Member is also aware that for the conveyance of mails for India, Australia, and the East across Europe the payment is by weight. The answer to the second paragraph is No. On the contrary, a longer letter than most people now care to write or read can be written on excellent paper and enclosed in an envelope
  430
  of excellent quality without exceeding half-an-ounce in weight. The United States and Canada have arranged that the domestic letter-rate of each country shall apply to a letter for the other. The effect is that from Canada to the States an ounce letter costs three cents, from the States to Canada two. There is no demand for an increased weight, and no intention of raising it.

  REGISTRATION OF LETTERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, owing to the imposition of a registration fee of 2d., immense numbers of letters containing postal orders, and other valuable documents are posted unregistered, to the injury of the postal revenue, and that this fact tempts the dishonestly inclined to the commission of theft; whether a clerk requires more than 15 seconds to register a letter, and whether the subsequent dealings with it necessitates the exaction of treble the ordinary postage; and whether he will recommend the imposition of a uniform registration fee of 1d.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is unable to say what number of letters containing postal orders, cheques, and other valuable documents are posted unregistered, but whatever advantage might arise in the shape of greater security to a larger number of letters from a reduction of the registration fee, the postal revenue would certainly suffer, as the present fee of 2d. is believed to be not more than sufficient to cover the extra cost and risk incurred in dealing with registered letters. As to the time occupied in the treatment of such letters, it must be borne in mind that it is not only at the office of origin and at the place of delivery that special care and attention are required, but that a hand-to-hand check is maintained at every stage through the whole course of post. The Postmaster General is not prepared to recommend the reduction of the fee to 1d.

  PATTERN AND SAMPLE POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General,

  431
  (1) whether he is aware that the circulation of small patterns or samples of light materials, such as paper, linen, and other stuffs, is much hampered, to the detriment of postal revenue, by the fact that the minimum postage for patterns and samples is 1d. for four ounces; and (2) whether he can see his way to assimilate the pattern rate with the book post rate by prescribing a minimum pattern rate of ½d. for two ounces?
  MR. HANBURY: As regards the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that few complaints are received of trade being hampered by the want of a lower rate than 1d. per four ounces for patterns and samples sent by post. The question was fully considered at the time of the restoration of the sample post, and has been reconsidered on various occasions since, but it has always been held that a lower minimum rate than 1d. would not be remunerative. The Postmaster General regrets therefore that he cannot see his way to assent to a ½d. rate for patterns and samples.

  WESTPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS (COUNTY MAYO).
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the Harbour Commissioners of Westport, county Mayo, are at present paying 4 per cent, on a loan obtained through the Board of Works for the improvement of the harbour; and whether, considering the present low rate of money, he will take steps to have the rate of interest on this loan reduced to a lower rate?
  MR. HANBURY: The Westport Harbour Board have had two loans, both of £3,000, at 4 per cent. The first was made in 1882 at 5 per cent., subsequently reduced to 4 per cent., and the second in 1894. 4 per cent. is the lowest rate of interest which can be allowed for such loans in the absence of special legislation, and, as the Local Loans Fund is at present constituted, any reduction in the present rate of interest would seriously endanger its solvency.

  PRESTON CORPORATION.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEY (Brecknock): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the
  432
  Corporation of Preston is the only public authority in England that has spent no part of the grants from the Customs and Excise Duties under the Local Taxation Act, 1890, upon technical or higher education; whether he is aware that this Corporation allowed the grants to accumulate until last year, when it diverted over £6,000 to the Borough Fund Account in relief of local rates; and whether any special circumstances exist in Preston to render the application of the money to higher education inexpedient?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The facts appear to be as stated in the Question. I have communicated with the Town Council, and am informed that they have applied the moneys received from the Customs and Excise Duties Grants in relief of the Borough Rate under special circumstances—these circumstances being that they have, at a cost of about £16,000, given a site for a technical school now in course of erection.

  BALLYTRAIN POLLING DISTRICT (SOUTH MONAGHAN).
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the police station of Shantonagh and the police hut at Dromod are in the polling district of Ballytrain, South Monaghan; and if lie is aware how many magistrates are resident in the polling district of Ballytrain and what are their religions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Constabulary that the police station of Shantonagh is in the polling district of Ballytrain; that the hut at Dromod is in the polling district of Rockcorry; and that there are two Magistrates resident in the polling district of Ballytrain, both of whom are Protestants.

  TELEGRAPH EXTENSIONS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in view of the fact that the sum of £25,000 was placed at the disposal of the Postmaster

  433
  General for the establishment of telegraph offices in the United Kingdom for the year 1894–5, and that out of this sum only £1,662 was devoted to the establishment of telegraph offices in the six Highland Counties of Inverness, Argyllshire, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland, he will consider the advisability of expending on telegraph extensions in the Highlands a larger proportion of the money to be allocated to the Postmaster General this year?
  MR. HANBURY: If the Vote for Telegraph Extensions in the United Kingdom were to be equally divided among the counties, the share of any six counties would be about £1,300. But if it were to be divided between the different counties according to their population, the share of the six Highland counties mentioned by the hon. Member would be less than £240. These six counties have, therefore, had nearly seven times their share of the Vote, and do not seem to have any claim to a larger proportion of the money to be expended, and as I informed the hon. Member in answer to a Question on the 3rd instant, besides the £1,662 devoted to the establishment of Telegraph Offices in the Highlands, two offices were opened at a cost of £200 in connection with the coast communication scheme, and two at a cost of £359 out of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Grant in aid of Public Works and communications, &c., Vote).

  ARMY AND NAVY PENSIONERS AND THE POLICE.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether it is the case that an ex-soldier or sailor entering the police cannot reckon his term of service in the Army or Navy in any degree towards pension, whereas under the Police Act, 1890, any person who has served as a Civil servant is entitled to reckon such service at the rate of four years as equivalent to three years of police service, the proportion of pension in respect of such service being payable from money provided by Parliament; and (2) if there is any ground of public policy for such inequality of conditions resulting in an
  434
  ex-soldier or sailor having to serve a greater number of years in the police in order to earn a pension; and, (3) if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to redress it?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The case of soldiers and sailors serving in police forces cannot be considered apart from the case of those who are serving in considerable numbers in the Civil Departments of the State. I am informed that the whole question was under consideration recently by the Treasury, but the conditions of combatant and civil service are so different that a scheme for pension on combined service would be difficult to devise even if it were considered desirable. It must be remembered that Army and Navy pensioners employed in civil service continue to draw their pensions while so employed without deduction.

  ADULTERATED LIQUOR (IRELAND).
  MR. J. H. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he could state to the House how many prosecutions have been instituted in Ireland during the past five years against persons for selling by retail spirituous liquors adulterated with poisonous ingredients dangerous to the public health; and were there any, and, if so, how many convictions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There have been a large number of prosecutions for offences of all kinds against Adulteration of Food Acts in Ireland during the past five years, but the returns do not show how many of these were in respect of the sale of adulterated liquor. It will take some little time to collect the information desired by the hon. Member, inasmuch as local inquiries throughout the country are necessary, but I hope to be able to give it to him in about ten or twelve days hence if he will then repeat the Question.

  LAND AND AGRICULTURAL BANKS(MADRAS).
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will

  435
  issue to Members as a Parliamentary Paper the recently published report regarding the possibility of introducing land and agricultural banks into the Madras presidency?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The report on agricultural banks in India is not complete, Volume I. only has come home, and the report has not yet been considered by the Governments in India or by the Secretary of State in Council. It would, therefore, be premature to lay a part of the report on the Table; but a copy of Volume I. has been placed in the library of the House, and ten more copies of that volume could be made available for hon. Members interested in the subject. I shall be happy to supply a copy to the hon. Member.

  ADMIRALTY CLERICAL STAFF.
  MR. H. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will take steps to expedite the settlement of the clerical staff of the Admiralty, the constitution of which was called for by Treasury Minute of 10th August 1889, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, and has been under consideration for the past two years?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The First Lord desires me to say that he hopes to be able to complete the settlement of the clerical staff of the Admiralty in the course of a few days.

  IRISH LIGHT-KEEPERS.
  MR. FIELD:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the petition presented a long time since by the Irish light-keepers has been yet considered; and, whether he is able to state his intentions with regard to its requests?
  MR. RITCHIE: As I informed the hon. Member for South Down on the 24th ultimo, the Board of Trade have not received from the Irish Lights Commissioners the petition referred to.

  ILLEGAL FISHING.
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the case of John Fast, who was, on 8th January, fined £45 by the Kingsbridge Bench of Magistrates for fishing without a light in prohibited waters, this being his first offence; and, whether, considering the fact that another man was fined £9 6s. for a similar offence, he will take the case into his consideration with a view to a mitigation of the penalty?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The facts of the case are not quite accurately stated in the Question. Fast was summoned on the 6th January for not carrying lights, as required by the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act; he was also summoned on the same day, with two other men, by the Devon Sea Fishery Board for fishing in Stark Bay-contrary to the byelaws. He pleaded guilty to both charges, and was fined £25 on the first charge, and (as were also the other two men) £20 on the second, both fines to include costs. There had been a succession of cases of illegal trawling before the Kingsbridge Bench. At first the charges were dismissed on payment of costs, or small fines only were inflicted. As the offences continued, the Magistrates found themselves compelled gradually to raise the fines until in the present case, after repeated warnings had been given from the Bench, the full monetary penalty was imposed. There is no reason to suppose that the Magistrates failed to exercise their discretion properly, and after carefully inquiring into and considering the case, and consulting the Board of Trade, I found no grounds to justify any interference on my part.

  INVETERATE MISDEMEANANTS AND INEBRIATES.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether it is proposed to take steps to give effect to the recommendation of the recent Departmental Committee on Inveterate Misdemeanants and Inebriates, that such classes of persons should be subjected to longer terms of detention, not necessarily in prison, but under more effectual and reformatory conditions than hitherto?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The question as to how far the recommendations of the Departmental Committee referred to can be given effect to, is at present engaging the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland, in conjunction with the Home Secretary. I cannot say more at present.

  CRIMINAL STATISTICS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the cause of the delay in the issue of the Criminal Statistics for 1894, and when they will be laid upon the Table?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The delay has been due to pressure of work in the Statistical Branch of the Home Office, and especially to the enormous labour which has been involved in the revision of the Civil portion of the Judicial Statistics. The Criminal Statistics are, however, now nearly completed, and I hope to be able to lay them on the Table soon after Easter.

  EAST KERRY (PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION).
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On behalf of the hon. Member for York, Mr. J. G. BUTCHER, I beg to ask the hon. Member for East Cork on what day he proposes to move for the issue of a writ for the election of a Parliamentary representative for East Kerry?
  CAPTAIN DONELANreplied that he proposed to move for the issue of the writ for East Kerry next Monday.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (MAYO).
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the building which at present serves as a school at Mayo for the accommodation of 150 children is only 12 feet by 30 feet, and that a new schoolhouse of proper dimensions has been completed; can he state what is the cause of the delay in opening the new school; and whether he will take into consideration the danger to the public health of the present arrangement,
  438
  and take steps to have the new school opened without further delay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The dimensions of the school house at present in use at Mayo are slightly in excess of those mentioned. It has accommodation for 79 pupils, whereas the actual average attendance is about 130. Early in January last the manager informed the Commissioners of National Education that the new schoolhouse would be open for the reception of pupils in a few days, but it appears the contractor owing to a dispute, has refused to allow the premises to be opened. The District School Inspector will shortly visit and report on the circumstances of the case in order that the necessary action may be taken to insure the early admission of pupils.

  AGRICULTURAL PRICES (IRELAND).
  MR. M. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will now state the average prices of agricultural produce and cattle in Ireland, as prepared for the Land Commission, for the first three years of the working of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1887, respectively, also for the year 1895?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am in communication with the Land Commissioners as to the precise amount of information which they can give in a Return on this matter, and if the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question tomorrow, I shall then be in a position to give him an answer.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if his attention has been drawn to the fact that on 5th March sheep were almost unsaleable in Dublin Market, and that some of those sold were bought in October last and sold to-day at less than was paid for them in October and loss of feeding besides, and that bullocks bought in Athy Fair on the previous day were sold in Dublin at £2 per head less than cost price delivered in Dublin; (2) and if, in framing his Land Bill for Ireland, he will remember the low prices that prevail for cattle, sheep, horses, and farm produce?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have called for a report on the first part of this Question, but as I have not yet

  439
  received it I must ask the hon. Member to repeat his inquiry to-morrow. As regards the second paragraph, the question of agricultural values must no doubt always be an element to be considered in connection with Land Legislation for Ireland.

  RIFLE RANGES (IRELAND).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the ground required for rifle shooting at Downpatrick, County Down, whether anything has yet been done in the matter, or what is proposed to be done?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Sites near Down-patrick have been examined but none has been found suitable for a rifle range. The subject is not being lost sight of.

  TENANTS' IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Land Acts (Ireland) 1894, with respect to holdings in Ulster; and, (2) whether, considering that the tenants of holdings valued over, £10 must make out schedules of their improvements, and that no corresponding obligation as to fact or law rests upon the landlord, and that these are matters with which the Land Commission can deal, he will suggest that the Land Commission consider how far they can simplify these, matters by framing and adopting new rules for the guidance of farmers and sub-Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not clear from the first paragraph of the Question to which recommendation of the Select Committee the hon. Member refers. Perhaps he will repeat that part of the Question. But it appears to me it merely has reference to the coming Land Bill. I am not in a position to enter into the details of the provisions of that Measure and perhaps the hon. Member will consider it desirable to defer the Question until the Land Bill is introduced. As to the second paragraph of the Question, I have asked the opinion
  440
  of the Land Commissioners and they inform me that they do not deem it expedient at present to alter the general rules in reference to furnishing particulars of improvements.
  MR.
  McCARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Commissioner oblige the tenants to give information to the landlords and will they also oblige the landlords to give information to the tenants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that they do not consider it expedient at present to alter the rules in reference to tenants' improvements.

  STREET FIGHTS (LONDON).
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether he is aware that it was given in evidence at the Marylebone Police Court on 19th February that boys to the number of some fifty on each side were in the habit of meeting about five in the evening armed with stones, sticks, belts, and other weapons, and fighting like savages, and that a short stick, at the end of which was fastened the blade of a knife, was produced before Mr. Plowden the magistrate, along with other weapons which it was stated were used by the boys; (2) whether it has been brought to his notice that Mr. Plowden stated that tricks of this kind were easily calculated to be a source of great annoyance to people, and having severely cautioned the prisoner ordered him to be discharged, and that the magistrate ordered the sticks to be returned to the boy; and, (3) whether there has been any renewal of hostilities in the neighbourhood in question, or any special arrangements made by the police for dealing with the matter?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Complaints were received by the police that the boys of two schools were in the habit of meeting and fighting among themselves with stones and sticks, and one who appeared to be the ringleader a boy of 13, was arrested and taken before the magistrate. No such stick as is mentioned in the Question was brought to the magistrate's notice. The action taken by the magistrate is, I understand,

  441
  correctly described in the second paragraph of the Question. He informs me that, in his opinion, the affair sounded much worse than it really was. There has been no renewal of hostilities, and no reason for any special police arrangements. The police are prepared to deal with any recurrence of the disorder.

  CHANNEL CATTLE TRAFFIC.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture—(1) with regard to the fact that in the exercise of his official powers he caused a steamer engaged in the live cattle trade from Australia (the Angers to wit) to be suspended from such traffic by reason of the mortality losses reported as having occurred during the voyage; (2) whether he has similar power to deal with vessels employed in the cross-Channel traffic, and, if so, has he at any time exercised the same; and (3) whether his attention has been drawn to the mortality on board the steamship Argo from Dublin to Bristol last November?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to the first and third Questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative, and to the second Question in the negative.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any recommendations with a view to the amelioration as regards higher increments, maximum pay, and prospects of the first and second class clerks in Her Majesty's Prisons have been made to him by the Commissioners of Prisons, based on the scheme submitted by the clerks over four months ago, showing that such increased maximum, &c., might be met without an increase in the Prison Vote for Salaries, and when his decision thereon would be made known; whether steps were being taken to apply the Rule for Retirement at the age of 65 of all the higher prison officials above the rank of chief warder; and, whether a petition from the warders of all grades had been received, asking for compulsory retirement after 30 years' service, and
  442
  when a reply thereto would be addressed to them?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: As I stated the other day, in answer to a Question on the same subject, certain recommendations have been made, which it is hoped may favourably affect the positions and prospects of the prison clerical staff. These recommendations are based on the Report of the Prisons Committee, and not on the scheme submitted by the clerks, which, however, to a certain degree they anticipated. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is in the negative. A petition from the warders for an improved scale of superannuation is now under consideration.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES' LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when will the Joint Stock Companies' Law Amendment Bill be introduced; and, will the Government be willing to refer it to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Bill has already been introduced into the House of Lords. I have considered the question of referring the Bill to a Joint Committee, and have come to the conclusion that the best course will be to adopt the usual practice and have the Bill considered by Committees of both Houses.

  DIOCESAN BOARDS OF EDUCATION.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he could obtain the publication of the Reports of the Inspectors to the Diocesan Boards of Education for the past year as a Parliamentary Paper?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): These Reports are not official documents, and are not brought under the notice of the Committee of Council. The Committee are not prepared to be responsible for their publication as a Parliamentary Paper.

  PUBLIC HOUSES, HOURS OF CLOSING(SCOTLAND) ACT.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1), with reference to the fact that a deputation, from the municipalities of the seven cities excluded from the Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act waited last month on the Secretary for Scotland to protest against their continued exclusion, and to the circumstance that the Secretary for Scotland is reported to have said, in the course of his reply, that he should hope to see a Bill brought in, and a discussion take place, whether the Government will give facilities for the amending Bill now before the House; and, (2) whether, on further consideration of the subject, the Secretary for Scotland and the Government are prepared themselves to carry out the desires of the municipalities which are affected by the present state of the Law?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I may say that in the reply of the Secretary for Scotland referred to, no suggestion whatever was made that the Government could give facilities for the Bill in question. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question I have to say that the information promised to the Secretary for Scotland on the point referred to, has not as yet been supplied.

  WORKHOUSE PROPERTY.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if a parish which is transferred from one union to another by the Order of a joint committee, under Section 36 (ii.) of the Local Government Act, 1894, can rightly claim to be repaid by the Guardians any portion of the cost of building and furnishing the union workhouse to which such parish originally contributed; and, if so, whether the length of time during which the parish has enjoyed the use of the workhouse ought to be taken into account in fixing the proportion of the cost to be repaid?
  MR.
  CHAPLIN: I am advised that an Order made under Section 36 (11) of the Local Government Act, 1894, is to be deemed to be an Order made under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and that Section 62 of the latter
  444
  Act therefore applies. The rights of a parish in respect of the interest in workhouse property would appear to be a matter as to which there may be an adjustment by agreement, or failing that, by arbitration under the last named section. The Local Government Board are not prepared to suggest any general rule as to the basis on which an adjustment should be made in such cases, circumstances in each case must be considered.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (LOCAL MAPS.)
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, if there is any objection to the children in the lower standards of a public elementary school learning geography from the ordnance maps of their own parish or district, so as to insure an intelligent understanding of what a map really means; and, if, in framing the New Code and Instructions to Inspectors, he will consider if it is possible to promote the use of such maps?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The Committee of Council not only do not object, they encourage the use of local maps. They cannot require managers to purchase the ordnance maps on account of the expense, but they have suggested that they might be placed in elementary schools as an advertisement.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received a copy of resolutions adopted at a public meeting in Swanlinbar, county Cavan, on 22nd ult., in favour of the construction of a branch line of the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Light Railway from Baunboy Road, through Swanlinbar, either to Belcoo or Enniskillen; and will the prayer of the resolutions to have the line constructed by Government aid be granted; and, if so, when?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received copies of the resolutions referred to. The case of this proposed line will be considered with that of others, but more than this I cannot at present say.
  MR. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any statement as to the time at which he will apply for money for the extension of light railways?
  MR. GERALD
  BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give any assurance.

  ARMY PENSION.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he has received a memorial from John Maguire, formerly of the 32nd Cornwall Regiment, signed by the Protestant Rector of Templemichael, asking for an increase in his pension, on account of several brave actions performed by him during the Indian Mutiny, and particularly at Cawnpore; and, will he recommend the War Department to grant the prayer of the memorial?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The memorial from Pensioner Maguire which the hon. Member sent to me on the 5th inst. has been received, and the receipt was duly acknowledged. Inquiry is being made as to the correctness of Maguire's statements. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

  HIGH SHERIFFS (IRELAND).
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether, seeing that His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland appoints the High Sheriffs throughout that country, will he state whose duty it is to see that these gentlemen carry out the law with reference to the selection of members of the Grand Jury; (2) whether he is aware that a copy of the grand panel, as called over at each Assizes, is recorded in the office of the Clerks of the Crown, and that the Poor Law valuation of the property possessed by the gentlemen whose names appear on the grand panel is recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Union; and, (3) whether he will request these officials to furnish a Return giving the names of the gentlemen sworn in on the Carlow Grand Jury at the Assizes held during
  446
  the last three years, showing their profession or calling, the value of the property possessed by them in the county, and any other qualification that they may possess which would entitle them to act as Grand Jurors?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Sheriff is bound to frame the panel at Assizes in accordance with the provisions of the Statute 6 & 7 Will. IV., cap. 116, sec. 31, which provides that a Sheriff who willfully omits or neglects to follow the rules made for the selection of Grand Jurors shall be liable, on complaint made to a Judge of Assize, to be fined. It is open, I think, to any person to make such complaint. I am advised that neither in common law nor Statute law is the duty imposed on any person of seeing that the Sheriff carries out the law in this respect. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. As to the third paragraph, no doubt the Poor Law valuation can be obtained from the Valuation Office or the clerk of the Union. The hon. Gentleman can have no difficulty himself in obtaining the information desired in the concluding paragraph from the newspapers, which give the names of the Grand Jurors, and from the Valuation Office and Clerk of the Union. If, however, he should desire to have the information prepared in the form of a Parliamentary Return the matter will be further considered on his moving for the Return in the ordinary way.

  CARLOW COUNTY INFIRMARY.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board are authorised by law from time to time to inspect and examine into the administration of any hospital or infirmary supported in part by Grand Jury presentments or Parliamentary grants; if he will give the date of the last time that the Carlow County Infirmary was so inspected, and its administration examined into by a Local Government Board Inspector; and if he will cause such Inspection and examination of its administration to be made at an early date?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the case that the statutable power indicated by the hon. Member exists. A

  447
  general inspection was made under it shortly after it came into force. If the hon. Member is aware of any circumstances which, in his opinion, render an inspection of the Carlow Infirmary now necessary, and if he will communicate them to me, I shall be happy to consider whether such an inspection should be ordered by the Local Government Board.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: Can the right hon. Gentleman kindly give me the date?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not sure of the exact date, but I think it was between 1840 and 1850.

  CANADIAN STORE CATTLE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a strong representation on behalf of the Dominion Government of Canada against the permanent exclusion of live Canadian store cattle from the United Kingdom; and whether he will confer with the President of the Board of Agriculture on the subject, with the view of obviating the objections of the Canadian Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Such a representation has just been received and will be duly considered.

  NAVAL CADETSHIPS.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether it is proposed to withdraw any of the six Naval Cadetships which were recently given by the Admiralty to the training ships Worcester and Conway; and, if so, would he explain what is the reason for such a decision?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): Under the provisions of the Regulations for the entry of Cadets from the Conway and Worcester, six Cadetships, in addition to the two annually granted to nominated candidates from these ships, will be offered for competition in 1896. It is the intention of the Admiralty to offer four Cadetships
  448
  for competition in 1897, and two in 1898, by which time it is hoped that the entries into the Navy through the Britannia training establishment will meet all the requirements of the Service. These extra Cadetships are given from time to time as may be thought desirable, and there was no undertaking that the grant of the Cadetships for competition, over and above the two annually allowed by nomination, would be permanent.

  NORFOLK ISLAND.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can give any indication of the proposed future form of government in Norfolk Island; is the island to be regarded as territorially annexed to New South Wales, and as entitled to a representative in the Parliament of that Colony, or is it to be ruled by a Government resident acting under the direct authority of the New South. Wales Government; is he aware that when the inhabitants of Pitcairn Island were transferred to Norfolk Island, in 1856, at the expense of the Imperial Government, they were guaranteed the continuance of their self-governing rights and privileges; and whether any opportunity will be afforded for an expression of local opinion before the contemplated changes in the government of the island are carried into effect?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The government of Norfolk Island is now the subject of communications with New South Wales, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present. On. reference to the Papers, and especially the Order in Council of June 24, 1856, laid before Parliament in that year, the hon. Member will see that the power of legislating for Norfolk Island was conferred on the Governor of New South Wales, who was instructed to preserve, as far as possible, the laws and usages to which the community had been accustomed. As the hon. Member has already been informed, the administration, of the affairs of the island has been most unsatisfactory, and cannot be allowed to continue; and, under the circumstances, it does not appear to Her Majesty's Government that there would be any advantage in calling for an expression of local opinion on the subject.

  CANADIAN MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether Her Majesty's Government has consented to give an Imperial contribution of £75,000 towards the cost of the fast mail steamship service between Canada and the United Kingdom, making the total annual subsidy for this object £225,000; whether he can state the terms provided in the contract respecting such contribution, such as speed required, number of times per week the vessels will leave the respective ports, etc.; and when a copy of the document will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. HANBURY: Her Majesty's Government have not consented to make a contribution of £75,000 per annum towards the cost of a fast mail steamship service between this country and Canada. They have intimated to the Canadian Government their readiness, under certain conditions, to make some contribution; and they have suggested that the Canadian Government should, by calling for tenders, ascertain the approximate cost of such a service. Her Majesty's Government will then be in a better position to decide what amount of assistance they would be justified in affording.

  NAVY SHIPBUILDING (BELFAST).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that many of the finest steamers afloat were built in the shipping yards of Belfast; and whether, considering the excellence of the work done there, he will see that some of the contracts for the additional ships required for the Navy are given to Belfast.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St.): It is known at the Admiralty that many fine merchant steamers have been built in the shipping yards at Belfast. When obtaining tenders for new shipbuilding work it has been the practice of the Admiralty to invite those firms at Belfast capable of executing the work to quote prices and time of delivery. This practice will be continued with respect to the new shipbuilding programme. The actual placing of the contract, however,
  450
  cannot depend on the wishes or goodwill of the Admiralty; it must depend on the offers received.
  MR. J. DALYasked whether some of the money would also be expended in the shipbuilding yards of Londonderry.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  That does not arise out of the Question.

  LABOURER'S COTTAGE (MONAGHAN UNION).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has he received information to satisfy him that Owen M'Manus, an applicant for a labourer's cottage, in the Monaghan Union, whose representation was rejected on the ground that he was not a labourer within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, is really an agricultural labourer; and will he direct the Guardians of the Monaghan Union to entertain this man's claim?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statements
  which have been furnished to me by the hon. Member go to prove that in some instances M'Manus has done agricultural labourer's work, though it appears to me that the Guardians are in a better position than I am of arriving at a determination whether he can be regarded as coming within the meaning of the words "agricultural labourer" as defined by the Labourers' Acts. I would further remind the hon. Member that the Guardians, in refusing his application, also stated that they did not consider there was any want of houses for bonâ fide labourers in the district. The Local Government Board do not consider the circumstances are such as to justify them in enforcing in this case the compulsory provisions of the Act of 1891, and moreover the expense of putting in force the machinery of the Acts for the purpose of providing a single cottage would be entirely out of proportion to the result.
  MR.
  MACALEESE: As I happen to be a member of this Board of Guardians myself, will the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that the man is an agricultural labourer?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course I accept the hon. Member's assurance, but I am afraid I must be guided by the opinion of the majority of the Guardians in this matter.

  POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
  MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any children in the Poor Law school below the age of 11 were employed as half-timers during the year 1895; and whether any order was issued on the subject by the Local Government Board; and, if so, what was the date of that order?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No order has been issued by the Local Government Board on the subject, but the attention of the Board's Inspectors has been specially drawn to the matter. There have been very few cases in which it has been reported to the Board that the provisions of Section 1 of the Education Act of 1893 have been infringed, and in these instances steps have been promptly taken to check the irregularity.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Schools has been made, and when it will be laid upon the Table?
  MR.
  CHAPLIN: I am informed that the Report of the Poor Law Schools Committee has been signed, and will be presented to the Local Government Board in the course of a few days.

  CHRISTIAN BROTHERS' SCHOOLS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he expects to be able to introduce the Bill affecting the Christian Brothers' Schools?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Bill is in the course of preparation, and I hope soon to be able to consult with the Irish Members as to the date it would be convenient for them to introduce it.

  ROXBOROUGH ROAD SCHOOLS (LIMERICK).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would lay upon the Table the correspondence with the Lord Bishop of Limerick respecting the Roxborough Road Schools?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In addition to the correspondence there is a further correspondence between his Lordship and the Educational Commissioners, which has been followed within the last
  452
  few days by a letter from his Lordship to the Lord Lieutenant, which is now the subject of inquiry. In the circumstances I think it would be better to postpone the question whether the correspondence should be published as a Parliamentary paper until that letter is considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the matter concerns an alleged breach of a Resolution of this House, will the right hon. Gentleman say that no action will be taken by the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the new scheme before the House has an opportunity of pronouncing upon it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; this House has in any case the power of considering the matter, and I cannot give the undertaking the hon. Gentleman asks for.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the bishop mentioned in this question is not the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there an Orange bishop?

  HIGHLAND RAILWAY (NEW LINES) ACT, 1890.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether in view of the fact that by the Highland Railway Company (New Lines) Act, 1890, five years were allowed for the construction of five new lines of railway, two of which, numbered 2 and 5, were not completed within the specified time, he will state whether a certificate has been given by the Board of Trade showing that the company was prevented from completing or opening such lines by unforeseen accidents or circumstances beyond their control; and will he state the date of such certificate, the reason assigned by the Highland Railway Company for the delay, and the grounds for seeking an extension of four years to complete a short railway of only two miles in length?
  MR. RITCHIE: No certificate has been, given by the Board of Trade.
  MR. WEIR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state the ground for permitting the company to exceed the time allowed?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no information on the point.
  MR. WEIR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is not my duty to inquire. If the companies do not fulfil their obligations, the landowers may bring actions against them if they choose to do so.

  SUCK DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that all the benefits arising out of the River Suck Drainage works are, by the Drainage Acts, conferred on the occupiers of the lands drained and improved, and that, not with standing this, a larger charge or annuity has been placed upon the owners than upon the occupiers; whether, if the owners receive no return for the annuity charged to them, he will favourably consider their claim for a remission or reduction of this charge?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that the charge on the proprietors represents non-productive outlay on the works, and in addition they are obliged to pay the maintenance rates levied in the district. They were, no doubt, induced to embark upon the undertaking by an estimate of results based on prices in force 18 years ago, when the scheme was first undertaken. As the occupiers only pay an annual sum not exceeding the estimated annual improvement in their lands on the basis of present prices, they no doubt pay a smaller portion of the cost than the proprietors under the Final Award. The Draft Award charged a capital sum of about £78,000 on the occupiers, and,£58,000 on the proprietors, which sums under the Final Award became about £67,000 and £71,000 respectively. The difference is due partly to the exclusion of certain lands and partly to a reduction of the estimated improved value in consequence of the Inquiry which was held after the publication of the Draft Award. The proprietors have, however, had the benefit of a free grant of £50,000, without which their share would have been larger to that extent, and the Government has no funds at its disposal out of which any further charge could be met.

  RICHMOND BARRACKS (DUBLIN).
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what is the present condition of the water supply in Richmond Barracks, Dublin; and if the defects alleged to have occurred in the recent additional supply have occasioned grave difficulties?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Richmond Barracks are supplied, like the population of Dublin, with Vartry water for drinking purposes. Its quality is satisfactory. For flushing drains, canal water was used until recently, but this has been discontinued. No defects in the recent supply have occurred beyond the fact that one day last week the water was shut off for a few hours while a burst main was under repair.

  CHOLERA AT LUCKNOW.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any attention has been paid to the reports on the outbreak of cholera at Lucknow; what is the present condition of the filter beds attached to the wells; whether it has been substantiated that these wells were contaminated with the cholera microbe; and what are the reasons given for the high mortality, 97 in 144.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The reports on the outbreak of cholera at Lucknow in 1894, have, no doubt, been fully considered by the military authorities in India, but I have not received a copy of the Report. The cantonment is now supplied with pure water by the Lucknow Municipality. The opinion of the Committee was that the sand in the filter beds attached to the wells was contaminated with the microbe of cholera. No special reasons were assigned for the high mortality, which, however, was not higher than the average.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (GALWAY BAY).
  MR. J. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Galway, Mr. J. PINKERTON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps have been taken to put a stop to illegal trawling in Galway Bay; and if the Admiralty have considered the advisability of having a gunboat permanently stationed there to prevent further breaches of the fishing laws?
  MR. MACARTNEY: The Admiralty do not undertake to stop illegal trawling, or prevent breaches of the fishing laws on the coast of the United Kingdom. It is not possible to station a gunboat permanently in Galway Bay, and the Admiralty do not recognise any obligation on them to do so for the purpose indicated in the question. The senior Officer at Queenstown has, however, been communicated with for the purpose of causing a vessel to visit Galway Bay at the earliest possible opportunity.

  FINGRINGHOE NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that the National School in the parish of Fingringhoe is being conducted under the sole management of the Rev. C. E. Walker, in violation of the trust deed of the school house, which provides for a committee of management, and that the head master of Fingringhoe School has been recently dismissed by the Rev. C. E. Walker; can he state the reason for such dismissal; is he aware that the ratepayers and other inhabitants of Fingringhoe have protested against the removal of the teacher, against whose character there is no complaint, and who has received excellent reports from Her Majesty's Inspectors and from the Diocesan Inspector for work done in the school; and, will he take the necessary steps to insure that the terms of the trust deed are observed, and to protect children and teachers of schools from the injurious results of such dismissals?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The last application for grant to this school was signed by the Rev. C. E. Walker and two other managers. The Committee of Council have no power to inquire into the observance of the terms of trust deeds of elementary schools or to enforce them. The master has received notice of dismissal and some of the inhabitants have protested;
  but the Committee of Council have no power to interfere. Questions arising out of agreements between managers and teachers must be decided by recourse to legal procedure, as in the case of other contracts.
  MR. J. ROUND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman
  456
  whether he is aware that the reverend gentleman in question has withdrawn the notice of dismissal?
  Sir J. GORST: No official information of that has reached the Department; but, if it is as the hon. Member has stated, I am very glad of it. [Cheers.]

  ILLITERATES (PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS).
  MR. R. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if his attention has been directed to the large number of illiterates who voted at the last General Election, more especially in the Counties of Monmouth, Norfolk, and Somerset; if he knows whether there is, or if there has been, any deficiency either in the extent or in the character of the education given in the schools within these divisions; and, whether Her Majesty's Inspectors ever called the attention of the Department to the defective education received by the people of those localities for a long period, as evidenced by the Return of Illiterates made to the House of Commons on 28th February, 1896.
  SIR JOHN GORST: My attention has been directed to the Return mentioned by the hon. Member. There is nothing to show any special deficiency in the extent or character of the education given in three districts named; but I, personally, am not surprised to learn that a large proportion of the children living in rural districts forget how to read or write when they become adults.

  VENEZUELA.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice—whether there is any foundation for the statement that a British squadron will shortly arrive at Curaçoa?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware there is no foundation for the report.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the First Lord of the Treasury what business would be taken on Thursday and Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The main business, both on Thursday and Friday, will be Supply; and I imagine the time will be chiefly divided between the Naval and the Military Estimates.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked what day the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on the Army Estimates would be moved?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is rather difficult for me to answer with absolute certainty as to whether Thursday or Friday will be devoted to getting the Speaker out of the Chair, but I think Thursday.

  UNITED STATES AND SPAIN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of which I have not been able to give him private notice—whether he will be able to furnish the identification of the British officers who are reported from Madrid in to-day's intelligence as having volunteered their service to the forces of Spain in the event of war being declared by that country against the United States?
  MR. BRODRICK: I must ask for notice of that Question.
  DR. TANNER: I will put it down for Thursday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd March], "That the Light Railways Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he must not be taken as animated by any spirit of hostility to the Bill in objecting to the Motion to refer it to the Grand Committee. There
  458
  was no Bill read a second time this Session in which so many Members took an interest as the Light Railways Bill, and the result of referring it to the Grand Committee would be to exclude nine-tenths of those Members from taking part in the discussion on the Bill in Committee. The Grand Committee on Trade was composed mainly of manufacturers, merchants and bankers, and the representatives of large boroughs like London, Manchester and Glasgow, who were not likely to be much affected by the provisions of the Bill. No doubt a number of Members would be added to the Committee as specialists, because of their knowledge of the subject of the Bill, but he did not think that would remove the objection. He had been overwhelmed with requests from his colleagues, especially those who came from Wales, to get them places on the Grand Committee; and he did not think it would be for the advantage of this Measure that these Members should be shut out from the discussion. Another objection to sending the Bill to the Grand Committee was that it raised a new principle and marked a new departure. Of course, he knew that it was a great temptation to send a Bill to a Grand Committee, because it was the easiest and best chance of getting it through; but, in view of the character of the question, he hoped that temptation would be resisted.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid, it appeared to him that the House ought to take a little more interest in this question than it seemed inclined to do. There were three reasons why the Bill should not be sent to the Grand Committee, but should be discussed fully in the House. The first was the haste with which the earlier steps of the Bill were pushed through the House. The Measure touched a very large matter. He could not pretend that he had not had an opportunity of stating his views, but he complained that, owing to the great hurry of the proceedings in the Second Reading, their views had hardly received the consideration which, in his opinion, they were entitled to. This whole policy of light railways had produced a profound effect in Ireland, and he did not think the result of the policy of building those interesting structures there had been what the House thought it had been. This

  459
  Bill proposed to commence a work of the same kind in Great Britain; and he thought that it demanded the most careful consideration of the House. What opportunity had they had of considering it? The Bill was distributed on the Friday morning, and the Second Reading was taken on the following Monday night, and when the Second Reading came on he was astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman did not open the discussion by explaining the provisions of the Bill. In the course of that discussion, a great many important questions of principle were raised. The right hon. Gentleman was greatly hurried in his reply; he believed some of his Friends on the Front Bench were pulling his coat-tails. The right hon. Gentleman, he was sure, had a great deal more to say about the Bill in. the House than he had yet said. His second point was in connection with the finance of the Bill. He thought the finance was all wrong. The principles on which it proceeded were unjust both to the local and the Imperial taxpayer, and so, without being hostile to the policy of light railways, he thought some different principle of finance should be adopted. That was a subject that could hardly be adequately discussed by a Grand Committee. They were going to begin a great work on which they ought to concentrate their attention, and which it was most important to the people of the country should be placed on a proper basis. His third reason was that they seemed to have no work to do. In the Queen's Speech some 19 Measures were promised, and they had been craving for these Bills so that they might think them over. But all they had got was this Light Railways Bill, which, after being dangled before them for a moment, was now to be snatched away to a Grand Committee. This Bill would affect the towns as well as the country districts, and the representatives of the great cities ought to have an opportunity of discussing its provisions.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had advanced three reasons against the proposal before the House. One of them was that the interval between the First and Second Reading was short, and that the discussion on the Second Reading was hurried. He also made complaint that
  460
  he (Mr. Ritchie) did not make a speech in moving the Second Reading. It was, however, in accordance with custom that, having made a long and full explanation in introducing the Bill, he should reserve himself until the discussion on the Second Reading was drawing to a close, in order that he might answer the objections and criticisms offered to the Bill. It was quite true that there was only a short interval between the introduction and the Second Reading of the Bill, but no one could complain that he did not very fully explain all the provisions contained in the Bill. He did not enter into details. That was a matter for criticism and discussion in Committee. [Opposition cheers.] Did that cheer indicate the belief of hon. Gentlemen opposite that when details had to be discussed they must be discussed in Committee of the whole House? If that was the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite who were responsible for the sitting of these Grand Committees, all he could say was, they had better at once abolish the whole thing. If such a Bill as that now before the House was not to be referred to the Grand Committee, he could not see what Bill could properly be referred to it. There was really no contention whatever with regard to the principle of the Bill. The only question of principle raised on the Second Reading was in regard to finance. That was raised by the hon. Member for West Islington, but was supported by no other Member. He therefore claimed that, in regard to the principle of the Bill, there was no real difference. The only difference was on questions of detail, and he maintained that the Grand Committee could deal far more effectively with these questions than a Committee of the whole House. He was satisfied, from having sat on many Grand Committees, that they could not possibly have a better tribunal for discussing the details of such a Bill than the Grand Committee on Trade. The present opposition came with a very bad grace from hon. Gentlemen, opposite. He remembered that they had sometimes referred Bills which invoked very great difference of opinion to the Grand Committee. The Employers' Liability Bill was an example. In that case there was extremely sharp contention in regard to one principle in the Bill, but, notwithstanding the objections raised, it

  461
  was sent to the Grand Committee. If that could be done, he could not for the life of him see how hon. Gentlemen opposite could refuse to send a Bill of this kind, which was not contentious, to the Committee upstairs. Another reason which the hon. Gentleman gave was that they had no work to do. If he meant that they had not a large number of Bills to discuss, he ought to know that the exigencies of the financial year made it imperative that the Government should ask the attention of the House at this period of the Session, not to measures, but to finance. The hon. Member might however rest assured that the Government had plenty of Measures which they hoped to bring before Parliament, and which would give him the work for which he pined. Having regard to the manner in which the House had received the Bill, and the fact that the discussion had been mainly on points of detail, he asserted that, if ever there was a Bill which ought to go before a Grand Committee, this was one.
  MR. E. STRACHEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that, because this was a Bill the principle of which they were all agreed upon, that was the very reason why it should be taken from the House and sent upstairs. When it was agreed that the principle was admitted, and that there was nothing contentious about this Bill, he would venture to submit that that was the very Bill which ought to come before the House, because there could be no possible obstruction to it, and probably one night, or two nights at the outside, would be sufficient for its discussion in Committee. Having regard to the character of the Debate on the Second Reading and to what was said on that side of the House, there would not be the slightest inclination to raise any hostile criticism on details or to discuss the Bill in anything but a practical manner in Committee. What did the right hon. Gentleman do by this Motion? He sent the Bill to a Committee upstairs of which a very large number of Members on both sides of the House were not members, and who would have no opportunity of taking any part in the discussions on the details of the Bill. Although it was a Bill the principle of which they were agreed upon, it was very necessary to see that the details were discussed, not
  462
  at very great length, but by hon. Gentlemen in every part of the House who had special knowledge of these matters. It was impossible to get hon. Members having a special knowledge to attend the Grand Committee on Trade, while there was no difficulty in getting hon. Members in the House in the evening to discuss these matters. He could not help thinking that the Government proposed to set up an entirely new principle, namely, that of giving free grants of money. Such a principle had never been adopted as regarded England, and it was a very dangerous proposal to take such a matter out of the control of the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider his decision if he received the assurance, as he was sure he would do from that side of the House, that the Bill would not be treated in anything like a hostile spirit in Committee of the whole House.
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid, he had never been personally in favour of Grand Committees, and he was no lover or supporter of them. But he had always understood that their object was to save the House as a whole much hard work, and, if there was any good or any reality in them, and they were not to be a mere sham, they should be made to serve that purpose. What was the principle of these Grand Committees? There were certain Measures, containing matters of principle to which many hon. Members objected, which it would be very wrong and unfair to shut out from the consideration of the vast majority of members of the House, ant it was the essence of the new scheme of devolution that no seriously-contentious matter should be sent to a Grand Committee. But now hon. Members opposite had argued that, because this was a non contentious Measure, because it was a Measure the principle of which they were all agreed upon, therefore it was not a Measure which ought to be sent to a Grand Committee. It seemed to him that the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite went to the very root of the whole matter of Grand Committees, for surely if ever there was a Measure which ought to be referred to such a body it was the Light Railways Bill now before the House. In his long experience of the House he had scarcely ever known a Bill the principle of which had been so

  463
  unanimously received by hon. Members on both sides, and, that being so, he thought they ought to make some arrangement by which they could refer it to a Grand Committee at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh had said with truth that a large number of Welsh Members would thus be shut out from the discussions on the Bill, but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the custom to add to the Committee a certain number of Members who were interested in a particular measure. No doubt that course would be followed in the present instance, and the objection of the right hon. Gentleman would thus be removed.
  MR. J. BRYCEsaid, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in that he was a great advocate of these Grand Committees. He regarded them as a very useful addition to their procedure. He also differed from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill did not raise questions of contention. On the contrary, it was a Bill which raised some extremely difficult questions which deserved to be very carefully considered. The first of these was whether the existing restrictions imposed on normal railways should be relaxed; the second was whether power should be given to the Light Railway Commissioners, instead of Parliament, to incorporate companies and pass ordinances for the creation of these light railways. Upon these two questions he believed little or no difference of opinion existed in the House. The third question was whether local authorities should be empowered to make subsidies to these light railways, and the fourth question was whether Treasury grants should be made to subsidise these light railways. On these two points they had a considerable difference of opinion as to principle. They were very important principles—how far they should extend the powers of local authorities to enter into undertakings of this kind and to charge them to the rates, and how far they should empower the Treasury to make grants, which was a perfectly new policy with regard to England, and, except as to the congested districts, to Scotland. That was a precedent which deserved the attention and the whole strength and force of the House. It was not a matter for a mere
  464
  quorum of Members in the Grand Committee. It was a matter for a Committee of the whole House. When the President of the Board of Trade rose, he hoped he was rising for the purpose of giving the House a precedent that was applicable to the present case. The right hon. Gentleman had not done so, and so far as he (Mr. Bryce) was aware there was no precedent. If the right hon. Gentleman could give them one he was sure they would be very glad to hear it from him.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was a Light Railways Bill, though he did not just remember the year, under which very considerable grants were made from the Treasury, and that was referred to the Grand Committee.
  MR. BRYCE: 1883 or 1887?
  MR. RITCHIE: I forget the year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): 1891.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Neither of them was referred to the Grand Commitee.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that probably some speaker would follow him and deal more minutely with this question, which seemed to him to be one of importance. He did not think that this was a question which ought to be handled by so small a body as a Grand Committee. The question of what powers should be entrusted to local authorities was a very different one to those which generally came before the Grand Committee on Trade, and it was a question on which a large number of Members, representing different constituencies, might very well wish to express an opinion, while the question of whether grants from the Treasury should be made was one on which many Members, not otherwise connected with the policy of Light Railways, might desire to express an opinion. They ought to have the opportunity of expressing that opinion, and they could not express it on the Grand Committee. He said, therefore, that, considering the very great novelty and the very great importance of the issue which this Bill raised, it was not a Bill which should be discussed in so small a body as the Grand Committee, with the necessary exclusion of many Members who might desire to offer their opinions upon it. He also ventured to submit that it was a departure from the

  465
  understanding on which Grand Committees were set up, to send to them Bills on which a large difference of opinion on principle existed.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, that while he had a great deal of sympathy with those who desired to debate this Bill in a Committee of the whole House he intended to vote for sending it to the Grand Committee for two reasons. The first was that it would be discussed in a much more businesslike and satisfactory way in the Grand Committee than it could be in Committee of the whole House. He had attended these Grand Committees for a great many years past, and he had always noticed that when matters of very minor interest were before them there was a difficulty in getting a quorum, but when a Government Bill, raising really important questions, came before them, there was no difficulty in getting a quorum, and the questions had always been discussed in a thoroughly businesslike spirit and free from any feeling of party spirit. Another great advantage was that the questions could be decided in the Grand Committee in a way they were often not decided by the House—not by the votes of those Members who had sat through all the discussions of the Amendments, but by those who had rushed in at the sound of the Division bells and gone into the Lobbies according to the bidding of the Party Whips. The Members of the Grand Committee would decide questions which they had heard discussed throughout. Although the Bill might contain some contentious points, yet, on the whole, it commanded a very large consensus of the opinion of the House. The only serious principle the House could claim to debate was the right of the Treasury to grant money for the purposes of light railways. But they should have an opportunity of debating this in Committee of the whole House. There would be an Expenses Committee, and the Report of that Committee, before the Grand Committee could insert in the Bill any clause empowering advances out of the Treasury; therefore, although he admitted this was a great, a new and important principle, yet he would point out that there would be an opportunity of discussing it in Committee of the whole House. Saving that, he
  466
  believed those of them who wished to see the Bill passed into law were pretty well agreed as to the general principles involved, and he very much doubted if the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had been able to proceed further with his Bill of last year, he would not rather have passed it into law last year through the agency of the Grand Committee than have allowed it to fall into the limbo of forgotten Measures by reserving it for the Committee of this House. Because he was one of those who desired to see the Bill passed and who knew the dangers that befel secondary Government Measures which were kept for the Committee of the whole House, he thought it far better that this Motion should be passed and the Bill be discussed in a businesslike manner upstairs, so that it should have a good chance of becoming law this Session.
  MR. J. CALDWELLobserved that when the Grand Committees were appointed every Member of the House had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on the Second Reading of a Bill. There was then no Closure, but everybody knew perfectly well that upon this particular Bill a great many Members had no opportunity of expressing their opinion on the Second Reading. The result was that they were now asked to send the Bill for its next stage to a Committee upstairs, no that they should be again excluded from expressing their opinion on the Bill. He ventured to say that was not in contemplation when Standing Committees were appointed by the House, and it was an element to be taken into consideration. There was one great constitutional change effected by the Bill, the nature of which was not touched upon on the Second Reading. At the present moment Parliament alone had the power to take land and give authority in regard to matters of railway legislation, but by this Bill a new body was established altogether outside Parliament—a Railway Commission—and that new body was to have the power to grant applications which, when once granted, were not to be so much as laid before Parliament for sanction. That was an entirely new principle, because now, when power was given to a body like the Local Government Board in the case of Provisional Orders, those Orders

  467
  were still brought up for confirmation in the House of Commons. But what they were going to do now was to confer on the Board of Trade the power of sanctioning railways taking lands, etc., without such matters being brought before Parliament at all. The only thing the Board of Trade had to do was to make a report of the proceedings to Parliament, and the particular grant was withdrawn from the purview of Parliament altogether. It had been stated that a grant had been made in the case of the Highlands, but an Act of Parliament was passed through the House to sanction that grant. Under this Bill there would be no Act of Parliament, and no reference to Parliament whatever in the Measures which might be sanctioned by the Board of Trade. Parliament ought not to surrender its rights, or such a grave constitutional change ought not to be allowed to take place without the fullest discussion in Committee of the whole House, and if there was going to be this new departure it ought only to be made in cases where every Member of the House had the fullest opportunity of stating his views upon the matter discussed.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITobserved that two opposite opinions had been expressed about this Bill, one hon. Member saying it was contentious and another that it was non-contentious, while the Amendment to the Bill upon the Second Reading gave the Measure most hearty support. But, assuming that it was contentious, the late President of the Board of Trade asked what the precedents were for sending such a Bill to a Grand Committee. Contention was no object to a Bill going to the Grand Committee. The Employers' Liability Bill was a highly-contentious Bill, but it went to the Grand Committee; and so was the Factories Bill of the late Government, and it also went to the Grand Committee. The opportunity of discussing the principle had passed on the Second Reading, and what was left was the discussion of those details which could either be properly relegated to a Committee of the whole House or to the Grand Committee. He had from the first supported the principle of the Standing Committee. They wanted a great deal more devolution instead of less, and it seemed to him that two
  468
  conditions upon which Grand Committees were supported were fulfilled here. In the first place, this was a Government Bill; and, in the next, this was a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. Again, there was a great deal of detail requiring expert and businesslike discussion, which would be best achieved in the Grand Committee. What they desired was the speedy passage of the Bill; and, because he believed the principle of devolution
  was right in itself, this Bill adapted to it, and that a good Bill would result from the discussions in the Grand Committee, he heartily supported the Motion of the Government.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEobserved that for once he had the pleasure of being of the same opinion as his right hon. Friend the Member for the Dartford Division. He had never liked Grand Committees. He did not think they were good, and they took upon themselves matters which had much better be attended to by the House. They were constituted for the devolution of businesss; but this was exactly one of those Bills of which the House ought to have the control. The proposed Measure gave great power to local authorities, and it was only a little while ago that hon. Gentlemen opposite took the view that powers vested in local authorities for the spending of money were powers rather to the detriment than to the benefit of the commonwealth. He had always entertained the view that the local authorities they were establishing had not been constituted in the manner which enabled them to conduct their business with great economy. This was a Bill which placed large and almost unrestricted powers in the hands of local authorities; and if ever a Bill ought not to go upstairs to the Grand Committee, but ought to be dealt with in this House, it was the present one. It was true they all wanted to see the Bill passed; but surely the House was better able to deal with the question than a Committee of an almost uncertain character. If these railways were to do good, they must be made in connection and work harmoniously with the trunk railways of the country. How many railway men were there on the Grand Committee? Perhaps there were as many as desired to go on; but they were only

  469
  two—one being the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, and the other an hon. Gentleman from the North of England. Surely the House itself had better take up this question of Imperial contribution to local authorities, and keep it in its own hands, rather than run the risk of adding to local burdens by handing a Bill like this over to a Grand Committee, which was often a very badly-composed tribunal.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northants, E.)thought the Standing Committees were of the greatest possible value. In the case of one or two Bills which he had seen dealt with by them, the most admirable results had been obtained, and especially so in the Bill dealing with the hours of railway servants. He ventured to think, however, that this Bill raised considerations of a wholly different character. If it had been the same Bill as that of last year, he would say at once, "Send it to the Standing Committee," because the Bill of last year was merely a facilitating Bill; whereas this Bill handed over a large amount of public money to the local authorities, and that was a matter in which the representatives of the taxpayers were directly interested. He did not think his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade could complain in the least of the way in which this Bill had been treated by the House. He was one of the supporters of the Bill, and desired to see it passed into law; but he would ask whether, after the House had decided the other day that the question of voting public money must be discussed on the floor of the House, and had refused to allow any of the work of Supply to be handed over to a Committee, it was consistent that this Bill should be taken out of the hands of the representatives of the taxpayers of the country, and that the application of public money should be discussed upstairs. He thought that such a proposal was very dangerous, and he should heartily support the retention of the Committee stage of this Bill on the floor of the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Somerset had said that, if the Bill was so retained, it would fall into the category of abandoned Measures; but he could assure his hon. Friend that both sides of the House were too much
  470
  interested in the Bill to allow the Government to set it aside, even if they wished to do so. The number of districts interested in the Bill was so large that it was utterly impossible that all of them could be represented on the Standing Committee. The Bill raised a great many issues, it had not been unduly discussed by the House, and the only opportunity of discussing its details was by Amendment in Committee. Would it not, therefore, be more harmonious, more logical and more rational if the Government could see their way to afford one sitting of the House for the Committee stage? If, on the other hand, the Bill was sent to the Grand Committee, it was obvious, from the discussion that had taken place, that there would be a long and somewhat animated Debate on some portions of the Bill on the Report stage. The Government would really facilitate this Measure if they assented to the very reasonable claim put forward from his side of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY,referring to the Irish Bill of 1889, pointed out that when that Bill was sent to the Grand Committee there had been previously an Irish Act of 1883 which had been well discussed in the House, and the Bill of 1889 was only a draft on the Bill of 1883. This Bill raised a most important question of principle. By the Standing Orders, every money Bill must be founded on a Resolution in Committee, and he thought it was a distinct infringement of the ancient privileges of the House that a Bill of this kind should be sent to a Grand Committee. The reason why he, as an Irish Member, was interested in this Bill was that the Government had given a pledge that they would introduce a similar Bill for Ireland, and he thought it would be exceedingly unfair if that Bill was delayed until they saw the shape this Bill took in Committee. He thought they ought to have a statement from the Government as to the course they proposed to pursue on the Irish Bill. Would they follow the precedent of 1889, and if so, in what way would the thing be worked? In 1889 they had a Committee practically composed of Irish Members. Would the same course be taken with regard to the Irish Bill? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of

  471
  the Treasury whether he intended, in Grand Committee, to announce the names of his Commissioners?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As regards the introduction of the names of the Commissioners, that will not be done in Grand Committee. As regards the question of the relations of this Bill to the Irish Bill, I would say that when you are dealing with Ireland and Great Britain in two Bills, one of those two Bills must come first, and I would point out that, as a matter of fact, Ireland is a long way in advance of England in legislation of this kind. Further, it appears to me that the conditions of Ireland are so different in many respects that I do not imagine that the discussion in Grand Committee of the English Bill will have much bearing one way or the other on the action which may be taken on the Irish Bill. If the Irish Bill is referred to the Grand Committee, the Government will take care that the Irish Members are properly represented. As regards the general question, surely I am not making an unreasonable request when I ask that this Debate should now be brought to a close. Hon. Members on the other side of the House have said that the matter contained in the Bill is so controversial that it ought not to be referred to a Grand Committee; but, if I cast my memory back and refer to the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in relation to Grand Committees, I shall not be contradicted when I assert—as I do fearlessly assert—that the action of hon. Gentlemen, opposite has been to stretch to the utmost the purposes for which Grand Committees might be used, and in the past they have gone to the very length of, if they have not overpast, the limit of the duties which ought to be intrusted to these bodies. According to the previous contentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, this is the very kind of Bill which ought to be referred to a Grand Committee. It is a Bill in which there is general agreement. It contains a great mass of detail. It is a Bill which, if it does grant public money, does not leave it to the Grand Committee to decide how much shall be granted. It is carefully reserved to this House to decide what are the limits beyond which that grant shall not go. I cannot understand what abuse
  472
  can follow from the reference of a Measure of this kind to a Grand Committee. It is surprising that Member after Member should announce in glowing words his desire to see this Bill pass, and describe the many benefits that would ensue if it were passed, and should then follow up that declaration by asking the Government to take a course which everybody in this House knows is likely to kill the Bill. The hon. Member for Northampton said that hon. Members on his side of the House were so anxious to see the Bill pass that they would take care that the Government did not drop it in favour of other legislation. I may be allowed to remind the hon. Member that if the Opposition can prevent the Government from passing Bills it cannot force them to pass any Measures. If this Bill should not be successful, the hon. Member will have to explain to his constituents that he was one of those who did everything in their power to prevent this Bill from becoming law. The House will decide whether it does or does not wish this practical Measure to pass. If it decides that the Bill must be considered in Committee of the whole House, then, having regard to the opportunities for prolonged discussion which that procedure involves, I tell hon. Members on behalf of my colleagues that there is little or no chance of the Bill becoming law.
  SIR. W. WEDDERBURNsaid, that this was a question in which his constituents were vitally interested, and they would consider it a great grievance that this important matter should be withdrawn from the cognisance of the House before their representative had had an opportunity of speaking no their behalf. At the Second Reading stage he had risen several times, but was not fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye. The Debate was closured, and he had had no opportunity of speaking. Hon. Members spoke, because they thought it their duty to do so, in behalf of their constituents. On an Amendment to the Address, he had appealed to the Leader of the House on behalf of the fishing population of Scotland, and when the right hon. Member replied that it was not the case that their interests were being neglected——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the House, which concerns the Committee to which this particular Bill should be referred.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNexplained that the reason why he wished to keep this Measure in the House was because he had not been allowed an opportunity of speaking on behalf of his constituents. Continuing, the hon. Gentleman said, that the proposal of the Government was to refer this Bill to a Grand Committee. Having regard to what they had heard as to the way business was sometimes conducted in Grand Committee, it might make some Members shudder to know that a Measure in which they were interested was to be referred to a Committee of that kind. He was not, him- self, opposed to the Grand Committee system, and he had served on the Committee to which the Local Government (Scotland) Bill was referred, and which did its work satisfactorily. But he was not aware that the Grand Committee to which the Bill under consideration would be referred had an adequate number of Scottish representatives upon it, and as the Bill was intended for the benefit of the fishing population of Scotland, it was very necessary that there should be a reasonable representation of Scottish Members interested in the subject upon the Committee. The, Bill was in its essence a financial Bill, but they had had hitherto no indication as to the direction in which the money would be applied. There was, it was true, a provision to the effect that the Secretary for Scotland would provide for Scottish needs; but how were they to know that he would be able to prevail against the English Minister for Agriculture, who would be the predominant partner in this matter? Considering the great importance of this Measure to the Scottish people, he would like to ask the First I Lord of the Treasury whether any particular sum under the Bill would be earmarked for the use of Scottish fishermen?
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPEthought that the House must have been surprised at the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Member had given them to understand that if the Bill were discussed, as he thought it ought to be discussed, in
  474
  Committee of the whole House, the Government would be compelled to drop the Measure. That expression of opinion did not seem to show that the Government had very much at heart the programme for the benefit of the agricultural interest to which they had understood this Session was to be devoted. He had served on many occasions on Grand Committees, and knew well that those Committees often performed the duties intrusted to them better than the House could have performed them. But in this particular Measure there were questions of principle involved, which could not be properly discussed by any delegated authority. In the first place, there was a considerable demand for public money. That was a question that not only interested agricultural constituencies, but which also interested the Members for urban districts. In the second place, there was the question to what extent the great Railway Companies were to be allowed to take advantage of this Measure, because it was evident that the proposed application of public money might be taken advantage of by a Railway Company, unless precautions were taken, for the purpose of increasing the railway monopoly in this country. Then there was a cognate question, which he was informed it was desired to raise in connection with this Bill—namely, the question of our canal system. If it was desirable to spend money on light railways——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the merits of the Bill and the arguments for and against them. I understand that his object is to show that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the whole House, but it appears to me that he is now going beyond what is reasonable.
  MR. STANHOPEsaid, that he did not think that the Bill ought to be withdrawn from the purview of the House. He hoped all Liberal Members would support the proposal that the House should retain its control over this Measure.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIScomplained that many Members interested in this subject had been excluded from participation in the discussion on the Second Reading. It had been said that if the Bill went to a

  475
  Grand Committee it could still be discussed on Report. That was true, but it was well known that the discussion on Report could only be perfunctory. If a Special Grand Committee had been nominated for the purpose of considering this particular Measure, there would not be so much reason for objection; but the effect of the proposal of the Government would be that many Members deeply interested in the Bill would have no opportunity at all of discussing it. What was the character of the Bills that had been referred to Grand Committees? Like the Enfranchisement of Places of Worship (Sites) Bill, the Hours of Railway Servants Bill, the Clergy Discipline Bill, they were Measures involving legal technicalities. The Bill under consideration, however, stood upon an entirely different footing. A comparison had been drawn between this Measure and the Employers' Liability Bill, but those who set up that comparison overlooked the fact that the Employers' Liability Bill was discussed in that House for many days on the Second Reading, whereas the discussion on the Second Reading of the Light Railways Bill was closured in an untimely manner.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDthought that many of the speeches made on the Opposition side of the House would have been more appropriate if delivered against the informal proposal for the establishment of Grand Committees. It was true that, when a Bill was referred to a Grand Committee, most Members of the House had not the same opportunities of discussing its details as they would have if it were referred to a Committee of the whole House. But surely that was a matter that was taken into account when the method of procedure by Grand Committee was first under consideration. The hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs was in error when he said that it was only Bills involving legal technicalities that were referred to Grand Committees. Last Session a Bill dealing with the question of the Municipal Franchise in Ireland was referred to a Grand Committee. Endeavouring, as he had been, to look at this question from a strictly and narrow Irish point of view, he desired to say that he was one of those who believed that Ireland might
  476
  be able to reap some benefit from a continuance of the system of Grand Committees; and therefore he was opposed to any action of the House which would discredit the system. The meaning and object of Grand Committees was to relieve congestion of business in the House itself, and though congestion of business might be urged as one of the reasons for consenting to Home Rule, he believed it was possible for Ireland, pending the achievement of Home Rule, to obtain through the medium of those Committees some useful legislation on those minor grievances which afflicted Ireland. If it was true that there would not be an adequate representation of all classes of Members who were specially interested in this Bill, he took it for granted that any class of Members who desired representation on it would find it by means of those Members who were to be added for the special purpose of the Measure. He understood the cold-blooded threat of the Leader of the House with reference to the progress and fate of the Bill, a reference which an hon. Gentleman said had shown a want of heart on the part of the Government. The reference of the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, showed want of time; the time of the Government was limited, of course, and he recognised that, in view of the other Government Measures, it would be impossible for them to give a guarantee that the Measure would be passed into law it' retained in the House. It was fair that the Government should be asked to give the Irish Members a fair share of representation in the consideration of this English Bill in the Grand Committee, because it was possible that the Irish Bill might run on the same lines. He was, therefore, in favour of sending this Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade.
  The FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY and Mr. T. R. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.) rose together.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move that the question be now put.
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope that the House will come to a decision without compelling me to resort to any process of the kind suggested. The question is in very small compass.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: Certainly, Sir. I was going to support the Government.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 269; Noes, 87.—(Division List, No. 33.)

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  Motion made and Question proposed:—
  "That 93,750 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, including 16,005 Royal Marines."
  MR. JOHN DILLONcontinued his speech, which was interrupted at midnight on Friday, and said that as he understood the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth lapsed with the former sitting, he proposed to conclude with an Amendment to reduce the Vote.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) rose to order, and asked whether as the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth had lapsed, he was not entitled to precedence over the hon. Member for East Mayo, inasmuch as he had an Amendment which stood next in order on the Paper.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I called on the hon. Member for East Mayo because he was in possession of the House when the discussion came to an end last Friday.
  MR. W. REDMOND: And I ask whether any Amendment, being first on the Paper, is not entitled to priority?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that necessarily means that the hon. Member should move his Amendment first. If the hon. Member for East Mayo, who was in possession of the House on Friday chooses to conclude with a Motion he is entitled to do so.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had no desire to intervene to prevent the hon. Member for East Clare moving his particular Amendment. He submitted, that the very large increase in men which was made by the late Government last year was accepted by the Committee on the understanding that it was to be more or less a resting place, and that full provision had been made for the defence of the country for some time to come. He was entitled to ask, therefore, what fresh instances had arisen to justify the present Government in coming down and asking for another enormous increase. The fact was, these periodical demands were made as the results of panic and fits of Jingo fear, or from a policy of aggression. One of the worst features was that these demands were always accompanied by speeches which constituted a defiance of some European Powers. The First Lord of the Admiralty had cast aside the principle that the fleet of England was to be a match for any two fleets in Europe. Apparently, the principle now was, that the fleet was to be increased inimitably, until it should be able to cope with the fleets of almost all the rest of the world. That opened up a prospect of the most terrifying character for the taxpayers of the country. Where were these armaments to cease? The speech of the First Lord held out no hope of even temporary finality to the piling up of armaments, and before consenting to a single
  step in this most unnecessary and monstrous increase in naval expenditure, the House was entitled to demand against what nations the armaments were intended to be directed.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty had said:—
  "These are not Estimates of provocation, they are Estimates of self-defence. They are Estimates based on the special conditions of this country, on conditions which are not those of other countries, on our scattered possessions, on the position of our food supplies, and of our colonial possessions They are based on the security of our own shores."
  What had altered since last year in the special conditions of the Empire? Nothing, unless foreign complications have altered them. But the First Lord of the Admiralty had not adduced one

  479
  shred of evidence in favour of this enormous advance on the programme of last year; and by the words quoted the right hon. Gentleman had condemned his own propositions. The present Government did not complain last year that the late Government's proposals were inadequate, and nothing had changed but the foreign relations of the Empire. Then these enormous Estimates must be asked for as a menace to foreign Powers. The last increase of the Navy was based on the alliance of France and Russia, and the junction of their fleets off the south coast of France. What had been the gain to the Empire of all these millions spent on this most foolish and criminal attempt to overmatch the fleets of France and Russia in a spirit of aggression? In the last few months the result was shown. England had gained nothing, and the foreign policy of the present Government had thrown the entire East of Europe and Asia into the hands of Russia. Now Parliament was called to vote another enormous increase to meet the difficulties which were even more alarming than the alliance between France and Russia. They were asked to vote these millions in the dark. They did not know against whom this demonstration was intended. Was it intended against the United States? Was it a warning to that country, if she should not yield on the Venezuelan Question, of what she might expect? Or against what new enemies was it intended? The late Government increased the number of men for the Navy by 12,000 in two years; and now a further increase of 5,000 was to be made; and it had been made abundantly clear that the increase was only temporary, and would be followed by still more. The First Lord of the Admiralty had explained that his proposals would add £2,000,000 to the Estimates for the present year, and that there would be a supplementary Estimate of £1,000,000. That increase of nearly £4,000,000 seemed likely to be permanent; and it did not take account of the £8,000,000 to be spent under the Naval Defence Act. That was a monstrous and extravagant charge; and further, the supplementary Estimate ought really to have been included in the general Estimate of the year. He did not believe that these increases in the Navy would bring
  480
  any increase of safety or strength to the country. They provoked counter-increases in European and perhaps American Powers. This system, if carried on as it had been by this country for the last 10 years, could only end in one way, and that was universal European bankruptcy. The time had come, quite apart from special considerations connected with Ireland, to protest against these enormous and monstrous armaments, and against the shame of a free-country like England leading the way in this race to universal ruin and bankruptcy. If England could build ships, so could other Powers. The principle was laid down that England's fleet must be more than a match for the combined fleets of any two other countries; and when that was reached, the principle was thrown aside, and it was declared that the English fleet must be prepared to stand against the world in arms. On England's shoulders would rest an excessive share of the responsibility for these armaments, which were draining the life-blood of the populations of Europe. It was to be deeply regretted that the First Lord of the Admiralty, who in a special manner was identified with and responsible for these great increases before the world, should have thought it right to go down to the country, shortly before the opening of Parliament, and make a speech which he has admitted in this House to have been interpreted as a threat hurled at the whole of Europe. He spoke of our magnificent isolation, and intimated that England would take steps to stand against the whole world in arms, if called upon to do so. [Ministerial cheers.] He thought that such cheers were foolish. It was against that very spirit that he had risen to protest. Why should England challenge the world in arms? Why should this country, blessed with free institutions, set an example of arrogant militarism? It was a disgrace to England, who ought to claim far different honour, by setting an example of moral armaments and a desire for peace and good understanding among the rest of the European Powers. If for no other reason, this was not the time to make these enormous and aggressive increases, after such a speech from the First Lord of the Admiralty, interpreted in the capitals of Europe as

  481
  a sort of universal defiance. There could be no doubt that while the quarrel with the United States was impending, these enormous naval increases would be regarded in America as very aggressive and insulting proposals. He must say a word in honour of the one great British Statesman whose absence from this House he regretted, who had not hesitated to make his voice heard against this ruinous and scandalous expenditure on armaments. Mr. Gladstone, in a recent letter, the words of which would be long remembered, said:—
  "I will only add that conviction and sentiment on this subject grow with me in strength from year In year in proportion to the growth of the monstrous, and, I will add, barbarous militarism, in regard to which, I consider, that England has to bear no small share of responsibility."
  Those were courageous words, and they were true, from the greatest Englishman of this generation. These words ought to, and he believed would, commend themselves to the attention and respectful consideration of the English people when the present fit of Jingoism had cooled down. There was another aspect of the increase in the Navy. He had been an assenting party to the proposals of the late Government for an increase in the Navy. It was very much against his own judgment and inclination. But the ate Government had promised to issue a Commission to inquire into the proportion in which these charges were borne by Ireland and Great Britain; and Irish Members were bound to show some consideration to the Government. Although that Commission had not reported, it had taken a great amount of evidence; and in his opinion it not only substantiated all that Irish Members had contended for, but had revealed a condition of things worse than they had presented to Parliament. There could not be the slightest doubt that Ireland, the poorest part of the United Kingdom, had for many years been paying far more than her just proportion to the military and naval expenditure of the country. That being so, was it not a monstrous and outrageous injustice that, in spite of the known and expressed wish of the vast majority of the Irish people, who were opposed to this policy of big armaments, which they considered
  482
  unnecessary, that this huge increase to the Navy should be forced on Ireland, when, as everyone knew, she would have to pay double her share of the cost? While, as an individual, he was opposed root and branch to this increase, because he believed that it would be another step in the iniquitous race to general bankruptcy—while he was opposed to it on grounds of common humanity—as an Irish Nationalist he was still more strongly opposed to it, because he held that the Irish people, who had no kind of responsibility for this system of bloated armaments, and the policy which had given rise to it, should not now be asked to pay two or three times their just share of this additional burden. The Government could not expect the Irish Members to help them in their proposals as regarded the increase of the Navy. Irish Nationalists were united in their resolve to give the proposed increase, whether as regarded men and boys or in regard to the gigantic increase under the Naval Defence Act, the most determined opposition that the forms of the House would allow. [Cheers.]
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillon) probably endorsed the opinion that the proposed naval expenditure was occasioned by fear of Russia, France, Germany, and the United States. Why, instead of paying money to enable England to defeat those countries, Irish Nationalists at the present time infinitely preferred to pay money to enable those countries to defeat England. It was all-important, politically, that that view should be taken into consideration; when they came to the discussion of the Navy Estimates, and were trying to do what they could to increase the strength of the Navy, they need not pause to consider such a view.
  MR. DILLON (interposing): Does the hon. Member quote that as a speech of mine?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is a quotation from an article written by one of the hon. Member's friends. [Nationalist laughter.]
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: United Ireland of Saturday.
  MR. DILLON: I repudiate it.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was glad to hear it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Let him stand up and repudiate it. [Parnellite cheers.]
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,resuming, said, it was to be regretted that they had hardly yet heard any discussion as to the real deficiency of the Navy. They had heard two speeches from the two front Benches following the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and they had a speech of the greatest importance from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. That speech was being commented upon by Members on both sides of the House and outside it. It struck everyone who heard it as a lucid, well-conceived statement of a case which might be strong or weak, according as the facts stood. Until the facts were overthrown it was a strong case, and one to which a little more consideration ought to be devoted. The Leader of the Opposition said that we were to accept the proposals of the Government because they were proposed by a responsible Government with their knowledge of the necessities of the case. Was it not an elementary fact that during the last ten years everything that had been conceded had been forced by agitation from the responsible Government and had been something they did not intend to give? The increase of the Navy Estimates had proved that the Estimates made by former responsible Governments did not cover the necessities of the case. To tell them that they must accept these Estimates because they were proposed by a responsible Government was to fly in the face of all experience. Then the Leader of the Opposition said our policy made our Navy Estimates. Did they not all know that there were present to the minds of the House two recent things that were done independently of this country, which were neither sought, nor desired, nor anticipated by us, and with which we had no more to do than "the man in the moon?" There was the action taken in the United States and in South Africa. They were acts entirely independent of our policy ["Hear, hear!"], and no prevision on our part could have foreseen and provided for them. So it was illusory to say our Estimates were dependent on our policy, for that would suggest that we were always aggressive, and increasing our
  484
  Estimates accordingly The speech of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean certainly required to be answered on one or two points. He said that the materiel for manning the Navy and the Reserve were not sufficient. He himself did not believe that we had not men enough to man the existing ships. He believed we had. But there were ample facts to show that the Reserve we relied upon in the Mercantile Marine was not sufficient, and if the present system went on it was not likely to become so. In the Mediterranean we had a state of things which every man was able to understand was to our disadvantage, and which they ought to protest against. We had 30 ships, large and small, in the Mediterranean, but we had in the Channel a still larger fleet. In the Channel we were spending £10,000,000 at Dover, Portsmouth, and Devonport, for the purpose of strengthening our naval depôts and fortifying works. In the Channel, with a superior fleet, with all the resources of the United Kingdom behind us, so unsafe did we believe ourselves to be that we were actually putting booms across our harbours that our ships in our own dockyards, under our own guns, inside our own forts, might be safe at night. In the Mediterranean every single precaution was discarded. We had only one torpedo-boat in the Mediterranean, and she, like most of her kind, broke down. We had only two docks, and they were in the wrong place. We had now, for political purposes, four ships cruising about in the Levant, 2,000 miles from Gibraltar and utterly unprotected, we had no coaling station, and the proof we knew we were unsafe was that we were committed to further expenditure in making plans. Then there were the forces of a great naval power entrenched in a line with four great fortresses—the whole of the French fleet and an enormous number of torpedo-boats. The most elementary strategy in the world told us that to divide two inferior forces with a superior enemy entrenched on an inner line was bad policy. People might say we could recall our fleet from Gibraltar. He remembered, when there was a possibility of war with Siam, one of the French gunboats fired a shot across the stern of one of our men-of-war. It was the merest accident that that shot was not

  485
  returned; if it had been, there would have been war from one end of the world to the other. At that moment half of our fleet was at Smyrna, the Victoria was at the bottom, another ship was docked at Malta, the French fleet was mobilised at Toulon, and what happened then might happen again to-morrow. These were matters requiring explanation. It was political reasons only that accounted for this fleet being in the Mediterranean. He could not meet with a single naval officer who would say that our naval arrangements were really satisfactory. Let hon. Members ask themselves why, if it were right to go to such enormous expense in the Channel, what we were doing and not doing in the Mediterranean could also be right? He went down to see the Rupert, when she returned nearly full of water; and he asked, what would have happened if she had got abroad? She might have been left somewhere unprotected unless she had been patched up and towed to Malta or Devonport. The mishap occurred in a time of peace; but what would have been the state of things if it had been a time of war? He hoped that we should either withdraw our fleet or resolve to make it strong enough; at all events we ought not to run the risk of assuming that it secured us an advantage which was absolutely illusory. With regard to men he had been studying the matter somewhat closely, and he affirmed that the demoralisation of the British Mercantile Marine by the introduction of foreign sailors had reached a point that was startling. He had been told that the ships that were subsidised carried neither guns nor ammunition, while the steamers of the German Lloyds carried guns, and within six hours of leaving New York could be converted into armed ships. On the Atlantic station we had nothing that could touch them or come near them; and in the Pacific, too, the French steamers could be quickly converted in to armed cruisers. Ammunition could not be carried on board these mercantile steamers under the Board of Trade regulations; but it was stored at depôts all over the world; and guns could easily be carried in the hold. Arrangements could easily be made for supplying the officers in command with the necessary sealed Commission. If the First Lord was really
  486
  needing men, let him include in the list of mercantile seamen the 9,000 men engaged in connection with yachts. The Naval Volunteers were justly put an end to but those who sailed for pleasure might be made available by a little encouragement. If a torpedo-boat were placed in the port of London, it would be manned by men who would soon be competent to handle it; and the system could be extended all round the coast. There were thousands of young men who went to sea between Saturday and Monday in little boats, and it was marvellous that they kept above water. These are the men who were wanted to man torpedo-boats that would otherwise be useless. In conclusion he would ask whether, before another series of Estimates was presented, an assurance could be given that they might have an opportunity of discussing the defence of the Empire as a whole.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid, that so far as he could gather, the last speaker was prepared to build a fleet, to man a fleet, or to command a fleet. [Laughter.] As to the last suggestion of the hon. Member, it had always been held to be necessary to catch boys when they were young in order to make seamen of them. The hon. Member's plan might give work to the unemployed of London, but whether it would benefit the Navy or not was a different matter. Unlike the hon. Member he was not a strategist, and his great difficulty was that it seemed to him, no matter who was First Lord of the Admiralty, he was deemed to know nothing about the Navy or about our requirements. He readily admitted that private Members without special knowledge ought to vote for what those who were in official positions said was necessary for the safety of the country; but if you went back a little you saw that each First Lord had proposed a scheme entirely different from that of his predecessor. Lord Northbrook declared that the Navy was equal to all requirements, and that if he had an extra million he should not know what to do with it; but a few months afterwards he produced ascheme for increasing the Navy. The Opposition supported him; and when they came into office the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) reduced the Estimates

  487
  on the first year, and a few months afterwards repudiated all that he had said, and proposed the Scheme carried out under the Naval Defence Act, at a cost of £21,000,000. As usual, the Leaders of the Opposition applauded that, and it was carried against the protests of a few Members below the gangway; but it was thought that this was to be a settlement of the question. Then came in Lord Spencer, who in the second year added £3,000,000 and in the third year £3,000,000; and now the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated his tenure of office by proposing a Scheme even more monstrous than any that had been suggested before. And this lavish outlay was but a sop to those who advocated still larger expenditure. Did not all these facts show that First Lords of the Admiralty had never taken a really large and broad view of our naval requirements? They seemed to think that, if a newspaper demanded that more money should be spent upon the Navy, they ought at once, because it was a popular thing to do, to spend more money. Whenever Ministers wanted to be popular with the nation they came down to the House, and in a blustering, swaggering fashion declared that they were prepared to build a few more ships. [Laughter.] He trembled to think what would occur when the present Ministers became somewhat unpopular, as Ministers always did when they were some time in power. Heaven knows what numbers of ships they would build in order to recover their popularity. [Laughter.] He spoke not as a strategist like the last hon. Member but as a plain, simple taxpayer, and as such he would ask the Government "what are you trying for?" The noble Lord the Secretary for India when first Lord of the Admiralty in the late Conservative Government had said the idea was that we ought to have a fleet which would be equal to any two fleets in the world. But that was an absurd plan, because it would be possible for two countries to be at war with us. Now the plan of the present First Lord seemed to be to build a fleet that would be able to cope with the united fleets of the entire world. The First Lord did not put it in that way. He said the plan was defensive and not offensive—that it was to protect our commerce, our
  488
  colonies and our coasts; but it must be remembered that a fleet of this great power could be used, and would be used in all probability, for offensive purposes. Having the greatest fleet in the world we would have practically the absolute dominion of the sea, and if we fell out with any Power we could close all her ports and bombard her towns. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] Yes, that was what hon. Members opposite were in favour of. But it must not be forgotten that this vast dominion was attended by positive danger—the danger that other Powers would combine against us. What led to the fall of Napoleon was that he had too great an ambition—he wanted to be master of Europe and in the end Europe combined against him and overthrew him. Then there was another objection to the plan. Let us not suppose that we had got a monopoly of the wealth and shipbuilding of the world. Every nation would compete with us in shipbuilding. We were engaged in a ridiculous game of "beggar my neighbour" against the world. We must in the end be broken in such a game. As we spent this money on our Navy, the other Powers would spend money on their Navies; and in the end the relation between us and the other Powers would be the same as it was before this competition began. He therefore thought a more dangerous suggestion had never been made to the House than the suggestion that we would build ships, no matter what other countries did, so as to keep our Navy equal to any two Navies; and a still more dangerous proposal was the present proposal which seemed to substitute for any two Navies the Navies of the entire Powers of the world. The object in view seemed to be this—that if we unfortunately found ourselves at war with any Great Power we should be able to carry on our whole commerce precisely in the same way as if there was no war. But that was absolutely impossible. We must accept the consequences of being at war. We would have to defend the channel, and to have fleets in various parts of the world; but besides that, in order to protect our commerce, we would have to have a fleet to patrol the entire ocean to that British ships would be able to go from one port to another. That could not be done. In the wars with

  489
  Napoleon when we almost cleared the sea of the enemy, two million pounds worth of English ships were destroyed by privateers sent out by France; and it was certain that if we were at war with a Naval Power, our merchant ships would be attacked by privateers in the same way, with the result that our carrying trade would be taken away from us and given to a neutral country. It was said also that unless we had the absolute command of the sea during war we would be starved. He did not believe that. The food would come into our ports in neutral ships. It might be said the enemy would object to that. No doubt; but the enemy would not be able to help it, because if she took any hostile action against the neutral she would turn the neutral into an enemy. He agreed with the very sensible speech recently made by Lord Wolseley who pointed out that it would be absolutely impossible in war to blockade all our ports, and with one or two ports left open our food supplies would come in without any difficulty. He had no doubt that food would be dearer, and he hoped it would be dearer in the event of war. He agreed with John Stuart Mill that war ought to be made as terrible and as injurious as possible to every human being of the countries engaged in it; and he trusted that the fact that food would be dear would deter working men whose means were mainly devoted to getting the necessaries of life from joining in the wild ridiculous Jingo cry that was now going through the country. A good deal was said about our great and noble Empire, about the loyalty of our Colonies and how they loved us. But he wanted that love of the Colonies to have a cash basis. [Laughter.] He did not care about a union of hearts—what he wanted was a union of purses. [Laughter.] An hon. Member had told the House that the expenditure on the Navy per man in Great Britain was 10s. 1d. The expenditure on the Navy in Australia per man was 1s. 3d; in Canada, one farthing per man; and in Africa, that land of gold, it was zero. The whole thing was thrown entirely upon Great Britain. One would suppose that we were spending it entirely on ourselves and that the Colonies had no share in the benefit. What were the facts about our carrying trade The trade was worth roughly
  490
  £1,100,000,000 per annum, and one-fourth of it was the carrying trade of the colonies, not between the colonies and this country, but between one colony and another, and between our colonies and foreign countries. And yet it was said we were to find all the money. That was not all. If we ever did get to war with another country it would be on account of some miserable dispute with regard to our colonies. Take the case of Venezuela. Who cared to whom that miserable bog belonged? He only feared the possibility of its being made out it belonged to us, and our being dragged into a great war. We were to have a vast Navy in order that we might dictate, not to Venezuela—that would be simple enough—but to the United States, to whom that bog belonged. Our taxation was now enormous; it had reached £100,000,000. Although there was a surplus there was to be no remission of taxation; nothing was to be done to brighten and better the lot of the poor man. And this expenditure would oblige us to levy not merely the present taxation but £10,000,000. Where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to get the money from? Not from his agricultural friends. From the brewers? Not a bit of it. Depend upon it, it would come, directly or indirectly, out of the pockets of the poor man. It was said that our requirements depended upon our policy. He had observed that our policy depended upon our expenditure. The more we spent the more bragging and blustering we were, and the more we continued to spend the greater would be our brag and bluster, and the greater our attempts to grab countries all over the world. All our wars during the last 500 years had been the consequences of our own meddling in matters which did not concern us. Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone, two of the most popular Ministers that we had had in the present century, argued that we ought not to incur in times of peace a perpetual war expenditure, but, ought to run some possible risk or contingency. He forgot who it was who said that was a pre-historic view, but, pre-historic or not, it was a very sound and sensible view. Mr. Gladstone had always been against large expenditure; and unless rumour was entirely wrong, Mr.

  491
  Gladstone was not quite satisfied with the expenditure proposed by Lord Spencer. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed this Jingo craze was merely temporary, and ascribed it, to a great extent, to the Liberal Party not having proved faithful to their traditions. Formerly there were two Parties. When the Conservatives were in Office there was a tendency to lavish expenditure, and on the Liberal side there was a tendency to economy, particularly in regard to military expenditure. He did not doubt that many of the Gentlemen now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench would rise and deplore this expenditure—they were quite capable of it—[laughter]—but what did they do when they were in power? Did they vote for reductions then? Not a bit of it; each shrugged his shoulders, said that it was the fault of his wicked colleague, and submissively voted as the Whips told him. The people of the country had no confidence as regarded economy, either in the present or the late Ministers. He found that both set of Ministers tried to see who could acquire the greater amount of popularity, and when he spoke of popularity on this matter he meant that of the music halls, of experts about guns and about vessels, and of ardent problems like the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield. The country was opposed to this expenditure, and he warned his right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench that if they ever hoped to re-acquire the confidence of their country they must revert to the old sound Radical principles of peace and reform. They had seen the result of the last General Election. Where were they now? Whose fault was it? Their own; and he thought they deserved to be landed where they were. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by 1,000 men and boys. He would infinitely prefer a reduction by the whole 4,900. He made it 1,000 because he wished this to be a test question. If the Navy was inadequate for our requirements, or if the Army was inadequate for our requirements, let some Minister come down with a clear scheme. This was not a scheme which had been thought out by the Ministry or which was understood by the country. It was certainly not a scheme which was appreciated in his quarter of the House. He wanted the
  492
  House to have an opportunity of saying they were ready to accept the fact that it was necessary to have a Navy for defence, but they were not going to attempt a scheme of beggar-my-neighbour against the actual world. What he and his Friends wanted was, not a Navy which might compete against the Navies of all the world, but a Navy sufficient for our honest and peaceful requirements.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Committee knew perfectly well what the views of the hon. Member for Northampton were, because they had heard most of his remarks before. What he would like to know was, where did the hon. Gentleman get his facts from? The hon. Gentleman told them amongst other things that our carrying trade was worth £1,100,000,000. That was perfectly absurd. The hon. Gentleman must have been thinking of tonnage. [Laughter.] To say that this country earned by carrying £1,100,000,000——
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman should not only speak in this House, but listen. [Laughter] I spoke of the amount of the value of what is carried.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then the whole thing became doubly absurd. He understood the hon. Member to speak of the value of the carrying trade. These were the words he used. He now said he meant the value of the goods. But he was not right there either. If he would refer to the Trade Returns, he would find that the value of the goods carried was nothing like £1,100,000,000. One other point. The hon. Member said it was dangerous for one Power to have this stupendous preponderance of naval force, and then he immediately proceeded to argue that there was no danger at all, because he told the House that as soon as we increased our naval power, others would increase theirs in proportion, and we should remain where we were, as little dangerous as when we began. It was true that two neutral leagues were formed against this country in 1780 and 1880, but we defeated both these neutral leagues, and it was his desire that, if ever another neutral league was formed, we might be in a position to repeat the experience of the past. The hon. Member accused the First Lord of the Admiralty

  493
  of coming down blustering and swaggering. He had never heard less bluster and less swagger in the mouth of a First Lord than the right hon. Gentleman showed. Why, he spoke more like a village maiden—he positively bleated. He was surprised at the mildness of the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman commended to the House the largest naval expenditure the House had ever had to discuss. They had had very little assistance in that Debate from the official Opposition. The late Secretary of the Admiralty, indeed, apologised for speaking at all, and he explained that he would not have spoken except that the House expected a person in his position to make a speech. Of course they did. The Leader of the Opposition averred what was perfectly true, that armaments must depend upon policy; and he said that, as the Leaders of the Opposition knew nothing of the policy of the Government, they could not discuss the Estimates—a very unfortunate position for leaders to be reduced to. But the right hon. Gentleman did not stop there. He said the reason for this increase in the Navy Estimates was that we had not learned how to make the world our friends. No, we had not, and he did not believe we ever should. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and preach the policy of the early Christians. But he must remember that the kingdom of the early Christians was not of this world, and ours was. He had never known the right hon. Gentleman himself to show much of the character of the early Christian. He would rather have taken him for a late Pagan. When he was smitten on one cheek and turned the other, there was generally a closed fist with it. But suppose the right hon. Gentleman was right in all this, and that this early Christian policy was the proper one to be adopted, he was one of the very greatest sinners against it. When he was in office he consented to a very large increase in the Naval Estimates, and having increased the Navy in order to defend the country against the enemies of England, he clapped the whole cost on the landed class and those against the Government in order to defend himself against his own enemies. He now came to the unofficial Opposition, most ably represented by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He
  494
  did not share the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that too little provision was made in this year's Estimates for the wants of the Navy. He thought the provision was ample. In some respects, indeed, he thought too much provision was made—that a large proportion of the money was going to be spent in the wrong direction. He thought the right hon. Gentleman greatly overrated what he called our position of isolation. It was true we were isolated in time of peace, and he for one would rather be isolated, because he should prefer to make his own choice of allies in time of war. But, at the first sound of the trumpet announcing war, our isolation would and necessarily must cease. Suggest any combination of Powers you pleased, it must be such as to insure, either on or soon after the outbreak of war, at least one, and probably two Powers on our side. He thought too that the right hon. Baronet underrated our present strength. It could not be forgotten that in six days, one of which was a Sunday, this country fitted out a Flying Squadron which, in point of strength and fighting power, was equal to, say, the whole Navy of Germany. That was an exploit which could not be matched by any Power in Europe; nay, by any two Powers. Then, comparisons between our ships and those of foreign nations, were entirely fallacious. It was a fact that while foreign navies and foreign crews largely consisted of paper, ours all consisted of the real stuff. Foreign ships did not go very much to sea. Ours were almost always at sea. We manœuvred our vessels in closer order, we exercised our men oftener, and we fired more ammunition; our ships and our men were better than those of foreign nations. Any comparison, taking ship by ship, between our ships and those of the foreigner was therefore necessarily fallacious, and the true comparison, if it could be properly made, would be much more to our advantage. Now he came to the men. The right hon. Baronet thought 100,000 men was the right number. He maintained that they had that number. The provision in the Estimates for next year was 85,818. Then there were 6,883 in training; and in an emergency a considerable number of these, who

  495
  were near the end of their training, might be taken. Consequently, they might reckon at least 86,000. Then there was the Naval Reserve numbering 25,800. It was true that Admiral Tryon's Committee reported that only 10,000 of the Reserve would be immediately available; but it also reported that a very large additional number would be available in two months. And at that time the total of the Reserve was only 20,000, so that he thought he was justified in concluding that they might fairly reckon on 13,000 being immediately available now. This would give a total of 99,000. He was quite prepared to allow 3,000 as the number that might contingently not be immediately available, but he thought 96,000 was sufficiently near the strength which the right hon. Baronet required, because, certainly, within two months the remaining 4,000 would easily be obtained. The right hon. Baronet had introduced the Mercantile Marine, and described the number of 240,000 British seamen as a myth. But, if so, it was in the direction of moderation. He believed that there were 400,000 British seamen all told. The fishermen, who were the very best seamen in this country, numbered some 100,000, and they were the last men he would exclude in any calculation of British seamen. But whatever the right hon. Baronet might be able to prove as to the Merchant Navy not containing a sufficient proportion of men of British nationality, none of that was true about the Navy. The men in the Navy were all British. The fishermen were also British, and so were the Naval Reserve. He now came to the question of Belleville boilers. He confessed that when these boilers were first introduced, he had considerable doubts as to the experiment which the Admiralty were making. The first reason was that the Mercantile Marine had not adopted the boiler; and it seemed that the experiment appeared to be made only in small vessels. He had since been alongside the Sharpshooter and seen the Belleville boiler, and he felt bound to say that he thought those reasons were not valid. The Belleville boiler was such that if it succeeded in a small ship it must succeed in a large ship, and although it had not been adopted in the Mercantile Marine, that was because its qualities
  496
  were such as were intensely and enormously valuable to the Navy, yet perhaps of very little extra value at all to the Mercantile Marine. These boilers were entirely broken up, and one tube or one element might be taken out or injured, the rest remaining complete. Then they could be examined and cleaned with the greatest possible facility. Special advantages of these boilers to men-of-war were that steam could be raised with the greatest rapidity; and that the most sudden stoppages and startings could be made. The furnace doors were all knee high, and thus there was greater facility for stoking. There was an almost entire absence of foul tubes, and sea-water could, in an emergency, be used. There was a considerable economy of fuel in these boilers, amounting to nearly two pounds per indicated horse-power per hour.
  MR. W. ALLAN MR. W. ALLAN (Gateshead) rose to a point of order. He could only say the hon. Member was utterly in error.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not on a point of order.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that if the hon. Member did not know more about Belleville boilers than he did about order, he should be a little more moderate in his language. The information he had received from the officers of the Sharpshooter was that there was an economy of fuel with careful stoking of 1·7 1bs. per indicated horse-power per hour, and in spite of the interruption of the hon. Member for Gateshead, he still continued to believe that. Having endeavoured in some degree to reply for the Admiralty, he now came to his criticism upon them. Close upon £23,000,000 was asked for the Navy this year; and his criticism was that a great deal of it was being injudiciously spent. It seemed to him that the Admiralty had thought too much of works and ships, and too little of men and their training. In fact, the order of their ideas seemed to be works first, ships next, men last, and training nowhere. The order of his ideas was, men and training first, ships next, and works nowhere. The First Lord, speaking of works, instanced Dover, where £2,000,000 was to be spent upon a harbour; and he himself told them he had not sufficient knowledge to say what the result and what the cost would be.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: We have had surveys.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But already they had been told that the works would cost £2,000,000, so that an estimate had been formed. His belief was that the estimate would be very largely exceeded, and that the cost would be nearer £4,000,000. Even then, they would not have a satisfactory job, and he believed they were making a harbour where they ought not to have one. In regard to Gibraltar, he remembered their making demands for one dock there, and the difficulty in getting any authority to listen to that demand. But ultimately the idea of one dock was entertained and then, mainly, he believed by the efforts of the Secretary of the Treasury, the idea was entertained as conceivable that there might be two docks at Gibraltar. His view was that one dock was indispensable and two very good, but a third dock there, in comparison with other requirements, he believed to be quite useless, and a misapplication of the money. Why, instead of having this third dock, did they not build a dock at Simon's Bay or Mauritius? It was of the most essential importance to have a dock at Simon's Bay.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I rise to order. I desire to know whether on a Vote reducing the number of men the hon. Gentleman is entitled to go into all these questions with regard to docks.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is rather difficult to draw a line in these matters. The ordinary custom has been, as I have already explained, that on the first Vote a general discussion is allowed upon everything contained in the Naval Estimates. I was doubtful if the hon. Member was in order in discussing the particulars of the dock at Gibraltar, which does not come upon these Naval Estimates at all, but which will find a place in the Naval Works Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: As regards Simon's Bay and Mauritius, I may state that money has been taken in the Estimates for a survey of these two docks.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the discussion should be confined to matters for which money is taken in the Estimates.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he would not pursue the subject further. He was glad to hear that money for the survey at Simon's Bay was in the Estimates. In regard to the size of ships, he thought that the proposed saving of two feet in the draught was a matter of the greatest importance. He now came to the question of the men, and here it was that he thought the First Lord was making his most serious mistakes. To his mind the most essential thing was, not to have a large number of men, but that such as they had should be highly trained. Let the House remember that the sea service was a highly artificial service. When they took a man and trained him for the sea he had everything to learn. He could not move about on a ship with safety to his head or his feet; he did not know how to sleep in a hammock, he could not get up a ladder or into a boat. He had to learn all those things so thoroughly that he forgot that he knew them or how he learned them. That was what he called training. All these things went to make up a thorough seaman, who was the result of an unbroken series of traditions. He must be taught them from the beginning; and that could only be done by catching him young. In his opinion the right hon. Gentleman was going in the direction of abandoning the old and true traditions of sea-training, as they had been understood. Some people were of opinion that anybody would now do on board a ship. He believed, on the contrary, that the skill which was the result of training was never so essential and never made so much difference as now. In no department was skill ever so necessary as in the stokehole and the engine-room. The other day a torpedo-catcher was built for a foreign Government, and a picked and trained crew was sent to take her home. On the trial trip the contractor got 30 knots out of this vessel; but the foreign crew could not get 14 out of her, showing the tremendous importance of skill even the engine-room and stokehole. It was the same with regard to seamanship. There were at this moment nearly twice as many sailing vessels afloat as steamers. At any time they might have to send a man-of-war crew and officers to take charge of one of these vessels. It would be a pretty mess

  499
  if these officers and men, having been trained entirely for steam, did not know how to handle a sailing vessel. In addition, the whole of the crew might have to take to the boats. That was purely a question of seamanship. In his opinion high training in seamanship for the men was still absolutely necessary if we intended to maintain the character of our Navy. Let him point out how matters stood at the present time in this respect. In the first place he might explain to the Committee that training-ships were those in which a boy was received when he joined the Navy, and in which he underwent a special preliminary training and discipline. At present the boy passed 20 months on board one of those training ships, which, indeed, was all too short a period. The Admiralty, however, now proposed to reduce that period of 20 months to the short period of 16 months, and to raise the age at which a boy could be received by a year. In his opinion the Admiralty were wrong in both those proposals. He would rather have fewer boys with better training than a greater number of boys with less training. Then he came to the training-brig, and here again a similar objection applied to the proposals of the Admiralty. When the boy had completed his 20 months on board a training-ship, he was sent on board one of the training-brigs, in which he actually went to sea, not to a great distance perhaps, but to a sufficient one to teach him seamanship at sea. But he only remained on board one of these vessels for six weeks, a period that was not sufficient to train him in using the lead line, and to hand, reef, and steer. That period, in his opinion, ought to be doubled, and a part of the large sum for which the right hon. Gentleman asked ought to be appropriated to increasing the number of these training-brigs. It appeared to him however that the Admiralty despised training, and only thought of obtaining a large number of men. Then he came to the training squadron, in which the boys received their third and finishing training, which lasted for a year. There, indeed, the boys received a most excellent and most comprehensive training. But would the Committee believe the startling fact that not more than one-eighth or one-tenth of the
  500
  officers and men in the British Navy ever passed through the training squadron at all? In order to pass a sufficient number of the men and officers through this course of training, the Admiralty would have to double the number of the ships of the training squadron. But the Admiralty gave no sign of their intention to take that course. They left the squadron exactly where it was, and this again showed that they preferred numbers to training. He did not believe that the training on board a torpedo-destroyer—which indeed they proposed—would give anything like the necessary training that was required, because no seamanship could be learned on board those vessels. Now he came to the last point in his indictment against the Admiralty, and that related to their proposal with regard to the Britannia. No doubt that vessel was an old one, but, if they wished to train their officers on board in place of on shore, it would be easy to replace that vessel by another of the same class. It was, however, now proposed to do away with that vessel and to replace her by a training college on shore, while at the same time the age of joining of the cadets was to be increased by one year. It was said in support of this proposal that the boys were now drawn from too small an area. But how would they increase the area by increasing the age of the boys? On the contrary, by increasing the age they should be diminishing the area. Again, it was contended that by increasing the age they would abolish competition and cramming, and would consequently diminish the pressure upon the boys. In his opinion, however, instead of diminishing the pressure they would increase it by a year's duration. Here, again, it was proposed to reduce the period of training from 23 months to 16 months. In his view, if any change in the period of training were made, it should be in the direction of extending the period instead of shortening it. The Britannia had given us a most excellent body of officers, who had done their duty in every capacity in all parts of the world, and the Admiralty were taking upon themselves a very serious responsibility in abolishing the training on board that vessel. He believed that they could not take a boy for the Navy at too early an age, when he could easily be taught

  501
  to get up and down a ladder and handle a boat. With all respect for the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that he appeared to him to be going in a wrong direction. If it were not too late, he should ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision in reference to these proposed changes, which would not create but would destroy that marvellous combination of knowledge, patience, constancy, dexterity, resource, and self-reliance, which make up the British seaman, who was the outcome of the accretions of the traditions of 1,000 years. He implored the right hon. Gentleman not to destroy our real seamen, upon whom, more than on ships, works, or forts must ever depend the prosperity, the safety, and the very existence of the British Empire. [''Hear, hear!"]
  MR. EDWIN LAWRENCEsaid that he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to a most important reserve to which attention had not as yet been directed—he meant the great number of ships of war that were being constructed in our private dockyards for foreign nations. All countries had a right, in times of difficulty, to take what the nation required, and he thought that, if any emergency arose, we should be fully justified in availing ourselves of the right of pre-emption and taking, at their full value, all or any of the vessels to which he referred. He did not know how many of such vessels there were in the private dockyards, but no doubt the Admiralty were fully informed upon the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsupported the attitude taken up by the hon. Members for Cockermouth and Northampton. He expressed admiration for the conduct of the first-named hon. Member in this matter, because it was not easy for any hon. Member to take up an attitude opposed to that of the great majority of Members representing all parties in the House. The hon. Member had simply lived up to his reputation, which had always been consistent in the House. He did not support the Amendment, however, for the reasons given by these hon. Gentlemen. He objected to this increase in the Navy expenditure from an Irish point of view. He was surprised at the attitude of the so-called Radical Party. For the last
  502
  few years he had listened to speeches of hon. Members who claimed to be Radicals and to express the views of the working people of this country. They bitterly denounced every attempt of the Tory Party to incur extravagant expenditure for warlike preparations and to burden the people with extra taxation for a policy of Jingoism. He had always thought that those hon. Gentlemen were sincere, but now he found that the so-called Radical Party had apparently disappeared, for not a word of protest had been uttered by the front Opposition Bench against this extravagant policy. Both Liberal and Tory Governments were almost equally to blame for such expenditure. If he were an Englishman or a representative of a constituency here, he was not prepared to say that he would not be in favour of a strong Navy, but, in the present circumstances of the Government of Ireland he, as an Irish Member, said that the Irish people took little interest in what concerned the welfare of Great Britain, and the British people might make up their minds to the fact that the great bulk of the Irish nation, as long as they were ruled as at present, could not regard with any interest or sympathy any precautions taken by this country in regard to foreign affairs. Irish Members had been returned to ask for a Measure of Self-Government for Ireland. That Measure had been refused, and the Irish Members were now at Westminster in pursuance of the old policy of discontent. He told the House plainly that as long as it pursued the present method of governing Ireland, this country could not rely on the bulk of the Irish people sympathising with such proposals as the present. From the English point of view, he was also impressed with the amount of terrible distress and misery in all the large towns of the country, and with this fact staring him in the face he would, were he an English Member, hesitate very much before he voted to sanction this enormous expenditure. The great bulk of the Irish people had ten thousand times more sympathy with the people of the United States of America than they had with the people of Great Britain. It was only fair on occasions like this to tell England the truth, that Ireland had no sympathy

  503
  with her in this policy. What was the first objection to this policy from the Irish point of view? He objected to this increase of armaments, first of all, because it was intended undoubtedly as a menace against the United States. ["No!"] But for the difficulty which arose with the United States over Venezuela these proposals would never have been made. ["No!"] But, Yes! What message did the representatives of the London Stock Exchange send to the United States? They sent a most impertinent message to New York—If your excursion steamers interfered with Lord Dunraven's yacht race, we hope they won't interfere with our men-of-war.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): It was denied that any such message was ever sent. In any case, it is impossible to make Government responsible for it.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that at all events these gentlemen let the cat out of the bag. He had never seen the contradiction, but he saw the reply of the New York Stock Exchange, and it was not likely they would send a reply to a message they had not received. The people of this country might express their feeling against their German cousins to their heart's content, but he and every Irish Member would go into the lobby and fight against this increase to the Navy, believing it was a menace to the Great Republic which they loved so well, and which was their greatest friend. He objected to this expenditure also, because it was a monstrous imposition upon Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite believed that England was a benefactor to Ireland, and that but for the millions which had been poured into Ireland the people would disappear or die of starvation. What were the facts? It was well known that Ireland, with her four millions odd of population, bears one-twelfth of the whole taxation of the United Kingdom, so-called. Mr. Gladstone himself had laid it down that
  504
  the proper and fair proportion of Ireland to the general taxation of the country would be, not one-twelfth, but one-twenty-sixth, and yet they knew that, according to the evidence of the greatest financial experts given before the Royal Commission on Financial Relations—men like Mr. Giffen and Mr. Childers—Ireland was taxed, and has been taxed for the last 40 or 50 years at least, three millions more than she ought to have been taxed. In the face of that fact, they were asked to vote the enormous sum of nearly 22 millions this year for the maintenance of the Navy—an increase of three millions over the increased Vote of last year. Hon. Members were forced to express surprise that Irishmen should be found so unreasonable as to object to this expenditure on the Navy. "Oh," they told him in private conversation, "the British Navy is as much for you in Ireland as for us. The Navy will defend you against foreign foes as much as it will us." Ah, yes! that was all very well; but Irish Members had got the firm conviction that what brought Ireland within the slightest range of foreign attack was her connection with this country. If Ireland were ever attacked, it would be because of her connection with Great Britain; and Great Britain ought to bear the cost of protecting her. It was said that the money raised in taxes went back to the people in the form of wages, and so on. No doubt that was so in England, but it was not so in Ireland. He had often asked how much of the Naval Estimates was spent in Ireland. He believed none at all. Some £50,000 or £60,000 was going to be spent on a dockyard at Haulbowline; and that was all, out of a total expenditure of 23 millions. Last year the Irish Members made the modest demand that some share of the supply of pork to the Navy should be given to contractors in Ireland, where the business was carried out to perfection. He did not know whether that demand had been listened to.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY, ): Yes. Ireland gets four-fifths of the supply.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that this was the first year when such an arrangement had been made.
  MR. MACARTNEY: No. Last year Ireland had three-quarters.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that in any case only a few thousand pounds were concerned. He opposed these proposals because they were a menace to the United States. When the Flying Squadron was commissioned, and sent to the south coast of Ireland, on the way to America, whom was it intended to frighten? Everyone knew that it was intended as a menace to the United States. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Then how was it that the idea of mobilisation never occurred until the dispute with America arose, and that the squadron, when it sailed, was sent on the way to America? For the reasons which he had given, he should support the Amendment, and should move others standing in his name later on. Whatever belief he had held in the sincerity and fidelity to pledges of the Radical Party had been completely shattered by their conduct on this matter. It was monstrous that while these additional millions were being spent, the Front Opposition Bench should be empty. They acquiesced in this expenditure as eagerly as the greatest Jingo. With the exception of the hon. Member for Cockermouth and the hon. Member for Northampton, who stood up for their convictions, there was no opposition to the programme of the Government in any part of the House except from the Irish Members. In the end, the English people would thank the Irish Members for their opposition. It was most absurd for the country to suppose that by spending any amount of money it could make its fleet equal to the combined fleets of the world. The more that was spent here, the more would be spent abroad; and at the end of 10 years the proportions would remain unaltered. It was cowardice or a guilty
  506
  conscience on the part of the British people which made them always afraid that someone was going to attack them. If they treated other Powers fairly and squarely, and did not, attempt to bully them with a big fleet and a large expenditure, they in turn would be treated fairly. As an Irish Member he took the view that these Estimates ought to be opposed for the all-important reason that the great bulk of the Irish people were opposed to them.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that the speeches from the hon. Gentlemen representing the principal two Irish Parties in the House would be generally taken in the country as a very good reason why more power in Imperial matters should not be given to the Parties of those hon. Gentlemen. It was unfortunate, in the interests of the hon. Gentlemen, and of the country which they desired to serve, that they should show themselves so absolutely unable to grasp the great Imperial needs of the country. He believed the view of the hon. Member for East Clare, that the Flying Squadron was mobilised as a menace to the United States, was entertained by very few persons here or in America. He would remind the hon. Member that the disproportion between the navies of America and Great Britain was already so great that an increase of five battleships and two cruisers could not make very much difference; and, moreover, the acute stage of the dispute about Venezuela had passed away before the Flying Squadron was commissioned. Ho made this answer to the hon. Member's suggestion, because it would perhaps be more difficult for the First Lord of the Admiralty than for a private Member to do so. As to the general programme, he agreed very much with the criticisms of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. If anything, the increase of the Navy was rather under than over the mark. Could anyone say that an increase of five battleships and

  507
  12 cruisers in three years was excessive? It was considerably less than the Spencer programme, which most of the hon. Members for Ireland supported. In comparison with the fighting navies of other countries, the Government's programme was too moderate. He would rather have seen eight or ten battleships proposed than five; and that opinion was held by many naval authorities. At present we had 33 first and second-class battleships, as against 31 of France and Russia. At the end of 1897, there would be 41 British, against 42 French and Russian; and in 1899 there would be 46 British, against 48 French and Russian—or an inferiority of two against us. If they added to that the coast defence vessels, they would have 49 British against 55 French and Russian. The proposals of the Government were moderate, and, in his humble opinion, almost too moderate. While he said that he must be allowed to congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on his statement as a whole. He thought it had been received by the House with great satisfaction, and with great approbation by the country. He believed, if there was one thing upon which the British people were determined, it was that their Navy should be strong and supreme. So long as the responsible Ministers of the Crown came down and advocated an increase in naval expenditure, with their knowledge and on their authority, so long was the country certain to support them, and so long was Parliament certain to Vote the necessary supplies. They had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton so often that it was hardly necessary to reply to it. He concurred with one point in it, namely that some step should be taken at as early a date as possible to obtain financial support from the Colonies for the Navy. If the facts that were stated were true, that one-fourth of the carrying trade of the Empire was the trade between one colony and another and the colonies and foreign countries, then
  508
  certainly some of their wealthier colonies should be called upon to contribute something to the Navy. He should like to say something with regard to the speeches which had been made by the Leader of the Opposition and by one or two other Members opposite. They were going to have three docks at Gibraltar, and he believed there was to be one at Simon's Bay, or whatever position in Cape Colony was thought fit for such a dock. He asked the House to consider for one moment why it was they were under the necessity of so largely increasing the dock accommodation at Gibraltar? A dock at Gibraltar was undoubtedly most desirable. He had himself advocated it and worked for it for many years.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have already ruled one hon. Member out of order for dealing with this subject, and I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to deal with it.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was not going into details, but he understood that, as being part of the whole naval programme, they could refer to it as bearing upon naval policy at large. He thought he should be in order if he referred to the necessity which had led to this hange, so to speak, of their naval base. Their naval base had been shifted in the Mediterranean westwards. They had three docks at Malta, but evidently the policy of the Government was now based on the assumption that those docks would not be available. And here came in his reference to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the isolation of this country, and twitted the Government that this had rendered this great naval expenditure necessary. There was no doubt that the foreign difficulties of this country had had a great deal to do with the increase of the Naval Estimates. They must have a great deal to do with it, but when the right hon. Gentleman said it was the policy of his right hon.

  509
  Friends on the Treasury Bench, which had caused this increase in the Naval Estimates and this isolation, he forgot two things. He first of all forgot that other countries had policies as well as Great Britain, and that this country was bound to adjust its naval force, not according to its own policy, but according to the policy of other countries as well. The charge against this country of being aggressive with regard to the Navy was one of the most fantastic charges ever devised in the House. The Member for Northampton talked about the swaggering and boasting speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Personally he never heard a speech couched in terms more directly opposite to swaggering and boasting.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he meant that it was not swaggering in modo, but swaggering in re.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he denied that five battleships and four first-class cruisers was swaggering in re. As a matter of fact various events in foreign policy—events which were due to the policy of hon. Gentleman opposite, to their foolish and fantastic policy in the East—had led to the temporary isolation of this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for it, and yet, in the face of that, the Leader of the Opposition got up and made what he ventured to describe as the most vacuous speech ever delivered in the House, even by an ordinary private Member, much more by an ex-Leader of the House. It happened, at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, that this country was faced by very grave and serious perils, and the only possible answer on the part of this country—an answer not defiant, but defensive—was the mobilisation of a portion of her fleet and the permanent increase of her Navy. It was not boastful or a threat to any foreign country. It was simply a statement that England intended to be in the position of "the strong man armed that keeps his house
  510
  in safety." With regard to the shifting of their naval base in the Mediterranean westwards, which was practically due to the temporary isolation of England, as the hon. Member for West Belfast said that night, the next naval action would probably have to be fought in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar. If they found that, owing to their Anti-Turkish policy, Russia's naval force in the Black Sea was able to enter the Mediterranean, as was very likely, they would then have their 12 battleships in the Mediterranean confronted by 17 French battleships and six Russian battleships. Under those circumstances their naval commanders would have no resort except to fall back for reinforcements to Gibraltar, and therefore came in the necessity for this increase of dock accommodation there. He agreed very largely with what his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn said about the necessity of maintaining the training of their sailors in seamanship, in favour of the training squadron, and also of giving the boys a long and thorough training. He did not feel sure that the proposed increase of age with regard to the cadets going to the Britannia would be an advantage. He would like to hear from the First Lord how he was going to secure these boys from the public schools a year older, and at the same time secure that they would not be crammed for an extra year. It might be possible by some rearrangement of the examination system to avoid this, and he only hoped it might be so.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY,who was received with cheers, said: I have to deal with criticisms which have been made on three different occasions, and I hope any hon. Members whose questions I may not answer on the present occasion will not feel that I have in any way slighted the suggestions they have made. There will be further opportunities of dealing with details when we come to the discussion of the various Votes. I should wish to-night

  511
  to deal with the main points only that have been urged. The main points I conceive to be these—the question of the manning of the Navy, the training of our boys, and the general objects of the increase in the Estimates. I have to deal with three different sets of critics—those who consider these Estimates too high, those who consider them too low, and those who criticised various points in the programme from a practical point of view. With regard to the first, I do not think I need detain the Committee very long because those who think these Estimates are too high have not pretended to argue with any knowledge whatever of the particular number of the ships that might be required, or the number of men we ought to have. They have argued on general principles, on a kind of Utopian optimism that it was unnecessary for us to have any fear in any possible direction, or that we should require to put ourselves in a position to defend any of our possessions or any of our interests. ["Hear, hear!"] But at the same time, before I sit down, I shall be glad to answer some of the direct questions put to me. I pass to one or two questions with which I hope to deal briefly, because they are matters with which we shall be able to deal again. I have been asked questions with reference to the Britannia by the hon. Member for King's Lynn and by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, but, as no doubt this matter will be fully dealt with hereafter, I shall not go into the subject with any detail this evening. I will merely say that, after the statement which I made the other day, I received letters from most distinguished Naval Officers thoroughly approving of the plan which I then indicated. ["Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield suggests that the matter should be further considered. If I felt there was any protest from Naval Officers generally—not a formal protest, but if I even felt that the opinion of the Navy was not with us, I should hesitate
  512
  in carrying out the plan. But I hope the Committee will understand that in this matter, as in so many others, the layman must rely to a great extent upon the advice of professional confrères. Occasionally we must represent to them what the House of Commons' opinion is or what that of the country seems to be; but on thoroughly professional matters such as how best to train Naval Officers and seamen, I feel I should be guided very much by experienced Captains who have young officers and seamen under their charge. ["Hear, hear!"] I pass to another point that has been raised—namely, that which has reference to the engineers of the Navy. To listen to the language of one or two Gentlemen who have spoken, one would think experience had shown the engineers in the Navy to be incompetent. But that is not the experience of the Admiralty nor of the hard facts. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen seem to argue a priori that the engineers ought not to be competent because they have not been trained long enough. But there has been as great a freedom from accidents and as great care of machinery amongst engineers of the Navy as there has been amongst the engineers of the great lines of steamships. ["Hear, hear!"] There have been some extraordinary runs made by battleships with comparatively new crews, which entirely justify the confidence which the Admiralty feel in that most valuable body of men—the engineers of Her Majesty's Navy. ["Hear, hear!"] When, however, hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Gateshead wish to persuade the Committee that the whole responsibility for the safety of the ships rests with the engineers, they carry the matter a great deal too far. The engines of a ship may be likened to the heart, but the head must guide the whole body; the real responsibility rests upon the Captain of the ship and those who assist him, not only in peace times but in war, when it is necessary to fight with the

  513
  ship. ["Hear, hear!"] The engineers have got powerful friends in this House to express their views, but the executive officers are not so bound together, and no agitation is made on their behalf; therefore, with every desire to do justice to every rank in the Navy, irrespective of class, I would urge that all class jealousies should be avoided, and the House may feel confident that both the engineers and Naval Officers work harmoniously together. ["Hear, hear!"] I would wish hon. Members who take an interest in the engineers to avoid all language which would seem in the least calculated to create friction or discontent on board the men-of-war. ["Hear, hear!"] It is very natural that laymen, not only in this House, but elsewhere, should criticise generally the performances not alone of the engineers but of Naval Officers as well, I admit that in after-dinner speeches and in general terms, the efficiency of the Navy is always admitted. But when we have several days of consecutive comment, there is scarcely a class of officers who escape criticism at the hands of various Members of the House. That is as it should be. But, on the other hand, I may put before the Committee the fact that these officers, both executive and engineers, have duties to perform which are totally different from those of our Commercial Marine. Men-of-war have to enter every kind of water; they do not run from one port to another, as do our commercial vessels, but they have to explore all parts of the globe; and under these circumstances, I think it is astonishing how few accidents there are, and how seldom we have to deplore the loss of a ship or loss of life. ["Hear, hear!"] I hope the Committee will feel that, as spokesman of the Admiralty, it is not unbecoming I should put forward some of these considerations, so that confidence may not be shaken by any of those views which have been advanced—that either the education of our officers or the training of our seamen has
  514
  been declining during the past years. ["Hear, hear!"] I will spend a very few words upon a topic which has not been very much pushed in these Debates—namely our shipbuilding programme. It seems to me that, on the whole, the selection of ships to be built, and our general programme have not been adversely criticised. I felt it was wise to have ships of a somewhat lighter draught than the Magnificent, which should be able to enter shoal waters, which, as the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness has said, are to be found elsewhere than in the Suez Canal, and where it is important that ships should be able to go. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of still smaller ships, but I think, on the whole, the feeling of the House is not in favour of building ships of the Rupert class, which represent our coast defence, and which have difficulty in facing heavy seas. I now come to that topic which I think is interesting to the House more than any other—that of the manning of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean said I had not been optimistic in other parts of my speech, but that as regards the manning of the Navy he thought I had taken too rosy a view. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the numbers voted were not borne, and he argued that we always had less men than we voted. This is a misconception. The average cost, which covers all the year, represents the gradual increase in the numbers voted. Take this year the 4,900 That does not mean we are to have the 4,900 men the day after to-morrow, but that recruiting will spread over the whole year, which gives a better selection of men. Thus, on April 1st of this year, we shall have every man who is voted in the Estimates of last year. Then, after April 1st, we shall begin to enrol the additional 4,900 men; and in the course of the year they will be added to the Navy, so that on April 1st in the year afterwards we undoubtedly shall have the full

  515
  number voted by the House. The word "under-borne'' looks as if there were difficulty in getting the men, but that is not so. It is simply a question of gradual increase. I come to the general proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He put the case before the House as if every single ship was to be sent to sea and at once; and he afterwards put that assumption into my mouth, and added it on to my statement that the increase in men now proposed had not been a haphazard increase, but one that had been made on the most accurate calculations. That is the case But that the 500 ships would be sent to sea on the first declaration of hostilities is surely a hypothesis that would never be realised. In the first place, it cannot be done. You cannot send the whole of your forces to sea. The matter would depend upon the nature of our enemy, the operations to be performed, and the class of ships that it would be necessary to send out. The Admiralty can man every ship that could be ready to-morrow with the men we have now, drawing only 5,000 from the Naval Reserve. If we were to send every possibe ship to sea which is seaworthy, excluding harbour ships, we could man the whole of them, though it is impossible to suppose they could all be ready at once, by taking a draft of 11,000 from the Naval Reserve. A certain number of ships, of course, would be under repair. A certain number would be coming home from foreign stations. There would be training ships, which, of course, would be laid up for a time, and their crews would be transferred to effective ships. Then there are surveying ships, which would be similarly treated. Under these circumstances, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean to accept the statement made by the Leader of the House that every ship which could reasonably be sent to sea could be manned without difficulty. [Cheers.] Hon. Members sometimes complain of the compara-
  516
  tively small number of men who are left behind when ships are commissioned. I do not know whether the House is aware of the enormous number of ships which we have in commission at the present moment—a far larger force than, I believe, has ever been in commission in time of peace before. If you compare them with the ships in commission in foreign countries, excluding the torpedo-boats and similar vessels, you will find that we have nearly as many ships in commission as all the Great Powers of Europe put together. [Cheers.] We use our ships so much more. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has spoken about training our men. What better training can there be for this large number of men than being embarked on men-of-war at sea? ["Hear, hear!"] To give the House an idea of the difference between the present and former times, I may say our coal bill for the Navy amounts to £500,000 now as against £247,000 not many years ago. Now, in view of the requirements from the Reserve of 5,000 men, or in an extreme case 10,000 men, it will be interesting to know how the Reserves stand. We have in the Royal Naval Reserve 24,000 men, and if we had only to call on 5,000 men to man ships which could reasonably be sent to sea, I, without wishing to be optimistic, think I may truly say that is not an unsatisfactory position to be in. But to this number I may add a force of 5,000 seamen pensioners—seasoned men, 45 years of age, who may not be so active for some duties on board ship as younger men, but who, on the other hand, being mostly petty officers, would be excellent leaven in all ships' crews for the purposes of instruction and discipline. Some hon. Members seem to have suggested that there was a neglect of training in the Royal Naval Reserve. I can assure the Committee that every attention possible is being paid to this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] We have substituted two modern ships for old hulks for the

  517
  training of the Royal Naval Reserve. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has charged the Admiralty with not attending sufficiently to the men and with looking more to works than ships. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is a mistake. The attention of the Admiralty is fixed more carefully than ever upon the training of the men and boys, and cadets. My hon. Friend says we are taking boys and cadets for the Navy older than we did before, and he objected that in consequence they did not get sufficient training. But the boys who come now into the training ships know more of school work than they used to do. They have profited by the improved education of the people generally. They come better prepared into the Service, and the time formerly devoted to educational purposes is now utilised for professional and technical training. With regard to the Royal Naval Reserve it has been suggested that the distinction between the first and second class should be abolished on the ground that the second class is as good as the first. I have not had time to go into the question of volunteering of any kind; but the proposals which have been made will receive consideration. The hon. Member for Belfast offered, if he had facilities given him, to secure a large body of Volunteers; and they would be good Volunteers, I have no doubt. (Mr. W. REDMOND.—"Orangemen.") It was in London and not in Belfast they were to be recruited. It happened to be myself who inaugurated the Royal Naval Volunteers at the instance of Lord Brassey, who took the same interest in the matter the hon. Member for Belfast does now. The experiment was not very successful. There are great difficulties in volunteering for the Navy; but my mind is open, and I shall be prepared to consider all the proposals that are made, and shall be glad if a further Reserve can be established. It is suggested that we shall increase the Royal Naval Reserve up to 50,000, but
  518
  some who favoured the increase seemed to fear that when the time came we should not be able to get the men. I do not propose to increase the number beyond the 25,000 at which it now stands; still, it is a matter open to consideration. The hon. Member for East Mayo asked whether we had now reached the maximum number of men; and the Committee must understand we have not yet reached that number. As new ships come into existence it will probably be necessary to increase the number of men. It was suggested that last year right hon. Gentlemen opposite had given such an undertaking; but they could not have thought they could lay down seven new battleships without increasing the number of men; and, similarly, now we could not make the increase in ships that we propose without contemplating a corresponding increase in the number of men. I am perfectly frank and candid on that point. ["Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members have been informed that only 20 per cent. of the seamen re-engage at the end of their 12 years. The returns show that 60 per cent. re-engage at once and 9 per cent. leave and re-enter, so that, in round numbers, 70 per cent. re-enter the Navy on the close of their 12 years' engagement. In the case of stokers the proportion is still larger; 74 per cent. re-engage at once and 10 per cent. leave and re-enter, so that 84 per cent. re-enter. From year to year it is seen that men are re-engaging in greater numbers and proportions. It has been suggested that the Navy should train a number of boys and that they should be handed over to the Mercantile Marine; but I should not see my way to any such proposal. I think the preponderance of foreigners in the Mercantile Marine is somewhat exaggerated; but, if the shipowners of a great maritime country like this prefer foreigners, it is not for them to ask the Navy to train boys for them. There must be some kind of reciprocity. We have heard of the Mercantile Marine

  519
  training a large body of seamen for the Navy, but it would be an inversion of the process for the Navy to train boys at the public expense without any obligation on the part of shipowners to take them when trained, and a disposition on their part to take foreigners if they could get them cheaper. At the same time, nothing could be more valuable to the country, as well as to the Navy, than that the proportion of English sailors in the Mercantile Marine should be by some means, not artificial, largely increased. ["Hear, hear!"] I will not enter into other problems raised by the hon. Member for Belfast. The hon. Member said that every man endowed with common sense would see that our strategy in the Mediterranean was absurd; he condemned everybody who did not regard the question of strategy as he regarded it. If he had been in his seat, I might have argued the matter with him; but in his absence I will not press it beyond saying that there is some authority on the other side. [Laughter.] The Leader of the Opposition and others have asked—What is your policy? I stated that our policy was to have such a force as we could rely on to defend our interests in all parts of the globe where they might be attacked. I repeat that our Estimates are not Estimates of provocation. [Cheers.] The suggestion made by hon. Members from Ireland that they were simply intended as a menace to the United States are not only wrong in fact, but are absurd, as I shall be able to prove. The hon. Member for East Mayo seems to be trying to arouse a feeling in the United States against us—["Hear, hear!"]—a feeling of which, I am glad to say, I have not seen any evidence in the newspapers of that country—upon the ground that the increase of our Navy was a menace to the United States. The hon. Member says he is convinced of that. Well, I can tell him that our programme was framed by the Board of Admiralty in November, before any of the
  520
  events in connection with the United States took place. [Ministerial cheers.] I am glad the hon. Member has given me this opportunity of saying to him, and to others who think that these Estimates are proposed in a spirit of hysterical alarm, that they are Estimates deliberately prepared in accordance with a policy which has now been pursued for some time, and not deviating from the general lines laid down by successive Boards of the Admiralty. [Ministerial cheers.] When the late Liberal Government proposed to build seven new battleships we did not ask what their policy was. It was a startling proposal to come from a Government whose Leader was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire; but we did not think that because they proposed seven new battleships they were therefore going to provoke foreign nations, or that there was any idea of attacking any foreign Power. "May I ask what Power you are going to attack?" said the hon. Member opposite. None, I hope, unless they attack our interests. [Ministerial cheers.] It is a pity that such speeches should be made; but I hope they will not carry any weight. ["Hear, hear!"] It is a pity there should be such speeches insisting on there being provocation in our proposals; when the facts prove there is none. ["Hear, hear!"] But I have also been asked from other quarters what is our policy. We have stated what our policy is. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quoted Mr. Disraeli, who said:—
  "Tell me what your policy is, and I will tell you what Estimates you will require."
  I tell the right hon. Gentleman that our Estimates do not depend upon our policy alone. Our Estimates depend also upon the policy of other Powers. [Ministerial cheers.] And if you ask us what our policy is we tell you it is absolutely clear—as clear as crystal. We have no intention of embarking upon any adven-

  521
  turous policy in any part of the globe; we have asked you to give us that measure of help which is required in our belief to meet various reasonable eventualities that may occur, and we ask for no more. ["Hear, hear!"] It has been stated that the Government have said—that I have said—that we must have a Navy as large as all the navies of the world combined. None of us have given expression to so preposterous a statement. ["Hear, hear!"] On the contrary, the Leader of the House pointed out very effectively that such a policy is impossible. Some hon. Members who take an extreme view of our necessities, and think our proposals inadequate, ask us what will we do if there is a war combination of various Powers against us? That question brings back a classical incident to my mind. When the statesmen in the Athenian Assembly were asked—"What will you do if there is a combination of the other States against you?" they replied, "Trust in Providence and in a good Admiral." [Cheers.]
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid, his remarks would be confined to criticisms of details in the programme of the Government. The first point to which he would like to direct attention was the serious question how it was proposed under the scheme of a naval college on shore to make appointments to officerships of rank in the Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty gave the House to understand that the education of naval cadets would be handed over to the public schools. That was a scheme which he confessed he regarded with some distrust. In how many of the schools would it be possible to have the naval classes of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke? And was it proposed to limit admission to the Navy to those schools which had proper naval classes?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Certainly not.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, a further question he would like to ask was how
  522
  the right hon. Gentleman was going to apply this new mode of education without a revision of the old system of nomination to the Navy?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: There will be nomination and competition as now.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Nomination and competition as now, but with a new feature added—namely, that, as far as possible, these boys are to be drawn from the public schools. He would venture to urge on the right hon. Gentleman to make a clean sweep of the nomination system altogether. There was no nomination in the Army—why should there be nomination in the Navy? Why should these young boys, who were going to engage in what he believed to be the noblest career in the world, begin with the impression—which must be removed from their minds before long—that they were a privileged class, and that the rest of the world were outsiders? He did not believe the prestige of the Navy would suffer if the competition for places in the Training College was thrown open to all boys, and those accepted who proved themselves the best fitted to enter the Service. The right hon. Gentleman had said his proposals were supported by the opinion of the Navy. That was a very important element; but the opinion of the country was more important still; and he believed that opinion was that the Navy should be thrown open to all persons best fitted for it, without regard to the sources whence they came. ["Hear, hear!"] He heard with the greatest satisfaction; he account the right hon. Gentleman gave of the present state of the manning, especially as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had argued that all the ships of the Navy it to constitute the war-fleet should be in commission in peace-time. That would be a complete reversal of the practice of the Admiralty. In any one year—in this year, for instance, the Manning Committee would calculate the war-fleet,

  523
  say, of the year 1899. They would lay down on Paper the names of vessels that would constitute the war-fleet, according to all probability, of that year. A portion of that war-fleet would in the year 1899, if there was no war, be in commission and fully manned by active-service men; the other class would not be in commission, but in what would be called the Fleet Reserve, as distinguished from the Dockyard Reserve—that was to say, they would be vessels ready to be called out for war. The difference between the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and the Board of Admiralty was that a portion of the Fleet estimated to be in the Fleet Reserve in 1899 would not be provided for to the full with active-service men in that year. Then there would be two classes in the Reserve—one would be composed of new ships and the other of old ships, and a certain proportion of the manning of the new fleet and a larger proportion of the manning of the old ships would be left to be provided for by the Naval Reserve. The right hon. Baronet proposed, against the advice of experts, against the practice of the Admiralty, and against the practice of every nation in the world, that in a moment of profound peace we should add at least £1,000,000 a year to the expenditure. He did not know that the House were in possession of the facts as to the comparative state of manning in the navies of the different countries; but he had made some inquiries, and he found that, whilst the First Lord of the Admiralty now asked for 93,850 active-service men, the corresponding list in France in 1895 was 41,500, Russia 30,600, Italy 23,400. The total number of active-service men, therefore, in the three biggest navies in the world after our own was within a few hundreds of the numbers provided for in these Estimates. [Cheers.] Again, while our Navy in point of personnel had gone up from, he thought, 60,000 twelve or fifteen years ago to 93,000 now; the
  524
  Navy of France, which was 41,000 in 1895, was 42,000 twelve years ago; that of Russia had risen by only 500 in ten years; and that of Italy alone showed any great increase. These comparisons were of some importance from the point of view of the criticism of the right hon. Baronet; and he had only to add that he cordially supported the defence which the First Lord of the Admiralty had made of the present system, and accepted gratefully the statement that the success of the system was attributable to the Board of Admiralty which immediately preceded the present. As to the shipbuilding policy, it was very difficult to know from the Estimates what was the real increase demanded by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman called for £3,000,000 more than the Admiralty obtained last year. Of that excess, something like £2,150,000 was due to expenditure on ships to be laid down in the present year. The balance of £1,000,000, he took it, was fairly attributable to the proposals which the late Board of Admiralty made. The difference, therefore, between the right hon. Gentleman's proposal and the late Board's was to be seen in the absolutely new shipbuilding. The amount taken in last year's Estimates for totally new shipbuilding was under £1,000,000; so that the net excess on these Estimates was something like £1,500,000. The main item of the excess, no doubt, consisted of the five battleships. He did not pretend to say what the Opposition would have proposed had they remained in Office; and he was not prepared to say that the number of new battleships now suggested was excessive. The Leader of the Opposition, however, had asked what was the policy of the Admiralty, meaning thereby that they should state why they made this addition to the Navy. What his right hon. Friend said was—
  "We know that your proposals necessarily are founded upon certain calculations relative to the strength of foreign navies, but we cannot ask what they are."

  525
  But he did invite him to give them the reason for this new addition to the Navy. They had the answer that night in the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman—a statement, the importance of which he thought was not fully apprehended by the House, and which might be grossly misunderstood. The importance of the statement lay in the announcement that these Estimates were framed in November, at the usual time, before these foreign complications had arisen at all. [Ministerial cheers.] That was a statement, he repeated, of the gravest importance, and amply justified the Question put the other day by his right hon. Friend. If his right hon. Friend had been there that night he would have welcomed with satisfaction that statement, which showed that these Estimates were based not on a policy of adventure, but solely on the safety of the country. [Ministerial cheers.] The House, he thought, must be content to be left in the dark. They knew that calculations had to be made; they knew that if it were possible no Admiralty would hesitate to take into its confidence a House that had never failed to respond to demands made on behalf of the Navy. It was not necessary and it was not wise that the calculations should be publicly avowed or publicly discussed. He had no doubt that they had been made as usual, and he accepted the assurance that the Estimates were Admiralty Estimates and not Foreign Office Estimates. [Ministerial cheers.] As to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, it was a repetition of the Motion which he had to answer last year under similar circumstances. [Laughter.] If the hon. Member would permit him to say so, he, like the Member for Cockermouth, was guilty of a logical blunder in proposing to reduce the number of men. It was not a logical thing to reduce the number of men who were to man the ships already voted.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When?
  MR. ROBERTSON: Last year. He
  526
  did sympathise with any rational demand in that House for economy, even in the greatest service in the nation. He agreed with the suggestion that the Navy in this matter should be considered along with the Army. They should lay down a total expenditure for the whole Empire, and then consider which should have the larger proportion, the Navy or the Army. He formed the opinion when he was at the Admiralty that the time had come for the reconsideration of this ancient service of the Navy. There were some services in the Navy in which he did not believe. He did not believe that the money was well spent on the Paymasters' service. He did not believe that the clerical service kept on board ship was an establishment which should be maintained. In these and other Departments retrenchment might be carried out, but he did not sympathise with a mere general rush at the Estimates; and in particular he could not, any more than last year, vote for a specific proposal like that now before the Committee. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I only intervene in order to make an appeal to the Committee, and to explain briefly the precise situation we are in with regard to the Estimates which must be passed before Easter. According to our calculations, it is absolutely necessary for us to get, before the end of this week, the Vote for the men in the Navy on which we are now engaged; also the next Vote, the money Vote; to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates, and also to get the Navy and Army Supplementary Estimates. ["Oh!"] That is necessary to be done this week. In order to do that we have two days. We have Thursday and we have Friday. I may remind the House that according to the established practice a general discussion may be taken upon the Vote for the men or upon the Money Vote, but not upon both. As I understand the matter, it would not be in order to have a general

  527
  discussion on both the Vote for the men and the Vote for the money. I would suggest, therefore, that we should now terminate the general discussion upon the Vote for the men and pass this Vote, and, having disposed of the Amendment standing upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mayo in reference to the Vote for the money, we should pass that Vote also before 12 o'clock. If the Committee declines to take that course, and we are unable to get these two Votes to-night, I shall have to ask the House to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule on Thursday and Friday in order that we might take these Votes on those nights. I would venture to suggest that that is an unnecessary and an inconvenient course to adopt, but in the event of the Committee not acceding to our suggestion to-night, we shall most reluctantly be compelled to take the Votes on Thursday and Friday nights. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. WALTER HAZELLsaid, that he had an appeal to make to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. This question of the increase of the Navy had, perhaps, been sufficiently debated, but he was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before the Debate closed, be could not give some assurance to the world that, although that House was practically united in the idea that we must have at the present time a larger Navy, he looked upon the fact as a great evil, and that he looked forward to the time when all disputes between ourselves and other nations will be settled by International arbitration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I can only say, in response to the hon. Member's appeal, that no one would regard with more satisfaction than I should a general disarmament all over the world.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he was surprised at the request that had been made by the First Lord of the Treasury. In the
  528
  whole course of his Parliamentary experience he had never known of any Government which had obtained greater facilities for the transaction of its business than the present Government possessed, and certainly the Irish Members had nothing to thank them for. The Irish Members had desired to take part in the general discussion upon the Navy, but the right hon. Gentleman, by taking the course he had done, had precluded them from doing so. Of course, the Government had certain powers in their hands, and if they chose to use those powers for the purpose of preventing discussion, they were at liberty to do so. The Irish Members, on the other hand, had certain rights, and they were determined to exercise those rights, and to put forward their views upon this question. If the Debate that night had had no other good result, it had led to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, making a statement to the effect that these Navy Estimates had been prepared in November last before the scare took place. He had no right whatever to dispute the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but he asked why that statement had not been made before? Why had that statement been made for the first time that night? A few nights ago the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, had made a speech upon this subject, and he had made observations with regard to the effect these Estimates might have upon foreign nations. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, however, had not made this announcement then in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The reason why I did not make the statement in answer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, was because I had already spoken and should have been out of order in rising again.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman conceived that what he had just said was an answer to his complaint. The declaration which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had made that night on behalf of the Government was of a most far-reaching character, and would have a most important effect upon the relations of this country with America and with several continental Powers, and it was now stated that it had been postponed because the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had spoken before instead of after the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. But where was the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies? Why could not that right hon. Gentleman have made the statement immediately after the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had spoken. He was sorry that the Irish Members should be compelled to go against what he supposed was the prevalent feeling of the House in regard to this matter, but they had their duty to perform, and they were compelled to discharge it. In their opinion these large armaments were the necessary and the inevitable result of the policy of the Government in their treatment of Ireland. That might be a sound or an unsound opinion; but, at least, Irishmen had the right to put it forward. It was their duty to their country to make the right hon. Gentleman's views on this question known, for they believed that a large portion of the enmity which the Government were seeking to meet by this increased expenditure was due to the attitude they had taken up towards the Irish people at home and in America. The First Lord of the Admiralty went the length of saying that his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo was anxious to create ill-feeling against this country in America. The right hon. Gentleman was guilty that night of endeavouring to promulgate in this country the most disastrous blunder and
  530
  misapprehension in regard to feeling in America. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this feeling was the result of Irish feeling in America, nurtured and increased by his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: What I said was that on the present occasion two speeches had been made, the only result of which would be to make it appear that we had been animated by a spirit of animosity towards America.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORreplied that all he could say was this, that if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Dispatches of the chief of the Government to which he belonged, he would find there the basis and foundation of the feeling in the United States, and not in the speech of his hon. Friend; and the right hon. Gentleman was doing a great wrong to his country and his people in lending his great position to assist such an impression with regard to the fundamental feeling in the United States to get abroad.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing matters of foreign policy which are not germane to the discussion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he would not pursue that line of argument any further, but would approach the question from an Irish point of view. He would like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many Irishmen there were in the Navy to-day? He understood that altogether there were about 5,000. There were 5,000 Catholics, and he assumed most of them were Irishmen. Was that always the case? He had in his hand the "History of England in the 18th Century," by the hon. Gentleman who at present they were all glad to welcome as representative of Dublin University. There was a passage in that volume dealing with a statement in the autobiography of Wolfe to the effect that two-thirds of the seamen in the

  531
  service of England in the great war at the close of the last century were Irishmen. He was bound to say that the hon. Gentleman threw some doubt on the statement.
  MR. W. LECKY: I said it was entirely inaccurate.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that at any rate a large part of the Navy of this country was then manned by Irishmen. Was that the case to-day? What was the reason of the reduction in the number of Irishmen in the Navy? From the English point of view as distinguished from the Irish, he would ask whether Englishmen should not seriously consider whether the depopulation of Ireland, which was the result of their policy towards that country, was not a source of evil to the Imperial strength of Great Britain? He spoke of facts within his own knowledge. The numbers of the seafaring population of Ireland had been seriously reduced and the result was that now only an infinitesimal proportion of the sailors in Her Majesty's Navy came from that part of the kingdom. It was his duty to bring home to Parliament the disastrous results of its past policy not only upon the people of Ireland, but also upon this country which now counted in its Navy fewer Irishmen than served in it in former times.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that he did not rise for the purpose of discussing the very important series of considerations which his hon. Friend behind him had brought to the attention of the Committee—[laughter]—but for the purpose of asking the First Lord of the Treasury for a more detailed explanation of his scheme respecting the proceedings between the present date and the Appropriation Bill. This was, he thought, the first time that a Leader of the House of Commons had made a statement of so much importance and scope without accompanying it with more information. He wished to know
  532
  what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Votes which had to be taken before the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. He agreed that an adequate number of sittings had been devoted to the general question of the Navy, and that the discussion might now be closed; but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the Committee what was the reason for his proposed extraordinary precipitancy with respect to the Estimates.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYexplained that it was necessary to pass the Supplementary Estimates without delay, and also Vote one for the Navy, because that corresponded in the Navy Estimates with the Vote on account in the Civil Service Estimates. The Consolidated Fund Bill must be introduced on Monday the 23rd, and pass the Third Reading on the following Thursday. Before that period there would only be available Thursday and Friday in this week, and Monday, Thursday, and Friday in the week following. He hoped that the Speaker might be able to leave the chair on Friday night on the Army Estimates, by which time he trusted that they might have got the Supplementary Estimates both for the Army and Navy. He hoped that the Supplementary Estimates would be reported on Monday, and on Monday, the 16th, the Government hoped to get Vote A and Vote I. That was their expectation. The Consolidated Fund Bill had to be introduced on Monday the 23rd, and the Vote on Account on Thursday the 19th.
  MR. J. G. WEIR MR. J. G. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty) rose to continue the discussion, when
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved that the Question be now put. [Cheers.]
  Question put, "That the Question be now put:"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 65.—(Division List, No. 34.)
  Question put accordingly, "That 95,750 men and boys be employed for the said Services:"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 45; Noes, 262.—(Division List, No. 35.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed that the main Question be now put.
  MR. W. REDMONDrose at the same time, but was called to order.
  A Division was challenged and the House cleared.
  MR. W. REDMOND,seated and with his hat on, said he desired to know, as a matter of order, whether he was not quite in order in rising to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was perfectly in order, but in the meantime the First Lord of the Admiralty claimed that the Question be put, and that claim I have granted.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked whether they were Voting on the Closure.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, the question which I put from the chair was the original Question.
  MR. WEIR,also seated and covered, said he had desired to make some observations on the Vote. Was he to understand that the Closure had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman, and that they were now Voting for the Closure.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will refer to Standing Order 25, he will find that after the Closure has been moved, granted and carried, and a Vote taken in pursuance thereof, a Minister can then claim that the original Question, which has been previously put to the House, should be put. That was done on this occasion. I granted the claim, and thereupon the original Question was put.
  Original Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 261; Noes, 45.—(Division List, No. 36.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,419,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, &c:, to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1897."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDrose to move the reduction of the Vote by £286,000, as a protest against expenditure which he considered was unnecessary and unfair as regarded Ireland. He asked where was this expenditure to stop. If they looked back during the last 10 years at the enormous increase of expenditure on the Navy and if they anticipated anything like the same increase for the next 10 years, he could not imagine how even the people of England would be able to bear the burden. He had, however, absolutely nothing to do with the Vote from an English point of view. Hon. Member's on both sides might conceive that they were acting in a wise and patriotic manner. He did not look at the Vote from an English but from an Irish point of view, and that was that this expenditure was unnecessary and unfair as far as Ireland was concerned. Ireland would derive no benefit from the increase, and it was impossible that the Irish people would agree to this expenditure. We were told that this was not the result of any sudden foreign complication, that at the time these arrangements were entered into there were no questions of foreign complication with America or any other nation. If this was so the increase was all the more extraordinary.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported this day; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  NAVAL WORKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Report thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  TELEGRAPH (ADVANCES).
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.
  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES)BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888)AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND)BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) (MEYRICK FUND).
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAY*SIR JOHN MOWBRAY (Oxford University) moved:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her Assent to so much of the Scheme for the management of the funds contributed for the purpose of the Central Welsh Board by the county governing bodies established by Schemes made under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, as relates to the matter of the Meyrick Fund."
  The portion of the Scheme to which he objected proposed that the Meyrick Fund, amounting to £20,000, of which the Principal and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford, were trustees, should be appropriated in aid of intermediate education in Wales; and his object was to retain it, as the original donor intended, in aid of higher education, for which it was more needed in Wales. The clause in the Scheme dealing with the Meyrick Fund was as follows:—
  "The Board shall, in each year, carry to a separate account the income received in respect of the Meyrick Fund for administration under this Scheme. Until any statute in respect thereof shall be made by Jesus College, Oxford, on the application of the Board with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, the Board shall apply the same, after payment of expenses of management and business, in the maintenance of scholarships to be called "Meyrick Scholarships," tenable in accordance with regulations to be framed from time to time by the Board by scholars in intermediate schools under the Welsh Act."
  He asked the House with greater confidence to accept his proposal, as the rejection of this portion of the Scheme

  537
  would not in any way invalidate the remainder of the Scheme. He thought it would be admitted that there was no longer a want of funds for intermediate education in Wales; but that on the other hand money was needed for the encouragement of higher education. What the Principal and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford, desired, was that this money should be continued to be devoted to higher education; but that it should be applied to a certain extent in accordance with the wants of the present time. Their proposal was:—
  "The net interest of £20,000 at present invested in Consols in the name of the Principal and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford, shall be applied annually within the college as follows:—

  "(a) One or at most two Scholarships of the value of £80 per annum each, tenable on the same conditions as the Meyrick Scholarships mentioned in Clause 3, shall after examination duly advertised be awarded to graduate members of the University of Wales, or of St. David's College, Lampeter.

  "(b) The whole amount of the above interest which in any one year is not applied to the maintenance of such Scholarships shall be assigned to Minor Exhibitions of not less than £5 per term each, tenable by Welsh undergraduate members of Jesus College qualified according to Clause 4, such Exhibitions to be awarded at the end of each term to such candidates as shall be approved by the Principal and Fellows after due consideration of the circumstances of each candidate and of his progress during the term."

  And further:—
  "The Principal and Fellows shall elect to a fellowship under the same provisions as in Clause 31, but with a place on the Governing Body of the College, in rotation, one of the following representatives of Higher Education in Wales, to wit, the Principals of the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire (Cardiff), St. David's College (Lampeter), the University College of Wales (Aberystwyth), and the University College of North Wales (Bangor) respectively, provided that he be not elected at any one time for a longer period than three years, and that he vacate the fellowship if he vacate the office or cease to discharge the duties of Principal; provided also that the emoluments attached to such Fellowship be fixed at a sum not exceeding £50 a year."
  The Petition he held in his hands was signed by the Principal and Fellows with
  538
  only one dissentient. He thought the House would see that if this portion of the scheme was set aside, the result would be beneficial to Wales. She would have all she wanted. There was abundant funds for intermediate education, and there was no reason why this, £500 should be scattered all over the Principality in small sums and thus virtually lost. If the proposal of Jesus College was accepted, a ladder would be set up which would enable an enterprising young Welshman to mount from the Schools and Colleges of his native land to the Halls and Colleges of Oxford. He would be introduced to the traditions and surroundings of an University which I had been famous for a thousand years. He would meet there his own compatriots in that College, which for more than 300 years had been associated with the Principality. Becoming an Oxonian he would remain a devoted Welshman. He concluded by moving the Motion standing in his name and presenting the petition to the House.
  MAJOR WYNDHAM QUINseconded the motion.
  SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he sincerely hoped this Motion would commend itself to the House. It was the result of a very careful compromise which he thought was exceedingly fair. As the scheme originally stood the Meyrick Trust was made part of the funds contributed for the purposes of the Welsh Central Board. To that Jesus College, not unnaturally objected. The result was that a statute was passed by the Principal and Fellows of the College the effect of which had been stated by his right hon. Friend. The main point of that statute was that one on more Exhibitions of £80 would be given to graduates of the Welsh University or of St. David's College, Lampeter, to be held by them at Oxford. He could not help thinking that would be an admirable thing both for the new Colleges and for the old Colleges. It would do for Jesus College what the

  539
  Snell Exhibitions had done for Balliol. He was perfectly certain the young men who were fortunate enough to obtain these Exhibitions would be good Oxonians, and they would not be the worse Welshmen.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, he did not wish to oppose the Motion, and although he was exceedingly sorry to find himself even in a condition of quasi-opposition to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, whose views carried so great weight with the House, he protested against the terms of the compromise. More than one member of the governing body of Jesus College, and many of the best friends of education in Wales, were against it. [Cries of "Name!"] He could not give the names. He did not think that it was fair to ask him, but he was prepared to give the names privately. He repeated more than one felt very strongly that this compromise ought not to be made. They might have a man added to the governing body of the College who would not be qualified by residence or degree, a man who had no connection with the College or University at all. This money was left absolutely for the benefit of Jesus College, and that being so, it ought to be given back to the College without any conditions being placed upon it. Nor could he see why the scholarships founded should be confined to certain Colleges and Schools instead of being open to the Welsh people as a whole. The feeling among many whom he represented that evening was very strong on those points, and although it was to him a matter of the deepest regret that be found himself in the least opposed to the Member for the University, he had felt bound to make that protest, and he reserved to himself and others the right to take such steps as they might deem fit and proper to alter those terms if any opportunity arose.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,)said, he only rose for the purpose of protecting himself in the same way as the hon. Member with respect to the alternative application of the funds. He objected very much to some portions of this Scheme which had been adopted as a compromise. It said that the sum of £20,000 was to be applied for the benefit of education in
  540
  Wales generally, but the fact was that it was now to be given to the College to establish new scholarships of the value of £80, which were to be carved out of this fund. These scholarships were to be confined to certain graduates. That was what he objected to. These scholarships should be open to all. He would not exclude graduates from competing, nor would he exclude poor teachers and ministers who could not devote the time to go through a College course.
  MR. W. T. HOWELLsaid, that he intended to detain the House for a few minutes only in reference to this subject. The Welsh Members who were entitled to give voice to the opinion of Wales on this question, were entirely agreed in favour of this Motion, and they did not intend to be led away from that opinion by that which, might come from any quarter of the House, however much they might respect the individuals who expressed it. The two hon. Members who had spoken had asserted that the benefits of the fund ought not to be confined, according to the terms of the compromise, to the members of the University of Wales and of Lampeter, but he was of a contrary opinion.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was in error in supposing that his hon. Friend the Member for the Tunbridge Division was alone in his opposition to the compromise which had been suggested; on the contrary, he represented a considerable body of opinion. He was not, however, surprised, that his hon. Friend should have taken the line he did, because some hon. Gentlemen had got into the habit of asking the House to deal as it liked with property which did not belong to them. The property in this case belonged to Jesus College, and it was not astonishing that the friends of the College should feel unwilling to part with that property.
  Motion agreed to; to be presented by Privy Councillors.
  House adjourned at Half after Twelve o'clock.