Commons Sitting of 23 March 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL 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:—
  West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill.
  South Yorkshire Joint Railways Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  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, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz:—
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO 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, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.—
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
  Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area) Bill; Great Western Railway (Pension Fund) Bill.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Croydon and District Electric Tramways Bill; Great Central Railway Bill; Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Bill; South Shields, Sunderland, and District Tramways Bill.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN informed the House that the Committee on Group B of Private Bills not being appointed to meet until to-morrow, the parties opposing the Bath Corporation Water Bill, which was set down for consideration on the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Samuel Frederick Andrews, General Manager of the West Gloucestershire Water Company, was essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
  Ordered, That Samuel Frederick Andrews do attend the Committee mi Group B of Private Bills to-morrow at Twelve of the Clock.

  WELLINGBOROUGH AND DISTRICT TRAMROADS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee not exceeding eleven members, to be called the Police and Sanitary Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to police or sanitary regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law.
  Ordered, that Standing Orders 150 and 173A apply to all such Bills.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That four be the quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered, That if the Committee consider that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police and Sanitary Regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of the reference to the Committee, it is not necessary or advisable for them to deal with, they may at any time make a Special Report to the Committee of Selection to that effect, and the Committee of Selection shall then refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and the Preamble and report the whole Bill to

  1437
  the House, specifying in their Report which Clauses have been considered by the Police and Sanitary Committee, and which Clauses have been considered by the Select Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of, and be subject to the instructions which apply to, the undivided Committee; and that three be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—(Mr. Cochrane.)

PETITIONS.

  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Cheltenham; Scottish Trade Protection Society;
  Norwich; Manchester; Bradford; East bourne; and Wakefield; to lie upon the Table.

  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from New Spynie; and Brechin; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF POLLUTION OF RIVERS AND STREAMS BILL.
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: from Leeds; Woolwich; Dolgelly; and Headington; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Montrose, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from Montrose, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND).
  Petition form Montrose, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-fifth Annual Report, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway I Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 18th March, 1903, declaring that William Barber, Artificer, Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (NAVY VOTES).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 18th March, 1903, authorising the temporary application of surpluses on certain Navy Votes for the year 1902–3 to meet excesses on other Navy Votes for the same year [pursuant to Resolution of the House of 4th March, 1879]; to lie upon the Table.

  ALIENS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address, 6th March; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. (No. 86.)
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
  Copy of Abstract of the General Annual Account for the yea ending 26th July, 1902 [by Act].

  DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Address for "Return of the number of all deaths in the administrative

  1439
  county of London, in the year 1902, upon which a coroner's jury has returned a verdict of death from starvation or death accelerated by privation; together with any observations furnished to the Local Government Board by Boards of Guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 342, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Talbot.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Waltham Abbey Sanitary Inspector-Visits to Government Property.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why the Sanitary Inspector at Waltham Abbey is not allowed to visit the Government houses and cottages, as well as the houses of private owners.
  {Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)
  Under Clause 327 of the Public Health Act of 1875 War Department property is exempted from disturbance or interference on the part of the local authority.
  It does not appear, moreover, that the local sanitary inspector has ever made any attempt to visit Government houses; at Waltham.

  Dewsbury Post Office-Improved Sanitary Accommodation.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General what steps, if any, have been taken to improve the sanitary arrangements of the Dewsbury Post Office; and whether, in view of the overcrowding and the accommodation afforded for telegraphists, telephonists, and postmen at the present premises, he will say what steps are being taken to extend the building or to secure new premises.
  {Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Some minor improvements were effected in the sanitary arrangements of the Dewsbury Post Office during the past year, and though the accommodation is not so ample as could be desired there is not at present any serious overcrowding. In view of the approaching expiration of the lease, inquiries have been going on as to the best method of
  1440
  improving the accommodation, and a scheme for a new post office is under consideration.

  British South Africa—Forced Labour.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the rector of Thaba'nchu has stated that, upon the visit of inspection by the Governor, all able-bodied men not at that moment employed have been sent away to work in various places at the discretion of their captors; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a system of forced, labour and slavery being set up in British South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) My attention has been drawn to a letter which appeared in the Press on the 17th instant, signed by the rector of Thaba'nchu, and inquiry will be made with regard to it. In reply to the second Question, I would refer to my remarks last Thursday. †

  Judicial Trustees.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask Mr. Attorney-General how many judicial trustees have been; appointed under the provisions of the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) Forty-nine judicial trustees have been appointed under the provisions of the Judicial Trustees Act up to the 20th March, 1903.

  Trees in Phoenix Park—Damage by Storm.
  MR. HEALY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what sum has the Board of Works spent on extra labour, and how many extra workmen have been employed, since the devastation of the Phoenix Park by storm; what provision has been made for the removal of the 3,000 fallen trees which encumber the park; why was no effort made to save some of the younger trees by uprighting and trimming them; who will consider the question of the refurnishing of the park with trees and shrubs; why only young trees of the cheapest and commonest variety were planted two years ago, and why no effort was made to obtain ornamenta
  † See page 1257.

  1441
  trees and shrubs such as are planted in the London Royal Parks, although a list of these was supplied to the Irish Board of Works; and whether the Treasury will give instructions that estimates should be obtained from expert land-scape gardeners and nurserymen with a view to the future laying out of the Park on a proper scale.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) By the kind permission of the Colonel of the 21st Lancers, about 400 men of that regiment were occupied for two days in clearing the road behind the Viceregal Demesne, in order to enable the regiment to use that road in passing to and from the park. In addition to these, twenty extra men have been employed and £40 expended on extra labour; fifty-four of the permanent labourers of the park have also been employed in clearing fallen trees from roads, park gardens, and other places where their removal was urgently required, at a cost of about £125. Advertisements were inserted in the public Press inviting offers from timber merchants and contractors for removing the timber. Only one offer was received, and, as the price was inadequate and the time required excessive, the offer was declined. The Board have now decided to employ a number of extra labourers' and deal with the matter themselves. Owing to the universal destruction of trees throughout Ireland, the consequent glut in the timber market, and the difficulty of procuring export woodcutters, there will be some delay in getting the park entirely cleared. In almost all cases the extra labourers have to be taught the art of woodcutting and sawing. There are no trees now encumbering the park in the sense of blocking the roads and pathways. There are no young trees blown down in the open park that are capable of being uprighted with any hope of success. A few small trees in the park gardens have been so treated. I presume that the trees planted two years ago, to which the hon. Member refers, are the avenue of sycamore trees planted on each side of the road west of the Wellington Memorial. These trees were planted in pursuance of a general scheme drawn up some years ago, and I am informed that, having regard to the soil and surroundings, they are quite suitable for the position. Some hundreds of new, rare, and ornamental trees and
  1442
  shrubs have been planted in the park gardens and in the vicinity during the last two years. Almost all the trees and shrubs mentioned on the list supplied from the London Royal Parks, which are suitable for the exposure and soil conditions of the Phoenix Park, are already represented there. There are also, in addition, many varieties of trees and shrubs in the Pluenix Park which are not named on that list. The Phoenix Park differs in many ways from the London parks, and it must not be assumed that the treatment which suits one will suit the other. I will consider whether, in arranging for the future planting of the Phienix Park, the Board of Works should not be allowed to obtain the assistance of experts, whether professional or amateur. If this were done, it might be possible to lay down a general scheme which could be gradually carried out in future years.

  Promotion of Naval Schoolmasters.
  MR. YOXALLTo ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to give to head schoolmasters in the Navy the same opportunities of promotion as have been promised to the other ranks of Naval warrant officers in Lord Selborne's Memorandum of 25th December, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretymau.) Representations have been received on the subject and the matter is now engaging the attention of the Board of Admiralty.

  Plumbers in the Navy—Rates of Pay.
  MR. KEARLEY(Devonport): To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the pay and status of plumbers and plumbers' mates serving in the Royal Navy who have received no increase in their pay for thirty-five years, notwithstanding that the pay of plumbers of the Royal Dockyards has advanced in the same period from 24s. to 32s. 6d. per week.
  ((Answered by Mr. Pretymau.) Nothing is known of any proposal to improve the pay and status of plumbers and plumbers' mates serving in the Fleet.

  Naval Shooting—Names of Prizewinners.
  MR. HARMSWORTH (Caithness-shire): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision of the Admiralty to present medals to the best shots in each ship, the winner's name, with score and nature of gun, will be displayed on the lower deck of each ship as an encouragement to the men of the Fleet.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) It is not proposed to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  Navy Rations Improvement in Cooking.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the revision in the dietary scale to take effect next October will be accompanied by improvements in the system of cooking and serving food now in force in the Royal Navy.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) There are three cookery schools for the Navy, one at each of the principal Home ports. Ships' cooks are specially trained at these schools in the best methods of cooking whatever articles are supplied in Navy rations. Improved arrangements have been made for preparing tea, which will enable each mess to prepare its own. Arrangements have been made for improving the method of serving the food by adding knife, fork, basin and plate, and improved spoon to the present scale of seamen's mess utensils.

  Private Paths in Chatham Dockyard.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether it was by order of the Lords of the Admiralty that a notice was recently put up in Chatham Dockyard to the effect that the footpaths in the yard were reserved for the use of officers only; whether any, and if so how many, men have been punished for breaches of this order; and will he explain why this notice was removed just previous to a recent visit to the yard by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and was replaced immediately after the visit.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold Forder.) No notice to this effect has recently been issued in Chatham Dockyard, nor have there been any recent instances of men
  1444
  being punished as suggested by the hon. Member. There is a footpath opposite the official residences in the yard which has been reserved for many years past for the use of officers, but I am not aware that the notice was taken down and replaced as suggested in the Question

  Glass Balls on Mastheads of Men-of War.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether the glass balls affixed to the mastheads of men-of-war are purchased by the State; and, if not, by whom are they supplied and paid for.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forder.) Glass balls are occasionally placed on the mastheads of ships for the purposes of decoration. They are not purchased by the State, but are placed there by the officers, who, I presume, pay for them, unless, as I believe frequently happens, they are presented by friends who have a special admiration for the ship, or for those who sail in her.

  Special Greenwich Hospital Pensions.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of extending the benefits of the Special Greenwich Hospital Pensions, now granted to officers and warrant officers only, to fifty chief petty officers, and of making the pensions so granted £20 per annum each.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) All chief petty officers are at the present time eligible for assistance from Greenwich Hospital Special Funds and for the Greenwich Hospital Age Pension. The establishment of a fixed pension for fifty chief petty officers similar to the Greenwich Hospital Pensions at present in force for warrant officers would necessitate the withdrawal of the above privileges which the whole class at present receive. In view of these facts, and of the recent considerable increase in the rate of pension awarded these men from Naval funds, there appears no sufficient reason to grant the further privilege suggested in the Question.

  Promotion and Pay in the Naval Medical Deparment.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether

  1445
  it is proposed to improve the Naval Medical Department with respect to promotion and pay, so as to place it on a like footing with the Army Medical Service.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) On 24th March, 1902, an Order in Council was issued raising the pay of Naval medical officers and placing it practically on an equality with that of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Promotion both in the medical branch of the Navy and in the Royal Army Medical Corps is by seniority until the administrative grades are reached, when promotion by selection is practised. Special promotions for conspicuous professional merit or for war service are made in the Naval Medical Service. Owing to the great differences between the Navy and Army it is impossible to conduct the medical services on exactly similar lines.

  New Victualling Scheme.—Increased Allowance to Pensioners
  MR. LOCKIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the new victualling scheme will cost more than the old scale, it is proposed to increase the present allowance of 1s. 1d. per day to pensioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The, reply to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. The amount of the allowance was fixed more than thirty years ago with reference to the value of the ration at that date; and owing to the subsequent falls in the prices of various articles of food, the allowance has for some years exceeded the actual value of the old ration, and will still be higher than the estimated value of the new ration.

  Naval Works Acts—Expenditure.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what is the approximate amount issued, during the year ending 31st March, 1903, for the purposes of the Naval Works Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The following advances have been issued by the Treasury: Midsummer, 1902,
  1446
  £900,000; Michaelmas, 1902, £748,000; Christmas, 1902, £610,000; Lady Day, 1903, £890,000; Total, £3,148,000. unexpended balance of advances on 31st March, 1902, amounted to £221,404.

  Education Act, 1902—Applications under Section 11 (1).
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education how many applications under Section 11 (1) of the Education Act, 1902, have been received by the Board; in how many cases the application was to modify the trust deed; and in how many cases it was for an order where no trust deed existed; whether any orders have been made which have the effect of rendering the religious teaching in a school denominational where it has hitherto been undenominational; and, if no such orders have been yet made, is it the intention of the Board of Education to make such orders in cases where existing schools are undenominational.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Up to 21st March, 10,214 applications for orders under Section 11 had been received by the Board. As the classification of the applications has not yet been completed, it is not possible at present to say how many are for orders to modify the trust deed, and how many are for orders to meet cases where no trust deed exists. No orders have been made which will have the effect of rendering the religious teaching in a school denominational where it has hitherto been undenominational. Nor have the Board power under Section 11 to make any such order or to give any directions as to the form of religious instruction to be given in schools.

  Training Colleges—Practical Examination in Science.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it has been decided that there shall be no practical examination in science at the training college examinations this year; and, if so, whether the Board will reconsider their decision in view of their circular issued to the training colleges in June, 1901, prescribing that the science teaching should in future be of a practical and experimental character.

  1447
  men sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. Recent elections had ratified the protests made in the House, but if they chose in this reckless manner to add 27,000 men to the Army surely it was a bad moment to add also to the Navy. His hon. friend had asked why the Government did not follow the precedents of former times and reduce the armaments when they came to the end of a war. It was simply because the Government had come to the conclusion, since Imperialism had been in the ascendency, that all the great Ministers who had had the destinies of this nation in hand before the present Government came into power, were nothing but idiots and fools, and the Government had decided that it was necessary to keep up armaments sufficient to fight the whole world. They had got to accept the fact that if this country went to war they could not control the entire seas, or block up all the navies of their enemies, and they would necessarily have to submit to a considerable loss in trade. He was not sure that such a calamity would not be a good thing for the country, because all countries were too apt to recklessly plunge into war. All the promises and assurances made that this country was going to better its position by the late war in South Africa had not proved correct.
  It had been suggested that they should make an appeal to other great Naval Powers to come to some arrangement in regard to the strength of their Navy. Those suggestions were not practical if based upon the present balance of power, because it practically meant saying to other countries: "We want permanently to assume the position of being masters of the sea, and therefore you must have a Navy not able, with two or three other navies joined to it, to defeat the British Navy." No foreign country would accept such a scheme. Napoleon sought universal Empire, and the whole world united against him. Although this country had more colonies than foreign countries they must not forget that foreign countries also had their carrying trade, and they had realised that it was necessary for all manufacturing nations to be able to export their goods. Consequently they would never assent to a claim that their
  1448
  colonies and trade should be held at kind of hostages by this country. It was often urged that they must have command of the sea in order to ensure their food supply. He denied, in the first place, that it was necessary for them to obtain command of the sea in such a way. This country might build ships, and foreign countries might also build, but although England had a long purse, it-was not longer than the rest of the world. He did not think it necessary, in order to obtain food supplies, that we should be in such a position. Supposing we were at war with France, Germany, and Russia, we should get our provisions from America. Why? Because the Americans would claim that they had a perfect right to send food here: they would not accept the doctrine that food was contraband of war. Then these three Powers would know that they would have the United States against them if they attempted to enforce any such doctrine.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): What would happen if the United States refused to accept that view?
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE said he was waiting for that question. He was looking to the hon. Gentleman to ask it. The United States refused to accept the doctrine laid down by the Treaty of Paris, and had invariably asserted the view he had stated. Did his hon. friend seriously suppose that if we were in the contingency of Mar he had suggested in Europe, that the United States would for a moment accept the view that their ships might be overhauled in the open ocean in order to see whether they had food which was destined for us? The United States depended enormously on their export of wheat, and they would not agree for a moment that they should be hindered on the ground that they had not entered into a particular treaty, or that our enemies chose to assert that food was contraband of war.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: What would happen if they refused to send us food?
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE said that was the sort of idle, silly question that a woman would ask. It was the sort of possibility that lion. Gentlemen were

  1449
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Petitions have been presented to the Congested Districts Board and to the Secretary for Scotland, complaining of poverty, and desiring allocation of land among certain of the cottars in South Uist, but nothing has come before the Secretary for Scotland disclosing any exceptional amount of distress at the present time. The Secretary for Scotland has been informed by Lady Gordon Cathcart's agents that there have been no individual applications for specific pieces of land, but that a letter was received by the factor, signed by four persons, containing a general request for land, and ending up with a threat of disturbance. The Secretary for Scotland has received reports from the police showing that some of the inhabitants have spread seaweed over certain lands now in occupation of a tenant under lease from the owner, and from this it may be inferred that further illegal action was contemplated. With regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Members Question, the Secretary for Scotland can authorise no inquiry through the Congested Districts Board or otherwise so long as any evidence of actual or intended illegal action remains.

  Public House Licences.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether holders of licences of public houses which are being closed will have such portion of the money paid for their licences refunded to them as may have been paid for the time subsequent to the closing of the house.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) When a public house is closed in consequence of the non-renewal of the magistrates' certificate, and not in consequence of any conviction recorded against the holder of the certificate, so much of the duty on the current excise licence for the premises as is applicable to the complete unexpired quarters of the year covered by the licence is repaid, in accordance with Section 24 of the Act, 6 Geo. IV. c. 81, on application being made to the Board of Inland Revenue through the local supervisor. Thus, in the case of a public house in England closed on the 5th April (i.e., a full six months before the 10th October, when the excise licence would
  1450
  ordinarily have expired), a repayment of half the excise licence duty would be allowed.

  Chief Judge of Lower Burma-Qualifications.
  MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the reasons for which it was decided not to follow existing Indian precedents in regard to the qualifications for the post of the Chief Judge of the Chief Court of Lower Burma.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that existing Indian precedents have not been followed in the case of the Chief Court of Lower Burma. In the Punjab, the only other province where a Chief Court exists, the Chief fudge may be, and often has been, a civilian and not a barrister. Before the Chief Court was established at Rangoon the Appellate Court of that city consisted of only one barrister Judge, the Recorder; there are now two barrister Judges in the Chief Court besides two civilian Judges. Beside? the judicial business of the seaports, which forms but a small portion of the work of the Court, the Chief Court has the control and supervision over the whole of the Courts of the interior of the country, and it was thought necessary that the Chief Judge of the Court, in whose hands rests the distribution of business and the inspection and supervision of the Courts, should be an officer well acquainted with the customs and language of the people and with the practical working of those Courts. For this reason it was decided that the Chief Judge should for the present be a civilian.

  India—Case of Captain Winter.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India what action the Viceroy or the Military authorities intend to take with regard to Captain Winter, who was convicted and fined by the Bombay Police Court for a gross insult to a native barrister and his wife in a railway carnage on 10th February.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have observed a report in the newspapers of the case referred to,

  1451
  and of the decision of the magistrate. I have no doubt that the Government of India have taken due notice of the very reprehensible conduct of Captain Winter, but it does not seem necessary to make special inquiries on the subject.

  Dogs sold by the Police.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of dogs sold by the police, he will direct that every purchaser shall give his or her name and address, and shall be required to pay the dog tax before taking possession of the dog.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Alters Douglas.) No, Sir; I do not see my wav to issuing any such directions.

  South Africa—Importation of Labour.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with whom the arrangement has been made to obtain 1,000 labourers in Central Africa for South Africa; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Papers explaining the nature of that arrangement and the instructions that have been sent to the British authorities in Central Africa with respect to it.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The arrangement made to obtain labourers not exceeding 1,000 in number in British Central Africa for South Africa has been made with the Native Labour Association through the High Commissioner for South Africa. The Papers will be laid without delay.

  English Shareholders in Foreign Undertakings.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government adheres to the declaration of Count von Bülow in the German Reichsrath that it is a principle of British commercial policy that Englishmen invest their capital abroad at their own risk; and whether this principle will be fully acted upon in regard to Venezuela.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The principles of our commercial policy in the respect mentioned are sufficiently
  1452
  explained by the recent action of His Majesty's Government in the Venezuelan controversy and by their declarations in regard to it made in both Houses of Parliament. We cannot undertake any responsibility for the statement attributed to Count Bülow.

  British Coaling Stations in Tripoli
  MR LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the statement made in the Italian Chamber by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and whether Lord Lansdowne has assured the Italian Ambassador in London, and His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Rome has assured the Italian Government, that there is no intention to establish British coal depôts either at Bombah or Fobruck, or at any other point on the seaboard of Tripoli.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to both Questions is in the affirmative. The rumour is absolutely without foundation.

  Canal Rates in Ireland.
  MR. KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction will exercise its powers under Section 17 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, of appearing before the Railway and Canal Commissioners on behalf of the boat-owners on the Royal Canal who feel aggrieved by reason of the tolls charged by the Midland Great Western Railway on. canal traffic, when added to working, expenses, being in excess of the freight, charged on that company's railway for the same class of goods, thereby destroying the competition of the canal.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Department is in communication with the railway company on the subject of the complaints of the boat-owners. Until the correspondence has concluded the department cannot say what further action it may be necessary to take.

  Education in Ireland—Grants.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to resolutions passed at conferences recently held in Dublin, at which delegates were present representative of educational associations of every denomination, concerned with secondary education; and whether, in apportioning the equivalent grant, he will take these representations into consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply to this Question is in the affirmative. As already stated, I hope shortly to make an announcement on the subject.

  Training of Volunteers—Artillery.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will favourably consider applications from corps now equipped and trained as mobile Artillery to be continued as such under the same conditions as Imperial Yeomanry, that is, on the basis of twelve battery field drills, to be paid as half-days, and a fourteen days' minimum camp, giving a total of twenty days' minimum training per annum in addition to the usual evening drills.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member presumably refers to Volunteer Artillery. Any proposal of the kind indicated would certainly be considered.

  Meat Contracts.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs): To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the terms of the meat contracts; and whether he will alter them to make it clear as to whether they are for British and Irish grown meat, or for frozen and chilled meat, or meat from animals killed at Deptford, the wharves, or other places within ten days after arrival from abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The existing conditions for dead meat contracts show quite clearly that the supply of beet must be British or Irish grown, not frozen or chilled, and not from animals killed at Deptford or else-
  1454
  where within ten days of arrival from abroad, and that the supply of mutton may be frozen provided that it comes from a British Colony, and that, as regards hospital supplies, the medical officer approves. It would not appear that anything is required to make the terms of the contracts clearer.

  Map of Somaliland in Tea Boom.
  MR. ROUND: To ask the Secretary of State for War if ho will have a map of Somaliland placed in the tea room for the information of Members.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Yes, Sir.

  Royal Artillery Commissions for University Candidates.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that Commissions for the Royal Artillery are to be avail-j able for all University candidates who take honours, or only for a certain; number to be selected by competition.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Until the details have been worked out with the Universities no definite announcement can be made in regard to them, but it may be stated that Commissions in the Royal Artillery cannot be made available for all University candidates who take honours.

  Military Works Acts—Expenditure.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the approximate amount issued during the year ending 31st March, 1903, for the purposes of the Military Works Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is estimated that the expenditure during 1902–3 under the Military Works Acts will amount to about £1,700,000.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Flogging of a Drummer-boy in the Guards.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a drummer-boy of 1st Grenadier Guards, having

  1455
  left the barracks on Coronation night to see the illuminations, was on his return severely flogged by Sergeant Drummer Sinclair, and afterwards handed over to his fellow boy drummers, who tossed him in a blanket, with the result that he was unable to stand upright on parade next day, and was then sent to hospital; and that Sergeant Drummer Sinclair was, in consequence, reduced to the ranks one day and re-instated in full the next; and will he state what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition of these practices.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): A boy of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards broke out of barracks on the evening of the 9th August, 1902. The fact was discovered and reported to the sergeant drummer of the battalion, who failed to report the matter to superior authority, took the law into his own hands, and personally chastised the boy. The boy's back was examined by Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch and by a surgeon, and they were of opinion that the boy had received a severe caning. The bruises on the boy's back were stated not to have been inflicted by Sergeant Drummer Sinclair, but at the hands of a certain number of drummers of the battalion, who, it was feared by Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch, had been instigated by the sergeant-drummer to do so. Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch stated that he feared the sergeant drummer had been in the habit of carrying out the duties of his responsible position in a most improper and reprehensible manner. Sergeant Drummer Sinclair was tried by a District Court-martial on the 29th August, 1902, in connection with this matter, and was sentenced to be reduced to the rank of corporal, but was recommended to mercy on account of his previous excellent character. It was stated in evidence before the Court-martial that, after the boy had been beaten by the sergeant drummer with a stick, some of the other boys tossed him in a blanket and beat him. The boy himself stated before the Court-martial that, as his back was all bruised, he asked leave from church, but was refused. Sergeant Drummer Sinclair's reduction to the rank of corporal bore
  1456
  date 29th August, 1902, and it has only now been brought to the notice of the War Office that he was re-appointed sergeant drummer on the 4th September, 1902, by the officer commanding the Grenadier Guards, on the recommendation of the officer commanding the 1st Battalion. The circumstances under which this reinstatement was made are being investigated by the adjutant-general.

  Civil Service Clerks in the War Office.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return relative to established (certificated) Civil Service clerks on the Paper this day.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): I am afraid my right hon. friend cannot consent to grant the Return on the Paper.
  MR. FLAVIN: Last year I was refused a Return owing to the progress of the war. Why is it that, now the war is over, I am still refused?
  LORD STANLEY: The Return cannot be granted.
  MR. FLAVIN: Then I shall become a member of the Fourth Party, and make further inquiries.

  Drafts for South Africa.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the age and size of the later drafts sent to (South Africa, and whether he will call for a Report upon them.
  LORD STANLEY: My hon. friend is perhaps unaware that there is no limit for age as regards drafts for South Africa in peace time, and therefore recruits are despatched to their units there as soon as possible. South Africa is considered a very suitable training ground for the young soldier. The paragraphs recently furnished to the Press appear to be exaggerated.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Are recruits of seventeen or eighteen sent out to South Africa?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes: they are sent there just as they are sent to home battalions. We are testing the system in order to decide whether it shall be continued.

  Range Finders.
  MR. ORR-EWING (Ayr Burghs): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the result of the trials of eight range finders that took place at Aldershot in November last.
  LORD STANLEY: None of the instruments were considered altogether satisfactory, and further trials will be carried out as soon as the improved instruments, as ordered, have been received.

  Army Works Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what amount of money will be required under the proposed Army Works Bill, and how much of the total sum will be expended within the next financial year.
  LORD STANLEY: If the hon. Member will kindly refer to my reply to a (Question put by the hon. Member for East Perthshire on the 10th instant, he will find that I stated that I could not at present answer this point.†

  Acquisition of Land for National Defence.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he, in conjunction with the Admiralty, will grant the Return as to Acquisition of Land for National Defence.
  LORD STANLEY: A Return of the property purchased on Salisbury Plain has been given. I am not prepared to promise a Return involving any considerable labour and the publication of the exact locality of a number of sites specially selected for defence work.

  Coastguard Signal Stations—Wireless Telegraphy.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give the names of the six signal stations of the coastguard already
  1458
  fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus and of the eight others to be fitted with such apparatus during the coming financial year, and state whether these stations are available for communication, when required, between mercantile vessels and the shore.
  †See page 841.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY(Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The following stations have been established:—Dover, Culver Cliff, Portland, Rame Head, Scillys, and Roches Point. The following are proposed to be fitted during the next financial year:—Bere Island, Spurn Head, Alderney, St. Abb's Head, St. Ann's. Head, Landguard, Port Patrick, Duncansby Head. As regards com mercial signalling it is proposed to carry this out from the stations which will be included in the new Lloyds Admiralty agreement, which are:—Culver Cliff, Scillys, Spurn Head, St. Abb's Head, Portland, St. Ann's Head, Duncansby Head, and Roches

  Osborne Naval College.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is proposed to be the character of the new Naval College at Osborne; will it be a branch of the Dartmouth Naval College and receive the same cadets, entered under the same conditions, for the same training; or, if not, in what respects will it differ from the Dartmouth College; how many cadets will be accommodated at Osborne; and when is it proposed that the first batch shall join.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Cadets entered under the new scheme will in the first instance be sent to the Naval College at Osborne, whence a portion of them will proceed to Dartmouth on the opening of the new Naval College. Cadets entered under the hitherto existing arrangements will proceed to the "Britannia" as long as the entries continue to be made under that system. I cannot at present say how many cadets Osborne College will ultimately accommodate. It is proposed that the first batch shall join on the 15th September.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that all the Naval cadets under the new scheme will go to Osborne?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

  New Admiralty Yacht.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, was the tender for the new Admiralty yacht one based on a definite specification and design, or were the conditions of that tender that each firm was to submit its own proposed designs and specifications and a tender for carrying them out; and, if the latter, will the Board of Admiralty consider the advisability of adopting a similar plan of tender for harbours, breakwaters, and other works, with a view of obtaining alternative designs and specifications for these works.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The firms were asked to tender for a sea-going vessel of a certain speed suitable for use as an Admiralty yacht. Certain definite conditions were laid down, but no complete designs and specifications were supplied. I n reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, the practice usually followed at the Admiralty is to obtain a tender on definite specifications and design, but the Admiralty would be prepared to adopt the system under which the design and plan of works are made the subject of competition in any case in which in their opinion it offered distinct advantages.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: May I ask if the Board of Admiralty submitted specifications and designs to the various firms who were asked to tender?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.

  Alaskan Boundary Tribunal.
  MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Convention signed at Washington, 24th January, 1903, for the adjustment of the boundary between the dominion of Canada and the Territory of Alaska aims at arbitration for a settlement of the
  1460
  dispute or is to be confined to a judicial interpretation of the boundary line.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The duties of the tribunal established by the Convention is stated in the Convention itself to be to consider judicially the questions submitted, and its decision is to be final and binding upon all parties.

  Jamaica Finances.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is he aware that on the 18th February last a Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council of the Crown Colony of Jamaica by the Colonial Secretary of that colony, empowering the guarantee out of the general revenues and assets of the colony, and the payment by the island treasurer of the interest on the capital employed in establishing central sugar factories; has he considered whether such guarantee and payment of interest will constitute the grant of a direct or indirect bounty on the manufacture or exportation of sugar such as His Majesty's Government have undertaken by Article I. and Protocol A of the Sugar Convention shall not be established in the United Kingdom or any of the Crown colonies; and will the question be submitted to the Permanent Commission at Brussels.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill referred to, which amends a previous law, has not yet been received from the Governor, nor am I aware whether it has been passed into law. In these circumstances perhaps the hon. Member would postpone his Question for about a fortnight.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when do His Majesty's Government propose to fulfil their obligation, under Art. VII. of the Brussels Sugar Convention, to communicate to the Brussels Permanent Commission the Laws, Orders, and Regulations on the taxation of sugar in Great Britain and the Crown colonies, in order to enable that Commission to pronounce whether any direct or indirect bounty on the production or exportation of sugar is

  1461
  granted in Great Britain or British Crown colonies; do His Majesty's Government propose similarly to communicate the Laws, Orders, and Regulations in question existing in the self-governing colonies; and can he say when it is proposed that the Permanent Commission shall hold its first meeting.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): The obligation in question I will be fulfilled as soon as possible after the meeting of the Commission. His Majesty's Government will also be prepared to communicate any laws, etc., of the self-governing colonies which may be desired by the Commission. It is hoped that the Commission will meet at an early date.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Must it not meet before the 1st June?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am not able to give more precise information.

  Cretan Administration.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Reports of Prince George of Greece, High Commissioner for Crete, on the administration of that island for 1899 and the three following years will be laid upon the Table.
  LORD CRANBORNE: There are no communications from the High Commissioner which His Majesty's Government are at present prepared to lay before Parliament.

  Macedonian Reforms.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate any information as to the progress of the steps taken for securing the proper execution of the joint scheme of reforms for the Macedonian vilayets.
  LORD CRANBOUNE: We have no special information to report; the British Consuls have been instructed to keep in communication with their Russian and Austrian colleagues, and to assist and
  1462
  support them, both in obtaining information and in joining in any representations calculated to promote the effective application of the reforms.

  Portuguese Import Duties.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what representations have been made to Portugal in respect to the proposed duties to be placed on the import of British machinery.
  LORD CRANBORNE: While the late Portuguese Government was in office His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon was instructed to urge that such of the proposed duties as were specially injurious to British trade should be reduced. Sir M. Gosseling has been informed since the change of Ministry that the scheme of the late Government is being carefully examined by the new Minister of Finance.

  International Mercantile Marine Company.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, what are the general lines of agreement between His Majesty's Government and Mr. Pierpont Morgan's Shipping Trust, now known as the International Mercantile Marine Company, which had been settled and accepted by both parties on 23rd February last; does this agreement relate to the transfer by British owners to that company of nearly one million tons of British shipping, and is that company a foreign company; and, if so, can he explain on what grounds the ships in I question continue to fly the British flag and to sail under a British register, i contrary to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and, in view of the delay of over five months that has occurred, will he now undertake to lay the agreement upon the Table within a definite period.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The general lines of the agreement are in the terms announced by me in my speech at Sheffield on September 30th last and reported in The Times of the following day. I have

  1463
  explained on previous occasions that the arrangements entered into with the British companies that are associated with the combine do not involve the transfer of ships, but the transfer of shares in those companies. Without being able to state definitely when the formal agreement will be laid before Parliament, I think I am in a position to undertake that it will be ready for execution by the parties before Easter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman favour me with a copy of his speech at Sheffield? I have not seen the report.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I dare say it can be seen in the Library, in the file of The Times.

  Corn Tax—Export of Offals.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been any increase in the export of offals from the United Kingdom since the corn tax was reimposed as compared with the corresponding period in previous years and, if so. If he will say what has been the amount of such increase; and what is the amount of rebate allowed per ton on offal exported.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): It is impossible to make a trustworthy comparison between the periods before and after the imposition of the Grain, etc. Duty, because there is no exact statistical record of the export of offals before April, 1902. A drawback of 2s. 6d. a ton is allowed on the export of wheat offal produced from imported grain.

  Identification of Motor Cars.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to an accident caused by a motorist whereby a cyclist was carried into hospital unconscious; and whether, in view of the rate at which such vehicles are constantly driven, the Government will introduce legislation
  1464
  with the object of compelling all motors to be so marked that they will be capable of identification.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.),My right hon friend has asked me to answer this Question. As regards the accident referred to, I am informed that the driver of the motor car was apprehended by the police a few hours after the accident and charged at a police-court. He is now under remand. As was stated on Wednesday last† in reply to a Question put by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield, the subject of motor cars is (under consideration. I shall be glad if it is found practicable to introduce legislation for the purpose of dealing with the matter.

  London Telegraph Service.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the, Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the fact that two female technical officers appointed in connection with the recently introduced intercommunication switch system in London, were selected over the heads of seniors possessing equal technical qualifications; and whether, seeing that in one case the official selected was taught switching duties by a telegraphist who is now passed over, he will state the reason for the selection of these officers.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The hon. Member has been misinformed. There is no question of promoting or passing over any officer. All that has been done is to assign to particular duties, carrying no special rank or pay, two officers who were believed to be competent to perform them.

  Licensed Premises.
  MR. D. A. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state whether he will take steps, in the Finance Bill or otherwise, to define the term internal communication, occurring in Section 10

  1465
  (1) of the Licensing Act, 1902, so that it shall not apply to the self-contained premises of wine and spirit merchants holding off-licences, and located in buildings in which other traders are carrying on their respective trades or business.
  † See page 1103.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.): The Law Officers of the Crown have been asked for their opinion on the point: and in the meantime I cannot add anything to my former answer.

  Shrewsbury Municipal Election Petition.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Report of the Commissioner who heard the recent municipal election petition at Shrewsbury has been received by him; whether he will furnish Members with a copy of the same; and whether he will, in regard to the terms of the Report, consider the advisability of directing the persons mentioned therein as having been guilty of bribery to be prosecuted.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): The Report has been received and will be laid on the Table. The Director of Public Prosecutions has been inquiring into the matter, and has instructed that in certain cases proceedings shall be instituted forthwith.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON MR. LAWSON WALTON was understood to ask whether in regard to a charge of perjury arising out of these matters recently heard and dismissed by the local magistrates steps would be taken to submit a Bill to the Grand Jury.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The circumstances of the prosecution have been considered, and I do not think I should be justified in sending a Bill to the Grand Jury.

  County Justices of the Peace.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the qualification for a justice of the peace for a county, for any eldest son of any person qualified to
  1466
  serve as a knight of a shire, by 9 Anne, c. 5, and renewed by 18 Geo. 2, c. 20, s. 1, is still accepted as a qualification notwithstanding the repeal of the statute of Anne by 21 and 2 ic, c. 26.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I shall be happy to discuss the question privately with my hon. friend.

  Labour Legislation and Trade Combination
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Shipley Division of the West Riding if he will state what course he proposes to take with regard to the Motion standing in his name for Wednesday evening next.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I had intended to draw attention to the state of the law in regard to trade combinations, as regards both employers and employed, and to invite the House to pass a Resolution in favour of equal treatment, but I find that under the Rules of the House it will be impossible to get an adequate discussion of the Motion, and under the circumstances I propose to postpone the matter until the House has before it the Bill of the right hon. Baronet dealing with the subject.

  Birdcage Walk.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the defective condition of the carriage way through Birdcage Walk; and whether he will consider the advisability of transferring its maintenance to the local authority.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The answer to the hon. Member's first query is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative. The usual repairs could not be carried out last autumn, owing to the sittings of Parliament rendering it impossible to close the road; but it is proposed to put it into better condition as soon as possible. It is in contemplation to lay down wood pavement; but the funds for this are not at present available.

  Church Street, Kensington.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works has any jurisdiction over the houses about to be built north of the footpath in Church Street, Kensington, so as to ensure architectural uniformity and good taste; and whether arrangements will be made to retain the fifteen fine lime trees now fringing the present open space.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYKS FISHER, Fulham): The conditions for letting provide for the erection of the houses according to designs to be approved by the Commissioners of Woods and for the preservation of the trees (planes and not limes) on the front of the land.

  Roxboro' Road School, Limerick.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say by what authority did the Commissioners of Education spend £198 on the repairs of the Roxboro' Road Schools, that the tenant, by the terms of the agreement, was bound to keep in repair.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The Commissioners expended this money in the exercise of their discretion and in conformity with the law as administered by the Court of Chancery with reference to the management of trust property by trustees.

  Irish Teachers—Capitation Grant.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cause of the delay in the payment of the residual Capitation Grant due to national teachers for the year ended 31st December, 1902; and whether arrangements can be made by the Commissioners of National Education whereby those payments would be completed before 31st March, as was the custom up to the year 1900.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On Thursday last I replied fully to a similar Question put to me by my lion, friend the Member for South Belfast.†

  Labourers' Cottage Scheme
  MR. SHEEHAN (Cork Co., Mid): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what grounds the Inspector of the Local Government Board decided that Denis Healy, who applied for a labourer's cottage (Scheme No. 6) on the farm of Mr. R. Barter, townland of Coolflugh, Matchy division of the Cork Rural District, was not an agricultural labourer within the meaning of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: One of the District Councillors for this Division stated on oath at the local inquiry that Healy was employed in the factory at Blarney.

  North Dublin Fisheries.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the injuries recently inflicted by trawlers on the nets of long-line fishermen off the coast of North Dublin; and whether any steps have been or will be taken to inquire whether in this instance the law has been violated; and, if so, to secure that the guilty parties shall be made amenable.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Four prosecutions are at present pending in respect of alleged infringements of the by-laws prohibiting trawling in these waters.

  Fitzmaurice Estate
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how the Fitzmaurice estate as regards sale to the tenants stands; has the Queen's County portion of it as yet been disposed of, and if so, at what average price in the number of years purchase and on what basis has the price been fixed; have any preliminary steps as yet been taken for the sale of the portion in Limerick and Tipperary, known respectively as the townlands of Coolnadhoun, and Clogheready North and Clogheready South; and if so, how far have they been carried.
  † See page 1232.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Queen's County portion of this estate has been inspected pursuant to the request issued by the Land Judge. Pending the result of the sale of this portion no further proceedings will be taken in the matter of the sale of the remaining portions in Limerick and Tipperary.

  Templemore Disturbances.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the investigation into the alleged encounter between the police and people near Templemore has been completed; and, if so, will he state the result.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The preliminary investigation into the circumstances connected with the rioting that took place on this occasion has concluded. The report of the investigation is now before Government, and the question of the further steps to be taken will shortly be decided.

  Promotion in the Dublin Sorting Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the length of service, pay previous to promotion, and present salary of the second division clerk recently promoted to the position of first-class assistant superintendent in the Dublin sorting office; also the number, length of service, and pay of the sorting office second-class assistant superintendents passed over by this officer.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The second division clerk referred to has had twelve years service, including six in other Departments than the post office. His pay prior to promotion was £130, and £250 on promotion. The number of second-class assistant superintendents in the Dublin office is twelve. Their pay ranges from £200 to £250—one officer, however, receiving £300, the maximum of an old scale. Their service up to the 1st instant ranges from fourteen to forty-three years.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): May I ask what Estimates are to be taken on Thursday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): It is proposed to take Vote 10 and other Votes of the Army Estimates in Committee of Supply on Thursday, and afterwards a stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Report from the Committee of Ways and Means be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed.—(Mr. Balfour.)
  SUPPLY [16TH MARCH]—REPORT.
  Resolution reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  "That 127,100 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, including 19,806 Royal Marines."
  Resolution read a second time.
  *Mr. LOUGHsaid he desired to move that the Vote be reduced by 4,600 men—the proposed increase in the current Estimate. The question was a large one, and no opportunity had so far been afforded of discussing that particular point. He deplored the action of the Secretary to the Admiralty the other night, in following the bad precedent of the last two or three years, in himself opening the discussion on the Estimates. The result had been to deprive hon. Members of the precedence they obtained in the ballot, and to produce merely disconnected debates. During the last few days an interesting Report had been issued by the Committee appointed by the Admiralty—and provided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick—to deal with the question of the numbers in the Navy, and the difficulty likely to be experienced in recruiting the vast forces now required. It was desirable that the House should

  1471
  give a little attention to the findings of that Committee. In moving the reduction of the Vote he wished particularly to call attention to the way in which the Navy Estimates had been swollen this year. He had desired that day to put a question as to the amount of money to be spent under the Naval Works Bill this season, but did not get an answer owing to the absence of the Minister.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): It is impossible to give an Estimate at present.
  *MR. LOUGH*MR. LOUGH said he would put it roughly at £2,500,000, and that would bring the total expenditure on the Navy for the year up to £37,000,000—an amount equal to that demanded for the Army when the expenditure under the Military Works Bill is included. They thus were asked to provide the enormous sum of £74,000,000 for the two Services, and considering the vastness of that amount he urged that the House should hesitate before it pledged itself to impose such a serious burden on the nation. Ten years ago the cost of both Services was about £30,000,000, and when one thought of the immense growth of our Estimates yearly, it would be at once realised that unless some economy were effected in the Navy and Army it would be totally impossible for the country to secure any reduction whatever. The increased cost of education alone was sufficient to account for the growth in the Civil Service Estimates, and therefore if the House agreed to the present Army and Navy Estimates, all prospect of economy was removed from its purview. There were a certain number of gentlemen who thought that great economy might be effected in the Army Estimates, but then they suggested that if that were accomplished a larger amount of money would be available for spending on the Navy. That he suggested would be most unsatisfactory. In face of the great figures, in face of the feeling outdoors that some economy should be effected, the House surely ought to pause before it sanctioned that Vote for so large a number of men.
  Now he wished to draw the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to consider
  1472
  how the personnel of the Navy could be made more satisfactory. At the very threshold of that inquiry the Committee were informed that there had been an increase in the personnel of the Navy by 50,000 within the last fifteen years. But immediately that statement was made it was treated as nothing by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Committee was asked to inquire how the manning of the Navy might be brought up to date, and how especially the reserve for the Navy might be built up. The opinion of the members of the Committee was not asked with regard to-the policy of the Admiralty, and it was desirable that it should not be, because the Government and the Admiralty must take the responsibility for the policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick from the beginning observed a correct attitude; he expressed no opinion on the requirements of the Navy, but proceeded at once to deal with the difficulty the Admiralty had placed before him. The First Lord, in his statement, had passed a very high eulogy on the hon. Baronet for his work, and undoubtedly anyone who carefully read the Report would admit that the praise was deserved. When they came to examine the Report they had at the very threshold to face one great difficulty—that was that a number of the clauses were merely represented by asterisks, and those clauses referred to the most interesting and difficult questions. No doubt it was not considered right to publish the information embodied in those clauses. But that meant that the Report could not be; fully discussed, and the responsibility must rest with the Government. It would have been better to furnish no Report at all than to furnish one from which all the most important details were excluded. Still the Report gave some most valuable information. It showed that during the last sixteen or seventeen years the number of men on active service in the Navy bad increased by 52,000, while the Reserves showed an addition of 14,000 or 15,000. That gave them a total force available in any moment of emergency in this country of 162,000 men for the Navy. The Report went on to inquire what were the sources from which some still larger force, irrespective of the proposed increase this year, was to be obtained. As far as he could make out it

  1473
  indicated that there was in the mercantile service a force of not less than about 160,000 sailors—excluding, of course, foreigners and Lascars, from which further recruits might be drawn, if the nation were plunged into an emergency. In addition to that the fishermen would supply a further line of reserve, and thus they would get a force of nearly 200,000 more men from which, in case of emergency, most useful recruits might be drawn. Thus the present position was not of a very disquieting character. But by far the most interesting part of the Report was the extraordinary diagram which appeared on its last page. That diagram gave a most graphic and interesting history of the Navy. It was arranged in the shape of a curved line, and it showed the history of the naval force of this country for a period of 150 years. One would have thought from the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty, when he declared that he was proposing the largest Estimates ever presented in peace or war, that this year's total represented the largest number of men ever provided for the Navy. That was not so, for in 1801 no fewer than 130,000 men were voted by the House, and in 1810 the total wag 146,000 men. No doubt these were gigantic figures, especially when considered in their proportion to the population at the time, but they illustrated what great effort the country was capable of making in an emergency. The diagram showed more; it proved that immediately the emergency had passed the greatest possible relief was instantly given to the country. Their great quarrel with the present Government was that it now refused to extend the slightest relief to the country although the war was over. Let him remind the House what had been done in this direction in past periods. In the year 1760, at the close of the war with France and Spain, there was a reduction from 70,000 to 16,000; in 1784, at the close of the American war and the war with Spain, it fell from 110,000 to 18,000, and in the four years which succeeded 1813 the Estimate of 146,000 was reduced to 20,000. As late as the year I860 the Intimates were reduced from 84,000 to 60,000. That illustrated the fact that in every past period the Government of the country did undoubtedly make ample calls on the nation
  1474
  in the moment of emergency, but directly the emergency was over they gave every relief. There was an idea current that the Navy was in an unsatisfactory state in the year 1885. That was before the new policy was adopted, but looking to the diagram to which he had already referred, and comparing the various peace establishments of the past 150 years, it could not be suggested that there was any room whatever for discontent. In the year 1820 the peace establishment of the Navy was 20,000 men; in 1850 it was 40,000; and in 1880 it had risen to 60,000. Thus up to 1885 the growth of the peace establishment was proportionate to the growth of the population and wealth of the country. He thought they had accepted too readily the argument presented to them by the Navy League and the jingoes that the increase was absolutely necessary. He thought, however, that it was abundantly made clear that the present undue rise was quite unnecessary; and he should like to ask the Government which had raised the number of men from 60,000 to 120,000 this question. Were these Estimates of peace or of war? If they were peace Estimates—and he suggested that he was entitled to assume that they were—then an outrageous burden should not be placed on the country without giving some good reasons for it. If they were war Estimates, then he asked why the Government had not followed the universal precedent and, when the war was over, reduced the establishment of the Navy?
  The report with which he had been dealing referred to the fact that there had been no inquiry of the character it was called upon to make since 1859, but in that year a Committee was appointed to consider the question of the maiming of the Navy, and to discuss the very questions which has been referred to the Committee of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick. The findings of the Committee of 1859 were very similar to the findings of the present Committee, but no attention whatever was paid to their recommendations, and the increase which it recommended both in the Navy and in the Reserve never really took place. It would be very interesting to know if the Committee which had just sat were allowed to inquire why the recommendations of the Committee of 1859 were not adopted. I will venture to state the reason. While

  1475
  the Committee of 1859 was making its inquiries there was a Member of this House named Mr. Kichard Cobden, who was preparing a pamphlet on the Navy, which he published under the title of "The Three Panics." Mr. Cobden pointed out that since 1846 a great increase had taken place in the Navy Estimates under the influence of three national movements, which he described as panics. He argued that there had been no real reason for the great increase in expenditure, and pointed to the necessity of entering into negotiations with foreign Powers, and cultivating friendly relations with them in order to stop the continual increases which were going on. On consideration the nation and Parliament decided to adopt the policy of Mr. Cobden. In 1860 the celebrated Commercial Treaty with France was entered into, and some twenty treaties upon a commercial basis were consummated between this country and other foreign nations about that time. In the period immediately following 1860 there was a reduction of 25,000 in the number of men, and during the quarter of a century after that time there occurred the greatest development in the resources of this country which they had ever experienced. It seemed to him that the sadden increases in Naval expenditure during the last fifteen years were very like those Mr. Cobden described. The Government had again assumed a defiant attitude towards other nations, and were needlessly building up these huge armaments. The Government ought to look more fully into this ancient history and imitate the examples set them by the Government of 1860. He had asked for some reason why the increases had been made this year, and the only reply they got was a querulous inquiry "Why don't you talk about a detail?" They did not want to discuss items or to go into detail, but they did want to know something of the principle upon which the Government were proceeding. He thought upon this occasion mere courtesy should induce the hon. Member in charge to state why this year had been picked out for such a large increase in the expenditure and in the number of men. In all the recent elections the question of this increased expenditure had been brought to the front with the result that the Govern-
  1476
  ment candidates were placed at the bottom of the poll.
  If the Government knew what was going on outside, and the state of affairs, they would at once realise the gravity of the situation. Money was difficult to find now for any new business enterprises, wages were falling, and pauperism was increasing, and yet during such times the Government increased their Estimates for the Army and Navy. There was a great responsibility upon hon. Members on the Opposition sides in regard to the question, for many of them had shown great reluctance to vote against an increase in the Navy Estimates. In a celebrated speech at Bristol the late Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that if any increase of the Navy were proposed by the Government this Spring, after the efforts made during the last ten years, then the Estimates would have to be treated in a very different way to what they had been treated during recent years. The last word of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was to warn the Government against this increase of expenditure. They required some vindication of the policy which the Government had adopted. After the emergency through which the nation had passed they wished to know why the Government had refused to give them this information. He begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he desired to second the Motion. They had been told that the Committee of Defence was to be reorganised because it was felt that there was no concord between the Army and Navy authorities, and because it was thought necessary that they should look into what ought to be spent on the Army and on the Navy respectively. It was extraordinary that before that Committee had had an opportunity of seeing exactly what was needed for the Army and the Navy the Government should rush into this new-expenditure. If it were true that the Navy required this new increase now, what were they to say about the Government for not proposing it last year? They had just added 27,000 men to the Army, not only against the united protest of hon. Members on the Opposition side, but also against the protest of a large number of hon. Gentle-

  1477
  men sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. Recent elections had ratified the protests made in the House, but if they chose in this reckless manner to add 27,000 men to the Army surely it was a bad moment to add also to the Navy. His hon. friend had asked why the Government did not follow the precedents of former times and reduce the armaments when they came to the end of a war. It was simply because the Government had come to the conclusion, since Imperialism had been in the ascendency, that all the great Ministers: who had had the destinies of this nation in hand before the present Government came into power, were nothing but idiots and fools, and the Government had decided that it was necessary to keep up armaments sufficient to fight the whole world. They had got to accept the fact that if this country went to war they could not control the entire seas, or block up all the navies of their enemies, and they would necessarily have to submit to a considerable loss in trade. He was not sure that such a calamity would not be a good thing for the country, because all countries were too apt to recklessly plunge into war. All the promises and assurances made that this country was going to better its position by the late war in South Africa had not proved correct.
  It had been suggested that they should make an appeal to other great Naval Powers to come to some arrangement in regard to the strength of their Navy. Those suggestions were not practical if based upon the present balance of power, because it practically meant saying to other countries: "We want permanently to assume the position of being masters of the sea, and therefore you must have a Navy not able, with two or three other navies joined to it, to defeat the British Navy." No foreign country would accept such a scheme. Napoleon sought universal Empire, and the whole world united against him. Although this country had more colonies than foreign countries they must not forget that foreign countries also had their carrying trade, and they had realised that it was necessary for all manufacturing nations to be able to export their goods. Consequently they would never assent to a claim that their
  1478
  colonies and trade should be held as kind of hostages by this country. It was often urged that they must have command of the sea in order to ensure their food supply. He denied, in the first place, that it was necessary for them to obtain command of the sea in such a way. This country might build ships, and foreign countries might also build, but although England had a long purse, it was not longer than the rest of the world. He did not think it necessary, in order to obtain food supplies, that we should be in such a position. Supposing we were at war with France, Germany, and Russia, we should get our provisions from America. Why? Because the Americans would claim that they had a perfect right to send food here; they would not accept the doctrine that food was contraband of war. Then these three Powers would know that they would have the United States against them if they attempted to enforce any such doctrine.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): What would happen if the United States refused to accept that view?
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE said he was waiting for that question. He was looking to the hon. Gentleman to ask it. The United States refused to accept the doctrine laid down by the Treaty of Paris, and had invariably asserted the view he had stated. Did his hon. friend seriously suppose that if we were in the contingency of war he had suggested in Europe, that the United States would for a moment accept the view that their ships might be overhauled in the open ocean in order to see whether they had food which was destined for us I The United States depended enormously on their export of wheat, and they would not agree for a moment that they should be hindered on the ground that they had not entered into a particular treaty, or that our enemies chose to assert that food was contraband of war.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: What would happen if they refused to send us food?
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE said that was the sort of idle, silly question that a woman would ask. It was the sort of possibility that hon. Gentlemen, were

  1479
  always putting forward, calling upon the House to spend hard cash in order to avoid contingencies that could not reasonably be expected to happen. Suppose we were at war with all the European countries he had named and the United States as well, what would be our position? We might have command of the sea, but these countries would only have to wait and they would starve us out. Our command of the sea would do us no good.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: We don't get all our food from the United States.
  MB. LABOUGHERE MB. LABOUGHERE asked whether, in the event of the countries that might be opposed to us forbidding their own exports, anybody seriously supposed they would allow the Argentine Republic to send us food supplies and so defeat their scheme of starving us out? The whole thing was mythical. We were always nowadays imagining some possible danger so that we might spend a certain number of millions in order to avoid it. That was called being patriotic, and anybody who opposed it was called a traitor. He was quite willing to be called a traitor when he had such company as Peel and Cobden, who entertained the same views.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that Cobden stated that if it were necessary to spend £100,000,000 on the Navy for the protection of our trade and commerce, we would be making a cheap expenditure.
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE said he had heard that often said, but he had never met anyone who could state where Mr. Cobden said it. If the hon. Member could show where the statement was made he would confer a service, because they were all curious to know. But whether he said it or not there was an "if" in the matter, and his reply was that it would not cost £100,000,000. Did anyone suppose that if in a concrete form a proposal had come before the House to vote £100 000,000 in order to make sure of our getting our food in time of war, that Mr. Cobden, who
  1480
  always opposed an increase of armaments, would have spoken and voted in favour of the proposal. Hon. Gentlemen knew very well, although they tried to twist in Mr. Cobden as a supporter of their policy, that he would have been one of the very first to move a reduction of £95,000,000. We were on a wrong basis entirely when we said that we must have a Navy equal to those of two or three Powers. It was a challenge thrown down to all the world, and what had been the consequence? The world had to meet the challenge, and each separate country had made additions to its Navy. The consequence was that at the present moment the relative proportion of strength between us and foreign nations in regard to the Navy was very much the same as it was before we began this wild scheme of "beggar my neighbour." He put his opposition on the ground that the Defence Committee was sitting at the present moment, and that it was foolish on our part to increase the expenses of the Army or Navy until they had before them the united plan of the Army and Navy authorities for the maintenance of the safety of this country. That, he thought, would in itself be a sufficient reason, but he put it on two other grounds. One was what his hon. friend had shown, namely that after a great war we ought to have a pausing time in the increase of armaments, and considering that we had already to pay interest on the amount we had borrowed for the recent war, and also for the large sums which were yet to be paid, we ought to wait for a year or two. His firm belief was that they could not devote to the payment of sailors money which they had already agreed to expend on soldiers. The House had already agreed to an expenditure on 27,000 extra men for the Army. They knew perfectly well that most hon. Gentlemen opposite were opposed to that expenditure. Some of them voted against, it, and some of them walked out of the House and would not vote in favour of it, and others shrugged their shoulders in a guilty sort of a way, and simply because they did not like to vote against their Party went into the lobby and voted against their

  1481
  consciences. In these circumstances he would vote with his hon. friend if he went to a division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '127,100,' and insert '122500.'"—[Mr. Lough).
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution: "
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY said the hon. Member for Northampton had only adduced two arguments in favour of the reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member founded his case almost entirely on the suggestion that America would not agree that food should be regarded as contraband of war, and that if American ships were carrying food to this country, and the enemies of this country were to overhaul those ships for the purpose of capturing that food, America would not agree to it. That seemed to be an entirely convincing argument to the hon. Member. He ventured to ask the hon. Member what would happen supposing America did not agree with his view, and his answer was that that was a silly interpellation. But even if America with such powers at sea as she possessed did not agree that contraband of war included food intended for this country, we would have no power to enforce her non-agreement; and a powerful country—it might be France, Russia or Germany, or all, three—would insist on carrying on this examination of vessels carrying food for this country, whether the American nation agreed or not. Therefore, the non-concurrence of America had really nothing to do with the case, and they were brought back to the question whether we had sufficient provision of the physical kind—sufficient strength of arm to protect ourselves. On that, and on that only, we must rely. We had it on absolute authority that we had no more than a fortnight's supply of food in this country. That might, on short rations, last for six weeks before the people were starved into submission without firing a shot. The
  1482
  Admiralty, in the provision they were making, seemed to him to be acting wisely in dealing largely with cruisers.
  The hon. Member for West Islington, in arguing that the Estimates should be cut down, instanced what was brought before the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick for the purpose of showing that on former occasions, when a war was over, naval preparations not only ceased but actually were reduced. The hon. Member invited the House to accept that information as something which should govern operations at the present time. He asked the hon. Member to consider that on former occasions the enemies of this country at sea had been crushed as the result of war, and, therefore, it was not necessary to go on with preparations. At that time there was only one maritime enemy of this country—namely, France. The war just concluded was a war in which we had not a maritime Power to face, and the result of that war had not yet affected in the least degree the possible opponents we might have to meet at sea. Therefore, the parallel which the hon. Member sought to draw entirely failed; and, however prudent it might have been many years ago to reduce naval preparations when a prolonged naval war had paralysed our resources, there was no reason whatever why a similar state of things should prevail in the future. The position was clear. The German Emperor, taking a profound interest in his Navy, had placed in the hands of the members of the Reichstag a comparative list of the ships of the British Navy and of the German Navy. The enormous increase in the Naval Estimates in Germany had been accepted, notwithstanding some reductions, by the German Parliament. President Roosevelt had stated to the Senate of the United States and to the country that the time had now come for America to be a world Power, and naval preparations on a very largo scale were being carried out in the United States. Russia was continuing her preparations, and France was not behind. It would, therefore, be criminal on the part of this country if we did not make corresponding preparations. He believed that the Motion would fall to the ground without the shock which the hon Member believed he was inflicting on the House. The

  1483
  feeling of the House and the country was that of complete conviction that the life and future existence of this country as a Power and as a nation depended upon the sufficiency and completeness of our naval preparations.
  SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)said that the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a very interesting contribution—he had made it before—to the general principle that this country ought to lie sufficiently armed for warfare on the sea. That was not disputed here. The real subject of consideration was whether it was not possible to have some alleviation of the enormous burdens at present laid on the people of the country. This was, after all, an assembly whose; business it was to attack questions of this kind in a business sense, and with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, he did not think that it furthered the inquiry by alluding so often to a principle on which all were agreed. There was a certain unreality with regard to most debates on the Estimates It was very difficult to cut them down. The right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Army Estimates said "Tell me where you can cut these Estimates down"—and he showed the House a book an inch thick. How was it possible for any private Member, or any person not conversant with the full details of all that went on at the Admiralty, to say what item should be cut down? If that argument was to prevail, it would prevent all useful criticism of expenditure in this House. There had been speculations on the contingencies of this country being engaged in war, of not having the complete command of the sea, and our not being able to be supplied with food from America. He would not enter into the extraordinarily difficult questions that arise out of that; but he would make one observation. The United States Government had, for many years been urging that private property at sea ought to be respected in time of war the same as private property on land. On that point the hon. Member for Northampton had been challenged by the hon. Member for King's Lynn who had written a book on the subject very full of information. But it was well worth consideration whether the conditions of naval warfare, in reference
  1484
  to the capture of private property at sea, should not be revised by this country in view of the increase of naval expenditure in this and other countries We should not then be under the fear, we now were in, lest we should be starved out on account of our inability to get food. It was of the utmost importance, with a view to that danger, to maintain as strongly as we could two doctrines. One was that food supplies, except in the case of effective blockade, were not contraband of war. He did not think that our statesmen had yet realised the importance of that doctrine. The second was, whether we should not accede to the doctrine laid down by the United States in regard to private property at sea?
  He would further point out that many speeches had been made on the subject of the Naval Estimates, but tie House had not received from the Government what they had asked for—any reason whatever for any increase of expenditure on the Naval Estimates of this year. The increase was very large. He had the utmost reluctance in voting against Estimates presented on the responsibility of the Government of the Jay, but the House of Commons ought to be told whether there were any particular reasons of policy—without prying unduly into them—which dictated so large an increase in this year's Estimates. There was one other matter. There was no means by which they could be enabled to> judge what was the proper policy of this country in regard to Naval armaments. They ought to be in a position to know what were the relative strengths—he would not say in ships, because they were not competent to judge of that—but the relative sums spent by this and other countries on Naval armaments. He believed that a Return recently made contained a description of the ships afloat; but experts, with these figures before them, were liable to differ from each other as to the value of the comparison. It all depended upon the strength of the ships, or upon this, that, and the other particular which a private person was quite unable to judge of. But there was one method of gaining useful information and aiding their judgment which they did not possess at the present moment. If an official Return were presented of the sums of money

  1485
  spent (luring the last ten or twelve years; by France, Germany, Russia and the United States on Naval armaments they would be able to form some opinion on two points—First: What was our probable relative strength compared with that of other Powers, assuming the money went the same length; and second: Who was it who began this race of expenditure? He had looked at the figures so far as they were accessible to him, and he was sorry to say that this country had something to do with the beginning of this race in enormous expenditure. It told against this country more than against any other, because our particular needs absolutely required that we should be sufficiently prepared; whereas it was more or less of a luxury with the other Powers, unless it were for the purposes of aggression. It was therefore most important to be able to follow in an intelligent manner the expenditure of the other Powers, and to estimate who were the people who proposed this race, and how it fared with this country in the struggle. He believed that after ten years of expenditure on competitive armaments this country was, relatively speaking, weaker than it was ten years ago; and that the whole of our money had been wasted, and worse than wasted. If that were the case, if we had doubled our Naval expenditure in ten years, if we, by reason of that increased expenditure, had induced other Powers to increase their expenditure, it would have been better on all hands had the whole of the money been thrown into the sea. [Laughter from hon. Members on the GOVERNMENT Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not do justice to his argument. Of course he was assuming that if we did not go on, the other Powers would not go on. [Renewed laughter from the GOVERNMENT Benches.] He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not trifle with the argument, which he maintained was a very intelligent one.
  There was one other matter. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Northampton that we ought to make an approach to the other Powers, or at all events to avail ourselves of every opportunity—which he (the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs) had some grounds to think would be readily offered—to see whether
  1486
  we could not secure that there should be a diminution of, or a limit to, Naval expenditure all round. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, on the occasion of the last debate, said that that had been done, and that what had been done by a prudent and wise Government should not be regarded with derision by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not, however, quite understand the language used by the hon. Gentleman, and he would therefore ask him for further information on the subject. Mr. Goschen suggested some years ago that he was prepared to abate some of the now construction programme of this country if Russia did the same. He was not aware whether any negotiations had taken place, or whether there had been any communications on the subject; and he should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would toll the House whether there had been any such negotiations within the last six or seven years; and if so, whether he would lay Papers on the Table showing what had been done. Ho believed that other Powers would be prepared, in one form and another, to agree that this country should have what she was legitimately entitled to claim, a position of sufficient strength to secure her safety and security on the seas. Otherwise it would, of course, be impossible to come to any terms at all. But other Powers would only be prepared to agree if they believed that the power of this country on the seas would not be used for aggressive purposes, and if they had faith in the pacific disposition of this country.
  The fact was everyone was agreed that this country must have adequate and full Naval strength; and, for that reason, ho was not disposed to put difficulties in the way of the Government. But he thought it was a false and mistaken patriotism altogether to ignore the difficulties that lay in the way of providing further funds for Naval or Military armaments. That would be foolish, and would tend to defeat their own purpose, as it was certain that when the pressure of very heavy taxation came upon the people, they would insist upon economy, and economy might then not be either in the right direction or at the right stage. That was the reason why he strongly urged on the Government all the considerations

  1487
  he had laid before them. It was lamentable that these debates did not attract the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or First Lord of the Treasury, or of any member of the Naval Defence Committee, although they were being asked to vote enormous Estimates, amounting to £34,500,000, to say nothing of Naval Works, which would amount to £2,500,000 more. It was deplorable that the House and the country did not face the real difficulties and the real dangers in this matter; and that they were not prepared to use all reasonable means to reduce expenditure. He was perfectly certain there was only one way to do this, and that was to keep pegging away in the House of Commons and in the country until people came to realise the enormity of this expenditure, the vast degree in which it had increased within ten years, and the great probability that, unless the House of Commons interposed it would go on increasing, until it was brought down with a run which would not be consonant with the feelings of this country.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the enormous increase in the national expenditure was a matter which deserved the consideration of this country. It was not necessary in order to ensure a reduction that they should harp on the subject in this House, because he thought it was receiving most serious attention in the country, and that recent events were largely due to the disinclination the English people now felt, the war being over, to continue, in any degree, the expenditure they were willing to face while the war was in progress. He would ask permission to say one word on the question of food supply, in reply to what had been said by the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member said that the food supply of the country in time of war would not be interfered with, because the United States would not allow interference with its ships.
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE said that he did not state the food supply would not be interfered with; he said that the country would not be starved out, and
  1488
  he was perfectly certain that the country would get all the food it required.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said that the contention of the hon. Gentleman was that they would get an adequate supply, because the United States would not allow corn to be taken out of United States vessels. He thought the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. He would remind the House that the rule of naval warfare, under which they now lived, and which was agreed to in 1856, was that a neutral flag covered the cargo, except contraband of war. Take the case of corn consigned to an English merchant in an American ship. The question would arise whether it was, or was not, under the rule to which he referred, capturable by France. But the United States had not agreed to the rule, they refused to sign it, although they were prepared to go further. Consequently, who then would protest against France seizing English corn in an American vessel? The United States would not suffer, as the ship would be released. England might have cause for complaint, because England had agreed to the rule under which a neutral flag covered the cargo. But France had also agreed to that rule; and therefore it would not be competent for France to seize English goods in an American ship. Then came the question as to whether corn was contraband of war.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This docs not relate to the question of the number of men to be voted for the Navy. The attitude of the United States was referred to as the justification for an increase in the Navy; but that does not allow hon. Members to enter into a discussion as to what is the true view of a question of international law.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said, of course, he would bow to the ruling of the Chair; but it was extremely unfortunate that an incorrect doctrine with reference to international law should be preached in this House; and that it was against the Rules of Order to reply to it. The hon. Member for the Shipley Division said that the country would be starved out without striking a blow,

  1489
  because corn would be regarded as contraband of war. He did not think that the country could be starved out without striking a blow. Hon. Members who held that opinion had only to look at the map of Europe. If they did they would sec that the sea avenues to this country were so numerous and so wide that it would be physically impossible for all the navies of the world to stop the influx of corn into these Islands. It would moan the shutting up of the seas from the Naze to the Orkneys, from the Orkneys to the North of Ireland, all the West Coast of Ireland, and from Cape Clear to Ushant. That would be physically impossible. Whatever the strength of the enemy might be, the food supply of this country was quite safe; because it was absolutely impossible to close all the sea doors to this country The hon. Member for West Islington said that the number of men the House was asked to vote was unjustifiable in present circumstances, because after a war the Navy had always been largely reduced. No doubt that was the fact in 1784, but in 1791–2 the Fleet was increased as much as it had been previously reduced. Again in 1802 the number of men was reduced enormously, but there was an increase almost immediately. The result was that there was a steep reduction and a steep increase; and the moral was that these steep reductions and steep increases were possible in other days but were not possible now. In other days there was no continuous service, nor did the country require it, because the men taken from the mercantile marine were just as good to fight a man-of-war as anyone that could be trained. The system in those days was that where there was a captain who had a reputation for securing prize money he got a crew immediately, but where there was a captain who had a contrary reputation, he found great difficulty in getting a crew. After the war the men went back to the mercantile marine and the Navy almost ceased to be. That was not possible now. The mercantile marine men would not suffice. They could not man the Navy; and. with regard to the Naval Reserve, lit was perfectly persuaded that they could not introduce more than 25 per cent, into a battleship, owing to their
  1490
  ignorance of the ways and practices aboard a man-of-war. It was continuous service that had made all the difference. With continuous service hey could not make a tremendous reduction at the end of a war, or a remendous increase when a war broke out. Consequently any comparison between olden times and the present day was absolutely out of place.
  *MR. LOUGH*MR. LOUGH asked if the Committee which inquired into the matter did not recommend an experiment with non-continuous service.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said that the committee stated that they were impressed with the importance of maintaining unimpaired the present condition of service. He, and everyone who had considered the Navy, were also impressed with the great importance of continuous service. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of men available to build up the Naval Reserve. That number was indeed very large. lie had made careful calculations himself, and he was convinced that there were at least 500,000 British seamen, including a large number of men not included in the Board of Trade Returns of mercantile marine seamen. He would undertake to prove that there were 500,000 British-born seamen ready to be called upon to form a Naval Reserve. He was glad to see that the Naval Reserve was to be increased. It corresponded to the Militia; and he should be glad to see it extended, as far as possible, to the decrease, if necessary, of continuous service men; but it was very difficult to draft a reserve man into a man of-war and get full service out of him immediately.
  The hon. Gentleman opposite believed that by some arrangement with foreign countries they might be able to diminish the Navy. He would not accept any such arrangement, even if it were offered, though he would accept it with reference to the Army. With all the responsibility which rested on the administration of the country, he could not believe that it would be safe to diminish the Navy. He would also point

  1491
  out that the Navy was essentially a non-aggressive force. The Navy was not a force for conquest, but mainly a force for defence. Without suggesting that the amount of the Estimates was in itself a matter requiring justification, lie did think that the Government had not shown that trust in the Navy which would justify these large Estimates. The whole of the power of this country had been shown in the Navy. It was the Navy alone which enabled us to deal with the great combination formed against us by Napoleon. That in itself was a justification for our having a large Navy. In the years from 1809 to 1812, when the whole of the Continent was against us, it was the Navy, and the Navy alone, which, by strangling the trade of the Continent, succeeded in discouraging, one by one, the Powers allied with Napoleon, and made them ally themselves with us. His complaint against the Government was that they seemed to have lost trust in the Navy. They even sought to destroy the character of the very officers whom they asked the House to vote by the hasty adoption of new plans.
  *MR. RUNCIMANsaid that, heavy as they all felt the Estimates for the year to be, there was a general feeling on the Opposition side, as well as on the Ministerial, that a reduction might have been made in the men for the Army with greater satisfaction than in the men for the Navy. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) had indeed been unfortunate in the choice of the opportunities he had taken to protest against our increasing expenditure.
  *MR. LOUGH,*MR. LOUGH, interposing, said he had protested against the increased expenditure for both Services.
  *MR. RUNCIMAN*MR. RUNCIMAN said the hon. Gentleman would have done better if he had turned the whole force of his energy to the reduction of expenditure on the Army, rather than make these unfortunate appearances—if he might call them so—on the Navy Estimates. Mr. Cobden had been largely quoted in the debate, but he doubted very much whether Mr. Cobden would at any time have attempted to reduce the number of men necessary to man our ships. It was true that a large number of men had been added to the Army this year, but that was no
  1492
  reason for reducing the number of men in our Navy. His hon. friend had referred to the large reductions possible at the conclusion of the wars in the early part of the last century, and at the end of the 18th century, but it had been well pointed out that the circumstances now were altogether different. If we were to attempt anything of that kind now we should not only leave a large portion of our Fleet entirely unmanned, but be placing it in such a position that it would be impossible to mobilise in a few weeks, or even in a few months, and, moreover, we should find ourselves responsible for a new addition to the unemployed. What lie wanted to know was the standard up to which the Admiralty was now working—were they working up to a two or a three-Power standard? Taking the table issued by the Admiralty last June we were below the three-Power standard. He also found that from the table issued by Beyer, of Berlin, at the beginning of this year, we were under the three-Power standard, while in 1907, when Germany would have largely increased her Fleet and be in a relatively strong position, her number of battle ships—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think this would come rather on the shipbuilding Vote than on the question of men. No doubt the number of men is connected with the number of ships, but the hon. Member is now going into a comparison with the number of ships of foreign navies.
  *MR. RUNCIMAN*MR. RUNCIMAN said he bowed entirely to the Speaker's ruling, lie desired to know from the Government the standard they were adopting in order that they might judge how far the increase of men was necessary, lie would, however, drop the subject for the moment. He thought the Vote before the House, so far from being too large, was altogether too small. The increase in men was not only necessary for the new programme, but some vessels under Lord Spencer's programme had only recently been added to the Navy, and these alone required an additional number of men. When they were told that the sources from which they could draw their men were by no means small, and that they could call upon the

  1493
  merchant service for help in time of war, the Admiralty would be well advised to study the Report of the recent Committee, which distinctly stated that the mercantile service could not be looked upon as a source on which they could draw in time of war. That was a decision on which the Committee were to be congratulated. There was, indeed, an enormous number of fishermen who might be utilised, but they now would have to be allowed to a large extent to continue their avocations in time of war. They provided the cheapest form of food for the poorer people of the country, and it was hardly reasonable to expect that this source should be depleted to the extent of many thousands of men. At all events the fishing services, especially those on the Newfoundland Banks, provided a great source on which they could draw for the necessary elastic increase which must take place in time of war. On a peace-footing it was necessary we should be able to mobilise our fleets without depleting the merchant service or other services which would provide the food supplies of this country. He did not know that numbers were the only standard by which Admiralty work should be judged. Representatives of the Admiralty asked for large Estimates. From his short experience of the House he noticed that the larger the Estimates the prouder was the representative of the Admiralty. It did not, however, take a genius to spend money, but it was necessary that men should have great ability to spend it well.
  He would urge upon the Admiralty that, as they were making a large increase to the Fleet, they should see that the Fleet was well equipped, and as they were making a large increase of men, they should see that they were well trained. He would never do anything to decrease the number of men necessary for the full manning of the Fleet so long as he suspected they required every man now asked for, or rather more, to make it efficient.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER Belfast)said that although the Motion was one to reduce by 4,000 the number of men asked for in the Vote, the House had had a discussion upon history, political economy, and naval policy, which had
  1494
  gone far outside the question of reduction, and he would perhaps be pardoned if he did not follow lion. Members in all the excursions they had made. The mover of the Amendment had asked what was the justification for the increase in the Votes generally, and in this Vote in particular. On a previous occasion he had pointed out the enormously increased cost of the ships and the great exertions that were being made by other countries in the way of shipbuilding, and he could now give an explanation with regard to the men which he thought would carry conviction, at any rate, as far as the Vote this year went. Every additional man for which the Admiralty were asking was being voted in pursuance of a regular actuarial study of the requirements of the Navy, and for the purpose of manning the ships already voted by the House, most of which were in progress of construction. This was not, as seemed to be supposed, a spasmodic series of actions on the part of Admiralty. The standard to which they were working was that to which, as far as he knew, they had worked for many years past—a standard which had been often enjoined upon them by the House of Commons, viz., that of putting the Navy in such a condition as to be able successfully to contend with any two other naval Powers. These matters could not be judged off-hand by taking a list of the ships. We had to defend our interests in many places and under circumstances which did not attend the naval operations of any other Power. While our risks were far spread, those of other countries were concentrated. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries had said that the matter could be tested by the expenditure. But exact official returns of the naval expenditure could not be given. In many countries the naval expenditure did not correspond with the amount which appeared in their published Estimates, and in addition to that, our naval expenditure included many things which were not at all necessary for other countries, and did not appear on their Naval Votes at all. For instance, no one would contend that the naval expenditure of Germany, with her fleet concentrated at two ports, and

  1495
  two alone—in the North Sea and the Baltic—could have any actual correspondence with that of this country, which had to maintain fleets in the Channel, the Mediterranean, and on the North American coast, and to provide depots, arsenals, and docks for those fleets. Therefore, even if an accurate estimate of the cost could be prepared, it would not be a fair criterion. But so far as it was a question of number, if the administration was to be trusted at all, it must be left to the Admiralty to decide the force needed under the conditions stated to combat successfully any force that might be opposed to us.
  The hon. Member for Islington had asked what was to be the limit of the number of men, and why a reduction could not be made. In the report to which the hon. member had referred there was an indication of the method by which it hoped some alteration would be secured. It was there suggested that non-continuous service should be introduced under proper precautions, and to a limited extent. The hon. Member, however, had not stated the reasons given in the Report why the suggestion could not be carried out at once in its entirety. The Committee agreed that the increase of the active service ratings must be continued until the necessary minimum of active service ratings for the war fleet had been reached. That was the key of the whole situation. Everyone agreed that it was a moderate and reasonable calculation as to the number of men who must be active service ratings in each ship on mobilisation. The Admiralty knew the number of ships they had, and the number they would have at a given date, and they knew the number of active service ratings they would have without any further increase to provide the crews for those ships. It was the intention of the Admiralty from time to time to make such additions to the active service ratings as would enable them to put a crew on each ship on mobilisation, having active service ratings and non-continuous service men in their proper proportions. The hon. Member for Dewsbury had asked why the Admiralty were not relying on the mercantile marine, particularly mentioning the fishermen.
  MR. RUNCIMAN MR. RUNCIMAN said he had not urged that in the least. He rather welcomed the decision of the Committee not to rely on the mercantile marine, and suggested that although the fisheries were a very good source, they ought not to be too largely drawn upon.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said the Committee had pointed out that the mercantile marine was a very suitable source from which to draw a portion of the reserves, and that they desired to make the sources from which reserves could be drawn still wider. He entirely disagreed with the hon. Member for West Islington as to the conclusions to be drawn from the table at the end of the Report. If he had read the Report side by side with the history of England, he would have put an entirely different construction upon it. It was true that in 1815, after the Congress of Vienna, the Navy was enormously reduced, but it had to be remembered that at that time there was no other navy in existence; we were supreme without a rival on the seas. As to 1869, the hon. Member dragged in the name of Mr. Cobden, who, he said, passed a number of commercial treaties by which it was made possible to reduce the Navy still further. But 1859 was the very year in which France laid down her first armoured battleship, and started the movement in favour of increasing the Fleets of Europe. With regard to what the hon. Member for Northampton stated, he did not think he needed to dwell upon his contribution, which appeared to him to be purely of a debating character. The hon. Member, however, did confirm one theory which he would like to say a word about. The hon. Member for Northampton said it was really all their own fault that foreign nations, seeing this country embarking upon a wild shipbuilding programme, followed in their footsteps; and he further said that foreign statesmen could not go before their country and adopt any other course when they saw their colonies and their trade threatened with extinction by any other nation. That was exactly his own position, for he was not able to go before his countrymen and contemplate the loss of our colonies. He would go further and say that their colonies were a great deal more important to this country than

  1497
  the colonies of any other country in the world.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries asked what was his authority for saying that they had made proposals. When he was speaking the other night about offers and suggestions that had been made he was speaking of the public announcement made at the Table of the House by the First Lord of the Admiralty upon a peculiar occasion when a foreign country was starting a new and enormous development in time of peace without any apparent reason, and when they were building a very formidable class of ship. In the middle of a Parliamentary Session the First Lord of the Admiralty thought it necessary to come to Parliament and say to his Government that he could not allow this addition to be made to the Navy of Russia without taking some corresponding step. He admitted that that was not an official communication to put before a Government, but he was not in a position to say that representations were made to foreign Governments. He thought, however, that the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty gave an intimation to foreign countries throughout the world.
  *MR. LOUGH: To the extent to which
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, of course. He came back now to this; question of the men. He invited hon. Members to read the Report of the right hon. Baronet's Commission, which gave a very fair statement of the problems and conditions attending the manning of the Navy. They would then see the principle upon which the Government were attempting to meet a very serious responsibility, and they would recognise tint there was now for the first time for many years a definite proposal for relieving the strain of the men. In justice to this Committee and to the Admiralty this should not be passed by. It ought to have a very great effect upon the strain of manning the Navy. In the first place there was the introduction of the Volunteer forces and the non-continuous service plan, which would give them an exceedingly well trained class of men in time, who would be enlisted in the service, but who would be available for active rating and active
  1498
  service on mobilisation. There were other sources such as the Fleet Reserve. When they were attacked, as they had been attacked that afternoon, for adding 4,000 men of all ratings to the Navy, he thought they should be given some credit for this bond fide attempt to relieve the country of this great strain. He expressed his regret that the hon. Member for Dewsbury thought it necessary to say that he had looked at these matters with a light heart and with a pride in accordance with their magnitude. He thought he had done his best to explain as to that.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid there was one disadvantage connected with this debate which it seemed impossible to get rid of. His hon. friend proposed to strike out the increase for this year in the men because they were not necessary, and because the Navy Estimates were too large already to justify it. He thought the answer was that the increase proposed this year had no connection with the increase in the Naval programme; generally. They wanted these 4,700 men because three or four or five years ago they increased the number of their ships. If they built new ships they must find the men necessary to man them. The question was whether this number of men was necessary to man the new ships that were passing into the Fleet this year, and which had been sanctioned by the Estimates passed five or six years ago. He had criticised the right of the Admiralty to decide the magnitude of the fleet, but when it came to technical problems like the manning of existing ships and the number of active service men necessary, then he felt that he was not in a position to criticise the judgment of the Naval experts. That fact made it difficult for him to support a reduction in this Vote, although he sympathised with the. general grounds put forward by the mover of this Motion. But when they came to the other point that this increase was typical of the vast increase in the Navy Estimates which had no special justification, then he was entirely with his hon. friend. As he had an opportunity of stating his views the other day he would not repeat them now, but he would

  1499
  ask those hon. Members who heard his remarks to remember that the size of the Estimates for any particular year was a question of Government policy for this House, and the Secretary to the Admiralty could not give them a conclusive justification of that policy. It appeared to him necessary and proper that the First Lord of the Treasury, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, should be present to advise them upon the great questions of policy which underlay these Estimates.
  The real issue was not upon automatic or non-effective Votes like this one on which they could not call upon the Government to defend the Naval Estimates, but rather on the Vote for shipbuilding which contained a vast increase this year and which must involve a corresponding increase in following years. These Estimates were so great that they ought not to accept a comparatively small increase without demurring to it. The Estimates for the Navy had now reached £36,000,000 a year, and the colonies had been given as a reason for that great increase. He thought they were entitled to ask the Government what area they sought to protect by these steps, and what standard they wore working up to and what particular justification they had for the particular increase made this year. That justification they had not had from his hon. friend, and he could not give it because it must come from the Government as a whole, and from the head of the Government. The hon. Member for Dumfries and others who had protested against these Estimates had claimed and asserted that it was the duty of this country to make representations to other nations in the direction of arranging a mutual scheme of disarmament. The hon. Member for Shipley jeered at that as a millennial proposal, but it was a proposal to which this country and this Government had already committed themselves. Lord Salisbury undertook obligations in this respect, for upon this point on the 14th of February, 1899; referring to the Russian invitation to consider this question, he said that His Majesty's Government would gladly accept that invitation for a conference to discuss the best methods of attaining the two objects specified, namely, the diminution of armaments all round by land and sea, and the
  1500
  prevention of hostilities by diplomatic negotiation. He would not go into details. He would just give the result as stated by the British representative on that occasion. There was no proposal of general disarmament, or even the limitation of armaments. The object which was put in the forefront in the Czar's circular presented so many difficulties, from the practical point of view, that it was necessarily abandoned for the present. That was not a definite abandonment of the scheme. He wished that the First Lord of the Treasury, as Chairman of the Cabinet Committee of Defence, had done them the honour of listening to this debate. If the right hon. Gentleman had been present, he would have asked him: "Do you hold by Lord Salisbury's expressed determination to bring about disarmament by common; consent, and do you accept the statement of Lord Pauncefote that it was only postponed and not abandoned?" If that was the right hon. Gentleman's position, the country would be relieved. He was sorry the House had not the opportunity of hearing an answer to that question from the right hon. Gentleman to-day. The underlying interest in this question was not the number of ships or men, but the financial position into which these great Estimates had gone. Might he just mention the extraordinary fact that seven years ago, when the present Government came into office, the National Debt stood at £660,000,000.
  *Mr. SPEAKER*Mr. SPEAKER said that on the Report Stage of the Vote the hon. Member could generally discuss the increase in the men and consequent increase in the Naval Estimates, but the debate must be confined to that question.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said the debate had been a little difficult. It was relying on Mr. Speaker's leniency that he was going to make a point which he was afraid he could not now make. He would only say that if these Estimates wore passed the Government would have spent during seven years on war and warlike expenditure a sum equivalent to the whole National Debt at the time they came into office. He thought that was a reason alone which should make them pause.
  MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid the hon. and learned Member for the Dumfries Burghs complained because a previous Speaker had dealt with the whole question of expenditure, and not with the particular directions in which economy might be practised. He understood from Mr. Speaker's ruling that it was to the general principle and the magnitude of the whole Estimates that they must address themselves. Hon. Members would sympathise with him when he said, as the representative of a naval constituency, that his natural inclination was to advocate a large increase of expenditure on the wages of men. It was in connection with the increased size of the Navy that the question of the number of men arose. The objection raised by hon. Members opposite, he took it, was that if we were going to increase our Navy we would be confronted with what was little short of ruin. The question he desired to ask was that, if that were true, what was going to happen if we did not keep up our Navy to the necessary state of efficiency? In effect the position was—"if we go forward we die, if we go backward we die; better go forward and die." He was sustained by the authority of Dr. Johnson, who said:
  "It is sad to pass through the quagmire of parsimony to the gulf of ruin. To pass over the flowery path of extravagance is very well."
  Surely it was premature, and it would be a most dangerous thing, for the House to give in to the objections which had been raised. More than once in the course of this discussion they had been told what Sir Robert Peel said sixty years ago as to the alarming expenditure on naval and military preparations. We were still alarmed at the growth of that expenditure, and he believed the House would continue to hear complaints of the increased expenditure on the Army and Navy. He hoped it would be so, for if not it would show that something serious had happened to our position among the nations of the world. He had endeavoured to make a collection
  1502
  of the prophecies of alarm in regard to this country, and only yesterday he opened Greville's Memoirs, in which he found the following, which was written in January, 1856—
  "The only certainty is that we are blindly going on spending our wealth and our blood. Lewis says that our financial position is very bad, a declining revenue, rising prices…. Everything looks as black as possible."
  I hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way, and if, owing to their policy not to increase our naval expenditure, we were some day involved in naval disaster and subject to an enormous war indemnity, what would be their feeling? Hon. Gentlemen would begin to wonder whether, to use a favourite phrase, they had not put their money on the wrong horse, or rather taken their money off the right horse. He thought no one had a right to come down to the House to advocate a reduction in the number of men and expenditure on the Navy, unless he could prove to demonstration that the project could be carried out without danger to the country lie thought that had not been done.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)said the hon. Member for Portsmouth had assumed that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House were in favour of cutting down the Navy. He did not himself understand on what foundation the hon. Member made that charge. He thought some of the strongest speeches in support of the Navy had been made from this side of the House. In this and previous debates there had been sufficient support given to the proposals of the Government with regard to the Navy as to render the assumption of the hon. Member opposite quite unjustifiable. Although he for one cordially supported the proposals of the Government, he thought that they themselves could not be surprised that a certain amount of restiveness should be shown with respect to the financial burdens which the country was called upon to bear. At a time when the expenditure for the defence of the Empire had gone up to £90,000,000 they might be sure that reductions would be moved, and that these reductions would not command the support of those who gave more special attention to the sub-

  1503
  ject. He was afraid, too, that there would be occasions when reductions would be I moved which would not tend to provide for the adequate defence of the Empire. He thought that in discussing the question of the number of men required the House laboured under two very serious disadvantages. One was that they had received no guidance from the Council of Defence as to the general policy for the defence of the Empire. Many of them were discussing this matter also under the conviction that the Army Estimates had largely tended towards making the burden more than could be borne permanently by the Empire. He hoped those responsible for the Admiralty business would take due note of the opposition which would undoubtedly arise, not so much against their proposals, but in regard to the general burdens the country was asked to bear, and also from the want of any clear policy being put before the country by what he called the sham Committee of Defence. For want of that direct guidance the people were not sufficiently educated as to what wore the adequate requirements of the country for naval defence.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had commenced by repudiating on behalf of the Party he represented any diminution of expenditure which would cut down the Navy. That was a matter which really was of very little importance; but he would point out that from that side a direct set had been made by formal motion against the number of men asked for for the Navy. Then the hon. and learned Member for Leith Burghs complained, or at all events pointed out in querulous tones, that they had had no direction from the Committee of Defence. Of course not. The Committee of Defence had been only recently created, and they had practically to review the mass of confusions of the situation, which could not be done in a few weeks or months. Moreover, he apprehended that on any matter of general policy affecting the Army and Navy, the Prime Minister, who was Chairman of the Committee of Defence, would, by the Rules of the House, be precluded from giving its directions to
  1504
  the Committee of the House or reasons for it.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON MR. MUNRO FERGUSON said they had been told that they had been guided by the Defence Committee, which he ventured to call a sham. His contention was that, being a sham, there had been no adequate control or co-ordination of naval and military defence by that Committee.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB*SIR JOHN COLOMB said that he was with the hon. Member when he I called the old Committee of Defence a sham; in fact he had frequently called it in this House "a preposterous sham." He had brought proposals for a Council of Defence before the House ten or twelve years ago; and had discussed this! question outside the House thirty years ago. The real point was that if the new Council of Defence was to I review the whole policy and the whole necessities of the Empire, and deal with the Navy and Army as two parts of one necessary machine, and if the Prime Minister as Chairman of the Council of: Defence came into the House and tried to argue the whole case he would be pre-j vented from doing so by the Rules of Procedure. He did not see there was any; cause of complaint against the Council of Defence as recently organised. Comparisons had been made between existing facts and the conditions prevailing in the Napoleonic wars, and tables and diagrams had been described; but he would entreat hon. Members to be very careful how they considered what appeared on the diagrams as applicable to the present time. His hon friend the Member for King's Lynn had rightly pointed out that the variation in the diagrams was due to the fact that in those old days there was not continuous service. He would point to the broader consideration, that all the conditions of maritime warfare had changed during the last century. Formerly the preparations for war could be hastily made and carried on while the the war was actually in operation. The entire change in the conditions did affect question of men. What since then science had done was to make long preparation necessary in order to produce quick and decisive results; and therefore it followed that the training of men

  1505
  must be a much longer, and a more detailed and careful process than in those old days. That broad consideration showed hon. Members that they must be very cautious how they attempted to guide policy by the number of trained men required, or the provision of ships, by past experience when a wholly different state of things prevailed.
  The hon. Member for King's Lynn had made a declaration with a great deal of confidence, as if it were a law of the Medes and Persians, that our food supply was safe; that it was simply impossible to prevent food coming into the country. But he would point out that the question of food supply was only an incident in the general question of the economic conditions of the country. The question was not whether wheat could come into the country, but whether the price of wheat and of all commodities affected the whole economic condition. He therefore protested against the position, resulting from our naval failure, being seriously met by an argument like that. It had teen asked to what standard we were working upon? A standard, it was said, meant an abstract comparison of the number and class of ships. It meant no such thing. It was admitted that we must at least be able absolutely to hold our own against any two Maritime Powers under all circumstances. But the distribution of the ships of any two Powers, and the number of ships we had to meet them must vary. It was not a matter of the number and quality of the ships in our Fleet, and those of the other two Powers. The great matter was the force which would be required under all circumstances and conditions and all reasonable probabilities of war, to put us not merely on an equality with, but to some extent on a superiority to the forces of the other two Powers. He therefore protested now, as he had always done, against any attempt to narrow down the question to a simple and abstract comparison of the number of ships as a whole. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs had urged that the number of men for the Fleet might be reduced by approaching the other Powers and coming to some arrangement.
  *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER said that the discussion of the question of general disarmament was not in order.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB*SIR JOHN COLOMB said he was only going to refer to some observations on this very subject which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs, but he would not proceed further on that point. The real truth was that the way they discussed the Estimates was somewhat embarrassing. It was generally forgotten, what had so clearly been pointed out by the late Secretary to the Admiralty, the hon. Member for Dundee, that what ruled every other Vote in the Navy Estimates was the Construction Vote. But it had never been the custom of the House to discuss the Construction Vote until those Votes for the men and wages had been sanctioned and passed. He could not conclude without expressing, as an independent Member of the House who was specially concerned in the question of naval defence, his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Berwick Division and the Committee over which he presided for the report they had produced. Anyone who studied the question of the personnel of the Navy, and who drew a diagram of the variations which had occurred as regarded the personnel, would be astonished at the revelations he would find. That diagram would show that the Admiralty, up to the present time, had really no precise principle or policy in regulating the number and the class of men necessary for the Navy. For the first time they had now laid before them, by the efforts of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, the definite principles which ought to guide their policy with regard to the personnel of the Navy; and they had the announcement, officially made by the Secretary to the Admiralty, that not only was the Admiralty indebted to this Committee for the work it had done, but was committed absolutely to the principles laid down by the Committee; and that those principles would in future guide the Admiralty with reference to the personnel of the Fleet.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid he should like to say a few words on the Vote, as he had some direct connection with the men. He was sorry to have heard so many irrelevant subjects discussed in connection with the Vote. They had had food supply, continental Powers, the shadows of war and destruction all round, talked about, when they should have been talking about the men. The question simply was, was the Vote right. He was sorry that his hon. friend had moved the reduction, as he held that they had not a sufficient number of men at present, and he would be prepared to prove it. Great Britain with her large and increasing Navy should always be in a position when called upon at any time to use her Fleet for warlike purposes. She should be in a position, not only to man the Fleet which was afloat, but also, to man the reserves. She was not in that position. A great many of the ships at present afloat were undermanned; and they could not man the reserves in case of necessity. He doubted if they could man half the Fleet properly. He thought he was within the mark when he said that the Navy was short between 8,000 and 10,000 stokers, 1,500 engine room artificers and 700 engineers. He was not dealing with the bluejackets, but with the men he knew; though it might be taken for granted that there was a shortage in the bluejackets also. What was the meaning of moving a reduction in the number of men? What was the use of building ships if they could not man them? It was simply absurd to compare the present with other days. They were now living in a steam age, and required a totally different class of man for the Navy. The men had to be very highly trained; and he had come to the conclusion that in the near future every man aboard a man-of-war would be more or less a mechanic. Therefore, the condition of things after the Napoleonic wars was not comparable with the condition of things to-day. If, for instance, they tackled the fleets of France and Spain and smashed them up, then they might reduce their personnel, because they would have crushed their enemies. He objected to the reduction because it was unnecessary, and because it would be
  1508
  detrimental to the interests of the Fleet. He held the Admiralty was now short of men, required more men, and would continue to require more men. He thought his hon. friend would be well advised to withdraw his Amendment, because, from a practical point of view, it could not stand. He would not like to see the British Fleet sent to sea undermanned and unfitted for its work. The moment they lost command of the sea then they might say "Farewell to the greatness of our country."
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool. E. Toxteth)said he sympathised with his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Yarmouth in the unfortunate position in which they were placed by being obliged to discuss the Vote for the men first, and the Vote for construction later. He might carry it further, and say how awkward the position was when they were forced to discuss the Army Estimates first, and the Navy Estimates second. He did not desire to discuss the proportion between the Navy and the Army Votes; but he thought the discussion, narrow though it necessarily was, brought them back to the really fundamental issue which lay before the country, namely, what ought to be the proportion between naval and military expenditure. By an unwritten rule of the House, they were compelled to take the Navy Votes after they had committed themselves to certain expenditure on the Army. He thought that was a disadvantageous position, because the discussion to-day had brought them to realise, more than ever, the enormous importance of the Navy, the enormous importance of keeping up construction, and the even greater importance of manning the Fleet, so that it might be able to take to sea for war. He vas sure they could all accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the men now asked for were required for ships already on order. He was sure they all welcomed the idea of adding to the personnel of the Fleet reserves with non-continuous service; but that should be only on condition that the personnel of the Fleet should have a sufficient proportion of men trained for active service. He was sure his hon. friend the Secretary to the

  1509
  Admiralty appreciated as much as anyone the necessity of having a large proportion of the personnel of the Fleet not merely available on mobilisation, but accustomed to go to sea, so that when war broke out the Fleet would not be hampered with crews who had to be trained to their work, but would be manned by men who, from practice, were able to work enormous engines of war. He felt very strongly that the nation which, on the outbreak of war, could mobilise the largest number of ships would probably be the nation to which victory would fall. But he felt equally strongly that the victory would fall to the Navy which kept the largest number of ships in commission; and, thereby, gave their men the most ample opportunity to practise operations which would occur in actual warfare.
  In considering the supply of men for the Fleet, and the increased number of ships, they were naturally led to consider how it was they found themselves as a nation in a position of having to vote such huge sums of money. He was amused and instructed by some of the speeches delivered by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the course of events which had brought this nation into a position of naval expenditure of which the Vote before the House was a sign. It was really waste of time to inquire how it was that they were committed to such extraordinary naval expenditure. It was still greater waste of time to ask which among the nations of Europe first started this country on its career of naval competition, He thought there was a more simple explanation; and it lay in the changed standpoint of all the nations of Europe, including this country, towards the value of the carrying trade, collieries, and commerce, once the unique possessions of this I country, but now shared in ever increasing proportions by its rivals in both hemispheres. It was based on the increased value attached by other nations to shipping, colonies, and commerce. This was entirely the result of the monumental works of Captain Mahan, which, published first in America, had been translated into every language of Europe, into Japanese, Chinese, and other languages of the Far East, and which had exercised a most potent influence in the revolution of nineteenth century thought
  1510
  as to the value of oversea possessions. I That revolution of thought had come to stay. Other nations had acquired fresh I ideas of the value of these possessions.
  *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER said the hon. Member would have been in order in the Committee stage of this Vote, because he could then have discussed the general policy, but he was not in order in doing I so on report.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR bowed to the ruling of Mr. Speaker and said he would not continue to discuss the general policy, I a discussion into which he had rather been led by what had previously taken place. As he could not follow that line of argument he might perhaps be permitted to emphasise the importance of: such a Vote as this for maintaining the efficiency of our Navy for action, and also to justify it on the ground of the unique character of the Empire which the Navy had to defend. Where the unique character of the Empire was borne in mind, that its scattered possessions were separated by thousands of miles of sea—it was imperative for the House to agree with enormous burdens of a naval character, although he agreed with many in the wish that an opportunity could have been given to discuss not merely this Vote by itself, but also the whole question of naval policy, and particularly the naval policy in relation to the military policy, which many thought ought to be its complement, and not its rival.
  *MR. KEARLEYsaid that, notwithstanding the amount of men who had been voted by the House during the last two years, he agreed with the hon. Member for Gateshead that they still wanted more men for the Navy, rather than with the hon. Member for Islington, who had moved the reduction, with whom he had no sympathy whatever. From the point of view of the future construction alone, of which notice had been given in the Estimates, he did not think sufficient provision had been made. For those ships alone, it would be necessary to have 9,000 additional men in preparation against the time when those ships would be launched. A most important and interesting statement had been made by the Secretary to the

  1511
  Admiralty during this debate, when he referred to the system on which the Admiralty had embarked of running a short service system side by side with the old and popular long service system. We were this year entering 1,000 non-continuous ratings for the first time. That was a departure of a very novel character to this generation. The hon. Member had given some information, but the House was entitled to a little more, and he would like to know before the debate closed, if it were possible, what decision the Admiralty had come to, if any, as to what was to be the future limit in numbers of the long service ratings. The Financial Secretary had said the Admiralty had arrived at what they considered to be the necessary minimum—could the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of what the numbers were? This year the House had voted 127,000 men, and in the previous year they voted 122,000. The hon. Gentleman or his predecessor stated a year or so since that the time was approaching when the limit would be reached for long service ratings. Now that the number of 127,000 had been reached, the Admiralty had in view the fixing of some necessary minimum, and it would be of interest to know whether the Admiralty had formed any idea of the numbers.
  Secondly, he would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty had arrived at any standard which was to govern the short service, so a, to work the short service and the long service together. Although 1,000 non-continuous ratings had been entered in the Estimates, the House did not know what proportion they were to bear to the long service ratings. The Report of the Manning 'Commission had suggested that with regard to the stokers the proportion should be one-sixth, and with regard to the seamen it should be one-fourth. The Report also attached the greatest importance to establishing a reserve of stokers. There was no doubt that in the Navy at the present time there was a great dearth of stokers, and the Manning Committee pointed out that that was one of the ratings it would be necessary to build up in considerable strength. The difficulty in getting a sufficient number of stokers, as he had
  1512
  pointed out over and over again, was the bad inducements offered to those who came into the Navy. The stoker class has the hardest worked and the worst paid rating in the Fleet. The Admiralty were now going to give a new rating to a class they termed mechanicians, but if they paid an inferior price for the raw I material, they were not likely to attract I the best men. It was under these circumstances he thought the moment was opportune for asking the question he had put to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the decision of Mr. Speaker had made it impossible to discuss the general question with regard to the Navy Estimates, and particularly as regarded the Army Estimates, for which he thought it was desirable they should find an appropriate occasion. He rose, therefore, merely for the purpose of saying that he disassociated himself altogether from the suggestions I that had been made, that we could safely reduce the number of men employed in the Navy. He was satisfied, not only that the number at present proposed was not more than was automatically necessary, in order to man and equip the ships for the building and maintaining of which the House had committed itself, but that we must most carefully guard against any premature unnecessary reduction of that which was, after all, I the one source of the ultimate strength of the country. He did not in the least prejudge the questions which might arise when they arrived at the shipbuilding Vote, but he wished, so far as he was concerned, to say in the most explicit terms that he saw no reason whatever to reduce the number of our fleet by a single man.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 18th day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read.
  "That a number of Land Forces, not I exceeding 235,761, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and' Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding his

  1513
  Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Brodrick, Mr. Arnold-Forster, and Lord Stanley do prepare and bring it in.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  "To provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
  SUPPLY [17th MARCH].
  Order read, for further consideration of second Resolution.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,312,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of wages, etc., to officers, sea men and boys, Coast Guard and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
  MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY thought he wag now entitled to ask for a reply to I he question he had asked.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he could, not answer the question before. The hon. Member had asked whether the Admiralty had decided what proportion of non-continuous service men were to go into the ships. The answer was that it was impossible for the present Admiralty to decide a question of that kind. It would be years before there were sufficient numbers to pro-ride for the proportion of stokers and bluejackets recommended by the Committee. It would be impossible for anybody to pledge themselves as to the limit to be arrived at from the discontinuance of the long service.
  Resolution agreed to.
  SUPPLY [18TH MARCH]—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £784,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of half-pay, reserved, and retired pay, to officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £350,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of civil pensions and gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [19th MARCH]—RETORT.
  Resolution reported.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,265,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, viz.:—

  Civil Services.

  CLASS II.

  £

  Colonial Office

  25,000

  CLASS II.

  Board of Education

  6,000,000

  CLASS II.

  Board of Agriculture

  65,000

  CLASS II.

  Crofters Commission, Scotland

  2,000

  CLASS II.

  Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

  40,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  50,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  16,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  30,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  20,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  18,000

  £

  Revenue Buildings

  225,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  225,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  90,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  7,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  6,000

  Rates on Government Property

  250,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  110,000

  Railways, Ireland

  80,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England;—

  House of Lords Offices

  2,000

  House of Commons Offices

  12,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  40,000

  Home Office

  60,000

  Foreign Office

  30,000

  Privy Council Office, &c.

  5,000

  Board of Trade

  75,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Charity Commission

  15,000

  Civil Service Commission

  18,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  25,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  3,000

  Local Government Board

  85,000

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  5

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  10,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  5

  Registrar-General's Office

  19,000

  Stationery and Printing

  320,000

  Woods, Forests, & c, Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  30,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland;—

  Secretary for Scotland

  25,000

  Fishery Board

  8,000

  Lunacy Commission

  3,000

  Registrar-General's Office

  5,000

  Local Government Board

  6,000

  Ireland;—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary for Ireland

  16,000

  Department of Agriculture

  7 5,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  25,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  18,000

  Registrar General's Office

  6,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  7,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  35,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  27,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  140,000

  Land Registry

  20,000

  County Courts

  8,000

  Police, England and Wales

  18,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  340,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  140,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  14,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  15,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  40,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  35,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  45,000

  Land Commission

  55,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  46,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  45,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  600,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  50,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England;—

  British Museum

  80,000

  National Gallery

  10,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  4,000

  Scientific Investigation, &c., United Kingdom

  22,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  42,000

  Scotland;—

  Public Education

  750,000

  National Gallery

  3,000

  Ireland:—

  £

  Public Education

  730,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  3,000

  Quean's Colleges

  2,500

  CLASS II.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  250,000

  Uganda, Central and East Africa Protectorates, and Uganda Railway

  320,000

  Colonial Services

  300,000

  Cyprus, Grant in Aid

  85,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  32,000

  CLASS II.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  280,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc.

  2,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1.000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  17,000

  Savings Bank and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

  —

  CLASS II.

  Temporary Commissions

  25,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  16,087

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  —

  St. Louis Exhibition, 1904

  —

  Total for Civil Services

  £13,035,000

  Revenue Departments:—

  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenue

  830,000

  Post Office

  3, 800,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  250,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  2,000,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £7,230,000

  Grand Total

  £20,265,000

  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he understood that this Vote wag not to be taken until the evening sitting, and many Members had probably left the House under that impression.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he had no desire to use the House unfairly. The opportunity for discussion at the evening sitting would probably be somewhat curtailed by private business, and he thought it would be for the convenience of the House to devote the remaining hour and a half of the present sitting to the Report of the Resolution.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I might point out that a question of some difficulty arises on the Standing Order. The Standing Order says:
  "Of the days so allotted, not more than one day in Committee should be allotted to any Vote on Account, and not more than one sitting to the Report of that Vote. At midnight at the close of the day on which the Committee of the Vote is taken, or at the close of t he sitting at which the Report of the Vote is taken, the Chairman of the Committee or the Speaker, as the case may be, should put every question to dispose of the Vote or Report."
  The question arises whether, if the Vote is taken now, I should be compelled at half-past seven to put the question, or whether the discussion could be continued at the evening sitting. It seems to me that the intention of the Standing Order is that there should be a sitting allotted to the Report, and that the sitting allotted to the present Report is the evening sitting. Therefore, the "allotted sitting" being the evening sitting, I should not be entitled to apply the automatic closure to the Vote at half-past seven, if it is taken now. Accordingly, though the construction of the rule is very doubtful, I should be prepared to rule that the debate might go on now, if the House chooses to take it, until half-past seven, and that it would be in order to resume it at the evening sitting, and apply the automatic closure, if necessary, at twelve o'clock.
  MR. ASQUITHthought the House would be much relieved at the interpretation of the Order just given, because, if the Standing Order had been

  1519
  Otherwise interpreted, it would have been possible for the discussion to commence at seven o'clock, and then at half past seven to be automatically closured. Many Members were under the impression that the Vote on Account would not be taken until the evening sitting, but, on the understanding that the discussion could be then resumed, he did not see any objection to proceeding with the Vote until half past seven.
  MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)commented on the small amount proposed to be spent in connection with the St. Louis Exposition. France, Germany, and all the other principal countries had set aside amounts much larger than the £30,000 here proposed, and it was not at all creditable to the Government that they should have suggested a sum totally insufficient to be of any real service in the encouragement and the provision of British representation at the Exposition. If ever there was a time when Britain ought to do everything it possibly could to encourage friendly relations with America, it was now. Although late in the day, the Government would be well-advised to revise its Estimate.
  *MR. SOARESsaid that last year it was arranged that the Board of Agriculture should consult with the War Office and, if possible, devise some means by which to enable the War Office to purchase horses for remounts direct from the farmers. Recently the Secretary of State had said a circular was about to be sent to the various County Councils on the matter. He desired to ask whether the President of the Board of Agriculture knew about that circular, and whether it was sent out with his approbation. It was most important that farmers in the horse-breeding districts should know exactly the stamp of horse required. He regretted that the President of the Board of Agriculture had stated he had very little money a his disposal, but the idea could bi greatly assisted at a very small expense by classes being instituted in the various local shows for horses suitable for tin Army, every exhibit in such classes being entered for sale at a certain price. Another question was that of railway rates. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that
  1520
  the farmers had a grievance in this matter, rat what steps was he going to take to remedy it? If he going to proceed by legislation or by administration? If tie intended to proceed by means of administration it would be well to commence at once, so that the effect of his operations would be known by the end of the year, in time for legislation to be prepared for next session if necessary. He also desired to know the number of prosecutions and convictions which had taken place under the Order prohibiting the sale of butter containing more than 16 per cent, of water.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid there was a strong feeling in the country that some of the regulations with regard to swine fever were working very hardly. In some cases where swine fever seemed to have been stamped out it had suddenly re-appeared. If the right hon. Gentleman could hold out any hope of swine fever being put an end to very shortly, farmers might be willing to put up with the inconvenience of the regulations, but at present they felt that they pressed with undue hardship and were not really necessary. As to the question of railway rates, the right hon. Gentleman had recently stated that if the companies did not come into line he had a rod in pickle for them. No action, however, had as yet been taken, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would soon exercise whatever powers he had. The "owner's risk" rates required looking into. Railway companies were inclined to give cheap rates at owner's risk, but they took away with one hand what they gave with the other. In the milk traffic the companies practically took no charge and acknowledged no responsibility. If milk got spoilt in transit or churns were lost, farmers were not able to obtain compensation, the plea of the companies being that it was sent at owner's risk. It was no answer to say that it could be sent at the risk of the company, because in that case the rates were doubled, which rendered it absolutely prohibitive. If the right hon. Gentleman intimated to the companies that if they persisted

  1521
  in their course of action he would have to interfere, or obtain power to interfere, it would probably do some good.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he intended to set up in different parts of the country fifteen or twenty advisory boards, with the object of getting special information of special wants in particular districts. There was a good deal to idea to be said for the idea if the wish of the right hon. Gentleman was to get to know what was going on in the districts, especially as regarded the small men who, perhaps, make their voices Chambers of Agriculture. But would not that object be equally well attained by the appointment of correspondents in different districts, such as the Board of Trade had appointed for its purposes? The idea of setting up official or semi official boards was entirely against the general practice of the country. Hitherto it hid been our boast that we had not agricultural boards or establishments under State aid control, such as existed in continental countries, and great bodies like the Royal Society, the Bath and West of England Society, and some of the small bodies had been absolutely untrammelled by red tape, and able freely to express their opinions to the Minister of the day. In connection with advisory boards there was bound to be a certain political element, as a number of the members would be nominated by the President of the Board of Agriculture for the time being, to whom those members would necessarily look for the continuance of their appointment. That was hardly a desirable state of things. Special information on small points could be better obtained either through correspondents, or by means of the farmers' clubs which were scattered throughout the country. The more he thought of it the more he felt that the establishment of such boards would be a dangerous step. He had every confidence that as long as the right hon. Gentleman held his present office such boards would be kept within proper limits, but future occupants of the office might so use the boards as to disregard the opinion of the House of Commons, on the ground that they had their own advisory boards by whom they would be guided.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsupported the suggestion of the hon. Member connection with the St. Louis Exposition should be considerably increased. Much had been heard recently about economy, but this was not a matter in which it should be unnecessarily practised. Our national credit and prestige were largely concerned in this question, and during his last visit to the United States he found, both in the highest quarters and among the "men in the street," a very keen desire that this country should be adequately represented at the Exposition. A very bad effect would be produced in the United States if the English grant was one of the smallest made by any of the civilised Powers. It would be hardly creditable to the Government to suggest a contribution one-fifth of that of Germany, and less than one-half of that of China. He hoped before all the space was taken the grant would be increased, at any rate to the amount appropriated by Germany.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked for information as to the advisory boards, which were quite new institutions. He understood that these boards were to have a majority elected by the farmers, and a minority to be nominated by the President of the Board of Agriculture. lie would like to know what proportion the minority would bear to the majority; whether any of these members were to be paid, and if so, at what and whose expense; whether there would be a special Vote for them and under what Estimate they would come. So far as he understood the present methods of obtaining information, a man like the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the department had little difficulty in obtaining it, because he had gone into the matter thoroughly, and could get his information at the local farmers' clubs. If in the future they had not an equally energetic and careful President of the Board he did not see how the required information would be obtained, by means of which the President could nominate the proper men on these advisory boards.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HAN BURY, Preston)said that with regard to the Sparks from Locomotives Bill and the question of forestry, which the Government had been recommended to take up, he was considering how far it was possible to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the subject, but he could not yet give a definite answer. With regard to the question of the advisory committees he had proposed, he thought there was rather an exaggerated importance attached to those bodies, as though they were to control in any way the Board of Agriculture, and the Board must necessarily be governed by their advice. He was afraid that that was the last sort of council he should think of appointing. He was struck by the fact that at the present moment the Central Chamber of Agriculture dealt rather with general agricultural questions than in trying to obtain definite information regarding local questions. No Society or Central Chamber met so constantly as to be within touch of the agriculturist, so that he could at a moment's notice get the information he wanted. Then, again, the societies had acquired the bad habit, instead of discussing local requirements, of taking up kind of snowball resolutions from one another, which they debated and which had no effect whatever upon him. That being so it occurred to him it was necessary to be, from day to day, in touch with those who represented, and could speak for, the local requirements of a particular district. There was no industry which varied so much from county to county, and almost from district to district, as agriculture. Then with regard to the politics of agriculture he thought the less they brought politics into the question the better it was. He hoped the advisory boards would keep politics at arm's length and would only be business bodies to deal with actual hard facts and farming life in their particular district. He agreed with the hon. Member for Somersetshire that a better name would be correspondents, and although he was by no means anxious they should meet very often, he wanted to get representative men in all districts of England with whom he could be in
  1524
  actual touch. He did not want there to be any idea that these gentlemen would control him in any way. It was proposed to divide Great Britain into twenty divisions and appoint fifteen or sixteen gentlemen to each division. It was no matter how they were to be appointed so long as they really voiced the views of their district. Out of the fifteen or sixteen the great bulk should be elected by the Agricultural Societies of their districts. He only retained the power to nominate a certain number because he felt that too often in those societies there was not a sufficient representation of the smaller men who, after all, represented the great proportion of the farmers of England. He wanted to he brought into touch with them just as much as with the larger farmers. As to payment, he knew it was rather difficult to extract money from the Treasury, and he thought that except for the expense of travelling they ought not to call on the Treasury to provide the money. He was quite sure he could appeal to those gentlemen to have sufficient interest in their own industry to assist him in the way described.
  The question of railway rates was a difficult matter for him to handle, because railway companies were not in his department. He should like to say that, before coming to Parliament, there were two things to be done before he pressed his colleagues to make any alteration in the present law. He must collect facts. General grumbling was of no use whatever; he must have facts, and plenty of them. In Scotland and Yorkshire he had been assisted by the County Councils. In Scotland especially a vast amount of information with regard to rates had been laid before him and had been of great service. The information he had already collected had shown him that a great number of complaints arose from misunderstanding of both the actual facts of the case and the law. It had convinced him that when all had been said or done, the railway companies might be fairly approached and would deal with the matter. In Scotland that had already been done, and to a large extent the railway companies had met the case fairly; alterations in the rates had taken place and the farmers had been relieved. It all depended upon accurate information, and he was sure his

  1525
  hon. friend, as a Member of the House and Chairman of the Central Chamber, would do good service if he would take steps to assist him in getting more information, which would justify him in approaching the railway companies with sufficient evidence. He proposed to approach the railway companies first in a friendly manner, because it was not to the interests of the railway companies to neglect this important branch of trade. It was a fact that great pressure was put upon the railway companies to encourage the importation of produce from abroad, because in the first place they were sometimes owners of steamers. It was a remarkable fact that whilst this House laid upon the railway companies, so far as land rates were concerned, certain limitations which required them to show equal justice all round, there was no such limitation with regard to steam ships, and it was possible for a railway company owning a line of steamers running from Copenhagen to Hull, and carrying goods from Hull to Birmingham, to charge exactly the same amount from Hull to Birmingham as from Copenhagen to Birmingham, via Hull. As a rule the farmer was confined to a particular railway, whereas the foreigner was in a position to choose his railway, and consequently got the benefit of competitive rates. He hoped that when the facts were brought sufficiently before the railway companies they would see that it was to their own interest to cultivate the home trade more than they had done in the past. The difficulty was that the railway companies varied so much in their charges. The Great Eastern Railway Company dealt generously with parcels up to 7 lbs., but other companies did not, although they treated larger parcels favourably. Surely they might find some system which would bring them into line.
  With regard to swine fevor, it could not be stamped out without drastic regulations; but his desire was to make his regulations work with as little friction as possible, and he was always open to listen to advice from local authorities, or even from individual farmers, if he could do so reasonably. There was, no doubt, much grumbling with regard to the regulations of local authorities which were not under his control; but he hardly knew a single case in which a farmer had any real
  1526
  reason to complain of their action. He knew it was said that the areas were too large and that the boundaries were not prescribed as scientifically as they might be. It was thought necessary to have the boundaries of the petty sessional divisions because the police were acquainted with them. He was quite willing, however, if he could find other boundaries well-known to the police and the public, to alter his regulations in that respect.
  As to the question of remounts, that matter, after all, rested entirely with the War Office, and he had no control over it. His duty solely consisted in conveying to farmers what the War Office required with regard to the purchase of remounts. As the hon. Member was aware he had been pressing the War Office to deal directly with the farmers, as far as possible, and give them all the information possible. He was sorry to say that the requirements of the War Office in this respect were not very large, and he did not think the question was of great interest to farmers. It would be if the War Office bought on a large scale; but when they required only 2,500 horses a year, and only 1,600 from Great Britain, it did not seem a matter of very great interest to the farmers either of Great Britain or Ireland. No doubt, however, farmers ought to have the fullest information. He understood that the War Office would in about a fortnight send their regulations to the Board of Agriculture, and they would be sent to the farmers. As to prosecutions under the butter regulations, they were in charge of the local authorities, and, so far as the Board could collect information, he believed there had been some thirty-five prosecutions since the order was issued last May. Of course he might obtain full information be applying to the local authorities, but he hardly thought it would be worth while to do that. He thought he had now answered all the questions put to him.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid they were all interested in the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman, especially in regard to the work he had been doing connected with the advisory boards. They all knew how the right hon. Gentleman had thrown himself into the practical work of his Department. But while he said that, he

  1527
  was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman might have taken a dangerous course in creating these advisory boards over the length and breadth of England and Wales. It conveyed too much the idea of powerful organised bodies in particular localities. He thought the advantage to be obtained from the districts could be obtained by responsible correspondents. The difficulty about advisory boards was that they to some extent diminished the responsibility of headquarters and were apt to take upon themselves functions which did not properly belong to them. The right hon. Gentleman would get the information he wanted more thoroughly by the appointment of one or more correspondents in each centre than by such boards as he suggested. They were all agreed that the information was very important, in a comparatively new department like the Board of Agriculture, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might try to bring about remedies for the grievances in the different parts of the country.
  With reference to the question of railway rates the right hon. Gentleman said the Board laboured under the disadvantage of a deficiency of exact information. He himself knew that. Some years ago there was some difficulty in getting to know exactly the grievances in particular localities. It seemed to him that accurate information could be better obtained and tabulated by a responsible correspondent than by any committee of gentlemen forming an advisory board. He was very anxious that railway rates should be equalised all over the country in the interest, especially, of small holders, of whom there was an increasing number. He hoped that as years went on there would be a still greater number of people holding small plots and producing perishable food produce. It was of the greatest importance that such produce should be conveyed on the easiest possible terms by the railway companies. Light railways had not given the advantages which were expected from them in connection with the conveyance of produce of this kind. He was sure that any pressure the Board of Agriculture could bring to bear on the great railway companies to try to equalise their rates, in order to give impartial terms to producers in various parts of the country, would be of
  1528
  great benefit. The right hon. Gentleman made a remark which suggested to his mind a possible danger of interference on the part of the Board of Agriculture. He said that produce might be conveyed from Copenhagen to Birmingham via Hull almost as cheaply as produce could be sent from Yorkshire to the same Midland city. He believed there were many examples of that kind. He thought it pressed hardly on the producer of articles within our own shores that farmers in Denmark should be able to send produce to markets in this country for about the same cost. While endeavouring to remedy an injustice the right hon. Gentleman must not remedy it at the expense of the consumer, because, after all, this country depended very much on the cheapness of the food of the people in order that we might maintain our supremacy in manufacturing industries. The right hon. Gentleman must be careful not to take any step to make the food of the poorest portion of the community dearer by kindly interference on behalf of another class of citizens.
  With regard to the St. Louis Exhibition, he hoped that something a little more liberal might be done than hitherto in connection with that project. This country ought to be represented in a way worthy of our traditions and of our industrial and commercial position. Germany was able to give five times the amount we had granted in order that that country might be well represented at that Exhibition. He thought it was time that we were a little more alive in this matter. He believed that the money would be well spent, and that it would be brought back to this country over and over again in the shape of orders for our productions.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYKS FISHER, Fulham)said that hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had expressed the hope that the £30,000 which stood on the Estimates for the St. Louis Exhibition, did not represent the final decision of the Government, and they sounded a warning note that it would be regarded as entirely inadequate. Speaking on behalf of the Government, and entirely sharing the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen, he could assure

  1529
  them that this sum of £30,000 appearing on the Estimates was not a final but a preliminary sum. It was calculated that they could only, in all probability, spend that sum this year, but the final amount had not, yet been fixed. He agreed with the views expressed that it was most essential we should do everything to maintain our friendly relations with the United States above all other countries, and it was his opinion that exhibitions of this kind were one of the most valuable means of establishing such friendly relations. He knew that the American nation attached very great importance to this coming exhibition. He understood it would be conducted on a magnificent scale, and he believed it would have far-reaching results. What was exactly the amount of money that would be demanded in connection with the representation of Great Britain at the exhibition was now under consideration, and he thought that the opinion expressed that day by the House of Commons would have some influence with his right lion, friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was necessary that the Government should know what amount of money Germany and other foreign countries intended to spend on the exhibition, and inquiries to that effect had been made during the winter, so that they had now some means of gauging what our contribution should be. Above all, what the Government wanted to know was, how far their expenditure was going to be backed up by private manufacturers and collectors in this country; he hoped this short debate might be the means of bringing this St. Louis Exhibition to the notice of the great leaders of commerce and industry in this country, and that they would unite in putting forward their best efforts to worthily maintain the position and industrial prestige of Great Britain in the exhibition.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)said he wished to call attention to a matter in the Colonial Office Report in regard to native labour in South Africa. On Thursday of last week he asked from the Colonial Secretary an assurance that the old law under which gold-mining claims in the Transvaal were allocated
  1530
  would not be abrogated†, f and the right hon. Gentleman said that no such law had ever been in existence, and then went on to describe the methods by which these claims were allocated. A great deal of disorder, the right hon. Gentleman said, had arisen in connection with these claims, and there had been some suggestions or proposals for a lottery law, but the right hon. Gentleman indicated that they had come to nothing. Since then he had had an opportunity of discussing the documents bearing upon the matter, and that was his excuse for again troubling the House by referring to it. The earlier custom in the Transvaal, as on all other goldfields, was that when a farm or a bit of land was proclaimed a goldfield it was open to all and sundry to peg out claims. Consequently, if the field turned out rich, there was a great deal of disorder, and sometimes lives were lost, in the scramble which took place for claims. In 1895 such a scene took place in the allocation of the claims on a farm in the Transvaal, and serious apprehensions were raised in the minds of the people as to what the consequences might be if the old method of allocation were adhered to. Two farms, supposed to be especially valuable, were declared to be goldfields, and a new method was introduced by which claimants had to present themselves at the Field Cornet's office to obtain a licence, on which they could proceed to the goldfields and peg out a claim. In this particular case the applicants for licences numbered many thousands, and it was known that some of the big gold companies hired prize-fighters to stand outside the Field Cornet's Office to prevent smaller and weaker men from getting into the office and obtaining a licence. These companies also hired blood horses to carry the licences from the Field Cornet's Office to the gold-fields; and some of their rivals, it was said, employed other desperadoes to shoot the horses and obtain possession of the licences.
  As a result of this state of affairs the Executive Council of the Transvaal Republic passed an Emergency Law which legalised the lottery system in allocating claims. An American named
  †See page 1252

  1531
  Brown disputed the validity of the new law, and raised an action against the Government before Judge Kotze, in which he was successful, whereupon the Transvaal Government dismissed the Judge, and that became one of the justifications for the war. The lottery method was continued from 1895 down to the outbreak of the war. He had a copy of the Standard and Diggers' News for April 6th, 1899. That paper contained one and a half columns describing the terms on which claims were to be allocated. It was an official document; was signed by Mr. Reitz, the State Secretary; and was dated Pretoria, April 4th, 1899. Under the form of lottery mentioned in that document every citizen over the age of sixteen, and every outlander who had paid his poll tax, was entitled to apply for a ticket and to share in the lottery. As a matter of fact, some 30 000 burghers and outlanders did apply, and received lottery tickets towards the close of the year 1899, in connection with the allocation of claims on the particular farms mentioned. The outbreak of the war stopped the ballot taking place, and it was still in suspense.
  The point he desired to make was that unless those claims were to be allocated by lottery, as under the old Transvaal law, the working people in the Transvaal would stand no chance whatever of competing for claims put up to auction to the highest bidder. Under the old law, everyone, rich and poor, had an equal opportunity of becoming the possessor of a claim. He was advised that on the two farms to which he was referring, gold deposits of enormous value had been found; and that many of the claims might be worth anything up to £500,000 or £600,000" The people who had applied for tickets were entitled to their chance of obtaining one of those claims, and would feel it very hard indeed if one of the results of the war was that they would be debarred from the right which they possessed under the old Transvaal Government. He asked from the right hon. Gentleman some assurance that the allocation of claims in the Transvaal should be conducted on the lines of a lottery, as otherwise the monopolists would be able to extend their sphere of influence
  1532
  over every yard of ground worth purchasing, and the small financier would have no chance of competing with them. He hoped that one charge more would not have to be brought against those responsible for public affairs since the war—namely, that they were playing into the hands of the rich, and were barring others from opportunities they possessed before the war. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see to it that the new gold laws should be so framed as not to put a monopoly of the paying parts of the country into the hands of the present mine-owners; but that every citizen of the Transvaal should have at least an equal opportunity of trying his luck.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): Though I do not think the hon. Member's facts are quite accurate, I do not dispute them. I was certainly under the impression that, although the late Transvaal Government had passed legislation to enable a system of allotment of claims by lottery to be carried out, that legislation had not in practice been applied in any single case. But I may be wrong, as the hon. Member speaks of one case in which the lottery system was adopted. He may be more accurate with regard to that matter than is my memory. At any rate, it was adopted in very few cases. The system which is to take the place, of the old system is not yet settled. It is clear that, in the first instance, it concerns the people of the Transvaal. As I explained to the hon. Member when the Vote was under discussion before, it is intended to propose the system in the new gold law, which will be brought before and discussed by the Legislative Council in public, and probably passed as amended by the council. But the people of the Transvaal will have a full opportunity of criticising any proposal which may be made. I should not like to express any final conclusion on the subject; but I may tell the hon. Member that his idea that it is a question between the monopolists and the working classes

  1533
  is certainly an entire mistake. Whatever system you have—lottery, pegging-out, or sale by auction—the working of these c aims must fall into the hands of the large capitalists. A gold mine in the Transvaal requires something like half a million, or a million, of money to establish and start the necessary machinery; and therefore it is not comparable to alluvial gold-mining, where the first workman who comes can wash his gold and take his profit. The only thing which the pegger-out got under the old system, or which a lottery-holder got under the new system, was a claim which he could offer to the capitalist; and if, as the hon. Member suggests, the capitalist was a monopolist, the capitalist would be able to fix his own price, and so get the claim at a low value. No doubt, if things of this kind are going, we should all desire that as many people as possible should have an opportunity of making a profit out of them; but they cannot make much profit, because ultimately the claim must come into the hands of the capitalist.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: One claim was drawn by a miner and sold for £101,000.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should doubt that. But, assuming that that is true, it does not strengthen the argument in favour of any of the existing systems. Will anyone tell me why that miner by a mere chance should have obtained £101,000? What had he done to deserve it? He had not worked for it, or spent money on it, or shown any intelligence. He had simply bought a lottery ticket for a few pounds or pence, it had turned up trumps, and he had made £101,000. That is a gigantic gamble; and I do not think that it is in the interests of the working classes, or of any other class, to encourage gambling of that kind. What is desirable is to see that in future the community at large, and not the individual miner, should have a larger share of the advantages of the wealth that is hidden under the surface. Under the old system the State did not get enough. The profits went to private people, and the community did not receive a sufficient proportion. One of the objects of
  1534
  the new law will be to secure, if possible, a larger proportion for the State, of the value of the gold. If that can be accomplished it will be not the advantage of the individual, but the community as a whole, and that I take it is the object which the lion. Gentleman has in view. But I ask the House to postpone any judgment on the subject until it has been discussed by those best qualified give an opinion, and until legislation has been under the consideration of the Legislative Council.
  MR. JOHN DEWARcalled attention to the condition of lawlessness in the Highlands and islands of Scotland, and said that in South Uist there should be no difficulty in making the land suitable for the crofters to settle upon. He had urged the Secretary for Scotland to take action, and the Congested Districts Board had been petitioned for years, but nothing had been done. The Secretary for Scotland had told them that no inquiry could be made. That decision, he thought, would not conduce to the peace and good government of the district, and he would ask the Secretary for Scotland to reconsider his decision and make some inquiry into the condition of these poor unfortunate people. If the same condition of things existed in England, it would not be tolerated for a moment—public attention would lie drawn to the matter, and the grievance would be redressed. They had there 115 excellent citizens anxious to settle on the land, and yet could not do so. Under similar circumstances in England, public opinion would insist upon their demands being attended to.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I really must protest against part of the language used by my hon. friend when he speaks of the petitions of the cottars in this neighbourhood having been ignored, and it is especially hard when that accusation is made against the pro-prietrix in South Uist, because I venture to pay that however much you may disagree with Lady Gordon Cathcart's views upon how far it is advisable to set up still more cottages and small holdings, no one who knows the history

  1535
  of her life for many years past but must acknowledge that she has really tried from her heart to do her best for the people of that neighbourhood, and it has caused her much heart feeling, trouble, and anxiety.
  MR. DEWAR MR. DEWAR said he fully acknowledged that.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am very glad to have that admission. On the other hand, I am very far from meaning that the condition of the people in this part of the world is what one would like it to be. But it is the old, old story of the multiplication of a population on ground that will not properly support them, and the misfortune always has been, and always will be, that the more kind-hearted the proprietor is in not putting in force with draconian severity the estate regulations against squatting, the more the grievance is felt. I can assure the lion. Member there is no wish on the part of my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland not to make every inquiry to see whether the position of these particular cottars can be helped by the Congested Districts Board; but as my hon. friend knows well, the Secretary for Scotland was in the very condition of making preparation for enquiry when the news came that these cottars had taken forcible possession, not of ground that was going to waste, but of ground in the occupation of another farmer. They had begun to assert their rights by putting seaweed on ground which was admittedly not in their holding. Everyone knows that putting seaweed on the ground is an intimation to all concerned that they are going to dig up the ground My noble friend stated that he would not allow the inquiry to go on so long as there was this overt action on their part to take the law into their own hands. I am exceedingly glad to hear from the hon. Member to-night that some of them have receded from that attitude, but the receding from that attitude—certainly the last time I spoke to my hon. friend, which was only this morning—had not then been communicated to him. That is a change of circumstances I am very glad to know, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman
  1536
  that if the attitude is changed, and it is made perfectly clear that they are not going to take the law into their own hands, he will find there is not the slightest disinclination on the part of the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into the matter, and to do all in his power to meet, as far as possible, the wants of these people.
  *MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the argument of the Lord Advocate with regard to these unfortunate people would lead the House to believe that the fault was entirely with the landlord in not behaving with sufficient draconic severity. The real trouble was that they could not get an acre of land to cultivate, and thus obtain food for their families. A large quantity of this island was taken up by one or two sheep farmers, and it was exactly the same in his own constituency. The poor unfortunate crofters and cottars were driven to the worst parts of the island. For his own part, he did not see the necessity for any inquiry, because the facts were already before the House and Government. The people were more or less in a state of starvation, and what was needed was a law giving the power of taking land compulsorily for the benefit of the people. The House would admit that landlords' rights could only be exercised to a certain extent. In this case the bailiff put down his foot, and said: "The land is mine, and I will not sell it." Whilst that action was allowed in Scotland, in the case of Ireland the Government came down with a scheme providing millions and millions of money. The right hon. Gentleman ought to induce the Government to pass a short Act giving the power to purchase this land on satisfactory terms for the people who wanted it to live upon, and also to the owner. He thought they might have had a little more sympathetic answer from the right hon. Gentleman. It was quite time that a check was put upon the system under which one or two wealthy people, because they were rich and did not care what became of the people, let the land to one large farmer instead of giving the poor cottars the right to the land to which they were entitled. The

  1537
  sympathy of the whole House ought to go out to these poor people, and everything possible ought to be done to relieve them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to send some one to inquire into the whole circumstances, or he might spend his Easter recess in the neighbourhood.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [BY ORDER].

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he did not at this moment propose to move the rejection of this Bill, for reasons he would state. He objected principally to the Bill because it provided among other things for making a tramway along the Embankment from Waterloo Bridge to Westminster Bridge, and over Westminster Bridge. But inasmuch as there were other parts of the Bill which had the approval of the local authorities where these tramways lay, he did not see his way to object to the whole Bill, and he did not therefore desire to move the Motion standing in his name, but would content himself with moving an instruction which stood upon the Paper when the Bill had received its Second Heading.
    SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he much objected to trams going over Westminster Bridge. There was a very good service of busses, and this projected, line was not necessary. For reasons similar to those given by the Member who had just spoken, he did not propose to move the rejection of the Bill. He also would wait till a later stage.
    The Bill was read a second time, and committed.

  MIDLAND AND BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAYS BILL [BY ORDER].

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. MACVEAGHin moving the rejection of this Bill said Ireland was already in possession of 300 railway directors, or one director for every ten miles of railway, and as a result she had the worst managed rail ways in the world. The promoters of this Bill now proposed that as the local directors had made such a hash of affairs, they should import from England a number of intelligent foreigners, who knew nothing of the country or the people, in order to make matters if possible worse. The objections to the Bill were numerous, and he thought sufficiently strong to justify the House in rejecting it altogether. In the first place, its passage would very seriously impede any efforts which might lie made to deal thoroughly with the scandal of railway mismanagement. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had admitted the gravity of the evil and had pledged himself to deal with the evil as soon as the land question was settled, and if an English Company was allowed by this Bill to get a firm grasp on any Irish system, it would greatly impede the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the question. Irrespective of the influence which the Midland Railway Company was able to exercise in this House, they had a financial capital of one-tenth of all the Railway Stock in the United Kingdom, and the fact had only to be stated to show how enormously any attempt at reform would be impeded. It had been urged that the railway systems of Ireland were worked so badly that it would pass the wit of even Midland directors to introduce anything worse, and with that view ho largely agreed, and with proper safeguards they might be allowed to test the matter. But the House had had some experience of railway matters in Ireland, and they had no guarantee that this company would not pursue a similar course to the Great Southern and Western Railway, whose broken pledges to Parliament were a very grave scandal. This company had not made any effort to satisfy the public on that point, and that being so, he trusted that the House would send back this Bill. He hoped the House would be more ready to adopt this course, because this was one of the

    1539
    few lines in Ireland which could means be called progressive.
    They would no doubt be told that the Midland Railway Company had their own fixed rates, which were lower than the rates upon this railway, but there was no guarantee that the same rates would prevail over this line now under consideration. Why the Midland Railway Company had 25,000,000 goods rates, and who could hope to make head or tail of such a mass of rates as that. Moreover, those rates though equitable on the Midland system in England, might be quite inequitable on the line it was proposed to acquire in Ireland. High rates for the carriage of linen, for instance, would injure Ireland, but it whereas would not injure England, high rates for coal would injure England much more than Ireland, and to apply these rates to Ireland without their being reviewed by a Committee would be most unjust. The Great Southern and Western Railway Bills attempted to force all traffic possible through the ports of Rosslare and Fishguard, and in the case of this Bill everything possible would be done to force traffic through Belfast. It was for this House to consider whether it would not be better to secure for the people a fair revision of the rates which they had to pay on their merchandise. At the present time Belfast competed with French net spinners and manufacturers. France was able to throw these goods on the English market at a cost of 28s. 9d. a ton, whilst the Irish manufacturer had to pay 40s. to bring his wares to the same market. Indeed, so high were the charges for conveyance of goods on Irish railways that it had been proved that considerable sum of money could be saved by sending goods from Belfast to Liverpool and from Liverpool across again to the town in Ireland to which the goods were to be delivered, instead sending them direct by train from Belfast. Danish butter from Copenhagen could be landed at Liverpool at a carriage rate of 20s. a ton, but Iris butter from Cookstown cost 27s. 6d. From Copenhagen to Manchester it was 35s., from Cookstown to Manchester was 37s. 6d. Canadian butter came over at a cost of 40s. a ton, whereas to send butter from Derry to Nottingham cost 46s. It was impossible under such cir-
    1540
    cumstauces that Irish produce could compete with foreign in the English markets. It must also be remembered hat these rates which were charged on the Irish Railways were in most cases fixed and controlled by English companies interested in those railways. If he lad the purse of the Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Companies he could get resolutions passed by lie District Councils and [the County Councils either for or against this Bill-Cries of "No, no."] It only required to be brought home to the District and Jaunty Councils in Ireland that this was a fight to obtain fair rates, and then there would be petitions from every District and County Council in Ireland: against this Bill. He moved the rejection of the Bill.-
    MR. HAYDENformally seconded.
    Amendment proposed.
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. MacVeagh.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR CHARLES RENSHAWreminded the House that the whole question of railway rates in Ireland and Scotland was regulated by the Board of Trude. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: And they do it very badly.] That was a question upon which he did not think the House was called upon to express an opinion on this occasion. The course suggested by the hon. Member for South Down had no precedent in the procedure of the House. He hoped this Bill would be given a Second Reading, and that it would be sent to a Committee upstairs where the details might be threshed out.
    *MR. O'DOHERTYdissociated himself from the remark made by the hon. Member for South Down in which he asserted that if he had the purse of the Midland Company he could influence the local bodies in Ireland either way in regard to this measure.
    MR. MACVEAGH MR. MACVEAGH explained that what he said was that if he had the purse

    1541
    of the Midland and Northern Counties Railway Companies he could place facts before them which would induce them to send petitions against this Bill.
    *MR. O'DOHERTY*MR. O'DOHERTY said the hon. Member for South Down was mistaken when he said that the Port and Harbours Commissioners of Londonderry had asked the House to reject this Bill; they had done nothing of the kind. The Commissioners required certain instructions given to the Committee, in order that the trade and commerce of the port of Londonderry properly safeguarded.
    MR. MACVEAGH MR. MACVEAGH said a telegram had been issued stating that the Port and Harbour Commissioners of Londonderry earnestly appealed to the House to reject this Bill, or at least to get certain instructions inserted in Committee.
    *MR. O'DOHERTY*MR. O'DOHERTY said that the Port and Harbour Commissioners were in favour, and had given instructions to those lion. Members whom they could influence to vote for the Bill—in fact, the whole trade and commerce, not only of Londonderry, but also of the north of Ireland, were in favour of this Bill. The hon. Member for South Down said the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company would be managed in the future by foreigners. Evidently the hon. Member had not read the Bill, which provided that there was to be a Committee to regulate all Irish traffic, this Committee to be composed of three local North of Ireland gentlemen and three directors of the Midland Railway. He thought it would appeal to hon Members when he said that there was not a single constituency through which this line would pass whose representative would not record his vote in favour of this Bill. The Midland Railway had not a bad record with them in the north of Ireland; they had put their hands in their pockets deeply in order to develop the industrial resources of the county of Donegal. This Company had been instrumental in constructing twenty or thirty miles of light railways through Donegal, and they were engaged in constructing other lines in that county.
    The more railways they had in Ireland, and the more inducements they could hold out to English capitalist to invest their money in Ireland, the better. He did not believe in monopolies, and he hoped the House would pass this Bill, as if they did not the chances would be that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland would acquire and thereby create a monopoly in the North of Ireland.
    COL. M'CALMONTsaid he should support the Second Reading. The hon. Member who had just sat down had enlightened them very much as to the purport of the Bill. All the public bodies in the North-East of Ireland had shown that they desired that this Bill should pass. He could not imagine anything more advantageous than the advent of a great company like the Midland Railway, with its great capital and unlimited resources. He hoped the House would approve of the principle of the Bill by passing the Second Reading, and allow the details to be settled in Committee. The position of Derry and other places would be fairly and squarely considered, and the rates could not possibly be raised without the consent of the Railway Commissioners.
    MR. O'KELLYthe statement made by the Member for South Down about being able to influence public bodies in Ireland if he had the purse of this Company at his disposal was absolutely untrue. He wished to protest against such a remark, and he should support the Second Reading. The County Councils of Ireland had a sufficient defence for the integrity with which they had discharged their duties, in the repeated vindication they had received from the Local Government Board of Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)said nothing could be more calculated to advance the material interests of Ireland than the existence of lines of railway competing for the carriage of Irish goods to different markets in England. He could not, therefore, understand the objection

    1543
    to a Bill which would enable a rich and powerful English company to join with some of the local Irish railway companies in increasing and developing the means of cheap and rapid goods traffic between Ireland and England, although they might differ as to the terms to be imposed upon this company; these might very well form the subjects of discussion before the Committee; he could not understand how hon. Members from Ireland could oppose this Bill. Points of detail could be legitimately discussed in Committee, and he heartily supported the Second Reading.
    MR. HEMPHILLsaid his constituents were very much interested in this Bill, because the principal town in North Tyrone, which he had the honour of representing, was directly interested in having as easy and cheap means of communication between England and the different ports of Ireland as possible. All they wanted in Ireland was capital, and if they had sufficient capital they would be about the most flourishing and the happiest people on the face of the earth. He was inclined to support the Second Reading, but he was rather afraid of the overwhelming power of this great English company, which might swallow and devour all that came in its way in a poor country like Ireland. There were Motions on the Paper to refer this Bill to a hybrid Committee, and if that course were taken, the object of the hon. Member for South Down would be achieved. If the instruction of the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry were carried, then Irish interests would be safeguarded, and the danger of heavy rates being charged would be greatly obviated. He appealed to the hon. Member for South Down to withdraw his Motion and let the House proceed to consider the instructions.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought the remark of his hon. friend the Member for South Down had been misunderstood. Several speakers seemed to be under the impression that the hon. Member for South Down made a wholesale accusation of corruption against the public bodies of Ireland. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "So he did."]
    1544
    He was perfectly certain that the hon-Member for South Down intended to make no such accusation as that, for such a charge would to anyone at all acquainted with public life in Ireland since the Local Government Act was passed. Every one knew that not only in business capacity, but in purity also, those public bodies were quite able to hold their own with public bodies either in England or Scotland. What his hon. friend meant was, that a great wealthy English corporation like the Midland Railway Company, was by the mere fact of its influence, power, and wealth, able to create a public opinion in its favour: but to say that this company would be able to obtain petitions and resolutions for or against any public measure in Ireland was a statement which could not be supported, and he was quite sure the Member for South Down never meant that.
    Whatever view might be taken as to the desirability of passing the Second Reading of this Bill, he sympathised very much with the object which his hon. friend Down had in the Member for South raising this discussion. His hon. friend called attention to what had been going on in Ireland in regard to the acquisition of a number of Irish railway lines by great English railway companies. It did not meet the objection to tell him that these great companies might manage the lines better than the existing Irish companies managed them. They looked forward to the day when there would be a radical reform in the whole question of railway transit in Ireland. Ho personally looked forward to the day when there might be in Ireland something in the nature of a nationalisation of Irish railways. It might not come for some time: it might not come until they had a local governing body in Ireland; but when the time did come for carrying out the reform, the difficulties in the way of carrying it out would undoubtedly be considerably increased if at that time all the Irish railways were in the hands of great English companies. He thought his hon. friend, from that point of view, was perfectly justified in calling attention to this matter.
    The Attorney-General had rightly told the House that one of the great

    1545
    difficulties from which Ireland was suffering at this moment was to be found in the deficient facilities for the carriage of goods in the country, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was disposed to give his support to the Bill on the supposition that if the Midland Company got possession of the line the facilities in that part of Ireland would be improved. His hon. friend's second objection to the Second Reading of the Bill was that there was no undertaking whatever that the rates which obtained even on the Midland lines in England would be extended to this Irish line when acquired by them. It seemed to him that his hon. friend would be wise if he did not divide the House against the Second Heading, but trusted to the discussion next time it came up, on the 'instruction" which stood in his name, calling upon the Committee to insist on the railway company inserting in the Bill certain provisions with reference to rates. There was a further instruction on the Paper asking that the Bill should be referred to a hybrid Committee. He thought that was a reasonable proposal also. He did not know who was in charge of the Bill on behalf of the promoters, but he was quite sure that if they would give an assurance that they would agree to a proposal of that kind there would be no objection to passing the Second Reading. He had intervened in the debate because he thought his hon. friend, whose intentions were perfectly good, had been misunderstood by a large number of the Members of the House. He offered to his hon. friend the same suggestion which the Attorney-General had already offered, namely, that the question of rates should be left to be threshed out when the instruction came up, and that they should press the necessity of sending the Bill to a hybrid Committee.
    The Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill read a second time.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL TOWERS) BILL (BY ORDER).
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY SIR FREDERICK BANBURY {Camberwell, Peckham) moved an instruction to the Committee on this Bill to omit Clauses 63 and 64. He
    1546
    thought it would save the time of the House if he read the Clauses to which he referred.
    Clause 63 was as follows—
    "It shall be lawful for the Council of any Metropolitan Borough being authorised to supply and supplying electrical energy to expend money upon the wiring and fitting and supplying with wires fittings and apparatus the premises of their consumers or prospective consumers and to enter into and carry into effect Agreements and arrangements with respect thereto and to make such charges there for whether directly or otherwise as they may think fit."
    Clause 64 was in these terms—
    "Any such Council of a Metropolitan Borough may borrow in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if such expenditure were for the purposes of the Electric Lighting Acts 1882 and 1888 such sums of money as may be required by such Council for the purposes hereinbefore mentioned."
    These Clauses raised a very important question as to the extent to which municipalities should be empowered to enter into competition with retail traders. It might be held that it was advantageous to everyone that municipalities should be allowed to own gasworks, electric light works, tramways, and waterworks, but he thought it could not be admitted that it was advisable for municipalities to enter into retail trading, and to compete directly with the various manufacturers and shopkeepers of this country. If a man wanted his house fitted with wires, or desired to buy an electric lamp, the Council wanted to supply him instead of a retail trader doing so. He was sure every business man in the House would agree with him when he said that if one entered into a business of this description it must be managed by a man who understood the business. He wanted to know how it was possible that the London County Council or a borough council could enter into a business of this kind with the slightest hope that it would be remunerative. In the last few years there had been an alarming increase in the indebtedness of municipalities. Only to-day

    1547
    he saw in the papers that the Finance Committee of the London County Council proposed to borrow £18,000,000 in the next eighteen months. In the face of that it was absolute rashness to allow them to enter into retail trade of this description. If trading of this description wore authorised, he did not know where it was possible to draw the line. They might have municipal bakeries and shops of every description. He thought there were few Members of the House who desired that such a state of things should be brought about.
    *SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONseconded the Motion. He pointed out the unfair competition to which private traders would be subjected by reason of borough the business of Every private trader had to find the capital for carrying on his business, and he had to carry it on with the expectation of being paid by his customers in a reasonable time. Under the proposal now made he would have to compete with a body having unlimited capital raised from rates to which ho contributed, and not requiring early repayment of the cost of the fittings. The London County Council had issued a statement in support of the retention of these clauses in the Bill, in which it was stated that the cost of equipping promises for the use of electricity would be recovered by a little increased charge for a certain period for the electric current supply. The repayment would thus be effected by instalments spread over a period of years. That statement was alone sufficient to condemn the two clauses. The County Council carried on their business by capital borrowed on the security of the rates, and it was unjust to expose small private traders to the competition of a great public corporation financed in this manner.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (General Powers) Bill to omit Clauses 63 and 64."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid this was not a County Council Bill at all in the sense in which the hon. Member for Peckham had represented, and it was as well that the House should remember the facts. He thought they had a right to be
    1548
    informed what the proposals were. The two Clauses were not initiated by the London County Council, although they found a place in the General Powers Bill. The borough councils of London who were empowered to supply electric light desired also to supply fittings, just as a company did; and, to save expense and Parliamentary time, they agreed with the County Council for the insertion of the clauses in the General Powers Bill instead of bringing in twenty-seven separate Bills. Of the whole number of councils eighteen were in favour of the clauses and only two opposed to them. The two which were against the clauses, represented districts which were served by electric light companies which, as compared with municipal electric works, overcharged the ratepayers and served them very badly indeed. It was curious to remember that in Westminster the electric supply agents lived more by the sale of German than British fittings. Let the hon. Member move an instruction that all fittings should be made in Britain; he did not object to Ireland, and would say the United Kingdom. Eighteen borough councils were in favour of the clauses, four were neutral, and only two against them, and the latter two boroughs were supplied with electric light by companies. He came now to another argument. Did any other Town Council enjoy these powers? He was sorry to tell the hon. Member for Peckham that his brief had been badly prepared, because many provincial towns enjoyed these and even wider powers.
    SIR F. BANBURY: I am sorry to hear it.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The hon. Member ought to have lived in the time of Noah's Ark. No fewer than twenty-six provincial Town Councils had had conferred upon them by Parliament, without opposition, what the London Borough Councils, by decided majorities, demanded. What was the reason of that? Because it enabled the councils to supply electric light at a cheaper rate. In Battersea, where the Borough Council had installed the electric light only two years ago, the charge was only 4d. per unit, whereas in the next parish,

    1549
    Wandsworth, where the electric light had been established by a company for ten years, the charge was 10d. per unit. The fact was that, wherever in London they had a company supplying electric light, there the price was higher than where it was done by municipal enterprise.
    SIR FEEDERICK BANBURY SIR FEEDERICK BANBURY said his argument did not bear upon the supply of electric light, but upon the setting up of retail shops to supply fittings.
    MR. JOHN BURNS MR. JOHN BURNS said it stood to reason that if the Borough Councils could supply the major requirement, viz., electric light, 50 per cent, cheaper, they could do the same with the minor, viz., fittings. At present, where the electric light was supplied by companies, its consumption was practically restricted to the well-to-do or rich people, because the would-be poor consumer was unable to put down a lump sum for fittings and installation: but the Borough Councils were able to make an installation and cover the expense over a long period. There were in this city something like 2,000 churches and chapels, the bulk of which were living from hand to mouth, from the point of view of financial resources, and it was impossible for the average church or chapel to install the electric light. This they would do if the Borough Councils had the power of extending the period for repayment of the installation. They all knew that in these days it was advisable to keep the ecclesiastical atmosphere cool, and in this respect the electric light had an advantage over gas. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich should welcome this advantage in the coolness of the atmosphere for religious discussions. In his own district a parson of the noble Lord's persuasion had asked him why it was that the companies could not install electric light in their churches cheaper than was now the rule; and his answer was, simply because the private companies would not wait six, nine, or twelve months for their money, as Borough Councils could do. The result was that electric lighting was a luxury for the rich and not for the poor. He now came to the commercial argument. The hon. Member for Peckham was under the impression that the Borough Councils asked the
    1550
    power to manufacture the fittings. That was not the case; they only wished to supply the fittings in the houses where the light was installed by them. Some hon. Members said that that would diminish the sale of fittings. On the contrary, the cheaper the electric light was made, the more fittings would be required and installed. if the House were to adopt the reactionary views of the hon. Member the manufacture and supply of fittings would be retarded. His last argument was how much longer was this House to have its time wasted with the discussion of these Instructions to Committees upstairs. This General Powers Bill of the London County Council had passed its Second Beading sub silentio, but these Instructions to the Committee were afterwards put down on the Paper.
    SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON said that he had put down his Instructions before the Second Reading came on.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY SIR FREDERICK BANBURY said that his also wore put down before the Second Reading.
    MR. JOHN BURNS MR. JOHN BURNS said that these contradictions only went half-way. The Bill had been before the House for six weeks, and the Instructions were not put down until the Second Reading of the Bill was fixed. Why should there be these discussions by the House of Commons on these Instructions, which fettered the discretion of the Committees on small petty details. Why not leave to the Committees a free selection of alternative proposals? These Instructions were becoming so frequent that the House of Commons, instead of being what it ought to be, a National Assembly, an Imperial Parliament, was becoming a glorified Municipal Council dealing with gas pipes and electric fittings, which was not its proper function. He believed that the proposal of the hon. Member for Peckham would damage trade, while the clauses in the Bill would tend to extend trade and increase the supply of electric light, which would make our poorer homes much healthier than when gas was employed for lighting purposes. At the present moment the Borough Council in his constituency were building 400 artisans' cottages, in which the electric light would be installed with 1d. and 2d. in the slot meters. The

    1551
    Borough Council which supplied the electric light ought not to be compelled to force the owners of these cottages to use gas or to go to foreign agents who employed foreign workmen for their electric light fittings. He asked the House to rise superior to the hon. Member for Peckham's patronage of foreign industry.
    SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he wished to take the House back from the high-flown remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea to the really business side' of this question. The supply of electric wiring and fittings to all the houses in the Metropolis would amount in cost to many millions of money. It meant an enormous number of showrooms with electric fittings, an enormous number of electrical engineers and electrical inspectors, all to be paid by the Borough Councils. This was a different question; from the supply of gas fittings, which were generally put in by the landlord. Speaking as a large ratepayer in the city, he maintained that it would be most unsafe to allow twenty-nine Borough Councils to go into this trading business with many million pounds worth of stock owed for by the different tenants to the municipalities. Speaking not as a director of a company, but as a shopkeeper, of which he was not ashamed, he insisted that if they wanted to do: good business each Borough Council would require to get a good man at the head of the electrical department with a salary of, perhaps, £1,000 a year, and three or four inspectors with salaries of £300 or £400 a year. Then who was to prove that the wiring and the fittings had only cost the money which they were estimated at? He was sure that I the ratepayers would be called upon to make good very large sums of money lost through the tenants. He thought the House would be wise in accepting his hon. friend's Motion.
    *MR. SOARESsaid he apologised for interfering in the discussion, because he was not a London Member. The Town Council in the largest town in his constituency, Barnstaple, had set up electric lighting works, but when these
    1552
    were completed they found themselves in this difficulty, that the majority of the would-be consumers could not pay at once for the fittings. The Members of the Town Council were business men, and they came to the conclusion that as the state had given them the power, they should furnish the fittings provided that there would be no charge on the rates. Accordingly they devised a method by which the customers got their fittings, which were paid for by instalments. It was at once seen that not only would the electric light be beneficial to the town, but it would contribute to a small reduction in the rates. The position was satisfactory both to the ratepayers and the consumers; but, unfortunately, two months ago a director of the local gas company had issued a writ against the Town Council.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This Bill does not relate to Barnstaple. The question before the House is whether it is desirable to give this Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council Bill.
    *MR. SOARES: I merely wished to prove to the President of the Board of Trade that the principle contained in the clauses now under discussion is sub judice, and that the action might be affected by the debate.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I don't think so. It would not affect the action.
    MR. WHITMOREsaid that although a great part of such Bills was non-controversial, they might contain clauses embodying principles which hon. Members thought dangerous, and the only course open to them was to move an Instruction to the Committee. He deplored the necessity for putting down these Instructions, but he maintained that they were forced to move them because of the unfortunate habit into which the County Council had fallen of merging all sorts of matters into its private Bills. The hon. Member for Battersea seemed to think that hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House would accept any legislation, however bad, if it were promoted by the

    1553
    Borough Councils, but that they objected to anything put forward by the County Council. That was a most illogical argument, and he would reply that he objected to these particular clauses because he thought they were an undue, unfair, and uneconomical interference on the part of municipal bodies with the freedom and proper exercise of their rights by private traders.
    *MR. LOUGHagreed, on the other hand, that the clauses were most reasonable because they were permissive in their character. They were inserted at the request of the Borough Councils, and the powers sought were the necessary complement of the powers which that House had already conferred on the Borough Councils. It would not be wise to leave it to private enterprise to supply all these fittings. A public authority was far more likely to introduce all the newest inventions, and a proof of that was afforded by the result of the "penny in-the-slot" system of supplying gas. He appealed to Metropolitan Members opposite not to support this Instruction.
    THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)open the House would bring the discussion to an end in view of the fact

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Cranborne, Lord

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Anstmther, H. T.

    Dalkrith, Earl of

    Heath, James Staffords, N. W.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Denny, Colonel

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

    Arrol, Sir William

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. O.

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Atkinson, Right Hon. John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

    Bignold, Arthur

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    Lawson, John Grant

    Bigwood, James

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Bosoawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Bull, William James

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Forster Henry William

    Macdona, John Cimming

    Butcher, John George

    Foster, P. S. (Warwirk, S. W.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

    Galloway, William Johnson

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool.)

    Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Gouldins, Edward Alfred

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir HE (Wigt'n

    Cor. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Midx

    Milvain, Thomas

    that some important financial business had yet to be transacted that night.
    *MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid the hon. Member for Battersea had made an impassioned appeal against the time of the House being wasted on these instructions, and had asked if Parliament was to be put on the same footing as Borough Councils by being asked to deal with electric fittings and such small things. But the question at issue was far larger than that, and he would ask how long was the time of the House to be wasted by these attempts to municipalise the industries of the country, a practice which he ventured to Bay was inconsistent with the past history, and threatening to the future commercial prosperity of the nation? This was only one part of a great scheme of such municipalisation, and he ventured to assert that the County Council were only proposing to confer these powers on the Borough Councils in order that they might shield their general policy behind the local bodies and secure their support for further steps in the same direction.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 126; Not* 109. (Division List No. 39.)

    Mitchell, William

    Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

    Valentia, Viscount

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Wilson John (Glasgow)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

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

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Myers, William Henry

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

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Younger, William

    Percy, Earl

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    ! Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Sir Frederick Banbury

    Purvis, Robert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    and Sir Wm. Tomlinson.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    NOES.

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

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts

    Peel, Hn. Win. R. Wellesley

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Gorst, Rt, Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Black, Alexander William

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Rea, Russell

    Boushfield, William Robert

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Roddy, M.

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middx.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Brigg, John

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Rigg, Richard

    Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Roberts John Bryn (Eifion)

    Bryce, Right Hon. James

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Burt, Thomas

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Russell, T. W.

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, Win. (Carnarvonshire)

    Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

    Cameron, Robert

    Joyce, Michael

    Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Labouchere, Henry

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. [Monm'th)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Leng, Sir John

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. ((Northants

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

    Lundonm W.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Crean, Eugene

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cremer, William Randal

    McDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Crooks, William

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

    Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

    Markham, Ariliur Basil

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    White, Luke (York. E. R.)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Moss, Samuel

    Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Edwards, Frank

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)

    Flannery, Sir Forteseue

    O'Dowd, John

    Flower, Ernest

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Mr. Lough and Mr. John

    Gardner, Ernest

    Partington, Oswald

    Burns.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    SUPPLY [19TH MARCH].
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd March], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution:—'That a sum, not exceeding £20,205,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments
    1556
    for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904,'" viz -—

    CIVIL SERVICES.
    CLASS II.

    £

    Colonial Office

    25,000

    CLASS IV

    Board of Education

    6,000,000

    CLASS II.

    £

    Board of Agriculture

    65,000

    CLASS III.

    Crofters Commission, Scotland

    2,000

    CLASS I.

    Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

    40,000

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    50,000

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    16,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    30,000

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    20,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

    18,000

    Revenue Buildings

    225,000

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    225,000

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    90,000

    Harbours under the Board of Trade

    7,000

    Peterhead Harbour

    6,000

    Rates on Government Property

    250,000

    Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

    110,000

    Railways, Ireland

    80,000

    CLASS II.

    United Kingdom and England;—

    House of Lords Offices

    2,000

    House of Commons Offices

    12,000

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    40,000

    Home Office

    60,000

    Foreign Office

    30,000

    Privy Council Office, & c.

    5,000

    Board of Trade

    75,000

    Mercantile Marine Services

    30,000

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    3

    Charity Commission

    15,000

    Civil Service Commission

    18,000

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    25,000

    Friendly Societies Registry

    3,000

    Local Government Board

    85,000

    Lunacy Commission

    5,000

    Mint (including Coinage)

    5

    Rational Debt Office

    6,000

    Public Record Office

    10,000

    Public Works Loan Commission

    5

    Registrar-General's Office

    19,000

    Stationery and Printing

    320,000

    Woods, Forests, & c, Office of

    8,000

    £

    Works and Public Buildings, Office of

    30,000

    Secret Service

    40,000

    Scotland;—

    Secretary for Scotland

    25,000

    Fishery Board

    8,000

    Lunacy Commission

    3,000

    Registrar-General's Office

    5,000

    Local Government Board

    6,000

    Ireland;:—

    Lord-Lieutenant's Household

    2,000

    Chief Secretary for Ireland

    16,000

    Department of Agriculture

    75,000

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    1,000

    Local Government Board

    25,000

    Public Record Office

    2,000

    Public Works Office

    18,000

    Registrar-General's Office

    6,000

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    7,000

    CLASS II.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    Law Charges

    35,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    27,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature

    140,000

    Land Registry

    20,000

    County Courts

    8,000

    Police, England and Wales

    18,000

    Prisons, England and the Colonies

    340,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

    140,000

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    14,000

    Scotland;—

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    30,000

    Register House, Edinburgh

    15,000

    Prisons, Scotland

    40,000

    Ireland;—

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    35,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

    45,000

    Land Commission

    55,000

    County Court Officers, etc.

    46,000

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    45,000

    Royal Irish Constabulary

    600,000

    Prisons, Ireland

    50,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    55,000

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    3,000

    CLASS IV.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    £

    British Museum

    80,000

    National Gallery

    10,000

    National Portrait Gallery

    3,000

    Wallace Collection

    4,000

    Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom

    22,000

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

    42,000

    Scotland;—

    Public Education

    750,000

    National Gallery

    3,000

    Ireland:—

    Public Education

    730,000

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    400

    National Gallery

    3,000

    Queen's Colleges

    2,500

    CLASS V.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    250,000

    Uganda,, Central and East Africa Protectorates, and Uganda Railway

    320,000

    Colonial Services

    300,000

    Cyprus, Grant-in-Aid

    85,000

    Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

    32,000

    CLASS II.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    280,000

    Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc.

    2,000

    Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

    1,000

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

    17,000

    Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

    —

    CLASS VII.

    Temporary Commissions

    25,000

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    16,087

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    —

    St. Louis Exhibition, 1904

    —

    Total for Civil Services

    £13,035,000

    Revenue Departments.

    £

    Customs

    350,000

    Inland Revenue

    830,000

    £

    Post Office

    3,800,000

    Post Office Packet Service

    250,000

    Post Office Telegraphs

    2,000,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £7,230,000

    Grand Total

    £20,265,000

    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    *MR. CATHCART WASON*MR. CATHCART WASON said he wished to appeal to the Lord Advocate to bring his influence to bear on the; Government with reference to the condition of the people of South Uist. The houses of the people were built with loose stones, plastered with mud. The family lived at one end and the cattle at the other; and outbreaks of fever were frequent. That was not fiction. It was contained in the Report issued by the Congested Districts Board of Scotland. Kelp industry had failed in the district, and as it was their one; source of obtaining money the people; were now absolutely within measurable danger of starvation. In those circumstances he would appeal to the Lord Advocate to recede from the hard and fast line he had taken up, make a full I inquiry into the condition of the people, and remove what was a standing disgrace to the British nation.
    There was another subject to which he wished to refer, and which he sincerely regretted had not yet received the attention it deserved. That was the recruiting of native labour for the mines in South Africa. The Colonial Office view was stated the other night, and it was to the effect that they could not interfere with the self-governing colonies in such a matter. His reply was that they had already interfered, and not I so very long ago. When recruiting was being carried on in the South Sea Islands for slave labour in Queensland very horrible events occurred, and the Government interfered in a very drastic fashion. It was almost impossible to recruit native labour for the mines without bringing about even worse evils than slavery. The last thing the

    1561
    natives wanted was to go down into the bowels of the earth and dig out what appeared to them to be a worthless metal. The natives were perfectly happy in their own little cottages, with their mealie plots and one or more wives. lie would ask hon. Members to consider how America acted in this matter. America had got mines in a climate very similar to that of South Africa, but there was no question there of getting slave labour; they paid a white man an honest day's wage for an honest day's labour. The absurd prejudice which a white man had to work with a black or a yellow man should not exist in the British Empire, seeing that the greater proportion of His Majesty's subjects were coloured persons. It was made perfectly clear three years ago that they did not go to war in South Africa for the sake of the mines; but now a different state of affairs had arisen, and they were told that the Government, without consulting the House of Commons or the country, had deliberately given their sanction to the recruiting of 1,000 natives in Central Africa. That was a scandalous proceeding, and would lead to deplorable results, and would besmirch the fair name of this country throughout the world. The great industry in South Africa was not the mining industry. There was a great agricultural future before that country, and it was on agriculture only they could found a condition of permanent prosperity. The mines might bring a little temporary prosperity, but agriculture was the only basis on which any country could rest for prosperity.
    Another matter which he wished to bring to the attention of the House was
    1562
    the very unsatisfactory position which existed with reference to the loans guaranteed by certain South African magnates. With regard to that their information was rather limited. They were told that a sum of £30,000,000 had been underwritten.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The loans are not included in the Estimates before the House.
    MR. CATHCART WASON MR. CATHCART WASON said he only wished to point out the position of the mine-owners in South Africa with reference to the loans.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Gentleman was proceeding to discuss the Loan Bills.
    MR. CATHCART WASON MR. CATHCART WASON said he only wished to refer to the unsatisfactory feeling which existed in South Africa with reference to the matter. They were told that certain arrangements had been made; but in South Africa a totally different impression had been created. There it was believed that part of the bargain was that the mine-owners should have sole control over the mining industry. That was the statement of a Mr. Solomon, who was most favourable to the Government. He thought it would be a great pity if the House was not given an opportunity of deciding whether they would have any share whatever in introducing slavery into South Africa. It was slavery, and nothing else; and it was all nonsense to say that the natives wished to work They only Worked under the inducement

    1563
    of high wage, illicit intercourse, illicit drink, or some other inducement of that kind.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to say a few words on a topic with regard to which it was time that they had some indication of the policy that was being pursued by the Government. That was the question of what was passing in South-Eastern Europe. The House would remember that by the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin, of which this country was a signatory, certain provisions were drawn up for introducing reforms of government and administration into the European provinces of Turkey. A scheme was drawn up by a Commission; and he was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon was not present, as he was one of the Commissioners, and could, no doubt, give the House a great deal of information with reference to the provisions of the scheme. Nothing, however, had been done from that day to this to carry out the provisions of that scheme. This country had a special responsibility in regard to the administration of these provinces over and above the responsibility which belonged to it as one of the signatory Powers, because when the Treaty of San Stefano, which gave nearly the whole of Macedonia to the Principality of Bulgaria, was signed, His Majesty's Government interposed and protested against its provisions. The result was that the Treaty of Berlin was substituted, and that a large strip territory was cut out from the new Principality of Bulgaria and left under the dominion of Turkey, and the people who would have shared in the prosperity which had attended the Principality of
    1564
    Bulgaria were sent back under the yoke if Turkey. Therefore, a responsibility rested on this country in a special sense to endeavour to secure for the inhabitants of these provinces all that better administration, free government and prosperity which the Principality of Bulgaria had secured for its subjects. Nothing had been done since 1878 to carry out the provisions of the scheme hen drawn up. Within the last few weeks an elaborate Blue-book had been issued containing Reports from His Majesty's Consuls and Ambassadors with reference to the state of things in these Provinces, and particularly in Macedonia and Albania. Such an amount of controversy and falsehood always attached to everything that came, from the East that it was not easy to determine the precise truth; but there appeared to emerge from the data given in the Blue-book, first, that there was a great deal of gross and monstrous maladministration on the part of Turkish officials, and corruption and violence on the part of Turkish tax-gatherers, and, secondly, that there was cruelty and oppression, and that the condition of the people was nearly as bad as ever it bad been. As a consequence of this maladministration, there had arisen revolutionary bands which traversed the country with an object mainly political but which sometimes, it was to be feared, degenerated into brigandage.
    These bands were to some extent organised in Bulgaria, and to some extent in Macedonia; and they had practically established a kind of semi-independent government, and were able to carry on a sort of skirmishing warfare with the Turkish police. Under those circumstances, constant pressure was being put

    1565
    on the Bulgarian Government to suppress the agitation so far as it proceeded from the Bulgarian side; and they read in the Blue-book of constant complaints being addressed to the Bulgarian Government, sometimes by the Turkish Government, sometimes by our own Government, sometimes by the Austrian sometimes by the Russian Government. And the Bulgarian Government apparently tried to do its duty, but it stood in a very difficult position. Halt of its officials, according to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, were of Macedonian birth; and there was a large body of Macedonian exiles in Bulgaria who kept up the agitation there, and who had a large influence with the Bulgarian population, who were substantially the same in race and creed as the Bulgarian population in Macedonia. Macedonia consisted of very different elements of population. There was the Bulgarian element, which was the largest, the Servian element, the Greek element, and the Albanian element. Under these circumstances, the sympathy of the Bulgarian population with the people of Macedonia was very strong, and they had both practical and economical reasons for desiring to see Macedonia at peace.
    The large immigration of unhappy Macedonian exiles into Bulgaria, fleeing from the maladministration from which they suffered, had created a competition for employment, which pressed very heavily on the native Bulgarian population. The Bulgarian Government had done all that it could be expected to do to keep the agitation quiet; but for the pressure exerted by Austria and Russia, it would not have been able to do as much as it
    1566
    had. Then, in addition to these elements of confusion, there were the lawless, turbulent population of Albania. The Albanians, who were a high-spirited, warlike race who lived for war, and whose delight it was to raid the cattle and the people of their peaceful neighbours, enjoyed practical immunity because of their great hold upon Constantinople. Many of the favourites of the Sultan, many of the leading officials in European Turkey, and many of the strongest and ablest men in the Turkish service, particularly in the military service, were of Albanian origin; they had great influence at the Palace and in every part of Turkish government; consequently, it was almost impossible to get justice done upon an Albanian misdoer. All through the Blue-book there were accounts of the constant attacks by Albanians; even the railway was not safe from their operations, and neither the Turkish forces nor the people themselves were able to cope with the raiders.
    From these facts the House could understand what a perfect chaos of disorder and misery existed in the provinces. For many years past things had been going from bad to worse. In 1901 the position became very serious, and it was apprehended that a grave insurrection would break out. In the beginning of 1902 Austria and Russia took the alarm, and put all possible pressure on the Bulgarian Government, who appeared to have done what it could to restrain the revolutionary bands. As the Foreign Secretary had stated, the blame for the revolutionary movement was largely to be attributed to the gross misconduct of the Government, which allowed the

    1567
    territories to degenerate into anarchy. The remedy would be an insurrection, but he feared that an insurrection would be followed by a massacre. Such a catastrophe all would desire to see averted. The fear of the consequences to European peace had led Austria and Russia to frame a scheme under which an Inspector-General was to be appointed, with the consent of the Powers, having the financial control of the revenues, upon which the first charge would be for the maintenance of order and the discharge of public obligations) and this Inspector-General was to be aided by European officials, who were to reorganise the police. It was not an ambitious scheme, but those who felt that they might have to wait a long time to secure a more complete scheme, and then perhaps get it only at the cost of war, would be glad to accept anything which gave a prospect of a better state of things. He therefore did not suggest that this scheme should be rejected, because it did not go so far as they might desire. Given certain conditions, it might do good, those conditions being that a capable and independent man was chosen as Inspector-General, that he was not interfered with by the Turks, that he had a real and effective control of the finance of the province, and was able to apply it to local purposes instead of remitting it to Constantinople, and that he set quickly to work. Under such conditions there would be ample opportunity of introducing changes of great practical moment.
    The Government, while declaring the scheme to be incomplete, had said it would be better to have a scheme which could be applied at once than to wait for a better scheme in the circumstances of peril which obtained, and they therefore accepted the scheme subject to the right
    1568
    of suggesting improvements on further consideration. The Turks, to the surprise of the world, at once accepted the scheme, and declared they would extend it to Albania. But the idea of extending it to Albania was absurd, because the Turks had practically no control there, and after the experience of the past, a little scepticism as to their will to carry out these reforms was only natural. As far as could be gathered, nothing had yet been done beyond the selection of Hilmi Pasha to be Inspector-General. The position was one of great danger. Unless the scheme were carried out promptly, and some steps taken to assure the Macedonian insurgents and their Bulgarian sympathisers that something was to be done to end the present disastrous state of affairs, there was a risk of their patience becoming exhausted, and the revolutionary committees and bands resuming their activity. The hands of the Bulgarian Government might be forced; there would be a general insurrection, which might result in a European conflagration, extending far beyond the boundaries of Macedonia itself. It was of the utmost importance that prompt steps should be taken to bring the scheme into operation, and to give a guarantee to the people of Macedonia and Bulgaria that the proposals of the Powers would be carried out. He desired, therefore, to know what steps were being taken; what was the position of the reform scheme; had anything more been done than the appointment of Hilmi Pasha; had steps been taken to appoint the European officials who were to reorganise the gendarmerie; what did the Government know about the present condition of the country and the probability of the pressure which had been applied preventing the outbreak of an insurrection; and what the Government contemplated as the

    1569
    proper stops to be taken in the event of the Turks causing further delays. We stood at a most dangerous moment. It was not merely a question of our sympathy with those who suffered from oppression, disorder, and brigandage; it was also a question of averting a general European conflict, and this ought to induce the Government to do all they could to compel the Turkish Government to act promptly in the matter. He asked the Government to confirm the assurance that they would approach this important matter, and would do everything they could to endeavour to second the efforts of Austria and Russia. There was no desire on his part to censure the action of the Government, but he hoped that they would be able to give him a satisfactory answer, and he was confident they would have the general sentiment of the House and the country with them in endeavouring to put more pressure upon the Turkish Government.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE, Rochester): The right hon. Gentleman in his remarks has certainly not exaggerated the state of misgovernment in European Turkey. It is a very old story, and I am sorry to say that, though the story is told and retold, it never seems condition to get any better. The condition of things is lamentable in Macedonia, but in Albania it is much worse, and practically, in large portions of European Turkey, there is an absence of government. The taxation is heavy and oppressive; many persons are put into prison without trial, and the police and gendarmerie are detailed to make good the deficiency in ways that all
    1570
    must condemn. That state of things is not confined to Macedonia, but, on the other hand, I do not think that in what he has said the right hon. Gentleman has quite realised the character of the proceedings of the Macedonian Committee. He has pictured the as patriots with great love for their country, and as pursuing by methods which, if not legitimate, are very nearly legitimate, the end of emancipation. I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman has read with as much care as I have done the Papers on the subject which have been laid before Parliament. The proceedings of the Macedonian Committee are of a very extreme character indeed. Murder and outrage of different kinds are as much the disgrace of the Macedonian Committee as of the Turkish Government. Take murder for murder, you will find more committed by the Macedonian Committee than by the representatives of the Turkish Government. For a long time the methods the Turks adopted to repress disorder were characterised by great moderation. The regular troops were kept perfectly under control, but as the rebellion proceeded and the agitation increased, against the advice of the representatives of the European Powers at Constantinople, the Turkish Government were unwise enough to use some of their irregular Militia, and the ordinary consequences followed. But I do not think even those troops proceeded to such extremities as did the emissaries of the Macedonian Committee. I should like to read a shore passage from a despatch of Consul-General Sir A. Biliotti forwarded by Sir N. O'Conor. It is as follows—
    "Proselytism and terrorism were the means by which they sought to destroy all tranquillity,

    1571
    and to reduce the inhabitants of the district to such complete misery as would force them to all in with their revolutionary ideas. The priests and the schoolmasters, working with the daily increasing bands at their backs, instilled into the minds of the peasants that they must look for relief to Bulgaria and prepare for the great struggle which struggle which should give liberty to their children. Little by little they removed all who, faithful to the Patriarchate, refused their allegiance; and in the Sandjak of Serres alone over one hundred Greeks, Vlachs, and Orthodox Bulgarians fell victims to their vengeance and cruelty."
    In his speech the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the inhabitants of Macedonia as being substantially the same in name and in speech.
    MR. BRYCE: Everyone knows there are all sorts and races in Macedonia, but the majority are Bulgarians in race and speech.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, the majority is a very large one in some cases. But the Macedonian Committee not only murdered the Turks but also the Greeks who differed from them. A sound view of the state of things in European Turkey cannot be obtained until it is realised that, bad as is the Government of Turkey, the atrocities are not confined to the Turks, but are the ordinary method of extreme political discussion in these unfortunate countries. I do not think that is any excuse for the Turks, for two reasons. In the first place, the Turks represent the Government and the iniquities done by the Bulgarians and Macedonians do not excuse them in retorting in kind. In the second place, the Turks are bound by treaties to Europe to introduce reforms and bring about a better state of things in Macedonia. Although their obligation.
    1572
    is of a very old date, they have done practically nothing to fulfil it. It was therefore a matter of great satisfaction to His Majesty's Government when the Austrian and Russian Governments came forward with their scheme, which, if carried out, will be in itself effective to a very substantial degree. The question is, Will it be carried out? We have been so often disappointed that no one can speak with confidence on the matter; but I believe the Inspector-General, Hilmi Pasha, is a strong and well-meaning man, and he has certainly shown in the proceedings which have hitherto characterized his tenure of office that he realizes the responsibility of his position. He has put a great many evil-doers in prison, while he has released a great number of political prisoners, and he has removed several incompetent Valis; and on the whole I may say that considering the short time he has been in office he has shown every prospect of being equal the situation. One of His Majesty's Counsule says in a report that Hilmi Pasha has worked hard and unceasingly since his arrival, and has done work that the ought to have been allowed to undertake long ago. He does what he can to ensure justice to each case; he has no time either to eat or to sleep, and his good will beyond question, He is in telegraphic communication with the Kaimakams, and has dismissed several incompetent minor officials, whilst the Albanians already fear his very name. So far as that goes it is a good character for a Turkish Governor. I cannot help thinking that if he is left alone he may produce substantially good results. It is essential that should be done, and the most important part of the Austro-Russian scheme is the clause that gives a fixity of tenure for three years.

    1573
    The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the European experts have been appointed under the scheme to assist in the reorganisation of the police and gendarmerie. The Government have no reason to suppose that anything has yet been done in that direction, but the Sultan seems to have sanctioned the scheme, not only in the province of Macedonia, but in the other provinces in European Turkey, and if a strong governor like Hilmi Pasha is left undisturbed for three years, we may rely upon it that substantial results will follow. It is most important that ho should be left alone, and therefore I should much regret anything being said here that would give the least hope to these agitators and emissaries of the Macedonian Committee that if they attempted to disturb what, if not very much, is at least something in the way of reform, they would receive any support or countenance from the Powers of Europe. We must be content to allow this experiment to work, and we should be doing nothing but the greatest disservice, not only to our own interests, which are very important, but to the interests of the subject populations, if by any expression of sympathy, however well deserved we might deem it to he, we allowed those Macedonian revolutionists to imagine that in spite of the Austro-Russian Scheme being in operation, Europe would support an appeal to a violent revolution. I hope nothing of the kind will happen, and on the other hand, that on this last occasion almost, Turkey will be wise and will recognise the enormous importance of making the experiment of good government a success. After all she must realise the fact that in the scheme no injury is done to the integrity of her dominions. The Sultan will still enjoy the sovereignty over those
    1574
    provinces, and the allegiance of these populations. All Europe recognises the immense difficulty of the problem to be solved, and above all, we say that to excite the terror and fanaticism of the Moslem would be almost worse than anything else. We also recognise that one of the greatest difficulties which the Inspector-General will encounter in restoring order is the discredit into which the Turkish Government has fallen, owing to which any act of his is open to a sort of suspicion. It is to be hoped that the presence of the European experts will give a guarantee and assurance to Europe that the repression of disorder is being carried out with moderation, and with no unnecessary severity, and that the slow process of recreating a Government may be allowed to proceed undisturbed.
    For ourselves we are quite ready to play our part as signatories to the treaty of Berlin. That is due to the peace of Europe, and any assistance which the Consular representatives of His Majesty can give in watching over the progress of these reforms, and in making suggestions where they can in agreement with the representatives of Austria and Russia, they will be prepared to give upon our instructions. The other Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are in a very forward state, but I cannot name the day when they will be presented, although I hope it will be within a few days. There is no desire on the part of the Government to keep information from this House which ought to be given. On the contrary the Government rely upon the House to assist them in doing what they can to further the scheme upon which the Austrian and Russian Governments have entered. They hope thereby that it may restore some kind of order and

    1575
    comfort to these unfortunate people without disturbing the political situation in European Turkey, and thus bringing about a greater evil to that part of the world.
    MR. STEVENSONexpressed some disappointment that no more definite announcement had been made by the Under-Secretary with regard to the European gendarmerie, and that no assurance had been given that a greater amount of work was being done by non-Turkish subjects. Past experience taught them that the bettor disposed was the Turkish Governor the greater were the intrigues to undermine the work with which he was engaged. That was all the more reason why Europeans should be on the spot. He strongly appealed to the Government to do everything they could by amicable pressure, or by any other method for the purpose of securing a speedy organisation of the mixed forces of the gendarmerie under European officers. It was only in that way there could be the slightest hope of the maintenance of peace in that region. Both the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) and the Under-Secretary appeared to think that the Bulgarian element played a more important part than was actually the case. Any action taken by the Government should be taken not with the view of supporting especially any one race, but to secure that all races should have a perfectly fair and equal field. If there was any one race to which the country should show special favour it would be rather the Greeks, with which race our permanent interests were more closely identified. The treaty of San Stefano emancipated Macedonia from Turkish rule, but the treaty of Berlin restored that province
    1576
    to Turkey, and it was the duty of all countries involved in the latter treaty to see that good order and government were secured so long as it remained in force, and that the population of the country, to whatever race they belonged, were not the losers by the change.

    WAYS AND MEANS [19TH MARCH].—REPORT.
    Resolutions reported.
    1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March 1902 and 1903, the sum of £1,520,704 15s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904, the sum of £38,997,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.'
    Resolutions agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in by The Deputy-Chairman, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
    "To apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and two, one thousand nine hundred and three, and one thousand nine hundred and four," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day.
    Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock