Commons Sitting of 21 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BUENOS AYRES AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords].

    PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL [Lords].
    WESTON - SUPER - MARE, CLEVEDON, AND PORTISHEAD TRAMWAYS COMPANY (LIGHT RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL [Lords].
    WHITEHAVEN CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [Lords].
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee on the Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation and Great Southern and Western Railway Bills [Preamble not proved].
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 290].

PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN).
  Petition of the Childhood Society, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
  Petitions for alteration of law—From Eastwood, and Tyrie; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Werrington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  MALTA (POLITICAL CONDITION).
  Return [presented 20th July] to be printed. [No. 287.]
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (CORK).
  Copy presented of Report of the President for the Session 1898–9, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented of Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1898, to 31st March, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 15, 1899).
  Copy presented of Convention between the United Kingdom and France for the Delimitation of their respective Possessions to the West of the Niger, and of their respective Possessions and Spheres of Influence to the East of that River. Signed at Paris, 14th June, 1898. Together with a Declaration completing the same. Signed at London, 21st March, 1899. Ratifications exchanged at Paris 13th June, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Principal Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1899, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900).
  Estimate presented,—of the Further Sums required to be voted for the Service, of the year ending 31st March, 1900 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 288.]
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  CHAMBER OF LONDON.
  Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1898 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 289.]
  METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Metropolitan Gas Companies have leave to sit To-morrow, notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House.—(Sir James Rankin.)

  SEAMEN AND MARINES (PENSIONS).
  Return ordered, "showing—
  A.—Number of seamen and marines, according to latest returns, in re-
  1534
  ceipt of the 5d. a day Greenwich Age Pension, and of those eligible on account of age and character but who have not yet been awarded it; to include men pensioned for life on account of injury or disability.
  B.—Number of seamen and marines, according to latest Returns, in receipt of the increased age pension of 9d. a day, and of those eligible on account of age (viz., 65) and character, but who have not yet been awarded it.

  C.—

  Total annual cost of pensions in force

  £

  Capitalised estimated value of the pensions in force, supposing them to represent 2¾per cent. on a sum invested in Government Securities

  £

  D.—

  Estimated annual official cost of paying such pensions

  £

  E.—

  Approximate number of seamen and marines who entered before 1878, when the number of age pensions was by Order in Council limited to 7,500, and the approximate years in which they will attain the age of 55:—

  F.—Average number of deaths during the past three years amongst the pensioners in receipt of the age mid increased age pensions."—(Lord Charles Beresford.)

  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (Accounts under Section 1 (7) of the Act).
  Return ordered, "showing, according to the Accounts for the twelve months preceding the 31st day of March, 1899, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894,—

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

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

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

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

  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1898–9.
  Return ordered, "of the amount received in respect of each administrative county and county borough in England and Wales for Local Taxation Duties and Penalties, under the Local Government Act, 1888, in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1899."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return ordered, "of Statement of the amount expended for In-maintenance and Out-door Relief in England and Wales during the half-year ended Lady Day, 1899:"
  "And similar Statement for the half-year ending Michaelmas, 1899."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

  LOCAL TAXATION (ENGLAND) ACCOUNT, 1898–9.
  Return ordered, "showing, in respect of the financial year ended the 31st day of March, 1899 (1) the total amount of the Local Taxation Licenses and Estate Duty paid into the Local Taxation (Eng-
  1536
  land) Account, and the amounts paid out of such Licenses and Estate Duty to, or on behalf of, the council of each administrative county and county borough; (2) the amounts paid out of the proceeds of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties to each police authority in aid of police pension funds; and (3) the amounts paid out of the residue of the proceeds of those Duties to the council of each administrative county and county borough."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

  FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return ordered, "showing the Fleets of Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, United States of America, and Japan, distinguishing: Battleships, built and building; Cruisers, built and building; Coast Defence Vessels, built and, building; Torpedo Vessels, Torpedo Boat Destroyers, and Torpedo Boats, built and building."
  "Return to show date of launch, displacement, and armaments reduced to one common scale (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 206, of Session 1898)."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY EXAMINATIONS.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether candidates for commissions in the Royal Marine Artillery have to pass, previous to joining the Royal Naval College, the same examinations as candidates for commissions in the Royal Artillery and Engineers have to pass, previous to joining the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich; could he state how much time is subsequently spent in studies and instruction at the Royal Naval College, the gunnery ship "Excellent," and at headquarters before the whole course of artillery training at the public cost is completed; whether, during the whole course of their professional career, these officers have to undergo various retrainings and examinations in order to secure continuous efficiency; Is he aware that no officer of the Royal Navy has yet passed the Woolwich advanced artillery class, while certain

    1537
    officers of the Royal Marine Artillery have done so, and hold the p.a.c. certificate; why it is the Admiralty do not now utilise, as formerly, the scientific, technical, and practical artillery knowledge of the Royal Marine Artillery officers, acquired at the expense of the State, by employing them on committees or in posts of administration specially concerned with naval ordnance and the artillery service of the fleet; whether he proposes to fully explain to the House, when in Committee on the Navy Estimates, the reasons of the Admiralty in generally excluding from duties they are specially trained to fulfil the officers of this branch of the naval service; and what is the policy of the Admiralty in respect of the use and application of this artillery corps.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The answer to the first question is "Yes," and to the second question, "Three and a-half years." "Officers of the Royal Marine Artillery are required to re qualify, and to pass the usual examinations for promotion, but these officers, unless they are gunnery instructors, are never, during their whole period of service, re-qualified in the Naval Gunnery Schools. The Admiralty have not considered it necessary to allow naval officers to go through the course referred to; but three officers, R.M.A., have passed the Artillery College. With reference to the last three questions, there is no system or policy of exclusion such as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, and accordingly I have no reasons to give. For example, three Marine Artillery officers are employed in the ordnance factories. The object of this valuable corps is to take their share in the artillery duties generally connected with the fleet; for example, they are specially employed in ships where there are the largest guns. They are not sent to the smaller ships. As regards the purely scientific side, the hon. and gallant Member should bear in mind that scientific matters relating to ordnance questions, both naval and military, are mainly dealt with by the War Department.

    TRAINING SHIP TO VISIT STORNOWAY.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admi-
    1538
    ralty whether arrangements can be made for a training ship to visit Stornoway this year.
    MR. GOSCHEN: A visit to Stornoway is included in the programme of the ensuing cruise of the "Northampton."

    SUGAR FOR THE NAVY.
    COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in ordering sugar for consumption in the Navy, preference is given to colonial grown and British refined sugar.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The reply is in the affirmative. British refined sugar only is used in naval hospitals and for the manufacture of soluble chocolate. Since 1892 cane sugar only has been bought for the use of the fleet.

    VOLUNTEER SERGEANT INSTRUCTORS AND RECRUITING.
    MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to enforce the recently-issued order by which sergeant instructors of Volunteers are compelled to act as recruiters for the Army; whether he is aware that, despite the pledge given by the Secretary of State for War to the effect that non-commissioned officers shall not be taken away from the work of the corps to which they are attached, non-commissioned officers so attached have, in fact, been taken away from the work of their corps, and have been ordered to undertake recruiting duties at a distance from headquarters without their own commanding officers being consulted or even informed; whether the Secretary of State for War was correctly informed when he stated that whereas 135 Volunteer instructors obtained only fifteen recruits, one instructor alone obtained nineteen recruits; and whether it is the fact that the nineteen recruits in question were actually re-engaged telegraphists belonging to the Reserve.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAIL (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The order referred to was a memorandum sent to General Officers Commanding Districts instructing them as to the use of the staff at their disposal

    1539
    for recruiting. Part of that staff consists of the sergeant-instructors of Volunteers. No new obligation is imposed by the memorandum, which refers to rules that have been in force since 1881. The Volunteer Regulations lay down that a sergeant-instructor is not to be employed away from his station without the consent of his commanding officer, nor should any instructor be permitted to neglect his work with his corps for the sake of recruiting duties. No case of such neglect has been brought to the Secretary of State's notice. In reply to the third paragraph, the statement made by the Secretary of State was correct; but it differed from the figures in the question, as he said that 134 Volunteer sergeants had raised seventeen recruits. The nineteen recruits raised by On e other sergeant did belong to the Telegraph Reserve or the Post Office Corps.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it intended to enforce the instruction?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The General Officers have been reminded of their duties as laid down in the Regulations, and it is naturally expected that they will act in accordance with the terms of the memorandum.

    WINCHESTER RIFLE RANGE.
    MR. MYERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state what steps are being taken to provide a rifle range for the City of Winchester and neighbourhood.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State had hoped to establish a range at Chilcomb, but the price demanded for the land was so high that the proposed range has had to be abandoned.

    ENLISTMENTS INTO THE ARMY AND MILITIA.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he has any objection to state the number of men who have enlisted into the Army and Militia respectively this year as compared with the same period last year.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Up to the 30th June 17,434 men had enlisted for the regular Army and 21,268 had joined the Militia as against 17,789 and 22,440 respectively for the same period of 1898.
    1540
    The enlistments stated above do not include 1,700 men for Colonial Corps as against 780 last year.

    MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the regular Army and Militia are at this moment up to the full establishments voted by Parliament; and, if not, how many men are deficient in each ser vice respectively.
    MR. WYNDHAM: On the 1st July the Army was 16,884, the Militia 19,236 below the establishments voted. The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that so far as the Army is concerned the estimates for this year and for last year were presented to Parliament in a new form which gives, not the establishment for the year in question, but the ultimate establishment to be reached when the programmes of 1897, 1898, and 1899 shall have been completed, and that the date anticipated for that completion is the year 1901–2.

    RANSOMS PAID TO BRIGANDS.
    MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the dates of the payments of the ransoms of Colonel Synge, who was captured by brigands near Salonika in February, 1880, and of Mr. Suter, who was captured by brigands near Salonika in April, 1881; what were the respective amounts in English money; and on what grounds these ransoms of two English subjects were paid out of the surplus of the Cyprus tribute instead of out of the English Treasury; whether the money so paid is regarded as a loan to the English Treasury from the surplus of the Cyprus tribute; and whether interest thereon is paid into the said surplus fund.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Colonel Synge's, ransom was paid March 31st, 1880; Mr. Suter's May 26th, 1881. As will be seen from the Blue Book, Turkey, No. 11 (1881), page 39, the amount of the former ransom was £10,835 4s. 3d.; that of the latter £13,636. The grounds on which these ransoms were paid out of the surplus of the Cyprus tribute will be seen from Earl Granville's despatch to the

    1541
    Earl of Dufferin of September 26th, 1881 (Turkey, No. 11, 1881, page 39). The answer to the remaining part of the question is in the negative.

    TOULON MAGAZINE EXPLOSION.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether our Ambassador at Paris can be requested to ascertain and report as to the recent disastrous explosion of the magazine at Toulon; the causes of the said explosion; the nature of the high explosives stored there; the amount or weight of contents of magazine; the distance of magazine from the dockyard; and the number of lives lost and houses destroyed, the area of destruction, and the amount of damage done in or to the dockyard and town; and whether the French authorities contemplate re-erecting the magazine on the old site, or whether it is to be removed to a greater distance from the town and dockyard, together with any other information tending to elucidate the mystery of the explosion, for our better information and guidance in the construction and position of magazines in this country.
    MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of obtaining full information as to the cause of such an explosion as occurred at Toulon. A report has been obtained, but any information of this character relating to foreign arsenals is necessarily regarded as confidential.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to look at it?
    No answer was given.

    PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS-SAMOA—ALASKA BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state when papers dealing with recent events in Samoa will be presented to Parliament; and whether it is intended to place any papers upon the table of the House before the end of the Session relating to the disputes between the United States and Canada over the Alaska boundary question and other matters of contention between the two countries.
    MR. BRODRICK: No papers with regard to Samoa can be presented until
    1542
    the full Report of the Commission has been received. It is believed that the Commission will shortly leave Samoa. With regard to the second paragraph of the question the negotiations on the Alaska Boundary question are still in progress, and it would not therefore be practicable to lay any papers on the subject before the House at the present time.

    THE RAMSGATE HARBOUR MASTERSHIP.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will postpone for a short time the question of filling up the vacancy caused by the death of Captain Jones, the harbour master at Ramsgate, so as to afford an opportunity of proposals being submitted to the Board of Trade for dealing with the whole question of the future arrangements of Ramsgate harbour.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Whatever may be the future in store for Ramsgate harbour, a harbour master will be necessary, and as it is very undesirable that this post should remain vacant for any lengthened period I propose to make the appointment without delay.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Has my right hon. friend considered as an alternative the desirability of making an interim arrangement for the duties of the post to be carried out, pending the settlement of the whole question as to the future?
    MR. RITCHIE: I feel bound to get the best man I can, and I do not think it desirable to delay filling the office.

    BOY SAILORS FOR THE NAVY AND MERCANTILE MARINE.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the scheme with regard to boy sailors, introduced by him into the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act of last year, appears likely to prove a failure; and, if so, whether, having regard to the admitted importance of the subject, he intends to propose any modification of the scheme.
    MR. RITCHIE: As the scheme to which the right hon. Baronet refers only

    1543
    came into operation on the 1st April, I think it would be premature to say definitely whether it is likely to prove a success or a failure. I am not prepared to propose any modification of it.

    SCHOOL REGISTERS IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has considered the difficulties which will be imposed on teachers in keeping the register of the school in conformity with the requirements of Article 19, B 1, of the new code, which necessitates a constant watch for all children passing their seventh and tenth birthdays; and whether he could substitute one average grant for all children up to ten years old, instead of the two grants of 18s. and 20s. for children of seven years and ten years respectively.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The new code very greatly lessens the complication of the returns required, and it is not considered by the Department that the condition referred to imposes any undue burden on the teachers. The alternative suggested would cause financial difficulty, and is inexpedient from an educational point of view.

    MINOR LIGHTHOUSES AND BRIDGES IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that it is stated in a memorandum by the Under Secretary for Scotland, on page 6 of the Congested Districts Board Report, that fresh legislation seems to be required to secure the maintenance of minor lighthouses and bridges unfit for cart traffic, will he state whether any arrangements have yet been made by which these minor lighthouses and bridges may be prevented from falling into decay; and, if not, will he state what action it is proposed to take in the matter.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland has nothing to add to the reply given by me to the hon. Member a week ago.
    MR. WEIR: Am I to understand that nothing is to be done?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: If the hon. Member would further, instead of
    1544
    opposing, the Congested Districts Board Bill, something might be done.

    PORTMAHOMACK HARBOUR.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the construction of a light railway between Fearn and Portmahomack, for which he granted a certificate some time back, is in great measure dependent on Portmahomack Harbour being so improved as to be available for moderate-sized boats at all states of the tide; and will he take this point into consideration with a view to approaching the Treasury for a grant in aid of the improvement of the harbour.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have already informed the hon. Member as to the conditions under which the Secretary for Scotland would be disposed to recommend a grant to Treasury, in respect of Portmahomack Harbour.

    PEDDIESTON SCHOOL WATER SUPPLY.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that, on the 27th of June last, it was stated that the material required for completing the contract for conducting water to the Peddieston Public School and the farm towns of Ardivall and Muirton (Black Isle) was expected by the local authority to be received during the week, will he state whether progress is now being made with the work, and when it is expected to be complete.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes, Sir, progress is being made, but I am not prepared to fix an exact day and say that the work will be completed on that day.

    STORNOWAY PRISON.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the protest of the Ross and Cromarty County Council against the proposal to discontinue Stornoway Prison, and convert it into licensed police cells, has been under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland for some time, will he state when a decision of the subject may be expected; and, if a decision has already been arrived at, will he state its nature.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland has already informed the County Council of Ross and Cromarty that, after full consideration, he has decided for the present not to close Stornoway Prison.

    POOR RELIEF IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether, in view of the petitions which have been presented to the House of Commons in favour of the repeal of the 37th section of the Poor Law Act for the relief of the poor in Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of introducing legislation on the subject early next session.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland has no information as to petitions which are presented to the House of Commons, and in any case he is not prepared to come under an obligation about legislation for next session at the present time.

    DEER FOREST RETURN.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state when the Deer Forest Return, which was granted on 14th March last, will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Return will be laid on the Table of the House in the course of a few days.

    GOATS AND TUBERCULOSIS.
    MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has observed, from the memorandum included in the Report of the Delegates of Her Majesty's Government on the International Congress on Tuberculosis, that goats are stated to be refractory to tuberculosis infection; whether he is aware that, owing to difficulties connected with the supply of milk by farmers, the rural poor are in the main dependent upon goats for their milk I supply; and whether he is disposed to recognise the importance of the production and use of goats' milk in the arrangements and regulations of the Board of Agriculture.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I have seen the memorandum to which my hon. friend refers, and although I could not associate myself with so strong a statement of the position in regard to the supply of goat's milk as that contained in the second paragraph of his question, I shall always be happy to do anything in my power to promote its production, consistently with my statutory obligations under the Diseases of Animals Acts.

    THE MENTAL CONDITION OF CONVICTS.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what manner medical evidence as to the sanity or insanity of a convict is taken by the Crown; is there a printed form of questions to be answered; and, if so, will he lay a copy of the form upon the Table of the House; whether the medical opinion sought is confined to inquiry as to the state of mind and responsibility of the convict at the date of the criminal act; and whether a statement of the ascertained family history of a convict suspected of inherited insanity is included in the evidence on which medical opinion is required.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The discretion of the medical men, whose opinion is obtained by me from time to time with regard to the mental condition of convicts is not restricted in any way by a form of questions. In the case of inquiry into the mental condition of a convict under sentence of death I proceed in accordance with Section 2 of the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1884, which says that the doctors when appointed "shall forthwith examine such prisoner and inquire as to his insanity," and shall then report in writing to me. It is obvious that any medical man in forming an opinion on a question of this kind must take into consideration a convict's family history, and all available evidence on this point is always placed before the medical men charged with the inquiry. They are expected to report on all the aspects of the case, including the past mental history of the convict as well as his state of mind when the crime was committed and at the trial.

    COTTAGE HOMES SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board why the evidence given before the Cottage Homes Select Committee has not yet been published, and when it will be published.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I hope it will be ssued within the next few days.

    EDINBURGH CASTLE.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has yet been able to make arrangements under which Edinburgh Castle will be kept open for inspection by the public on Saturday afternoon until a later hour than at present.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Yes, Sir. The new arrangement is now in force, and will be tried experimentally during the summer both at Edinburgh Castle and at Holyrood Palace.

    VOLUNTEERS IN THE POSTAL SERVICE.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if, in view of his promise on 11th August last, he has looked into the matter of Volunteers employed on what is known as the minor establishment of the Post Office; and if he is now prepared to allow them the same privilege as is accorded to the employees on what is known as the major establishment of attending the camp at Aldershot without being the losers either monetarily or in time deducted from vacation.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): I have made further inquiry into this matter, and I find that every facility consistent with the interests of the public service is given to all grades of Post Office employees to attend annual camps of exercise; and in a large number of cases the men are enabled to attend without expense to themselves. I think that the existing arrangements are sufficiently liberal, and that it would not be justifiable to increase the charge which now falls on
    1548
    public funds. I do not consider that the practice—if it exists—of allowing special leave to officers of the upper ranks of the service for the purpose of attending camp should be continued. Such absence should count as part of the officer's ordinary vacation.

    ILKESTON POSTMEN'S GRIEVANCES.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the. Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if any decision has yet been come to on the memorial, dated March last, of six Ilkeston postmen asking for payment of a 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. collection duty, which they do in rotation and for which they have received no remuneration for six years.
    MR. HANBURY: It appears on inquiry that the application referred to was made to the local postmaster in April last, and the postmen were then informed by him that the arrangements at Ilkeston were under revision, and that their complaint would receive attention. It has not yet been practicable to complete the revision; but the duties of the postmen in question are now being tested, and should it appear that there has been any-deficiency in the past payments for Sunday duty, care will be taken that the postmen receive the amounts properly due to them for the work.

    NORWICH POSTMEN'S STRIPES.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he can explain the reason for the delay which prevails in the matter of awarding stripes earned by Norwich postmen; whether he is aware that thirty Norwich men are awaiting stripes, some of them for a period of two years; and whether he will consent to reconsider the case of two men (Woodhouse and Saunders) whose colleagues feel that stripes due to them have been harshly withheld for offences of a very trivial character.
    MR. HANBURY: My attention has been called to the case of these postmen by my two hon. friends the Members for Norwich. As I have already explained to them, considerable delay has occurred in dealing with the cases of the postmen referred to in the first part of the question owing to difficulties in verifying the men's auxiliary or unestablished service

    1549
    and to pressure of work in the Surveyor's Office. It is expected that they will be completed in a very short time, and such good conduct stripes as may be awarded will, of course, date back to the time when the men become eligible to receive them. As regards Postmen Woodhouse and Saunders their good conduct stripes have been awarded strictly in accordance with the rules, and there is nothing to take the cases out of the ordinary course. Five consecutive years' unblemished service is necessary to obtain a good conduct stripe, and Woodhouse received one its from 1st April, 1897. Saunders' stripe dates from 12th December, 1896; and in neither case can another stripe be gained till five years from those dates. Neither of these men was eligible to receive a stripe before the date on which the award was made.

    THE KINGSTOWN NEWSMAN.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Davy Stephens, of Kingstown; and, if anything can be done to remedy his grievances.
    MR. HANBURY: Davy Stephens was the only vendor of newspapers, etc., admitted on the Carlisle Pier and mail boats for many years. In May last application was made to the Board of Works by the firm of Messrs. Eason for permission to admit one of their employees to the Mail Packet Pier, Kingstown, to sell newspapers, etc. The Board communicated with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, whose passengers are mainly concerned, and as it was shown that the increased traffic on the mail steamers called for increased facilities, they gave—in agreement with the company—the permission sought for by Messrs. Eason, but otherwise made no change as regards Stephens. The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company accorded permission to Messrs. Eason to sell newspapers, etc., on their steamers, but Stephens has not been excluded from the steamers.
    SIR THOMAS. ESMONDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if the Steam Packet Company will allow Stephens to retain his old position on the gangway of the boats?
    MR HANBURY: I think the only difference is that he had a monopoly before; now he has a competitor.
    MR. DAVITT: Is it not a fact that this picturesque personality has been in this position for the last fifty-two years? Is it not cruel to take it away from him now?
    MR. HANBURY: I believe he has been in the position a long time. I will see if anything more can be done.

    LETTERFRACK LETTER DELIVERIES.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that the morning delivery of letters in Letterfrack, County Galway, is almost invariably late, and that great inconvenience is caused thereby to the residents and tourists; whether he is aware that the local post office officials have notified to those now having their letters delivered on Sundays that in future such delivery will not be made; and if he will take steps to have the letters delivered on Sundays as heretofore.
    MR. HANBURY: Letterfrack is served by road from Galway, a distance of about fifty miles. During the last four weeks the mail car has reached Letterfrack late on fifteen occasions. The average time lost on the journey has been eleven minutes, due chiefly to heavy parcel mails. Every effort is made to maintain punctuality, and having regard to the difficulties of the service, very fair time is being kept. The Sunday delivery was temporarily discontinued under a misapprehension, and will be restored forth with.

    WARING STREET POST OFFICE, BELFAST.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why the clerks employed in the Waring Street Office, Belfast, are not afforded the privilege of rotation, as intimated in a recent reply, and will the Department consider the matter; and did the Department, before the employment of this place as an office, feel satisfied that the necessary sanitary arrangements had been provided.
    MR. HANBURY: The post office in Waring Street, Belfast, is a town sub-office, and until lately the post office duties were performed by assistants in the service of the sub-postmaster. Now there Are three women attached to the office who are established, but who are paid on a lower scale of wages than the head office staff, and consequently do not rotate with the head office staff. It is not usual to inspect the sanitary arrangements at a sub-office, and it is not likely that any such examination was made in 1887 when the Waring Street office was opened, but it is reported that at present sanitary arrangements in the office premises are quite satisfactory.

    AGRICULTURAL TEACHING IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a new and very difficult text-book on agriculture has been introduced into Irish national schools, and was made compulsory in October last year; whether he is aware that each class, beginning with the junior fifth, is required to know, in order to merit a pass in this subject, the special portions of the programme for the preceding classes in addition to its own; and, if such is the case, will he recommend the Commissioners of National Education to instruct their school inspectors not to insist at the results examination, particularly in Irish-speaking localities, for the next few years on a knowledge from any one class of the programme in agriculture for the preceding classes.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR: The new edition of the Agricultural Text-book contains substantially the same matter as the old edition. It is written in a simpler style, and is thus less difficult for children to learn. As a rule pupils are expected to be prepared for examination in the parts of a subject studied in previous years. A relaxation of this rule was allowed in the case of agriculture on the introduction of the new text-book, and this relaxation will be continued to the required extent as long as may be deemed necessary. As regards the third paragraph, the Commissioners do not consider it advisable to make a difference in the standard of examination in different localities.

    THE IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the requirements of the Irish National School programme in all subjects are as stringently exacted by some inspectors in Irish speaking localities where the pupils hardly ever hear English spoken outside the school-room, as they are in Dublin, Belfast, or other exclusively English - speaking districts; and whether he will recommend that a lower standard of answering be accepted for pass marks in Irish-speaking districts, particularly in such subjects as reading, composition, &c.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have referred this question to the Commissioners of National Education, who state they believe that every reasonable allowance is made by their inspectors for any local difficulties experienced by the pupils attending the National Schools in Irish-speaking districts. The commissioners also state that it is not practicable to lay down a second standard examination in the results programme, but that any difficulty as regards reading in the few remote localities where Irish is still largely spoken is met, as far as possible, by the regulation that an explanation may be accepted in Irish if the pupil is unable to give it in English.

    THE GRENADIER GUARDS.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether a decision has yet been come to as to the claim of the First Battalion Grenadier Guards for £300 for the loss of their canteen stores in the Nile last year.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): Yes, Sir, a decision has been come to to allow the sum of £341, the amount claimed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It may be for the convenience of the House if I state that I propose to take the Food

1553
and Drugs Bill as first Order on Monday. The Irish Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill will be taken second, the Telephones Bill third, and the Scotch Private Legislation Procedure Bill fourth. I understand that there is very little left to discuss in the Food and Drugs Bill, and that the Irish Agriculture Bill should not take long, and I hope to get to the Scotch Procedure Bill at a time which will enable me to fulfil my promise to an hon. Gentleman opposite that he shall have an opportunity of stating his views some time before twelve o'clock. On Tuesday I propose to take the Colonial Loans Bill first, the Naval Works Bill second, and the Committee stage of the Niger Bill third. It must be understood, however, that that programme is necessarily dependent upon the progress made on Monday. I propose to take the Colonial Vote on Friday next, because I understand that that is in accordance with the wish of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I hope the House will allow me to get certain non-contentious Votes first. It is extremely important that these Votes should be passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
With an Amendment.
BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, &c., BILL.
With Amendments.
Amendments to—
METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (BYE-LAWS) BILL [Lords].
GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS BELL [Lords].
SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [Lords].
Without Amendment.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered upon Monday next.
COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]
ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION.
Bill to amend the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts, ordered to be brought in by Lord Balcarres, Sir John Brunner, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Carson, and Sir John Stirling-Maxwell.
TRADE MARKS.
Bill to amend and consolidate the Law-relating to Trade Marks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Moulton, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Kearley and Mr. Provand.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL
"To amend the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill. 286.]
TRADE MARKS BILL.
"To amend and consolidate the Law relating to Trade Marks," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 287.]

SUPPLY [20TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
1. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,601,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900."
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: In rising to move the motion which stands in my name for the reduction of this Vote by £1,000, I must say I am impelled to take this course for two reasons; the first mechanical, and the second monetary. In regard to the first, I do not intend to traverse the ground I have gone over this last four or five years in respect of the

1555
machinery which is fitted on board Her Majesty's ships. It would weary the House to go too much into detail, and a purely mechanical discussion would be out of place in this Committee. But at the same time events which have occurred in the fleet during the last twelve months have shown that there must be something seriously wrong in the mechanical arrangements of our splendid vessels. When I read of the trial trips which have taken place, and of the mobilisation of the fleet now in operation, I see there are grave grounds for dread as to what would he the condition of our ships in war time. I find that two of our first-class cruisers, the "Europa" and the "Argonaut," which performed their trial trips in a highly satisfactory mariner, are now wounded ducks, and cannot keep up with the fleet. And when I turn to other vessels, I find the "Perseus," the "Pactolus," the "Pegasus," the "Niobe," and the "Pelorus," are all more or less in a very bad condition. The general complaint is simply this: that the boilers of these vessels are insufficient for the work required of them. I think that is pretty well proved by reports received from independent sources. This is a matter of national interest. Our ships ought to be the best in the world. We pay the best money, and we ought to have the best ships. But what do I find? We are brought face to face with a very serious state of affairs indeed. Let me give the House one illustration to show the peculiar condition in which our Admiralty places itself. Take the case of the Royal yacht. Here is a splendid vessel built, practically, to carry passengers. She is fitted with Belleville boilers. Mark this point. Had that vessel been fitted under the supervision of the Board of Trade instead of by a Government Department like the Admiralty, this yacht would not have been given a longer warranty for her boilers than three months. The Board of Trade was instituted to insure the safety of life and property in ships. Its engineers are the best in the country. The head Surveyor of the Board of Trade is a man who, I believe, has not his equal in practical experience in engineering. The engineers of the Board of Trade are first-class practice men with seagoing and shore experience. These are the men who control the Board of Trade, and, practically, the Mercantile Marine of this country in
1556
the boiler and engine department. The Admiralty engineers say that these boilers of this new yacht will last two commissions, yet the Board of Trade would not pass them for more than three months. Here is an anomaly to which I want to direct the attention of this House. We have two Government Departments differing as to what is the life of a boiler. I now come to the case of other ships fitted with the Belleville boilers. I sympathise with the First Lord of the Admiralty very much. He was left a legacy by the former government, and he is now endeavouring, by all the means in his power, to make a success of the work bequeathed to him. The fates, however, are against him. Take to-day's news of the fleet. We have here the report of the Admiral. What do I find in it? I find that the Admiral signalled "Too much smoke." Now, of all things the one most calculated to defeat the object of a fleet is that it should issue too much smoke, because it shows the enemy where you are and what you are doing. What do the engineers say about these boilers? The engineer of the "Europa" says he wishes he had no Belleville boilers at all. Take another phase of the question. The "Argonaut" and the "Furiouss" are only one-third of the size of the "Majestic," yet they consume more than double the quantity of coal.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): What are you quoting from?
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: From an article by a correspondent on board a warship in which he embodies information which he got from the engineer. It is a well-known fact that these boilers do consume double the quantity of coal that the boilers of an ordinary merchant ship would do. Again, they must always be fired with Welsh coal. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that, and I would like to know what these vessels are going to do when they are at a place at which they cannot get Welsh coal. The question conies to be very serious from this point of view. Then, again, we lave the condemnation of these boilers by the Board of Trade in a Report issued the other day under the Boilers Explosions Act. The Report of

1557
the head surveyor of the Board of Trade on this point is simply startling. He says the failure of the tubes of water-tube boilers is known to be of common occurrence, and that the bursting of a tube not only disables a boiler entirely until repairs are effected, but is a source of danger to human life. These boilers are condemned by men of all ranks, from the admiral down to the stoker. We want to have men on hoard our ships, men who will not only stand up before the enemy's guns, but who will stand in the stoke-hold and engine room and serve steadily while the vessel is under fire. I have letters from firemen and engine-room artificers complaining of the nervous dread they feel when they go into the stoke hold in case one of the tubes should burst. I have here a letter from a man on board the "Diadem," which I think, if I read it, would startle the House. He says they fear to open a furnace door. Why should all this occur when it could easily be avoided Without the necessity for all this danger we could still ensure that our ships should be the first and finest in the world. I do not believe that there is a marine-engine builder in this country who would not condemn the present system of hollering Her Majesty's ships. And, what is more, that system brings us face to face with fearful expense. Take, in fact, the case of the "Terrible" itself. She is being re-boilered at an expense of I do riot know how much. You are converting the dockyards into repairing shops for your ships, and I have here some figures showing the enormous cost you are incurring for minor repairs. On the "Benbow," practically a new ship, in 1895–96 there was spent £5,939, in 1896–97 £5,200, and in 1897–98 £10,028. On the "Empress of India" £10,146 had been spent, and on the "Magnificent" in 1895–96 £975, in 1896–97 £6,666, and in 1897–98 £10,233. Remember all these were "minor repairs." On the "Blake," a first-class cruiser, £1,180 was spent in 1895–96, £10,503 in 1896–97, and in 1897–98 £9,990. On the "Blenheim" in 1895–96 the repairs cost £6,280, in 1896–97 £5,953, and in 189798 £8,659. The "Powerful" in 189798 cost £6,900 and the "Terrible" £6,579. I am only trying to show the House how the money goes. We vote the money willingly, and we expect to have a strong and grand fleet. Now I come to the case of sonic of the torpedo boats which have been built lately.
MR. GOSCHEN: I want this to be made clear. The hon. Member is not merely referring to vessels fitted with water-tube boilers. The impression of my right hon. friend is that these ships are all fitted with water-tube boilers. I am afraid that some hon. Members do not quite understand the fact. That is not the case.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Some of them are, and the figures show something is wrong. Now, I find that in the case of the torpedo boat destroyers £778 was spent on the "Hardy" in 1896–7, and in the following year £2,000 for minor repairs. On the "Bruiser," in 1895–6 £600 was spent, and last year £2,000 odd; on the "Havoc," £1,501 in 1895–6, £1,361 in 1896–7, and £770 in 1897–8. In the same three years respectively the expenditure on the "Hornet" was £3,736, £2,122, and £983. Surely this list shows conclusively that you are converting your dockyards into nothing else but repair shops. Another point to be borne in mind is that you are making your engines of such light scantlings that they come back to your dockyards practically as wrecks. There is no single ship you have hollered lately that you can take the trial trip speed out of a week after it has completed its dockyard trials. You dare not steam all your boilers at once, nor can you go at full steam for any length of time. What is the use of having a ship purporting to do a certain number of knots per hour when you cannot get them out of her? Yet that is the condition to which you are reducing your Navy. Independent investigation is necessary. The country is beginning to see that a foolish policy was hastily determined upon without due experiment. No shipowner with business instincts would have adopted these boilers without giving them a more thorough trial. You are brought face to face with the fact that our ships are easily crippled, and I tell the House that the men engaged in the engine-rooms do not know from one moment to another when four or five of these tubes may burst. I say it is a shame that such a state of things should prevail. I therefore appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to accede to my modest request and take this matter into his own hands. Let him appoint an independent committee of experts to make an honest investigation as to the

1559
true condition of our ships move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,600,000, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. William Allan.)
MR. GOSCHEN: I think the best opening I can make to the few remarks it will be my duty to offer to the Committee in reply to the hon. Member will be to state the position of the water-tube boiler question, not only as regards this country, but as regards its adoption generally. The hon. Member continually raises this question, as if this country has entered upon some dangerous experiment without any opinion or experience to guide it, and in this way has adopted a policy which cannot command the approval of the people. I may tell the House that whatever this country may do in the matter of the water-tube boiler, that boiler as an engine of war has been adopted by the world at large; and we have to consider not only how we stand in the abstract, but how we should stand with reference to any possible enemies if we should go back from the water-tube to the cylindrical boiler. The water-tube boiler has been adopted by France, Italy, Russia, Holland, and Japan. Eight of the old French ships are to be reboilered with the water - tube boiler instead of the cylindrical boiler. The United States are also fitting the boiler in a number of their vessels. Would all these countries have so acted had there not been strong strategic military and naval reasons for the adoption of these boilers? I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that in the Mediterranean six first-class French ironclads are all fitted with these boilers. This country did not embark in the use of the water-tube boiler as early as France. In consequence the Minister of Marine was able to state to the Chamber of Deputies that the ships of the French Mediterranean squadron were faster than the English battleships there. That is a statement I am not prepared to deny. It may be that they have not got any real advantage, but on the whole possibly it is on their side. Supposing in this state of facts we had gone on rejecting the water-tube boilers, what would have been said of the British Admiralty and the way it was neglecting the naval
1560
interests of the country? This country-has been twice behindhand, once with the breechloading system, and again with armoured ships. My predecessors in office who had to deal with the question were not prepared to allow a state of things to continue under which the same state of things might have happened in regard to boilers as happened in regard to those other most important conditions affecting the Navy, and consequently they took the responsibility, and I believe the right responsibility, of introducing water-tube boilers. Half of the difficulties which have been pointed out by the hon. Member are due to this—that when you change your cylindrical boilers to water-tube boilers there must come a period during which the experience of the new boilers is not sufficiently great to avoid a number of small defects and small difficulties. But it has been proved over and over again that the longer a ship with water-tube boilers is in commission the more quickly all those difficulties vanish, and the vessel, without any trouble whatever, runs at a greater speed than any British warship has ever done before. The "Powerful," which has been denounced by the hon. Member, has been two years in commission, and we never hear now of any defects or any difficulties; on the contrary, we hear of runs which she has made superior in speed to any which have been accomplished by any cruisers with cylindrical boilers or any other men-of-war.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: What was the length of the runs?
MR. GOSCHEN: There was one successful run of the ordinary kind a man-of-war has to perform—from Hongkong to Manila—and there was another from Wei-hai-wei. There was one run of 24 hours at which the speed was 20 knots the whole time, making 480 knots in the 24 hours. When hon. Members compare these performances with those of mercantile ships they ought to remember that mercantile ships are constructed for totally different objects—for long voyages at the same continuous speed, whereas the chief duty of our men-of-war will not be to cross the Atlantic at the highest possible speed. What they have to do is to keep in touch with the enemy and overhaul it if possible. Therefore,

1561
what they require is not long continuous steaming, but the power of very rapid steaming for a certain number of hours, and during periods when naval operations and tactics would take place. Now the "Terrible," for instance, has made runs to Gibraltar faster than any ship of her size has ever done. The hon. Member fixes his mind upon two or three ships early in their commissions, but such ships as the "Niobe," "Diadem," and "Argonaut" have been attached to the Channel Squadron, and they have been doing the same work as the other ships of the squadron. A number of ships with water-tube boilers have been sent to foreign stations, and there is no reason to believe that they are not performing the functions required of them. But one thing I frankly and freely acknowledge, and that is that ships with water-tube boilers require more careful and disciplined stoking than vessels with cylindrical boilers, and therefore, it is frequently not at the commencement of the commission that they can be expected to show their best features. Indeed, they often show defects which are quickly remedied when once the ship has settled down to work. The hon. Member has alluded to two ships in the maœeuvres. Now, I wish to say with regard to all those ships that the Admiralty has put them to much severer trials than any ships previously have been put to. The former shorter trials have been lengthened into sixty hours' trials, and the "Terrible" has already steamed 20,000 miles. She performed the sixty hours' trial with perfect success. The two ships mentioned, the "Europa" and the "Argonaut," have only been a few days in commission. There are crews in them the majority of whom have had no experience of Belleville boilers at all. That in itself is a severe test, and we have every confidence that the slight difficulties which have occurred will be successfully surmounted. There has been some leakage in connection with the boilers, and so far as I know, the same experience happens in vessels with cylindrical boilers at the beginning of the ship's commission. There is nothing whatever to alarm the country in what has taken place. With regard to the torpedo-destroyers, if we want to have them of 30-knot speed, they must be equipped with machinery so light that defects will occasionally be exposed.
1562
Accordingly, in calculating the number of torpedo-destroyers allowance must be made for a certain number having to go into dock. But as we get more experience those defects vanish, and from the fact that other Powers are following us in building this particular class of ship, the Admiralty believe that we have in those torpedo-destroyers a very valuable fighting machine. The hon. Member spoke of the defects of the "Terrible." I believe there are some 7,600 tubes in the "Terrible," yet, during her two years' commission, I think only about 250 have had to be renewed.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Why, then, was she so long under repair?
MR. GOSCHEN: Other tubes had to be cleaned. The hon. Member probably knows that rust gets into the tubes, and it was in connection with this rust that a deplorable accident took place recently. This has taken some time, and there were some matters connected with the auxiliary machinery to which attention was being paid, and in which improvements were possible. As to the question of coal consumption, it must be borne in mind that in new ships there is a good deal of auxiliary machinery for which coal has to be provided, and which is not to be found in the old ships. There is the apparatus for electric lighting, and for condensing purposes, for instance. With reference to what the hon. Gentleman said about the stokers, I am not prepared to accept the view that British stokers are more nervous than the stokers of other countries, who have for some time past successfully kept these ships at sea. It is absolutely necessary to introduce these boilers, and it will be necessary to maintain them for the reasons I have recently explained. Water-tube boilers can get up steam almost at once, while cylindrical boilers cannot, and that is one of the strategic reasons which have influenced this country in adopting them. But we must pass through a period of transition. Stokers require to be trained in the use of these boilers, and until they are trained perfection cannot be expected.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The hon. Member for Gateshead has attacked

1563
the Belleville boiler as if it had no redeeming feature. The water-tube boiler was a novelty introduced into the Navy by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the recommendation of a Committee. That Committee recommended that one ship should be fitted with water-tube boilers, but instead of only fitting one ship several were fitted, and the succeeding administration brought this novel type of boiler into the Navy wholesale, and new ships are not now fitted with any other type. The question of importance is what is the reasonable expectation of the endurance of these boilers at sea. It is true they have the advantage of getting up steam very quickly, but can they he relied on? The Admiralty have been challenged for years to send a vessel fitted with these boilers on a long ocean trip. The "Terrible" was sent on a trip, but the record was not such as to show that the boilers were capable of long endurance at sea.
MR. GOSCHEN: There was nothing wrong with the boilers.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; there was nothing wrong with the boilers, but were they proved to be effective? The engines broke down and it was impossible to test the boilers to their full power, and although there was nothing wrong with them there was nothing to prove that they were capable of prolonged endurance at sea.
MR. GOSCHEN: There were two sixty-hour trials. In the first there was a speed of 19½, knots, and in the second 20·7 knots for over 1,200 miles. My hon. friend will surely admit that that is a good performance.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: That is a most encouraging performance, and I am exceedingly glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given us the figures, because I understood from him that the best result he could look forward to was speed of 20 knots for twenty-four hours, and I am delighted to learn that such an important ship as the "Terrible" can steam 20·7 knots for sixty hours. May I suggest that there is still
1564
something the Admiralty might do? The right hon. Gentleman expressed a few moments ago the hope that hon. Members would show more respect for the technical opinion of the Engineer-in-Chief to the Navy than the hon. Gentleman opposite had shown. I give the fullest deference to the skill, experience, and knowledge of the Engineer-in-Chief, but I think he would be well advised, after the very satisfactory and encouraging experiment with the "Terrible," if he went further, and advised the Admiralty to order a very much longer trial at full speed. In my opinion, this is the most vital question connected with the steam branch of naval machinery at the present time, because unless we can depend absolutely on the endurance of the boilers in our ships, all our preparations with regard to armour and the training of men will be quite futile. There are no other means of making our ships live engines of war, and we should thoroughly test any doubt which may exist regarding the sufficiency and enduring quality of our boilers. While congratulating the Admiralty on the excellent results they have obtained on this question of endurance, I must say they have yet some distance to travel, and I hope that when the subject is discussed next session the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that perhaps half a dozen of our powerful cruisers fitted with water-tube boilers have been tested from port to port across the ocean at high speed. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what has been already achieved.
SIR U. KAY - SHUTTLEWORTH: A debate on this, subject is necessarily of a technical character, and I feel some diffidence in interfering in such a technical subject. But as reference has been made to the Board of Admiralty to which I and my hon. friend belonged, and which did take the grave responsibility of introducing water-tube boilers into Her Majesty's. Navy, I may state that the credit belongs to the technical advisers of the Board of Admiralty for the new departure. I hope the time will never come when Members of the House of Commons in debating a subject of this kind will discourage the officers and officials of the Admiralty from such courageous action as that displayed by the Engineer-in-

1565
Chief in taking the great responsibility of urging the adoption of a new invention like the water-tube boiler in Her Majesty's Navy. As we have been reminded by the First Lord, we have dropped behind in this country on more than one occasion, owing to our reluctance to undertake the introduction of new inventions at a sufficiently early moment. I hope the House of Commons will shrink from taking any attitude which would check the scientific advisers of the Board of Admiralty or the War Office in their readiness to advise that new scientific instruments should be tested.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Why did the right hon. Gentleman go against the recommendations of his own Boiler Committee?
SIR U. KAY-SHLTTTLEWORTH: It is not correct to say that the Board of Admiralty went against the recommendations of the Boiler Committee. We acted in accordance with those recommendations, but we went further, and we carried them forward at a very much bolder pace. What were the circumstances? In the French navy all ships to be constructed, with the exception of one cruiser, were to be fitted with water-tube boilers. That was a very important fact, because the French hail had greater experience in this particular invention than we had, and they had decided to fit all their new vessels, except one, with these boilers. We had the experience of the Messageries Maritimes, and we had the advantage of the views of an engineer who had made a long voyage in one of the ships in that company, and observed the working of the water-tube boilers. We had the clear advice of Sir John Durston. The present Board of Admiralty has gone forward more rapidly than the late Board of Admiralty in regard to these water-tube boilers, because they have decided to put them into battleships. The adoption of water-tube boilers by all the maritime nations of the world has encouraged the Admiralty to adopt them. I hope the Committee of the House of Commons will at no time make the mistake of putting a brake on a public Department when they are inclined to act boldly, and to adopt a new invention.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: It is not a new invention at all, it is only a new application.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I will not quarrel with my hon. friend about whether it is a new invention, or a new application; my argument remains good. If an advantage is to be obtained by the adoption of a new system or from a new advance in science, my hon. friend and others ought not to discourage the Department from giving the country the advantages of these.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: There are none.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Is it not a great advantage that steam can be raised from cold water in one hour instead of six to twelve hours?
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: No.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: What is the consequence of that upon the coal endurance of our ships? A ship, for instance, is in harbour, and she receives a signal to proceed to sea to meet an enemy. Is it not a great advantage that she can go out of harbour in one hour instead of six? There is another advantage in the engines stopping at full speed, and there is also greater control over steam pressure. Then, in action, if damage is done to the boilers, there is much less danger to the stokers, than in the ease of cylinder boilers. I might go on pointing out other advantages, but I will confine myself to two other great advantages. In anchoring a ship, or entering harbour, she can be cleaned out in three hours, and be ready for service again. Then, if it is desired to repair or renew a cylinder, it is not necessary to wreck a large part of the ship almost, as was the case with cylinder boilers. It is a comparatively small matter in regard to water-tube boilers. I need not detain the Committee any longer. I cannot congratulate my hon. friend on having built up any argument against the adoption of the water-tube boilers by the Board of Admiralty, and by the other Boards of Admiralty in the world. We are face to face with the fact that after

1567
full inquiry the Marine Department of the United States Government have decided to introduce water-tube boilers in all the ships they are now building, or are going to be built. We must have the very best ships and the very best boilers in those ships, and I am sure the House of Commons will not be content that this country should remain behind in that respect.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to withdraw my motion for the reduction of the Vote by £1000.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
Original question again proposed.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: The hon. Member for Gateshead is no doubt supported by a considerable number of people in the country, who are in a state of some anxiety about these water-tube boilers. And no wonder, when they know that these boilers alone represent two or three millions sterling, and when ships to the value of fifteen or twenty millions sterling are entirely dependent on these boilers. Now, as a naval officer, I have the most complete faith in these boilers. Not many years ago I was Captain of the Dockyard Reserve, and had seventeen torpedo catchers fitted with these boilers under my charge, and not one of them broke down.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I never spoke about torpedo catchers. What I objected to was fitting cruisers and battleships with these boilers.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: It is the same principle whether you have the water-tube boilers in torpedo catchers or in battleships. You get nervous men in every class. I have even seen nervous men in this House. I have no doubt that when you are driving a 230-ton boat, with 6,000 horse-power, 3001bs. pressure of steam, and at 3,000 revolutions, it is enough to upset any man. We have always got to remember what the other people are about. There are nervous men in other navies. We do not want to treat men-of-war as you do merchant steamers. What we want is to get a full head of steam on the shortest possible notice, and that can be done with the water-tube boilers much better and quicker than with the cylindrical boilers. The point I want to press is that it is a very bad
1568
thing for this country if any class in the community has any doubts as to these boilers, for it affects the efficiency of the fleet. It is no use sending one ship across the Atlantic. If she broke down it would be said that our whole fleet would break down. What I propose is this: that my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty should send across the Atlantic a squadron of six or eight ships. That would be a proper test of the water-tube boilers, arid it would relieve the public mind very much.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Hear, hear!
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: My hon. friend referred to accidents. I have been in the service forty years, and during that time one hundred men were killed on board ship through accidents; but during the time that we have had these most difficult and intricate machines, we have only lost one man by boiler accident. These water-tube boilers are a new experiment, and I believe that when the men are properly taught to use them they will be found satisfactory. We cannot allow other nations to adopt these boilers, and our ships to remain without them. I took particular trouble when I was in America recently to consult many of the naval engineers in the American fleet, and I found they were unanimous in favour of the water-tube boilers. The hon. Member spoke about coal consumption. No doubt when we began to use these boilers the consumption of coal was very much larger. It was 2·3 tons per hour; we have now brought it down to 1.5. The first Lord of the Admiralty mentioned that in a man-of-war they would get 126 auxiliary engines. Some captains are cleverer than others in saving steam. Another-point which the hon. Member brought forward in regard to minor defects is, I think, very important in these days. Of course we have enormously increased the mechanical power, by engines, pipes, tubes, and so on, of our man-of-war, so as to make them additionally efficient ships. But we have not been able to increase the number of artificers and engineers in our ships. The consequence is that repairs of defects and maintenance, which ought to be conducted on the ship, have now to be done in the dockyard. The result is that the nation really pays a great deal more

1569
than it ought to pay for repairs and maintenance. I know that the Admiralty have great difficulties, and I am not finding fault with them. I daresay my right hon. friend will agree with me that the bill for repairs and maintenance is increasing enormously every year because the ships' crews do not undertake that which they would and could do if they had the proper number of mechanics on board. I hope that my hon. friend will see his way to the necessity of sending such a squadron as I have suggested across the Atlantic, because I believe it will settle this question of boilers, and reassure the nation as to the efficiency of our fighting ships.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: There has been a slight confusion in this Debate, both in the attack and in the defence. The hon. Member for Gateshead is here to attack water-tube boilers in general, and the Belleville system in particular. The great weight of authority has been in favour of an improved system of boilers, such as all the Foreign Powers have adopted. When the First Lord of the Admiralty answered my hon. friend, he spoke as if all the Foreign Powers had followed our example. Now, what I want to ask is this: Are not the newest ships, with the exception of those of Japan, which are being built by Foreign Powers, being provided with a new English type of boilers, as contrasted with the particular Belleville boilers which we arc using in this country? I have seen reports by American and Russian Commissions on this point, and they throw a particular doubt on the particular type of boilers we are using.
MR. PENN: I think it is pretty well recognised that the water-tube boiler has conic to stay. The only question is as to what is the best form of water-tube boiler. The two points to be considered are: the endurance of the boiler, and the consumption of coal. So far as we can make out, Sir J. Durston said that the Belleville boiler would last two commissions; but that the life of the small tube boiler was very much shorter. If that be the case, it seems to me that the Belleville boiler has a distinct advantage over the small tube boiler. Only the other day I attended the trial of a cruiser, with 7,000 horse-
1570
power, and small tube boilers. I asked the engineer his opinion, and
he said he would go anywhere with the ship. He sent me a note afterwards to say that the "Pactolus" had arrived from Arosa Bay to the Nore, 857 miles, and had done it in thirty-two hours, and that the vessel was perfectly ready to go anywhere. I am perfectly certain that the experience gained would be of very great value. I do not think the water-tube boiler is the extremely tricky and dangerous thing it is frequently made out to be. I am glad to know that the Admiralty have decided that the third-class cruisers, fitted as they are with various types of boiler, are to have a rough-and-tumble trial like the rest of the service; and I am perfectly certain that the experience gained by this experiment will be of the utmost possible value. I am strongly of opinion—I may be wrong, or too hopeful—that we shall come in the future to some combination boiler which will prove effective. I had an interesting conversation the other day with the hon. Member for West Hull, who has not been a friend of the Belleville boiler. He told me he had put into seven or eight of his ships a boiler which was a combination of the water-tube boiler and Babcock and Wilcox boiler; and that he was contemplating putting this form of boiler in his largest American ships. This shows that this boiler is of considerable endurance, and I hope that the trials will be carefully watched. Take a 7,000 horse-power cruiser: the old cylindrical boilers would weigh 400 tons, but the small tube boilers would only weigh 188 tons. The difference is enormous. But if you get a combination such as I suggest, we would have the endurance of the old boiler, and the strategical advantage of the light weight of the water-tube boiler. It would be an interesting experiment if two vessels of exactly the same size and power were sent on a cruise together. They would be subject to the same conditions, and have the same work to do. When they came back we would be able to see what the endurance of the boilers and engines was, what the coal consumption was, and what the general condition of the ship was. These matters would be reported upon, and light would be thrown on these questions. But whatever may happen, I am perfectly certain that a water-tube boiler of some type must be adopted in the service; and I only hope

1571
that the advisers of the Admiralty will select the best type, and that it will come triumphantly out of the ordeal through which it is now passing.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not think the Committee is prepared to extend this discussion. The noble Lord the Member for York made the observation a few minutes ago that it is most important that no encouragement should be given to the nervous fears which, it is said, exist in regard to these water-tube boilers. I hope that will be taken to heart by some of those who have used language calculated to excite nervous fears. My hon. friend the Member for Gateshead has withdrawn his motion, and I am not surprised that he did so. He has made these attacks on the Belleville boiler for five sessions, and I should have expected that by this time additional information had come into his possession. The right hon. Gentleman frankly admits that if any new facts had been brought forward showing the danger or unsuitableness of these boilers, the subject might have been referred to a Select Committee or Commission. No information, however, has been laid before the House this evening in addition to what has been before the House during the last five years. I hold in my hand a copy of a pamphlet in regard to this matter. Let me quote a single sentence from that pamphlet, for it undoubtedly tends to increase that feeling of nervousness to which the noble Lord alluded. It condemns the action of the Admiralty in spending so much of our money upon a French system, which it describes as highly unpatriotic and liable to sudden disaster. I ask the Committee whether anything which has been laid before us to-night in the smallest degree justifies the statement made in that pamphlet. There are only two points of detail upon which I should like to put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty. The First Lord has given a perfectly correct account of the reasons which induce the Admiralty to adopt this innovation on a large scale. We always understood that we were not to be committed to the Belleville or any other type of boilers, and the question I desire to put is whether any other type has been considered by the Admiralty. There is one point made by the hon. Member for Gateshead which appears to me to deserve some attention, and possibly the First
1572
Lord may be able to give an explanation. My hon. friend says that the official surveyor of the Board of Trade thinks so little of the water-tube boilers that when he finds them in the mercantile marine he refuses to give the ships containing them a longer life than three months. From that I take it that the ship must come into dock again at the end of three months, and this is because he has no confidence in water-tube boilers. These facts have been stated and have not been noticed, and I think a fact of that sort is one that might arouse a suspicion which ought to be dispelled. I hope the representative of the Admiralty will be able to say whether the facts alleged are correct or not, and if so, what is the reason why this divergence of opinion exists upon a matter so essentially important to the well-being and safety alike of the mercantile marine and of the Royal Navy.
MR. DAVID MACIVER: I do not think it is possible for the First Lord of the Admiralty or anybody else to name a single instance of a British-owned trading steamer fitted with the Belleville boilers which has been a success. The conditions of cross-Channel service approximate to some of the Admiralty requirements, but none of the vessels engaged in those services are fitted with-water-tube boilers. I cannot help thinking also that the experience of such people as the managers of the White Star Line, or of our other great shipping companies, might prove to be just as valuable as that of the Messageries Maritimes. It was quite a new departure for the Admiralty to go to France for mercantile experience. But while I have been speaking in favour of cylindrical boilers for all ordinary purposes, that is quite a different story from what was put forward by the First Lord of the Admiralty in reply to the noble Lord behind me, as to the special circumstances under which the fighting ships of Her Majesty's Navy may have to work. It is really and truly the fact that with the common types of cylindrical boilers in the mercantile service to treat them fairly you must not raise steam too rapidly. I think every member of the Committee, whether in favour or averse to water-tube boilers for ordinary use, will agree with the First Lord of the Admiralty that the conditions under which Her Majesty's fighting ships

1573
may have to work, go far as regards such vessels to justify putting in water-tube boilers, which possess special advantages for getting up steam quickly. Possessing as I do some experience in this matter, I feel warranted in saying that I think the Admiralty go too far in adopting water-tube boilers for all purposes, although I do not think there is any reasonable ground for the country being alarmed at what we are doing in this respect, as regards our fighting ships, because other nations are doing the same.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I go a little beyond what has been said upon this subject, for I think there is much more blame on the side of the Admiralty than on the side of the hon. Member for Gateshead. I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has a little under-appreciated the extent to which these Belleville boilers are being used in the mercantile marine. The hon. Member for Hull uses the water-tube boilers—though not of the Belleville type—to a large extent on his vessels; and they are also in use on the service between Newhaven and Dieppe, where they have been used very successfully. I think our experience is in favour of water-tube boilers—I do not say of Belleville boilers in particular, because I think there are probably better types of water-tube boilers than the Belleville. I think the Government have also shown that they are of this opinion, because the Admiralty are now trying six or eight different kinds of water-tube boilers. That fact, I think, shows that upon this subject at any rate Her Majesty's Government have an accessible mind in regard to the various kinds of water-tube boilers. Upon this point even the President of the Board of Trade seems to have given way to the Admiralty in reference to water-tube boilers. The business of the First Lord of the Admiralty is to get a good thing and work it; but the business of the President of the Board of Trade seems to be to get a good thing and say it is bad, and his object seems to be to fix the absolutely irreducible minimum of possible existence. With regard to coal consumption, that is a point upon which I am not thoroughly satisfied. I heard my noble friend say that it was possible to manipulate these returns so as to show a smaller consumption.
1574
Then there is another point, and that is as to the very great increase—which I believe is undoubted—of smoke production with the water-tube boiler. That is very serious, because it indicates incomplete combustion of fuel. I should very much like the First Lord to be able to reassure us about that matter, because it is very serious on two grounds. It is serious, in the first place, that it should be possible for men-of-war to he followed about and seen by a column of smoke along the horizon, and it is serious in the second place from the point of view of the consumption of coal, because the greater amount of smoke suggests a large increase in the consumption of coal. One point has not bear mentioned which ought to be taken into account in considering the merits of the water-tube boiler. I believe that without the water-tube boiler it would have been impossible to increase the speed of the torpedo boat destroyer from 25 to 30 knots. I do not think we should pay the slightest attention to the prejudiced opinion of the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers as to the durability of these boilers. I think there is force in the suggestion which has been made by my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Penn), viz: that certain of these boilers might be used in combination, and I would join in urging upon the right hon. Gentleman the very great desirability of making a far more extended trial of these boilers than has yet been made.
MR. GOSCHEN: With reference to the remark of my hon. friend behind me (Mr. MacIver) that the Admiralty have gone to France for mercantile experience, I beg to say that that is not the ease. What happened was this. The French navy introduced Belleville boilers, and are using them. We could not ask for a passage in a French man-of-war for an officer to study the working of the boilers, and so the Admiralty despatched one of their staff in order to study the working of the boiler on board one of the Messageries steamers. With reference to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Edmund Robertson), we are trying various kinds of boilers, especially the small water-tube boilers. In an article in the Morning Post it was stated that the Yarrow boilers are being imported into Russia. We have no information to that

1575
effect. On the contrary, our information is that all the Russian ships now being built are to have Belleville boilers, except one, which is to have Nicklausse boilers. With regard to the small-tube boilers, it is absolutely necessary to be satisfied that the life of boilers of that class would be long enough for use in a large ship before they are adopted. It would, again, be unwise to sacrifice the homogeneity of a ship, as regards boilers, as it is of great advantage that a man should be able to go from one stokehold to another without finding that he has a different class of boiler to look after. The Admiralty are not in the least bound to the Belleville boiler, though we are anxious to see what advantages it possesses as compared with other boilers. The Department is al so watching with great care the comparative advantages of introducing the small water-tube boiler to a greater extent in the larger ships than has hitherto been the case. It has been suggested that there should be a squadron of ships fitted only with the water-tube boiler, and that there should be two ships of about the same dimensions where the test might be applied of one against the other. It is probable that in the course of time these events may happen, but supposing you were to run two ships in the way suggested, there would not he found anything in the cruise which would afford an opportunity to test the comparative advantages which each ship would have. The distinguishing characteristics would remain—namely, that the water-tube boiler would be able to get up speed quicker than the other, while the strategical advantages of the water-tube boiler would remain also. We are also bound to ascertain what disadvantages would be forthcoming, and these disadvantages might be such as to create an impression against the water-tube boiler. Still, its strategical advantages, for which, after all, the ships are built, are such as to need very strong evidence indeed to justify a new departure. Although the coal consumption is somewhat larger and the difficulties somewhat greater, nevertheless I think we ought to stand by the water-tube boiler. The non-adoption of the water-tube boiler by the mercantile marine Makes no impression on me. In the first place merchant ships do not require the strategical advantages which the water-tube boiler gives to the Navy; and with the cylindrical boiler there is no need
1576
for that extreme care and discipline in the stokehold which is one of the requirements of the water-tube boiler. The question of minor defects needs constant and careful watching, and, of course, the Admiralty are paying continuous attention to the subject.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The, right hon. Gentleman has not said anything as to the divergence in the views of the Board of Trade and the Admiralty on the question of safety.
MR. GOSCHEN: The Board of Trade look upon the matter from a totally different point of view. That Department, has not had the same experience generally as to the employment of water-tube boilers, and it is perfectly right, until further information is forthcoming, to take precautions as to safety.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have looked at the Act of Parliament which is the authority for the action of the Board of Trade, and I find they are authorised to give certificates for twelve months, and I am informed that they do give such certificates. The allegation made by the hon. Member for Gateshead was that the granting of the certificate for three months instead of twelve, on account of ships having water-tube boilers, was due to the fact that the Principal Surveyor of the Board of Trade disbelieved in the safety of this class of passenger ship. I am sorry we cannot clear up this matter any further, and I will therefore pass away from it. The other matter I wish to refer to is one that I raised two years ago, and which relates to the unfortunate dispute in the engineering trade which caused so much disturbance in the proceedings of the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty. Without going into details, I may say that early in the struggle I tried to get from the right hon. Gentleman a declaration of what his policy would be in respect of penalties provided for in the form of contract under what is called the strike clause. I wanted him to declare while the strike was still in progress, for the information of all parties, whether the word "strike" would include the "lock out" which was the cause of the disturbance. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my queries, and down to the beginning of this year I

1577
had really not been able to ascertain what the view of the Admiralty was—whether they regarded "lock out" as being in-eluded in "strike," or whether, as was once suggested, they had been advised hat it was illegal to exact penalties at all. I had to leave the matter there, but I do not think it was a satisfactory position in which to leave it. I believe I was right in my contention that a "lock out" was not included in the terms of the strike clause, and that the penalties were legally enforcible, and that the parties ought to have been told at the beginning what the policy of the Admiralty would be, because it had a very powerful and important bearing on the matter. The Committee of Public Accounts have had this matter recently before them, and I want to call the attention of the Committee to the language that they use. They refer to specific cases which I need not mention in detail, and say:
"The instalments paid to that date amounted to within £33,000 of the full contract price. The penalties already incurred to that date exceeded this issued balance of purchase money. The Admiralty propose to waive the penalties."
Then they go on to say:
"Your Committee felt themselves called upon last year to observe upon similar illustrations a administrative policy which appear to reduce the penalty clauses of contracts to little more than an empty form of words.'"
That is the declaration in two successive sessions of the Public Accounts Committee. They go on to say:
"Your Committee deem it prudent to withhold for the present any definitive judgment on the matter; but the question is so important (involving as it does not only considerable sums of public money, but also the relations of contractors to a spending Department) that it ought not to be lost sight of in the Reports upon future Appropriation Accounts of the Navy; and in the opinion of your Committee it is desirable that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should he in a position to report fully upon all penalties incurred by, and all penalties waived in favour of, the several contractors."
That is a very important deliverance on the part of the Public Accounts Committee, and I think I am entitled to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what line of policy he intends in future to pursue with reference to this question. On this hangs another small question. Some two years ago, shortly after the
1578
commencement of this trade dispute, and when attention had been called to the terms of the strike clause which appeared to exclude lock-outs, the Admiralty set about re-drafting the common form of contract. More than a year and a half ago I asked the Secretary for the Admiralty if he would let me have a copy of the new form of contract. I put that question again three or four weeks ago, but from that time to this I have not been able to obtain from the Admiralty for the satisfaction of the House a copy of the new form of contract, which they have adopted or are about to adopt. Possibly I may be informed now what is the exact stage of that instrument, whether the new form of contract has been settled, and if so, whether the Admiralty will lay a copy before the House. In the same connection perhaps I may call the attention of the Committee to another deliverance of the Public Accounts Committee. In reference to the same state of affairs they referred to the fact that:
"Owing to the dispute in the engineering trade in 1897–98 the contractors for certain hulls of ships were unable to earn payment of the full instalments, such instalments being due only upon the completion of defined portions of work, and they applied to the Admiralty for advances on account. The circumstances appeared to the Admiralty to justify such advances, and upon a total of instalments amounting to £43,645, which would have been payable if the conditions above stated had been fulfilled, sums certified to be within the limit of work actually done were advanced to the amount of £28,450. Although these advances were not legally claimable, no provision was made for charges of interest upon them."
The Committee appear to have protested against advances being made without having anything charged upon them, and upon this matter also perhaps the Admiralty representatives will be able to tell us what position they intend to take with reference to this deliverance of the Committee on Public Accounts.
COMMANDER BETHELL: Although it is perfectly true that of late years there has not been much criticism on the general field of shipbuilding, as to the types of ships, there are one or two questions which seem to me to be of some interest. I quite agree there is not much room for criticism on the general types of ships,

1579
because all the world is practically agreed that certain types must be used for men-of-war. Battleships of certain sizes of different countries are substantially the same. In fact, we may contrast two ships nowadays by their tonnage, which is a great deal more than we used to be able to do. During the last three or four years we have had three new different types of battleships—types, that is to say, the same, but the sizes are different. I should rather like for a minute or two to call the attention of the Committee to the apparently small advantage we get from the very largely increased size of battleships. I take the "Canopus," one of the smallest battleships we make, and contrast it with the "Formidable," which is one of the largest class, and I find that the small ship compares so favourably with the large ship that, except in the matter of armour, in all the great characteristics of fighting ships they are equal. The smaller ship has a slightly superior speed, the same storage of coal, the same ammunition, and the same draught, but the depth of armour is, of course, stronger and thicker and of greater resisting power on the larger ship. Except for that I think there is no advantage. One might also contrast the lighter type of ship in the same way. Owing to modern inventions the armour upon the lighter types is of greater resisting power than formerly was the case, and the real difference between a 14,000-ton ship and a lighter one is much less than it would otherwise have been. This brings up the interesting question which I should like to suggest, viz., whether this difference in thickness, in the resisting power of the armour, is of such importance as to make it worth while so very largely to increase the size of battleships. Obviously, the Admiralty are very naturally uncertain about this, because they have built the class of 13,000 tons, the "Formidable" of 15,000, and have now gone back again to the 14,000. The difference of 2,000 is very considerable in a battleship, and it would be interesting to know whether the Admiralty, after further considering the question, are inclined to think it advisable or not to go on increasing the battleships of these large types. I am not at all sure whether too much may not be sacrificed to very great speed. I believe that view is entertained to a certain extent. I have never been able to satisfy myself that sacrificing much to speed in battleships is
1580
likely to give that advantage which is anticipated over another fleet of somewhat slower speed, but of greater armament—a greater armament than is generally considered to be the case. If I pass from battleships to first-class cruisers, an entirely new question presents itself. We discussed this matter very briefly last year, and I may point out that the question of cruisers has been very largely modified by the fact that the resisting power of armour has been so largely increased. I may remark that the Admiralty while they are building armoured cruisers protected with outside armour of very high resisting power, are also building the same size of ship—what is called the protected ship; that is to say, with protected decks—without any armour at all.
MR. GOSCHENwas understood to dissent.
COMMANDER BETHELL: Well, within 1,000 tons. But the point I should like to suggest is, is it worth while, now that we have got these means of protecting our cruisers, to build "protected" cruisers of approximately the same size as the armoured cruisers, seeing that armoured cruisers have such an immense advantage with such a small additional size and weight? Obviously the two ships are intended to do practically the same work. It is a question of policy to consider whether it is worth while building these two classes of ships to do substantially the same work, when one is so infinitely superior to the other in every characteristic of vessel, whether it be built for battle or for cruising. I am glad to hear that the Admiralty have practically decided not to build vessels of the "Niobe" class in future. I have no special criticism to make either as to the vessels now being built or any suggestion as to the type of the ships in general, but I would ask my right hon. friend whether we are not building a considerable number of small vessels slow of speed for the work now to be done. Looking through the Estimates it does appear to me that we are building rather a large number of very small cruisers which cannot be expected to undertake the duties of vessels which have to keep at sea for long periods. I also desire to point out that it would be a great advan-

1581
tage if we were given information about armour. We know what guns and armaments our ships carry, but we have no means of knowing what armour is placed on their sides or its nature. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also be able to tell us that the Admiralty will take into further consideration the question of the size of battleships, which seems to me to be highly important.
MR. C. H. WILSON: I did not know that my hon. friend the Member for Gateshead intended to make his annual attack on the water-tube boiler so early in the afternoon, or I would have been present. Perhaps it may interest the Committee to hear the experience of my firm in connection with water-tube boilers. It really has been the same as that of the Admiralty. These boilers require more skill and care in their management, though not perhaps to the extent mentioned by the First Lord of the Admiralty. One vessel which we fitted with a water-tube boiler six or seven years ago is still doing the ordinary work of a merchant cargo steamer without any trouble, and has been working very successfully. We thought we would give the Belleville boiler a trial, and we fitted one steamer with it, but I must say it was not successful in any way, and we had to take it out and put hack the old boiler. Almost every year since 1895 we have fitted one or more steamers with water-tube boilers, and we should not have done that if the consumption of coal had been excessive. I think the difficulty in connection with these boilers has been solved, for every Government almost without exception engaged in building warships now fits them with water-tube boilers. I think, therefore, that the Admiralty are quite right in the steps they are taking to fit their ships with these boilers. At the same time I believe that experience is teaching them the weak points, as it taught my firm. In a life-long connection with shipping I have found that every improvement in machinery has to go through grades of experience and difficulty. We have had steps forward, from the engine with two cylinders to the compound engine and the triple cylindrical engine, but boilers have made small progress up to the present. My own feeling is that in course of time the
1582
present boiler will be a thing of the past, and that water-tube boilers of some description will come into general use for the benefit of steam navigation. I had an opportunity of having a long conversation with the chief engineer to the Admiralty only last evening, and his view agrees with mine that the Admiralty are perfectly right in the steps they have taken, and that they have no reason to fear criticism. Of course greater care must be taken in the management of a water-tube boiler, as it is as different front an ordinary boiler as a race horse is from a cart horse, but with experience and the discipline of the Navy that ought not to be difficult. I cordially agree with the policy of the Admiralty in this general adoption of the water-tube boiler.
SIR J. COLOMB: I think we have been too much inclined in this country to sacrifice armament to coal-carrying capacity. As we have coal depôts all over the world, and thus differ from all other nations, I am of opinion that the Admiralty would be wise to cheek the tendency to which I have referred. I rise, however, mainly to ask a question about the reserve merchant cruisers. I wish my right hon. friend would next year place against the name of each vessel on the list given in the estimates the date on which it first received a subsidy. I find at the bottom of the list three vessels which have been receiving a subsidy for twelve years, while several Cunard and P. and O. steamers with every modern requirement are not subsidised at all. The reason why these old steamers are receiving subsidies is that they are the property of the Canadian Pacific Company, and it is supposed that these subsidies improved the relations between our colonies and ourselves. But if we wanted a cruiser in the Pacific tomorrow, we would take a P. and O. steamer from the China side of the Pacific in preference to these twelve-year old steamers which are worn out and non-effective. I hope therefore my right hon. friend will supply us in future with the information for which I now ask. We ought not to continue to pay subsidies to vessels not up to date simply because we once did it to please a large colony.
SIR U. KAY - SHUTTLEWORTH: On the subject mentioned by my hon.

1583
and gallant friend, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what the new arrangement is which he informed us had been entered into with the merchant cruisers. I do not press the right hon. Gentleman, but the information would be of great interest if he were able to give it to us. There is another matter on which, if the time is considered suitable, I think we ought to have some information, and that is with regard to the new armoured cruisers, not only the dockyard, but the contract cruisers also.
SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I desire to direct attention to the delay in the delivery of armour plating. Last year we had a short supply, and the First Lord himself drew attention to the subject in Committee. It is lamentable to see ships waiting for months simply because the contractors cannot obtain the necessary quantity of armour plating. I think it would be desirable if the First Lord in his reply would reassure the Committee and the country on this matter.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I should like to ask my right hon. friend a few questions on the Shipbuilding Vote. The Americans are now using electricity to a great extent in all their new battle ships and cruisers. One of the first things we have to look after is the health of our men, and we ought to reduce the number of steam pipes which cause so much heat on a ship. I do not see why we should not use electricity more than we do for hoists and many other things. I saw an electric engine on the "Wisconsin" which could turn the turret perfectly easily. In all the auxiliary services on that ship electricity is used, and I hope my right hon. friend will be able to inform us that the Admiralty will look into the matter. I should also like to ask if the Admiralty are taking any steps to get rid of the muzzle-loading guns. Another question I would ask is whether orders have been issued that all 6-inch guns are to be made quick-firing guns. I would also like to know whether the Admiralty have reduced the number of watertight doors in the new vessels. I pointed out last year that no ship of any sort that had been hit by a ram or a torpedo had been able to keep afloat as a result of her water-tight doors. I would suggest
1584
that the doors be placed higher up in order to stop the first influx of water, and I believe that the "Victoria" would have been saved if the doors had been fitted in that way. On the financial question I think the Committee and the country imagine that the Admiralty are spending a great deal more on the Navy than they really are. In 1896–7 and 1897–8 the Admiralty made out a programme which allowed 7¼ millions to be spent annually on shipbuilding. In 1897–8, through no fault of the Admiralty, there was a deficit of £2,270,000. The First Lord last year stated that he was going to make up £1,400,000, which still left short by £800,000 the amount which the Admiralty concluded ought to be spent in shipbuilding. I ventured to tell the First Lord that he was counting this £1,400,000 in two ways, first by making up the deficit, and secondly by including it in the ordinary shipbuilding Vote of the year. I was called to order and did not pursue that subject, but I still maintain that the First Lord counted that sum twice. After that the House was alarmed at the Russian programme, and when I asked repeated questions on the subject the First Lord said he did not believe the information I submitted.
MR. GOSCHEN: I did not say I did not believe it, but that I had no information on the subject.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Of course, I accept my right hon. friend's version, but I told him at the time that I had information, and the Government ought to have, before a private member, information on such a serious matter. Eventually, as the Committee knows, the First Lord admitted that my information was accurate. Then the First Lord proposed an increase of four battleships, four cruisers, and, I think, twelve torpedo-boat destroyers. Now this is the point I wish to make. If the seven and a quarter millions programme, which was based on what foreign countries were doing, had been adhered to in 1896–7 and 1897–8 we would be exactly in the same position as we are now without this two millions, which the First Lord lays down as an extra shipbuilding Vote. We are really not adding anything because of the Russian programme. I think, however,

1585
our shipbuilding Vote is enough. I think we are going on very well indeed, and that the Admiralty are doing extremely well, but I hold we are not devoting this two millions because of the Russian programme. We are only making up the ground we have lost. The Naval Estimates look large, but after all they are only an insurance on what we have to defend. I should be very much obliged if my right hon. friend would clear up this matter of the Russian programme, and also answer my other questions.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I wish to say a few words in endorsement of what has been just said by the noble Lord with reference to the Russian programme. I think the Admiralty ought to tell us, if they fairly can in the interest of the country, what that programme is. Our programme for the present year is to some extent elastic and depends to a large extent on the Russian programme. We know pretty well the state of things with regard to the Russian contract ships, but we know nothing about the ships being built in the Russian yards. Every private slip in France where a battleship or a cruiser can be built is occupied for Russia at the present time, and Russian ships are also being built in Germany. With regard to cruisers we know something about what is being done in America, but we were informed that five large cruisers and two battleships were to be built in Russia, and whether they are being rapidly proceeded with or not will decide whether there is to be an addition to or subtraction from our programme. I think the First Lord will admit that our programme depends to some extent on the Russian programme, and we cannot vote this money without being told what is in the possession of the Government with reference to the rate of progress of the Russian programme or else being asked to trust the Admiralty on the ground that the national interests are opposed to a statement on that subject. We know that some of the representatives of this country at the Peace Conference are of opinion that it will produce a retardation of the Russian naval programme, and I would ask the Government whether that is the case or not.
MR. GOSCHEN: Nothing has occurred since the Naval Estimates were
1586
introduced to show any change of programme on the part of Russia, The situation is exactly where it was then, and therefore there is nothing to induce Her Majesty's Government to change their programme. We stand precisely where we did, and there has been practically no change. The situation is this. The Russian programme, under what is called the nineteen million roubles vote of credit—that is roughly about nine millions sterling—included eight battleships, and of this number four have been commenced.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: With a view to completion in 1900.
MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot say that. I expect the Russian view of completion is very like our own—it depends very much on a variety of circumstances. The Russian Government have begun these ships, and there is no reason to believe that they are not going to proceed with them in the ordinary way. One of these ships is being built in America, another in France, one at the Baltic works by a private firm, and a fourth ship has also been laid down. These four battleships correspond with the four battleships for which we had authority under the supplementary programme of last year. In reply to my noble friend, I look rather to the shipbuilding programme than to the actual money that has been spent. We are precisely where we intended to be so far as the commencement of ships is concerned. Early in the year it was thought that the French would introduce another battleship which might be begun quite late in the year, but for which they took no money. Therefore at that time there were five battleships pending which we should require to meet. Most of them are, so to speak, still in the air, and it is not contemplated that the French will commence their battleships during the present year. With reference to the four Russian battleships, there is every reason to believe that two will be commenced at St. Petersburg in the course of the present financial year, but the Russians do not tell us in advance whether they are going to build ships or what ships they are going to lay down. Sometimes private information may ooze out and may be communicated to persons in this country, but it is very difficult to get official information. There are slips

1587
available for the commencement of the ironclads I have spoken of, and it is likely they will be commenced. Therefore I am not prepared to recede from the position I took up in April last, but I should be sorry to part from this subject without saying that I see in the Russian programme no menace at all against this country in particular. There is another strong Power in Pacific waters, which is armed very heavily, and I hope the Committee and the country will not misunderstand me when I put these ships against each other. It is our bounden duty, as has been laid down over and over again, to maintain equality with the two greatest naval Powers, and therefore there is no indiscretion in speaking of the preparations of these naval Powers, but in doing so it is not in the slightest degree because we wish to enter upon a race for naval supremacy with other nations. We are simply acting up to the policy that we have acted on during the last few years. We see no menace in what foreign countries are doing, and I hope that they on their side will not see the slightest menace in what is being done in this country. With reference to the question of armour, the manufacturers are making great efforts. They are introducing new machinery, but they have not been able to come up to the standard they themselves hoped for about a year ago, and there has been no doubt a retardation of some of our ships. But we hope and believe that the manufacturers are doing their best to make up for delays in the past, and will produce more satisfactory results in the future. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Holderness raised an interesting point with reference to the building of cruisers and also of battleships. The "Canopus" class was reduced in armour in order that the ships might have a lighter draught and he able to pass through the Suez Canal. The group of ships of this class will all be able to pass through the canal, and for that purpose we deliberately sacrificed a certain amount of armour. We, however, attach great importance to the thickness of the armour on our battle-ships, and we have determined that point with reference to the ships to which our ships might be opposed. With reference to the third Class in the programme, I am not yet in a position to state the design, but we are giving the greatest possible
1588
attention to the subject. There is some advantage in the delay which has taken place, because there are other Powers who would like very much to know what these third-class cruisers are going to be before they finally embark on their own programme. My hon. and gallant friend also spoke of the degree to which first-class cruisers should or should not be armoured. The "Niobe" class is not armoured, but when a type of armour was discovered which admitted of its being placed in the sides of first class cruisers without imposing too much weight, then it was decided by the Admiralty to armour our first class cruisers. The "Niobe" is a fine class of ship, but I think now we should build no first class cruiser without the protection of armoured sides. My hon. and gallant friend also said we should pause in the construction of small ships, but we must always have a number of small ships to do station and other work.
COMMANDER BETHELL: Am I right in supposing that the size of the first class battleships is governed mainly or solely with reference to the thickness of the armour? In all these last ships there has only been a difference of three or four inches.
MR. GOSCHEN: It is those three or four inches that make just the difference. I can assure my hon. and gallant friend that this matter has been most carefully studied over and over again. It is a matter upon which opinions may differ, but on the whole we have proceeded on the principle that our ships must be built and armoured so as to cope with the great battleships they may have to meet. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Yarmouth spoke of the merchant cruisers. We are revising the whole of the contracts with those firms whose core tracts have expired or are expiring, but the negotiations are still pending, and I am unable at present to make any statement on the subject. With regard to the application of electricity to ships, the Admiralty are certainly giving their best attention to the question. We have now Naval Attaches specially appointed to the United States and Japan, which possess

1589
navies of great efficiency, ingenuity, and power, and an officer specially competent to deal with electrical subjects will be appointed to the United States, so that he may be able to report on any improvements that may be introduced in that respect. The noble Lord the Member for York wishes that certain ships should be struck off the list now that a number of new ships are getting ready for commission. I myself would prefer to keep on these ships until we have ample new ships to take their place. I think some of the inferior ships might, towards the conclusion of a naval war, play a very important part, if there happened to be many disasters among the finer and better ships. The noble Lord seems to think that these ships are kept on the list in order to impose on the public. That is not the case. They are kept on the list that we may have some reserve, even of a second-class character, until we are able to dispense with them altogether. With reference to water-tight doors, I am not able to argue with my noble friend. I know there has been great controversy in regard to the matter, but the Admiralty authorities believe that they have answered all the arguments of the noble Lord. As to quick-firing guns, that is a technical question, and I must ask the noble Lord to repeat his question another time. I may, however, state generally, that the policy of the Admiralty is to turn all guns capable of conversion into quick-firers, and we have done a great deal in that direction. In some of the ships on the China Station we have taken out guns of low calibre and put in guns of larger calibre.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The hon. Member for Dundee asked what the policy of the Admiralty would be in relation to the enforcement of penalties. The hon. Gentleman cannot, I think, plead successfully that he is in such ignorance in regard to one material fact. We stated last year in the Committee of Naval Estimates that we had boon advised that the interpretation of the penalty clause included a lock-out in the same way as a strike. And if the hon. Gentleman would turn to the report of last year's debate he will find that my right hon. friend the Attorney-General confirmed that opinion. The hon. Gentle-
1590
man also asked me whether I can state now what our policy has been in relation to the engineering strike.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What I asked was the general principle of the Admiralty in dealing with penalties.
MR. MACARTNEY: I cannot state how the Admiralty may deal with individual cases which may come up under the penalty clause. Every case will be considered on its merits, and I cannot go any further than that.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This is serious. The policy appears to be to reduce the penalty clause to an empty form.
MR. MACARTNEY: All I can say is, whether the policy goes as far as the hon. Gentleman says, it is precisely the policy carried out by all previous administrations at the Admiralty. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I can show him that when he was at the Admiralty cases were treated exactly as they are now. There has been no new departure. I think if he makes inquiry he will see that the Committee on Public Accounts themselves have suspended judgment in the matter.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Except in one case.
MR. MACARTNEY: I regret I am not in a position to give a more satisfactory answer in regard to the new form of contract than I gave the other day. It was only the other day that the revised form of contract was before the Board of Admiralty, and a contract like this cannot be dealt with in a hurry. My hon. friend knows that those who are advising us on this matter have been much engaged on other questions of great importance, and we have not been able to command their attention continuously, but every effort will be made to come to a decision soon. As to whether we were technically right in the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, it is not necessary for me to detain the Committee. The whole question is before the Admiralty, and I

1591
have no doubt that we will concur in what the Treasury lays down in the future. It would have been inequitable in the special case if we had not agreed to waive the payment of interest.
Question put, and agreed to.
2. £3,799,000, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Matériel.
3. £2,417,000, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Personnel.
MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I want to say a few words on a matter that comes under this Vote—namely, the classification amongst the larger trades in the dockyard. I know that this question has been brought up year after year, and I am entitled to point to this fact that year after year the question becomes riper for settlement. These men complained eight years ago of the introduction of a system by which men doing identically the same work are receiving different rates of pay. As the prosperity of the country increases and the national income increases, it ought to become easier for the Government to remedy this grievance. I am informed that while the slight increase of wages of the men necessary to bring them all under the highest rate of pay has not been conceded, an increase of expenditure has been incurred, entirely unnecessarily, by the appointment of more officers to take the place of inspectors. As long as expense of that kind is incurred it seems to me that we have a stronger case to ask that the classification should be abolished.
MR. KEARLEY: I wish to ask a question of my hon. friend in regard to the scheme introduced of the payment of apprentices in the yard who are ultimately intended to be shipwrights. I understand that the scheme was introduced at the commencement of the year owing to the inability of the Admiralty to get men to join as in years gone by. I understand that 150 entries were invited. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say: How many out of the 150 applicants were taken on? I am informed that the scheme has been a failure. It is necessary that skilled workmen should be in the yards from seven years to fourteen. As regards the point my hon. friend has raised about classification, I agree with him that the matter is one which ought to be settled. It does not require a very
1592
large sum to settle it, and it still remains, as it has been for years, a great point of dissatisfaction among the men. It seriously affects the well-being of the Navy, because it prevents so many skilled men joining the naval service who otherwise would do. Naturally they object to going to do work side by side with men who are getting an inferior rate of pay. The tendency of all this is that inferior men are being taken into the Government service, and these inferior men have been entered as skilled workmen. There is the case of a man at Devonport who was taken on as a skilled workman, who had previously been a mason's labourer, a coal porter, and prior to that a deck hand on a dredger. It is well that this kind of thing should be set right. This man had never worked as a shipwright at all before, and a protest was raised by the trade, but it received no consideration, and has been of no avail. Hon. Members who represent naval constituencies about the country will agree, I think, with me when I say that the Government have no right to introduce inferior workmen simply because they cannot get the best skilled men in consequence of their system and their low rate of pay. I will give another case where the Government have acted in a manner which cannot be in accord with the general treatment of employers of labour. I am told that they have opened their door to runaway apprentices, and recently they took a young man who was bound to a trade for a period of seven years. At the end of five years' service he left his employer, and presented himself to the chief instructor at Devonport. His qualifications were found satisfactory and he was taken on, and when his master found out where he had gone he made the strongest representations he could to the chief instructor, but the Admiralty simply replied that the man was fully qualified and that they meant to stick to him. I think it is a very dangerous thing to encourage young fellows to leave their employment in this way. The Government, through their system of classification and pay, are not encouraging the right sort of men to come into their dockyards. I know they can pick the very best labour in the country if they will only make their conditions satisfactory. There is one class of labour which I think ought to be considered, and that is the lowest paid class of labour. To-day it does

1593
seem a poor wage for a labourer to get 18s. or 19s. a week. I will not go into the details, because my hon. colleague has mentioned them upon many occasions. I would, however, like to refer to a remark made by the First Lord of the Admiralty a few months ago. He pointed out that even supposing he was disposed to increase the wages of these labourers the money would not reach them, but it would go into the pockets of the landlords. All I can say is that I do not think this is a fair way to meet the question. What I say is that these men are underpaid, and the Admiralty really ought to sift the matter with a view of treating the men on a better footing. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but this is the first time for seven years that the Naval Vote has been restricted to less than an hour's discussion, for we have always had at least one evening for the discussion of this important Vote. I think we are entitled to express our dissatisfaction with the policy of the First Lord of the Treasury in this direction, and I hope this will not form a precedent to be repeated next year. At all events, I hope that Vote 8, which affects dockyard labour, will not be brought in at the end of the discussion when we shall have no opportunity of adequately expressing our views upon it.
SIR J. BAKER: In reference to the circular recently issued by the Admiralty, there are one or two points to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee relating to a deserving class of men, more particularly the chargemen, who have been promoted to inspectors. The statement made in the circular is that the leading men, who naturally had expectations of promotion, in the future are to be abolished. For some years now these leading men have been looking forward to promotion. As my hon. friend has said, the Admiralty seemed disposed to increase the expenditure on superior officers and to decrease it in reference to the subordinate officers by abolishing the leading men, and thus they are striking a blow at the expectations of these men, and they are disappointing a very important class of workmen who have for many years been waiting for a readjustment and reorganisation of the work in their particular sphere. From the information which I have received, I have no doubt whatever that the circular just issued will create among the shipwrights generally a large amount
1594
of dissatisfaction and disappointment. I am aware that in other trades the leading men are fewer in number. With regard to the other important class of workmen I agree with the hon. Member for Devonport in saying that the Admiralty are guilty of a very serious omission in not doing something for the labourers employed in the various dockyards. The War Department within the last year or two have given a slight increase in the soldier's pay, and in view of that fact I think it is very hard that the Admiralty should issue a circular of this kind, which affects many thousands of workmen. I would like to ask if the Committee considers that 18s. a week is sufficient for a labourer. I believe the Government employ between 8,000 and 10,000 of these labourers, and they are employed at a wage upon which they cannot live, although rents are constantly increasing. Why should the Government issue a circular stating that the wages paid to the labourers are in accordance with the current wages generally paid, when such a statement is not in accordance with the facts? The average wages for a labourer are between £1 and 24s. a week. We urge upon the Government the necessity of doing something for these men, instead of confining their generosity to the superior officers. These men have been entirely forgotten and overlooked year after year, and they are not able to live comfortably on 18s. a week. I fully endorse the remarks winch were made in regard to the very short time allowed us to urge upon the Admiralty the various grievances in connection with our constituencies, and this will compel us to take other opportunities of making our views known to the proper authorities.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: With reference to the compensation given to workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, I want to know if my hon. friend can give us any information as to whether there has been any difficulty in administering the Act in regard to the workmen employed in the dockyards, and what procedure has been adopted in cases of dispute as to the amount of compensation.
MR. BARNFSwished to mention a question he was entitled to raise on this Vote, and one affecting the interests of all classes of dockyard employees That was the question of pensions and deferred pay.

1595
Under the existing regulations an established man obtained a pension on reaching 60 years of age, and that pension was calculated on the basis of one-sixtieth of the man's pay for every year of his service as an established man. But the men really looked upon this pension in the light of deferred pay, a weekly sum having been deducted by the Government from their wages. He drew attention to the fact that if a man died before 60 years of age his widow and children got nothing at all, although this weekly deduction had been made from his wages. He acknowledged the immense boon conferred by the present Government in allowing half hired time to count for pensions, and hoped that the Admiralty would give serious consideration to the question he had raised, which was one of great importance to the families of those employed in Her Majesty's Dockyards.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I think it will be more convenient for me to deal now with the various matters which have been raised in this discussion. The question of classification has been mentioned by the two hon. Members for Devonport, and I can only say in reply that the question has been considered most carefully by the Admiralty, for we went into the matter most fully, and the decision we then came to must be taken as final. As regards the question of pensions and deferred pay the hon. Member who has raised this question must remember that the cost of the present system to the country is very much greater than the contributions or deductions which are made from the wages of the men. It is perfectly true that those workmen who do not live to earn a pension get back nothing for the deductions made from their wages, but still the total deductions made from the wages of workmen in the yard are not equal to the total amount returned in the form of pensions to members of the same class. As regards the question of classification, I think I explained that matter to the House very fully upon a previous occasion. In order to find a fair rate of pay the Admiralty took the mean between the lowest and the highest on the graduated scale, and in this respect our generosity appears to have been mistaken, for the complaint now made is entirely founded upon our generosity to the higher class. Surely, because the Ad-
1596
miralty were too generous in the case of the men promoted to the higher ratings, it would not be considered proper to reduce those men, and we ought not on that account to raise the rate of everybody throughout the yard. The senior Member for Devonport addressed to me some question in regard to the entry of apprentices for the service under the new scheme. I cannot give him any figures now upon that subject, or any very definite information. I think probably that when we have had a little more experience of the new system that will be a better time, to see how the scheme promises to work. As far as my information goes, up to the present there is every reason to suppose that we shall get as many apprentices as we want. At some of our yards we have not been able to get as many as were required, but other yards have provided more than the required number.
MR. KEARLEY: Which yards?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry that I cannot say off-hand in which yards there has been an excess. The hon. Member opposite complains of the general character of the workmen engaged in our dockyards. I must repudiate as strongly as I can his suggestion that we are largely entering inferior workmen in our yards, or that the general standard of work and skill is not as high as it is anywhere else.
MR. KEARLEY: I made no such statement. What I said was that the Admiralty were employing inferior men, and I quoted two cases. I hope the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to those two cases.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has forgotten what he did say. He cited two cases, one of which he gave in detail, and he made a general charge that the character of the men we were getting was not satisfactory. I think I can recall what his argument was. I should like to ask why he came to speak on the question at all. He was speaking on the subject of classification, and our refusal to accede to the demand he had made, and he said the result was that we did not attract the right men, and we were obliged to take on inferior men.
MR. KEARLEY: I want to make my point perfectly clear. I said that this was the tendency, and I supported my point by two illustrations showing that you

1597
were not getting the best labour in the country. I gave two illustrations which I can elaborate into as much detail as the hon. Gentleman wishes to have.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member says that the tendency is that we cannot get the best men, and I presume that what he means is that under those circumstances we are not getting the best men, and that the men we are getting are inferior to the general level of workmen throughout the country. I deny that assertion, for I believe we are getting a perfectly well-trained set of men in our dockyards. In regard to the cases which the hon. Member has quoted, if he will supply me, in a letter, with the full statements of the facts, I will make inquiries into them. As to the case of the runaway apprentice to which he has alluded, I do know something of the facts. This man who has been described as a runaway apprentice came to the dockyard and applied for entry at Land's End. He was fully up to the standard required, and was accordingly entered. It subsequently transpired that he had made an agreement to serve for an extra term with an employer, but that agreement was not a binding agreement which the employer could enforce by law, and it was one which he could riot compel this workman to carry out. There are two other questions, and one is the question raised in regard to classification of inspectors, leading men, and chargemen. It will be within the recollection of the Committee and Members interested in the matter that for some time past there has been great complaint in regard to this subject, and an inquiry has been instituted by the Admiralty to see what arrangements could be made to simplify the present complicated position, and to remove some of the grievances of which these officers complain. The grievance has been exactly that which the hon. Member for Devonport put in regard to the existing classification, which is that officers performing the same work were paid different rates of pay. The Admiralty have now framed a scheme which will gradually eliminate the class of leading men, and cause inspectors to be appointed from other trades besides the shipwrights, and this will place them in a position superior to that of the chargemen. At the same time the position of the chargemen will be slightly altered, and I think they will find that they will receive some
1598
benefit under this new scheme. A good many of the leading men will be promoted to inspectors, but the positions of others will be gradually allowed to die out. I think the hon. Member will find that this new system, when it has had a fair trial, will meet to a very large extent the grievances of which his constituency complains. As regards the other question of the rate of wages paid to labourers, I may say that I have nothing to add to the statement which was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty and other Members of the Admiralty Board on a previous occasion. We have made careful inquiries into the whole rates of wages paid in dockyards elsewhere, and, taking a general view of the whole case, we see no reason whatever to alter our scale of pay except in one or two specific instances which have been mentioned in our reply to the dockyard petition. The information placed before us does not justify any general rise in the rate of wages throughout the whole of the dockyards. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester asked me a question about compensation, and as to the procedure that would be followed. Up to the present we have had to deal with some accidents since the passing of that Act, and they have been dealt with, I am happy to say, without any dispute arising between the injured man and the Government pending the arrangement of a scheme of contracting out, which has already been submitted to the Registrar of Friendly Societies; he, I believe, has now certified the scheme, and in a very short time it will he sent down to the dockyards. We first gave the dockyard people an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it, and it will be for the men to say whether they will come under the scheme or not. If they do not accept the scheme—which scheme I think will he to their benefit—they will come under the ordinary Compensation Act, and will receive no exceptional treatment.
MR E. J. C. MORTON: I do not think that the two cases which have been quoted can be held to support such a general statement as that which has been made by the senior Member for Devon-port, that the tendency was to employ an inferior class of men. I think the hon. Gentleman has entirely left out of account the far more important part of the case to which my hon. friend alluded when he

1599
was referring to shipwright apprentices in the dockyard. A new lot of apprentices were taken in to supply the vacancies when the Admiralty were in a great difficulty. We have been for the last six or seven years pointing out the special grievances of which the naval shipwrights complain. It was absolutely notorious that the Admiralty could not get enough shipwrights, and they confessed that they could not get enough, for they had to start an entirely new system of applying for boys who should, after a period of apprenticeship in the dockyards, pledge themselves to become naval shipwrights. The point was that the period of apprenticeship and the conditions under which the boys were to be educated implied a distinctly lower standard of education, and therefore would ultimately supply a lower class of article, so to speak, in the shape of naval shipwrights than the class which the Admiralty asked for and could not get. Our point is that by lowering the standard you are not only injuring the trade, but you are getting a class of article for the Navy which is inferior to what you otherwise would have had and which you ought to have had. Our complaint is that you have lowered the standard of one particular class of workmen, and not that the general body of workmen in the dockyard has deteriorated. I have been informed that the Admiralty wanted forty-one of these boys to join, and they only got fourteen, arid so far as I understand, other dockyards are in a similar condition. If that is so, you cannot only not get the class of men you asked for previously, but you cannot even get the class of men which you were getting, which proves that the only way in which you can get an efficient class in sufficient numbers is by turning your attention to the specific grievances of which the shipwrights complain.
MR. GOSCHEN: Might I ask that we might now have this Vote as soon as possible, because there is a discussion to come on upon Vote 12, when I understand an hon. and gallant Member is going to move a reduction of my salary? I do not complain of the length of the discussion in any way, but it occurs to me that it would be an advantage to the House if we passed to the discussion upon Vote 12.
MR. MADDISON: After the reply we have had from
1600
the Civil Lord I cannot help thinking that both the skilled and unskilled labourers have grave grounds for doubting the sympathetic attitude of the Admiralty. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of any addition to the Navy, but when we have a Navy it ought to be as perfect as possible, and the only way to have that is to keep up the high standard of excellence of craftsmanship which we had in the past. The Civil Lord could only identify one case where it was sought to lower the standard of the skilled labourer, and perhaps it was as well, because that broke down. We cannot expect the hon. Gentleman to understand the industrial conditions, but I would urge the Admiralty to keep up the standard of craftsmanship, and obviously that cannot be done by reducing the number of years of apprenticeship, as is now proposed. The reason that the Admiralty have failed to get skilled shipwrights is not because they do not exist. Private firms have no difficulty in getting the most highly skilled artisans who are prepared to serve them well. There is one point I am utterly unable to understand with regard to the Navy, and that is the meagre wages paid to unskilled labourers. Why does not the hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex, who is such an enthusiast, point out that if you neglect to give a wage which will permit a man to live decently——
ADMIRAL, FIELD: I have never spoken on the question.
MR. MADDISON: That is just my complaint—the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to speak. Let me ask the Civil Lord whether he thinks a labourer with 18s. a week in a dockyard town can keep himself decently. The Civil Lord said that what the First Lord of the Admiralty had said upon the subject was the last word. I can only say, of all the Ministers who have shown no indication of the principles we are raising, the First Lord is the one. These very labourers when employed by private yards which have to compete with the Government yards are paid 4s., 5s., and 6s. a week more than they are by the Admiralty. We are face to face with the fact that in our national shipbuilding and repairing yards we are employing men at what would be universally regarded as a sweating wage.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £261,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March 1900."
MR. DILLON: I desire to say a few words upon a subject which I have frequently brought to the attention of the Committee and the Admiralty Office. During the last three or four years I have raised this question of the great injustice done to Roman Catholic clergy in Her Majesty's Navy. Four years ago it was admitted that fifteen years before a promise had been given that this matter should be looked into, and that justice would be done. A year ago the First Lord gave a very sympathetic answer, and promised that the matter should be settled. Since then I believe that negotiations have been entered into, and something has been done; but, for my part, I am not satisfied with the change that has been made. What I complain of is that the Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That question ought to be raised on the Vote for the Chaplains.
MR. DILLON: On a point of order, Sir, I have had some experience in this matter, for I raised it on the Vote for the Chaplains on a previous occasion, and I was then told it would he better raised on the question of the Admiralty Office, and I raised it on this Vote and it was debated on this Vote. I would here direct your attention to a remarkable fact that, in the index to the Votes, the Vote for the Chaplains is scattered over a great many Votes. There is no specific Vote for chaplains upon which this point could be raised. My point is not a question of a grievance of the chaplains on the established but quite a different point.
THE CHAIRMAN: I remember the question being raised on a previous occasion, but I am sorry to say my memory does not carry me back, but I give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, as I see that "Chaplains" in the index is not in any particular Vote, but in various Votes.
MR. DILLON: Thank you, Sir. I shall be very brief. There are a hundred chaplains on the establishment who have the status and pay of officers, and I first of all wish to ask whether any of those chaplains are Roman Catholics. There are 10,000 Catholic seamen afloat in the Navy at least, and there may be many more now that it has been so much increased. After a good deal of agitation, the Catholic chaplains in the Army were put upon the same status as those of the Established Church, and I have heard no complaint arising out of that. That being so, I want to know on what kind of logic you deny that status to the Catholic clergy in the Navy. I will give one instance of the hardship to which I refer in the case of a Catholic priest whom I know. He is a priest belonging to the Capuchin Order, and with the consent and kind encouragement of the captains of Her Majesty's ships from time to time, this poor Catholic priest had been invited to officiate on board different men-of-war. He did so. Through some error on the part of the naval officers no allowance was made, not even the small allowance which is permitted to be made for this purpose, and year after year this poor priest, out of the moneys of his Order, for of course he has no means himself, has had to pay the expenses of the boat hire to take him on board. Although he has letters from various captains thanking him for his services, he has, so far as my information goes, received nothing in return.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It would appear that some payments have been made on behalf of this priest. Sums of money were sent to the vice-consul, but they do not appear to have come to the priest. It was paid by the vice-consul to a person who applied on the priest's behalf, but who has disappeared and whom we are now endeavouring to trace. I may say that I believe the priest is not anxious to have this matter ventilated, but we think it is our duty to find out who the person is who took that money.
MR. DILLON: After that explanation I will not say another word upon it. But that is not the way in which the Catholic seamen ought to be treated, and means ought to be taken for the especial benefit of these men, so far as circumstances will

1603
permit, and the Catholic chaplain ought to be put on the same status as the other chaplains of the fleet.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: There is one very important question with regard to the engineering officers to which I desire to refer.
THE CHAIRMAN: I had some doubts as to the last question raised. I have no doubt as to this. This ought to be raised on Vote I.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Upon a point of order, may I point out that the question raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo was allowed on a question of general policy, on the ground that it had been included in several Votes; but if this question which I raise has only been put into one Vote, it is surely none the less a question of policy.
THE CHAIRMAN: I had some doubt in the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo, because the index in that case was not clear, but I am quite certain with regard to this case that the question ought to have been raised on Vote I. It was raised on Vote I. at an earlier period of the session, and, therefore, clearly cannot be raised again on a different Vote.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: If you are still of opinion that that is so, of course, Sir, I must bow to your ruling.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: On a point of order, I understood, Sir, there are certain points which could be described as grievances, and could be raised on this Vote. If that is not so, I wish to point out to the Committee that there are these grievances, and they ought to be brought out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The noble Lord is not now addressing himself to the point of order before me. All I have ruled is that the Vote for the Board of Admiralty is not the proper place to raise the question.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: But it was certainly understood that we should be allowed to raise this question—that an opportunity would be afforded.
THE CHAIRMAN: Even if there were such an understanding it could not bind the Committee, and certainly would not bind me. I cannot set aside the rules of
1604
order because hon. Gentlemen enter into an arrangement. My duty is to observe the rules of order.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I will not detain the Committee long, and although I move the reduction of the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, of course I know it cannot take place, and only do so to call attention to a matter of great importance to which I also called attention ten days ago, and that is to the disastrous explosion which took place a short time ago at Toulon and the policy of the Admiralty in the face of such disasters in erecting new stores into which they propose to put high explosives, among others cordite. I asked a question as to this of the First Lord, and the answer he gave was not satisfactory. He gave no information at all, and public opinion was very much exercised upon this question, and I venture to say I am only fulfilling a duty when I press the right hon. Gentleman to give the country and this House more information than he gave me in answer to my question. Not one naval officer whom I have consulted outside the Admiralty is a supporter of this policy of their Lordships, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn ventured to put a supplementary question to the question to which I alluded, in reply to which he got no information whatever, but was merely asked to have confidence in the Admiralty. Of course we have all got confidence in the Admiralty, but it is not a question of that kind: it is a question in which the unofficial Members of this House have as much right to an opinion as the Lord of the Admiralty. It is a question of the safety of the dockyard and of the huge population in the neighbourhood that we have to consider in connection with this new departure. I asked for the opinion of the Committee; I could get no information, but I know that they were not unanimous. From the silence of the First Lord I also draw my own conclusions as to the opinion of the naval officers.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: May I ask whether my hon. friend is in order in bringing forward the question of the storage of explosives in dockyards on this Vote?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member that the question ought not to be raised at this

1605
stage. The point raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne ought to be discussed on the naval armament stores or building Votes.
ADMIRAL FIELD: On the point of order, the new departure had not been taken then. The Toulon explosion is my justification for raising the subject, and if I had been Member for Portsmouth—I make no reflection on the present Members—I would have moved the adjournment of the House on the subject.
MR. CLOUGH: The hon. Member has no mandate from Portsmouth to raise this question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to raise the question on this Vote.
Mr. CLOUGH: I should like to hear your ruling, Mr. Chairman, upon the question whether the Greenwich Age Pension Fund may be raised on this Vote. In asking for your ruling I wish to say that when the Pensions Vote was raised in the House it was very late in the evening, and the Admiralty were very anxious to get the Votes which were before the House on that evening. I saw the Civil Lord, and said, "I must raise the question of the Greenwich Age Pensions now unless you can assure me that it may be raised on some other Vote." The Civil Lord most courteously met me. He went to the First Lord, and he and the First Lord stated it might be raised on their salaries by way of a motion for the reduction of the Vote. In view of your ruling this evening, I wish to ask whether, that arrangement having been made—and I believe there is a perfectly honourable desire on the part of the Civil Lord and the First Lord that it should be carried out—I might not raise that topic upon the Vote now under discussion.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot make any exception. It is clear that if we once begin to discuss Votes in their wrong places there will be no end to the discussion on the Naval Votes. It would be impossible for hon. Members to know what subjects would be raised, and what would not be raised. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been led to believe that he could discuss that matter on this Vote, but I, as responsible for the rules of order, can be no party to it, and I shall be obliged to rule it out of order.
MR. CLOUGH: May I be allowed to say, with due deference, that I could understand your ruling where two private Members of the House enter into an agreement one with the other; that is something not within your cognisance, and ought not to influence your ruling; but when an arrangement is made with a responsible Minister like the First Lord of the Admiralty, I hold that I have just ground to ask you to make an exception to your ruling.
MR. E. J. C. MORTON: On a point of order, may we not, by special agreement, discuss certain questions on Votes which we have not immediately to deal with?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think a special agreement made with even so important a person as the First Lord of the Admiralty can possibly upset the rules of order.
SIR CHARLES DILKEdesired to draw attention to the reception by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the President of the Board of Trade of a deputation with regard to the manning of the Navy. The First Lord had practically invited the discussion of the subject by the public at large, stating last year that he would be prepared to increase the strength of the Naval Reserve. His reception of the deputation, however, was inconsistent with what he had said in the House, and scarcely encouraging to those in the country who had given time and attention to the question.
SIR J. COLOMB: I wish to make a few observations upon this Vote. In the first place, I hope the First Lord will have no hesitation in coming to the House and asking for more money in order to make the Naval Intelligence Department more efficient. I find, for instance, there is an expenditure of over £9,000 a year for military attaches, and an increase this year of £2,400, which is more than the total paid for naval attaches altogether. My right hon. friend has spoken of the instruction of naval officers in sea strategy, but there is also the question of tactics. Senior captains of a fleet are never called upon to handle the fleet, nor are commanders ever called upon to handle ships in fleet and squadron evolutions. It appears to me that the Admiralty have no test of the fitness of captains to be admirals, and when, moreover, we come to look at the enormous responsibility

1607
which may be cast on senior captains suddenly in war, I think there should be some system by which they might have the opportunity of handling squadrons and ships occasionally in manœuvres. The other point to which I wish to refer has reference to artillery practice of fleets. In the prize-firing returns I find that there is no mention of the light quick-firing guns. I should like to know whether these guns are left out altogether or included under machine guns. Then I see that there are no prizes awarded for heavier guns than the 13·5 guns. Is that because no prizes have been offered, or is it because the shooting is not good enough? Passing to the next size guns, namely, 13·5 and 12in., I see blue-jacket gunners only competed. Why are the marine artillery gunners out of it? In competition at these two guns I see that the prize-money return is under 36s. per crew. Next in order comes the 10in. gun. Here there was competition between the blue-jacket gunners and the marine artillery gunners, and I find the blue-jacket gunners only won £1 14s. 2d. per crew, while the marine artillery won two guineas. Coming to the 9·2 gun, I find that the blue jackets only won £1 13s. 10d. per crew, while the marine artillery won £4 12s. 6d. Then, if you take the 6in. gun you will find the blue-jacket gunners won only 15s. 7d. per crew, and the marine artillery gunners 6s.3d. The importance of these figures is contained in the fact that the return shows, even in its incomplete form, that at all heavy guns where there was competition between the blue-jacket gunner and the marine artillery gunner, the latter beat the former and proved themselves the best gunners. If this prize-firing be any test of artillery efficiency, it goes to show that the fire of a fleet, the guns of which are maimed by marine artillery gunners, would be more effective than if the guns were manned by blue-jacket gunners. If the prize-firing be no test of relative artillery efficiency, why waste money on it? But it is, and therefore I must press my right hon. friend for a specific answer to this specific question. As the prize-firing test shows that marine gunners win more money than blue-jacket gunners, why is the Admiralty excluding them from manning any gun larger than the 10in. gun? If a particular class of man, trained in a particular way, produces the best results at the 10-inch or the 9.2
1608
gun, why do the Admiralty rule that this particular class of man trained in this particular way shall not even be tried at the 12 or 13.5 gun? Again, this return shows that some 27 per cent. of marine artillery of the Fleet are not quartered at any gun at all. How is that? The facts I give are emphasised when we remember that the form of the return is misleading. In many ships no marine artillery are carried. In these ships blue-jacket gunners compete only against each other. The return lumps together all ships, whether they carry marine artillery or whether they do not. It does not show results of competitions between an equal number of blue-jacket gunners and of marine artillery gunners, but between a few marine gunners in a few ships against the pick of the whole number of blue-jacket, gunners afloat. I trust the First Lord will promise that an annual return of prize-firing, in a better form, shall be laid before Parliament. The question of sea supremacy is largely a question of sufficiency and efficiency of heavy gun fire, and without such annual return in a comprehensive and comprehensible form. Parliament is in the dark. So far as the present return goes it shows that the-naval changes of ninety-five years justify and corroborate the opinion of Nelson, with his matchless experience of naval war, that the duties of blue-jackets are so manifold and various that for the artillery service of the Fleet a special and distinct corps of artillery is needed. The marine artillery came into being in 1804. It was Nelson's creation, but this return shows how far from that view the Admiralty have drifted by excluding the corps from duties it was intended to fulfil, though, as shown by this return, the artillery service: of the fleet would be more effective were Nelson's teachings adhered to.
MR. GOSCHEN: I will endeavour to meet the views of my hon. and gallant friend with regard to the return he has. mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the deputation received by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself on the subject of the manning of the Fleet, and I gather that the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the manner in which the deputation was received. I may say that I was not at all satisfied with the composition of the deputation. I had been led to expect a number of

1609
gentlemen representative of the shipping interest with whom we might have had an interesting discussion as to their views on the Reserves. If my memory is not mistaken, all the representatives of the shipping trade were conspicuous by their absence; those who were present were simply members of the intelligent public who take a considerable interest in the general question, but they are not a body with whom the Government can expect to discuss such very important questions as the Reserves. I regret that I should have left an impression of discourtesy on the deputation. I fully recognise the importance of the subject, and therefore regret that the deputation was not more representative.
MR. STEADMAN: I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the unsatisfactory position of the shipwrights in Her Majesty's Navy. At the present time boilermakers, coopers, smiths, and all other mechanics on entering the Navy commence at a minimum wage of five and sixpence a day.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question the hon. Gentleman desires to raise should be raised on Vote 1.
MR. STEADMAN: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I was given to understand that I could only raise this question on Vote 12; but in future I shall consult you, Sir, and then I shall know whether I am in order or not.
MR. HARWOOD: I desire to direct attention to a matter of general policy with regard to the Navy which I mentioned before, but regarding which I have not received a satisfactory answer. It is as to making the Navy better known in manufacturing districts, one of which I represent. I think the Admiralty does not recognise the alteration which has taken place in the manning of ships. In the old days all that was required was that a man should he able to dance a hornpipe, hoist a sail, mid hitch up his trousers, but the Navy now requires a different kind of man altogether—it requires an engineer and a mechanic. Formerly recruiting for the Navy was chiefly confined to the ports, the population of which were accustomed to sea faring habits, but now I venture to think that the centre of gravity is changed.
1610
The noble Lord the Member for York called attention to the fact that ships have very often to go into port to be fitted because they have not a sufficient supply of engineers and mechanics on board capable of keeping them in order. One fact is very well known, and that is the wonderful hereditariness of habit. In seafaring places people inherited a love of the sea, but ships are now completely altered. They are complicated conglomerations of intricate machinery, and the corollary to that fact is that we require as recruits engineers and mechanics. It is more important for a man in the Navy nowadays that he should have inherited, not a capacity for the sea, but for mechanical engineering. I represent a constituency which possesses this hereditary capacity. There are two grounds upon which I press this question on the attention of the Admiralty. One is that the increase of the Navy makes it wise to extend the field of recruiting, and the second is that the particular field most required is the field which would supply the Navy with men specially qualified to suit the altered conditions of warships. I do not think it is sufficiently understood how little the Navy is known in Lancashire, for example. It must be remembered that we have all over England a hereditary love of the sea, which breaks out in the case of many young men, and in the manufacturing districts this love of the sea is combined with an inherited engineering capacity. Young men have often asked me how they should go about entering the Navy, amt I do not know how to advise them. I doubt whether the Civil Lord himself knows.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes; I know perfectly well.
MR. HARWOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is not generally known, and I am sure that the Navy misses hundreds and thousands of excellent recruits because they do not know how to enter it. Hon. Gentlemen know how timid of trouble people are, and when they meet a difficulty how they desist. What I suggest is that there should at least be as much information given to the public as to how to enter the Navy as there is in the case of the Army. I have been told that post offices supply such information, but I have applied and find that it is not so.

1611
This question has been taken up with some interest in the manufacturing districts. The people there say, "We contribute our fair share to the Navy, and we have a right to have a naval career open to our children if they care to enter it." Many believe that men in the Navy are not treated very well, but nevertheless the people have a right to have this career open to their children. The second point I wish to make perhaps trenches upon delicate ground. Not only have the working classes a right to have this career open to them, but other classes have a similar right. I met a youth recently who had a great desire to enter the Navy, and after being trained at a well-recognised establishment he made an application, only to be met by the barrier of nomination. I do not understand it. I do not see why this career should not be open to our young men just as much as the Army. What does nomination mean? I find that if a youth's father was an admiral or his uncle a captain he could get in. I object to the Navy being treated as a preserve for officers' sons. The nation pays for the Navy, and the nation has aright to share in it, and I protest most strongly against this system of selection. I do not know how the Civil Lord is going to justify it. I think he will not deny that it is personal selection, not selection on the ground of ability or training. I maintain that a candidate should only be asked whether he is prepared to go through the examinations and fill the social necessities of the case, and then let the best man win. It is an advantage to the Navy that it should enlarge its recruiting sphere, and recruit engineers and mechanics, and, with regard to officers, it is a matter of common justice that the Navy should be open to the nation.
MR. POWER: Enormous sums have been devoted this year for naval expenditure, but as far as Ireland is concerned, we have very little interest in this expenditure, though we pay more than our quota towards it. As far as England, Scotland, and Wales are concerned, they have large industries to protect, but unfortunately we have little or no trade to protect, and we get no advantage from the gigantic expenditure in the Navy yards. This is a state of things that has been frequently drawn attention to in this House, and I
1612
regret to say that the Admiralty have taken no steps to redress our grievance. But, even in other respects, when we ask for a little we get little satisfaction. Last week I put a question to the Chief Secretary in regard to illegal trawling which obtains off the Irish coast, and the right hon. Gentleman answered me that he had frequently applied to the Admiralty for a gunboat to enforce the carrying out of the bye-laws in regard to trawling, but that his applications had met with no results whatever. I think that is a state of things that ought not to be. When the Steam Trawling Act was passed the First Lord assured the hon. Member for North Louth that our interests in Ireland would be protected in the matter. That law did not apply to Ireland, and now steam trawlers come off our coast, and do a great deal of injury to the Irish fisheries, and the Admiralty turn a deaf ear to our application for gun-boats to enforce the local bye-laws. Ten years ago the Leader of the House gave a distinct pledge that our fisheries would he protected by the Admiralty or some other board; but he has failed to carry out that pledge. I may be told that it is not the business of the Admiralty to enforce local bye-laws; but that is just the way in which Irish interests are jobbed from one Department to another. I have a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman to which I hope he will give his favourable consideration. The Bill dealing with agriculture and other Irish industries will be before the House next Monday. It will be a long time before the new Department has arranged matters, but in the meantime a great deal of injury is being done to the Irish fisheries, and I would ask the First Lord whether he will place at the disposal of the Irish Government, or the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, two or three gun-boats to enforce the bye-laws, which are at present a dead letter.
MR. WEIR: I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to see that the commanders of the gunboats off the North Coast of Scotland attend to the work deputed to them. These gun-boats lie too much in harbour, instead of looking after the trawlers. We have a great fishing industry in the North of Scotland, and that is being seriously affected by these gun-boats not performing their duty as they should. There

1613
ought to be more gun-boats for police purposes. I wish to thank the First Lord for the promise he made to send the training ship "Northampton" to Stornoway. The first time she was there she only remained a few hours. That is not sufficient time for boys to travel some thirty or forty miles across the island.
MR. GOSCHEN: There is a training ship at Dundee.
MR. WEIR: The training ship at Dundee is a reformatory for boys. What I want is to get respectable lads to enter the Navy. Some newer and more modern guns should be sent to the Stornoway Naval Reserve Station. I would like to know why the men of Bernera are not engaged in the Naval Reserve.
MR. GOSCHEN: As to the Irish fisheries, the Admiralty are under no obligation to enforce local bye-laws. Our duty is rather to protect native fisheries against foreign trawlers; although, when occasion offers, our gun-boats afford other assistance. However, I will take into consideration the suggestion of the hon. Member.
MR. POWER: When the Steam Trawling Act was passing through the House the First Lord of the Treasury said, in reply to my hon. and learned friend the Member for Louth, that the interests of the Irish fisheries would be safeguarded, and on that assurance we let the Bill pass. In compliance with that promise a Bill was introduced prohibiting steam trawling within three miles of the Irish coast, but for sonic reason that Bill never was passed. The Irish Secretary has now a very important Bill before the House, and he says that under that Bill he will be able to protect the Irish fisheries. But it will be some time before he gets his Department into working order. What I wish is that, pending that time, the Admiralty will give us a few gun-boats to enforce the local bye-laws.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think that this is primarily an Admiralty matter. I will, however, confer with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and see if anything can be done, but I cannot make any definite promise on the subject.
MR. POWER: Thank you.
MR. WEIR: I have called attention to several matters, and not one word has been said in regard to them. I beg that this Vote be reduced by £500.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £261,500, he granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Weir.)
MR. GOSCHEN: I can assure the hon. Member that the Highlands have their full share of the attention of the Government. The hon. Member would like to see the training ship "Northampton" at Stornoway for some time. I can say that it will remain there some days. The hon. Member is always saying that there is splendid material for the Navy in the Western Islands, but I can assure him that there is equally splendid material in other parts of the country.
MR WEIR: There are no manufactories or other facilities for employment for these men, except fishing and crofting. The right hon. Gentleman has promised that the "Northampton" will remain some days at Stornoway, I hope she will remain two or three weeks. I have no desire to press the Amendment.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
Original Question put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £218,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900."
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I was advised the other day, by a gentleman who is conversant with the War Office and its ways, never in the future to waste my time in criticising or attacking subordinate officials, but to lay the responsibility where it ought to be, and is, namely upon the Secretary of State for War himself. For indeed, it is the Secretary of State who is after all respon-

1615
sible, and until his attention is drawn to his responsibility, no great improvement will take place. I have taken that advice to heart. I need hardly say that I desire to make my attack on Lord Lansdowne not as an individual, but merely as the responsible head of a great public Department. It would be most ungracious in me if I omitted to add that whatever has been done during the last year or two—and a great deal has been done—to improve the Army, has been due to the Secretary of State himself, rather than to any subordinate in the Department. We gratefully recognise the improvement, or promise of improvement, in regard to the cavalry regiments, about which a great deal of feeling was expressed last session, and we are sanguine enough to believe that that promise will be carried out. We welcome the addition of 2d. to the actual pay of soldiers, and we are pleased to see that a moderate amount of success, largely owing to the initiative of the Secretary of State himself, has attended the employment given to discharged soldiers of good character. I am myself particularly pleased that the Secretary of State for War has met us to a certain extent with regard to the restoration of the old facings of regiments which were particularly proud of them; and I am glad to know that, under his orders, the absurd and impracticable arrangements of the Ordnance Department, which have been so often denounced in this House, have now at last been finally abandoned, and a more rational system been put in their place. While I admit that the Secretary of State has done much good in these matters, I cannot say I am equally pleased with the condition of things that exists in the policy of the War Office. It is all very well to provide a man with a new set of shirt studs, a flower in his buttonhole, and half a crown in his pocket; but if the man happens to be suffering from Oriental plague it is best to let these embellishments wait until you have cured him of his mortal disease. Motion may be the resultant of two forces, a propulsive force and a withholding force; and if the withholding force is superior the result is motion in a backward direction. The retarding force in the War Office has mastered the propelling force, and the result is a retrograde movement. I desire to criticise the policy of the Secretary of State
1616
for War, who is responsible, on certain definite and specific heads. I want to criticise the action, or inaction, of the War Office in regard to the Report which was presented to Parliament last year. That is entirely a matter within the province of the War Office. Hon. Members, I hope, have not forgotten what that Report was. I regret to say that its character and purport are not sufficiently well known, owing to insufficient discussion in the country. I venture to say that never in the history of any Department of Government has there been such a disclosure of administrative incompetence as is disclosed in that Report. That Report was the outcome of an inquiry of a very remarkable Committee. That Committee was formed by the War Office, and was presided over by the Under Secretary of State at that time. It called before it, as witnesses, the most prominent members of the War Office, and took their evidence. And if you wanted to damn the War Office, to discredit its operations, to make it appear a ridiculous and impossible institution, you could not have done better than to repeat the words of that Report, and the evidence on which it was based. I want to know what has been done to give effect to the recommendations of that Report, for, be it noted, these recommendations are not the outcome of, nor do they correspond to the recommendations by private Members; but are made in the interest of the British Army by the War Office itself. We have heard that something has been done. We have been told that some very violent action has been taken, and that the Financial Secretary has got to the point of reducing by £5,000 a year the salaries of the War Office clerks. There is an old story about a man trying to cure an earthquake with a pill, but I have not heard that the treatment was successful; and I am not convinced that even this resource of reducing the War Office clerks' salaries by £5,000 will meet the case. I wish to put a question. Sometimes we have great difficulty in placing the responsibility on the proper person. But in this case I may clearly put the responsibility on the Secretary of State for War, and I want to ask him what he has done with regard to a particular officer who took a marked part in producing the evidence given before that Committee. I want to quote to the House a statement, which was made by one of the most

1617
eminent soldiers in the British Army, and one of the most prominent in the administration of the War Office, I mean Sir Redvers Buller. That eminent officer said:
"I should like to say clearly and openly that I start from this point, and I think I have verified it sufficiently, that the whole system of reports, and regulations, and warrants under which the British Army now serves, has grown up entirely for the benefit of the War Office clerks, and to find work for the War Office clerks rather than to provide control over the army."
That is a very serious statement indeed, and what I want to ask is, what business had Sir Redvers Buller to make it? For the head of a Department, after having been in this responsible position for ten years, and having had the full control of the Department, to openly state at the end of his term that whilst he was there the Department to his knowledge was grossly mismanaged, and that it was conducted for purposes not in the interest of the business for advancing which he received his pay, is an astounding thing, and I can only say that in the trading concern to which I have the honour to belong, or in any concern conducted for profit, we should give short shrift to the head of a Department who acted in such a fashion. When we find an officer in the position of Sir Redvers Buller making such a statement as this after he has left his post, we should make him verify his statement. It would be impertinence in me to criticise him as a soldier, but as a Member of this House and as a taxpayer I am certainly entitled to ask whether any explanation of his statement has been required from him by the Secretary of State. This monstrous condition of things has apparently been going on for ten years to his knowledge, and nothing has been done during the whole of that time to remedy the evil he so graphically describes. I quote this case as an example only, and the conclusion I have been forced to come to is that until we have a thorough transformation of the manner of doing business at the War Office we shall get no advance in the British Army at all. Moreover, I want to know whether the melancholy catalogue of evil and absurd practices which is set out in this report has led to any action which is worthy of the name being taken by the War Office. This is clearly a matter in which the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War is
1618
immediately and primarily involved. I now come to another matter in which I desire to criticise the policy and action—or inaction—of the Secretary of State. Lord Lansdowne as head of the Army is responsible for the defence of this country. He is also the Parliamentary head of the War Office, and responsible for letting the country know the real condition of the Army. I challenge contradiction when I say that the whole effort of the representatives of the War Office has been for the last three years to lead people to believe that there has been a substantial addition to the British Army. That is not the fact. It is the fact that Lord Lansdowne has endeavoured to produce such an impression, and it is only through an accident that the country has learned the truth as to the Army. Only a week ago Lord Lansdowne made a statement in the House of Lords that despite the difficulties in the way of the War Office they were adding to the Army. That is not correct, there is no addition being made to the Army at all. Five years ago the force of the Regular Army, Militia, and Army Reserve was 408,900 men. In the present year the number is 408,924; that is to say that during the five years we have added twenty-four men to the effective forces of the country, and this during a period when there has been an enormous addition to the Army Estimates. Five years ago the amount of the Army Estimates was £17,980,000, and this year they amount to £19,528,000, an increase of £1,545,000. That has been going on for five years; we have had increases during the period of £7,000,000 sterling. The Vote for naval works is about the same figure. What would be the criticism of this house, if, after £7,500,000 had been expended, the Admiralty could only point to an increase of the Navy by twenty-four men?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): All those millions have not been devoted to the increase of men.
MR ARNOLD-FORSTER: I understand my hon. friend says that all this expenditure has not been devoted to getting men, but he ought to remember how often we have been told that these additions were being made to the Army,

1619
and he ought to be as explicit on other occasions as he now appears desirous of being, and he ought to tell the country frankly that after all this expenditure we have only added twenty-four men to the Army. The Secretary of State said only the other day that we were making up slowly the addition that Parliament sanctioned. He said it was true that 5,000 were taken from the Army Reserve, and appeared as an addition to the Army; but that is no addition at all. The remainder have come from the Militia, which is already available for the service of the country. The men have been taken from one force and put into another. I, and probably other hon. Members are familiar with the measures that are resorted to, and efforts that are being made to cozen these men out of the Militia into the Army. I could tell the House what is done in the depôts in this matter, and of the pressure which is put upon the men to leave the Militia and enter the line. Of course, where the devil drives one must needs go, but if we must get men in this way do not let us be told that we are adding to the defensive forces of the country. With regard to the policy which the Secretary of State has thought fit to adopt to cope with this state of things, I admit he has made gallant attempts to get more men to come into the Army, but we have always said he was going the wrong way about it, and not doing the proper thing to get men into the Army, and to keep them in the Army when he got them. A few days ago in the House of Lords the Secretary of State spoke in a most alarming manner, and it looked as if we were on the verge of conscription. It may be that we shall have to come to that unfortunate condition of things. There are many of us who believe that a time will come when we shall no longer be able to get an army on a voluntary system, bit before we come to so melancholy a conclusion we should make a trial of all other methods. The old method is a failure—let us try others. The Secretary of State says that he will never consent to a long service army and a short service army existing at the same time, but a long service army already exists in practice, though in theory it has no existence whatever. All the advantages that appertain to long service have been abandoned, and the disadvantages of the short service
1620
retained, but, nevertheless, there are as many long service men in the Army as there have ever been since the Crimea. If you led recruits to understand that they were in for long service you might get some advantage by doing so, but when you enlist men for short service and then persuade them to prolong their term, under short-service rules; or when you call men back from the Reserve, you are doing that which is unjust in itself, which produces the minimum of advantage, and which as a remedy for your difficulties is bound to fail. The authorities attribute the falling off of recruits to the goodness of trade, and that no doubt is a great bar to recruiting, but I should like to point out that the Army is not the only military force in this country. There is a force of 20,000 men, which, I believe, is the best military force in the country—the Royal Marines, and though there has been some falling off in the recruiting there, they are still adding men to the corps. In the last few years the Marines have been increased from 14,000 to 20,000 men, a real, and not a sham increase; and though the recruiting has been slack during the last six months the falling off has only amounted to 183 men. I think the War Office might learn a lesson from the Royal Marines in this respect, and the sooner they learn that lesson the better for the Army and the country. I am not prepared to accept the statement that good trade is the reason for the failure of recruits. The Secretary of State for War tells us that something is being done to increase the facilities and opportunities for employing discharged soldiers; but there again, though he is doing good work, he is not getting the benefit of it. Lord Lansdowne professes to believe in chance charity, but I have always urged that employment after service should be absolutely assured to men who fulfil certain conditions. Common-sense tells us that if you want to get a man to join the Army as a career you must give him some guarantee that when he leaves it, provided he has satisfied certain conditions, he will be entitled to employment. There is no guarantee at present, and it is a mere toss up whether he will get employment or not, or of what kind or form his employment may be. If the War Office wants to get recruits, they must give them a guarantee when

1621
they enlist. The Secretary of State tells us there is a difficulty in getting men, but would it not be better to keep the men he has got? He does not realise, and the country does not realise, the amount of waste that goes on in the Army at the present time. The Secretary of State adopts a system which loses him thousands of men who ought to be retained in the Army. I find from the Report that in 1897 of men under twenty-one years of age no less than 4,411 were discharged from the Army, and 1,924 deserted before they completed their term of service. This makes a total of 6,335, and, when we remember that the whole number of men discharged from the Army in the year was 12,900, we are able to realise the extent of this waste. I believe that nine-tenths of that waste is absolutely preventible. As it is absolutely necessary for the Committee to know the extent of waste that goes on I take another figure. There were discharged into the Army Reserve in 1898 16,220 men. Those are the men who have completed their effective service. In 1892 there were 39,500 men enlisted into the Army, so that the waste in those six years—men absolutely obliterated and lost to the country—amounted, roughly speaking, to no less than 23,000 men. Making the most ample allowance for the men who extended their service in any one year, that margin of 23,000 men gone out of the Army, lost to the country, in six years is so serious that the Secretary of State ought to be able to give some better explanation than we have ever had of tile merits of the system which permit such a thing to he of regular occurrence. Why is it hard, as we are told it is, to get non-commissioned officers in the Army, and afterwards to keep them? I should like to state why so many leave after their seven years' term. It is because inducements are not offered to them to extend their term before they come to the end of their engagement. The Secretary of State could get scores and hundreds of men who make the best class of noncommissioned officers if he would only arrange to use a little common-sense and extend the only system which has yet been tried with success. Where do the N.C.O.'s come from now? Seven-tenths are men who come through the Duke of York School or the Royal Hibernian School. It is only by accident that these boys get into the Army at all. So im-
1622
provident is our system that if you had twice as many boys at those schools, the additional boys would never get into the Army at all, and there again I say that the policy that the Secretary of State clings to is a wrong one. It is a policy which disregards alike the dictates of Englishmen and commonsense. Lord Lansdowne, in his remarks the other day, did not say a word that was not within the mark about the Militia, which is dying, or rather I should say is being killed by the present system. He said it was dying, and adumbrated heroic measures for its resuscitation. He said it was 19,000 below strength; it is a great deal more than that; if we regard as effective the men present at inspection, it is 44,000 below its established strength, and if we take away the Militia Reserve it is 68,000 below its established strength. I venture to recommend a treatment of the Militia very different from the drastic remedy suggested by the Secretary of State—the Militia should be treated as if they were, human beings and Englishmen. What is the inducement to men to enlist as militiamen? Their officers, if they behave themselves, are taken away in a couple of years; they are not sure of their comrades, for in every Militia regiment some hundreds of "special service men" on the first alarm of war are taken away; the Militia Reserve would also in event of war be drafted off for service with the Line; they are given an inferior uniform, and on every occasion are treated as if they were the drudges of the Army. Is it not the fact that at the War Office a Militia officer is rebuked or praised exactly in proportion as he makes his battalion a feeder of the Line? That is not the way to encourage Englishmen to take an interest in their work, and until the Secretary of State recognises the fact we all know he will have the same melancholy tale to tell as that which he told the other day. In conclusion, I challenge the policy of the Secretary of State, because, in my opinion, in almost every direction it disregards the ordinary feelings of Englishmen. There is no branch of the service which the War Office can touch that it has touched without injuring. Only this afternoon the House had another instance of the disregard by the War Office of the human

1623
element in the men it controlled, in the answer of the Under Secretary of State with regard to recruiting for the Volunteers, which to my mind is typical of the whole course of business at the War Office. He has threatened that if the non-commissioned officers of the force do not follow the course prescribed by the War Office, and follow men into public-houses to get them to join the Army, they shall be dismissed the service.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are going a long way outside the scope of the Vote.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I hope an opportunity will be given him for dwelling upon the question of Volunteer instructors and recruiting, and I may say that the answer which was put into the mouth of my hon. friend was so uninformed and so misleading that it was a pity he was ever allowed to give it. I do not hesitate to say that, unless there is a radical change in the whole point of view of the War Office with regard to the Service, the country is going straight to disaster. I have had the honour of obtaining the views of men of every rank in every branch of the Service in every part of the world, and I am forced to the conclusion that there is a radical difference of opinion and a radical difference in the point of view between officers actually serving with the troops and the chiefs of the War Office; and that until there is an absolute revolution in the views of one side or the other there never can be that harmony which is so essential to the efficient administration of the service. There is an absolute want of comprehension of the true feelings and aspirations of the soldier among those who administer the War Office. The War Office has pledged itself over and over again to a policy which it said would surely succeed, and it has failed; and the War Office is now compelled to admit that it has failed, and we ask that there should be a radical change in the policy and point of view in those who administer the Department.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The melancholy answer given at question time to-day to the hon. Member for Cheltenham only emphasised the failure of the War Office as regards recruiting for the
1624
Army, which was developed by the Secretary of State in his speech the other day. It has been shown by my hon. friend the Member for Belfast, that the number of 12,000 men which we were supposed to have obtained is entirely illusory; that the supply of recruits has failed lamentably. The sad admission of the Secretary of State War is, with regard to the failure of the War Office in the matter of recruiting, only what Members interested in the subject have prophesied over and over again would come to pass. But the falling off in recruits is worse even than it appears on the surface. The safety of this country in time of war must depend mainly, not on the troops shut up in distant colonies and fortifications, but upon the striking Army, the Army we can send out immediately. But the number of men at home has greatly diminished during the last four years, and we are in a far weaker position in respect of sending out an expeditionary force than we have been in for a long time, and that despite a large increase in expenditure. But while we are not allowed to discuss on this Vote the condition of the Militia and Volunteers, there has been admittedly pressure brought to bear upon the Militia, and also upon the Volunteers, which are being used merely as recruiting agencies for the Line. If the War Office is tied to the maintenance of the present system on the general lines adopted by three successive Governments, then it is impossible for them to do otherwise. They must find men where they can, and if they do not believe much in the practical value of the Volunteers to this country, they naturally fall back upon the Militia and the Volunteers, and use them as mere recruiting agencies of the Line, without caring whether the efficiency of those forces is diminished or not. This great decrease which has occurred in the number of troops at home, and the absolutely stationary character as regards the number of troops in the whole Empire, is accompanied by many stratagems for swelling the numbers. The standard has been progressively lowered, and that has produced a large increase. The standard of the Guards is now 5ft. 7in., while the standard for the Line is 5ft. 3½in. In addition to this, 13,000 "specials," not even possessing the present qualifications, have been accepted during the last year. The proportion of

1625
special enlistments is increasing steadily and even rapidly. In 1896 the specials constituted 18 per cent., in 1897 29 per cent., and in 1898 31 per cent. In spite of all this, the number of the troops is of a stationary character, and there are "serious misgivings as regards the future" in the mind of the Secretary of State. In spite of every stratagem being used to increase the numbers—that is, the reduction of the standard and the pressure brought to bear on the Militia and the Volunteers, which is practically destroying those forces—the number of the troops remains stationary. I need not, in face of these terrible facts, dwell upon any other points upon which, if we had time to-night, I should have liked to -question the administration of the War Office. The Volunteers can hardly be dealt with upon the Volunteer Vote today. The difficulties of the Army with regard to ranges—which the Government are now making attempts to cope with—have only further deteriorated a portion of our forces. In regard to the strength of the artillery, which is a matter of rapidly increasing importance, the Government have fallen far short of the endeavours which they ought to have made. I cannot ask the Government to tell us all they know upon this question, but I am sure they must know what is a matter of common notoriety amongst those who have been able to follow the French experiments in artillery. There can be no doubt that one great Power, at all events, has an artillery gun which is altogether in advance of anything which we possess in this country. The new French gun is a real quick-firing gun. of which the French have now mastered the difficulties. It has a hydro-pneumatic brake, allowing of rapid firing without the relaying of the gun even in difficult country; and that is altogether in advance of anything which this country possesses, and the Government, with all its enormous expenditure upon the Army, were only able to tell us that they had adopted a temporary expedient, that further inquiry was being made, and that important developments might be looked for in the future. We are certainly enormously behind, in this all-important respect, of one of the great Powers, and it is a matter which, even on a night when we have but a very short time to devote to the discussion of the ladies of the War Office, deserves the
1626
attention of the House. There have been discussions upon this subject lately in which the whole of the shortcomings of the Government have been exposed. There was a most interesting discussion the other day over this artillery question at the Royal Artillery Institution, where General Brackenbury was in the chair, and Colonel Bainbridge cross-examined the officers in regard to the artillery operations in Egypt. On that occasion Major Young took part in the discussions, and what he said curiously illustrated the feeling of this country in regard to the artillery which was put forward when we had the Debate at the beginning of this session. We then criticised the whole policy of the War Office with regard to the non-rearmament of the artillery, and in regard to those Debates, Major Young said very frankly that a British officer hardly knew what to do with wagons, and could not understand ammunition supply because they were never drilled in this respect in this country. This, I think, is a matter which, even on a night when we are limited in time, deserves the attention of the Committee, and ought to be pressed upon the notice of the War Office. With regard to the main question which my hon. friend opposite, in a powerful speech, has placed before the Committee, I desire to ask whether we can expect the country to rest content with the general military system which has brought us to such a sad pass in regard to our national recruiting as that which we have confessedly reached at the present time. The Under Secretary of State seems to think that it is a sufficient reply to the proposals of myself and of my hon. friend to ask how we would deal with the regimental system. My hon. friend the Under Secretary for War is a little new to his place; and although he has been able to pick up the threads of past Debates after being in office during one very busy session only, we can hardly expect that he can thoroughly have mastered everything that has been written upon this subject. Those of us who believe in the establishment of two separate armies—a long - service army serving abroad, and a short-service army serving at home—with free exchange of officers and men between them—are not afraid to say so. But we have not pinned ourselves to the actual separation of the two armies. Those of us

1627
who hold the most extreme views of separate armies have exposed ourselves to criticism with regard to the regimental system, but we have been able to meet that criticism by the modified proposal which we put forward to couple the existing regimental system with the proposals which we have made. It would meet the essentials of our view if you gave the men the chance of enlistment under either the long-service or the short-service system. If you adopt frankly those two systems of recruiting, and put them forward without any cheating at all of the recruits or of the taxpayers, I believe that, with all the facts before us relating to the long service marines, and even the facts of your own brief trial of the three years' system, you will see that they all go to show that you would meet with a success. We firmly believe that they do offer some chance of success, whereas your own system has proved a hopeless wreck. I know there is a very deep-rooted War Office prejudice in this matter. Many of the younger and most brilliant men in the service believe in having two forms of enlistment offered to the men, but successive Governments have resisted the idea, and they have been backed up by a large amount of War Office authority. They have resisted it in their speeches, in which they have told us that we were about to see the triumphant and final success of their alternative system. We have now seen this absolute and final breakdown in the system, and I venture to ask that some members of the Committee should join our ranks, and help us to adopt some such system, which we have recommended, and to which the Government promised to give a trial. It cannot be said that the trial on a small scale of the three years' kyst eni is the fair test for which We ask of the reform we advocate. Moreover, there is a distinction drawn between the three years, men and other men in the rate of pay, and constant pressure is brought to hear upon the three years' men to extend their service. Therefore we cannot admit that that is a fair trial of the shorter system. In adding my voice to the cause put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast, I think I may say that the War Office confess the failure of their policy which was revealed to the country in the speech delivered by the Secretary for War.
GENERAL RUSSELL: I feel that I require no apology in asking the indulgence of the Committee to enable me to call attention to what is probably the most important matter in connection with the money which they are now asked to vote for the support of the Army. I allude to the organisation of the War Office. In round numbers we spend about twenty millions on our Army exclusive of the Indian establishment, and I regret to say that in connection with this vast expenditure of money there has long been, and there is now, I fear, a very strong feeling, not only in this House, but also out of doors, that we do not get the full value for our money. It has been asserted—and, I fear, not without good ground—that the office which has practically the dispensing of this vast sum is faulty in organisation, cumbersome and unpractical in its methods, in short, that it does not turn to best account the funds placed at its disposal. As a result of this widespread feeling of mistrust the present Secretary of State appointed a Committee about a year and a half since, with the right hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as president, to report on the decentralisation of War Office business. This Committee sat for about two months, took a large amount of evidence, and issued their report on the 16th of March last year. Now, Sir, I do not hesitate to say that the evidence and Report contained in these pages, although they contain nothing that surprises those who, from personal experience, are conversant with the War Office and its ways, cannot fail to fill the mind of any man of ordinary business capacity, who takes the trouble to read them, with astonishment and disgust. Such extraordinary circumlocution, muddling mismanagement, and want of system would bring any ordinary commercial business to a standstill in six months. To give some instances quoted in the Report, the general officer commanding at Aldershot could not transfer a gunner from one battery to another under his command without reference to London, and papers that required nine signatures; nor could he send back an unsatisfactory gunner of the district, staff to his battery at Woolwich without papers involving twelve signatures. No general could authorise the issue of straw hats at 3d. a-piece, and specially ordered by the medical officer to protect a work-

1629
ing party from sunstroke, without reference to the War Office. I should weary the Committee were I to multiply instances of this most extraordinary and unpractical system as quoted in this Report and evidence—perhaps, however, I might be permitted to give one instance out of these many from my own practical experience; I can do so with less hesitation, as all the officials to whom I refer are now dead. A good many years ago I was employed in the Intelligence Branch of the Adjutant-General's Department, and was brought over to the War Office to take the duty of the late Sir Thomas Baker, who had been suddenly ordered to India to take up the duties of Military Secretary to the Viceroy. Musketry was one of the subjects dealt with by the Department, of which I had temporary charge. One day the chief civilian clerk, an admirable official, well acquainted with all the intricacies of War Office traditions, brought me a telegram from the officer commanding at Aldershot, begging that an answer might be sent to a pressing application which he had made a few days since, requesting that authority might be given to the Ordnance Store officer to issue targets, at which troops now assembled at Aldershot for musketry training might practise skirmishing. The chief clerk told me that he had made a search in the office for the paper in question, which had been already then about a week receiving annotations and signatures from various subordinate officials. It appeared that some canvas targets were required of the value of about 30s., to enable the troops to finish their musketry; that these were in store at Aldershot, but could not be issued without authority from London; it appeared also that the matter was pressing, the troops in question were under canvas, the weather was breaking, and the officer commanding was anxious to let them finish their course and go into winter quarters. The Adjutant-General happened to he away for a couple of days, so I could not ask his advice, and the chief clerk assured me that before this expenditure of 30s. could be sanctioned this paper must be submitted to a number of other officials, including the Director of Artillery, the Accountant-General, and I believe to several others, that it would then have to be submitted to the Commander-in-Chief, when it would again come back to the Adjutant-General, and
1630
hence that the request of the general commanding at Aldershot could not possibly be granted within a week. I said, "Telegraph at once, and sanction the issue of these targets. We can square all these people afterwards. If bad comes to worse it is only a matter of 30s. I will pay it myself." The chief clerk appeared much shocked by my levity, and told me that I was transgressing all the rules of the War Office. I said, "Never mind, I will take the risk; please have a letter written in the Commander-in-Chief's name for me to sign, confirming the telegram." A day of reckoning, however, was in store for me. A short time afterwards the Adjutant-General sent for me and told me that I had got him into a terrible scrape, and I must conic with him and make my peace with some of the officials whose authority I had disregarded He showed me into a room where there was a little fat man with a red face, bursting with indignation. The Adjutant-General said, "This is the young and inexperienced officer of whom you complained; he wishes to apologise. I am sure he will never do such a thing again." Such, Sir, are, or were the ways of the War Office. I will not, however, inflict on the Committee any more anecdotes from my own or any other persons' experience; I will only refer them to the printed evidence laid before them. Sir Redvers Buller is a well known officer, who has now what is undoubtedly the most important command in the United Kingdom. He, moreover, had about twenty-three years' experience of the War Office, only broken by various periods when he was on active service. On page 40 you will see he says:
"The whole system of reports and regulations and warrants under which the British Army now serves has grown up entirely for the benefit of War Office clerks, and to find work at the War Office rather than to find control for the Army."
And, again, in answer to Question 954, when asked if there had not been an enormous transfer of actual administrative work from the civil to the military side, he replies:
"You cannot say that the work is administrative if the officer in charge is not responsible for the accomplishment of it."
Now, Sir, I will not attempt to wade through a tenth of the evidence contained

1631
in this Paper. I will only call the attention of the Committee to the evidence of Sir W. Butler, a well-known officer, who himself was some time at the War Office, and held what is at the present moment the most important command in any of our colonies, India excepted. But he makes some further most important and serious statements; he states it to be his deliberate opinion that our young army is not properly trained. In answer to Questions 1506–7–8–9, he expresses this opinion, and refers to the checks and disasters that occurred in the Afridi war. He attributes this want of training to the fact that staff officers and generals in command are unable to devote the time necessary for the proper training of troops, in consequence of having such an enormous amount of office work and preparation of returns to the War Office—returns which, as I learn by the evidence, are scarcely ever read. Well, Sir, this Committee made many practical recommendations, only a small proportion of which I am told have as yet been carried out. The Secretary of State also, in his opening statement at the commencement of this session, informed us that a Departmental Committee had been appointed to inquire into the organisation of the War Office. I have addressed several questions to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, the Chairman, as to this Committee—when its Report will be issued, and whether it will be published—but have failed to get any satisfactory reply. I really think we must press the Government to hold nothing back, to conceal nothing, and to publish the evidence of this Committee. It may not be generally known that practically the financial work of the War Office is done twice over. Exclusive of the Pay Department, which, of course, must remain centralised under the sole control of the Accountant-General, there are three great spending departments at the War Office: The Quartermaster-General for supplies, clothing, and such like; the Inspector-General of Ordnance for ammunition, guns, material, etc.; and the Inspector-General of Fortifications for barracks, works, etc. Each one of these departments has financial clerks attached to it, who are supposed to exercise financial control over the expenditure. There is also the department of the Accountant - General, which also exercises financial control—a dual control, one of which is superfluous. In point of
1632
fact, no officer in charge of one of these great departments is free to spend the money voted for it without reference not only to the finance department of his own branch, but also to the Accountant-General and his clerk, who, I believe, often keep applications for weeks without a reply, much to the detriment of the service. I maintain that each officer in charge of these great depart rents should be held responsible, and solely responsible for it, subject to that financial control which is customary and necessary in all commercial matters of business, and which Parliament very rightly demands. Such is the system in Germany, with the result of which the Committee is well acquainted, that is, so far as possible, efficiency combined with economy. In point of fact our present system is framed on that which was in force in the French Army prior to 1870. I remember well seeing a French play shortly after that disaster. The Minister of War was depicted, surrounded by papers and clerks, worn to death by signing his name. Telegrams were coming from all parts saying that in one place the soldiers had no food, in another no boots, in another no ammunition. The Minister replied: "I can attend to none of these things; let the men starve, let ammunition fail, let armies be defeated, let kingdoms be lost, but abolish not a single return, let not a single War Office clerk he pensioned or dismissed." I quite recognise the answer of the present Secretary and Under Secretary to do their best for the Army, and I believe that no War Minister has ever done so much as he has done already during his term of office. I quite realise the difficulty of dealing with vested interests, but if the evidence of Sir W. Butler is to be trusted regarding the cost of this establishment effect, it would pay us well to retire all unnecessary clerks on full pay, and say have another half brigade of infantry.
CAPTAIN NORTON: In reviewing the general policy of the Army I shall not attempt to deal with the War Office, inasmuch as it has been very fully dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham. I will simply say that centralisation is undoubtedly the curse of the British Army, so far as ad-

1633
ministration is concerned. As regards the Horse Guards, I should be sorry to say one word which would seem to be of a carping nature, inasmuch as these officers do all in their power to make the best of the material which is placed at their disposal, and they rightly and properly say that the question of how the material is to be produced is not a military question. Some years ago those of us in this House who take an interest in the question placed before the country the fact that the defensive forces were inadequate to the Empire. We pointed out that, in our humble opinion, if the present system is to be continued a large number of battalions should be added to the line, in order that the battalions on foreign service should be adequate, without, at the same time, reducing the home battalions to non-effective fighting units. We were half met by the War Office authorities. They decided to add 25,000 men to the Army within three years. And what has been the result? We are told that they only succeeded in getting 12,000 men. But, as has been pointed out, 5,000 of these men have been stolen, if I may use the word, from the Army Reserve. The result is that we are farther off than ever from having the force necessary for the adequate defence of the Empire. We look for an increase of attractions in the Army, and I admit that the present Government have done much in that direction; but with reference to the employment of time-expired men, I am of opinion that they have not done all that they might have done. Of course, we shall be told that the people of this country have great reliance on the Navy. Now, it is not the business of those of us interested in military matters to take that fact into such consideration as it deserves; the point is that the military forces of the country are not, in our opinion, sufficient. We are told that we have men and money enough, and should be perfectly able to meet difficulties when difficulties come. Some years ago our neighbours the French, than whom
1634
there is not a more gallant and patriotic nation, fell into this mistake, contenting themselves with the belief that at the time of war every man would step forward in defence of the country. They did step forward. And what was the result? That the German Army, by superior organisation, properly drilled troops, with excellent commanders, practically trampled the French nation into the ground. Our object is to see that by short-sightedness we do not experience a similar danger in this country. What has happened recently? The Secretary of State for War has himself, in another place, practically admitted that the present system, if not actually breaking down, is on the point of doing so. I am anxious that the Under-Secretary for War should make a similar statement in this House, in order that the people of this country may know the position in which they are placed with reference to the military defences of the Empire. The Secretary for War has pointed out what many of us know, but what the majority of the people of this country do not know, viz., that by the suspension of the voluntary system by Order in Council, almost every able-bodied man in the country is liable to he called out for military service. The Secretary for War has put forward the suggestion of a ballot for the Militia. The ballot for the Militia will not solve the question of producing recruits to the line. I think it was very clearly proved by the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who preceded me that the failure of the voluntary system has practically taken place. We are supposed to have a regular force of 176,000 men; we have only 157,000, and are therefore 19,000 short. The Army Reserve is 12,000 short, the Militia 19,000 short, the Yeomanry 2,000 short, and the 'Volunteers 33,000 short; and yet we are calling on the people of this country to produce exactly three millions sterling more than they voted ten years ago for the Army, and as the hon. Member for West Belfast pointed out, we have

1635
twenty-four men in addition. We are spending one-sixth of the total revenue on the Army, and after all we have not sufficient troops to produce an expeditionary force of two army corps. The Secretary for War pointed out that the responsibilities of our position are very great indeed, and that we might have to enlist large numbers of mercenary troops in order to hold our possessions. But we ought to look at the other side of the question, and remember what befell great empires in days gone by, like Rome and Carthage, when they relied too much on mercenaries. Even the best of our Indian regiments, except the Goorkhas, without a certain backing of European troops, are not to be relied upon. During the past twenty years the Army has been considerably below its proper strength, and if we are ever to get it up the source of supply must certainly be changed. We seek to obtain recruits from small agricultural counties which are practically depleted of men, and we let large districts with immense populations like South Wales and Lancashire produce practically the same number. We are told that we have some 78,000 Army Reserve men, but I would ask the Under Secretary for War whether he believes for a moment, if be endeavoured to call out the Army Reserve, he would get 50,000, or even 40,000, who were fit to join the ranks of the Army. He knows it would be practically impossible. Out of the 213,000 Volunteers, how many would break down on the march, and how many of them are actually efficient? Would that force be of the smallest value in the event of the invasion of this country, unprovided as they are with transports, and weak as they are in artillery and cavalry? The Secretary of State threw out the suggestion that the best thing we could do would be, seeing that we had the power to raise a Militia force, and inasmuch as the Militia costs only £15 per head, to raise another 100,000 Militia men in the hope of getting recruits for the Line. Would it not be very much
1636
better for the Secretary of State to make a clean breast of it, and tell the people of this country that the present system has absolutely broken down, and that we must have recourse to the system recommended by my right hon. friend? If you will introduce a long service system for India and the Colonies, and make sonic approach to the current standard of wages for unskilled labour in the country, as well as formulate some scheme whereby security is offered as to employment after a man leaves the service, the Army will certainly get enough men for its purpose. With regard to the question of finance, I am confident that if the issue at stake is clearly defined, there is enough common sense in the people of this country to justify me in saying that they would be prepared to pay the requisite bill, rather than run the most remote risk of being placed in the position in which a great country contiguous to ours was placed in only a few months ago.
CAPTAIN BAGOT: The Report of the Committee on the War Office is undoubtedly a very damaging document, but it does not apply so much to the present as to the late administration. The evidence of Sir Redvers Buller is most striking. He said the enormous amount of correspondence arid Returns which have to be sent to the War Office rendered useful administration impossible. The Committee reported that a large number of Returns and Reports might be usefully abolished, and that the abolition of one Return alone, relating to the employment of civil practitioners, would save 1,500 letters in a year. I understand that almost every one of the recommendations of the Select Committee has been approved, or partly approved, by the present Secretary for War, and it is evident that if the omission of only one return is going to relieve the War Office to the extent of something like 1,500 letters a year, an enormous mass of correspondence and returns must have been saved by the action of the present Secretary of State for War. So far as I understand, no reference has been made to the fact that the present administration has gone a very long way towards remedying the evil, and it would be interesting to know what is the amount of reduction, if any, in the

1637
number of clerks, and the salaries of those clerks. If it is admitted that the whole mass of correspondence scheduled in the report of the Select Committee has been taken away, there ought to be a corresponding diminution in the number of clerks and in their salaries. The evidence of Sir Redvers Buller was extremely strong. He pointed out that it was impossible to carry on the business of the War Office with that immense mass of correspondence, and he gave as one reason for such a mass that it was owing to the action of the House of Commons, whose Members were always asking for returns for some purpose or other, which was not always easy to discover, but which entailed an immense amount of clerical work and time; and also that questions were asked about the smallest details as to what was going on in some remote part of the Empire. Of course those matters have to be dealt with, but the House of Commons should not require too much, if it is not prepared to pay for it. I should like to refer to one other matter, and I do not wish to advocate it from any sentimental point of view. I believe that the system of hospital accommodation for soldiers as it at present exists is very expensive. The hon. Member for West Belfast said that something like 6,000 men leave the Army yearly who could not be accounted for. But the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that between 3,000 and 4,000 are accounted for as being invalided out of the Army, and that out of that 3,000 or 4,000 about 1,000 are dealt with by the Chelsea Commissioners. Still, out of 200,000 men something like 13,000 a year are constantly non-effective from illness, which is a very large proportion. In civilian hospitals there is always a large proportion of inmates who, after the first period of their illness, are sent to convalescent homes; but in the whole of the hospital system of the Army there does not appear to be any regular system of convalescent homes. I believe there is only one such home open to soldiers, and it has accommodation simply for sixty-eight patients. Surely the War Office authorities must see that it would not only be desirable but economical, if soldiers, instead of being sent back to the ranks after a short time in hospital or discharged, could have the advantage of some system of convalescent homes. If there could be some arrangement with some of
1638
those homes to take the partly cured soldiers—and I believe something of the kind has been suggested—into the civilian hospitals which could afford to receive them at a cheap rate, the men might be able to return to efficient service after a certain time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some favourable answer to these suggestions.
MR. PIRIE: It is a matter of regret that the number attending the Committee-to-night is very small, considering the gravity of the questions we are discussing. There have been many criticisms passed on various questions already, and I trust I shall not be out of order if, in criticising the policy of the Secretary of State for War, I especially dwell on the conditions of recruiting which receive his sanction and for which I hold him responsible. I might find fault with many other points, but in view of the Debate that has taken place the Committee must be pretty well assured that there have been sufficient subjects for criticism already. From the preliminary return of the British Army issued in anticipation of the annual report, I find that, of the 84,000 persons who were last year served with notices by recruiters, 27,500 were rejected prior to attestation, 12,500 failed to appear for attestation, and 5,000 were rejected after attestation, and the unprecedented number of 600 deserted. These are record recruiting figures on a downward scale, and show that the class from which we draw recruits is steadily becoming worse, and that a radical change is required. The Army authorities are in desperate straits, and every expedient is being adopted to obtain recruits. I think when there comes an almost illegitimate connection between recruiting and the public - house, it is time we adopted some very different system of obtaining recruits. This connection is far more general than Members care to recognise, and demands serious attention. I would also refer to-night to the very evil effect on the Army of the system which prevails to a very great extent of enlisting men under false ages, not merely one or two years younger than the regular age, but to the extent of three or four years under what is supposed to be the case. Until we are prepared to adopt some such system as prevails in the Navy, or even in the Marines,

1639
of demanding some moral character or birth certificate, we will never obtain the class we ought to as recruits for the Army.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question of recruiting cannot be gone into in detail on this Vote; it arises on Vote 1.
MR. PIRIE: I do not intend to go further than to hold out the present recruiting system as the chief reason for the very unsatisfactory state of affairs which at present exists with regard to the supply of recruits. When we are in such desperate straits as at present concerning our Army, it is our bounden duty to put forward what suggestions we can for improving matters. You will never obtain the class of recruits you require until you recognise that that class are animated by the same feelings as are the class from which the commissioned ranks are supplied. At present there is an utter disregard of the human feelings of that class. Before even the talk about conscription is indulged in—"the curse of conscription," as it was aptly described the other day by a distinguished officer—many other expedients must be tried. The possibility should be considered of holding out further inducements for men to join by increasing the number of commissions given from the ranks. If the number of such commissions was increased it would be a very strong inducement to men to join. Then we have been far too ready to imitate foreign Powers in the matter of tailoring trivialities. We must take up more serious business than that. Officers of the British Army must recognise that it may be necessary that uniform should be worn more generally than it is at present. Were this adopted it would have the beneficial effect of making the uniform of the private soldier more respected. And with this might be granted greater facilities for cheap travelling, both to officers and men, while it might also be possible to make it a condition when giving licences to places of public amusement that uniform, whether worn by officers or men, should he admitted at reduced prices. These are all things to be considered before we reach the end of our tether and throw up the sponge and say we cannot get any more men without conscription. The Colonies are a field which is practically untouched. It is typical of the War Office that there is delay after delay, procrastination after procrastina-
1640
tion, and no tangible or practical result as regards recruiting in the Colonies. For three years the question as regards Canada has been as far advanced as it is to-day. Another question is the provision of temperance rooms in barracks.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not dwell upon the question of recruits.
MR. PIRIE: It is closely connected with the condition of life, and with the condition under which you treat men in, the Army.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a detail of administration which should be raised in its proper place. All that is possible in this Vote is a general criticism of the War Office. In regard to recruiting and other matters—details such as that must be raised on their respective Votes.
MR. PIRIE: My criticism is that the War Office has not provided these temperance rooms as it should have done. Pay alone will not attract a better class of men; there is something higher than that. It is absolutely deplorable that the nation does not get 75 per cent. value for the money spent on the Army. We ought never to rest content until we have the same competition to get into the ranks of the Army as there is at present to get into the commissioned ranks. That is a state of affairs which if proper lines were adopted should be achieved. So strongly do I feel upon these matters that in order to get a reply from the Under Secretary of State for War, and as a protest against the system by which boys are accepted as recruits under absolutely false ages, I will move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £248,200, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Pirie.)
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: We are to-night dealing with a very serious question in a business-like way. Some Members seem inclined to blame the Government, as if they were entirely responsible for the present condition of things, which many of us are united in deploring. I do not think that is quite a fair line to taker although, perhaps, it is a necessary line in order to hang our arguments thereon. But the Government are free from blame

1641
for having in any way failed to do their best to carry out the system which they inherited, and which it would have taken a great deal of statesmanship to change at very short notice. The Government have an absolutely strong case in so far as they have done their level best to improve the conditions of life in the Army, and to make those conditions more nearly meet the requirements of the better class which it is desirable to attract to the service. The Government have had to do this under circumstances of exceptional difficulty. They have had to meet a condition of trade and competition such as, probably, no Government seeking recruits for the Army have ever had to face before. The conditions and inducements which would have been sufficient to fill the ranks of the Army in times of depression and bad trade are inadequate and unsatisfactory in times such as we have experienced during the past three or four years. I trust the Government will not necessarily defend too absolutely a condition of things which it may be impossible to defend in the long run. I should be sorry to think that they considered it necessary to wait to confess a failure until that failure had become a danger to the Army and to the country. We wish the intelligence and zeal which we recognise as being at the head of the Army Department of the State to be used in time to prevent disaster, and not to bolster up a condition of things which it may eventually be impossible to defend. There is a tendency on the part of all officials to think that their personal credit is concerned in backing up and defending that which they have been put to administer. The greater Statesman and Minister is the one who recognises when it is time to shift his ground from one condition of things to another. It may be that there is close upon us now an absolute necessity to change the system on which our Army is conducted, and we shall have to face the great problem of putting it on a different footing from that which it now occupies. Many of us think we are labouring under a great deal too much of the civilian element in the War Office. If it comes to a matter of economy, it would be possible to utilise the intelligence, education and zeal of officers to carry out the work of the War Office which is now done by highly-priced civilian clerks. People are apt to say that you cannot get the necessary intelligence and clerical power from
1642
ordinary officers of the Army. But what are the facts? Whenever a bit of country is annexed to the Empire and a man is wanted to administer it economically, intelligently, and effectively, who is the chosen man? Not your highly-paid civilian clerk, but your young English subaltern with a free hand. You have in connection with the officers of the Army an enormous supply of men, absolutely well fitted to do this work, who, in conjunction with their retired pay, would be only too glad to fill these offices, and would fill them at least as well and probably better and more cheaply than they are filled now by the civilian representatives, whose absence from the War Office would conduce to the greater efficiency of the Army. In connection with the scheme suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, such schemes are taking hold of the minds of Members who think strongly on the subject. We feel that as things stand we are not in the position we ought to be in if there are to be placed upon us increasing responsibilities; the system as we have it now is not equal to the emergency. If we once acknowledge that, we must not complain if we see even startling changes made as the only possible salvation for the efficient maintenance of our Army in the future. My hon. friend should not be too zealous in defending that which now exists, but he should bring all his weight and authority to bear in the direction of making others recognise the possibility of a change being forced upon us at no distant date. But, while we make these criticisms, it would be just as well that those who read this Debate should recognise that although we wish to be a great deal stronger than we are, we are yet a great deal stronger than some people think, and that we have at the present moment ample power to put on board ship, and to use, if necessary, such a force as would very much astonish and startle some of those who think we are in a condition of weakness and unable to act rapidly and successfully.
MR. WYNDHAM: Although many Members wish to address the Committee, I think it is due to those who have already spoken that I should take some stock of the position to which we have arrived owing to the arguments which have been put forward. My hon. friend has begged me not to take too combative an attitude, nor to attempt to traverse every consideration which has been put

1643
forward. I have never attempted to take up every glove which has been thrown down, and when Members assert that the question of finding sufficient recruits for the British Army is a difficult one, I do nor feel that I am bound, in the position I occupy, to say it is an easy one. The problem with which we have to grapple is a far harder one than is presented to any of the great Continental nations, and if we fail—as in a measure we do fail—nobody ought to be surprised if we do not, by some royal road, solve the problem of occupying India, and casually such places as Crete and Egypt, while preserving garrisons abroad, fitting in with one complete scheme of Imperial defence. That is a problem which no one else has to tackle, but it is one with which we have to deal, and a very difficult one. I therefore feel that when the House goes into Committee on the Army Estimate we may very well take the view that we are in counsel together, and anxious to hear any suggestions that may be offered which are likely to facilitate us in the task we have to perform. But our experience is that we do not get any great amount of what 1 may call counsel. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen, who has gone the length of moving a reduction of the Vote, said he felt it his duty to tender advice, but while I do not wish to make light of his suggestions, they are considerations which have already occurred to a great many people. The War Office has been striving strenuously for years to raise the standard of decency and comfort in the Army.
MR. PIRIE: I chiefly alluded to the refusal of the War Office to require production of birth certificates from recruits.
MR. WYNDHAM: I doubt whether any alteration in that direction would materially increase the number of recruits coming to the Army. Another part of his advice was that the officers ought to wear the uniform more. There is something to be said for that, but it has been felt that it is hardly in accordance with the spirit of the nation to make it obligatory upon men to walk about in uniform, and we should probably lose more than we gained by adopting that advice. The same remark applies to the suggestion that soldiers should be allowed to go to the theatre at half-price. But the hon. and gallant Member did make a very important suggestion. He said
1644
that more should be done to tap the Colonies, and he almost denounced the Government for not having achieved more in the direction of entering into an understanding with Canada and the other colonies. There again I would ask the Committee to use their imagination, and to conceive what an elaborate process it must be by which the mother country, with vast accumulated wealth, could approach a new country, where there was no accumulated wealth, to explain to that colony that our Navy confers great benefits upon them, and then to ask the latter to enter into some arrangement for defence. What does that mean? It means that that colony has to adjust the new civilisation to the older, which must always be difficult. Any amount of diplomacy is necessary, for the thing must be put on its proper basis, which is that if any colony exhibits a great wish to take some portion of the burden of Empire the mother country should, as far as possible, modify its arrangements to meet the wishes of the colony. To go further than that would be folly, and to go even so far is a matter of infinite correspondence and negotiation. We have been in communication with Canada, and at this present moment we have arrived at the stage of having drawn up certain proposals which I hope we shall to-day or to-morrow transmit to Canada to invite their opinion upon. Clearly it would be impossible for me to indicate the nature of the proposals, but I can assure the hon. Member that there has been no slackness on our side, no want of appreciation of the aspirations to take some portion of the burden of Empire which have been put forward by Canada. I would refer to the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, the chief topic of which was that of decentralisation He dwelt upon the Report of the Committee presided over by my hon. friend the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I do not wish to minimise the importance of that Committee or its Report. I look upon the Report as a point of departure on a road along which I hope we may travel a great distance. But it is idle for hon. Members to expect that they can in a few months or a few years alter a system which has grown up primarily to meet the demands of the House of Commons. Unless the House is to adopt an attitude towards the administration of the Army

1645
profoundly different from its present attitude you cannot, to any very great extent, modify the system which at present exists. We must take that subject to heart, and think it over. For instance, we have decentralised contracts for wheat and forage, but this fact does not prevent one hon. Member after another asking my hon. friend the Financial Secretary for War why the general officer gives a contract to one man rather than to another. Do hon. Members not realise that when such a question is asked the Department has to centralise over again, for it has to ask the general officer for his reasons, and then those reasons have to be given to the House of Commons? It is, therefore, absurd to talk of decentralisation unless you are prepared to run the risks involved in that principle. Although nobody is more anxious than I am to see more responsibility cast on the general officers, still I am quite sure that this House has quite as much to do as the War Office if we are to travel very fast along that road. I do not wish, for the reasons I have stated, to raise any exaggerated hopes that you are going in a few months to alter a system which has grown up with this nation, or that the nation is going to relax its control of the purse in military matters. I now come to the next important topic in the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast. Has there been any substantial increase in the Army? Bringing the figures up to date, I find that at the 1st of July the numbers of the Regular Army, Militia, and Reserve were 411,080, so that there has been an appreciable increase. I am glad to say that that increase is due almost entirely, as I ventured to prophesy earlier in the year, to the filling up of the Reserve. A good deal of criticism was directed earlier in the year, and again to-night, against the War Office on the ground that we have got these men for the Army simply by taking them from the Reserve. It is perfectly true, but we have again filled up the ranks of the Reserve to 82,000 men. The third topic dealt with in the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, and which, again, is one which was taken up by many who have taken part in the Debate, was with reference to the ballot for the Militia. I have a bone to pick with the hon. Member for West Belfast for the almost vehement language in which he referred to this matter, and for the very serious way in which he misrepresented the speech of my noble friend
1646
the Secretary of State for War in introducing the Militia Bill in another place. He paraphrased the speech of my noble friend in these words—that any day we might have to resort to conscription. No greater travesty of the speech my noble friend did make could be imagined. One-third of that speech was devoted to pouring buckets of cold water upon the idea that we were within measurable distance of conscription. The difficulty before us is that we have either to get rid of an antiquated system or bring it up to date. That has been done, and that is all that has been done. The immediate problem is to find garrisons for India, Egypt, and at this moment an augmented garrison for South Africa. Then there is the permanent problem of finding garrisons for those places which the War Office are informed, by the united counsel of their naval and military experts, ought to be occupied as naval bases and coaling-stations. To do that requires at least 19 white battalions and 12 native battalions abroad, for the mere routine work of sentry-go round the world. When 75 infantry battalions are required at home, 17½ battalions to form what I may call the scheme of defence, and 60½ battalions to occupy India and other countries, I ask the right hon. Baronet whether he really thinks his alternative plan would solve the problem. The only alternative which has been put before the Committee is the plan of the hon. Baronet that we should have something like a Swiss militia. We shall never get back to the roster which has been the usual course of soldiering for the British officers and men for over 100 years, once we abandon the present system. Many a sanguine administrator, faced with the system which has obtained for many years, has approached, it in the full belief that he was going to change it; but one Minister of experience after another has felt himself bound in the long run to support it.
SIR J. COLOMB: Of course, at this hour of the night I do not desire to make a very long speech, but I regard it as extremely unfortunate that the Admiralty Vote and the War Office Vote, involving as they do such important questions of naval arid military policy, which by the procedure of the House must be treated separately, should both be taken in a single evening, when they cannot be adequately discussed. In the first place, I think there is a great and grow-

1647
ing opinion in this House that it is a misappropriation of the mobile forces of the Army to lock them up behind works at naval bases. Of course any change can only be carried out very gradually. You must begin with the smaller places, and then extend the experiment. The Committee are aware that an experiment was tried by the late Government on these very lines, and I propose to reduce the salary of the Secretary for War by £2,000, because he has not allowed the experiment to be fairly tried. I will mention the specific case. In 1893, when the Admiralty and the War Office began to take this question of garrisons into serious consideration, the need was recognised of establishing a naval base at Esquimalt, a port in the Pacific, and the question arose as to how that naval base was to be locally guarded. I do not know the inner workings of the War Office and the Admiralty at the time, but at all events, the result was that the War Office wisely departed from the policy of isolating and breaking up the Army for this work. Let us see what happened. A small garrison of Royal Marine Artillery was sent to Esquimalt, and the whole charge and command of the garrison and defence was handed over to a major of the Marine Artillery. But what happened? From the very first there was delay and obstruction, presumably on the part of the Royal Engineers' department at the War Office, and for three years no part of the submarine stores and appliances were allowed to be sent. The authorities at the War Office had sent out previously a subordinate staff, but it was represented by the officer commanding the Marine Artillery that these men were needlessly expensive; and he consequently suggested that the expensive staff should be taken away, and three extra corporals of the Marine Artillery, with a little special training, sent to take their place. But not a bit of it. For four years the Marine Artillery officer was in command, things worked with perfect smoothness, and no trouble whatever arose, except that the Royal Engineers withheld the submarine stores. Then the War Office sent out an officer of the Royal Engineers. And what is the next step? The next step was an extraordinary one. It was this—the Marine Artillery garrison on the Pacific was taken from under the command of the Admiral in the Pacific, and put under the authority of the general at
1648
Halifax on the Atlantic. The next step is one that is contrary to the interest of the public service—authorising a junior Engineer officer to ignore his commanding officer, by sending his reports straight to the general. Would such a thing be tolerated under any circumstances anywhere else? The Under Secretary for War knows it would not. The next step is to send a costly colonel of Engineers to take command of this garrison. But he does not remain there long; he was, however, a warming-pan to engineer this arrangement. The final step was to give to the junior Engineer Officer an extra special rank—the War Minister giving local rank of lieutenant-colonel to a junior Engineer. The whole plan has therefore been broken down, and you will be told that you cannot deal with naval bases in this way, and that you must have your mobile army paralysed because you tried the experiment of Marine Artillery and it failed. That failure has been manipulated by the wire-pulling of the Royal Engineer Department. The first information the House had of the matter was on 12th May, when the Under Secretary for War was asked by the hon. Member for Kincardineshire how it was that an officer of one branch of the service, the Royal Marine Artillery, contrary to the Queen's Regulations and Orders to the Army, was superseded by an order from the War Office conferring local rank of Lieutenant-Colonel upon a junior officer of Royal Engineers. This was the reason given by the War Office for promoting by local rank a junior Engineer over the head of his Commanding Officer, of the Royal Marine Artillery, trying an experiment of great national importance:
"While important building works, necessitating heavy expenditure of public money, are under construction, it is desirable that the senior officer should, as heretofore, belong to the Royal Engineers. In order to effect that object, local rank was conferred on"
a junior Engineer officer. I then put this question on the 27th June: Would the Under Secretary of State for War
"state the names of the naval bases and coaling stations at which officers of other arms, of the Service previously in command had been susperseded in that command by conferring upon the officers of Royal Engineers, junior to them, local rank, on the ground that important building works necessitated heavy expenditure of public money are under consideration, and that the senior officer should therefore belong to the Royal Engineers; and,

1649
further, to state to what arms of the Service the officers thus superseded in command at each place respectively belonged."
I thereupon got a curtain lecture from my hon. friend. He said:
"May I point out that questions involving considerable research on the part of the military staff at the War Office can be answered on the day of their first appearance on the Paper only by withdrawing a number of officers from the work upon which they are engaged."
What I asked was simply in how many cases junior Royal Engineers in garrisons had been given local rank to supersede the commanding officer belonging to another arm of the Service. Everybody at the War Office knew perfectly well that there was no other case at all. When the hon. Gentleman did answer the question, what did his reply come to?
"There is no case other than that at Esquimalt. The reasons for the action then taken were explained in my answer of the 12th May to the hon. Member for Kincardineshire."
I then asked on the 3rd July:
"When the Secretary of War decided that at places where important building works, necessitating heavy expenditure of public money, are under consideration, it is desirable that the senior officer should belong to the Royal Engineers."
That was one question. The next is
"Whether, before such decision was arrived at, the probable effects of thus securing for the officer charged with advising and supervising expenditure absolute freedom from local supervision and control by independent military authority on the spot was fully considered. And whether it is intended to apply this rule to all places, such as Bermuda, Jamaica, and Mauritius, named in the Schedule of the Military Works Bill, by conferring on the Royal Engineer officer at each of those stations local rank superior to his present commanding officer, as has already been done at Esquimalt under this rule."
The Under-Secretary replied:—
"The appointment of 'this major,' with local rank was considered in all its bearings. My reply of the 12th May did not cite a rule."
But it was given as a rule, an at all events most explicitly stated as the reason.
MR. WYNDHAM: My hon. and gallant friend has brought the thing up over and over again.
SIR J. COLOMB: I am going to bring it up again and again.
MR. WYNDHAMmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
SIR J. COLOMB: I leave it to the common-sense of those who can read English to understand what the answers were. The principle of the War Office is that a little mystery is very valuable, and that is a principle that I object to I then asked:
"Does the rule apply only to Esquimalt?" to which the reply was, "It is not a rule. What I said was that at Esquimalt a Royal Engineer officer has heretofore been in command. and he is to be succeeded by another."
But the Committee will see at once that the first and only reason given for the supersession was—that important military works were in contemplation involving large expenditure, and therefore it was desirable to appoint a Royal Engineer. Finally, on the 20th July, I asked this question. You will note that the excuse of public expenditure and so on disappears, and it had now become simply a question of the meaning of the word 'heretofore.' I therefore put this question to the Under Secretary:
"Whether, before conferring local rank on a junior officer of Royal Engineers, serving in garrison at Esquimalt, thereby putting him over the head of his senior belonging to another arm of the Service, the Secretary of State for War was made aware of the fact that during the preceding period of nearly five years, dating from the establishment of the garrison, the command was held only for an interval of about one year by a Royal Engineer officer, and whether he adhered to his statement that the local rank in question was conferred because a Royal Engineer had heretofore been in command; and if so, whether the Secretary of State for War proposed in future to exclude officers of other arms of the Service from command of garrisons at Esquimalt and elsewhere, by conferring local rank on junior Royal Engineer officers in such garrisons whenever it could be shown that a Royal Engineer officer had, by the accident of relative seniority, once previously held the command?"
He answers:
"The length of time during which this Lieu tenant-Colonel commanded at Esquimalt in no way influenced the selection of Major So-and-So in that command. He was selected because it was considered desirable that the command should be held by an officer of Royal Engineers."
That is the point I had been driving at all the way, and "heretofore" disappears: "There is no rule, and future cases will be judged on their merits."
I then asked a further question, to which the answer was:
"That important works were being constructed at Esquimalt, and for that reason it

1651
was felt necessary that an Engineer officer should be in command."
My point is this: "If you had made up your mind, as a matter of policy, that Esquimalt is to be a Royal Engineer command, why did you not honestly say so, and send an officer of Royal Engineers superior in regular rank to the jeer of Royal Marine Artillery already in command? "I understand the hon. Member to say that there was difficulty in finding Engineer officers. Why there are 200 Royal Engineer officers available for service senior to the Marine Artilleryman. There are 618 Engineer officers not appropriated in the Estimates to any particular service. I trust the House will not think I have unduly trespassed upon time, even at this late hour, in showing that if we are told this experiment has failed it is the blundering of the War Office into the Royal Engineer net that has caused it deliberately to act in a way best calculated to cause the experiment to fail.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I need hardly say I am perfectly incompetent to follow my hon. and gallant friend in the survey he has made with so much energy—energy which must command admiration, considering the hour and the temperature. But I can assure my hon. and gallant friend that if there be any blame for what he regards as the abuse of the employment of marines in garrison at coaling stations throughout the world, I do not think the War Office ought to be attacked, because I am perfectly convinced from what I know of the opinions of the Secretary of State for War and of the other administrators at the War Office on this subject that they would regard nothing as a greater relief than to have this onerous charge transferred from their service to the service with which my hon. and gallant friend claims some connection.
SIR J. COLOMB: The policy of the War Office points in that direction; they wished to adopt that policy. All my speech was to show that owing to the bad system of the War Office things were being engineered by subordinate departments in the War Office to defeat the policy which War Ministers wished to adopt.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Even if the War Office was as wicked and incompetent as my friend thinks, I can assure
1652
him it would not be possible without obtaining the consent of the Admiralty to substitute marines for soldiers in the way suggested. That is a particular policy on which my hon. friend has a very strong view. I did not, however, rise to prolong the discussion, it is my earnest desire to see it brought to a rapid termination. I do not think the House should be asked to sit longer to discuss these Estimates to-night. Members have had a severe week, and the temperature is not very well adapted to any sort of discussion, least of all to a discussion of this nature. I would, if I might, ask the House to give us this Vote. I think it would be a great advantage that we should get it. If that is done, I will move to report progress, and leave the matter as it is. I would point out that the order in which the Votes come on is not a matter which the Government desire to control; we have every desire to meet the general convenience of the House. The House has had five days and nights for the discussion of the Army Estimates, and I think that is a very full portion of the total time allowed for the Estimates. If that time has been inconveniently allotted between different Army Votes I am sorry, but I do not think the Government are to blame in the matter. With that explanation I hope we shall be permitted to take this Vote, and then to report progress and adjourn.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not intend to raise any objection to what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, but I presume that the other Votes on the Army Estimates will fall in the general sweep at the end of the session. If that is so, there is one point as to which I think an explicit engagement was made—viz., the Ordnance Vote. There has been a very vital change in the management of the Ordnance factories, and, if my memory serves me, I think that I myself, and probably others joined with me, asked on the Supplemental Estimates at an early period of the session whether an explanation would be made of the causes which had led to that material change, and I was told that a full opportunity would be given for making that explanation on the Ordnance Vote. I think it amounts to an undertaking, and there has been really no public explanation whatever of the change.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The promise was made, I suppose, by the Under-Secretary, and that probably is the reason it escaped my memory. I should be glad to consult through the ordinary channels on the subject, and make the very best arrangement I can for finding time to discuss the particulars of the Ordnance Vote which the right hon. Gentleman desires, and to have some explanation offered. If there is any desire on the part of the House to go on now I should not resist it, but I thought I was meeting the general view, and that the House did not want to sit any longer to-night.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no desire to go on to-night, but I thought the public outside the House as well as Members inside were really entitled to have an explanation publicly and formally given of the causes which led to this fundamental change.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I now move to report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Balfour.)
MR. DILLON: We are now having an exemplification of the effects of the new rule in depriving us of a fair opportunity of discussing these matters. I myself had some very important questions to raise on this Vote, but there will now be no further opportunity. This being the 20th of the days allotted to Supply, and the 21st being given to the Colonial Office Vote, no further opposition cart be given for discussing either this or any other important Vote.
COLONEL BROOKFIELD: No discussion will be possible on the very large subjects of the Volunteers and of the Militia, in both of which the public take a very large interest. There is also the subject of the Ordnance Vote, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on which it will be most necessary to have a discussion. I must enter my protest against the new arrangement by which such subjects are shut out from discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already said that five nights have been spent on
1654
the Army Estimates. I do not know if the Government is to blame for the order in which the Votes. are taken; I think they were arranged to suit the convenience of the House. When a Vote is started, it is extremely difficult—almost impossible—for the Government to regulate exactly the time it is to take. That must be left to the discretion of Members. I do not think my hon. friend would suggest that more than five days should be given to the Army Estimates.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I understood that we were not allowed to discuss on the War Office Vote any matter which was dealt with in a separate Vote, although on previous occasions, both on, the Admiralty Vote and the War Office Vote, subjects might be generally discussed. To-night you did make the ruling that no subjects should be discussed on these Votes which could be discussed on any other.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether I ought to go back on a former ruling, but for the information of the Committee I may say that the ruling was one which has obtained for a great number of years—viz., that where there is a special Vote dealing with a special subject that is the proper place to discuss that special subject. In the case of the Votes of the Admiralty or of the War Office, discussion is allowable so long as it is on the general policy. But it has been ruled that where there is a special Vote dealing with the question of the Volunteers or the Militia, or any other special matter, questions relating to those matters must be raised on those special Votes.
MR. CHANNING: This arrangement does exclude certain questions which some of us wished to raise, and I shall not consent to the motion to report progress unless there is some undertaking that some short opportunity will be given for the discussion of those subjects.
MR. WARNER: While I might regard five days given to the Army Estimates as a great deal in an ordinary year, this year, when the expenditure on the War Office and the Army has been so enormously increased,

1655
five days is not very much. It is really this enormous expenditure and one or two points of policy which were started last year and have never been thoroughly discussed which have naturally caused a great deal of discussion; and though five days is a long time
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th day of this instant July, Mr.
in an ordinary year, I do not think anybody can call it a long time this year.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 68; Noes, 6. (Division List, No. 291.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Macdona, John Cumming

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J (Manc'r

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Fisher, William Hayes

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H.(Bristol)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bethell, Commander

Gretton, John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bill, Charles

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Purvis, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Horniman, Frederick John

Royds Clement Molyneux

Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenh'm)

Brookfield, A Montagu

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Kemp, George

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kenyon, James

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Valentia, Viscount

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Colomh, Sir John Charles R.

Lawson Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Wyndham, George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

Cranborne, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Curzon, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lorne, Marquis of

NOES.

Caldwell, James

Macaleese, Daniel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Dillon, John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Mr. Channing and Mr. Pirie.

Doogan, P. C.

Weir, James Galloway

Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned accordingly at five minutes after One of the clock till Monday next.