Commons Sitting of 5 March 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
THE. CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE HILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill.
  Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill.
  Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill.
  Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  BETTING.
  Petition from Keynsham, for Legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Heriot; Ochiltree; Inch; Maybole; Kirkcowan; and Cardross; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from St. John's Wood, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-fifth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN IRELAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Final Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the present conditions of the higher, general, and technical education available in Ireland outside Trinity College, Dublin, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS.
  Copy presented, of Amended Prison Rules relating to Employment of Hard Labour Male Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham), Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 58.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster), Further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 59.]
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts), Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 6O.]
  Charitable Endowments (London), Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. (61.]

  LEAD POISONING IN EARTHENWARE AND CHINA WORKS.
  Address for "Return of the cases of Lead Poisoning reported as occurring in China and Earthenware Works during the years 1899 to 1902, showing (1) the number of cases in the several classes of works and in the various processes, the number of persons employed, and the proportion of cases to persons employed; (2) the number of cases occurring in each month of the year; (3) particulars as to the character of the attacks; (4) the number of persons suspended in certain districts by the Certifying Surgeons (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 61, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY BOROUGH OF BARROW-IN-FURNESS).
  Return ordered, "comprising (1) the Report made to the Charity Commissioners, in the result of an Inquiry held in the County Borough of Barrow-in-Furness into endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that County Borough, or of any part thereof, together with the Report on those endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a Digest showing whether any, and, if any, what such endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the County Borough; and (3) an Index, alphabetically arranged, of names and places mentioned in the Report."—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cookery Teachers' Certificates.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if his Department intend to continue their examinations for cookery teachers' certificates,
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board of Education have at present no intention of discontinuing their examinations for cookery teachers' certificates.

  Typhoid in the Island of Lewis—Closing of Schools.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state for what period during last year the public school at Tolsta, Island of Lewis, was closed on account of an epidemic of typhus or typhoid fever; are any schools in the Island now closed; and, if so, will he name them.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Tolsta Public School was closed on 3rd July on account of an epidemic of typhoid fever, and was reopened on 24th December. The only school at present closed is Stornoway, Tong Public School.

  Typhoid at Ross and Cromarty—Cause of Outbreak.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Report of the South-Western District Committee for Ross and Cromarty, dated 26th July last, shows that there were cases of typhoid fever and other infectious diseases in the district (luring the year which necessitated the closing of three public schools for periods varying from three weeks to two months, can he now state the cause of the outbreak, and what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of fever.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The medical officer is unable to state the cause of the outbreak. He assures the Local Government Board that the affected houses have been cleansed and disinfected as carefully as possible.

  Construction of Wall at Skigersta Pier.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether any progress has vet been made with the construction of a protecting wall for the Skigersta Pier. Island of Lewis.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The hon. Member will recollect that I answered a similar (Question on 11th December,† and on 18th December the county clerk said an offer for the execution of the work had been received, and asked that the Congested Districts Board should keep their grant open for a short time longer. The Board agreed to extend the time till 14th March, but the
  † See (4) Debates, cxvi., 899.
  1542
  County Council have not yet intimated their decision to proceed with the work or not.

  Telegraph Office at Rossnakill, Donegal.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the event of the Milford Rural District Council, county Donegal, giving to the post office authorities an indemnity against loss, he will open a telegraph office at Rossnakill in this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No, Sir: I regret to say that I should not be justified in doing so, as there is already a telegraph office within three-quarters of a mile which appears to meet the needs of the district.

  Telegrams to Australia.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Postmaster-General by what line or lines unrouted messages are sent from England to Australia by the Post Office here; also how similar messages destined for England are dealt with in Australia; and will he state which route is to be adopted as the voic normale.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Unrouted telegrams from this country to Australia are sent by the Pacific cable. I have no information as to the disposal of such telegrams in the reverse direction. Both the Pacific cable route and those of the Eastern and Indo-European Telegraph Companies are regarded as normal routes.

  Alleged Grievances of Sorter-Telegraphists at the Central Office, London.
  MR. CREMER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain sorter-telegraphists of the Central Office, London, having passed the tests required for skilled telegraphists, have been informed that they are not required for a full eight hours' duty, and that they are employed from 10 a.m. to noon and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. per diem, and paid 9s. per week for twenty-four hours' work; and will he explain why these men are not employed for a full day.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen. Chamberlain.) The hon. Member's Question no doubt relates to certain learners who are em-

  1543
  ployed at wages of 9s. a week for four hours a day in performing minor duties, and for about four hours in learning. None of these learners give such an attendance as is described in the Question. They are given established appointments as vacancies admit, and, as a matter of fact, all who have passed the necessary standards have been appointed. But it should be clearly understood that the appointment of learners to the establishment must be dependent upon the occurrence of vacancies.

  Farmers and the Board of Agriculture.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of his statement that he is desirous of bringing farmers throughout the country into closer touch with the Board of Agriculture, and that he intends to take steps to accomplish this object, he will say whether he proposes doing so during the present session, and how he proposes to give effect to the scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) I hope to complete very shortly a scheme for effecting the object named in the Question. It is not one for which legislation will be necessary, as the hon. Member seems to anticipate.

  Prosecutions under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture in how many instances since the passing of the Fertilisers' and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893, application has been made to the Board to issue a certificate under the Act that there is reasonable ground for prosecution under Section 3 of the Act; what number of such certificates have been issued; and whether he can state the number of prosecutions and the results of such prosecutions.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) Only one application has been made to the Board by a private purchaser for a certificate to enable proceedings to be instituted under Section 3 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893, and in that case the Board were unable, on the evidence before them, to accede to the application. Several prosecutions have
  1544
  been instituted under Section 3 of the Act by County Councils, for which no certificate from the Board is required. We have received reports of seven such prosecutions, six of which resulted in a conviction.

  Education Act—Payments of Grants.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the rates now proposed to be made by the County Councils in respect of the Education Act of last year, and to the difficulty of obtaining the grants due to the schools until the close of the school year; and whether he will suggest means whereby the pressure upon the ratepayers which these arrangements involve can be relieved.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies to Questions on this point, which I gave to the hon. Member for North Camberwell on Monday,† and to the hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division of Essex yesterday.‡ I have nothing to add to those replies.

  H.M.S. "Formidable"—Prize Firing.
  MR. HARMSWORTH (Caithnessshire): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that during the recent prize firing of H.M.S. "Formidable," one hit only out of twenty eight shots fired from the twelve-inch guns was made; and whether he can state the approximate cost of each shell fired by these guns.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth yesterday, attention has been called to the unsatisfactory results of the prize firing in H.M.S. "Formidable," and special steps are being taken with regard to it. The cost of each practice projectile for the twelve-inch guns is approximately £7 10s.

  Greenwich Old Age Pensions.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give an
  † See page 1098. ‡ See page 1360,

  1545
  assurance that the Greenwich old age pensions will continue to be paid quarterly without change of system.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) I am unaware of any intention to alter the present system of paying these pensions quarterly

  Godstone Rural District Council—Expenses of Litigation.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): To ask the President of the Local Government Board, can he give a statement showing the sums expended in legal expenses and disbursements by the Godstone Rural District Council in each of the last five years, with the name and nature of the matter in respect of which the expenses have been incurred; and the result of the proceedings where the matter has been the subject of litigation, arbitration, or proceedings before any Committee of either House of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Waller Long.) I am not in possession of information which would enable me to give the particulars desired. I may, however, point out that under Section 58 (5) of the Local Government Act, 1894, it is open to any parochial elector of a parish in a rural district to inspect and take extracts from the books and accounts of the Rural District Council.

  County Boundaries—Overlapping Areas.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that for different purposes each English county is divided into an administrative county, a registration county, and an old geographical county, with overlapping areas; and whether in future arrangements he can insure that a county, instead of having three or four different areas, shall have one for all purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware of the fact referred to in the first part of the Question. I agree that it is very desirable as far as practicable to avoid the overlapping
  1546
  of areas; but there are very considerable difficulties in the way of securing any such arrangement as that suggested by the hon. Member.

  Audit of Transvaal Grant-in-Aid.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can inform the House whether it is still proposed, as stated in the Supplementary Estimates, to subject the expenditure out of the grant-in-aid of the Transvaal and Orange River Territory to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Yes. It is entirely for the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide, having regard to the terms on which the Grant has been voted by Parliament, as to the nature and extent of the audit which he will apply.

  Railway Wagons—Steel and Iron Axle Boxes.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the percentage of breakages of cast-iron axle boxes of railway wagons during each of the three years ending 1902, and the percentage of breakages in stamped steel axle boxes in the same period, and the proportionate weight of the stamped steel box as compared with the cast-iron box.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The particulars necessary for the supply of the information desired by the hon. Member are not in the possession of the Board of Trade.

  Damage to Coast at Hallsands, South Devon.
  MR. MILDMAY (Devonshire,): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the effect of the recent gales upon the cottage and foreshore at Hallsands, South Devon, consequent upon the dredging which has been permitted by the Board in connection with the Government works at Devonport; and whether the Board of Trade propose to take any action in the matter.

  1547
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter. I may, however, mention that the licence granted to Sir J. Jackson, Limited, to dredge in the vicinity of Hallsands was cancelled in January, 1902, and the Board were in formed by the Coast Guard in May, 1902, that no materials had been dredged since that date and that the beach had made to such an extent that it was normal. I will, however, make some inquiries.

  Uncertified Deaths.
  MB. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of uncertified deaths in England and Wales during 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, and 1901, in completion of the figures given by Sir M. W. Ridley on 24th May, 1897.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The number of deaths of which the causes were not certified are as follows: 1897, 11,103: 1898, 10,441; 1899, 10,745; 1900, 11,257; 1901, 9,986. The matter is dealt with on p. xxix of the Registrar General's Report for 1902. The figures for 1901 represent slightly under two per cent. of all registered deaths.

  Commercial Treaty between United States and Cuba—Date of Ratification.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, can he state the date fixed in the Commercial Convention between the United States and Cuba for the ratification of that Convention?
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) By the terms of the Convention itself the ratifications were to be exchanged as soon "as might be before the 31st of January last. On the 26th of that month, however a protocol was signed extending the time for ratification. I am not aware what date (if any) was fixed by that instrument.

  Donegal and Londonderry Boundaries—Local Government Board Inquiry.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when, and at what
  1548
  place, do the Local Government Board, for Ireland propose holding the promised inquiry into the contemplated change of union boundaries in the counties of Donegal and Londonderry.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Board has not yet come to a decision in this matter. I am at present considering the propriety of having a general inquiry into the question of poor law boundaries.

  Irish Education—Assistant Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Education in Ireland have taken into their consideration the case of assistant teachers of high qualification and of long service with a view to having their salaries increased; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing such teachers of ten years service and second class in the second grade; and whether any estimates for this amount will be included in this year's Estimates.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Commissioners have considered the cases of assistant teachers of high qualification and long service and have dealt with such cases in Rules Nos. 195 (f) and 200 (g) of their Rules and Regulations. Provision has been made in the Estimates for the next financial year to meet any increased expenditure on assistants that may be caused by the application of these rules.

  Ireland—Purchase Scheme for Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution recently adopted by the Carlow Rural District Council to the effect that, in the absence of an approved purchase scheme for labourers' cottages and plots, the District Council should be allowed a reduction in their repayment of the loans after the given number of instalments had been paid, in the same way as tenant farmers who purchase under the Land Acts obtain a reduction after ten and fifteen years; and will he endeavour to extend to the repayment of loans by

  1549
  public bodies in Ireland terms similar to those which obtain under the Lands Purchase Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The proposal in this Question would be a matter for consideration in the event of further legislation dealing with loans to local authorities. I cannot, at present, give an undertaking to introduce such legislation

  Ireland—Treatment of Harmless Lunatics.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the restrictions placed upon Boards of Guardians in Ireland in the treatment of harmless lunatics, if he would favour the proposal for the assimilation of the law in Ireland to that in Scotland, under which it is practicable to have these persons boarded and cared for in the homes of the peasantry.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question of making better provision for the treatment of harmless lunatics in Ireland is receiving consideration.

  War Office Contracts and the Fair Wage Resolution—Case of Ross & Co., Bermondsey.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order for 8,000 shoe pockets has recently been given to the firm of Ross & Co., Bermondsey, which was struck off the list of contractors prior to the Lords' Inquiry into the Sweating System; whether he is aware that women are being employed on this work at about half the customary rate: and whether he will see that consideration is given in future contracts to those London firms who have always complied with the fair wages clause.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. The firm mentioned was placed on the list in 1895, and is of an entirely different constitution to that struck off the list in 1888. It has been the custom to employ women largely upon this work. There has been a reduction from 3½ d. to 3d. per shoe case on the piecework rate paid for stitching. This fall is ascribed to the different position of
  1550
  the labour market, but it cannot be said that the wages paid are less than the current rate (luring the execution of this contract. As regards the last part of the Question all firms employed by the War Department have to conform to the clause requiring the payment of the current wage.

  Army Remounts Purchases from Farmers.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire,): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that horses suitable for the Artillery are now on sale in North Devon; and will he say what arrangements have now been made in order that these and other horses suitable for the Army may be purchased direct from the farmers by the War Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Secretary of State is aware that horses suitable for Royal Artillery are on sale in North Devon. A circular giving particulars of the classes of horses required for the Army has been forwarded to the Board of Agriculture for distribution to County Councils and others, with a view to placing farmers having horses suited to the requirements of the Army in touch with the War Office. On receipt of applications, officers will be sent to inspect and purchase the horses, if suitable.

  South African War Medal.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for War, will he state why troops who served in South Africa for eighteen months previous to 1902 receive no medal, while those who were serving in South Africa on 1st January 1902, with the same period of service, receive one.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My hon. and gallant friend evidently refers to the second South African War Medal, known as the King's Medal. As I have already explained to the House, it was desired to recognise specially the services of those who remained in South Africa to the close of the war, and consequently service between the 1st January and 1st June, 1902, was held to be essential in order to secure this

  1551
  medal. All soldiers who served in South Africa between the 11th October, 1899, and 31st May, 1902, are eligible for the Queen's Medal.

  Huts as Barracks.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the Government, on the grounds of health as well as economy. will take into consideration the expediency of erecting iron or wooden huts, instead of permanent costly structures, as barracks.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick). It is held that permanent brick buildings are certainly more healthy, and in the long run more economical than iron or wooden hutments. Such buildings are utilised where they exist, but in building new barracks more permanent materials are desirable.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  A New Naval Base.
  In reply to a Question by Sir J. COLOMB (Great Yarmouth), of which he had given private notice,
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.) said: The question of naval establishments has been engaging the attention of the Admiralty and the Government for a considerable period. Lord Goschen and the late Lords of the Admiralty, in March, 1900, appointed a Committee, which fully examined the whole question of the present and prospective accommodation for ships in His Majesty's dockyards, and as to how the harbours and other anchorages and waters at our disposal could be utilised for ships both completed and under construction. This Committee reported in January, 1902, that the growth of the Navy would shortly make it impossible for the existing ports to accommodate all the ships; and recommended the formation of another naval establishment. The Committee further stated their opinion that the most advantageous position for this establishment was in the estuary of the Forth. The Board of Admiralty, after full and careful consideration, approved this recommendation, and the Govern-
  1552
  ment therefore decided to establish a naval port and base on the north side of the Firth of Forth, at St. Margaret's Hope. They have for some months been in negotiation for the land, and it was the fact that these negotiations were going on that made it impossible for the Government earlier to take the House and the country into their confidence on this important matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the new naval base will be a mere base, or a dockyard, or a station for the repair of ships?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman should defer that Question.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I suppose this will come on under the Naval Estimates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  The Case of Colonel Kinloch.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what person or persons made any complaint or communication to the Commander-in-Chief, previous to the 14th December, 1902, with reference to any irregularities in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards; on what date or dates were such complaints or communications made, what was their nature or purport, and were any of them made in writing; did the Commander-in-Chief communicate to Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch at any time, and, if so, when, the fact that he had received such complaints or communications, and the nature or purport of them, and whether or not they affected or reflected upon the Character or military reputation of Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch in his command of the battalion. I beg further to ask on what date was Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch first informed of the decision of the Commander-in-Chief to remove him from his command; when and where was this decision promulgated; did Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch request from the Commander-in-Chief the favour of being permitted to put forward a statement in his defence; and, if so, on

  1553
  what date was that request made; what reply, if any, was made to that request: and on what date, if at all, did the Commander-in-Chief grant the requested favour.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Lord Belhaven, the father of one subaltern in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, and Lord de Saumarez, the relative of another subaltern, called on the Commander-in-Chief on 12th December, 1902, and made a verbal complaint that young officers in the battalion had been tried by so-called subalterns' courts-martial, not only for offences against regimental etiquette, but for military offences, and if found guilty had been punished by caning, and that their ill-treatment had been so serious that it called for interference by the authorities. Lord Roberts in reply said he would take the matter up officially, and on the following day, 13th December, he sent for the General Officer Commanding the Home District, and ordered him to investigate the circumstances fully. The Commander-in-Chief did not communicate with Colonel Kinloch, because by practice he does not communicate directly with officers commanding units. The General Officer Commanding the Home District at once assembled a regimental inquiry which sat for two days, and reported to the Adjutant-General on 15th December, forwarding the evidence token. The character of Colonel Kinloch was not in question, but he was the first witness called at the inquiry and his responsibility, like that of all other officers called, was to be brought out by the investigation. The decision of the Commander-in-Chief was communicated to the General Officer Commanding the Home District on December 27th, 1902, and was promulgated at Aldershot, where the 1st Battalion was quartered, on January 3rd, and in London on January 15th. Colonel Kinloch, in a letter dated 29th December, asked to see the evidence taken and washed to make a statement. He was informed on January 3rd that he was at liberty to see the evidence, and that the decision arrived at in his case was formed on his own statement and on the results
  1554
  of the exercise of his command—Colonel Kinloch having urged that his personal honour was affected by certain expressions in the Adjutant-General's letter of 27th December, the Commander-in-Chief gave him an interview on 12th January, at which he accepted Colonel Kinloch's statement that he was unaware of the punishments inflicted by the so-called subalterns' courts-martial and the treatment of these young officers. I may add that Colonel Kinloch is an officer who, apart from recent occurrences, had served with credit at home and distinction on active service, but the Commander-in-Chief holds that the state of Colonel Kinloch's battalion and the facts disclosed by the own evidence showed defects in the administration of his command which made it impossible to retain him. He was consequently placed on half-pay. Another Guards officer of distinction has been placed in command of the battalion, and the House may rest assured that the irregularities brought to light will be absolutely checked in this or in any other regiment.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the letter of the 27th December, to which he refers, states that Colonel Kinloch was aware of the practices which wore complained of, and gave that as a reason for his removal?
  *MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. The statement in the letter was to the effect that he was aware, or that it was assumed he was aware, of the existence of these courts-martial, but it was not stated that he was aware of the system of punishment that was adopted.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Will the hon. Gentleman say what was the condition of Colonel Kinloch's battalion when taken over by Colonel Lloyd?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

  Militia and Volunteer Officers.
  *MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been directed to the deficiency in the number of officers holding commissions

  1555
  in the Militia and Volunteers, as notified by comparing this number with that set out for the establishment; whether he is aware of any causes for this deficiency;—also whether, with a view to increasing the number of applicants for commissions, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to reduce the expenses to which officers are subjected in maintaining their companies.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. The deficiency of officers in the Militia and Volunteers has long been a subject of serious concern. In 1889 the Militia were 251 officers short; establishment, 3,575. In 1895 deficiency had increased to 530 officers short; establishment, 3,515. In 1898 deficiency had increased to 728 officers short; establishment, 3,446. In 1903 deficiency had increased to 743 officers short; establishment, 3,400. Thus there is a constantly increasing deficiency, with a decreased establishment. In the Volunteers there has always been a large shortage of officers, but this has rapidly increased with the increase of establishment. In 1886, 1,226 wanting; establishment, 7483. In 1896, 1,654 wanting; establishment, 7,749. In February, 1902, 1,989 wanting; establishment, 9,379. In February, 1903, 2,147 wanting; establishment, 9,409. From 1896 to 1898 there was an improvement in the numbers of Volunteer officers, possibly due to the grant of an allowance for uniform by the War Office; but it will be seen that the shortage in the Militia, which is nearly 22 per cent., and in the Volunteers 23 per cent., must seriously militate against the efficiency of both forces. The deficiency of Volunteer Officers is of long standing, and has steadily increased with the increases of establishment. If the Army Order issued at the close of 1901, imposing greater demands on the Volunteers, has caused a diminution, it can only be up to now to the extent of about 1½ per cent. I cannot doubt that the pecuniary liability which falls on Volunteer officers in some regiments is an important factor in a result which greatly impairs the value of our auxiliary forces; and in view of this and other circumstances involving the future of both these forces, the Government have advised the King to issue a Royal Commission to enquire into the pay, terms of service, and efficiency of the Militia
  1556
  and Volunteer Forces, and to report whether any, and what, modification is necessary in existing conditions.

  Strength of the Army.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the statement that the Army, inclusive of India, now stands at 271,800, and is, on that basis, 12,000 over strength, is in accordance with the figures of the Estimates of this year, seeing that the number of men on the establishment of the Army for the current year is 210,000 exclusive, and 284,378 inclusive, of the Indian Army.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. The statement is in accordance with the figures shown in the Estimates. The latter figures include Officers, Warrant Officers and the whole of the Colonial Corps and Indian troops in the colonies which are paid for out of Imperial funds; the figures in my statement exclude these items.
  MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the approaching discussion on the Army Estimates, he will issue a detailed statement as to the actual effective strength of the Army now serving in this country.
  COLONEL WELBY: May I also ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state from Regimental Return B. 104, rendered monthly to the War Office, the numbers on 28th February of effective Regular troops in the units of the first three Army Corps furnishing that Return; and say how many of the 12,000 surplus men belong to those units.
  MR. BRODRICK: In replying to a similar Question put by my hon. friend the Member for Oldham on Tuesday last, I fully explained my reasons for not attempting to give any detailed figures of effective strength at present owing to the numerous moves and drafting now taking place, but I am prepared to grant a return as soon as these moves have ceased and an accurate return can be made.
  †See page 1227.
  MR. BECKETT: But is it not possible to ascertain the effective strength serving in this country at the present moment? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman telegraph to the various commanders of Army Corps and ascertain from them the number of men who are in receipt of pay at this moment?
  MR. BRODRICK: Of course, it is always possible to telegraph for information, but information so obtained would not be the most accurate.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Why?
  MR. BRODRICK: Because it would not include the troops on passage or those leaving units to go abroad. It would give a totally inadequate idea of the force in the United Kingdom at the present moment. There are about 18,000 men at this moment on gratuity furlough.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Would not the information be as accurate as that given by the right hon. Gentleman the other night?
  MR. BRODRICK: I gave the Honse the other night the total strength of the Army at home and abroad, including those who are on passage.

  New Army Rifle.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he direct that before the proposed new rifle is finally adopted the effect of shortening the barrel in increasing the recoil shall be further tested in order to ascertain the influence of this greater recoil on accuracy of shooting when the weapon is used by the rank and file of the Army; and can he say whether it is proposed to recommend the proposed new rifle for use in the Navy; and, if so, whether the Board of Admiralty will have any voice in the matter.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The new pattern of rifle has been finally adopted for land service. As my hon. friend has
  1558
  been already told, the question of the recoil was fully considered A number of these rifles have been under trial by the Navy, and it rests with the Admiralty to decide whether they will adopt the new rifle for the Navy.
  In reply to further questions, Lord Stanley said the new pattern rifle was adopted after many trials. He saw no objection to placing one of them in the Tea Room for hon. Members to see.

  Cost of Soldiers.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the answer given to the hon. Member for Exeter on 7th November,† stating the average annual cost of a private of each branch of the service, the calculation was made on the actual cost of the individual private, or whether the statement covered the cost of regimental officers and staff in the several corps, as well as of women borne on the strength: and, further, to ask the average annual cost of a private of the Loyal Garrison Regiment, including the married establishment.
  LORD STANLEY: In reply to the first part of the Question, as regards the Regular forces, the calculation was based on the actual cost of the individual private; in the case of the Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteers it included the cost of the staff. The average annual cost of a private of the Garrison Regiment including the married establishment, but excluding the regimental officers and staff, may be taken at £ 69 16s. 9d.

  Officers' Uniforms Selection of Contractors.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a circular issued by the War Office to commanding officers of regiments in the United Kingdom, in which certain private firms are recommended to officers with which to place their orders for their uniforms and other necessaries of outfit; whether he is aware that a regimental order has also-
  † See (4) Debates, cxiv., 386.

  1559
  been issued to subordinate officers to a similar effect; and will he say whether these firms have been selected after being invited to tender; and, if so, were the tenders open to competition.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member has been misinformed; no such circular has been issued. A circular has been issued by the War Office direct to a large number of firms of tailors asking for their terms for supplying officers on joining with uniforms, if cash payments were made.
  MR. NANNETTI: If I supply the noble Lord with a copy of the circular issued, in which London firms are specifically named, will he make further inquiries? Have not orders to certain tailors in Dublin been cancelled in consequence of the circular?
  LORD STANLEY: There is no need for further inquiry. The object of issuing the circular was to get information which would enable us to carry out the policy of cheapening the cost of uniforms to officers.
  MR. NANNETTI: Then has the War Office issued instructions to commanding officers to act as canvassers for private firms?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that Irish firms have been excluded from the list?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a totally different question.
  MR. NANNETTI: I will call attention to this on another occasion.

  H.M. "Enchantress."
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what firms tendered for His Majesty's new yacht "Enchantress" what were the figures of the tenders respectively; what type of boilers are being fitted into her; and whether she is of single or twin-screw design.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The following firms tendered for the new Admiralty Yacht: Messrs. Harland & Wolff, Belfast; Messrs. Henderson & Co., Glasgow; Messrs. Inglis, Glasgow; Messrs. Ramage & Ferguson, Leith. It would be contrary to established practice to give the amounts of the various tenders; in this case the lowest tender was accepted. The boilers to be fitted are of cylindrical type, single ended, and the vessel is of twin-screw design.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Why is it that the Admiralty have decided to put Scotch boilers into this vessel and not into others.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Battleship Construction.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the time, from the laying down until commissioning, now usually taken in the construction of battleships; what is the date of the commission of the "Russell," of the programme of July 1898, laid down in 1899, and launched in February 1901; and of the "Albemarle," of the programme announced in the financial year ended March 1899, laid down in January 1900, and launched in March 1901; whether the trials of the latter ship were only begun in January 1903; and what progress has been made in expediting the construction of ships.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The average time estimated for the completion of the "Albemarle," "Montagu," "Queen," "Prince of Wales," "King Edward VII." and "New Zealand" is three years two months. The "Russell" was commissioned on the 19th February. The "Albemarle" has not yet been commissioned, and her trials, as stated, were begun in January. The rate of construction of ships is being accelerated, and it is hoped, moreover, that the practice which is now being adopted of allowing vessels to be completed in the contract yards will tend to greater rapidity.

  Dockyard Establishments.
  GENERAL LAURIE: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state what decision has been arrived at as to an increase in the numbers of the established workmen in the Royal Dockyards.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The matter is still under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, but an early decision is expected.

  Basutoland.
  *MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, seeing that the last Report on Basutoland shows a sum of £75,380 to the credit of the Administration, will he state when the proposed increase in the Education Grants will be made.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,, for Mr. J. Chamberlain): The question of the best means of applying the surplus for the benefit of the Basutos and the development of the country is engaging the earnest attention of Lord Milner. In the meantime, increased provision for educational expenditure has been made in the Estimates for the current financial year.

  Archbishopric of Cyprus.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether His Majesty's Government will communicate to the House copies of the correspondence which has passed between the Colonial Office and the High Commissioner of Cyprus and the Patriarch of Constantinople regarding the refusal of the High Commissioner of Cyprus to issue the necessary orders for the admission of the Archbishop-elect of Cyprus to the temporalities of the Metropolitan See; and, if no Papers are forthcoming, whether the Secretary of State will communicate the reasons for keeping vacant for three years the highest spiritual appointment in the island, and neglecting to provide for the regular administration of the revenues of the Archbishopric and for the ecclesiastical needs of the see.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member was informed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to his Question of 29th October last,† that no Archbishop of Cyprus had yet been elected. As there is no Arch-bishop-elect the question of admission to the temporalities of the see has not arisen. The delay in filling the vacancy is not due to the Government, but to a dispute in the Church. The administration of the revenues and the ecclesiastical needs of the see are in the meantime provided for, in accordance with the custom of the Church, by the Holy Synod. A settlement of the dispute would not be hastened by the publication of correspondence, which it is not desirable to produce until an agreement has been arrived at between the contending parties in the Church.

  Coolie Labour in British Guiana.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, does the Crown Colony of British Guiana contribute one-third of the expense of immigration into that colony of Indian coolies for work on sugar plantations, and does His Majesty's Government guarantee to the Indian Government the payment of wages to, and of return passages to India for, such coolies: do such contributions or guarantees constitute a direct or indirect bounty on the production or exportation of sugar; and have His Majesty's Government received any communications on the subject from the authorities of the colony.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: At present the Government of British Guiana contribute one-third of the expense of coolie immigration into the colony. No such guarantee as that suggested has been given by His Majesty's Government. In answer to the third part of the Question it is not usual to make an official statement as to the interpretation of a particular clause of a Convention until circumstances have arisen which require such a statement. In answer to the fourth part, the incidence of the cost of immigration is the subject of correspondence now proceeding with the Governor.
  † See (4) Debates, cxiii., 1068.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Did not the Colonial Office give a guarantee?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Colonial Office is part of the Government, and I understand that no guarantee has been given on behalf of the Government.

  Telegraphic Communication with Iceland.
  *MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the proposals contained in the Report of the International Conference on Scientific Investigations in the North Sea, will effect be given to the proposal to connect the Faroe Islands and Iceland by telegraph with the rest of Europe; and, if so, will he state at whose cost the work will be undertaken.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The Great Northern Telegraph Company have applied for a licence for a cable to be laid from the Shetland Islands, via the Faroe Islands, to Iceland, and a favourable reply has been given to this application. The company have stated, however, that the establishment of the proposed cable is dependent upon sufficient financial support being obtained.

  Aliens and Police Protection.
  MR. ERNEST FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the fact that in Metropolitan districts, such as Soho and Whitechapel, where there is a large foreign population, a proportionately larger police force is maintained than in districts where there are few or no foreigners; and, if so, whether he has any official reports showing that the larger police force is due to the presence of a large criminal element in the foreign population.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): No, Sir. It is not the case that in Metropolitan districts where there is a large foreign population the police force is proportionately larger than elsewhere. The foreign population in the C, D, and H Divisions, which include Whitechapel
  1564
  and Soho, has increased considerably of late years, but it has not been round necessary to augment these Divisions on that account.

  Imports of Poultry.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements can be made for the value of poultry imported to be indicated as distinct from game in the Accounts relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The form and scope of the Accounts to be issued during 1903 has for some time been definitely fixed and it is now too late for any alteration to be made. The question will be referred to the Departmental Committee for the revision of the accounts at its next annual meeting, which will be held in the Autumn of this year.

  Railway Companies and Street Sub-Soil.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to five railway Private Bills which have been introduced to this House, containing provisions authorising the respective railway companies to enter upon, take, and use the sub-soil and under-surface of any street for the purposes of their railways without making any payment or compensation to the owners of the soil so taken; and whether the Government propose to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to this. subject. The point is not a new one and has received the consideration of Committees on Private Bills as well as of two Joint Committees of both Houses. I would refer the hon. Member to the Reports of those Committees dated 1892 and 1901 respectively. The recommendations made therein have, I believe, been followed by the Private Bill Committees, which have dealt with particular schemes. I express no opinion on the legal point as to whether owners of adjoining house property are entitled to compensation for sub-soil taken from the streets in front of

  1565
  their property, but I understand that it is contended on authority that no such right exists. Committees have, on the other hand, given owners of property special clauses providing for their protection in case of damage to property. The matter is, I think, one for Committees to deal with, and does not call for the intervention of the Government.

  Undesirable Immigrants.
  MR. ERNEST FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that immigrants rejected as undesirables by our own colonies are being landed from time to time in England; and whether he has any means of ascertaining, if any, and, if so, how many, of the persons so landed remain in this country.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that a certain number of immigrants rejected by our own colonies under their Immigration Laws are landed on their return journey in the United Kingdom. I have no official information as to whether any of such persons remain in this country, but presumably such of them as are natives of the United Kingdom remain here. Last year out of eighty-six persons rejected by the Canadian Authorities and landed in this country two were British, and L am informed by the Shipping Companies that the whole of the eighty-four foreigners were conveyed to their homes, none remaining in the United Kingdom. We have only records of two persons rejected by the Natal Authorities in 1902 and landed in this country, both of whom were British subjects.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: From what country did these foreigners come?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot say, but they were all sent back.

  Hours of Railway Men—Return.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has called for a return of the hours worked by railwaymen for December last; whether he is aware that several railway companies after his warning
  1566
  issued private instructions to their officials to the effect that men should not be allowed to work more than twelve hours per day during the month of December, and that since that date such instructions have been cancelled and otherwise relaxed; and will he call for a return of the hours worked for October or November, or any month which he may not have advised them of previously.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A return for December last has been called for and we have already received the returns of a considerable number of companies. I have no official information of the instruction said to be issued by various railway companies last year, with the object of keeping down the hours worked by their servants, nor have I any knowledge of their alleged subsequent cancellation.
  MR. BELL: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with copies of the circular, and he is satisfied that that course has been adopted by the railway company, will he order a ret urn for some other month than December?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the hon. Member supplies me with the circular I will, of course, consider the matter.

  Brakes on Goods Trains.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is doing anything, and, if so, what, to press forward the question of either-side brakes on goods and mineral wagons on railways; and whether he will bring pressure to bear upon the companies through the Railway and Canal Commissioners, or otherwise, to get the rule to effect their introduction brought into operation as speedily as possible.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A rule on this subject has been prepared and advertised under the provisions of the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900. Objectors have been heard by the Board of Trade, and the question as to the form in which the rule should be again issued is under con-

  1567
  sideration. It is not probable that material modifications, if any, will be made by the Board in such re-issue, and I am afraid the Railway Companies will again appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. The Board of Trade will expedite matters as far as they can consistently with the formal procedure laid down by the Statute.

  Overtime in the Post Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the authorities of the Post Office are now giving effect to the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, that if, in any period of forty-eight hours, the combined amount of a long and short duty exceeded sixteen hours, the amount of such excess should be paid for as overtime without reference to the number of hours worked on other days of the same week.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The recommendation of the Committee was not that the excess should be "paid for" as overtime, but that it should be "treated as overtime, that is, that each hour should he counted as an hour and a quarter"; and I have reason to believe that the Committee purposely used this phraseology in order to negative the interpretation suggested in the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Tweedmouth differs from that view of the recommendation?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a letter purporting to come from Lord Tweedmouth. I do not wish to involve myself in any controversy with him, but I think he must have forgotten what passed.

  Protection against Fire.
  MR. PYM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the loss of life and property caused by the increasing number of fires that have taken place in London and the country, he will endeavour to introduce some legislation upon the lines of the Fire Brigade Report issued in 1901.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. WALTER LONG,): Looking to the legislation which is already contemplated, I could not promise to introduce a Bill dealing with this matter during the present Session.

  Kensington Palace—Sale of Building Plots.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the seven plots of land fronting Kensington Palace, advertised to be let for building purposes, are included in the Schedule to the Act 5 Victoria, cap. 1, dealing with the twenty-eight acres of ground used for kitchen garden and other purposes at Kensington Palace; and can he say how many applicants have there been for the several plots, and for what term of years and at what rent have leases been granted.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): Yes, Sir; the seven plots referred to form part of the twenty-eight acres described in the Schedule to the Act 5 Victoria, cap. 1. Two tenders have been received for the whole of the seven plots, and one for part only, but as no tender has yet been actually accepted it is impossible for me to furnish the information desired as to rent, etc.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Is the scheme completed? Is it necessary to cut down the fine row of trees fringing these plots?
  MR. HAYES FISHER: I nave no information as to that.
  MR. LOUGH: Is it too late to reconsider the question of letting the land go?
  MR. HAYES FISHER: No, but I cannot promise that any other policy will be adopted. I will make inquiries.

  London and Globe Finance Corporation.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether any minute or memorandum has been preserved of the reasons on

  1569
  which he grounded his decision not to set the Public Prosecutor in motion in the ease of the London and Globe Finance Corporation; and, if so, whether he would lay that minute on the Table.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): No minutes are kept. The only documents are the instructions on which the consultation proceeded, and it would not be in accordance with usage to lay the Papers on the Table of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman see that his own memorandum is preserved for the benefit of future generations?

  Sunderland and Durham County Institution for the Blind.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware that the blind ship-fender makers of the Sunderland and Durham County Institution for the Blind have been locked out since October last for refusing to accept a reduction of 27 per cent. in their wages, which only averaged 12s. per week last year; whether the governors are threatening to permanently close this department; and, seeing that a representation on behalf of the men has been made to the Charity Commissioners, will he state what action they propose taking in the matter.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: The Commissioners have been informed that no part of the income of the Institution is derived from endowments. In these circumstances they would have no jurisdiction in the matter, and a reply to that effect to the representation which has been made to them has been forwarded accordingly.

  Applecross (Ross-shire) Medical Officer.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that applications are invited for the appointment of medical officer and vaccinator for the Applecross district of the parish of Applecross, Ross-shire, will care be taken that the medical officer appointed
  1570
  possesses the public health diploma required under the Public Health Act. 1897.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): No such diploma is required by law for the appointment in question, which has already been made.

  Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Canal.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Roscommon County Council complaining of the treatment of a portion of the County Roscommon by the levying of the charge for maintenance of the Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Canal, and asking for relief; and whether the Irish Government will bring in a short amending Act to remove the treatment complained of.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The resolution was received on Saturday last, and is at present the subject of inquiry.

  Lismore Union Master's Examination.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state in what subject or subjects the examination of Mr. George M 'Donald, who was recently elected master of Lismore Union, took place; what official prepared the questions which were set to Mr. M'Donald by Mr. R. Kelly, Local Government Board Inspector; what subjects Mr. M'Donald is alleged to have failed to answer satisfactorily; and whether he will furnish a copy of the letter or letters received by the Local Government Board prior to this examination of Mr. M'Donald asking them not to sanction his appointment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Elementary arithmetic and English composition. The questions were prepared by the Inspector. Mr. M'Donald failed to pass in either subject. No communication was

  1571
  received by the Board of the nature mentioned in the last part of the Question.

  Union Masters' Examinations.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many masters of unions in Ireland have been elected and sanctioned since 1st January, 1899, and for what unions; how many of them underwent an examination in reading, writing; from dictation, and arithmetic; who conducted such examinations; and how many of them underwent no examination but were sanctioned by the Local Government Board after a short period of probation.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The appointments of sixty-nine workhouse masters have been sanctioned since the date mentioned. The further information desired in the Question has been called for and will be communicated to the hon. Member when received.

  Roxboro Road School, Limerick.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why after thirty-three years, during which time the Roxboro Road Schools at Limerick have been in the hands of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, only £212 cash and £ (53 stock have accumulated out of rent; will he say whether any auditor has certified that these sums represent the amount which ought to have accumulated; whether these premises were occupied between the years 1873 and 1880: and, if so, by whom, under what tenure, and at what rent.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On the 29th March, 1901,† I informed the hon. Member that out of the moneys accumulating in the hands of the Commissioners a sum of £188 had been expended by them on repairs to the schools between the years 1880 and 1890. Since 1891 no similar expenditure has been incurred. The accounts of the Commissioners are audited annually by an officer of the
  † See (4) Debates, xcii., 226.
  1572
  Local 'Government Board, who certifies as to their correctness. The facts representing the occupation of the premises prior to 1880 are fully stated in the various schemes prepared and published by the Commissioners. I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper No. 69 of 1897.

  Galway Technical Instruction Committee.
  MR. REDDY: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of the Tuam Technical Instruction Committee in December last, requesting the County Galway Technical Instruction Committee to allow a sum of £10 a year for rent of a house for technical instruction at Monivea, County Galway; and whether, seeing that this sum was voted by the County Technical Instruction Committee on the 11th December, 1902, will the Department of Technical Instruction raise any objection to the County Committee paying over the sum of £10 to the Local Committee.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No report has yet been received. I have written to the hon. Member asking him to postpone the Question for a day or two.

  River Barrow Floods.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution, passed unanimously by the Mountmellick Town Commissioners on the 3rd ultimo, calling attention to the devastation, loss of property, and risk to life caused by the floods from the River Barrow, which are becoming more frequent and extensive year by year; and will he say what steps he proposes taking to remedy this evil.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution was received. The question of arterial drainage is a large one. It has not been lost sight of by the Government, but in the present condition of Irish legislative business, I am unable to make any statement in the direction suggested.

  Kildare Clerk of the Peace.
  MR. DELAXY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the County Kildare is agent for several landlords: and whether it is in accordance with practice that a public official should occupy such a position, the duties of which lead to his being a party to legal proceedings in a court of which he is an official.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that this officer acts as agent for one landlord only. The propriety of this arrangement is under consideration. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Monday.

  South Donegal Fisheries.
  *MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the claims brought under his notice of Glencolombkill, Kilcar. St. John's Point, Ardara, and Bundoran, for the erection of boat slips and the extension and improvement of piers for the benefit of the fishing industry of the seaboard of South Donegal, and the preservation of the lives of the fishermen; whether, having regard to the fact that the £100,000 which is to be expended under the provisions of the Marine Works (Ireland) Act is not in any part to be expended on such works as the erection of boat slips and storm works, South Donegal, for whose seaboard these works are asked, is to be excluded from the benefits of the Act; and what steps, if any, does the Government contemplate for the construction on that seaboard of boat slips and the improvement of the piers and harbours.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The claims of all undertakings of this description, to which the provisions of the Act apply, were considered at the recent Conference. The Congested Districts Board has recently improved the landing-place at Glencolombkill, and is arranging for the construction of an approach road to that work. There are two boat slips at St. John's Point. The Board has offered to contribute £150 for a slip at Ardara, provided the work be undertaken by the
  1574
  local authorities. The requirements of Kilcar appear to be provided for by existing slips in the neighbourhood. With respect to Bundoran the construction of any work of utility there is, I fear, at present impracticable, as its cost would be in excess of any sum which the Government could allocate for the purpose.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National Board have recommended the reduction of the average required for assistant teachers in Irish national schools to fifty; and, if so, whether provision will be made in the coining Estimates for carrying this reform into operation.
  MR WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; such a proposal was made. It would involve an additional charge of £24,000 per annum on the Estimate for Public Education. Additions of so large a character should, in the opinion of the Irish Government, be considered in relation to all other demands that may be made in respect of education in Ireland.
  In reply to a further Question Mr. WYNDHAM said he hoped to make a statement shortly with regard to the equivalent grant for Ireland.

  Pay of Irish Rural Postmen.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a rural postman named Michael Ganby, at Whitehall, Tarnonbarry, Ireland, is receiving a wage of only 5s. 6d. per week; and will he state the number of English miles comprising this postman's round, whether it is a six or a seven days delivery, and whether it is according to the authorised scale in Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the hon. Member to refer to Michael Ganby, who is employed on the Cloonmore delivery, Whitehall, Longford, and that this is the case to which he referred on a recent occasion when he said that he knew the case of a postal letter-carrier in Ireland who had

  1575
  to walk twenty miles a day, seven days a week, for which he received a salary of 5s. a week. The facts are that Ganby is employed for six days a week. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays the length of his walk is 7½ miles; on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays it is 6¾ miles. On the three former days his postal work occupies two hours and twenty-five minutes; on the three latter it occupies two hours and twenty minutes. The rest of his time is at his own disposal. He is, I understand, a small farmer. For his postal work he receives 5a. 6d. a week, which is in accordance with the authorised scale.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend this man for outdoor relief?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, he is a farmer and does not need it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL; Give him a company directorship.

  Castletown (Queen's Co.) Postmastership.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the vacancy in the postmastership of Castletown, Queen's County, has been filled up; and, if so, will he say who has been appointed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The vacancy at Castletown, Queen's County, has been filled by the appointment of Mrs. Ellen Mary Quinn, who was installed on the 16th of January last.

  Law Officers' Opinions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the propriety of assimilating the practice in England to the practice in the United States of America, where the opinions of the Attorney General, as legal adviser to the Executive, are published officially.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see no reason for varying the long and well-established practice which obtains in this country in this matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But having regard to the fact that the American Attorney General gets a salary twenty times less than the English Attorney General—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman as to the business to be taken next week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We begin the Army Estimates on Monday and continue them de die in diem. I understand that they will be at the Vote Office this afternoon.

  SELECTION STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following fifteen Members in respect of the County Courts Jurisdiction Extension Bill:—Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Causton, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Garfit, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Levy, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Tollemache, Mr. Tomkinson, and Mr. Eugene Wason.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  *MR. WILLIAM JONES, Member for North Carnarvonshire, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the severe privation and loss arising from the struggle in the Penrhyn quarry district; the recent grave recommendations of the Carnarvonshire Standing Joint Committee in reporting thereon, and the failure to put into operation the provisions of the Conciliation Act to terminate the dispute; "and, the pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting, this day.
NEW BILLS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Church Discipline," presented by Mr. Cripps; supported by Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Vicary Gibbs, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Whitmore. Mr. Duke. Mr. Wharton, Sir John Dorington, Sir Francis Powell, and Mr. Griffith Boscawen; to be read a second time upon Friday. 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
  VACCINATION BILL.
  "To amend the Vaccination Acts," presented by Mr. Broadhurst: supported by Mr. Thomas Bayley, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Charming, and Mr. Corrie Grant; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
  TIED HOUSES (ABOLITION) BILL.
  "To abolish Tied Houses," presented by Mr. Broadhurst; supported by Sir John Brunner, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Levy, Mr. Thomas Bayley, and Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  "To extend the period for the repayment of Loans relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Claude Hay; supported by Sir J. Dickson Poynder, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Peel, Major Evans-Gordon, and Mr. Goulding; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894," presented by Mr. Cathcart Wason; supported by Sir Andrew Agnew, Sir William Arrol, Mr. Alexander Cross, Colonel Denny, Mr. James Reid, Mr. John Dewar, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. Weir; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  "To amend The Borough Funds Act, 1872." presented by Mr. Walter Long; supported by Mr. Grant Lawson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
  LAND TENURE BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to the Tenure of Land," presented by Mr. Lambert: supported by Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Soares, Mr. Allen, Mr. Mansfield, and Mr. Herbert Samuel; to be read a second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Public Houses (Hours of Closing) (Scotland) Act, 1887," presented by Sir John Stirling-Maxwell; supported by Sir William Dunn, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Bryce, Sir John Leng, Mr. Shaw - Stewart, and Mr. Hunter Craig: to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, "That this day the Motion on the Paper relating to the appointment of the Committee of Defence have precedence of the Committee of Supply."—(Mr Balfour.)

  TDK COMMITTEE OF DEFENCE.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I rejoice that the exigencies of public business have given the House the chance of discussing a subject which, I know, has excited very widespread interest among all Gentlemen concerned in Imperial defence on both sides of the House; and, while I am glad that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its views on the subject, I am glad also from my own point of view that I am able to supplement the very brief statement which I made at a public meeting about three weeks ago—a statement necessarily incomplete, but which, incomplete as it was, is the only statement which, I think, has as yet been made to the public on this subject As the blouse is aware, there has been for many years in

  1579
  existence a Defence Committee of the Cabinet, and I may perhaps commence my observations by explaining in what respects the present Defence Committee differs from that which it has replaced. In the first place, it differs from it as regards the subjects with which it deals. The general practice of the old Defence Committee was to take up the points referred to it from time to time by the Cabinet. There might be a question, perhaps, between the War Office or the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon which some discussion outside those two Departments was desirable, or it might be that some question of Imperial defence which had risen for the moment above the horizon had attracted the attention of the Cabinet and was referred by it to the Defence Committee. In that capacity the old Defence Committee did, I think, extremely good work, and was a great improvement upon the state of things which existed before it was called into being. But the new Defence Committee is much more ambitious—at all events, at this early stage I have no right to use any other word—in its scope. The idea the Government had in establishing it is not to take up from time to time questions referred to it by the Cabinet, but to make it its duty to survey as a whole the strategical military needs of the Empire, to deal with the complicated questions which are all essential elements in that general problem, and to revise from time to time their own previous decisions, so that the Cabinet shall always be informed and always have at its disposal information upon these important points. They should not be left to the crisis of the moment, but when there is no special stress or strain the Government and its advisers should devote themselves to the consideration of these broad and all-important issues.
  So much for the change of subject, scope, and design between the new Defence Committee and the old. It only remains for me to describe in what the constitution of the new Committee differs from the constitution of the old one. The old Defence Committee was, in the strictest and narrowest sense of the word, a Committee of the Cabinet; and like all ordinary Committees of the Cabinet, it kept no record, and it admitted to its council no outsiders. Of course, that
  1580
  does not mean that the old Defence Committee did not ask the opinion of naval and military experts which the Government had at their disposal. It only means that those experts came to the Committee, not as members, but as witnesses. They came, they were asked questions, they were cross-examined, and they gave their opinions, and those opinions were considered by the Cabinet Committee, and the Cabinet Committee formed its judgment, like other Cabinet Committees, and conveyed that to the Cabinet as a whole. There are obvious disadvantages in that course. In the first place, it is of the essence both of Cabinets and Cabinet Committees, in the narrower sense of the word, that they keep no records. There are great objections to that procedure when you are dealing with the particular class of subject with which the Defence Committee is en trusted. In the first place, even during the continuance of a single Administration, it may well happen that the conditions of the problem change, and that they have to be reconsidered by the Defence Committee, and by the Cabinet which it advises; and it is an enormous additional labour that the whole matter has to be gone into again, and taken up in the midst of its responsible and multifarious duties by the Cabinet. The members themselves, or some of them, may well have got rusty in the details of the problem on which they made up their minds before, and only remember the outline of their decision. If this new plan bears all the fruit which I hope it will bear the conclusions of the Defence Committee will be embodied not merely in resolutions, but in reasoned documents in which the whole ground upon which those conclusions have been arrived at will be set out for the information, in the first place, of the Cabinet of the time; and in the second place of the same Administration at a later period, for revision if need be; and last, if not least, for the information of their successors in office.
  There are a great many things in which there is discontinuity between successive Administrations in this House, chosen, as they commonly are, upon different sides of the House. But there is one point on which there ought to be no discontinuity, and that is the military and naval policy of the Empire. There may be differences,

  1581
  of opinion. There have been, indeed, in my own experience, most important differences of opinion, not between the members of that Bench and members of this Bench, but between the First Naval Lord at one time and the First Naval Lord at another time, between two successive Boards of Admiralty, two successive Commanders-in-Chief, two successive sets of experts belonging to either Department. It is most important that when these differences of opinion show themselves, the grounds on which the former decision was arrived at should be there in a simple, easily intelligible, easily accessible form. Then there will be the data which will enable those who take up for the second time or the third time the reconsideration of these old problems to cover without trouble the ground already traversed and, if changes are necessary, to make them with the minimum of trouble, friction, waste of time, and inconvenience. When we remember how very hard-worked under modern conditions both Ministers and heads of Departments are, I think even the mere saving of time, let alone the increased clearness with which these grounds will be apprehended if they are put on record, is of the utmost importance. Of course the decision arrived at next week or the week after next binds nobody. It expresses the opinion of this Committee at the moment, and does not bind even them not to reconsider their decision if new facts come up. It does not bind the Cabinet of whom they are only the advisers; still less does it bind their successors in office. They will approach the consideration or reconsideration of these great problems absolutely unhampered. But, whilst they are unhampered by the decisions of their predecessors, they will be fully informed of the grounds upon which those decisions have been arrived at. That is the first great difference between the new Defence Committee and the old Defence Committee. The Committee will keep records, and the records will not consist of bare resolutions, saying so many men are required for this or that purpose, so many ships are necessary for this or that need. We shall have something much more than that, namely, the full-blooded and detailed account of the reasons on which the conclusions
  1582
  come to are based. The second difference is as to the actual constitution of the Committee. It differs fundamentally from anything that can be described as a Cabinet Committee which, as far as my experience goes, has ever existed in the past.
  I think it is all the more important that I should explain to the House the constitution of the Committee which we have provisionally, at all events, determined upon, because I think that something which I said at Liverpool may have created some misconception in the public mind on the subject. Or view is this—that there must be a fixed nucleus in this Committee. If you do not have that, you do not have continuity. If every time a topic is to come up you re-create your Committee, there is evidently not that continuity of consideration which I am sure is all-important if really valuable conclusions are to be arrived at. That is the first condition we lay down.
  The second condition we lay down is that this fixed and permanent nucleus should not be too large. It is very easy to say, and we all are tempted to say, that every available person who could give a valuable contribution to the discussion of the strategical subjects should be admitted to this Committee. I am quite sure that those who have seen much of committee work will not be misled by that view. A committee to do anything must not be too large. It is perfectly true that by restricting the numbers you will exclude from your councils, from your immediate discussions, persons of great capacity and great knowledge, whose opinion would be eminently worth having; but the main point is to have the machine a working machine—a machine that really can get through the extraordinarily complicated and difficult problems with which it has to deal, which it would never do if its members were permitted to grow beyond certain narrow limits. Therefore there must be a permanent nucleus, and the nucleus must not be too large. The permanent nucleus which we have tentatively, provisionally at all events, determined upon, makes the Cabinet members of the Committee consist of the Lord President, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for War, and the First Lord of the Admiralty. It

  1583
  makes the non-Cabinet members of the Committee the First Sea Lord, the Commander-in-Chief, the Head of the Naval Intelligence, and the Head of the Military Intelligence. That I think is quite large enough for that continuous and permanent nucleus of which I spoke just now. I think, though I am not sure, that I misled the public by an incautious phrase at Liverpool. Whilst that is a permanent nucleus it does not mean that the gentlemen I have enumerated are for all purposes and on all occasions to constitute the whole of the Defence Committee. For instance, it would be quite absurd for the Defence Committee to discuss any problem involving the expenditure of public money without asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take part in our deliberations. It would be quite impossible for the Committee to discuss such problems, for example, as the defence of India, without asking the Secretary of State for India and his military advisers also to take part in our deliberations. It would be quite impossible to discuss any problem in which were closely intertwined the current questions of diplomacy without begging the Foreign Secretary to come and give us his opinion and advice. Whilst I mention those particular Members of the Cabinet as obviously being required from time to time, I do not mean to exclude other Members who, for any particular reason, may be required to help us; nor do I absolutely exclude the introduction of other Members who are not Members of the Cabinet, though on the whole I am disposed to think they should as a rule come as witnesses rather than as Members. On the other hand, I pronounce nothing more than a tentative opinion. That is the constitution of the Committee as we have conceived it. It differs, of course, from the old Committee in the fact that it has upon it an important body of experts: and there are some who, I think, would wish to go farther and would like to have a Committee of Defence entirely composed of military and naval experts who should discuss these problems among themselves and then go to the Cabinet with a cut-and-dried opinion upon the various points submitted to them or upon the points which they think ought to be brought to the notice of the Government. Personally, I am strongly opposed to that. Remember that has been tried, and within its limits
  1584
  has been extremely useful. There is at this moment a Joint Committee of the Army and Navy, to whom a great many problems have been submitted, and who have given very valuable assistance.
  In my judgment the Committee of Defence, if it is to be worth anything, must contain a strong Cabinet element. I believe that to be important for many reasons. I believe it to be very important for constitutional reasons—from this point of view, among others, that Cabinet opinions come to the Cabinet with a very different kind of weight to the opinions of mere experts. And, further, I think that, as the decisions will have been arrived at by the help of members of the Cabinet, they will, whatever their value may be, receive a deference and support which they never could or would receive if they were simply thrown at the heads of the Cabinet from outside. That is a reason, I think, everybody will agree with; but there is another reason with which there may not be equal agreement. I have the profoundest respect, need I say, for expert opinion, whether naval or military; but I cannot help thinking that even the best of soldiers and the best of sailors give a better opinion after they have been thoroughly cross-examined by civilians than they do before they have undergone a process which, I hope, is not unpleasant, but may be long and laborious. This Defence Committee, as I need not say, will be full of instruction for civilians and Cabinet Members, and I hope it will not be without its instruction for even soldiers and sailors. I entirely agree with those critics of our old system, our old national system, in which the Navy decided its own affairs without consulting the Army, and the Army decided its own affairs without reference to the Navy—I agree that was a very faulty system. That is cured by bringing soldiers and' sailors face to face on this Committee. While the soldiers will benefit from the sailors and the sailors from the soldiers, I hope both will benefit from the civilians; at any rate, I am vain enough of the class to which I belong to think that that happy result may not be impossible. I really think I have now said all that I need say, except to give two warnings; to the House. One is that I regard this as experimental and tentative. I hope and believe it will bear roost valuable fruit. I hardly dare hope that it is incapable of modification in detail, on

  1585
  perhaps even more than detail. I think experience, and experience only, will show how it works. Therefore, I do not set it before the House as a scheme to which we are unalterably attached in all its details; but I lay it before the House as a great experiment on a great subject an experiment, however, I ought to add, which, from the very brief period in which we have tried it, I am inclined to think is likely to do, if not all, yet much of what its fondest parents have ventured to hope from it.
  The only other point is just to remind the House of what everybody knows, but which we are all liable to forget, that however well you constitute your Committee you must not expect too much from it. I have heard in the many criticisms of our military system, of which the last few years have naturally been filled—I have heard it thrown out that everything would go smoothly in war if only those most qualified by knowledge and general intelligence had considered the problem. Well, war is much too full of surprises to allow of prophecies by any set of prophets, however certain they may be. Constitute your Committee and your Intelligence Department as you will, you will have in any war in which you may unhappily be engaged, many surprises, not all, I hope, unpleasant, but all quite beyond the purview of even the boldest and most experienced prophet. Then is the time when the happy but irresponsible critic comes down and says, "Why did you not foresee this, that, or the other?" Well, the more we try to foresee the better; but, try as one will, no reconstruction of Departments, no attempt, however successful, to bring the best brains of the Empire to deal with the Empire's problems will prevent difficulties arising in time of stress. War is full of the unexpected. But though that be so, it ought not to cool our efforts or chill our enthusiasm for any change really for the benefit of our naval or military organisation: and I cannot help thinking that the experiment which we have begun—though we begin it in no vainglorious or overconfident spirit—may yet prove not inefficacious to carry out the great ends for which it is designed. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given notice.
  1586
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the growing needs of the Empire require the establishment of the Committee of Defence on a permanent footing."—(Mr. Balfour.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)said the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in an answer given to-day, said he was not disposed to suggest or impose on railway companies a return as to a surprise month. Now we have a "surprise" day in our proceedings here. The right hon. Gentleman has found an idle day apparently at the very beginning of the session when the Government are not prepared for discussion of their business, and he uses the time for the purpose of endeavouring to induce the House to accept this Resolution. Until we heard his explanation we were in ignorance of what the Resolution pointed to at this moment. Let me at once say there cannot be two opinions as to the necessity for taking this large, broad, and comprehensive view of the naval and military needs of the country. Happily the days are over, which some of us may remember, when there used to be a sort of policy of "pull devil, pull baker" as between the two defensive services, and each set about its business without any reference to the ideas, the desires, or necessities of the other great service. Those days are gone, and this is a question of how far we may carry the ideas of a permanent and recorded series of decisions on military and naval questions. We are agreed up to this point; but as to the particular method by which it is to be accomplished, I think there is considerable room for variation of opinion; and I think the right hon. Gentleman has tried—no doubt involuntarily—not to force, but to tempt, the House into an expression of opinion, when the House really has not had time to consider the real nature of the proposal.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that in his speech at Liverpool he made a very incomplete statement, and, further, that in that statement he used some expressions which had given rise to misconception; and it was with that incomplete information, and possibly under the influence of this misconception, we came here to-day. Although the right hon.

  1587
  Gentleman has made much clear that was obscure before, yet I think it would be a "strong order" to ask the House to commit itself to the endorsement of any proposal, good, bad, or indifferent, on such a subject at such short notice. The right hon. Gentleman set a precedent for this mode of dealing with a great military question two years ago, but I do not know that the precedent was a very happy one. We had been accustomed previously to hear the policy of the Minister explained in Committee of Supply, or other opportunity, and it was open to the House to take such line and express such opinion as it chose. But two years ago the right hon. Gentleman came down with a cut-and-dried Resolution, which he asked the House to accept, embodying the Army Corps scheme, which was accordingly, under the influence of Government authority, and, no doubt, of the feverish state of mind that then prevailed, accepted in haste by the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): In three months?
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; that is a point in my favour. I say in haste. I call three months in haste. So very definite and particularised a scheme as that required more than three months for consideration in all its bearings. On that occasion the Secretary of State expounded his scheme on introducing the Estimates in March, and did not invite a decision from the House until May.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You asked for it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not at all. All I know is I protested against it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You wanted the discussion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But there are plenty of other means of discussing a matter without asking for definite approval of a particular scheme. The House has already repented of that definite approval. [Cries of "No, no."]
  1588
  Yes, so far as we can judge. [" No, no."] Well, I will leave hon. Members on the other side who are divided on the subject to settle the matter among themselves. Certainly a large number of those who then expressed the most complete approval of that scheme now appear by their voices, rather than by their votes, to have altered their opinions.
  We come to a matter now which is less 3omplicated, but one which is a very delicate constitutional question, and may give rise to great consequences in the future. We are asked to commit ourselves with only a few minutes' consideration to this proposal. I admit at once that as it stands on the Paper it is very vague; it commits no one to anything. What I would say generally upon the scheme is this: this Resolution embodies a mere pious opinion in which we would all be ready to join, viz., that the growing needs of the Empire require the establishment of the Committee of Defence on a permanent footing. I have no objection to that at all. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] I mean I have no objection to the words which I have read, but I may object very much, and many Members may object, to that which is read into the words, and that to which the House will be held to commit itself if it agrees to the words. The right hon. Gentleman says that in its present condition the Committee of Defence has not done all that he thinks it might do, and that he is now going to give it a more ambitious scope. He referred to the particular changes that were to be made. First of all, there is to be a fixed permanent nucleus. The first point that is raised is this: Is it desirable that these great officers of the two services, two representing the Navy and two the Army, should be actually members of this Committee? That is the most important point of all. The members of the Government would have the means of ascertaining the views of these officers in any way they chose; they might call upon them to consider any or every question, and to hand in memoranda for the information of the Committee and the Cabinet. They might have them before the Committee, not exactly as witnesses, but as the confidential and intimate advisers of the Government. You could have them in that capacity if you liked, but if you make them members of the Committee

  1589
  you will interfere, or you may interfere, very seriously with that Ministerial and Cabinet responsibility which constitutes the foundation of our system of Government. The Minister must be supreme. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is supreme. In what way is he supreme? He is a colleague on the Committee of Defence with those who occupy these great positions in the two services; he sits side by side with them on the same footing. It is quite true that the Cabinet to which he and the other Ministers belong is behind the Committee, but he, after all, is the most influential member of the Cabinet, and the others who are on the Committee are, next to him, perhaps the most influential. How then is it possible to say that the Cabinet have the opportunity of overriding, supervising and modifying the decisions of the Committee when the principal members of the Cabinet have themselves been members of the Committee?
  Then we are told that the decisions of the Committee are to be recorded and handed down. I do not know how they are to be recorded, or who is to record them. I think the scheme can hardly have been fully thought out, because the right hon. Gentleman talks of a permanent nucleus. Where is the permanency of this nucleus? The Commander-in-Chief changes; the First Lord changes still oftener. We were told it was so awkward that a new mind had to be brought to bear upon these great questions, and to go over the ground that predecessors with minds equally acute and accomplished had alread gone over, and that this was to be avoided by giving to the Committee the element of permanency. But you do not give permanency to the Committee in the sense in which it is spoken of. But, after all, the decisions of the Committee are to be revised by the Cabinet; I am thankful for that, because the Cabinet, as a Cabinet, have to keep their eyes and ears open to other considerations altogether than those which the mere Committee of Defence, and especially the professional members of that Committee, would keep in view. Allusion has already been made to the strange absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the Committee. I should have thought the question of
  1590
  finance—the question affecting the taxpayers—was perhaps the most important that could be considered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to say that the question would be considered-
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then he will be a member, and in that case whoever may be a permanent member he, will be, because I can hardly conceive any subject being brought before the Committee which does not, either remotely or directly, affect the interests in charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee of Defence having come to a certain conclusion, either in agreement or in disagreement with the professional members, the matter then goes to the Cabinet. The proposals made, the facts stated, and the arguments on each side are recorded for the instruction of future generations, but when the matter goes to the Cobinet, which surely is the most important moment of all, none of the reasons or the arguments which prevail in the Cabinet are ever recorded in any form. So that it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is running after something which cannot be accomplished when he seeks to have a record of the reasons for the conclusion arrived at. That there should be a record of the opinions of the professional members is perfectly right; I see no harm in that at all—in fact nothing but good. Let them have the fullest opportunity of stating their views. But when the members of the Cabinet have to decide upon the acceptance or the rejection of those views, a class of considerations and ideas come into play which it is impossible to place on record without the greatest inconvenience to the public interest. You must maintain your Cabinet secrecy. If you do not do so, I do not know where you will be landed. Cabinet secrecy must govern the decision come to by the Members of the Cabinet who are on the Committee.
  These are the considerations which occur to me after hearing the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I think they are deserving of full consideration. What, after all, is aimed at? What is the value of it? According to any reasonable plan,

  1591
  you will have the full mind of the professional adviser; the Cabinet Ministers and the civilians—for whom I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman put in a word, because they are sometimes looked upon as of very little importance—will consider all that the professional advisers have said and come to their decision. But why should that be known to the general public? Is it to be known?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly not.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Nothing at all? Is it not to be referred to by the Minister?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That depends on the Minister. I do not know that a Minister would not say that such and such a question was discussed, and such and such a decision arrived at. That depends on his discretion. But the proceedings of the Committee, of course, will not be published, but will be embodied in a confidential document.
  Sin H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that any decision that is come to will not be binding in any way, either upon the individual Minister or upon any subsequent Minister.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course not.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then I do not see what you gain by this elaborate machinery that you could not gain at this moment; and still less do I see why you come to the House of Commons and ask us to give our approval to this Resolution. You do not require legislation: you do not require a vote. Why should the House be asked to commit itself to a Resolution of this kind, which Resolution in its vague terms any one of us would accept, but which, as implying acquiescence in all the particulars of the scheme, is rather too much to demand on such short notice and with so little information as has been vouchsafed to us? On these grounds I think I should best represent my attitude in the matter, which is one of entire approval of the co-ordination of the two services, and of the power of securing the co-operation of the services and of enforcing on the heads of these services a large view, not only of their own interests but of the interests of
  1592
  the sister service. We all approve of that, but when you come to the question of the constitution of this body, as the right hon. Gentleman has described it, I think it is premature to ask the House to approve that which the Prime Minister himself says is after all but a tentative and experimental organisation. Therefore, Sir, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that upon this question nothing but the adjournment of the debate can be discussed. That, I think, is a most unreasonable proposal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. With all respect to the House, if I may say so without rudeness, so far as the Government are concerned, it really matters not one farthing. We do not ask money for this scheme It is not to serve our interests as distinguished from those of anybody else But the House, having passed the Supplementary Estimates with a celerity quite unexampled, there was an opportunity, without interfering with the general programme of business, of finding a few hours in which hon. Members might express their views on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman now comes forward and tries to deprive the House of that opportunity. That seems to me a most unreasonable proceeding, and I strongly protest against it.
  *MR. KEARLEY: Before the House goes to a division, I should like to say a few words. I think the Prime Minister has some justification for what he has said, because the Motion has been merely one to enable him to explain, and others to express their views, as to the proposals; and certainly, as regards myself, I am not committed to this scheme in any shape or form. The Government will have the whole responsibility for whatever may happen as a result of it, and I think we should certainly give them an opportunity of setting up what has, in effect, been asked for so long, and I shall cordially support this proposal. I do not myself see the slightest necessity for a division. The Government admit the responsibility is theirs, and the House

  1593
  is now really going to get what has been asked for during the whole of the war. Over and over again it has been said, "Where are your expert opinions? Have you no record of them, so that we may have an opportunity of judging what they advised?" and so on. I understand that this Motion outlines something; this is going to be a business like procedure on the part of the Government which will enable their successors to know the reasons upon which they have based their policy. I cannot, therefore see that any particular harm can be done. During the progress of the war many speeches were made, notably one by the Prime Minister, and which I will describe as the "man-in-the-street" speech.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the only matter before the House is the Motion, and that when that is disposed of the hon. Gentleman will be at liberty to discuss the scheme.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that there is no necessity for an expression of opinion from the House [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] and that he will not press for it on this occasion. I have not the slightest wish to prevent the House discussing or stopping the discussion in any degree. The House ought not to be asked, and it is unnecessary to ask it, to express an opinion to-day; but it will not be an undesirable thing that Members should have an opportunity of stating their views. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. KEARLEY: I should not have intervened in the debate had not the Motion for the Adjournment really forced the House to go to a division. But I am determined if it goes to a division that it should not be supposed that I and those who voted with my right hon. friend are hostile to the proposal of the Government, as I think the Prime Minister is justified in stating his position to the House. I always thought that a Motion such as this before the House was introduced as an act of courtesy on the part of the Government, and merely as a peg upon which a discussion might hang, so as to enable the House to form some idea as to what their scheme was in connection with the amendment of the Council of Defence of the Cabinet.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I do ask the Leader of the Opposition not to persist in this Motion. It is true that there has been a very short notice of the discussion, and it is true it would have been more convenient if more time had been allowed: but that also has some advantages, because, the debate coming as it does, nobody will take part in it except those who have given some time and attention to this subject. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury said that this is an experimeent, and that the Government have only made a provisional arrangement, and so forth. The Resolution he proposes is more or less of an abstract nature which only affirms permanency, and therefore what he has come down to the House to do—that i to ask the advice of the House—is a proper course to take. Under these circumstances I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will not see fit to continue his Motion.
  MR. LOUGH: Is it understood that there is no intention of pressing this matter to a division? [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] I think something of the kind was said. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide, divide."] I think everything the Prime Minister has said would be secured by an open discussion without having at the end of it a Party division. I therefore think it ought to meet with the approbation of everybody if we appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the debate would be of that open character. I respectfully appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to say whether the object he has in view would not be best served in that way instead of taking a hurried division.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I think the House may be in some danger of proceeding to a division under a misunderstanding. I am quite sure there is nothing further from my right hon. friend's mind than to press for a division. There is nothing further from my mind than to oppose this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that this comes as a surprise to the House. Granting the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to pressure from this side of the House, we are not prepared to say "yes" or "no" to a proposition which was made known to us only to-day. The entire,

  1595
  purpose of a Motion for Adjournment is to prevent a final decision being claimed at this moment when we are imperfectly acquainted with the significance of the Motion, and we desire the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that he does not mean to force an expression of opinion from the House, and that time will be given not only to consider the contents of the right hon. Gentleman's most important statement, but also his omissions. I would suggest that the Colonies should have been left out altogether, and I object to being called upon to express any final opinion upon this proposal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not claim a division upon this question.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question again proposed.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: I think it is a satisfactory fact that the Leader of the Opposition is in general agreement with the principle which the First Lord of the Treasury has laid down. The underlying idea of the First Lord's proposal is that there should be a permanent responsible and active brain exercising general control over the strength, organisation and distribution of the military and naval forces of the Empire, and for such an idea there can be nothing but praise. Indeed the constitution of such a Committee has been urged again and again in this House by many military reformers. Perhaps the most satisfactory feature of the whole scheme, which admittedly is only a tentative one, is that the Prime Minister himself will take the chairmanship of that body, because it is he, and he alone, who can be really responsible for the co-ordination and control of the two services. The next point, in order of importance, is that the Committee is to have certain permanent features and that it will, at any rate, keep permanent records. It seems to me that this element of permanency is the very essential of efficiency, and the only means of obviating what the Americans call "panic" legislation and trusting to muddling through when the emergency comes. I most strongly deprecate the disparag-
  1596
  ing and almost sneering tone which has been adopted towards this Committee during the recent debate on Army organisation. I cannot refer to what was said in that debate, but I cannot help thinking that such criticism is ungracious and bad tactics in addition. I think the better course would be to back up the formation of this Committee in every way, and make it clear that we intend to maintain a watchful and friendly interest in its proceedings. I think there is ample reason to believe that the Prime Minister is enthusiastic, and really roused to the vital necessity of a Committee of this kind. I have every reason to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow it to sink into noxious desuetude like the old Committee of Defence, but I think it will be to the national interest that the right hon. Gentleman should be reminded as early and often as possible that the country will take a deep interest in the work of that Committee, and they will judge of its usefulness entirely by results.
  The Committee undoubtedly supplies a long-felt want. It is well to bring the responsible Ministers and the chief experts face to face, deliberating not in pairs or in corners, but at a round table, so that they shall have to play their own hand openly in the presence of other counsellors. Bacon shrewdly said that "private opinion is more free, but opinion expressed before others is more reverend." I venture to say that this Committee will not command the full confidence of the country unless it occasionally results in the resignation either of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the vital need of this Committee has never been more forcibly illustrated than by the circumstances in which the present Army Reorganisation Scheme has its genesis. That scheme is a reflection of the alarm that took possession of the public mind some two years ago. The Secretary of State for War, unaided—and I do not wish to blame him for this—had to interpret the national but distracted yearning for Army reform, and the House of Commons and the country had to accept his scheme, as they were not able to think of anything better at the

  1597
  moment. Not having the guidance of a Committee such as this, or of any responsible body which had been continuously considering the question of the defence of the Empire for a long period, the Secretary of State evolved a scheme which was designed mainly apparently for repelling the invasion of these islands. The country supported him because we were at that moment engaged in a land war, the result of which was that our chief national need appeared to be a great Army. If I may use a metaphor, the country was rather in the position of a sea monster gasping out of its natural element, and not knowing what to do except to flop about. If the Boers had been a maritime nation, and had succeeded at the outset in inflicting some small naval reverses upon us, the First Lord of the Admiralty would have been the interpreter of the nation's fears, and we should have been busy voting flying squadrons and other additions to our naval strength. I almost wish under the circumstances that the Boers had been a maritime nation.
  It is surely altogether wrong, however, that the general policy of our Imperial defence should be based either on the evanescent fears of a people at war or on the unaided interpretation of those fears by the War Minister. It should be based rather, I believe, upon a continuous and systematic study of this whole question by experts, and their studies should be directed, not to the needs of the moment, but to the normal requirements of Imperial defence. It is at such crises as that which occurred two years ago that the imagination of any single Minister must prove unequal to the strain, and it is for that reason that the need of a Council of Defence becomes more than ever necessary. Again, I cannot help thinking that if this Committee had been constituted earlier the results of the Colonial Conference might have been very different. My hope is, that if another Conference is arranged in the future, the Government will, at any rate, have come to some definite decision on the whole problem of Imperial defence, and thus obviate the possibility of such conflicting statements being made by the Parliamentary chiefs of the two fighting services—statements which added to the gaiety of
  1598
  all nations in the world, except our own. In view of the divergence of opinion expressed before the Colonial Conference by the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think it is hardly to be wondered at that the Colonial Premiers were not willing to accept the proposals for the joint defence of the Empire which were put forward, and I venture to say that if a comprehensive scheme had been put forward by a responsible Council of Defence, it would not have been at all impossible that the colonies would have been willing to consider it, and to take, at any rate, a reasonable share of the burdens involved. It is to be hoped that before another Conference takes place, this Committee will succeed in restoring conjugal relations between the Admiralty and the War Office, whose present incompatibility of temperament cannot be regarded as incurable. I think that the foregoing illustrations establish the need for a Committee of this kind.
  As to the functions of the Committee, I desire to say a few words. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for constituting the Committee, and I am not inclined to look a gift horse in the mouth. On the other hand, I do not think he will resent any friendly criticism we may offer. I must therefore, in the first place, express disappointment at the answer he gave to a question I put a fortnight ago, from which I gathered that, not only would this year's Defence Estimates not be revised and approved by the Committee of Defence, but that he rather considered such work would be beyond the province of the Committee in future. He rather took the line that the Committee would not inquire into or advise with respect to all the details of the Estimates. I do not think that anyone in his senses intended that the Committee should do so, but it is difficult to see how they are going to have a co-ordinating control over the whole province of defence, if there is not also financial control, and I did certainly imagine that this Committee each year, after considering the strategic needs of the Empire and its financial resources at the time, would determine how much would be spent altogether on the defence of the

  1599
  Empire, and that it would then determine how much of the grant should be allotted to the Army and how much to the Navy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to say that the Committee would consider the needs of both services and determine the amount to be granted for the year.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: I am exceedingly glad to hear the Prime Minister's statement, because he has now informed me that the Committee will do exactly what I hoped in the first place it, would do. I have no desire, of course, to go into details, and I think the statement which he has just made will be received with a great deal of relief; I mean that the amounts allotted respectively to the Army and the Navy will be settled in bulk by the Committee. After that the heads of the respective services will apportion them in detail. That will be, I may say, an exact reversal of the present system tinder which the two services are not co-operating but competing services, each playing for its own hand, and endeavouring to squeeze as much as possible out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Owing to the fact that the Committee was not constituted earlier, so far as this year is concerned we shall have to vote £00,000.000 for national defence without the comforting assurance that the sums asked for have been reviewed and approved by the Committee. In fact, as far as this year's Estimates are concerned, we have to "go it blind." I do not wish to go into the question of the composition of the Committee, because I think the Prime Minister has given us a satisfactory assurance on that point. He has explained that there will be, in addition to the regular members, certain ad hoc members, and particularly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will always be present when any matter involving expenditure comes under discussion. I do not think there can be any matters of Imperial defence which do not involve expenditure, and I think, therefore, we may look upon it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be practically a permanent member of the Committee.
  One other word only with regard to the composition. I hope that sometime in future we may find that the chief military and naval experts will not be the Com-
  1600
  mander-in-Chief and the First Lord of the Admiralty, but the two "Chiefs of Staff" of the great general staffs which should be constituted in the two services. But that is a matter of detail that can be better discussed on another occasion. I think on the present occasion we should avoid the discussion of strategic policies. I quite agree with the Prime Minister that it would be highly undesirable that Ministers should be asked questions in this House on delicate matters of international policy, and other matters bearing on strategic policy. I think the wiser course, and in every way the more desirable course, will be to judge of the work of the Committee entirely by results. With regard to results we have just heard the first fruits of the larger deliberations of this Committee. We have been informed that it is the intention of the Government to establish a naval base on the east coast. I think that will command the earnest approval of all who have studied recent developments affecting the balance of sea power and the altered strategic position of the Empire. Whether we approve of it or not, here is the first definite offspring of the collective wisdom of this Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "The old Committee."] I am afraid I have not sufficient confidence in the old Committee to imagine that this scheme was evolved by them. We do not know the exact reason that led this Committee, or the old Committee, to come to that conclusion, but it is sufficient that we should judge its usefulness and activity by results. If there should be no results, or if there should be no more signs of life than in the old Committee, which I have reason to believe passed away painlessly in its sleep, or if the results furnished by the Committee are considered to be inadequate or vicious by this House, then I think it would be necessary for Parliament to intervene, and it would know who is the responsible body, and who is to blame for any bad results. The weak point of our old system was that there was no one who was more than nominally responsible for any decision regarding defence. For example, if a new Army scheme was introduced which might be entirely unsuited to our needs, the Secretary of State for War would be regarded, I think justifi-

  1601
  ably, as being its author. Of course we know the usual reply is that the scheme would be the scheme of the Cabinet as a whole, but we know also that in practice the scheme would be essentially the creation of the Secretary of State for War, and that it would be only perfunctorily considered by the Cabinet as a whole, because the Cabinet consists of a number of hardworking and extremely busy heads of departments, who are absorbed in the details of those Departments, and who have, after all, their own axes to grind at subsequent Cabinet Councils.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member assumes that the scheme I introduced to the House two years ago was not before the Defence Committee. As a matter of fact it was discussed at continued meetings of the old Defence Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I wish to remind the hon. Member that only in a limited degree does the question of Army organisation enter into this debate.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: I have no intention of debating the question of Army organisation. My argument was only directed to show that this Committee would in future be the responsible body for such a matter as a great Army scheme, and that the responsibility would be taken oft' the shoulders of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. As regards this Committee I hope it means the dawning of a new era. I hope it means that we shall be told, in the first place, what we keep the Army and Navy for and what is the extent of the work they are intended to do. I hope that when any new great scheme of Defence conies forward it will do so under the authority of this Committee of Defence, and I venture to say that if it does it will receive a very different response from that given to previous schemes which had been suspected, rightly or wrongly, of being the offspring of the unaided genius of a single civilian Minister. If this Committee comes up to our expectations—and I think it is only wise at the outset that we should be sanguine, as well as jealously watchful on this point—I hope that
  1602
  for the first time in our history the great problems of Imperial defence will be intelligently thought out, continuously studied, permanently recorded, and periodically dealt with by a Committee which, however it may err in the judgment of posterity, will at any rate be thoroughly representative, and beyond all excuse responsible.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: If my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had made his Motion, or caused the Motion to be made by one of his friends later in the afternoon, I think the grounds he gave for it would have been very strong indeed. The difficulty of agreeing to that course was that if my right hon. friend, having Constitutional objections, which I do not say he entertained, but at any rate foreshadowed, took the opportunity of putting them before the House, he would shut out other hon. Members than himself from stating their views. My right hon. friend probably entertains Constitutional objections to the proposal which has been put before the House, and I think some hon. Members sitting behind him entertain economic, or taxpayers' objections, which I would support if I shared their views. I should like very briefly to state certain views, which I know are not shared by the right hon. Gentleman, which I entertain on this question. The Leader of the Opposition referred to those conflicts between the Army and Navy, those struggles between them to gain the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, those different views on subjects of defence which prevailed in the past, which we all recognise as having prevailed in the past. and which have been alluded to by the Prime Minister—stated that these days wore gone. Part, of our case in asking publicly and privately for this discussion is, that up to the present time I do not think these days are gone; that there have been flagrant examples of these evils recently, and that the Estimates to be considered next week will show continuous examples. That makes it necessary the new departure should be made, and that we should try to strengthen the control of the Prime Minister in the Cabinet in this departure.
  I confess that I, for one, have always attached the highest importance to

  1603
  strengthening the interest and the knowledge of the Prime Minister in what is going on in the War Office and at the Admiralty. That is the real key to the situation, and it is the Prime Minister alone who can effectually represent the Treasury. The Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury, and it is idle to suppose that in surveying the deliberations of this Committee, he would not have the taxpayers' interests and finances in view. I believe that that would not be the case. There is a conflict to-day between the Ministers representing the Army and the Navy, but if these days of conflict are over when have they gone, and how long have they gone? Personally, I think that this proposal, instead of being made too suddenly, has come too late, that the Cabinet has spent a great deal of money unnecessarily, and that the country has been involved in evil organisation which might have been avoided if this step had been taken earlier. The active co-ordination and co-relation of all the branches of the two Services can only become effective on the Estimates for the year 1904-5; and on the Estimates for the next financial, year to be presented to us next week, we shall not be able to discuss the subject. This of itself almost proves the case that it has come very late, instead of very soon.
  I venture to criticise the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition, because this is a matter of first-class national importance, on which men of the same Party and even the same section of the Party, can entertain different views. My right hon. friend objects to the scheme because he suspects that it may lead to interference with Cabinet responsibility. It seems to me that Cabinet responsibility is complete. The Committee of the Cabinet is not a body with so many Members with so many purposes, who show their hands when they come to vote. The Prime Minister should have that prominence which his position commands. He may demand the resignation of all his colleagues, and he can form a new Administration. The opinion of the Prime Minister must therefore prevail, and where there is an essential difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and his colleagues, his opinion is the one which carries weight. As regards out-
  1604
  siders having too great weight on such Committee, it is rather an idle fear. It seems to me that soldiers and sailors in giving advice are too deferential, and are too much afraid to put their own opinions before the Cabinet. They almost need to be encouraged to tell the Cabinet the truth. These Cabinet Committees are not very rigid bodies, consisting of so many members with so many votes. I confess that it seems to me it would be impossible to go behind a statement of the Prime Minister, when Indian, colonial, or financial Affairs are being decided upon. Of course, Ministers concerned with their special Departments would be called to give their opinion. The strongest objection which I thought my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition made was, that although there was a very careful arrangement for recording the opinion of this Defence Committee, the Cabinet might overrule that opinion on sound grounds, and that there would be no opportunity of knowing the opinion of the Cabinet. But there is a power to leave minutes of what has been decided at Cabinet meetings, which has been occasionally exercised when it is desirable that the Cabinet should leave their opinion on record for the information of their successors.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have read the memoirs, and I believe that these minutes are never left for the new Ministers. Only two copies are made. One is handed to the Sovereign, and the other is retained by the Prime Minister.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: There have been references to minutes of Cabinet meetings which have been made in some form or another to be handed to their successors. There is no Constitutional objection to that course being taken if the Defence Committee has put forward deliberately an opinion on matters of first-class importance, and that opinion is overruled by the Cabinet. The need for some better arrangement than the old Cabinet Committee, as framed in the last flays of the last Liberal Administration, seems to me proved by an immense number of separate facts which are well known to Members of this House. I will not debate again the different statements made to the Colonial Con-

  1605
  ference on behalf of the Army and Navy, except to say that that could not have occurred, especially in a matter of such moment, if there had been a due and proper supervision of the work. This is what accounts for the overwhelming importance which I attach to the influence which the Prime Minister should have in the deliberations of this Defence Committee. He alone can bring the diverging views of these great Departments into harmony. Untold harm has been done by this divergence in letting slip and spoiling the opportunities which the Colonial Conference presented. There is one matter which illustrates that view and has not been mentioned hitherto, and it shows the need for the improvement of this Defence Committee which we are now discussing. A Memorandum was put before the Colonial Conference on the organisation of colonial troops for Imperial service. That Memorandum begins by stating:—
  "Prior to the outbreak of the War in South Africa, so far: as any general scheme for the defence of the Empire as a whole had been considered (very damaging words these are) it was assumed that the military responsibilities of our great self-governing colonies were limited to local defence, and that the entire burden of furnishing reinforcements to any portion of the Empire against which a hostile attack in force might be directed must fall on the Regular Army. There may possibly have been some pious hope that in time of need the colonies might rally to the Mother Country, but no definite arrangements were made, nor were inquiries even on foot, as to whether such aid might be expected, and, if so, in what strength. Indeed, the necessity for it was by no means realised, and its reliability was doubted."
  All through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the colonies took an almost preponderating part in the defence of the Empire; and that shows the necessary importance of the preface to the Memorrandum which I have quoted.
  Then the Memorandum goes on:—
  "The present war has, in fact, been a valuable illustration of the necessity for organising the defence of the Empire against far graver contingencies; and it is essential to preparation, that it should be definitely known in peace what forces can be relied on in war. Success in a great war can only be insured by a continuous policy of careful organisation and preparation in peace."
  This Memorandum also states that New Zealand as long ago as 1900 passed a Statute—which was mentioned in this House at the time—actually constituting
  1606
  an Imperial Reserve for Imperial purposes. Yet that matter was allowed to slumber and was not taken up in any way. The Colonial Conference failed very largely through the difference of opinion between the Army and Navy, which the personal supervision of the Prime Minister, with the highest advice behind him, might have prevented.
  I will briefly mention a series of questions which occurred during the last few years to illustrate the inability displayed be the old Committee of the Cabinet to deal with them. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has assented, and my right hon. friend the Member for Dundee has not very willingly, assented to the working of the old Committee. The Leader of the Opposition was a Member of the Cabinet when the Committee was first constituted, and he assented to its working; but the Committee could not satisfactorily have carried out some of its work, because the work it ought to have done was ill-done. I think that is the universal opinion as regards some five or six questions which may be mentioned. Take a connected class of questions, three or four of them being very much of the same kind; the Cunard agreement, the steamship subsidy question, and the importance of the Merchant Fleet as a true reserve for the Navy in the time of war, the questions which arise in connection with the deputation which is taking place to-day, questions, for example, such as that which was raised in this House by Lord Charles Beresford as to the insurance of merchant shipping in the time of war. The questions I have named have all more or less in the past, during the reign of the old form of Committee, been dealt with by the Board of Trade on strategic or naval grounds. I think that may be said of all of them; deputations have been received by the Board of Trade, and their representations have been considered by the President of the Board of Trade on strategic or naval grounds, with some advice from the Admiralty behind him in some cases, though not in that emphatic way in which they will be considered by the new form of the Committee. Of course, I am assuming that this Committee will have all the virtues. We do discern in the new Constitution that responsibility of the Prime Minister,

  1607
  with the best advice behind him, which, as my hon. and gallant friend says, will tend to greatly improve the Committee.
  On the last occasion when it was supposed we were very near a great war with a European Power, a conference was called at the Peninsular and Oriental offices by Sir Thomas Sutherland. It was a secret conference, and nothing that passed there got into the newspapers. It was a conference of a most interesting and valuable character, and the speech made at that conference on these very subjects—the insurance of ships and food supply—by Sir Thomas Sutherland was one of the greatest importance. It was, I am afraid, shown by the speeches of the great shipowners that these questions had not at that time been thought out by any Department of the State. These men had approached Departments of the State, and they knew what had been considered and what had not been considered; and it came out clearly that no one representing the State had thought out these questions. I confess I cannot but think that if a Committee in the constitution of which the Prime Minister takes so much interest, and which he has explained to the House in language so exact, had been in existence, all these questions would have been thought out by the Committee and the Cabinet, which at that time were left to the President of the Board of Trade. There was one other question of a similar kind the details of which were left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who received deputation after deputation in the past—not recently—with regard to strategic cables and the question of cable communication in time of war. This question was dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on strategic grounds, and while we have the highest respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, it was not entirely satisfactory that a matter of such importance as arranging for a possible war should be dealt with except by a Committee of Cabinet. All these are types of questions in which mistakes were admittedly made during the time of the old Committee. The Prime Minister alluded in his opening speech to the case of Wei-hai-Wei; he did not name it, but from the description he gave
  1608
  of the differences which had occurred between one Lord of the Admiralty and another he was evidently alluding to it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not alluding to We-hai-Wei.
  *SIR C. DILKE: At all events, on that occasion the Lords of the Admiralty gave opposite opinions to the Government. One opinion was expressed by Lord Charles Beresford on the day of the occupation of Wei-hai-Wei, and was openly contradicted on behalf of the Government, though it was afterwards admitted to have been correct. There is a matter to which I alluded the other day, and which has been dealt with by a representative of the Home Office, advised by the War Office. The States of Jersey sent a deputation to this country with reference to defence, but the Admiralty was not consulted, and it was the Assistant Secretary for the Home Office who had to cram, on the advice of the War Office, military views down the throats of the deputation without having had any advice from the Admiralty. Then there was another matter which came up the other day. Years ago the country was greatly excited about coaling stations, and Lord Brassey and others took a deep interest in the subject, and a scheme was resolved upon. One of the coaling stations which was of great importance at that time was not kept up in the way intended, its garrison dwindled away, and it is impossible to find who is the person responsible. All we know is that all these mistakes have been made under the reign of the old Committee, and while those who are pessimists and while those who, like my hon. friend the Member for Dundee, who does not believe in Committees, may say that the new Committee will be no better than the old, those who are optimists believe that even by the expression of our views we shall do something to realise the hopes we entertain, and make the Government also realise the responsibility which falls on the Prime Minister. At all events we have shown that improvement is essential, and that there is need for increased co-ordination and a clearer view. Personally I believe that economy can be promoted by this more specific view. It cannot, I believe, lead to war or to a more reckless expenditure. We cannot have a

  1609
  Committee of this kind presided over by the Prime Minister without saving money to the State, without decreasing ill-expended money, and spending the money of the State to better advantage.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I rejoice that the opportunity has been offered to this House to discuss this very important proposal now in process of being carried out: and I rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not press his Amendment. I will not trouble the House at any length, but there are one or two observations which I should wish to make. In my humble judgment the step that has been decided on is the most important one that has yet been taken in the interests of economy. We cannot trace the history of the expenditure of the country without seeing how we have oscillated in response to the popular clamour or emotion of the moment, without any regard for principle whatever. That was a change which was initiated in 1860. There was in that year a public panic—which, by the way, created the Volunteer force and Lord Palmerston rushed a Royal Commission to inquire into the defence of this country against invasion. The country flew to arms, and as a result we embarked on that policy of gigantic works of which Portsmouth now remains the monument, and the visible expression of vast expenditure to protect our naval arsenals from attack by land. Since that time we have gone on developing that policy, and we have spent millions and millions on gigantic works all over the world. I would put it to any student of this question whether, if such a Committee as that now proposed had been in existence, with its records and evidence before it. such vast expenditure could possibly have been incurred. Of course it could not. Therefore, if I were asked to put in order of merit my reasons for rejoicing at the Prime Minister taking this step, my first reason would be on grounds of public economy. The Committee will give us more value for our money, and it will certainly tend to continuity of policy. As I see it, it is a great instrument which will impress the minds of Ministers, and which will put shortly what I might call the perspective of British defence.
  To illustrate what I mean, let me say this: i think everyone will admit,
  1610
  now that the excitement of the war is over, and that nothing else is happening to interest the country in naval and military affairs, that there will certainly be a cry for economy, and the cry will be with regard to the Navy and the Army. There was that feeling in the country at the time of Lord Randolph Churchill's resignation, and what did the Chancellor of the Exchequer do '.' I presume, of course, that it was settled by the Government that there should be a reduction of expenditure for defence. We know what happened. They did not look round and see what expenditure could most reasonably be reduced or what they could best spare. What happened was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued a mandate to the Admiralty and to the War Office asking them to reduce their Votes by half-a-million each. The real point is that the reduction should be made in the Estimates of the next year on what could best be spared. There, I think, we get the safeguard that when a reduction has to be negotiated by the necessities of the case, the matter will be really considered, and the expenditure will come off that which will least affect or injure the country.
  There is one Member on this Council to whom no reference has been made at all. We have had no reason given why the office of Lord President of the Council is represented on this Committee. In my judgment the question of the defence of the Empire embraces all things connected with the adequate defence of the Empire as a. whole, including the combining of all parts of the Empire in its defence. Without that principle the Empire cannot endure. I look, therefore, for a Council where the contributing parts of the Empire shall have a place, and I think it ought to be the Privy Council. Therefore I would like to see this Council the germ of a development in that direction, because I am convinced that in the future the whole Empire will have to bear the burden of its defence. I see in this the germ of an instrument which will be necessary when the Colonies take their share in the cost of Imperial defence I regard this Council, therefore, as a step forward, and I trust that little attention will be paid to those who expect too much from it at first, and that we shall not be engaged in pressing Ministers to

  1611
  have the Council consider this or to consider that. I think such a course would be a mistake. If I know anything about the subject at all, I think the Council will take some time to grasp the salient features of the question, and to lay down conclusions as to the main principles.
  I cannot sit down without saying that one of the reasons why the constitution of this Committee has been received with general satisfaction is because public opinion has become more intelligent, and more educated, as to the necessities of the case. I think the debates in the House this year on the Army Estimates have shown a gradual sense of the fact that you cannot treat the Army as lying entirely outside the subject of naval defence, and that the general line of our military policy must be influenced not only by our naval policy but also our naval necessity. I foresee also that this House will, before very long, see the necessity of enlarging the scope of debates regarding the question of the military policy of this country. I think that the debate on the Address shows that the House has become fully alive to the fact that it is not practicable—it is not possible—to really discuss our military policy in its broad features if the procedure of the House prevents our dealing with those broad naval considerations which influence this matter. In the long run I think we shall find this Committee of Defence will inevitably tend in the same direction—towards the enlargement of the procedure of this House. Suppose, having reviewed everything, the Ministers responsible for the defence of the country find there must be a reduction of expenditure, and suppose they propose to reduce the expenditure on the Volunteers or the Militia, or something else of that kind; they have to defend their policy in this House, and their policy would be dependent on their naval necessity. Therefore, looking at the question from, as I think, the proper point of view, namely, that of economy in dealing with the taxpayers, money, and from every point of view comprised in the question of the defence of the Empire, I am of opinion that no wiser step has ever been taken in the true direction. It is perhaps well that it has not been too long a step, but I
  1612
  am certain it contains the germ of something greater yet to come.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My hon. and gallant friend began his observations by alluding to the Motion for the Adjournment made by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition as being in some way intended to stifle discussion.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I must apologise if I used the wrong word. I meant stop the discussion.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The real meaning of that Motion was not to stifle discussion at all, but to have a full and considered discussion. It is not without significance that we notice now that the vast majority of those who two hours ago clamoured for an immediate discussion on this subject were so easily satisfied that they departed from the House immediately, and have not returned. Now in the little that I have to say on this subject I am embarrassed by the procedure on which we are to proceed. I know very little about the Army, but with the little knowledge I possess I protest against this discussion. Let me remind the House that until yesterday the fact that this question would be raised was entirely unknown to anybody, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean was a preferred and privileged party.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: No, I was not.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The First Lord of the Treasury, defending his action in submitting this great proposition to the House, said he had put it forward under pressure from this side of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no reason why this should have been brought before the House at all, and it would not have been brought forward had it not been for the desire on the part of hon. Gentlemen to discuss it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not mean to deny that there was any desire on either side to discuss it, but

  1613
  that pressure, if any, was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. But the fact remains that until this morning we did not even know the terms of the Resolution, much less what its form was intended to convey to the House. My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean has spoken of me as in some way being opposed to the Committee. I think that is a little unfair.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not mean to be unfair. I only gathered from previous debates that the hon. Member did not believe very much in any of these Committees.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: As a fact the pressure brought to bear in those debates was upon the Admiralty. I am in no way committed against the principle of a Committee of Defence, but the first germ was naturally a small one, and the first question was apparently a more specific and limited question than was anticipated. What is it we all desire to have? In early days all that was admitted was that the Navy and Army should be considered together as two parts of one whole; that they should not be considered separate Departments, like the Post Office and the Home Office, but that every proposal made for the Army and the Navy should be the result of a joint investigation into the needs of both. But there has been a great difference in latter years. We all remember how two years ago the Secretary of State for War introduced his proposal with the extraordinary statement that it was based on the possibility of our at any moment losing the command of the sea. Now I think that the Navy and the Army ought to be considered together, and that could not possibly be unless they were considered by the same people. Therefore, instead of being an opponent, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine, I may claim to be a supporter. But the right hon. Gentleman's proposal marks a totally new departure. Hitherto you have had a Committee of the Cabinet, with Cabinet authority in every one of its members, reporting, I suppose, to the Cabinet. Now you are to have what may be called a hybrid Committee, with
  1614
  a fixed nucleus consisting of four Cabinet Ministers. But in what sense is that a fixed nucleus? The present Lord President of the Council is to be on the fixed nucleus, but a future Lord President may not be. The only fixity that I can see is that four are to be members of the Cabinet for the time being. The Minister for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty must be on the Committee, and, as far as I can see, they are the only ones who will always be members of the Committee.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)said that the Prime Minister, when he spoke of the fixed nucleus, was referring to the four naval and military members.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: If I am to understand that the fixed nucleus consists of subordinate permanent officials, and the floating element of members of the Cabinet, then a new light altogether is thrown on the situation; and that is one of the advantages of having a discussion on the subject. But I venture to doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is correctly representing his Leader. I understood him to say that the fixed element was the Cabinet element. ["No."] Then the fixed nucleus is to consist of four Cabinet Ministers, not necessarily always representing the same offices, and of four subordinate officers always representing the same offices. My point, however, is that it is no longer a Committee of the Cabinet at all. Words were used by the Prime Minister which seemed to imply that, in addition to the eight members named by him, provision would be made for admitting others from time to time. That is an essential part of the scheme, and I should like to have a clear and precise statement of the intentions of the Government on that point. In any case it is to be a mixed Committee, one half possessing complete executive authority, and the other half possessing nothing of the kind; and there may be great danger of a Committee so constituted degenerating into a pure fiction, as in the case of the Board of Trade.
  Their there is this point of practical constitutional importance. This Committee is to pass resolutions and keep records. You cannot presume unanimity

  1615
  in a Committee of this sort; the resolutions therefore will be arrived at after debate and division. 80 this consultative Committee may come to a decision in regard to which the Members of the Cabinet are in a minority. Three of the Cabinet Members may vote one way and the rest of the Committee the other. The resolutions will therefore go to the Cabinet, with the damning fact behind it that a majority of the Cabinet Ministers are against it. That is a point worth considering, at all events.
  Then the Prime Minister says that the Parliamentary responsibility of the Cabinet is in no way to be interfered with. This Committee is not to be in any sense an executive body. It is not to have power to give directions to any Department, or to spend money, or to do anything except report to the Cabinet. It will be purely consultative, and on that point I wish to say a word or two about the concluding observations of the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last. As a purely consultative Committee, not a subordinate branch of the parent body—the Cabinet—which the present Committee of Defence is, I fail to see the cogency of the reasons given by the First Lord of the Treasury for limiting the members of the Committee as he has done. It is quite true that a large Committee is not likely to do as much work as a small Committee. But this Committee is not to do anything but advise, and why a Committee consisting of twelve should be less able to advise than a Committee of eight I cannot understand. That is why I find myself in agreement with the suggestion contained in the last words of the hon. and gallant Member, which was really the same suggestion I ventured to make on the Motion for Adjournment. On this consultative Committee you are putting four Members of the Cabinet and four officers of the Army and Navy. The Committee is to deal with the Army and Navy and nothing else. Why is not the whole Empire represented? Why not take this great opportunity of bringing the colonies into some association with this Committee?
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: By means of permanent officials?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should suggest the Agents General.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: They are not experts.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Neither are Cabinet Ministers experts, nor is this an expert Committee. This is a Committee to advise, and for my part I heartily agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth that the whole of the colonies are as much interested and concerned in this question of Imperial defence as are the people of these islands.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Except that they do not contribute so largely.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is the point I am making under more persuasive, judicious methods than have hitherto been employed. I think the great self-governing colonies may come directly into the list of contributors. That would be my own desire. I would not put it by way of a demand, but I should have thought that there was a fine possibility of this being one of the ways of securing that end—by inviting, on certain occasions at any rate, representatives of the colonies to sit on this consultative body. When I read the terms of the Resolution, I had no doubt that some such hint would be dropped by the Prime Minister. The "growing needs of the Empire" are merely the needs of the two great arms which serve the whole Empire, and to the support of those arms I believe the self-governing colonies will ultimately contribute. There would have been no difficulty, as far as I can see, in associating them in some degree with this consultative body, and I regard it as an omission that no suggestion that such a possibility would be recognised was made in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But, after all, this is an experimental discussion of a great experiment. I do not condemn the principle, or the particular proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but I must associate myself with the desire expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that the final decision of the House should not be claimed on this great experiment until full discussion has been given to it.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I do not often trouble the House with an expression of opinion, but to-day I feel called upon to offer a few remarks in reference to this Resolution. This is a fresh matter in the modern history of the Empire, because we have had formally introduced for the consideration of the House what I might call a scheme of Imperial policy—a policy which will apply not only to the land, but also to the sea. Whether a man fights on the sea or on the land the principles of strategy are unchanged, and it is for the purpose of considering these strategic needs of the. Empire that this Committee of Defence is to be called into operation. I had the privilege of hearing this proposal introduced by the Prime Minister at Liverpool, and I can only say that the impression it produced upon the highly intelligent audience there was not exceeded by the impression which, I think, it has made on the minds of many Members in the House to-day. The details were not so fully gone into on that occasion as they have now been, but at any rate the outline of the scheme was presented to the meeting. The scheme to-day has been more fully described, and although it is a somewhat difficult thing on a question of this kind to throw fresh light upon it, after it has been exhaustively considered by various other speakers who have dealt with it before, yet still there may be one or two points upon which a few remarks may be made.
  One point in this scheme which appears to me to be of great importance is that professional opinion is brought into juxtaposition with the opinion of Ministers who will have weight with their confrè res of Cabinet rank. What we have all been wanting for years past—by "we" I mean those who have given thought to the military needs of the Empire—is that somehow or other the actual requirements of the Navy and of the Army should be put into shape by great naval or military officers, and in that concrete form should be brought to bear upon the minds of Cabinet Ministers, who should themselves have power to put them into execution. What is required for the military needs of the Empire—which includes the naval needs
  1618
  —is that the responsible officers at the head of these two great services should report fully upon what in their opinion would be the actual naval or military needs for the time being. Then the question arises as to whom they should make their report. At the present time, and under the present scheme, the responsible heads of the two great services will be able to lay the needs of their services respectively before Cabinet Ministers, whose presence there will ensure their being thoroughly gone into and put into an efficient action. It has been objected by one or two speakers who have preceded me that this Committee of Defence will have no power to spend money and no executive power whatever. That is perfectly true, but it will have the power of putting things into an authoritative form which must command consideration from those who have the power of carrying them into effect—that is the Cabinet—and it will set forth the result of professional opinions, for which they are professionally responsible; and therefore we have introduced for the first time into our national military policy a principle of responsibility as well as of continuity in administration.
  Now I take it that in the national military policy for the defence of this Empire the three points we have to bear in mind before all others are, first of all, continuity of administration, secondly, efficiency, and thirdly, responsibility. And it does seem to me that these three points are considered in the present scheme of national defence, and that there is a reasonable possibility if this scheme is carried into effect—as I trust it may be at the very earliest possible time—that these three great principles of continuity of administration, of efficiency, and of responsibility will for the first time be put into a form by which they may bear fruit for the effective defence of the Empire. I was greatly pleased to hear that the Prime Minister, by the way in which he brought the scheme forward, considered that the Committee of Defence should be a small one. I have always believed in small Committees. Possibly the size of it in future may be increased, and if there is a future enlargement it may admit of some further representative element for our colonies. At any rate,

  1619
  I think in supporting the Minister in this view that at the present time it would be quite sufficient to have a Defence Committee of the proportions which he has suggested; and that when they have, so to speak, got into gear and working order and formulated the outlines of the plan, and, to some extent, the details of their working scheme, then will be the time when it will be fit to consider whether the Committee can or can not be enlarged. Exception was taken to this by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that it was a strong order that any decision should be come to upon this question to-day. I do not, of course, know what are the intentions of the Government upon the matter, but it does seem to me that an efficient scheme of national defence which we have been looking forward to for years has now been introduced.
  Those of us to whom this subject is very dear—and I may say also that the public at large take an intelligent interest in this question—have been looking forward to this scheme, hoping to see it born, and we are glad to see this scheme officially introduced to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister to-day. It is my earnest desire that a decision may be come to as early as possible upon this Motion, provided that course meets with the approval of my right hon. friend who introduced it. I do not know that I should go into the question to-day, but I will merely conclude by saying that an advisory board, with an appeal to the Cabinet, is to-day to be created; that it will receive the highest professional advice that can be laid before it, and should such a contingency arise as was alluded to by the hon. Member for Dundee—should there be a conflict of opinion between the professional and the civilian element—then there will be the whole Cabinet to fall back upon in order to decide which of the views is right. So that now there is a thoroughly Constitutional and effective safeguard in that particular way, and I think it will meet all requirements. I will conclude by saying that I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having introduced this scheme. I think it is one which will work for the advantage of the nation, and I am
  1620
  quite sure that all thinking soldiers will congratulate him upon having introduced a measure which promises so much good.
  MR. BROADHURST: I have only a few words to urge, and they are entirely from the point of view of the tax-payer. I heard the elaboration of the scheme in the splendid form which the Prime Minister gave it with much pain and concern for the future. I read in between the lines, which were left so wide apart, increased expenditure of millions of money as the probable outcome of the formation of this Defence Committee. We are all desirous that whatever defensive forces we have should be so composed and organised that they should be ready to work in harmony with each other at the shortest possible notice, and with the greatest effect in the interests of the country. But surely that might be accomplished without the appointing of this additional Department of Government, because it is sure to become a Department. To multiply the authorities as you are now going to do does not necessarily mean that you will have increased efficiency and increased safeguards for the objects you aim at in the appointing of this Committee. You are going to have a number of military men and a number of naval men, with a certain number of the Cabinet, joined together as a sort of extra Cabinet, and if these naval and military forces are to be of service you will in the main be ruled and guided and advised by the fighting forces as to any increased necessity for expenditure to make those forces more effective than they are. A man naturally is interested in increasing the cost of the Navy if he is a naval man, and he would be a very poor sailor if he did not take great pride in that branch of the service; and the same can be said of the Army part of the service. A man would be a very poor soldier if he did not take pride in the Army, and therefore these two great military forces will naturally always be advocating increased expenditure for their respective Departments. Consequently, it they are continually recommending increased developments of the Navy and Army, this House will be almost powerless to resist proposals

  1621
  made by a Cabinet backed by so great an authority as this Committee.
  I hope this Committee will not be appointed unanimously, because I believe that it will only increase our military expenditure, and from what we know of the Departments already in existence, I am afraid we shall get but a poor, and probably an altogether inadequate, return of safety in proportion to the enormous cost that will be incurred. This is a momentous day. This Committee will be one of universal interest throughout Europe and America. Its consultations, deliberations, and decisions will be objects desired by every Governments in Europe. You will, for the first time in your history, create a Department which will be besieged by foreign spies looking for chance copy which will probably be transmitted throughout Europe. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] This information will probably be conveyed to Governments chiefly opposed to us, and even if the reports conveyed are false, they will cause a state of unrest which will produce increased armaments abroad. The moment armaments increase abroad they increase at home, and so you go on with a beggar-my-neighbour policy until the whole of Europe is taxed out of existence by this fanciful expenditure in preparation for an European war.
  We all knew or suspected that there was no minute book kept at Cabinet meetings. If I understand aright the Prime Minister suggested that this joint Committee are to keep records in minute books, which are to be handed on from generation to generation of Cabinets. You will want almost an Army Corps to protect the secrecy of these records of the Committee. That itself will be a national danger. The very object of the appointment of a National Committee of Denfence is to secure national safety. These priceless archives which are to be created by the Committee will be besieged by all the nations of the world, in order that they may get copies of them. There may be reasons for the handing on from Government to Government of the general plans that have been discussed, but I sincerely hope that if you have your Committee you will find the means of carrying on its work without preserving in this substantial way every detail of the discussion
  1622
  and the reasons why the decisions were arrived at.
  When I said that this was a momentous day, I was speaking entirely from the taxpayers' point of view. The Prime Minister made a statement during Question time in reply to a Question of my hon. friend the Member for Great Yarmouth which will no doubt have been flashed throughout the world. He stated that we are going to create a great naval base on the East Coast; I am not saying that you should not. The Government, and others besides the Government, have thought for some time past that that part of the country has not been in the state of preparation that it might be for certain eventualities. On that we are all agreed, but you have made the announcement of a great naval base in the northern part of Great Britain, from which you are going to be able in a few years to issue forth a great and mighty fleet, while it is also to serve as a harbour of refuge for your fighting vessels in time of war. What will the Jingoes of Germany, France, and Russia, say? Germany will undoubtedly make counter moves in the same direction, and for the same purpose. A Conservative Government, a few years ago, surrendered Heligoland to Germany. I am not at ail sure that this northern base would have been so necessary now as it is but for the surrender of that island. It was a haven for our fleet, our fishing vessels, and general merchant ships. A naval home in the North will mean an additional permanent expenditure of probably more than £2,000.000 a year. There are a few Members in the House who have not swallowed this proposal without consideration, and I am warning them as to what is to follow. You can laugh and dance until the feast is over, and then comes the reckoning and you laugh no more. The expense of this new naval base will be enormous.
  I believe that the First Lord of the Treasury could easily, if he liked—he. is clever enough for it if he had applied his mind to it—have insisted upon his subordinates connected with the two services devising a scheme whereby greater unity, effectiveness and cooperation between the two branches could have been brought about without the creation of this new Depart-

  1623
  ment. I know that the Prime Minister has only made a very general demand which has been continuously reiterated in this House for two or three years past. I always hoped that he would resist the demand which, in a weaker moment, he has surrendered to, and here we are now launching ourselves forth in all the glory of our Jingo raiment with a great and powerful Committee, so that we shall be ready at any moment to hurl the British Army here, there, and everywhere, and send the Navy to sweep all the seas of the world. All I have to say to-day is that those who accept these proposals must consequently accept full responsibility, not only for the initial cost of the proposals, but for the permanently increased burden which they will involve to this country. The expenditure to-day on the two branches of the service amounts in the aggregate to about £60,000,000—a sum which thirty years ago represented your entire revenues. You have a great deal more than doubled your expenditure on the Navy and the Army combined.
  If all that is foreshadowed in this Resolution is agreed to by the House and carried into effect, together with the increased expenditure for a naval base on the East Coast, we shall in all probability add permanently to the expenditure of the country at least ten millions a year. I am second to none in my desire to see the interests of the country efficiently and effectively safeguarded both by land and by water, but I fear that this additional authority, this further division of responsibility, this delegation of the duties of the Cabinet, which is the proper Defence Committee, will certainly mean an increase of expenditure without any adequate increase in the efficiency of the Army and Navy. Unless I hear before the debate closes some better defence of the proposal, or some assurance from the Government that this is not going to lead to an enormous increase of expenditure, I am afraid that I shall have to take a division against the Motion on financial grounds in order to test the feeling of the House as to the proposed policy, which at present appears to be wild and extravagant.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If the hon. Member who has just spoken had studied the suggestion made by the First Lord of the Treasury—for it is only a suggestion—he would have been satisfied that there is no immediate expenditure involved at all; and as to what it will ultimately involve, that is entirely another matter. The hon. Member spoke as if this were to be a new Department. It is nothing of the sort. There are eight members—four of them members of the Cabinet, and four of them special Members already in the services. They are existing functionaries, who are formed into this Committee to meet together and consult. I should strongly object to the formation of a new Department, because a Department of this description might obtain too much power and become a great danger. That is my objection to the formation of anything corresponding to the German General Staff. That would be a new departure and a costly one. But this is a different thing. Those who have considered the tremendous problems involved in military and naval defence—the problems of defence connected with the co-ordination of the two forces according to the needs of the Empire—must rejoice that for once in its existence the House of Commons has had the opportunity of discussing these matters to-day and deliberating upon the suggested Committee of Defence put before it by my right hon. friend. I am not only very glad that we have had this scheme put before us, but also because of the tone in which my right hon. friend spoke in putting it forward. He has put forward an abstract proposition which affirms the desirability of permanency, and he has also in the course of the debate stated that while the new Defence Committee exists, it exists only in an experimental and tentative form.
  It has been provisionally determined; it is experimental and tentative so far. Consequently, taking that and the terms of the Resolution into account, it is quite manifest that what my right hon. friend desires is, if I may say so, to take the House into his confidence and invite it to make some suggestions for the further

  1625
  improvement of the Committee. As one who has given a great deal of thought for many years to this subject, I wish to offer a few reflections on the scheme, and to make a few practical suggestions. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked: "What is the need of this Committee? You have your military and naval advisers, and you can consult them. if is a thing which has never yet existed." I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have asked such a question. He must be well aware that all those who have considered the great strategic problem connected with the defence of this Empire, and the great importance of determining the relative proportions of the Army and the Navy and their functions, have seen the necessity for having something, not in the nature of the German general staff, but a body which is in the position to have all the information before it and to co-ordinate the duties of the two forces. That is what is wanted, and I am the more surprised at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, because it was in the right hon. Gentleman's own Government that the idea of a Cabinet Defence Committee was first started.
  The root idea is that we should have some body outside the highest military and naval authorities which will be able to take a whole worldwide scope of the political and strategic situation and consider what the relative naval and military forces should be and where they should be placed. Well, there was the Committee of Defence, but I have always supposed that that was an impossible body to advise the Cabinet, or to tell the Cabinet what it did not know already, or to persuade it to do that which it was not already persuaded to accomplish. For it was nothing more than a few members of the Cabinet itself. It was said by the present Secretary to the Admiralty that the Cabinet Committee of Defence was a huge joke and a grotesque imposture. I do not think that the picture was overdrawn. How huge the joke was, and how grotesque the imposture, is shown by certain examples which the House may have in its memory. Take the Mediterranean. Since this Cabinet Committee of Defence has been in existence it has allowed things to take place in the Mediterranean
  1626
  which have tremendously altered and impaired the position of our power in that sea. We have Egypt to look after, and we must find a considerable Army of occupation for it. But that Army of occupation necessitates our naval presence there, which tends to divide our Mediterranean fleet. Under these circumstances what has occurred? We have seen tremendous questions raised in Tripoli and in Morocco. France is even now massing troops on the western frontier of Algeria towards Morocco. In addition to that, there is the most startling development of Russian power in the Mediterranean. The Black Sea has now become one vast Russian arsenal. It became so from the moment she was allowed to pass her warships unchallenged through. the Dardanelles. It is true that they go without their guns mounted, but there is no difficulty about their getting through, and once passed in or out they may be armed on the other side, or they may come out with their guns in their holds. That makes the Black Sea one huge Russian arsenal in which navies may be prepared unwatched and unhindered, and whence they may issue unchecked. The Cabinet Committee has seen that prepared and has allowed it to take place.
  Then this grand Committee of Defence has allowed that monstrous waste of £5,000,000 of public money on the western side of Gibraltar, although the Cabinet knew well that it was impossible to make the new works there safe or tenable, and that to make them tenable they would require to provide another Army Corps. All this has gone on during the existence of the Cabinet Defence Committee! It has also allowed a most vital and important maritime right hitherto enjoyed by this country to be given up. I allude to the right of search of mail steamers during a state of war. That right was given up to Germany during the Boer War, and it follows that you have given it up to the whole world. That is a matter most essential to the interests of the Empire, and my opinion is that, if there had been an adequate Committee of Defence, the surrender of that right could not have been made.
  SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs): It has not been given up.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Undoubtedly it has. What occurred was this: we had the right in war to stop neutral ships when we had reason to believe that they were carrying on board contraband of war. On that ground we stopped two or three steamers. But remonstrances were made by Germany. At that moment we had the "Herzog," a vessel which was notoriously choke-full of contraband of war: but, on the remonstrance of Germany, Lord Salisbury peremptorily instructed Lord Goschen to give orders for the release of the ship. As a consequence of the communications with and something like menace by Germany, we finally agreed that we would not search any ship nearer to Delagoa Bay than Aden, and that no German mail ship should be searched at all. That right having been surrendered to Germany, it would be impossible to deny the surrender of it to any other power. That surrender, I am convinced, would not have taken place if we had had a properly constituted Committee of Defence. It is time therefore that some new body, more competent, more capable, and of greater working power, should be set up. I think there are some very serious defects in the scheme as presented by the First Lord of the Treasury, and I respectfully submit that certain improvements are capable of being made in it. Let me magnify the functions of this Committee. There has never been a time in the history of this country or of the world when problems so complex, so wide-spread, and so far-reaching have arisen. They are those with which this Committee of Defence will have to deal. Our territories and our responsibilities are world-wide, our frontiers by land and by sea. in all four quarters of the globe. We have indeed only a small land frontier in Europe, but: in Asia we have a most extended and important land frontier. In America we have a land frontier of great length, regarding which the most delicate and difficult questions may arise, which it is only possible for such a Committee to consider thoroughly, if it is a really adequate and competent body; and in Africa we have also extensive land frontiers. Then we
  1628
  have our sea frontier, and to my mind that frontier is wherever the five-fathom line touches a foreign coast. But if this Defence Committee is to be a competent body, every day and all day long it must have the whole map of the world before its eyes, and in its mind all the changes which are making or have been made in the frontiers of all the Powers. No such problems, none so wide and varied as these, were ever before presented to the statesman or the strategist. Nor Napoleon nor Moltke, neither Xerxes nor Alexander had such things to deal with on such a theatre. And to deal with them demands the best of the life of the best of the men we have, and the whole of their time. Seeking to form a body with such functions to perform, which will decide on the whole destinies of the Empire, we cannot safely entrust its duties to amateurs or dilettanti, or even to Ministers occupied with the affairs of their own Departments, nor to the Commander-in-Chief or Intelligence officers whose whole time is occupied with their particular duties. We should commit it to a permanent outside body having no other business. We should, in my opinion, commit it to a permanent Royal Commission—a consultative Commission with full powers of acquiring information, but subject to the Cabinet. But on this I will not now enlarge. There is another point, perhaps the most important of all, to which such a Committee as this should direct their attention.
  It is said that the proportions of the Army and Navy, and the work of the Army and Navy, are to some extent co-ordinated in the mind of the Commander-in-Chief and First Naval Lord, but it is a one-sided consideration, and there never come before them political considerations which are of the most intense importance. The Committee of Defence, such as I hope this one will develop itself to be, has the most tremendous political problems to consider. Let the House remember our treaty engagements. Our treaties and guarantees cover the whole world. They extend to Belgium, Luxembourg. Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Portugal, Greece, Muscat, and China. At any time, and in the most unexpected way, any one of these guarantees may force us, for the

  1629
  honour of our flag, to go to war, and that must be constantly in the mind of the Committee. Again, there are other equally serious political trammels. Take the Declaration of Paris, by which this country has undertaken that we will not seize our enemy's goods carried in neutral bottoms. That has been denounced by everybody, by Lord Derby, Lord Beaconsfield, and Lord Roberts, who said that it struck at the root of our naval power. If Lord Roberts is to be a member of the Defence Committee, I hope his opinion will be considered. It is precisely these matters, which have never been considered before, which this Committee will have to discuss, and upon which they will have to come to a decision. Lord Salisbury himself said this of the Declaration of Paris
  "I believe that the fleet, admirable as it is for preventing the invasion of these shores, is, since the Declaration of Paris, almost valueless for any other purpose.
  And Lord Salisbury gives specific grounds for his belief. These "rounds will have to be examined, and in the event of the Committee coming to the conclusion that these grounds are serious, it will be their duty to submit them to the consideration of the Cabinet.
  I venture to lay down certain conditions which ought to obtain in any Committee or Council of Defence. My first point is that it should be permanent. And here I would remark that to my mind one very serious objection to the plan now suggested is that there is no evidence that permanency is now proposed. There are to be, on the pro posed Committee four Cabinet Ministers who we know are not permanent. There are the Commander-in-Chief, the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, and the Military and Naval Intelligence Officers. I believe I am right in saying that although there is no absolute rule to that effect, it is the rarest thing in the world for either of these four officers to hold office for more than five years, and if this be the ordinary allowance of time for these officers it is a generous allowance for a Cabinet Minister. Consequently there is not there the element of permanency. I say you must have permanency or you have nothing adequate. I say that the members of the Committee must live with their important functions; they must think of them, take them
  1630
  home with them, sleep with them, dream of them, and never lose hold of them. A Defence Committee that sleeps or slumbers or folds its hands or gives only an intermittent attention must be inadequate. My second point is that it is absolutely necessary to keep consecutive records and to preserve them for the next Government. And the records must be kept by the Committee itself. Now then who is going to draw up and to have charge of the records? Is one of these eight men to keep the records, and is it possible that any one of them can be a proper archivist? Every report will be of the most intense importance. An hon. Member opposite suggested that these reports will be the object of espionage and bribery on the part of every other Power in the world; out without going to that length, they will undoubtedly be some of the most important records of the Empire, and their guardian should he a very important person and an altogether permanent person. Consequently, one of the suggestions I should make is that such a functionary as I name—an archivist—should be permanently appointed for life, with a salary adequate to the importance of his position. He would be a sort of Master of the Rolls, would be the custodian of the records, and would himself be invaluable to the Committee as embodying in his memory a record of the proceedings. Then, in my belief, it is essential that the Committee should have as one of its standing members, with at least a consultative voice, a, competent international lawyer, and I am not sure he might not be one and the same person as the guardian of the records whom I have called the archivist. For the Committee will be confronted at every turn by questions of the Law of Nations, which it must determine before it can proceed further. My third point is that the Committee must have the fullest access to all sources of information; and should be able to call before it the Permanent Secretary or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and all documents should be open to it.
  Perhaps the House will allow me to say that when I lay down conditions which I think to be essential, I am to some extent assisted by the fact that I myself have been a member of this very kind of Committee. Our Gibraltar

  1631
  Committee was this very kind of Committee. We had to consider political considerations, then military considerations, and, finally naval considerations, and we had to co-ordinate the whole. There should, therefore, be most complete records—though there are, of course, certain details which need not be recorded—and a full account should be kept. But if you do not provide an archivist who is to make the record? You cannot bring a casual shorthand writer in and let him take the proceedings down and then go away. Then there is another matter to which I attach very great importance indeed. The House knows that a large part of the value of discussions in this House arises from the fact that in this House every Member is equal. There is no inequality as between members, and the result is that sometimes an entirely unsuspected Member gives the House information and suggestions of a most valuable character.
  My fourth point, then, is that equality must also exist in a Committee of this sort if it is to be a Committee of intelligence, of ideas, and above all of suggestion. It must be a Committee that has imagination, that can let its mind roam over the various portions of the Empire, and it must have its mind free for conception of plans, methods, devices. To that end it is absolutely necessary that its members should be on an equality. There again I see a defect. You are going to have on this Committee the First Naval Lord and his subordinate the Naval Intelligence Officer. An Intelligence Officer does not dare to call his soul his own before a First Naval Lord. Then again there will be the Commander-in-Chief and his Intelligence Officer, and above these will be the four tremendous members of the Cabinet, to join in debate and in an overpowering body to discuss matters with these gentlemen, their inferiors and subordinates. The whole thing will be unequal. At one end you will have inferior persons who will not be fitted to give their whole mind and imagination—which is most valuable—to this Committee; and they will be under a feeling of oppression by the presence of these superior persons. My fifth point is that among the things necessary there must be, of course, absolute
  1632
  secrecy. No word must transpire anywhere, not even in this House, and of course precautions will have to be taken as to that, precautions which can only be adequately furnished by giving the Committee itself charge of its own records. Finally, my sixth point is that any decision that may be taken must not be anything but of an advisory character. It would he most improper and dangerous in any way to fetter the discretion and responsibility of the Cabinet. The Cabinet must be responsible for all great measures that may be taken.
  I lay down these conditions, and I think them essential; and I will tell the House frankly that in my opinion these conditions are to be obtained not by a Committee as suggested but only by the establishment of a permanent, paid Royal Commission who will make it the business of their lives, and who would give up all else and think of and live for this alone. That would not he too much to ask. I would make the Commissioners four in number, and I would charge their salaries on the Consolidated Fund. I would provide them with an archivist, and would charge his salary on the Consolidated Fund, in order, as I frankly admit, to prevent any of the acts of the Commission, which must be wholly secret, from being discussed even in this House. I am not now going to enter upon that proposed Royal Commission, which I believe to be the proper form of this body, as I only desire to make some practical suggestions with regard to the Committee as actually now proposed. The First Lord of the Treasury has said that he holds it to be important that there should be a strong Cabinet element on the Committee. I, on the contrary, believe it is important that there should be no such Cabinet element on it. I see no necessity for it. Why are the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty to be members? Where is the need? Every military suggestion of the Committee must first come before the Secretary of State for War, and every naval suggestion must come before the First Lord of the Admiralty, for his decision; and then his decision must at last come before the Cabinet. Therefore, I do not think it desirable that there should be a strong Cabinet element. What I do think desirable and indispensable is that

  1633
  the First Lord of the Treasury should have unchallenged access to this Committee, and that he should be an ex-officio member of it as First Lord of the Treasury. For he is the Prime Minister, the leader and master of the Cabinet, and, nothing should be kept from him. I notice what seems to be some uncertainty as to the composition of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said that the present President of the Council was to be a member, but he suggested that not every other President of the Council was to be a member. I should have supposed that once you attach membership to an office, the holder of that office would necessarily succeed his predecessor as a member of the Committee.
  I venture to make these few suggestions because, in my view, the matter is one of the most intense importance. When we are replacing a worn-out, useless and grotesque imposture by a new body we should take the greatest pains to make it fit to carry on its duties, otherwise we may create, not a new security, but a new danger for the Empire. I make these suggestions in no spirit of hostility, but in a spirit of friendliness to the scheme. I trust they will be considered, as I believe they will; and that in the end the country may be endowed with a body capable of discharging the tremendous duties which will devolve on it, duties greater than and incomparable with those imposed on any other Government or any other country. No leaders of any nation ever vet had to consider problems such as we have to deal with. They are increasing day by day in complexity and in vita] importance, and I trust the outcome of this deliberation may be that such a body may be' constituted as may safely be entrusted with the tremendous destinies with which it will have to deal.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member began his remarks by saying that he thoroughly approved of the scheme laid before the House by the first Lord of the Treasury, and then he immediately proceeded to pick the scheme to pieces. It is un-
  1634
  questionably true that no provision has been made for keeping records, but I cannot agree with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman that there should be set up a permanent paid Royal Commission with an archivist and all the rest of it. After all there have been very important decisions of the Admiralty and the War Office which are kept secret from the public, but which are available to officers in the Navy and Army; and, therefore, although there may be inconvenience and a certain lack of regularity and arrangement in the provisions suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury, I do not share that escape of knowledge which seems to haunt the hon. Member for King's Lynn.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What I fear is that there is no provision for keeping the knowledge. I do not suggest that it would escape, but I see no provision for keeping it.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I hope the Government will not set up an archivist, because it seems to mo that these records could be best kept as documents have been kept in the past, in duplicate, one at the War Office and the other at the Admiralty. [An HON. MEMBER: Who is to keep them?] Who keeps the records at the present moment at the Admiralty and the War Office? No special officer is told off to keep them. If a special officer is to be appointed to keep the records of the Committee, the fear expressed by my hon. friend the Member for Leicester is not so ill-placed or far distant as hon. Members seem to think—viz., that the Committee might develop into a Department, gradually accumulating to itself very considerable spending powers. If we set up an archivist, as the hon. Member suggested, we are not very far from the expensive Department foreshadowed by my hon. friend the Member for Leicester. What I think has escaped the notice of the House is that this proposal is by no means a new one. Similar proposals have been made before, and it is very curious to notice that so great has been the change in public opinion that a proposal which then met, so far as I can trace it, with very little notice, and very little approbation from the

  1635
  public at large has been to-day received unanimously on both sides of the House. That shows a very great change in public opinion, but it none the less shows a very significant growth of public opinion on this question.
  Then there is the question of permanence. It is quite true Commanders-in-Chief and Secretaries of State disappear at the end of five years, but so far as I can make out the terms of office of those gentlemen overlap, and, therefore, it is improbable that four of the Committee will go out together, and still more improbable that the other four will go at the same time. I think that has escaped the notice of hon. Gentlemen who have noticed this part of the Committee's working, and it gives a greater value to it than it would otherwise possess. The only pity is that this Committee was not set up before the present Estimates were set up in this House. It has not been mentioned, but it is the fact that the Army Estimates this year are no less than £31,500,000, which is an increase of £2,500,000 on the normal Army Estimates. If those Estimates could have been submitted to a really responsible Committee I venture to think that a great part of that increase would not have been presented to the country, but by some means or other that increased expenditure would have been eliminated. It would be out of order to discuss those Estimates now, but that points to the uselessness of the old Cabinet Defence Committee. And speaking of that I should like to know if the Colonial Defence Committee has ceased to exist. That was a most important body, comprised of the War Office, the Colonial Office, the Admiralty, and the Foreign Office, which drew up a detailed, clear. and specific plan for the defence of the colonies. Their records were kept, and they laid down a systematic plan for the defence of the country. That Committee attracted no attention, because it was practically unknown, but I should like to know whether it exists at the present moment; whether any part of these Estimates have come under their notice; whether they have made any recommendations with regard to them; and whether the new system,
  1636
  now being set up in continuation of the old, will have any influence on the Estimates of this country more than the old Defence Committee have had. Because if we are to judge of the future by the past I very much doubt whether this Council will have that chastening influence on the Estimates which we hope they will have.
  There is one other point which I should like to touch. The hon. Member for King's Lynn seemed to think this Committee ought to have its whole time taken up in considering questions of military and naval defence. I do not think that ought to be the conception of the duties of a Committee of this sort. The information will be collected by the naval and military Intelligence Departments and that information ought to be full, sufficient, and final. The deliberations of this Committee ought not to extend to obtaining now matter but rather adapting and considering the matter already submitted to them by the Intelligence Departments. If that is the true conception of the duties of this Committee it is quite clear they need not meet more than occasionally, and need not have their whole time taken up by the consideration of schemes of defence; but they will rather, if fresh information is presented to them from time to time, be able with the assistance of their political confrè res to take into consideration the whole scheme of defence as a whole. I think I need not detain the House longer. All I have to say is that if this arrangement is to be of any real use the officers who compose it must be entirely free from the influence of their superior officers. You will have inferior officers sitting side by side with their superior officers, and unless the directors of military intelligence, both Navy and Army, are kept entirely free from the Executive of the Army and Navy, as they are in every country but this, they will be useless members of this body. If they are kept free from the Executive they will have at their disposal useful, nay indispensable, information, which no other member of the Committee can have. If that plan is adopted, this Committee will be a success; if it is not, it will be a. failure.
  *MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I hope if I make a few suggestions they will not he taken as captious criticism by the right hon. Gentleman who proposed this Motion. I see for my part one very serious objection to the constitution of this Committee. It may, I fear, be taken as a substitute for what, in my opinion, is essential, that is to say, a great general staff for the Army. The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the origin of this Committee of Defence. It was a suggestion thrown out by the Hartington Commission, but that Commission only said it might be advantageous that such a Committee should be constituted. But the main suggestion of the Hartington Commission was, that a general staff of the Army should be created. That was the main recommendation. The Cabinet Committee of Defence was only a suggestion which went hand in hand with the larger proposal. It is only the minor suggestion that has been adopted. The main recommendation has been ignored. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has pointed out the enormous complexity of the questions which must come under the purview of the Defence Committee, and I submit it is quite impossible that these great and complex questions can ever be fully and properly considered by such a body. The work described should be the lifework of those concerned in it; they should devote their whole time to the consideration of the problems with which they have to deal; and I do not believe that Cabinet Ministers and officials already overloaded with other responsible duties, can possibly find the time in which to give the requisite attention to these great matters. The Hartington Commission was emphatic on this point, and I cannot understand why its recommendations as to a Chief of the Staff presiding over a special Department have never been adopted.
  The recent debate on the Army Estimates seemed to me to show considerable confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to the difference between the Intelligence Department and a General Staff. The collection of information is one thing, but its digestion and assimilation is quite another. My contention, and the contention of the Hartington
  1638
  Commission is, that the information when collected should be submitted to a Department, which upon that information should found its plans and base its requirements. Until this is done, and until a general staff is constituted composed of experts both of the Army and the Navy, I do not believe there is any great hope of these plans and requirements being worked out. The Committee of Defence will certainly not. fulfil these objects. What its past has been we all know: we cannot tell what its future will be. We can only hope. Looking at its past history we know it has never fulfilled what was expected of it when it was constituted. The intention of the Hartington Commission was to place the control and guidance of the whole war power of the country in the hands of a Committee of the Cabinet, presided over by the Lord President of the Council. In 1895 we find the present Secretary of State for War, then in opposition, closely criticising the Council and asking whether records had been kept, as was suggested by the Hartington Commission. In 1896 the same right hon. Gentleman, then in office, told the House that the Council had been turned into a reality. So that upon the right hon. Gentleman's authority until then, at all events, it had been a sham. Since 1890, although the Secretary of State for War has had control, no records have been kept, and the very steps which he himself considered necessary in 1895 have not been taken. It seems to me that whenever the military policy of this country is seriously criticised, this Committee of National Defence is produced, like Seigel's Syrup, as a panacea for all ills. I feel sure that in addition to this Committee a Department of general staff for the Army should be created, and that this step is an essential feature in any real measure of Army Reform.
  MR. BRYCE: This matter does not raise any questions in the domain of Party, and I can assure the Prime Minister that if my right hon. friend and others amongst us desired to have a fuller opportunity of discussion, it was not because we underrated the importance of this proposal, but rather because we thought there ought to be ample time for reflection and consideration of the question in all its bearings before the House expressed any opinion upon it. There are unquestionably some good

  1639
  points in the scheme, and they have been very generally recognised on both sides of the House. It is a real advantage that there should he a formal and definite method provided by which the authorities of the Army and of the Navy—both the Minister responsible and the permanent official—should constantly be brought into contact for the purpose of settling a general scheme of defence. The problem before us is an excessively complicated problem, branching out into many directions, each having aspects of its own. For instance, the problem of the North-West Frontier of India is entirely distinct and unique; it cannot be considered to have a parallel in any part of the Empire. But all the greater is the reason for looking upon the question as one for endeavouring to bring all the concentrated forces of naval, military, and diplomatic knowledge to bear. Diplomatic knowledge must be recognised in this matter. All defence is largely a question of policy.
  I should have felt much disappointed if we had not had from the First Lord of the Treasury an assurance that the Foreign Secretary would be, at least on many occasions, a member of this Committee. I do not think that a decision with regard to defence, particularly in the case of the North-West Frontier of India, could possibly be arrived at without the presence and counsel of the Secretary of State for India, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is also a great advantage that the representatives of the Army and the Navy should be brought face to face with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that both those Ministers—the one in his function of generally overlooking the whole policy of the Government, and the other as responsible for finance—should be directly confronted with those who make the demands for military and naval expenditure. Many troubles might have been avoided in the past if, instead of being at arm's-length, they had been constantly in contact, and if the skilled advisers had been brought into direct contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of their views merely filtering through the responsible Minister. So far, therefore, I think there are real advantages in the scheme, and I should be the last person to deny the possibilities which the scheme in these respects holds out. I think, too, it has this advantage:
  1640
  that the fact that the country has an assurance that continued and steady attention will be given to these problems may do something to avert panic such as we have from time to time suffered from. I am old enough to remember the panic of 1859-1860, and we all remember that there was a similar panic a few years ago. If we know that there is be an authority of this kind, meeting not only at moments of Imperial danger, but regularly, it will go far to reassure the country. At the same time, I think that this debate has disclosed on the part of many Members an expectation of more results from this Committee than can reasonably be expected from any Committee. The hon. Member for King's Lynn referred to several points in regard to which he thought errors had been committed. But those errors are just as likely to be committed by this Committee. There are many problems in this world which are not solved by Committees or Royal Commissions, and upon which the best and wisest men would differ, and their decisions shown by the future to be wrong. Nothing more could be done than to provide the best possible opportunity for discussion, and I think this Committee will at any rate afford a better prospect than we have hitherto had of all these things being thoroughly discussed.
  As regards finance, I cannot agree with my hon. friend the Member for Leicester, that this Committee will necessarily involve increased expenditure; neither do I feel sure that it will lead to a reduction of expenditure. But it ought to lead to a reduction, because it should ensure expenditure in one direction being considered in reference to expenditure in another, although such matters of expenditure do not necessarily depend on one another. It does not follow because we spend more on the Army that we should spend less on the Navy, but it seems to me that the more we take a wide view of the problem, the better chance there is that it will be dealt with in an economical spirit. These things do not depend upon machinery, but upon the temper of the country and the men elected to Parliament. No machinery can go very far.
  Premising that I am not desirous of criticising the scheme in a hostile spirit, let me advert to a few possible drawbacks, or, at any rate, risks, which seem to be

  1641
  involved. One relates to the question of keeping records. I suppose the Prime Minister will keep the record.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be kept at the Foreign Office.
  MR. BRYCE: By some Foreign Office official, I suppose. That, to some extent, meets my point. Passing by that, therefore. I come to the question of the permanent element, consisting of the Commander-in-Chief, the First Sea Lord, and the respective heads of the two Intelligence Departments. It is a real difficulty that the heads of the intelligence Departments are subordinate officers, because sentiment and tradition are so strong in the two services that it is not easy to induce a subordinate to express an opinion different from that of his chief. I cannot help feeling that these heads of the Intelligence Department, being subordinate officers, may be governed by that sentiment and tradition, and not exercise a sufficiently independent judgment. I should have thought that instead of making them members of the Committee it would have been better to put them in the position of assessors—that is to say, of persons who are not members but who are called in to sit with the Committee: not being asked to give a vote, if it comes to a vote, but simply to communicate facts and answer questions. In that position they might have been sufficiently free to express an opinion, whereas they would not feel free to vote against their chief. I really think it would have been better, both for them and for the work of the Committee, if they had been put on a different basis from the other members. Any system under which you associate permanent officials with members of the Cabinet is to some extent a departure from, or an infringement of, your Cabinet system. The system of Cabinet responsibility in this country is a very peculiar system, and I do not think you can put persons outside the Cabinet on the same footing as persons inside without more or less weakening the Cabinet system. It must be borne in mind that these eminent officials are specialists. They are not accustomed to look upon these questions as a matter of general policy, or to keep their finger on the pulse of the country, or to watch foreign policy, or to deal with financial questions, or to know how much the country can spend in the way of taxation, or how
  1642
  much the House of Commons will accept. They are, therefore, really not in the same position for expressing an opinion upon these questions as are members of the Cabinet. Then they have a natural tendency, as all specialists have, to magnify the importance of their own Department, and to think that their first duty is to make every possible demand on the part of their Department. Professional opinion expects to ask not for what is necessary, or even what is desirable, but for all that the most advanced professional opinion wishes. A man in the position of the Commander-in-Chief or the first Sea Lord is necessarily influenced by professional opinion, and it is very hard for him to bring himself into the same position in considering these matters as a member of the Cabinet.
  I do not say that these are insuperable difficulties, but they ought to be borne in mind as being drawbacks, necessarily incidental to the scheme of putting permanent specialists on the same footing as members of the Cabinet. After all the decision must rest with the Cabinet. The Cabinet must not suppose that the existence of this Committee is to lessen the responsibility of individual members of the Cabinet. Every member of the Cabinet ought to consider himself responsible for everything done by that Committee. It would be a great misfortune to our system of Government if the existence of this Committee led members of the Cabinet to acquiesce in what the Committee had decided merely because it had so decided. The particular proposition laid before us is really one which might have been carried into effect by the Government without coming to the House of Commons at all. I hardly understand, except it be for the purpose of giving us a peg on which to hang a debate, why the House of Commons should have been asked to express an opinion. What was done before was done by the Government, and what is being done now could be done by the Government; it does not require a Minute; it requires only a resolution of the Cabinet for certain members to meet these permanent officials in consultation.
  I should like to remark on a peculiarity of the Motion. The Motion is that the growing needs of the Empire require the

  1643
  establishment of "the" Committee of Defence on a permanent footing. Is any Committee of Defence, in the sense of a Committee of Defence, known to this House? It certainly is not known to law. This seems to me to be a recognition by a side wind in a manner which is rather novel, and I should have thought that the object of the Government would have been well met by saying "a" in stead of "the" Committee of Defence.
  The House will have gathered from what I have said that we on this side do not object to the Motion, and that we do not propose to challenge the opinion of the House upon it. The Government put it forward as a tentative and experimental proposal, and it is in that sense that we do not object to it. It is perfectly right that experiments should be tried in this way, and that if the experience of the last seven years has convinced the Government that the form in which this Committee has hitherto existed is not satisfactory they should be allowed to try another form. But at the same time I am sure it will be understood that in not objecting to the action the Government propose to take, we are not committing ourselves to this proposal in any permanent form; we are only agreeing that it is an experiment which they may fairly try.
  MAJOR RASCH: I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Leicester that this will lead to greatly increased expenditure. I think that coordination and common-sense in the Committee of Defence is likely to reduce rather than increase expenditure. I was not at all surprised to hear the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, because on the Hartington Commission thirty years ago he opposed the formation of a general staff, and I think that this proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury is something in the nature of a general staff. The right hon. Gentleman opposite opposed the proposal then on the ground that a General ought to know what he had got to do when he arrives on the ground, and that a general staff would make this country more bellicose and warlike than before. I think certain unofficial bodies in this House, who have shown an intelligent interest in events before they happen, ought to receive some
  1644
  credit for the Resolution proposed to-day, because as long ago as last session they tabled an Amendment to the Address intending to move it this session, which Amendment has been practically taken up and adopted in the Resolution to-day. Of course the necessity for a reconstruction of the Committee of Defence has been absolutely evident to everybody—at any rate since the events of the last few years. Nobody knew how to fix the responsibility on those who were responsible for the Fleet, which Lord Charles Beresford told us had practically to be refitted and strongly increased in 1901. Those two memoranda which had been alluded to, one coming from the War Office and the other from the Admiralty at the time of the Conference of Colonial Premiers, each pointing in opposite directions, showed the necessity for some such proposal as this. As far as the old Committee of Defence went perhaps I may say that nobody as far as I know could understand its raison d'ê tre. Apparently it seldom met; it took no minutes; had no records;: could spend no money; gave no account of itself: and the only thing we knew about it was that the Duke of Devonshire was chairman. Surely it was time such an organisation made way for something else. I cannot understand why it lasted so long, and I am glad it has been got rid of. I beg to thank the First Lord of the Treasury for what he has done in this matter.
  *MR. STEVENSON: I rise to support the proposal which has been put before the House, subject to certain information which may come to hand as to the precise constitution and mode of action of the Committee. As far as the principle is concerned an instrument is now produced which is to secure greater co-ordination between the operations of the Army and those of the Navy. That seems an object deserving of praise, but it will depend for its success upon the manner in which it is administered. The cardinal factor affecting the safety of the British Empire is that, apart from the Indian frontier, there is no part of the world in which we should be likely to clash with other Powers, where our Army and Navy would not require to co-operate. It appears to me to be absolutely essential that some arrangement should be arrived at by which the two forces can be directed from one and

  1645
  the same head. The hon. and gallant Member who sits for Stepney expressed some apprehension that the creation of this Committee might retard the constitution of a chief of the staff for both the Army and the Navy. There appears to be no actual reason why the constitution of this Committee should produce any such effect. On the contrary ought it not to accelerate some consummation of that kind? If you have a Committee consisting partly of members of the Cabinet, and partly of the great officers of the Army and the Navy, you will be able to bring to bear such influence as will lead to the most speedy creation of a Staff, whether it be a General Staff or a Chief with certain advisers, which can direct from one source the operations of both forces. Not only will that be the case, but the creation of a Ministry of this kind may also accelerate another process for which opinion is not at the present time ready, and it would probably be regarded as a very dangerous proposal in some quarters I allude to the abolition of the Admiralty and the War Office as separate Departments, and their reconstitution as a Ministry of Imperial Defence. It seems to me that the tendency is to bring about more co-operation between the two classes of the Service. The establishment of a Committee of this kind and the formation of a general staff, and the ultimate amalgamation of the two offices into one, are distinct signs that there is a tendency in that direction which I think will be one of great utility. Then comes the point whether this Committee will tend to diminish or increase the expenditure. Of course ever) thing depends upon the policy carried out. I think there is more reason why a proposal of this kind should diminish instead of increasing expenditure, because, while it will enable the shortcomings to be more patent, it will at the same time be bringing the Army element into such close relation to the naval element that it will enable them to spend less money in one direction so as to counterbalance more being spent in another direction. Of course it does not follow that the expenditure will be reduced, and everything depends upon the way this work is done, but I think there is primâ facie evidence that there is more reason to expect a diminution of expenditure than an increase.
  1646
  I now return to some utterances from the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He enumerated a very large number of guarantees which we have signed, and responsibilities and obligations which we have incurred in various parts of the world, and he mentioned Belgium, Switzerland, Asia Minor, the Far East, Muscat, and so forth. He mentioned them as if they were to come within the purview of this now Committee of Defence. But is that the case? Surely it is to act as a Consultative Committee and not to deal with these general questions of policy for which the Cabinet alone can be responsible. No doubt the hon. Member for King's Lynn was correct in his surmise that upon these questions certain distinct duties might be offered to this Committee. I will take a concrete instance. There is the question of our responsibilities with regard to Belgium. Those obligations rest upon the treaty made in the thirties and a memorandum of 1870. The Cabinet must know to what extent those old obligations still hold good and to what extent it would be desirable to carry them into effect. They can probably ascertain all this from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but they should also have some knowledge as to how those obligations could be carried out. By means of a Committee of this kind, such information would be placed within their purview and it would be at their very doors. Not only would this Committee enable the Cabinet to know how these obligations should be discharged, but also, if there were any doubt in the mind of the Cabinet as to whether that obligation was still in existence, the advice of a Committee of that kind purely on the strategic side of the question might afford the determining factor to continue or not continue that obligation. There might arise naval or military considerations, and the preliminary advice given on these grounds alone by a Committee of that kind would be a very useful factor in determining the Cabinet to arrive at this or that decision. Of course this question is one which rests entirely with the Cabinet, and they ought not to shift their responsibility on to the back of a Committee of that kind.

  1647
  I might go into those obligations enumerated by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and it seems to me that questions of that kind do not rest with the suggested Committee of Defence, although that Committee might furnish most useful advice from a strategic point of view, in the event of any doubt arising as to whether those obligations were in our power to discharge, and whether it was our duty to discharge them. There is one point of detail, and it is in regard to the way those records should be kept. I understand by an interjection made by the Prime Minister that these records are to be kept in the Foreign Office. I do not know whether he means they are to be kept by a Foreign Office clerk, or kept in the custody of the Foreign Secretary. A copy of these records will be kept at the War Office, at the Admiralty, and also at the Foreign Office. Obviously the risk of publicity becomes greater when you have three records than when you have one, and this fact ought not to be left out of sight. Perhaps some means may be adopted by which any danger of that kind may be prevented. These are matters perhaps more of detail than for consideration at the present stage of the discussion, and, in conclusion, I desire merely to say that on general grounds, and with full reservation as to details, I desire to welcome the scheme which has been placed before the House to-day.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCAS: It seems to me there is not much to be said against this scheme on principle, and what there is to be said is more upon matters of detail. This has been an interesting opportunity for considering what details there are likely to be. The hon. Member for King's Lynn was quite on wrong ground, and very dangerous ground, when he advocated the formation of a large paid Commission. What we want to establish is Cabinet responsibility and not a separate paid body which will enable the Cabinet to shift its responsibility. I think we ought also to declare as distinctly as possible that we stand for Cabinet responsibility. The hon. Member for Dundee threw cold water on the proposal, and compared the proposed Com-
  1648
  mittee, in a rather disparaging manner, to the Board of Trade. He said that on the Board of Trade there were such members as ' the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Speaker of the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, this Committee is the exact antithesis to that. In this case the members are not nominal, and—if I may use the word ornamental; they are experts, and are there for a purpose. The hon. Member has also said that there is. danger of disagreement on the Committee. I do not see why, because there is a divergence of opinion between politicians, and the military members that should at all impair the value of the judgments they will arrive at or the the advice they give. I do not see that the country will necessarily gain by having special men devoting their whole time to the work. I am not sure that you could find a body of professional men whose whole time would be worth the money; nor would their knowledge, opportunities of judging, or sources of information be adequate to the duties; they would have to perform.
  I would like to know how the archives of the Committee are to be kept, and who is to record the decisions, because the impression these records will have upon successors in office is a very important matter. I see nothing ridiculous or obviously impossible in having a professional archivist. The Clerk of the Council is an official who is not overworked, and it might very well be his duty to be the professional archivist. What you want, and what of course you must have is a complete equipment of modern information. We must not on any account have a stereotyped or stale Committee. You must have not only a body of men living in the thick of politics, but also those who have the latest or liveliest knowledge of what is going on in naval and military circles. One point has not been mentioned. If one Minister more than another ought to be on the Committee it is the Colonial Secretary. Why the President of the Council of Education is on the Committee I do not know, and it is not my business to inquire. I think the Government deserve our gratitude and the gratutide of the country for instituting this Committee, or perhaps I ought to say the

  1649
  gratitude of the country for instituting it, and our gratitude for giving us an opportunity of having this very interesting discussion upon it.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That, in the opinion of the House, the growing' needs of the Empire require the establishment of the Committee of Defence on a permanent footing."

  NAVAL FORCES BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  And, there being no further Business set down for the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. Speaker left the Chair until this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  THE PENRHYN QUARRY DISPUTE.
  *MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire,)moved the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "The severe privation and loss arising from the struggle in the Penrhyn quarry district, the recent grave recommendation of the Carnarvonshire Standing Joint Committee in reporting thereon, and the failure to put into operation the provisions of the Conciliation Act to terminate the dispute."
  He said this unfortunate dispute had been prolonged for two years and three months, and he assigned the reason in the main to the fact that the settlement after the last dispute in 1897 was not administered in its principle by the management and owner of the quarry. As was well known, in that dispute the Board of Trade finally intervened, and a settlement was arrived at between Lord Penrhyn and the workmen. That settlement made the men accept an agreement which gave them only a limited and restricted right of combination, under which grievances were to be brought before the management by means of sectional or class representation. The result had been that the whole quarry was not represented in bringing the grievances before the management, but only a section of the quarrymen through their representatives. Although that was only a limited and restricted aspect of representation,
  1650
  the men were willing to abide by it. As far as he knew there had been no reason to complain of the spirit of the men in carrying out the principle of the settlement, and that settlement might have worked well had a good spirit existed between the management and the workmen. But from the management point of view the agreement never worked satisfactorily. One of the first to make use of its provisions was the Chairman of the Strike Committee, Mr. William R. Evans, one of the finest characters of the Bethesda district, who had worked in the quarry for fifty-two years, and a man who was considered one of Nature's gentlemen. When he approached the manager, under the agreement, he was told the interview was granted to him in order to impress upon his mind, and that of the others, that the manager could expel whom he wished without giving any reason.
  That was the first method of administering the agreement after the men had decided to go in. There were several cases of harsh and arbitrary conduct, and sectional representation became another word for individual dealing. As the chief parts of the settlement still held good, and the met were satisfied with the provisions of the settlement, it was necessary to see what reason there could be for the present strike. Well, Clause 5 provided for the re-admission of the men to the quarry, and stated that all who desired work would be admitted in a body as far as practicable, and the remainder as soon as work could be arranged for them. That clause was the first to be broken by the management. The solicitor' to Lord Penrhyn, Mr. Lloyd Carter, who partly drafted the agreement, said at a mass meeting of the men at Bethesda that there should be no black list. All the men should be admitted at once if possible, but if not the remainder as soon as practicable: but the first week twenty-five were refused admission. Though Mr. Lloyd Carter interpreted that clause in exactly the same way as the leaders of the men, in spite of that Mr. Young, the chief manager, persisted in declining to readmit these twenty-five men. It was suggested that some of them were drunkards and that others were incapacitated, yet these men, who were incapacitated in 1897, had been re-admitted into the quarry in 1900. All the men who had taken a prominent part in the strike were

  1651
  under a special disadvantage, and became marked men, especially where the minor officials were concerned, and after this strike began, when the leaders of the men met Mr. Young and complained of the harsh treatment and abuse by minor officials he said, "How can you complain when you compel these minor officials to be out of work for eleven months?" That was the spirit in which the chief manager dealt with the grievance against the minor officials. Grievances of a serious character accumulated. This quarry was four miles long, three wide and nearly a mile deep, and in normal times about 3,000 men were engaged in it? and although the rock men in the quarry, which was the largest slate quarry in the world, were among the most intelligent of their class, the labourers and rubble workers were somewhat untutored. Under this settlement if a labourer had a grievance it must be laid before the management, either by himself or in company with five other monoglot Welshmen. He could not be represented by his skilled brother-worker. How could they put their grievances before the managers, who were Englishmen? The men had never asked for recognition of their claim to be represented by a trades union, but only to be represented by their fellow-workers. They were denied that right, and complained that they were not treated as self-respecting men. It was the most moderate demand that had ever been made in the history of trades unionism. They were sworn at, abused, punished for trivial offences, and subjected to a system of espionage.
  A gentleman had been made sub-manager who had been accustomed to dealing with coolies in India, and who knew nothing about quarrying. The men were suspended for a few days if they were a few minutes late, one of their customary holidays was taken from them, and many of them were compelled to work under the sweating system. In fact, the harsh and oppressive treatment of the men made their position intolerable, and the result was a constant accumulation of petty personal grievances, producing a bitter feeling against the management. That, combined with the fear that the contract system would be extended and harsh discipline enforced, culminated in 1900 in a very unfortunate attack upon some of the contractors, mostly by wild, irresponsible
  1652
  youths, which the leaders of the men themselves condemned. Lord Penrhyn took action against twenty-six men, the great majority of whom were afterwards proved to have had no participation whatever in the disturbances. Yet Lord Penrhyn dismissed these twenty-six men from the quarry before their trial. He was at the trial and heard all the evidence, and twenty of these men were discharged without a tittle of evidence being produced against them; the others had small fines inflicted on them. Knowing that the majority of these men were innocent. 3,000 quarrymen marched from Bethesda to Bangor to attend the trial. They marched peaceably, but the police were afraid there would be a conflict, and the military were called out. Upon his appeal to them in their own language those men returned as peaceably as they came, and the colonel of the regiment asked "In God's name, what are we here for"? which showed what law-abiding citizens these men were. After that the men resumed work, but when the tellers were telling the galleries the men saw eight galleries were left idle, and the men thought the workers in those galleries were being punished because the men had inarched to Bangor to give evidence at the trial. A spirit of inaction crept over all the workmen at the quarry in consequence. Mr. Young telephoned from his office, five miles away, when the men were discussing the position, that they must either resume work or leave the quarry, and thereupon all the men left in a body. That was the beginning of the strike.
  Many efforts had been made by the men to settle the dispute. They consented to meet Lord Penrhyn at his (Mr. Jones') request, but Lord Penrhyn was mute. They asked for arbitration, but got no reply from Lord Penrhyn. Two magistrates, on behalf of the Carnarvonshire County Council, were appointed to endeavour to bring the two parties together, but Lord Penrhyn pleaded illness, and referred them to Mr. Young. Subsequently his lordship declined to grant them an interview, because he could not recognise the principle of outside interference, but said, "I grant you permission to give advice to my employees." The negotiations failed, but the deputation put on record that the men waived every point that could be an obstacle, and

  1653
  that they attributed the failure to Lord Penrhyn. On August 8th last he appealed to the Board of Trade, through the President in the House, from whom he had always received the greatest personal kindness. But that was not a personal matter, but involved a fundamental principle between employer and workmen, and the peace and welfare of a whole community. He asked why the Board of Trade, after two years of that dispute, did not make an inquiry and an emphatic statement before the world as to their opinion on the dispute. Since that time the workmen had applied to come under the operation of the Act. and still the right hon. Gentleman had flatly refused to meet them, and without giving any satisfactory reasons. A resolution had been passed by the men asking Lord Penrhyn to accept as arbitrator the Prime Minister or Lord Rosebery, but, he refused to have anything to do with one or the other, or both. They wrote him a second letter from Bethesda, and Lord Penrhyn consented to an interview on condition that all claims for a restoration to power of the old Quarry Committee were abandoned. They assented, and said they would simply stick to the principle of representation alone, so that the House would see they waived every objection which Lord Penrhyn could possibly raise. But that did not satisfy Lord Penrhyn, who replied that he would no discuss the question of representation except from his own point of view.
  One great issue which had divided Lord Penrhyn and the men for the last two years and three months was that the men should have the right to represent their grievances before the management by means of freely-appointed delegates. What had been the attitude of the men during all this struggle? He challenged anybody to name any labour dispute which had been prolonged for such a time, and in which such a number of men had been engaged, where the damage to property had been smaller or more insignificant. Colonel Ruck, the Chief Constable of Carnarvonshire had given evidence upon this question before a sub-committee of the County Council as follows:
  "The cost of extra police amounted to £2,700. There were fewer instances (than in 1901) of workmen being followed and molested by
  1654
  crowds, but instances here and there of petty molestation, such as abusive language towards the workmen, hooting them, beating tins as they return from work. Complaints of this form of annoyance, which it must be said have sometimes been of rather a trivial nature, were received almost, daily from the quarry authorities. It has certainly, too, been aggravated in some instances by the behaviour of some of the workmen themselves. With regard to stone-throwing, I may say that although a good many windows have been broken I have not heard of anyone being seriously injured."
  Three hundred of the men who had returned to work were met by Lord Penrhyn in the quarry, where he made a speech to them and gave to each of them one sovereign. Why could he not meet all the quarry men in the same way and on the same footing as he had met the strikers whom he took on and gave a sovereign apiece?
  He now came to the last inquiry of all, made on the spot at the instance of the County Council of Carnarvonshire through their Standing Joint Committee. They appointed a sub-committee to inquire into the state of affairs in the county and the additional expenditure upon the police at the end of last year. The leaders of the men were asked to give evidence, and so was Mr. Young, the chief manager at the quarry. The leaders of the men willingly gave evidence, but Mr. Young refused. Two reports on this question had been issued during the last month as a result, and he should like to call the attention of the House to them. The state of affairs astounded the gentlemen who sat upon this subcommittee, and they had no conception of the bitterness engendered by the dispute. This Committee reported that—
  "They had no conception before the inquiry of the extent of bitterness engendered by this quarrel. Families were divided, members being estranged so as not to be on speaking terms. They had undoubted proofs of genuine efforts on the part of ministers of religion and other leading inhabitants on the side of law and order; they think that exaggerated reports influenced the Chief Constable's mind somewhat unduly in seeking outside assistance, both police and military. The percentage of convictions obtained by the police is considerably under the normal ratio, and this shows that more care and discrimination should have been exercised in instituting proceedings. Their conclusion from the mass of evidence is that in the exercise of what they conceived to be their principal duty, viz., the protection of workmen employed at the quarry, they failed to show due consideration for the feelings and, on occasions, for the liberty of the late employees

  1655
  and others. They consider that the method by which complaints of men at work were conveyed to the police by the quarry officials were calculated to do mischief, to increase the tension and deepen the ill-feeling already existing between the parties. They think the extra, expenditure for police charges, £4,418 8s. 11d., most exorbitant.
  The Committee recommended the Standing Joint Committee to memorialise the Government, praying the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry with a view to bringing the dispute to an end. Why did they do that? Because the County Council had exhausted all their sources of conciliation, and,' therefore, he claimed that the men had a right to appeal now, as they did, to the final tribunal of the nation—Parliament. That was what he was doing now. The Board of Trade, in reply to a communication from the men, refused to meet them without any adequate reason being given. The long duration of this unfortunate quarrel had caused widespread poverty in the district and serious industrial and commercial losses to be suffered by the country, and now they had reached such a point as to call for the intervention of His Majesty's Government. There was a Minority Report issued, signed by only one gentleman and approved by others, and what did that Report say in regard to the conduct of Mr. Young, the chief manager? This Report speaks of his conduct as "the fatuous conduct of Mr. Young in refusing to give evidence." When the whole question was brought before this Joint Committee, the Lord Lieutenant of the County spoke in the same way, for he said—
  "He failed to approve of the 'fatuous attitude' of Mr. Young, and could not see why Mr. Young should have done himself and the workmen the injustice involved by not appearing to give evidence."
  This Minority Report was made by friends of Lord Penrhyn, and they asked for the withdrawal of the police force.
  He should like to refer to a speech made by the Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee, who was himself a quarry owner. He was a Scotch gentleman and also a Conservative in politics, like Lord Penrhyn. His name was Mr. Menzies. He said—
  "The whole community deserved the greatest possible credit for the self-restraint they had shown considering the feeling that had existed. It was a marvel that there had not been far more disturbances, and he felt proud of everybody concerned for their conduct.
  1656
  There had been many cases of indiscretion, but taking the whole circumstances into consideration he saw nothing to be ashamed of."
  And at the end of his speech this shrewd Scotch gentleman, who had worked among the quarrymen for thirty-three years, stated that—
  "With an experience of thirty-three years of the Welsh quarrymen, he would, by meeting the men in friendly conference, have settled the points at issue in the dispute in half an hour."
  Now, in the face of this dispute and this great struggle between the workmen employed in the quarry and Lord Penrhyn, what had been the attitude of the managers? Mr. Young himself had now to confess that most of the men who had gone in had given up their chapels, and had either joined the Church of England or else had attended no place of worship at all. There had been a wholesale proselytising. Mr. Young had asserted that no fewer than sixty Wesley an Methodists had left their denomination and joined the Church since they came back to the quarry. How many of the men who struck work had none away? About 1,400 of the men who had struck had gone away, 800 remained at home because they could not find employment, and about 100 had died during the struggle. About 500 were now working in the quarry out of a total of 2,800 who originally worked there, but what was the attitude of those men who had gone in? There was a lack of discipline in the quarry, and the discipline was so lax and loose that men had been suspended for drunkenness who before would have been dismissed. Mr. Young admitted himself that the output of the quarry was a failure, and it was being worked at a loss, and yet Lord Penrhyn persisted in working that quarry. They knew he was working the quarry at a loss because he had appealed to the Assessment Committee, and it was shown that the output was less to-day than ever. Supposing Lord Penrhyn compelled all these men, by driving them to desperation or starvation and humiliating them, to go back to the quarry, what would be the result? Why, they would go back to the old regime and the quarry would be placed under the same strict discipline as before. Was it not a pity, in these days of employers and employed meeting

  1657
  round a board of conciliation, that Lord Penrhyn would not meet the leaders of the men. who desired to go back on honourable terms, and so bring peace to this great industrial and most law-abiding community? The men were amongst the most law-abiding citizens on the face of the globe. Everybody knew how they had built their own chapels and schools, and probably some might say that this was a proof that Lord Penrhyn had behaved generously in regard to their wages. That was not so, for he knew workmen in some districts who had been receiving much better wages, and yet they had not shown the same amount of self-sacrifice as these men. Lord Penrhyn ought to be proud of those men. Many of them had built their houses on Lord Penrhyn's land, and they clung to their homes. Some of the men lived in the houses which their fathers had built, and the leases having lapsed, those houses fell into Lord Penrhyn's hands again. The men clung to the houses, and that was the reason why they were so reluctant to leave their homes.
  Would it be believed that dining the whole of this dispute there had not been a single case of poaching on the whole estate? He had seen pheasants as thick as crows there, and not a single pheasant, partridge or hare had been touched, and he believed there had only been one case of salmon baiting. Put what had been the result? Dire distress and privation, trade paralysed, shopkeepers and tradesmen brought to the brink of bankruptcy, and the men who had found work in South Wales had been obliged to keep two homes going with a small pittance. Many of these men had managed to save £50 or £60, and they had just eked out a living spreading over these two years, and when the pinch of hunger came, they were too proud to ask for alms or relief. He had seen their starving children, for he had visited their homes. He knew of a man with seven children, with three of the youngest unable to walk, and one of them had lately died. Some of the children had been kept from school and kept in bed until midday in order to save a meal. There was one man with a large family who. having been brought to the brink of starvation by the strike, yielded and
  1658
  went back to the quarry. He became demented, and, after stating that he had turned traitor, be committed suicide. The sum of £30,000 had been subscribed to the Penrhyn Belief Fund, but what was £30,000 amongst so many? What was that sum compared with the £300,000 which they would have earned in wages? When these men were in work they earned £12,000 a month. Of. course, £30,000 helped, but it was not enough. He thanked all those who had contributed to the Relief Funds, and be thanked the newspaper Press of this country and all those who had supported the movement to help these starving people. But wealth would not do what they wanted. These men did not ask for charity, but they craved for decent. honourable work.
  He would come back now to the basis of the men's demand. They demanded the same right as was asked for by all trades unions, namely, freedom to elect their own representatives in their own way, and to make the cause of one the cause of all. When such cases were dealt with in this way by a gentleman like Lord Penrhyn, it made them wish for the adoption of something like compulsory arbitration. Other countries, like the United States, had their leading men, like President Roosevelt, making strenuous efforts to bring a great labour war to a close; was it too much to make an appeal to the highest tribunal in this land to bring about a settlement of this dispute, such as neither petty spite nor recrimination on either side could spoil a settlement in spirit and in truth?
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,)seconded the Motion, and said that one of the greatest evils of the strike was the injury that had been done to the public interest in the county, and the social and trade disturbance. That justified this House in pressing Loth parties to meet and endeavour to come to some decision. It was a strange thing that four years after the Conciliation Act was passed a strike should commence, involving 3,000 persons and running for over two years, without any attempt to put the Act into operation. All along a settlement had been hampered by the consideration that any action on the part of the men might be miscon-

  1659
  strued, and that any attempt to appeal to the Conciliation Act would be assumed by Lord Penrhyn to arise from weakness and from a desire to find a loophole of escape from the position they were in. When pressure was in the first instance put upon the Board of Trade to take action in the matter, it was pointed out that they had not been applied to by either of the parties concerned. He did not for a moment suggest that the Board's reluctance to act arose in any degree from a spirit of obstinacy, or that there was not a genuine wish to put an end to the struggle; he took it, rather, that their inaction was due to an apprehension that any steps they might take would be liable to misconstruction. Now the excuse made in the first instance by the Board of Trade no longer existed, but yet they had not moved, and it was difficult to surmise what was the reason. It might be that the Board of Trade still saw no prospect of any useful conclusion resulting from their efforts, but, having regard to the fact that the strike had now lasted for two years and a half, surely an effort should be made. The excuse had even been advanced that the Board of Trade were afraid of doing more harm than good by forcing the parties further apart instead of bringing them more closely together, but, when the struggle had lasted two and a half years, it was surely idle to talk of the possibility of doing more harm than good, for as much harm had been done as possibly could be done. The right hon. Gentleman might say, "Well, we shall only be severely snubbed by Lord Penrhyn if we make an effort." That might, possibly, be assumed, but one reason for the passing of the Act of 1896 was that it gave the; Board of Trade a greater right of interference. It did not, it was true, confer on the Board any power they did not before possess, but, as was pointed out at the time by the then President, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, it at least enabled them to act with some justification and Parliamentary authority—that was to say, if asked what business they had to interfere, they could reply, "We are charged by Parliament with the duty of endeavouring to assist in arriving at a compromise."
  Surely the present case was one in which the Board should take action, not so much, even, out of consideration for the Penrhyn quarrymen as in the public
  1660
  interest. He did not forget that on a previous occasion Lord Penrhyn had somewhat resented the interference of the Board of Trade, but the fact remained that a settlement did follow on that occasion, and no one could say to what extent that was brought about, or at least led up to, by the fact that public attention had been drawn to the matter by the Board's action and by the intimation of their view as to who was chiefly to blame. He believed that if similar action was taken on the present occasion there would at least be a possibility of useful results, and a certainty that no worse state of things could follow than that at present existing. The conciliation question in the dispute was that of representation, and he could not help thinking that Lord Penrhyn had failed to make himself acquainted with the industrial conditions prevailing in other parts of the country, because he was making a claim which was not, so far as he (the speaker) was aware, made by any other employer or body of employers. There were other men of position who were as great employers of labour as Lord Penrhyn—Lord Londonderry and Lord Durham, for instance—but they had never taken up the position of declining to accept the representatives of the workmen, and only permitting them to make their representations through channels provided by the employers. Lord Penrhyn called representation of the workmen interference with the management of the quarry, but it was really he who was interfering with the management of the men's business, for surely the manner in which the men chose to lay their case before Lord Penrhyn was a matter for them and not, for him. If they chose, for instance, to retain Sir Edward Clarke, and pay him a hundred guineas a day, what, right had Lord Penrhyn to object? It rested with him, of course, to say what answer he should make to the men's representations, by whomever made. He believed Lord Penrhyn had formed the impression that these strikes were due, in some occult way, to what were called "agitators," or to the Trades Union. If anything was more absolutely demonstrable than another it was this—that not one of the strikes which had taken place in Carnarvonshire within his

  1661
  recollection had been due in the slightest degree to the action of the Trades Union, and that was particularly so in the present case. The great fault he had to find with the Trades Union in connection with the slate quarries was not that it was too strong, but that it was too weak, for if it was stronger the possibilities of peace in the quarries would be greater. The unfortunate thing was that there was a most extraordinary and unfounded distrust, on the part of Lord Penrhyn, of everyone who had anything to do with advising the men. Naturally, in a struggle like that, the leaders stood by the men, and sought To gain conditions which, if secured, would make for peace, not only in Lord Penrhyn's quarries, but elsewhere.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn,"(Mr. William, Jones.)
  MR. BRYCEsaid he was glad of an opportunity of speaking before the President of the Board of Trade replied, because he was anxious to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on the basis of the Conciliation Act. He was sure that the picture that had been drawn by the hon. Member for Carnarvon of the position of affairs at the quarries must have touched the heart of everyone who heard it, whatever might be his views as to the merits of the dispute. He did not propose to go into the history of the case, nor did he think it wise to discuss the merits of the issue between Lord Penrhyn and his men. He would only ask whether a case had not arisen in which the provisions of the Act of 1896 might fairly and properly be put into operation. Crave as was the present struggle, vast as was the amount of human happiness involved, there was to be considered an even wider issue, because if the Government refused to take action in this case, who could say when the pro visions of the Act would be put into force at all? The present case surely called for action as strongly as any which could possibly be imagined, because it had lasted a very long time and was on a very large scale. What, he asked, was it that the Act contemplated?
  1662
  It gave power to the Board of Trade, on the application of the employers or workmen interested, and taking into consideration the means of conciliation in the district, power to appoint a person or persons to act as conciliators and to endeavour to bring about a settlement, and also to report to the Board of Trade. Would the House consider what that meant? It was not arbitration. They were perhaps apt, in considering a case of that nature, to confound arbitration with conciliation, and he could quite conceive objections to the appointment of an arbitrator; but the proposal in the first instance was simply to appoint a person who should hear all that was to be said, not merely by the parties directly concerned, but. if necessary, by other persons in the district, and should endeavour to form a fair judgment on what, after such inquiry, he believed to be the merits of the case. Conciliation had many advantages and many avenues of hope which arbitration had not. If a conciliator was appointed, there was nothing to show that Lord Penrhyn would not be willing to reconsider the position he had taken up. but, let that be as it might, the power to make such an appointment had been given to the Board of Trade by the House in 1896 on the express representation of the then President that the hands of himself and his successors would be materially strengthened by it, since they could then say, if told that their interference was unasked for and unwelcome, "It is not our action; it is that of the Legislature." Therefore, he did not think the Board of Trade were entitled, in a matter of so much gravity, to say that this was one of the cases which they ought to leave alone, since there was substantially a direction by the Legislature that action should be taken in such cases.
  Nor should it he forgotten that it was far easier for contending parties to yield with a good grace when a third party intervened. Wherein lay the great advantage of international arbitration? It lay in the fact that, when two nations were standing each upon a point if honour and each was unwilling to yield, an international court of arbitration or conciliation enabled one of them to give

  1663
  way without humiliation by adopting the way out of the difficulty suggested by the arbitrator or conciliator. The parallel between an international dispute and a case like the present was very close, for here, also, there was involved a point of honour on which neither party thought themselves justified in surrendering. Suppose, however, there were a judicious person looking at the matter all round and endeavouring to save the amour propre of the party which he thought ought to yield, would matters not be rendered very much easier? He could not resign the hope that the action of a judicious conciliator might, even in the present case, bitter as the feeling on both sides seemed to have become, lead to some terms of settlement which might be accepted by both parties.
  But there was another way in which the action of a conciliator might be of use: he had the power to make a report. One great influence had not yet been adequately brought to bear on this question—he meant the influence of public opinion—for the statements that had so far been made had been ex parte, and he could fully understand the attitude of a man who said that he had only heard one side of a case and declined to express an opinion until he had also heard the other. But there was a volume of honest, sound, public opinion in the country, which would, he believed, be influenced on one side or the other by the unbiassed report of a conciliator. For that reason, also, he consequently hoped that an attempt would be made to put into operation the powers conferred by the Act. Surely the present was not a case in which it could property be said that nothing should be done. A far greater and more dangerous strike than that at the Penrhyn Quarries occurred only a few months ago in the United States, and the President himself, at the risk of his own popularity, endeavoured to deal with the case. He did not believe that in the present instance the purpose of the Legislature as expressed in the Act of 1896 was going to be lost sight of. He felt perfectly sure that the President of the Board of Trade himself had every sympathy with those who were suffering through the Penrhyn strike, and he trusted that the appeal which had been made with so much force by his hon.
  1664
  friend would induce the Government to endeavour to meet this melancholy case, and by some means or other to replace these unhappy workmen in the condition of prosperity they formerly enjoyed.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he associated himself entirely with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and did so not at all from the point of view of the working man but as an employer of labour. He had been an employer for a longer time than Lord Penrhyn and on a much larger scale, and he had come to the conclusion that it was wise for employers, in endeavouring to come to terms with their men over any trade dispute, to allow the men to choose their own representatives. He would consider himself absolutely wanting in an honest and manly spirit of fair play if he did not allow the workmen—aye, and encouraged them—to choose the best man they could get when they were discussing a matter of business with him. What would be said if, in the High Court of Justice, an ignorant man was not permitted' to state his case except by his own untutored lips? He himself had had a careful training in his youth, and he naturally—without boasting but as a matter of course—had a quicker mind than the poor fellows who might believe that they had suffered unjustly by something that had been done OH his behalf. He repeated that he would be wanting in manliness if he prevented those men from speaking to him not only by the best representatives they could find among themselves but the best they could find in the world. He had risen to show that the appeal for the intervention of the President of the Board of Trade was made not only by the representatives of working men or of the constituency immediately concerned, but by men in other positions in life, and he begged the right hon. Gentleman, for the credit of employers and of Parliament, and for the sake of peace, to use his power to bring the pressure of public opinion to bear on this dispute.
  *SIR ALFRED THOMASsaid that few, if any, of those who listened to the eloquent and pathetic speech in which his hon. friend, some years since, called the attention of the House to the then pending dispute between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen,

  1665
  would have believed it to be possible, after such a lapse of time, that such a terrible state of affairs would prevail again at the present time. He believed that the difference between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen arose from a misconception on the part of the former as to his duties and obligations as the proprietor of a great commercial trading industry. He wished to differentiate as between Lord Penrhyn and his agent, for if what they were told in the public prints was true, he was an unmitigated tyrant, and it was a scandal that such a man should have it in his power to tyrannise his fellow men. Lord Penrhyn attempted to manage the affairs of his works on the principle "cannot a man do what he likes with his own?" That depended upon what a man liked. If the result of what a man liked was to drive away more than two thousand men from their homes—homes that many of them had, through thrift and industry, built for themselves—or to cause untold misery and suffering to hundreds of defenceless women and children, then whatever legal right he might have, moral right he had none.
  Lord Penrhyn wished to treat his employees on the same terms as his gamekeepers and his gardeners. But the Bethesda quarry, in times of peace and prosperity, was one of the most extensive of its kind in the world, and carried on for trading purposes, and if Lord Penrhyn wished to become a trader, then he, like so many other noblemen who had become traders, must be a men able to such rules and regulations as were in force in similar undertakings, in which a perfect right to combine and organise was given unquestioned to workmen. Lord Penrhyn's workmen, however, were much more modest in their demands; but modest as they had been and were, they had only met with a treatment which was quite unworthy of men in responsible positions. But it was not to be inferred that the men were not determined to have, within reason and justice, the exercise of their common rights. Should Lord Penrhyn, unfortunately, still persist in resisting the principle for which they had made such great sacrifices, then he would find, as other territorial magnates had found, the truth of the Welsh proverb, "Trech gwlad nag arglwydd"—"The people are stronger than a lord." He
  1666
  sincerely hoped that wiser counsel would prevail, and that the disastrous dispute would be terminated, so that peace and prosperity might return to a large working community, whose moral and industrial character is not excelled in the whole earth.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he was a great believer in conciliation, and Parliament having provided the Board of Trade with certain powers, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be diffident, but rather eager, to put those powers into force to bring an end to this dispute. In 1896, when the Conciliation Act was passed, the then President of the Board of Trade used these words—
  "There was another provision in the Bill to which the Government attached considerable importance, viz., that the Department was empowered to intervene on its own initiative with a view to bringing the parties together under a Chairman mutually agreed upon, or, failing that, one appointed by the Board of Trade. It was also provided that the Department might intervene on the application of either party to the dispute and appoint a conciliator ad hoc or make use of existing boards of arbitration."
  In that statement the then President framed the indictment on which the present President stood on his trial. He had been requested to act by one party, but had turned a deaf ear to the appeal. No man, simply to gratify his own desires, ought to be allowed to depopulate a whole neighbourhood. These men merely asked for that which was conceded in every other part of the country. He and others who represented large organisations were not only allowed, but were asked, to meet the employers of the men they represented, and he appealed to all large employers of labour in the House, who had the welfare of the industries of the country at heart, whether they would not rather meet the elected representatives of the men than have loose masses of men to deal with. A more respectable and decent class of men than these in question could not be found in the kingdom, but because they would not allow Lord Penrhyn to assume the rô le of dictator, they were being driven away from the homes they loved. Surely Parliament ought to put an end to such a state of things. This man was jeopardising the trade of the

  1667
  country. Through his action trade was shifting, and once trade shifted it was extremely difficult to regain. The country itself, therefore, had a stake in the dispute. Moreover, Lord Penrhyn was fostering feelings of discontent, animosity, and hostility between workmen and employers.
  The trend of the present age was in the direction of conciliation, but Lord Penrhyn by his action was retarding the development of that spirit. It had been said that this dispute would strengthen the movement for compulsory arbitration. He did not believe in compulsion. Compulsion and conciliation were inconsistent terms. He believed in conciliation, and to show that there was a growing willingness on the part of workmen to submit their disputes to conciliation, he might point out that in 1897, less than 750,000 people were under the influence of conciliation boards, while in 1902 the number was 1,250,000; and whereas in 1897 only 2 per cent. of the disputes settled in the year were settled by conciliation, in 1901 the percentage was fifty-four. The House of Commons, who were not merely the makers of the law, but the custodians of the best interests of the country, ought to do all in its power to prevent anything which would have the effect of retarding that tendency towards conciliation. It might be said that the work was there if the men would do it. He was a man of peace, but not of peace at any price. He would be the last man in the world to fan a strike or to encourage strife, but he honoured these men for their refusal to accept work on the terms offered, and he hoped the Trades Unions of the country would see that they were lifted above the impingement of poverty. This object-lesson of the anachronism of tyranny in present times would stand out as an indication of the possibility of some men to act rudely and cruelly to their fellow-creatures. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to brush aside any little technicalities or red-tapeism that might exist, and endeavour to put an end to this disastrous struggle.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREdesired to join in the appeal made from the other side of the House. The situation was very serious. There really must be a point at which the Board of Trade would intervene in the direction of
  1668
  conciliation. What was the situation? Nearly 2,300 men were out of employment; 100 men had died; one had committed suicide; families were separated; a community was broken up; heads of families were exiles; women and children were suffering and being underfed. That was a very grave situation. It had to be admitted, too, that on the part of the men, judging them fairly and taking them all in all, there had been much self-restraint; while on the part of Lord Penrhyn and Mr. Young, to put it mildly, there had been not a little aloofness, and something of repulsion. He earnestly and sincerely appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to act. By doing so he would exalt his own reputation before the country, and make thousands of Welshmen, and also of Englishmen, call down blessings on his head.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he only rose for the purpose of stating why he did not intend to intervene in the debate. The House was probably not aware that there was an action pending, which raised the whole question as to whether Lord Penrhyn had, or had not, refused his quarrymen the right of combination. The action was likely to commence on Monday, and he thought that, for that reason, it was extremely improper that that action should be now discussed. He did not intend to say anything further, because anything he might say might be taken as coming from Lord Penrhyn, and it would be extremely improper for Lord Penrhyn to say anything which would prejudice the action.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Arfon Division made a long and eloquent speech, but he thought the hon. Member would hardly dispute the correctness of his description, when he said that that speech consisted, not so much of an attack on the Board of Trade, as an attack on Lord Penrhyn and the management of the Penrhyn quarry. He could not accept the statements of the hon. Gentleman with reference to Lord Penrhyn, and he could not help agreeing with his hon. friend in the regret

  1669
  he expressed that the debate should have taken place at that particular moment, in view of the action that was to be hoard. He would confine himself within the limit which he thought was strictly and properly observed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, and that was whether the Board of Trade was or was not right in its decision not to intervene in this dispute. Before he entered on that question he would say a few words with reference to what fell from the hon. Member.
  The hon. Member spoke of heartlessness and callousness, and rather implied that the action of the Board of Trade, by not intervening in this dispute, was an indication of heartlessness and callousness. He hoped it was not necessary for him to defend himself or the Board against any insinuation of that kind; and he could assure the House that if he thought it possible to bring this lamentable dispute to an end by intervening be should certainly have intervened. There appeared to him to be great misconception and misunderstanding in the House as to the powers which the Arbitration Act conferred upon the Board of Trade. The Act was purely voluntary in its provisions; and it most carefully guarded the discretion of the parties to the dispute to accept the services of the Board of Trade or not. He received not long ago a petition which contained the signatures of no less than sixteen Members of the House. He did not know whether the hon. Member for the Arfon Division signed that petition; but it was signed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. That petition requested him to use his powers under the Act to arbitrate in the dispute between Lord Penrhyn and his quarrymen. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Arfon Division had admitted, and as he himself had pointed out to the petitioners, the Board of Trade had absolutely no power under the Act to arbitrate unless an application to arbitrate were made by both parties. As the application for arbitration came entirely from one side it was obviously impossible for the Board of Trade to adopt that method of procedure
  1670
  What other steps could the Board of Trade take? The Board of Trade might, in response to the appeal made by the workmen at a comparatively late period of the dispute, have appointed a conciliator under the Act. But the Act stated that the Board of Trade might appoint a conciliator on the application of the employer or workman interested only after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case. He thought it would be obvious to the House that one of the most important circumstances which the Board of Trade was bound to consider, in deciding whether or not it should acquiesce in an application of this kind, was whether the appointment of a conciliator would promote the object for which the Act was passed, namely, the prevention of disputes, or the facilitation of the settlement of a dispute which had arisen. He considered that matter most carefully. He considered all the statements made by the men; he considered the past history of the dispute; he considered the history of the dispute between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen in 1887; and he was forced to the conclusion, if he appointed a conciliator, that Lord Penrhyn would refuse to accept the mediation of any third party, even if that third party were appointed by the Board of Trade. That was the question which he had to decide. When he had reason to know that Lord Penrhyn would not accept the services of a conciliator he was forced to the conclusion that it would not be to the public advantage, nor would be likely to increase the utility of the Board of Trade in subsequent disputes, if, notwithstanding that, he were to attempt to force a conciliator on a reluctant party. He was now speaking of the assumption that the object of appointing a conciliator was to bring the parties together to determine the dispute; and as he regarded that as impossible it appeared to him to be quite useless to appoint a conciliator. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had suggested that a conciliator might be appointed, not to bring the parties together, but to make a report on the circumstances, in order to guide public opinion, He did not deny that there might be cases where it might become the duty of the Board of Trade under the Act to appoint a person to make a report, and so guide public opinion in the right direction; but he

  1671
  believed those cases to be excessively rare, and he doubted whether since the Act was passed the Board of Trade had in a single case appointed a conciliator, not to bring the parties together, but in order to make a public report on the circumstances of the case.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Arfon Division went very minutely into the controversy between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen, but he thought the hon. Gentleman would admit that at the bottom of that dispute there lay the question whether, from Lord Penrhyn's point of view, his workmen in entering into negotiation would be acting under outside influence. Suppose a dispute between an employer and his workmen merely referred to the carrying out of an agreement entered into, it might, in those circumstances, be desirable that the Board of Trade might make a report in order to guide public opinion; but when they came to what the hon. Member for the Arfon Division had described as a point of fundamental principle between employer and employed, the question was raised whether a Government Department was called upon to pronounce an ex cathedra opinion upon a matter of that kind. In his judgment it would be most undesirable for a public Department to take that view. If the Board of Trade were to undertake a duty of that kind, it would cripple itself hopelessly in working the Act on all subsequent occasions. No employer would then voluntarily accept the decision of the Board of Trade; and if the decision of the Board were against the employer the Board would be distrusted. If, on the other hand, the Board decided the question against the men, there was not the slightest doubt that the men, in all future disputes, would have exactly the same feeling.
  The truth was that the working of the Act required the most anxious discretion on the part of the Board of Trade. They must not try to work the Act as if it were anything else than a purely voluntary Act; and if they did, they were certain to fail. He could not help thinking that the Amendment which the hon. Member for the Arfon Division put down to the Address, but did not move, showed that, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, the Board of Trade could not have intervened in this dispute with any
  1672
  prospect of success, for the terms of that Amendment declared the necessity for further legislation. If the Act gave power to the Board of Trade to arbitrate between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen in those circumstances it would be his duty to intervene; but the Act was altogether on different lines.
  As a voluntary Act the Government had considered it their duty to administer it; and if the House were to decide that it would be their duty to interfere in any other conditions, he felt that a great part of the utility of the Act would be destroyed.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he must say, after careful consideration, he had never heard a more hopelessly inadequate defence of the action, or rather the inaction, of a Government Department. What was the defence of the right hon. Gentleman? It was really a matter of very general application. Here was an Act of Parliament which provided that where one party to a dispute refused to proceed to arbitration the Board of Trade might proceed ex parte to appoint a conciliator, whether one of the parties consented or not. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue against putting the Act into operation, and he gave reasons; but there were other Acts of Parliament which people did not like to put into operation, and if the President of the Board of Trade would not put an Act of Parliament into operation why should anyone? If this were not a case where Section C of the Act applied, what conceivable circumstances were there which could arise in any labour dispute to which that Section would be applicable. The Act provided that there should be arbitration, that there should be a board of conciliation; and that the Board of Trade might undertake an inquiry. What he complained about was that the Board of Trade had not put into operation the powers given to it under the Act. If that was not a case for the application of the Act what possible case could there be?
  The dispute had been prolonged for two and a half years, the whole industry of a district had been paralysed; and, in

  1673
  addition, they had the constant risk of infringements of the law on one side or the other. Infringements were not always on the side of the strikers. He had heard of men who were employed in the quarry who were armed with revolvers, and who had threatened other men from time to time. There was also the case of a man who was driven to madness by hunger. They had heard from the Prime Minister something about the doctrine of human endurance. Two and a half years of hunger and privation would drive men to madness. What might not happen in that district? And if anything happened, the responsibility, in the first instance, would undoubtedly rest with Lord Penrhyn, whose stubbornness had been unparalleled, and who had declined every offer of arbitration; but to a certain degree, responsibility would rest also on those who, having the weapon o an Act of Parliament in their hands, declined to avail themselves of it. Why? Because they were afraid of risking a snub from Lord Penrhyn. What else was it? What possible harm could be done? Supposing the Board of Trade appointed a conciliator—someone, for instance, like Sir Edward Fry, whose impartiality was above suspicion—to examine into all the circumstances. We would have Lord Penrhyn's case in the printed reports, even if Mr Young declined to appear before him. He could have the evidence of the men and of people in the neighbourhood who knew the circumstances; and he would have every opportunity of examining into the facts. What harm could that do? The only harm it could do would be that Lord Penrhyn might take no notice of Sir Edward Fry or the Board of Trade. Was the Government so feeble that it could not survive a snub from Lord Penrhyn? He asked anyone to point out what possible harm it could do. But what good might it not do? In the first place, it was just possible, if they had the judgment of an eminent conciliator like Sir Edward Fry, that even Lord Penrhyn might be induced to climb down and listen to reason. It was a remote contingency, but at the same time they could not bar it out altogether. What more would it do? The men were fighting under very disadvantageous circumstances.
  1674
  In the correspondence between Lord Penrhyn and the Carnarvon County Council he wrote one day from Penrhyn Castle, the next day from a shooting-box in Conway Bay, another day from Newmarket, and a fourth day from a palace in London. What comparison was there between a man of that kind, and men who had not got a shilling, except as alms from the public? If there was a Report from an impartial conciliator appointed by a Unionist Government, public opinion would back up the men. Was the President of the Board of Trade afraid of that contingency? Was he afraid to give them a weapon which would help them to keep their children from starving?
  He would put another question to the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose Lord Penrhyn declined absolutely to meet the conciliator would the resources of civilisation be then exhausted? If the President of the Board of Trade failed, he would fail having done his duty. If he failed now, he would fail having neglected an obvious duty, a duty imposed upon him by an Act of Parliament, passed by the common consent of both Houses, which instructed him along a path trodden by his predecessors. Was the President of the Board of Trade afraid of Lord Penrhyn's society friends that he would not put an Act of Parliament into operation to protect these poor men who were striving for their lights? If he did so, and there was no result, after all Parliament was the master in this country. What was this quarry? He would not go into the question of Lord Penrhyn's title, but this was common land within the memory of living man. If by prescription Lord Penrhyn had got a legal title, could not the Parliament of Great Britain say: "Here is land which belongs to the people of the district; you are utilising a time title to a property which does not belong to you for the purpose of starving out men."
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTasked whether this was in order. The hon. Member, who was solicitor for the defendant in a case to be heard on Monday next, was raising the question of whether or not Lord Penrhyn had denied his workmen certain rights which the hon. Member thought they ought to have,
  *MR. SPEAKER: That depends, of course, on whether that is one of the matters of dispute in the action. If it is one of the matters in dispute awaiting decision, then it is not proper to discuss it. I may add that whatever the value may be of the argument of the hon. Member as to Parliament interfering by legislation in regard to land, it does not arise upon this Motion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he quite understood it was a great relief to hon. Members opposite that questions of that kind should not be raised, because no one knew better than themselves that they would not stop with Lord Penrhyn. He had carefully guarded himself from dealing with any question raised in the action. Lord Penrhyn was denying to his workmen rights conceded in every great industry in the kingdom. If there ever was a case for Government interference this was one. Yet the President of the Board of Trade was afraid of Lord Penrhyn because he might refuse to answer his letter. What a punishment for a powerful Department! The dispute had gone on for two and a half years, but if it went on much longer the country would not be satisfied until it was put out of an employer's power to reduce the whole community to starvation,
  MR. BELLassociated himself with the protest which had been made against the apathy of the President of the Board of Trade in this matter. He desired to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor put in operation the very Act which they were now discussing. It was most unfortunate that there were people who had the title "Lord" attached to their names, because many of them assumed the power of the Almighty. One of them was Lord Penrhyn. There were other lords who had assumed practically similar authority, but the President of the Board of Trade, on three occasions during the period he had himself held his official position in connection with the railway servants' organisation, had intervened, and to some extent successfully. In 1897 there was a very serious dispute on the London and North-Western Railway, and a lord on that occasion
  1676
  assumed the same stubborn attitude that Lord Penrhyn had assumed in this ease. The President of the Board of Trade, acting under the clause referred to, intervened, and so averted a strike which would probably have resulted from the dispute. More recently there was a dispute on the Great Eastern Railway, and in a few hours the men's notices would have been handed in, but the President of the Board of Trade intervened. The head of that railway was another great lord, who showed the same stubbornness, but the course taken by the President of the Board of Trade was successful in bringing about a settlement.
  In the recent Taff Vale dispute, of which so much had been heard, the workmen had to deal with a railway manager who was equally stubborn. The President of the Board of Trade intervened in that case, sent a representative down, and was to some extent successful. At anyrate, he did assist in bringing to a conclusion that unhappy dispute. In that case the representative of the company sat in one room of an hotel and met the representative of the Board of Trade while he himself was in another room. Communications passed between them, but the company's representative declined to meet him personally. In this way that gentleman preserved his dignity. He did not stand on his own dignity. What he wanted was to do all he possibly could to bring the dispute to a conclusion. He thought that if, in the Penrhyn dispute, the President of the Board of Trade would pluck up courage it might be brought to a speedy conclusion. He was not going to enter into the merits or the demerits of the dispute. He was not going to argue whether the men were right or wrong. His point was that this dispute was causing suffering to the community, and that the President of the Board of Trade should send down a representative to see Lord Penrhyn. If Lord Penrhyn continued his stubbornness and stupidity, and refused to meet the representative of the Board of Trade, then that representative would have no alternative but to report on things as he found them. If Lord Penrhyn was too stubborn to give any information, that was his own affair.

  1677
  The public would then decide. He had a certain amount of confidence in public opinion. He ventured to say that public opinion would very largely settle this question. At any rate they might give it a trial.
  Lord Penrhyn was undoubtedly receiving a great deal of encouragement from gentlemen who assumed that workmen had no rights or privileges of any description. There were too many of that opinion in the country, and the day was not far distant when that would have to be broken down. If Lord Penrhyn snubbed the Government through the President of the Board of Trade he would not assist his own cause, because everybody would support the right hon. Gentleman in his action. If the President of the Board of Trade had no stronger reasons to give for non-interference, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would at once put the clause of the 1896 Act into operation regardless of what was to take place on Monday next. He appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to use the powers conferred on him by the 1896 Act, with the view of bringing about a settlement of the dispute.
  *MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid if he understood the President of the Board of Trade aright, the right hon. Gentleman had practically invalidated a very important provision in a clause of the Statute. The Statute clearly contemplated two alternatives in cases of dispute. The first arose where both parties were willing to place the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade; and the second where one of the parties invited intervention. But the statute contemplated a third condition of things, namely, where there was no arbitration, and no immediate prospect of a successful conciliation, but where the circumstances were such that the Department ought to be empowered to make an inquiry and publish a report for the enlightenment of the public.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think I distinctly said that circumstances might arise which would justify the Board of Trade in appointing some person to inquire and report, but I think that the cases are very rare.
  *MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid that the qualification of the right hon. Gentleman was very large. It scarcely left a conceivable case in which such an official might be appointed. If there was a case in which public opinion ought to be enlightened with regard to the merits of the dispute, this Penrhyn difficulty was clearly marked out for such treatment. This was a unique dispute. It had been prolonged over a considerable period of time, involved a large number of workmen, impaired the happiness of a large number of persons forming an exceptionally industrious, respectable, and self-respecting class of the community. There were well-known and capable gentlemen who could be appointed to report, and whose report would have great influence in the country. He should have liked to hear from the right hon. Gentleman why this course had not been taken, and why he had merely put forward an impotent non possumus. For these reasons he would support the Motion.
  COLONELPRYCE-JONES (Montgomery Boroughs)said he desired to offer a few words on this question as a Welsh Member. His hon. friend was wrong in finding fault with the President of the Board of Trade for not availing himself of the Act, dealing with conciliation. It was a Voluntary Act, and both parties must agree upon a basis of the terms to be submitted to arbitration. He had listened to the whole debate, and he understood that Lord Penrhyn was not willing to give something the men wanted. It was not for Parliament to interfere between capital and labour in that respect. There were still 500 men working in the quarries at present. He believed it was a fact that Lord Penrhyn was losing thousands of pounds at the present time by working the quarries. Why should Lord Penrhyn be anxious to work the quarries at a loss? It was obvious that he was fighting for a very important principle. He was astounded at what had fallen from the hon. Baronet on the other side who was himself an employer of labour. No one could deny that Lord Penrhyn was a good employer [Laughter]—yes, better than the majority of employers throughout the country. He

  1679
  went further,'and said that Lord Penrhyn was a model employer. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but it was a fact that Lord Penrhyn was a model employer, with the exception that he would not give his quarrymen what they wanted. [Renewed laughter.] Up to 1885 a committee of workmen helped Lord Penrhyn to manage the quarries. At any rate the quarries did not pay at that time, although they had since paid. He was bound to say that he quite approved of the action of the President of the Board of Trade in not putting into operation the Conciliation Clause of the Act, and that he did not believe that, even if it had been put in operation, there was a chance of its being successful. He thought that this matter had better be left to Lord Penrhyn and the workpeople to settle among themselves than for Parliament to interfere.
  *MR. TENNANTsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had spoken last alluded to Lord Penrhyn as a model employer. He could only say that his Lordship was of a class of employers which was swelling the ranks of the Socialists. If there were many more model employers of that kind the security of property would rapidly vanish into thin air. The Presi
  dent of the Board of Trade said he did not think there was any chance of this Act, if he attempted to put it in force, bringing this dispute to an end. Was that because the right hon. Gentleman thought Lord Penrhyn right or wrong? There was surely a chance if a conciliator had been appointed that he might have proved the men were wrong and Lord Penrhyn right, and the case would have been at an end at once. That was evidently not the view of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the Act was not sufficiently strong for him why did he not introduce a Bill giving him compulsory powers? Did the right hon. Gentleman scout that idea? Was it not in the power of this Government, with its programme of great social reforms, to bring in such a Bill? He only threw out the suggestion which might yet find favour with the right hon. Gentleman, who, however, he imagined, believed Lord Penrhyn was in the wrong, otherwise he would have put the Act into operation.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 127; Noes, 157. (Division List No. 16)

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Levy, Maurice

  Bell, Richard

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Boland. John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lloyd-George, David

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Edwards, Frank

  Lough, Thomas

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lundon, W.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Evans. Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Kean, John

  Burns, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Burt, Thomas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gilhooly, James

  Middlemore, John Thr'gmorton

  Caldwell, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Murphy, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Crean, Eugene

  Hammond, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norman, Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Cullinan, J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Delany, William

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Kearley, Hudson E,

  O'Mara, James

  Partington, Oswald

  Shackleton, David James

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Perks, Robert William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rea, Russell

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C, R (Northants

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Reddy, M.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wood, James

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Russell, T. W.

  Tomkinson, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Herbert Roberts and Mr. Brymnor Jones.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C Ormsby- (Salop

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Line

  Purvis, Robert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pym, C. Guy

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Quilter, Sir Cathbert

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Randles, John S.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Rankin, Sir James

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Balfour, Capt. C. R. (Hornsey

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Renwick, George

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Bond, Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hoare. Sir Samuel

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Spear, John Ward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Long. Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cranborne, Lord

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Vincent. Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Denny, Colonel

  Massey Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Durning-Lawrence Sir Edwin

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wylie, Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fisher, William Haves

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Flower, Ernest

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Garfit, William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Godson. Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

  INCEST BILL.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODmoved the Second Reading of the Incest Bill. He said that he had no wish to enter into any detailed explanation of this Bill, which dealt with a rather disagreeable subject. He believed there was no objection to its being referred to the Grand Committee on Law. He had been induced to introduce the Bill by the number of such crimes being committed in the rural districts of England, and he did not think that hon. Members would imagine that such crimes should not be severely punished.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that this Bill proposed to make criminal certain offences which at the present time were not so. One bad only to read the Bill to arrive at the conclusion that the offences with which it dealt ought to come within the scope of the criminal law. But, on the other hand, the Bill was very comprehensive, and brought in a number of matters which it was very desirable should be carefully considered by the responsible Law Officers of the Government, if it was to be proceeded with. The House should know from the Law Officers what was the view of the Government, and why this matter had not before been brought before them. They all knew that the law in Scotland on these matters was very different from that of England, and that there were certain offences in Scotland which were not only criminal but capital. Yet they knew that it was impossible to make the law operative, and that under these circumstances they were entitled to have some careful consideration on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown before they could say that the criminal law in England should be altered in the direction indicated in the Bill. There were some things which obviously ought to be made criminal offences, but there were others deserving of the closest scrutiny. He was not saying one word against the Bill, which he thought should be passed in some form, but it was a measure which ought to have been introduced and dealt with by the Government. Speaking for himself, he should like to know the views of the Government, and what attitude they proposed to take.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he hoped the Attorney General would give the House the views of the Government on this Bill. It was perfectly true that incest was a criminal offence in Scotland, but it was not now punishable with death. The death penalty was abolished a number of years ago, and the crime was now punishable with penal servitude. He did not think that there had been any convictions of recent years in Scotland under a law which was passed in 1567. At any rate, if a law against incest was to be put in force in England it ought to be put in force by responsible officers of the Crown, and not by private prosecution.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. On the part of everyone there must be very great sympathy with the feeling behind the introduction of the Bill; but it was a Bill which required very careful consideration in regard to its provisions. There were many matters which it was most desirous to check, but, at the same time there were cases in which a most laudable and potent desire to check these evils might possibly lead, by methods of administration, to other and graver evils.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd March]. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed:—Debate resumed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that this Bill had for its object a complete change in an Act passed very recently after careful discussion by this House. He believed that the provisions of the Act, so far as the general public were concerned, had given perfect satisfaction. Undoubtedly certain parties, who were probably actuated by a desire for scientific research and various matters of that kind,

  1685
  thought that to a certain extent they were hampered by the provisions of the Act, and they wanted the limitations placed on experiments on live animals by the Act of 1876 removed.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood Adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed this day.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  Ordered, that a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Broadhurst, Sir Harry Billiard, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Dalziel. Sir Horatio Davies, Sir Thomas Firbank, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Leigh-Bennett, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Lonsdale, Dr. MacDonnell, Mr. Nicol, Mr. George Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Pierpoint, Mr. Power, and Mr. William Redmond.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth the number of signatures to each Petition only in respect to those signatures to which addresses are affixed. And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it: and that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Allsopp, Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Brymer, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, General Laurie, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir Henry Meysey-Thompson. Mr. Charles Morley, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Tollemache, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson.
  Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.