HC Deb 04 March 1901 vol 90 cc453-508

1. Motion made, and Question put, "A. That an additional number of men and boys, not exceeding 600, be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."


in the absence of the Financial Secretary, desired to say a few words in explanation of the Vote. The 600 men now asked for comprised the colonial contingent in China. New South Wales provided 262; Victoria, 197; and South Australia, 120, with the "Protector," gunboat. It was necessary under the Colonial Naval Defence Act of 1865, Section 9, to obtain the sanction of Parliament in order to bear those men on the Votes. Ho did not ask the House to believe that these men were necessary in order to give effect to the naval strength of the mother country in China. It was not the actual force, but the moral force which lay behind which was in question. The value in the eyes of the Empire and of the world of that small body of 600 men, side by side with our own sailors, soldiers and marines, was such that he did not think there would be any difference of opinion in the House in regard to the Vote. All the Members of the House were familiar with the services rendered by those men. The Colonial contingent had been most honourably mentioned by the commanding officer on the station. Their services were most valuable and were most highly appreciated, and their gallantry was conspicuous upon all occasions.

MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)

was sure that they all agreed with what had been said by the hon. Gentleman as to the good effect that must accrue from the services of those men. They had served side by side with our own seamen, and nobody would doubt at all the value of their services. He asked whether the hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee what the arrangements were in regard to the pay of those men.


The question of pay falls to be considered on the next Vote. It will be better to discuss one Vote at a time.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote was entirely mistaken if he supposed that it was going to pass with the unanimity of all sections of the Committee. For his part, he had for a considerable period of years resisted on every occasion additions to the Navy, whether they appeared in the shape of a Vote for men and boys, or an increased money grant, because he was convinced—and every year that passed added strength to the conviction— that the policy inaugurated by this country six years ago of enormous in creases to the Navy was a policy calculated to destroy the finances of the country, and greatly calculated to plunge the country sooner or later into a terrible war. When a few Members commenced to oppose this policy a few years ago they were denounced, of course, as enemies of the country. They were laughed at as enemies of the Empire for venturing to prophesy that the increase commenced five or six years ago was only a small portion of what was coming. He remembered, five years ago when the First Lord of the Admiralty, now in another place, brought in one of the vast Navy Estimates and announced that they were undoubtedly of a startling character, but required by the necessity of the time. The House was startled, but it voted the Estimates under the illusion, which had now been dissipated, that by so voting it was placing the country in a position of security and defence, and that if there was not finality in them there was some thing approaching finality. Every year there had been a large increase in the Vote for men and boys, and the expenses of the Navy. He asked where this was going to stop. He believed it would not stop until the taxation of the country was raised to such a point that the people would rebel and revolt against it. He desired to say that those who had banded themselves into an organisation called the Navy League were primarily responsible for this mad career along which the country was now being driven. What did they find these gentlemen saying after five years of inflation and enormous additions to the size of the Navy? They were now declaring that England was in a worse position at sea, and a worse mistress of the seas than five or six years ago. The more they spent on the Army and Navy the more they would be told that the state of the country was alarming, and they would have to go on increasing the size of the Services. He felt bound at every stage to resist any increase of armaments. He would vote against the proposed increase.

MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.)

had great pleasure in joining his voice to what had been said by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The hon. Member for the Wood-bridge Division had referred to the fact that 600 Colonial troops had come to help England in a difficulty. Considering that from so large an extent of country only 600 troops could be raised, he thought the hon. Member should not have mentioned that. It seemed to him that the colonies gave them very little sympathy if, when England was in trouble, only 600 men could be got to come to the help of the country. He asked how these troops were to be paid as compared with the troops of this country, because it struck him that if a very great inducement had not been offered to these men from the colonies it was quite possible that they would not have come to the help of England at all. It seemed to him that the amount of money in this Vote was extraordinary.


There is no money in this Vote.


admitted that, but at the same time he expected that the men did not come without money, and one of the points which Members from Ireland had to watch was the money point. He had no sympathy, ho was proud to say, with this matter at all, and he thought the colonies had almost as little when the trifling number of 600 was all they could beg, borrow, and, he might say, steal to join the forces. It would be his duty to go into the division lobby against this Vote.

*MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)

said he understood from what was stated by the hon. Member for Woodbridge in introducing the Vote, that it was desirable to give the colonies an opportunity of taking part in the operations in China, and therefore these men were selected to go, and charged on the Estimates. If so, why should the hon. Member for South Monaghan talk of sweeping the gutters to get men I He would go into the lobby in support of the Vote, as ho believed a great many Members on that side of the House would, because they desired, along with hon. Members opposite, to do everything they could to strengthen the bonds between the mother country and the colonies.

MR. ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

entirely concurred with the hon. Member who had just spoken, and he intended to vote for the number of men stated. He did not think that, being a new Member, he should have got up to speak if one of the Members from Ireland had not attacked the Navy League, with which he had been more or less intimately acquainted since the commencement. He thought the Navy League had done a great deal of good in bringing home to the country the necessity of having a strong and large Navy. A great number on that side of the House would agree with him that it had been a distinct advantage to have the Australian and other Colonial forces fighting by our side.

MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)

said his hon. friend had a perfect right to condemn the policy of the Navy League. He concurred with the hon. Member for South Monaghan that it spoke badly for the sympathy of the colonies when they could only find 600 men. The Nationalist Members looked at this question in relation to the taxes they were going to put on their country, and he claimed that they had a perfect right to object to the Vote, on which no information had been supplied.


said he was surprised at the paucity of the number stated in the Vote. He was afraid that 600 was a misprint, and that there should have been another 0 added. He failed to see how 600 could supply the deficiency required. It had always been the fault of the Navy administrators of this country to ask for too few men. In this case he felt sure that they were committing the same blunder again, and when the proper Navy Estimates came on they would be asking for more men. He had always advocated that it was the duty of the Government broadly and honestly to put down the number they required, so that the House and the country would know what they required. It was well known that they would require ten times the number now put down.

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

said he desired to raise his voice against this Supplementary Estimate of a million and a quarter of money for 600 men. ["Order."] If he was out of order in referring to the amount, the Chairman was there to put him in order. [Laughter.] He would not take any laugh from Gentlemen on the other side. If he committed any breach of the rules he would bow to the ruling of the Chairman at once. He desired to say that this Supplementary Estimate for 600 men would cause the expenditure of a large amount of money. It appeared to him to be an anomaly when he looked at the fact that if they required a Catholic chaplain for the British Navy—


That cannot be discussed on this Vote.


I bow to your ruling at once, Mr. Lowther, and I have just to say that when I am a little better acquainted with the business of the House I will interfere oftener and with more effect

in the debates. There is one portion of this Supplementary Estimate on which I desire to be a little more enlightened before I allow it to pass. [Laughter.] Perhaps I may know a little more about it than the hon. Members who laugh on the other side of the House. I want some information as to the policy of towing His Majesty's ships—


Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is discussing the wrong Vote. We are now discussing Vote A. Will he confine himself to that?


Am I in order in discussing any portion of the orders given in connection with this Vote?


These are not the Navy Estimates. When we reach the Navy Estimates that will, of course, be in order. These are the Supplementary Navy Estimates. This Estimate is for 600 men, and that is the only matter that can be discussed now.


I desire to ask your ruling on Section C, page 3. Can I speak on that matter at present or not?


We are discussing Vote A, and not the other one.


I bow to your ruling at once.

MR. McGOVERN (Cavan, West)

thought the Committee should be told for what purpose these 600 men were required.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 34.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Brookfield, Col. Montagu
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Balfour, Hon. G. W. (Leeds) Burdett-Coutts, W.
Aird, Sir John Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christch'rch Caine, William Sproston
Allan, William (Gateshead) Banes, Major George Edward Caldwell, James
Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud) Bartley, George C. T. Carlile, William Walter
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Bathmst, Hon. A. Benjamin Cautley, Henry Strother
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants. Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Blundell, Col. Henry Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Boulnois Edmund Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.
Bain, Col. James Robert Bousfield, William Robert Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester)
Baird, John George Alexander Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Chapman, Edward
Balcarres, Lord Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Charrington, Spencer
Churchill, Winston Spencer Button, John (Yorks., N.R.) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Clare, Octavius Leigh Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Ratcliffe, R. F.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Johnston, William (Belfast) Rea, Russell
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Reid, James (Greenock)
Col lings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Jones, William (Carnarvons.) Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cook, Frederick Lucas Kearley, Hudson E. Rentoul, James Alexander
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Renwick, George
Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge Keswick, William Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge)
Cranborne, Viscount Kimber, Henry Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Crombie, John William King. Sir Henry Seymour Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kitson, Sir James Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Knowles, Lees Ropner, Colonel Robert
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Labouchere, Henry Round, James
Dewar, T.R. (T'rH'mlets, S Geo Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lawson, John Grant Russell, T. W.
Dimsdale. Sir Joseph Cockfield Layland-Barratt, Francis Rutherford, John
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Duke, Henry Edward Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Dunn, Sir William Leigh, Sir Joseph Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos Myles
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Leng, Sir John Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Fardell, Sir T. George Levy, Maurice Simeon, Sir Barrington
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fenwick, Charles Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fergusson. Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Macdona, John Gumming Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Finch, George H. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Soares, Ernest J.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Maconochie, A. W. Spear, John Ward
Fisher, William Hayes M'Arthnr, Charles (Liverpool) Spencer, Rt Hn C R(Northants.)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Forster, Henry William M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Stock, James Henry
Fuller, J. M. F. Majendie, James A. H. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Furness, Sir Christopher Malcolm, Ian Stroyan, John
Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. Manners, Lord Cecil Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn Markham, Arthur Basil Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Thornton, Percy M.
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Milton, Viscount Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Mil ward, Colonel Victor Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Goulding, Edward Alfred Molesworth, Sir Lewis Valentia, Viscount
Graham, Henry Robert Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wallace, Robert
Grant, Come Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm' ds. Morgan, D.J. (Waltbamstow) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs. Money, Charles (Breeonshire) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Guthrie, Walter Murray Morrell, George Herbert Webb, Colonel William Geo.
Hain, Edward Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. White, George (Norfolk)
Hambro, Charles Eric Morrison, James Archibald White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Whiteley, H. (Asbton und Lyne
Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray. Charles J. (Coventry) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Nicol, Donald Ninian Wills, Sir Frederick
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Helder, Augustus Palmer, Waller (Salisbury) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Parkes, Ebenezer Wilson. John (Glasgow)
Henderson, Alexander Partington, Oswald Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Hobhouse. C.E.H. (Bristol, E.) Pemberton, John S. G. Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Holland, William Henry Pilkington, Richard Wylie, Alexander
Hope, J.F (Sheffeld, Brightside Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Horniman, Frederick John Plummer. Walter R. Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Hoult, Joseph Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Yoxall, James Henry
Howard. J.(Midd., Tottenham Pretyman, Ernest George TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Purvis, Robert Sir William Walrond and
Hudson, George Bickersteth Randles, John S. Mr. Anstruther.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Boyle, James Cogan, Denis J.
Ambrose, Robert Brigg, John Condon, Thomas Joseph
Atherley-Jones, L. Burke, E. Haviland- Crean, Eugene
Blake, Edward Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Cullinan, J.
Boland, John ('banning, Francis Alston Delany, William
Dillon, John M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Donelan, Captain A. Mooney, John J. Pickard, Benjamin
Doogan, P. C. Murphy, J. Power, Patrick Joseph
Duffy, William J. Nannetti, Joseph P. Reddy, M.
Field, William Newnes, Sir George Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N. Schwann, Charles E.
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Sullivan, Donal
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Hammond, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W. Thomas, A. Glamorgan, E.)
Hutton, Alfred F. (Morley) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Tully, Jasper
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lundon, W. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
M'Dermott, Patrick O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
M'Govern. T. O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
M'Hugh, Patrick A. O'Mara, James Daly and Mr. Joyce.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an additional sum not exceeding £1,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

Vote 1. Wages, etc., of £
Officers, etc. 500
Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy 84,000
Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—
Section I. Personnel 98,500
Section II. Matériel 630,000
Section III. Contract Work 207,000
Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services 230,000
Total £1,250,000."


in asking for this Vote it will probably be convenient to the Committee that I should make a short statement on the different heads under winch the money is required. With regard to the Vote of 600 men just passed, the actual cost of their services was about £25,000. The contingent are paid by us at the same rate of pay and allowances as our own sailors, and they are calculated to serve for about seven months. Besides that, we are giving to the South Australian Government a sum of £2,500 for the services of the "Protector," because we have not only these 600 men, but also the "Protector," which is the property of the South Australian Government. For repairs to that vessel during the time it was in the Imperial service wear paying £2,500 to its owners. The next head is the increase in the victualling charges. It will be recognised by all that since the time these Estimates were originally prepared there has been an enormous rise in the prices of all kinds of produce, and that rise has caused an increase of no less than £114,000, but against that there is an appropriation-in-aid of £30,000, reducing the actual Vote to £84,000. I might give one or two instances showing how prices have risen. Cloth has risen from 6s. 11d. to 8s. 11d., and serge from 11⅛d. to 1s. 3¼d., and so on, and the prices of provisions have increased in the same way. These increases have in nearly all cases come about and been largely augmented since the time the original Estimates were prepared. There was at the time some indication of a rise in prices, but the Estimates were prepared fifteen months ahead of the time at which they were voted, and it was impossible to say when the rise would take place. The same remark applies to the question of coal in Section 2 of Vote 8. It is a very difficult question to decide whether a rise in price is going to be permanent, and the question also arises as to the latest date on which it is possible to disturb a Vote once prepared. It is very difficult when a complicated Estimate has been prepared on the basis of prices then existing to go into it and revise all the items, and there is the further point that the rise in price may be only temporary. So far as we are concerned, the increase in prices of coal, provisions, and clothing material, has been not temporary but permanent, and that is really the reason of the large increase in the victualling Vote, and, to some extent, the coaling Vote. The next head is shipbuilding and repairs, the amount there being £98,500. That increase is caused partly by more rapid construction and partly by repairs. Construction has been hastened, and I think the Committee will agree that that is not a cause for complaint. To-morrow an event will occur which is almost unique in the history of the British Navy. Four first-class vessels will be launched, and it is largely on account of the expenditure on these four vessels that this excess is asked for. £30,000 is for new construction, most of which has been spent on the "Montague," the "Albemarle," and the "Kent." The amount expended upon these three vessels during this financial year is no less than £629,000, so that an excess of £30,000 on that large sum will not appear very great. At the same time, I think the Committee would prefer that we should have an excess of £30,000 and succeed in turning these vessels out than that the vessels should have been delayed and £30,000 less spent. That is the real ground on which the money is asked for. Included in that £98,000 is a further sum for repairs to a large number of ships. There are two reasons why the repairs have exceeded the Estimate. One is a reason which will naturally occur to every hon. Member—namely, that during the year we have had this unforeseen trouble in China, and nobody knew at what moment the services of the Navy might be required in all directions. It therefore became imperative to execute all repairs immediately, and that every vessel which could be brought at short notice into a fit condition for service should be put into that condition. That naturally involved the working o overtime, and that accounts to a largo extent for this increase. The other reason is that it is not advisable in the interests of economy to allow a larger estimate for repairs than the lowest sum which really appears necessary, as whatever is allowed is pretty certain to be spent. It is desirable that the full sum anticipated to be required should be estimated. It is very undesirable that it should be necessary to come here for Supplementary Votes at all. We should very much prefer to be able to state fifteen months beforehand exactly how much we are going to spend and exactly what we are going to do with the money. But if hon. Members will put themselves into the position of those who have to administer this great Department, look at the enormous number of items over which this work has to be spread, and conceive the difficulty of looking fifteen months ahead and estimating exactly how much will be required to be spent on repairs, for instance, which may be owing to accidents or breakdowns which nobody can foresee, it must be evident to them that, however much experience may be brought to bear or time given to the matter, such Estimates must to a large extent be guesswork, based partly upon the experiences of the past as well as upon the possibilities of the future. On that ground the Admiralty has perhaps more excuse than almost any other Department for coming to the Committee with a Supplementary Estimate, which is not very large in relation to the amount of work done, and all of which has been expended in putting our Navy into a state of efficiency such as the House of Commons is always impressing upon us as absolutely necessary.

The next item is one for which I need not apologise at all—namely, contract work. We have succeeded in getting more work to the extent of £270,000 out of the contractors than we estimated we could do. That is not increased, but merely anticipated expenditure. We are paving £270.000 more to contractors in this financial year for work they had hi hand, and therefore shall have that much less to pay at the end of the contract. Really, the contract is being executed more rapidly than had been anticipated.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

In respect of what ships?


I am afraid I have not that information, but possibly I shall be able to supply it later in the debate.

The last head is for miscellaneous services, the larger part of which is in con- sequence of the services of the naval contingent and the fleet in connection with the trouble in China. It is perfectly clear that the China trouble was an unforeseen event in regard to which we are perfectly justified in asking for a Supplementary Vote, and therefore no excuse is needed for bringing this Estimate forward. Sub-head A is for the passage money and conveyance of the Australian contingent both by water and by land, and also of the additional officers who were sent to China. Sub-head C, for piloting and towing, is largely and principally due to extra charges incurred by the extra number of vessels going through the Suez Canal on their way to China. "Telegraphic communications" refer to the extra telegraphic services in connection with South Africa and China. The hire of steam vessels for communications in China is in connection with two vessels which were hired to keep up communications between different places. The next head is expenditure in connection with the seizure and detention of vessels in South African waters. In that matter the Navy was merely obeying its orders and doing its duty, and the matter has already been discussed. "The hire of distilling vessels for manœuvres" was an experiment. Two vessels were fitted as distillers, and valuable experience was gained. The vessels were somewhat too large, they had not sufficient pumping power, but at the same time they supplied a considerable quantity of water for the fleet, and the experiment was well worth trying.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

Was there distilling of spirits in these vessels, or was the experiment confined to water?


Although it was off the Irish coast, the experiment was confined to water. The last sub-head is in connection with the steamship "Ophir," which is to convey their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York on their tour to Australia and round the world. The only question of importance, I think, which has been raised in connection with that is with regard to the accommodation to be provided for the press. Questions have been asked upon this matter in the House, and some hon. Members seem to be under the impression that Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, who is to go with this vessel, has been, by the sanction of the Admiralty, allowed to go on board as the correspondent of The Times, to the exclusion of other newspapers and other press correspondents. That is not so. Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace has had no communication with the Admiralty whatever in regard to his position on the tour, and he has not been appointed with the knowledge of the Admiralty as the correspondent of any newspaper whatever. But entirely apart from that, the First Lord has felt that it is most desirable, in the interest of the public and of the press, that some representation should be allowed, and that as far as possible some accommodation should be provided for the gentlemen of the press to accompany this expedition, and he has received a very large number of applications. He answered all these applicants, and they were informed that there were very great difficulties in the way of providing accommodation at all, but that everything that could be done would be done. The First Lord felt that it was very desirable that all the applications received should be considered equally, and not only did he wait until the last moment, but those important newspapers that had not applied for accommodation were communicated with and asked if they desired to be represented. That being done, every effort was made to induce the various newspapers and press agencies as far as possible to combine so that one press representative might serve two or three newspapers or agencies. That having been done, the First Lord found that he could provide accommodation for five press correspondents, and those five have been allotted as fairly as possible between the press agencies and the principal newspapers by combination, so that there has been absolute fairness. Those five gentlemen will be accommodated, and five berths have been prepared for them, and they will sail on Thursday.


Will the hon. Gentleman kindly name the agencies and the newspapers?


I think it would be better not to, for it would be rather invidious to do that. I believe the press are perfectly satisfied, and every effort has been made to show no favouritism of any sort or kind, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would wish that any invidious statement should be made. I will endeavour at the close of this debate to answer any further questions put to me, but I thought that I might save the time of the House by intervening at this stage.


said he bad listened with the greatest degree of pleasure to the remarks of the lion. Gentleman who introduced the Supplementary Estimate of £1,250,000. He had no desire to traverse all the headings of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but would confine himself to the third.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and, forty Members being found present—

MR. WILLIAM ALLAN (continuing)

said that there came under the heading of "Coals for Steam Vessels" the sum of £700,000; but the hon. Gentleman gave the Committee no explanation whatever as to when, how, or where this £700,000 extra was required over and above the original Estimate. It was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that the price of coal had risen, but his point was, when was the contract made by the Admiralty for coals? He was fully aware that in October, 1899, no contract was made for coals, although that was the time when every ship-owning firm, such as the Transatlantic General Company, the Royal Mail Steamship Company, etc., were making their contracts. The Admiralty could have bought coals then at 13s. per ton. Two or three months later the Admiralty went into the market and bought a small quantity at 19s. a ton, but made no contract. Then they had to go again into the market and paid 29s. a ton, but they bought more coals at the big price than they had any need for then, and which they would not need for a long time to come. Was that business? Why, the Director of Contracts knew no more about his business or the markets than the man in the moon! The hon. Gentleman smiled. He (Mr. Allan) had for seven or eight years been treated to laughter in the House over naval matters, but he challenged the hon. Gentleman to deny that he could have bought those coals at 13s. a ton for which he had paid 29s. a ton. The hon. Gentleman tried to put off this enormously increased expenditure on the ground of the rise in the price of coal, but he wished the hon. Gentleman would find out something about the coals and where they went to. The hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee why this excess of coals was required, or that some of his boats were burning twice as much coal as others. That was the reason why the taxpayers' money was being squandered in a haphazard, un business like manner.

He bad listened with attention to every word the hon. Gentleman had said about repairs, but no proper explanation had been given. What boats were repaired, where were they repaired, and what did the repairs of each cost? What did this sum of £98.500 include? The repairs to the "Hermes," the "Europa," or the "Powerful," which was lying in Portsmouth Dockyard with her boilers nearly out of her? Then, he was sorry to say that this huge sum did not include repairs to the new Royal yacht, which indeed was not afloat yet. It was not fair to the House of Commons or to the taxpayers of the country that they should be called upon to vote money for repairs without the responsible Minister stating to the House what was the nature of the repairs. He did not want to use strong terms to any Minister or head of the Department, but the Minister ought really to be able to give a lucid, frank, and complete explanation of the Vote he was submitting to the Committee.


said, if the Committee would allow him, be might state that he had given a short statement of the headings of the Vote and a general explanation; but he would be most happy to answer any further questions that were put to him in the course of the debate. He thought that the hon. Member had scarcely been fair in accusing him of want of courtesy or a desire to withhold information from the, Committee.


said he was very glad to hear that the Committee was going to have a full explanation of why all this money was required for coals and repairs, and he sincerely hoped they would have the names of the boats and the reasons why the repairs were, necessary. The Paper did not show how much had been spent on the new Royal yacht. Did that come under repairs? The House and the country wanted to know that. He wished to refer also to one item under the head of "Miscellaneous Effective Services." Under Sub-head XX. very un business like phraseology was used—namely, "Hire, etc., of s.s. 'Ophir.'" Now that word "hire" had no right to be there at all. There was not a shipowner in the House who did not know that the word should have been "charter." He asked how much the charter of the "Ophir" was to be per month—what did the owners get? There was £43,000 down for the "Ophir," and what he wanted to know was not only the amount of the charter per month, but what was spent in refitting all the cabins, saloons, and berths, and on the accommodation for the crew, and also on the equipment of the vessel. To come here with a brief, condensed statement, like that put into the hands of hon. Members, was not taking the House into the confidence of the Government in the whole of this transaction. This was a matter of ship-owning and ship-management, and the Government ought to have been able to convey their Royal Highnesses the Duke, and Duchess of Cornwall on this tour on the new Royal yacht, instead of being compelled to charter another ship. It was their duty to tell the Committee every penny of expenditure on that chartered ship, instead of coming there with the word "hire," as if it were a cab-horse or pianos and bands of music, lie for one protested earnestly against the Minister responsible coming to the Committee with such flimsy pretexts, and he would at all times raise his voice against squandering the public money in such large sums without the slightest explanation.


said that no one could have listened to the hon. Member for Gateshead without being forcibly impressed with his striking arguments. They all recognised the improvement in the manner of the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Vote compared with that of some of his predecessors; but they would await with interest the further explanations which had been promised. As to the matter of principle, before going into details he took it that this increased expenditure the Committee were asked for was was bound up with the reckless expenditure on which the country had launched in regard both to the Army and Navy. We were formerly supposed to be in a position to meet a combination of any two foreign naval Powers, but now we were going to meet any combination of any three Powers; hence the increased Estimates year after year. They had been told in the language of metaphor that a large portion of this expenditure was in the nature of insurance money for the protection of the commerce and trade of the Empire; but if that were so, Irish Members had a right to protest, seeing that they had no commerce to protect, against being compelled to pay their proportion of the insurance mney. What guarantee had the, Board of Admiralty in constructing these big battleships at such a rapid rate that they would not be obsolete and useless five or ten years hence— just as our artillery had been found of no account against modern "Long Toms" and "Pom-Poms" in South Africa. These ships might, in fact, in a few years be broken up and sold for old scrap iron. That was a danger which naval constructors should lay to their mind, considering the marvellous skill now being applied to modern artillery and projectiles, and to submarine boats and torpedo boats. His motto, indeed, would be festina lente when they remembered that a naval engagement, which only lasted a few hours, between an Austrian and an Italian man-o'-war in the Adriatic had revolutionised the system of naval construction of the whole world. The hon. Member for Gateshead, who had compelled the Government to reconsider the whole question of the adoption of Belleville boilers, had given very alarming figures as to the purchases of coal, which showed the imprudent, the improvident, and slatternly manner in which the Admiralty conducted their business, and some further explanations were demanded from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate in regard to this matter. If such things had occurred fifteen or twenty years previously, when the Government was confronted with a vigilant and active Opposition, no Board of Admiralty would have held their position for six months. With regard to the royal yacht, this vessel was not fit to carry the person of the King, and yet £400,000 had been spent upon it. The Estimates were brought before the House without any details, but these were questions the Admiralty were bound to answer, they were matters upon which the country would require information. In the good old times, in circumstances such as these, the First Lord or the Civil Lord of the Admiralty would have been impeached, and dismissed as being incapable of doing public service. The right of free search for contraband of war was a right which should only be exercised with the greatest possible prudence and discrimination, and only when there was overwhelming proof that vessels under neutral flags were carrying contraband of war; otherwise every country with a powerful navy like that of England would become nothing less than a highway robber. All they would have to do would be to point their guns, claim the right of search, take all the food-stuffs they discovered, and then go before a court and get the ship condemned, and the taxpayer would have to pay. If such a power was attempted to be exercised by Germany, France, or the United States, the whole press of the country would howl with indignation against such high-handed tyranny. Yet the country had to pay £.30.000 for this little diversion of the Admiralty. Another point upon which some information would be required was the item of £2.500 under Sub-head A.A., for the use of the South Australian gunboat during service in Chinese waters. Was that for the purpose of protecting the Colonial Volunteers, of which the House had heard so much, because they were so loyal? The Government would not give Ireland a gunboat for the protection of her fishermen, but for this boat, which belonged to the colony, and which we used for the transport of the colonists, the country was asked to pay this amount. The loyalty of the colony was not so great, after all, and he could quite conceive that the Government might have greater loyalty in Ireland under similar conditions. With regard to the item under Sub-head XX., Hire, etc., of ss. "Ophir," in connection with the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to Australia, etc., "hire" was not a very elegant word. It was not the proper way to treat Royalty, and it gave a very bad impression in the country to talk of such a vessel in the same way as one would of a row-boat on the Thames. Another question upon which the hon. Gentleman might be able at some future time to give some information was with regard to the policy of construction which at present was being so strongly advocated. Was it a wise and prudent policy to build these ships, as to the strength of which they knew nothing, when other nations were turning their attention to submarine vessels? He thought not.

COMMANDER YOUNG (Berkshire, Wokingham)

said he was unable to follow the last speaker in his suggestion that the policy of the Admiralty in constructing battleships was not wise, having regard to the fact that other nations were keeping pace with us. There was no doubt that France was building submarine vessels, and it was possible that those, boats might revolutionise the Navy; but it was not with the submarine boat alone that we should have to compete. We had to compete with the range of guns, and the speed of ships on the billows. No doubt the Admiralty would keep their eye on these submarine boats, and, if they built any, all he would ask would be that he might not be ordered to serve on one. As an up-bolder of the Government, he did not desire to detain the Committee. He desired to see the Votes go through. When the Naval Estimates came forward would be the proper time to discuss these matters. But as a naval officer he would like to have a satisfactory answer to one question, which was, whether the hon. gentleman could give any information as to when the Report of the Committee now sitting on the question of rations and, victualling of seamen was likely to be laid on the Table of the House. Every day was of importance in this matter. A great deal of money was spent, especially by the young and growing bluejackets, on provisions, which clearly showed that they required a great deal more food than was supplied by the Admiralty. He hoped the Report would be laid on the Table shortly, and that the result would be satisfactory. With regard to the item of pilotage under Sub-head C, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to inform the House that there was no falling off in the pilotage qualities of the naval officer. Pilotage was a responsible duty, requiring care and nerve, which would have to be performed by the, naval officer in time of war, and the Admiralty should give as much encouragement as possible to naval officers to perfect themselves in this duty.


said he did not think the Government ought to take a Vote of this character unless they were prepared to give the Committee the fullest opportunity of discussing it in every way and were prepared to answer every question which was put. Whatever might be said about the difficulty in contracting for coal, was the Committee to understand that the Admiralty had not sufficient foresight to make forward contracts for clothing and provisions for their sailors? It appeared to him that if these departments were properly managed the Admiralty ought not to have to come to the Committee and say that owing to the rise in the price of provisions and cloth they had had to pay £14,000 more of the taxpayers' money. If any private business was conducted in that way it would spell bankruptcy in a very short time. The fact of the matter was that neither the Navy nor the Army was run on a commercial basis. The gentlemen who managed these Departments were no doubt excellent men, but they had no commercial knowledge, and no one who had commercial knowledge to assist them. If they had had commercial training they would have saved their salaries over and over again. Everybody was aware from the debate in the previous year that the food was inadequate, the meal-times out of joint, and the canteen arrangements unsatisfactory, A Committee had been sitting on this question for some time, and possibly the Committee might be told now whether any decision had been arrived at, and if so, what. No doubt the most important of the items on the Estimate was that dealing with construction, but there was an idea, abroad that although the Admiralty made a great display of shipbuilding it was only on paper. What the country wanted to know when they provided the money was that there would be in due course ships in commission and not upon paper. One serious cause of delay arose no doubt out of the contract work. There were four ships built in Government yards which would instance this. The "Ocean," the first ship laid down, was launched seventeen months after it was laid down, and it was not commissioned until some three years after. The "Implacable" was launched thirteen months after being laid down, and almost three years had elapsed since that time, and yet she was not commissioned. She had had some difficulties, and she had not yet passed her steam trials; that was the fault not of the Government, but of the contractor, but the Committee ought to be informed what steps had been taken or were contemplated by the Government for the purpose of dealing with the contractors who were responsible. The "Bulwark" was launched seven months after being laid down, the quickest launch on record, and she was not yet in commission; whilst in the case of the "Montague," which was launched sixteen months after being laid down, it was impossible to say when she would be commissioned. He drew attention to the different times at which the ships were launched to show that there was no plan in the building of these ships. It had been stated over and over again by experts that it was quite possible to commission a ship within twenty months of her being laid down, but in any case two years should be ample time. That time should also be ample to obtain the machinery, but one mistake the Government made was not to give out their contracts for machinery until months after the ship was laid down. Our difficulty was that the Admiralty rarely laid down more than two ships of a type, so that the contractors had no opportunity of duplicating the machinery. He thought he had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean urge the advantage of having half-a-dozen ships projected at a time. Whether he suggested it or not, the hon. Member thought it was a practical suggestion. The public were anxious to have these ships delivered in a reasonable time. Some ships which were being built by contract had been in course of construction three or four years, but as they were voted upon every year the public outside fancied that we were adding to our battleships every year. Ho was glad to see, therefore, from these Supplementary Estimates that there was some evidence that the Admiralty were alive to their responsibilities. He hoped the Admiralty would tell them something that night as to their intention of expediting both in the Government yards and the contractors' yards the completion of the various ships already voted.


said he could not agree with the lion. Member for Devonport in his somewhat ungenerous attack upon the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Estimates.


interrupted the hon. Member, and was understood to deny that he had made an attack.


said it appeared to him to be a somewhat ungenerous attack. Ho ventured to say that the statement which the hon. Gentleman made to the Committee would commend itself generally to them. It would not be in order to discuss the whole sphere of naval policy on these Estimates, but he thought ho might remark that the greater part of the million and a quarter which was asked for had been spent on coal. The note of explanation suggested that the expenditure was for the purpose of replenishing the stock of coal at certain places, and, if rumour were correct, that replenishment had not taken place a moment too soon. They had heard rumours of one of the ships of the Mediterranean Squadron towing another ship in consequence of the deficient quantity of coal and the difficulties of replenishment. He did not know if these rumours were correct, but if they were, the state of affairs showed a want of foresight on the part of the Admiralty as regards the provision of coal. They wore now apparently performing the duty of replenishing the stocks wherever necessary. The Vote for coal expenditure appeared to be £607,000, and if the Admiralty would make the stocks sufficient throughout the Mediterranean and elsewhere, they would make one of the best possible preparations for naval operations. The 6OO men referred to in the Votes were only nominally added to the Navy. They were only nominally transferred from the Colonial Navy to the Imperial Navy, and he was glad that reference had been made that night to the patriotic services of the Australians, because the country had been going into patriotic fervour over the services which the colonials had rendered on land. Notwithstanding the somewhat unkind remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member opposite with regard to the subsidy, he ventured to say that the country at large would welcome the services which the colonies had given and were still giving to the naval as well as the military forces of the country. The most salient point was the fact that the Committee wore asked to vote £207,000 more for contract expenditure. If there was one duty which the Admiralty had been neglecting more than another in the past, it was the duty of pushing on with naval construction. They had had explanations from the late First Lord of the Admiralty, whose loss to that House and the Admiralty they all deplored, of the causes of the arrears in naval construction. Year after year the House voted money, and year after year it had been spent without any reasonable excuse whatever. Now they found the Admiralty waking up to a sense of their duty, for they had actually expended more than had been voted. He said, as one who took the deepest interest in these matters, let them go on with Supplementary Estimates for expenditure on new construction beyond that which had been voted by the House. They had not made sufficient naval preparations. The country understood that upon the Navy alone the security of the country from invasion depended. Without anticipating what might be in the Naval Estimates shortly to be introduced, he ventured to say that the House and the country were amply prepared for a considerable increase in the naval expenditure. [A Nationalist Member: No, no.] He referred to those who had the good of the country at heart, and not those who desired to see His Majesty's ships at the bottom of the sea. He well remembered the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean made a speech in the House eleven or twelve years ago in which he called attention to the fact, which was then imperfectly recognised, that we were a hated nation. On that occasion the noble Lord the Member for Ealing moved that the naval preparations were insufficient. His right hon. friend suggested that the standard should be set up that the Navy of Great Britain should be equal to the navies of any two Powers that could be brought against it. If that was considered a sufficient standard then, was it a sufficient standard now? He asked those who had knowledge of the naval preparations in Europe, and a knowledge of the hatred with which we were regarded by many European nations, whether that was so or not? [Nationalist cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheered because they recognised that his statement was true. If it was true, was it not wise that they should make preparation for any attacks that might possibly result from that feeling? Since that time what had happened? In Germany enormous naval preparations had been made, and millions of money had been voted. Germany, which was not then a naval Power at all, had since become and still intended to become a naval Power of the first rank. The United States of America had established already, and were extending, a navy. Japan at that time had only the beginning of a navy. To-day she had one of the most powerful in the world. He asked whether in these circumstances it was not of the utmost importance that the standard of comparison as regards the Navy should be raised. He ventured to say that naval opinion and the opinion of all those who had thought on this subject had led them to the conclusion that the standard ought to be in comparison with any three Powers that might be brought against it. [AN HON. MEMBER: Six Powers!] No, he was content with three. All he wanted was fair preparation. He hoped this discussion would at least have the effect of encouraging the Admiralty in the belief that the people of the country and the House in particular were prepared to endorse every reasonable proposal the Admiralty might bring forward for the naval defence, and therefore the safety, of the country.


said he did not imagine they would be in order in following the last speaker in the discussion of the naval standard proper for this country. That was a matter which, of course, must be discussed on the first Vote of the Navy Estimates. On the present occasion they had to confine themselves to the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee. The last speaker, and also his hon. friend the Member for Devonport, both dealt in much the same way with the retardation of the naval programme, and although his hon. friend opposite criticised the words with which the hon. Member for Devonport opened his speech, he nevertheless used even stronger language with regard to the total inadequacy of the statements which were made last year to explain the retardation of the programme. His hon. friend the Member for Devonport had given credit to the Government for showing some signs in this Supplementary Estimate of a desire to overcome the retardation which had recently taken place. They had no facts before them to show how the money was to be expended. The hon. and gallant Member the Civil Lord, in making his statement that night—and he made it with conspicuous ability— told them what the expenditure in the dockyards was, but the contracts item, except for coal, had not been explained to the House. He ventured to throw an interrogation across the House, and he had since had a private reply that it was for armour on the contract ships. He asked what contract ships were to be pushed forward in this way, because the delays had been extraordinary, even as compared with those they were led to anticipate in the debates last year. The Civil Lord took credit to the Admiralty, and congratulated the country on the fact that four launches were to take place at once. In addition to the one battleship which the hon. Member for Devonport described, there were a number of private contract ships which had been delayed to an extraordinary extent. His hon. friend opposite would admit that the reasons given last year by Mr. Goschen for that delay were altogether inapplicable in the circumstances. The "Albion" was in the programme of 1896, she was launched in 1898, but was not yet in commission, while there were three Japanese battleships larger than the "Albion," which were begun after that ship, which were first announced by the Japanese Government long after the programme in which the "Albion" was announced, all built in England, and all of which were in commission at the present time. These Japanese ships received their armour and guns from English sources. Two of them were in commission in the Ear East, and the other was about to proceed thither. These were tangible facts. They could not be disputed. He mentioned also the "Formidable" and the "Irresistible," both of which were in the 1897 programme, and launched in 1898, and neither of which was yet in commission. The "Implacable" and the "Vengeance" were in the 1897 programme, and launched in 1899, but not yet ready. The "London" had been more delayed than all the others. He asked specifically with regard to these ships what was the cause of the delay compared with the more rapid completion of ships for foreign Governments in the shipbuilding yards of this country? Mr. Goschen impressed upon the House the necessity for four new armoured cruisers as part of the 1897 programme. When would these cruisers — "Cressy," "Hogue," "Aboukir," "Sutlej"—be ready for service? The delay in the completion of the ships he had spoken of had been greater than was anticipated.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

associated himself entirely with what had been said by the hon. Member for Devonport and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, He trusted that the Admiralty would realise that there was a strong feeling throughout the country that we could not complete ships within the time specified for their completion or a reasonable time at all. The Admiralty should be able to fulfil its requirements with regard to certain ships within the necessary time in relation to the production of foreign nations. Unless the Government were prepared, when the Navy Estimates were introduced, to take the House and the country into their confidence, explain the causes of delays in the completion of ships, and satisfy the House that they had taken measures to remove those causes, they would fail in their duty. No party ties would induce any supporter of the Government to vote for them if the Admiralty showed they were not alive to the consequences of delays, and took no steps to remedy them. His hon. friend the Member for the Shipley Division had stated that the British Navy should be equal to any three others that might be brought against it. He had always protested against these rule of thumb standards. The real test of naval strength was not a matter merely of counting ships. It was necessary to take many other things into consideration.


I am conscious that the short time I have served the country at the Admiralty does not enable me to deal as the House would wish with the grave questions that have been raised. Although it is only right and proper that the questions which have been raised should be discussed, I think hon. Members will realise that within a very few days a statement will be made on the main Estimates by the Financial Secretary. I think the Committee will share the view that it would be more fitting for me to answer briefly, as far as I can, the questions which have been put to me, and to leave the general question of the efficiency of the Navy to be dealt with, as it will be more properly, on the main Naval Estimates. Let me say a word or two with regard to the delay in construction. I think I may claim that the fact of there being a supplementary estimate for about £300,000 for money spent more than was anticipated a year ago is a proof that we have made some advance. It should never be lost sight of that in regard to this question of construction our main difficulties began with the great engineering strike, and we have never really reached the point of rapidity at which we then stood. Another point is that in regard to the time in which a ship can be constructed the governing factor is the machinery. The time of launching is, after all, only an incident, and it is not a fair statement to say that because one ship is launched in eight months, another in seven, and another in seventeen months, and yet are all commissioned about the same time, it shows a varying practice and a varying amount of supervision on the part of the Admiralty. The time of launching is not an indication of the state of progress in the construction of a ship. When a ship is launched largely depends upon whether the slip is immediately required for laying down another ship. The Admiralty fully recognise the justice of the criticisms which have been delivered with regard to the delays in shipbuilding, and there is as keen a desire and as firm an intention on their part as have been expressed by hon. Members here to do everything in their power to accelerate the progress of construction and to turn out the ships within the least possible time. The measures which will be taken to that end will more properly be put before the Committee by the Financial Secretary, and unless any further specific questions are put to me I would leave the general question there.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

You have not explained why Japanese boats can be built so much more rapidly than our own.


Well, I think it is perhaps hardly fair to take one or two particular ships. The Japanese have not ordered so many ships in England as we have. We have a very large number under construction, and perhaps it is not difficult to take out our slowest and show that the Japanese have been turned out more rapidly. We have many contractors at work, and it is impossible that all the contracts can be executed within the time. We have no doubt been unfortunate in the delay of some of our contracts. I do not wish to be taken as complaining of the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean. The Japanese ships were turned out quickly, but we have had ships turned out quickly also. The particular ships mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman certainly were rather backward. With regard to the question of repairs, I was asked whether I could name the actual ships on which the extra expenditure had been incurred and the amounts. I can do so. It is a long list, but the ships mentioned by the hon. Member for Gateshead, namely, the "Burmese," the "Europa," and the "Powerful," are not in it. The total extra amount incurred was £34,000, in amounts varying from £1,000 to £3,000 per ship. In regard to the individual ships upon which the extra contract sum was spent, I regret I can make no further statement at present other than that it was almost all for armour, which was delivered for various contract ships under construction in different parts. The Admiralty officials are at the present moment unable to specify upon which particular ships the amounts were incurred, but it is sufficient, I think, that the general programme of shipbuilding has been advanced. The point second in importance raised to-night has been, I think, the question of coal contracts and the increase in price. The hon. Member for Gateshead has vigorously attacked the Admiralty on that matter, and he told us that commercial firms were in the habit of making the contracts beforehand.


In October.


But we have heard complaints from all the great railway companies, and engineering and ironwork firms, that the high price of coal has reduced their dividends and made it almost impossible for them to carry on their businesses. I have not heard of a single great firm throughout the country whose business involves any large expenditure on coal which has not had to incur increased expenditure and pay reduced dividends in consequence of the increased price of coal. The Admiralty wish to be placed on the same footing as a business firm. As business firms have had to go to their shareholders and complain that their expenses have increased and their dividends diminished, so the Admiralty have to come to the Committee and say they have spent more money than they expected to do. The only difference between the Admiralty and a business firm is that the latter is at liberty to make contracts when it likes. If a director of a company, from information received, was able to inform his colleagues that coal would shortly go up in price and remain at that increased price for fifteen months, that company would be able to make contracts, if anybody would enter into them, to cover those fifteen months. But the Admiralty have to come to Parliament for a vote, and a great deal would be said by hon. Members if the Admiralty were to enter into huge contracts for coal three months before the money was voted by Parliament. Then we are told that instead of buying coal at 13s., when we might have done, we preferred to buy at 29s. In that matter we are in exactly the same position as a business firm. We provide for our foreseen requirements at what appears to us to be the best price. But when unforeseen demands arise we have to make the best arrangements we can. I must apologise for not having stated this in my original statement. The whole of this increase in regard to coal is not on account of the rise in price. Practically one half is due to that factor, but the other half is due to the increased quantity that had to be bought in consequence of the trouble in China. That is the point upon which I am at issue with the hon. Member for Gateshead. He says we might have bought last October twelvemonth all the coal we required to see us through the China trouble, which did not break out until eleven months later.


You could have covered yourself for twelve months, the same as any business firm does.


I do not know of any firm which does so cover itself.


Every ship-owning firm does.


It covers its ordinary foreseen requirements.




A firm that is carried on on business lines has ordinary annual requirements, and it makes its contracts on the lines of the quantities required in the ordinary way of business for the year. But if an entirely unforeseen occurrence takes place halfway through the year, and there is a large demand for coal, that firm, will have to buy at the then price. That is exactly the position in which the Admiralty found themselves when the China trouble broke out. They were brought face to face with the question, Are we to buy coal which is necessary for the service of the country, not only for the supply of the Navy during this crisis, but also, as is essential when such a trouble occurs, to increase the stocks at our foreign stations, which it might be difficult to do after war had broken out? Could we hesitate for one moment in answering such a question, even if the price of coal was as high as 29a a ton? In regard to the victualling, a question was asked incidentally as to when the Report of the Committee might be expected. In answer to that I would say that the Committee are now considering their Report, but as it has not yet been presented it is impossible for me to say when it will be laid before the House. The hon. Member for Wokingham asked a question as to piloting. There is no question whatever of there being any less efficiency on the part of naval officers so far as their qualifications for piloting are concerned. This sum is almost entirely due to extra canal dues on vessels going through the Suez Canal on their way to China. The hon. Member for Gateshead asked what was the sum per month we are paying for the ss. "Ophir," and great fault was found because the word "hire" instead of "charter" was used. It is a charter, of course. The "Ophir" is a vessel of 6,910 tons. She is perhaps one of the most suitable vessels existing at present for the services for which she has been chartered. The sum we are paying is £1 per ton per month.


Then you are paying £6,910 per month?


We are paying £1 per ton per month, and the tonnage is 6,910. She will be manned with a crew from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, with the exception of the engine-room staff, stewards, and cooks, who are being provided by the owners. The fitting of the ship has been carried out by the owners. I think I have now answered all questions of general importance which have been put to mo, and I must ask the indulgence of the Committee for any deficiences on my part. Nothing will more encourage the Admiralty in their endeavour to carry on this work to the satisfaction of the House and the country than to see that the House takes a real interest in the matter. I do not think the benches have always been very well filled during the discussions on the Navy Estimates, but the Admiralty certainly have no wish to slur the matters through without discussion, It is through what transpires here that we shall feel we have the support of the House, and through the House the support of the country, in using every endeavour to accelerate the progress of construction and to make the Navy, not on paper, but in actual fact, one of which the country may be proud, and which will be able to discharge its duties in the manner in which they have always been discharged up to the present.

SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

I congratulate the lion. Gentleman the Civil Lord on his appearance in this debate, and I am sure the great ability he has exhibited augurs well for the successful management of Admiralty affairs in this House. But I confess I am not quite satisfied with one or two of his replies. With regard to the delay in building our battleships. I was much surprised when he said that it was quite a usual thing, after a ship was launched, for her to have to wait at least six months for her machinery.


I did not state that.


Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain, but that was my impression.


I think the hon. Member for Devonport said that.


If that be the case I am at a loss to understand why Japanese vessels—some of which were built on the Tyne—have been delivered so much more quickly than those intended for His Majesty's Government. When a vessel is arranged to be built it is provided that the machinery has to be put on board as soon as she is ready for it after launching, and I do not understand why there should be this delay in connection with His Majesty's ships. I believe that contracts could easily be made with any of the largest shipbuilding firms to deliver any class of vessel the Government might require within two years. These delays are a great disappointment, but I have been told by contractors that the great difficulty they have to contend with is, that the Admiralty inspectors go down to the yards, presumably to inspect the building— which is a very proper thing to do—but the contractors say that after they have received the designs and plans little or big alterations are continually being made, and these alterations are the means of seriously delaying the work and considerably adding to the cost. The result is, that many of the best shipbuilding firms refuse to contract with the Admiralty, because, as they say, they do not know what the contract means. When they take a contract from a private firm they know exactly what they have to do, but in dealing with His Majesty's Government they never know what the inspectors will expect them to do, and often after the work has been done in a manner satisfactory to any reasonable person, they have to pull it to pieces and do it over again. I hope His Majesty's Government will take more care in making their contracts and fixing their data, because, as a practical man who has had some experience of these matters, I feel that these delays are unnecessary and could be avoided. The hon. Member said that the fact that they were spending more money proved that they were pressing things forward more rapidly, and almost in the same breath he stated that the reason of the delay in delivering the vessels was the engineering strike. Everybody who has had anything to do with shipbuilding during the engineering strike knows that instead of increasing the cost it considerably decreased the expenditure in a particular year, because if the ships were not delivered a very much smaller sum had to be paid, so that the one argument is practically destructive of the other. Another question with which the hon. Gentleman did not deal satisfactorily was with regard to the "Ophir." I understand that something like £400,000 was fixed as the expenditure upon the Royal yacht in the last Estimates. There must have been at least £100,000 or £150,000 expended in connection with that vessel, and why does it not appear in this Estimate? I presume we shall see it when the general Estimates are presented; therefore I shall not press that question now. I was glad to hear the reply to the hon. Member for Wokingham. I was not startled that there should be a considerable sum for pilotage. There are cases when it is better to have a skilled pilot, one who knows the particular port or the coast-line of the particular district to which a large battleship has to go, rather than take the risk of running such a vessel, costing £1,000,000 or £1,500,000, ashore. It is a, common practice with ordinary shipowners, when a ship goes to a port with which the captain is not very familiar, to employ skilled pilots, and I think the Government should do the same. When the sea is so rough that the skilled pilot is unable to get out to the ship, the owner, of course, has to rely upon the captain's own guidance in the matter. The Government would be well advised to give expert assistance to some commanders of our naval vessels if they thought it advisable to have it, but, naturally, in time of war they would have to rely upon themselves.


asked, in reference to his hon. friend's statement that all the ship's complement for the "Ophir," with the exception of the engineering staff, was to be furnished by the Royal Navy, and that the engineers would be furnished by the owners, whether the charge for the engineers was included in the Vote.


No, Sir.


said that then there would have to be another Vote. He also wished to know whether all the men would be Navy Reserve men, and also how discipline was to be maintained, as part of the crew would belong to the Royal Navy and part be under the Merchant Shipping Act.

MR. E. J. C. MORTON (Dovonport)

said he recognised that there was not now time to deal with several questions relating to the men in the naval dockyards, in which he was interested, and therefore he would postpone them until another occasion. After the courteous and able way in which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had treated the Vote he did not wish to add to his difficulties. There was one question, however, which he should like to put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. As late as last August Mr. Goschen appointed a Committee to inquire into the question of water-tube boilers. That was an extremely intricate question from the point of view of persons who were not experts. A rumour had found its way into the press that the Committee was about to make an interim Report shortly. Ho wished to know whether that was a fact, and also whether the Report would deal with the question as to the distinction between the Belleville boilers and other forms of water-tube boilers They all understood the difference between water-tube and fire-tube boilers, both as regarded advantages and disadvantages, but he for one did not understand the difference between one form of water-tube boiler and another.


I do not see how the hon. Member can connect a Report of a Committee on the Belleville boiler with the Vote now before the Committee.


Would it not conic under the Contracts Vote?


The hon. Member would be entitled to object to certain boilers in ships, but cannot see how he can connect an interim Report of a Committee now sitting with the present Vote.


I suppose I am entitled to ask whether there is to be an interim Report, as the answer would affect the way in which I should vote?


If the question does not arise on this Vote it would be more convenient to put down a question.


said he had listened to the debate for a long time, and every hon. Member who had spoken had spoken in encouragement of the Admiralty in their wild career of extravagance. That was a most lamentable condition of things, and it appeared to him that it was time that the voice of economy should be heard, and that, after the eloquence to which the Committee bad been treated by experts anxious to see more millions expended, someone should speak on behalf of the taxpayer, who would have to find the money. He proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.000. They were now called upon to give a supplementary sum of £1.250.000 towards the Naval Estimates for the current year. That was not only a Supplementary Estimate, but it was a Supplementary Estimate in addition to what had been described as an additional Estimate. Of course they knew to their cost that during a time of war they were called upon to vote Supplementary Estimates for the Army or the Navy, as the case might be, but the war in South Africa had no effect on the Navy, and the Navy had not been called upon for any unusual exertions. Therefore they might treat the Navy as being on a peace footing. But, besides the sum now ask d for, they were called upon in Lily last to vote what was described as an additional Estimate of £1,269,000. Therefore the whole additional Supplementary Estimate asked for the Navy dining the current year was over £2,500,000. If hon. Members would look at the history of the British Navy they would find nothing to equal such a condition of things as that. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in making his Naval statement for 1900–1, announced that the total Estimate for that year was £27,522,600, an increase of £928,100 over the Estimate for 1899–1900. They were now called upon to make a further increase of over two and a half millions, or, in other words, the cost of the Navy for the present year, without any additional expense attributable to the war or to warlike preparations, was three and a half millions over the cost of the previous year.

That was only the beginning of the story. The Committee had listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who gave expression to the sentiments held by the patriotic gentlemen who constituted the Navy League, and who were continually clamouring for increased armaments. He declared that what was wanted was a large and continuous increase in the cost of the Navy, and therefore the Committee bad the pleasant prospect of having to consider a still further increase next year. He asked himself where that policy was going to stop. Some years ago an hon. Member announced the proposition that the British Navy should he kept always equal to the navies of the next two greatest Powers in the world. The effect of that was, as he and other hon. Members ventured to prophesy at the time, that the navies of the two great Powers specified were enormously increased, and the argument used in Russia and France in support of the increases was the very statement made in the House of Commons that the British intended to be masters of the sea. Tonight an hon. Gentlemen announced that the standard, as he called it, for the future should be that the British Navy should be kept up to a point of equality with the navies of any three other Powers. He ventured to describe that as a career of madness. When Mr. Gladstone retired from public life they were led to believe, and he for his part did believe it, that one of the motives which induced him to retire at that particular moment was that his own friends insisted upon a substantial increase of the Navy, and Mr. Gladstone, with his immense experience, dating from the early years of the century and from the days of Sir Robert Peel, was convinced that if he consented to that increase, it would be impossible to tell where such a, policy would end. What had happened? When the Naval Estimates were introduced in 1895 the then Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that ten years previously the total Naval Estimates were just over twelve millions, and that they were then asking for eighteen millions for that year, it was that increase which contributed to the retirement of Mr. Gladstone from public life. They had now reached a figure of over thirty millions, or an increase of twelve millions within the last five years. Those were figures which ought to make the Committee pause and reflect on the course they were asked to pursue. As Mr. Gladstone prophesied in 1895 would be the case, the increase then voted was a geometrical increase, and increased more rapidly in every succeeding year. During the debates on the Navy Estimates in the last few years there had never been a hint or a sign that they were reaching the limit.

Some hon. Members appeared to be under the delusion that England had such boundless resources that she could arrogantly take up the position of standing against the world in arms, and that she could hold the seas against the world. Such language was the language of madness, and would inevitably lead to the national ruin. If hon. Members continued to talk such preposterous language, and if they could get their views carried into effect, it could lead to nothing but national ruin. They could not bold the seas against the world in arms, and what had happened during the last few years had shown that such boasts were weak and foolish. They had encouraged the United States in a mad career of building a- fleet and engaging in what was called an Imperial policy. He believed that the people and the statesmen of England would bitterly rue the day in which they excited and encouraged the United States. If the United States were to take up that wild idea of naval armament it would put England to the pin of her collar to hold her own. Then there were the Japanese fleet and the German fleet, which formerly amounted to almost nothing, but which, largely owing to the boasts and insults of England, had been doubled and quadrupled during the last few years. It was absurd for England to attempt to maintain that world-wide supremacy of the seas which she maintained for many years. If England sought to be mistress of the seas, then he prophesied that the day was not far distant when the British taxpayer would be crushed under a burden which he was no longer able to bear. He and other hon. Members had in recent years fought doggedly against increases in the Navy and in the Army, though he confessed he never thought expenditure would increase at such a rate as would satisfy hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who were continually clamouring for money, and whose appetite grew on what it led on. The more money that was voted the more they wanted. A gentleman, describing himself as Chairman of the Navy League, made a prophecy in The Times newspaper in December last which had been borne out in a most remarkable manner. He denounced Mr. Goschen, and stated he had been for a long time incapable of mastering the difficulties which confronted him at the Admiralty. He pointed out how the universal antipathy of the German people had found expression in the doubling of their fleet, and he said that the conclusion was irresistible that the management of marine affairs during the five years of the late Government had been incompetent, with the result that England had lost command of the seas. It was the opinion of the Chairman of the Navy League that, after twelve millions had been added to the expense of the British Navy, the result was that England had lost command of the seas. That was nice encouragement for the taxpayer. The Times newspaper, commenting on that conclusion, spoke of the Navy League as possessing an energetic policy, but it seemed to him as if it were suffering from the malady known as "political hysterics." Unless the Admiralty took the man who shouted the loudest, and made him their head, they would not satisfy the Navy League. Instead of applying themselves to remedy the evils and defects which experts were continually pointing out, the Admiralty seemed to have set themselves the impossible task of satisfying the cry of the Navy League for more money without any regard as to how it should be spent. They could not satisfy the Navy League, and they were now pursuing a, career which, if continued much further, must end in absolute bankruptcy or a revolt on the part of the taxpayers. There was no assurance that the money was to be spent in such a way as that value would be had for it. No hon. Gentleman had spoken in stronger terms on the subject than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He delivered a speech about a year ago in Bristol, in which he defended the Government from the attacks of the Navy League. He said that the year before his Government came into office the expenditure of the Navy was fifteen millions, and that they had raised that expenditure in five years to twenty-five millions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded twenty-five millions as a great achievement, but now they were asked to vote thirty millions, and with every prospect of a still higher figure being demanded. He therefore, would take, that opportunity of protesting against the increased expenditure now proposed.

There was one item in the Supplementary Estimate—namely. £30,000, for the seizure and detention of vessels on the South African coast—to which he wished to refer. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty did not give an explanation of that, and he thought it very hard that the taxpayers should be called upon to pay £30,000 for proceedings which were a flagrant breach of the usages of war. He should like to know what reprimand had been addressed to the officers for the seizure of vessels engaged iii carrying food to Lorenzo Marques. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by one million.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an additional sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted for the said Services."— (Mr. Dillon.)

MR CREAN (Cork. S.E.)

said he desired to support the reduction. It was not necessary for him to add anything to what had been stated by his hon. friend, but he wished particularly to bring before the Committee the treatment meted out to Ireland in connection with naval expenditure, He had the honour of representing a Division in which a shipbuilding yard was located, which, however, for many years had been boycotted. The men had either to walk the streets idle, or cross over to England to seek employment. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty stated that the cause of the delay in executing shipbuilding work was that the shipyards were not able to cope with it. There were many shipyards which had not had a pound's worth of work from the Admiralty, and they would get it were it not that the Admiralty had pet yards. Why should the work be confined to the pet yards of the Admiralty? Even if other yards got work, the inspectors were on the pounce, and watched carefully every man working on a boiler or fitting a plate on the vessel, He would not complain if that course were also carried out in other dockyards, but it was not. In the yards to which he was referring the work contracted for had not only to be completed, but every whim of every official had also to be carried out. That was the reason why some of the best yards in Ireland— which were some of the best in the world — would not take Navy contracts. Why were not Navy contracts taken, in Belfast? He objected on that ground to the Supplementary Estimates. He believed that 50 per cent, of the Estimate was dishonest, though, of course, he did not accuse the lion. Gentleman opposite of doing anything dishonest or dishonourable. What he intended to convey was that proper supervision was not exercised over the work executed in the pet yards of the Admiralty. In, his own constituency they dreaded to take a contract from the Navy, not that they could not turn out the work well, because they had been already complimented by the Admiralty. He asked for no favours, but that his constituents should get the common right of taxpayers who were contributing to the present extraordinary expense. They at least might be allowed to compete with English firms on equal terms.

The action of the Admiralty in asking for such a large Estimate was not surprising, because hon. Members connected with the Navy League were prepared to encourage them in their extravagance. The Admiralty were encouraged not to economise, and they were given to understand that they would get what they wished to ask for. The Irish Members protested against such conduct, He was very glad that the reduction had been moved, and he would vote for it. He pitied England if her boast that she would meet the world in arms was as poor as her boast about her Army. If England could do with her Navy only what she had been able to do with her Army, it would not be much. The other day he read of ships in the Navy, supposed to be fitted to undertake any emergency, which had to be docked for repairs, He believed that nine-tenths of the ships in the British Navy were in the same condition, and were not in any sense as well equipped as the ships of the mercantile marine. The British mercantile marine was the best in the world, but he doubted very much if the British Navy would be capable of meeting the navies of any two other Powers.


I do not think it is open to discuss the general condition of the Navy on this Vote.


said it was the efficiency of the Navy they were discussing, and his point was that the money was wasted because it was not efficiently expended. If they were to judge the efficiency of the Navy by the efficiency of the Army they would have to remodel their naval system completely, not only with regard to supervision of extravagant expenditure, but also as regards construction. At present vessels were not built in accordance with the original design, and no actual Estimate could therefore be framed for them. When a contractor got it into his head that the work was not to be completed according to specification, and that the design might be changed a hundred times over, he did not mind, because it put extra money into his pocket. The hon. Baronet who spoke recently stated that a commercial firm wishing to build a steamship entered into a contract which was carried out to the letter, and in accordance with the designs, and the result was that the ship was built for the price originally fixed. Ships for the Navy were never contracted for on proper lines, and were never built within 25 per cent, of the original estimate. The result was that extravagant expenditure was called for every year, and that extravagant Supplementary Estimates were brought, forward without any details being given. Even the present Estimates were not final, because the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that there would have to be another Estimate for the engineering staff of the "Ophir." He had great pleasure in supporting the reduction moved by his hon. friend.


said he desired to make a few remarks on some of the sub-heads of the Supplementary Estimates. He entirely agreed with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said with regard to the sub-heads dealing with the wages, provisions and clothing of seamen. He would not object to any money spent in making the seamen more comfortable, but those sub-heads were very small indeed, whereas the amounts under other sub-heads had been enormously increased. After the very able and lucid speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, he would merely content himself with recording his protest against the enormously increased expenditure of £700,000 for coal. He thought the hon. Member had proved his case with regard to that, and although the Civil Lord of the Admiralty made a very nice and a very pretty speech he did not answer it. Then there was a sub-head for piloting His Majesty's ships. The hon. Gentleman said that, as a matter of fact, the large amount of money mentioned in the sub-head was not all for piloting. If it were paid for canal dues or otherwise, it should be placed in its proper position. He ventured to submit that piloting did not cost a fifth of the money.




said there was only one other matter he desired to deal with, and that was a supplementary sum of £8,000 for telegraphic communications. Many Parliaments had been known by peculiar names. He had read of the Long Parliament, and the Short Parliament, and the Rump Parliament. Now they had the Parliament of Telegraphic Communications. In every Estimate that was brought before the Committee the amount of money that was expended on telegraphic communications was simply enormous. He thought his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo was acting in the interests of the taxpayers when he moved to reduce the Vote, and he would support him.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman oppo- site, in his friendly criticism of the proposals of the Government, stated that in connection with the Navy, England was not exceeding the expenditure of other European countries, and was simply following their lead. From a recent Parliamentary Return, it would, however, appear that His Majesty s Navy had been increasing, was and would continue to increase, and that England was leading other countries in naval expenditure. Was the Committee justified in voting the huge amount of money spent on the Navy? Were the condition of the Navy bad, were its ships in such a rotten condition that they would not he seaworthy, then they might be justified in incurring I reasonable expenditure, but the question they had to consider was whether the present expenditure was reasonable or just, and whether it was in proportion to revenue, and in proportion to the naval expenditure of other countries. He would quote for the information of the Committee a few figures from the Parliamentary Return to which he had referred. It would appear from that Return that the naval expenditure of the United Kingdom in 1897–8 was twenty-two millions out of a total revenue of 108 millions, or twenty percent. He should like to know if I here were any European countries that had such a large naval expenditure as compared with its aggregate revenue. The information he had led him to believe that there was no such country. In Russia the naval expediture was only six millions as compared with an aggregate revenue of 147 millions, or only four per cent. In Germany the naval expenditure was six millions, as compared with seventy millions of revenue. With reference to France, many Englishmen appeared much afraid of that country, and seemed to think that her naval, power was not second to that of England, although that was a question of trial between the two nations. And he believed that the day was not tar off when the issue would be fought out. [An HON. MEMBER laughed.] hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but they knew down in the bottom of their hearts that for the last two years naval experts had been declaring that the British Navy was bad. Two years ago an hon. Member who stated that the British Army could not take away the freedom of a farming community in South Africa would not be listened to, but he would be listened to now. What did he find as regards the naval expenditure of France? It was only nine millions as compared with a revenue of 102 millions. He found that the naval expenditure of Great Britain was in one year equal to that of France. German) and Russia combined.

The question which hon. Members from Ireland had to consider was not whether these sums were necessary for the purpose of protecting the Empire, because they were not there to protect the Empire. They came there with the courage of their convictions, and told lion. Members what they thought about them. They came to demand justice for Ireland, and they knew that ever since the Union the contributions of Ireland had always been excessive. According to a Royal Commission appointed by hon. Members opposite—a jury empannelled by themselves—a verdict of guilty was brought home to them. It was the bounden duty of hon. Members from Ireland to protest against the increased expenditure in connection with the Army and Navy. The present revised Estimate in connection with the Navy was £30.419,000. He had shown, according to the Parliamentary Return for 1897–8. that the naval expenditure was then only twenty-two millions. The Irish Members wanted to know who was getting value for that greatly increased expenditure. Ireland received no benefit from it, directly or indirectly. Their shipbuilding yards were idle, and the British Government would not even give a gunboat to protect Irish fisheries which were at the mercy of the foreigner. Ireland had to pay part of this increased taxation not only in money, hut even in blood shed in South Africa. The Irish Members protested against the war when it began, and told the Government what the consequences would be. Irish Members now told the Government unhesitatingly that if through some foreign complication England came into conflict with her neighbour across the Channel, the British Navy would be as inferior to the French navy as the British Army was to the Boer army. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but the Irish Mem- bers told them the same about the Army. He believed that if the issue had to be fought out in the morning. France would show a superiority over the British Navy. There were very large questions affecting Ireland which arose out of the Vote before the Committee, because Ireland had to contribute a sum of more than £3,000,000 a year beyond her just proportion. What did Ireland get in return? The Irish Members had endeavoured to elicit information in regard to contracts for the Navy and Army. The Government was generous enough

in giving huge coal contracts at the enormous price of twenty-nine shillings per ton. When contracts could have been entered into at thirteen shillings per ton—

MR. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The committee divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 35.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.) King, Sir Henry Seymour
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dickinson, Robert Edmond Kitson, Sir James
Allen, Charles P(Glouc., Stroud) Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Knowles, Lees
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Dorington, Sir John Edward Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Atkers- Lawrence, William F.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lawson, John Grant
Arkwright, John Stanhope Faber, George Denison Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Leighton, Stanley
Bain, Colonel James Robert Finch, George H. Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.
Balcarres, Lord Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r) Fisher, William Hayes Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)
Balfour,RtHnGeraldW,(Leeds Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Balfour, Maj K R.(Christchurch) Flannery, Sir Fortescue Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Banbury, Frederick Flower, Ernest Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Hartley, George C. T. Forster, Henry William Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'uth)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Fuller, J. M. F. Macdona, John Gumming
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol) Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.) Maconochie, A. W.
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants.) Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn) M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)
Beaumont, Went worth C. B. Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets) M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim,E.)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- Majendie, James A. H.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Malcolm, fan
Bignold, Arthur Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Manners, Lord Cecil
Bill, Charles Graham, Henry Robert Markham, Arthur Basil
Blundell, Colonel Henry Grant, Corrie Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bond. Edward Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Green, Walford D (Wednesbury) Melville. Beresford Valentine
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Brassey, Albert Groves, James Grimble Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredrick G.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Brook field, Colonel Montagu Guthrie, Walter Murray Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Bull, William James Halsey, Thomas Frederick Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hambro, Charles Erie More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)
Carlile, William Walter Hamilton. Rt Hn. Ld. G (Midd'x) Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Cautley, Henry Strother Hamilton, Marq of (L'nderry) Morrell, George Herbert
Cavendish, R. F.(N. Lanes.) Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hay. Hon. Claude George Morrison, James Archibald
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Cecil. Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm). Helder, Augustus Nicholson, William Graham
Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r) Henderson, Alexander Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chapman, Edward Holland, William Henry Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Charrington, Spencer Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside) Partington, Oswald
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hoult, Joseph Pemberton, John S. G.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Percy, Earl
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jessse Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Pilkington, Richard
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Johnston. William (Belfast) Platt-Higgins. Frederick
Cook, Frederick Luoas Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Plummer, Walter It.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Joicey, Sir James Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cranborne, Viscount Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh) Pretyman, Ernest George
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Keswick, William Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Purvis, Robert Schwann. Charles E. Webb, Colonel William George
Randles, John S. Seton-Karr, Henry White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ratcliffe, R. F. Sharpe, William Edward T. Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff) Simeon. Sir Barrington Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Reid, James (Greenock) Skewes-Cox, Thomas Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Remnant, James Farquharson Smith, A bel H.(Hertford, East) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Rentoul, James Alexander Smith, HC (North'mb Tyneside) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Ren wick, George Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) Wills, Sir Frederick
Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge) Spear, John Ward Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.)
Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen) Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T. Stock, James Henry "Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Roe, Sir Thomas Stone, Sir Benjamin Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Stroyan, John Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Ropner, Colonel Robert Sturt. Hon. Humphry Napier Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Round, James Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings) Wylie, Alexander
Royds, Clement Molyneun Thornton, Percy M. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, T. W. Tollemache, Henry James Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Rutherford. John Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Tufnell, Col. Edward TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex. Valentia, Viscount Sir William Walrond and
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. Mr. Anstruther.
Sandys, Lt.-Col Thos. Myles Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Hammond, John O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Ambrose, Robert Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Boland. John Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)
Boyle, James Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Malley, William
Brigg, John Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Mara, James
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Jones, William (Canarvonsh.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burke, E. Haviland- Jordan. Jeremiah Power, Patrick Joseph
Caldwell, James Joyce, Michael Rea, Russell
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Kennedy, Patrick James Reckitt, Harold James
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Lambert, George Reddy, M.
Cawley, Frederick Layland-Barratt, Francis Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Cogan, Denis J. Levy, Maurice Rickett, J. Compton
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lundon, W. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Craig, Robert Hunter Macdonnell, Dr. Mark A. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Crean, Eugene M'Dermott, Patrick Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Cullinan, J. M'Govern, T. Sullivan, Donal
Daly, James M'Hugh, Patrick A. Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Kenna, Reginald Thomson, F. W. (York.W.R.)
Delany, William Mooney, John J. Trevelvan, Charles Philips
Dillon, John Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Tally, Jasper
Doogan, P. C. Murphy, J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.
Duffy, William J. Nannetti, Joseph P. White, P. (Meath, North)
Elibank, Master of Nolan. Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Field, William Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Furness, Sir Christopher O'Connor, Jas. Wicklow, W. Captain Donelan and Mr.
Gilhooly, James O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Patrick O'Brien.
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Question put accordingly, "That an additional sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted for the said Services."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes, 248, (Division List No. 36.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Cogan, Denis J. Doogan, P. C.
Ambrose, Robert Condon, Thomas Joseph Duffy, William J.
Boland, John Crean, Eugene Field, William
Boyle, James Cullinan, J. Flavin, Michael Joseph
Burke, E. Haviland Daly, J. Flynn, James Christopher
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Delany, William Gilhooly, James
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Dillon, John Hammond, John
Hayden, John Patrick Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Jordan, Jeremiah Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Power, Patrick Joseph
Joyce, Michael O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Reddy, M.
Kennedy, Patrick James O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Lundon, W. O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) Sullivan, Donal
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Tully, Jasper
M'Dermott, Patrick O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.) White. Patrick (Meath, North)
M'Govern, T. O'Donnell. T. (Kerry, W.)
M'Hugh, Patrick A. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Mooney, John J. O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.) Captain Donelan and Mr.
Murphy, J. O'Malley, William Patrick O'Brien.
Nannetti, Joseph P. O'Mara, James
Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex. F. Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dewar, T. R.(T'rH'mlets, S. Geo) Keswick, William
Allen,Chas. P. (Glouc. Stroud) Dickinson, Robert Edmond King, Sir Henry Seymour
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden Dimsdale, Sir JosephCockfield Kitson, Sir James
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dorington, Sir John Edward Knowles, Lees
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Arkwright, John Stanhope Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lambert, George
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Elibank, Master of Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Atkinson, lit. Hon. John Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lawrence, William F.
Bailey,James (Walworth) Faber, George Denison Lawson, John Grant
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Layland- Barratt, Francis
Balcarres, Lord Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r) Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J (Manch'r) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds) Finch, George H. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch'ch) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Leighton, Stanley
Banbury, Frederick George Fisher, William Hayes Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Bartley, George C. T. FitzGerald, SirRobertPenrose- Levy, Maurice
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Flower, Ernest Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants) Forster. Henry William Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Fuller, J. M. F. Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Furness, Sir Christopher Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gibbs,Hn.A.GH(CityofLond Lucas, Reginald J. (P'rtsmouth)
Bignold, Arthur G. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Rill, Charles Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn) Macdona, John Cumming
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gordon, MajEvans-(TrH'ml'ts) Maconochie, A. W.
Bond, Edward Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Gorst,Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Brand, Hon. Arthur Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Majendie, James A. H.
Brassey, Albert Graham, Henry Robert Malcolm, Ian
Brigg, John Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Manners, Lord Cecil
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sb'ry Markham, Arthur Basil
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) Martin, Richard Biddulph
Brown,George M. (Edinburgh) Groves, James Grimble Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)
Bull, William James Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Melville, Beresford Valentine
Burdett-Coutts, W. Guthrie, Walter Murray Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.
Caldwell, James Hambro, Charles Erie Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Carlile, William Walter Hamilton,RtHnLordG.(Mid'x Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Hamilton. Marq of(L'nd'nderry) More, R. Jasper (shropshire)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes). Harmsworth, R. Leicester More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.) Harris, F. Leverton(Tyn'mouth) Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Cawley, Frederick Hay, Hon. Claude George Morrell, George Herbert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Morris, Hon. M. Henry F.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Heath,ArtburHoward(Hanl'y Morrison, James Archibald
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm) Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.) Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)
Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r) Helder, Augustus Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Chapman, Edward Henderson, Alexander Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Charrington, Spencer Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol,E.) Nicholson, William Graham
Churchill, Winston Spencer Holland, William Henry Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hoult, Joseph Partington, Oswald
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hutton, Jolin (Yorks. N.R.) Pembertort, John S. G.
Cook, Frederick Lucas Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Percy, Earl
(Corbett,A.Cameron(Glasgow) Johnston, William (Belfast) Pilkington, Richard
Craig, Robert Hunter Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Camborne, Viscount Joicey, Sir James Plummer, Walter R.
Cubitt. Hon. Henry Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles Warner, Thomas Courteny T.
Purvis, Robert Seton-Karr, Henry Wason, John C. (Orkney)
Randles, John S. Sharpe, William Edward T. Webb, Colonel William Geo.
Ratcliffe, R. F. Shipman, Dr. John G. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rea, Russell Simeon, Sir Barrington Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. L'ne)
Reckitt, Harold James Skewes-Cox, Thomas Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff) Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East) Whitmore, Charles Algenon
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith, H.C (North'mb>.Tynesd. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Remnant, James Farquharson Smith, James P, (Lanarks.) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Rentoul, James Alexander Soames, Arthur Wesleyan Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Renwick, George Spear. John Ward Willox, Sir John Archibald
RicKett, J. Compton Stanley. Lord (Lanes.) Wills, Sir Frederick
Ridley,Hn. M. W. (St'ly bridge) Stock, James Henry Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)
Ridley, S F. (Bethnal Green) Stroyan, John Wilson; John (Falkirk)
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson Stone, Sir Benjamin Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Sturt, Hon. Huniphry Napier Wilson, J W (Worcesterhire,N.)
Roe, Sir Thomas Talbot, Rt Hn J G (Oxford Univ.) Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Taylor, Theodore Cooke Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Ropuer, Colonel Robert Thomas,F. Freeman-(Hastings) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Rothstchild, Hon. L. Walter Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wylie, Alexander
Round, James Thornton, Percy M. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Royds, Clement Molyneux Tollemache, Henry James Young,Commanded (Berks, E.)
Russell, T. W. Tomlinson, W Edward M.
Rutherford, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Tufnell, Col. Edward Sir William Walrond and
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex. Valentia, Viscount Mr. Anstruther.
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 37.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Cautley, Henry Strother Flower, Ernest
Andrew, Sir Andrew Noel Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Forster, Henry William
Allen, Chas. P. (Glone.,Stroud) Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.) Fuller, J. M. F.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Cawley, Frederick Furness, Sir Christopher
Anson. Sir William Reynell Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Goddard, Daniel Ford
Arkwright, John Stanhope Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.) Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r) Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chapman, Edward Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-
Bailey, James (Walworth) Charrington, Spencer Gorst, Rt. Hon Sir John Eldon
Churchill, Winston Spencer Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Bain, Col. James Robert Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Graham, Henry Robert
Balcarres, Lord Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Balfour, Rt, Hn. A.J.(Manch'r) Colomb.Sir John Charles Ready Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) Cook, Frederick Lucas Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y.)
Balfour, Maj. K R(Christchurch) Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Banbury, Frederick George Craig, Robert Hunter Groves, James Grimble
Bartley, George C. T. Cranborne, Viscount Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin Cubitt, Hon. Henry Guthrie, Walter Murray
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol) Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B (Hants.) Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Hambro, Charles Eric
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Dewar, T. R. (T'rll'mlets, S Geo.) Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Dickinson, Robert Edmond Hamilton, Marq. of (L'd'nderry)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Bignold, Arthur Dorington, Sir John Edward Harris, F.Leveiton(Tynem'th.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Douglas, Rt. Hn A. Akers- Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bond, Edward Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Elibank, Master of Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)
Brassey, Albert Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Helder, Augustus
Brigg, John Faber, George Denison Henderson, Alexander
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hobhouse, C. E.H. (Bristol, E.)
Brookfield, Col. Montagu Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r.) Holland, William Henry
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Bull, William James Finch, George H. Hoult, Joseph
Burdett-Coutts, W. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)
Fisher, William Hayes Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Caldwell, James FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Johnston, William (Belfast)
Carlile, William Walter Flannery, Sir Fortescue Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)
Joicey, Sir James Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside)
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Nicholson, William Graham Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Keswick, William Nicol, Donald Ninian Soames, Arthur Wellesley
King, Sir Henry Seymour Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Spear, John Ward
Kitson, Sir James Partington, Oswald Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Knowles, Lees Pemberton, John S. G. Stock, James Henry
Lambert, George Percy, Earl Stroyan, John
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Pilkington, Richard Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Lawrence, William F. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Uni.)
Lawson, John Grant Plummer, Walter R. Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Layland-Barratt, Francis Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Lecky. Rt. Hn. William Edw. H Pretyman, Ernest George Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Thornton, Percy M.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Purvis, Robert Tollemache, Henry James
Leighton, Stanley Handles, John S. Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S. Ratcliffe, R. F. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Levy, Maurice Rea, Russell Tufnell, Col. Edward
Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R. Reckitt, Harold James Valentia, Viscount
Long. Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.) Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff) Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Reid, James (Greenock) Warner, Thomas C. T.
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Remnant, James Farquharson Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Rentoul, James Alexander Webb, Col. William George
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Renwick, George White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Macdona, John Cumming Rickett, J. Compton Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)
Maconochie, A. W. Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Arthur,Charles(Liverpoool) Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Majendie, James A. H. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Williams. Col. R. (Dorset)
Malcolm, Ian Roe, Sir Thomas Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Manners, Lord Cecil Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Markham, Arthur Basil Ropner, Colonel Robert Wills, Sir Frederick
Martin, Richard Biddulph Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)
Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.) Round, James Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Melville, Beresford Valentine Royds, Clement Molyneux Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Russell, T. W. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Rutherford, John Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wylie, Alexander
More,RobtJasper(Shropshire) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Seton-Karr, Henry Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Morrell, George Herbert Sharpe, William Edward T.
Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. Shipman, Dr. John G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Morrison, James Archibald Simeon, Sir Harrington Sir William Walrond and
Morton,Edw.J.C.(Devonport) Skewes-Cox, Thomas Mr. Anstruther.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Flynn, James Christopher O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Ambrose, Hubert Gilhooly, James O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Boland, John Hammond, John O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Boyle, James Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Burke, E. Haviland- Jordan, Jeremiah O'Malley, William
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Joyce, Michael O'Mara, James
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Kennedy, Patrick James O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cogan, Denis J. Lundon, W. Power, Patrick Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A. Reddy, M.
Crean, Eugene M'Dermott, Patrick Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Cullinan, J. M'Govern, T. Sullivan, Donal
Daly, James Mooney, John J. Tally, Jasper
Delany, William Murphy, J. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Dillon, John Nannetti, Joseph P.
Doogan, P. C. Nolan, Col John P(Galway, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Dully, William J. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Captain Donclan and Mr.
Field, William O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid). Patrick O'Brien.
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

It being after midnight, the Chairman left the chair to make his report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow. Committee to sit again to-morrow.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One of the clock.

Back to