Commons Sitting of 30 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 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.:—
  Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies.
  Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz:—
Romford and District Tramways Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—
Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
East Ardsley Gas Bill; Winchester Water and Gas Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
South Yorkshire Joint Railways Bill; West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill, read a second time, and committed.
Woolwich Borough Council Bill (by Order), read a second time, and committed.
Nantwich Urban District Council Bill [Lords], read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Bill, reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Broadstairs Gas Bill, reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Market Drayton Gas Bill; Ipswich Gas Bill; Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill; Newcastle - upon - Tyne Electric Supply Bill, reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
Mr. TENNANT reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, at the meeting of the Committee this day, a letter was received from Mr. Osmond Williams, one of the Members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of illness, to attend the Committee that day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Western Trust Bill [Lords]; Old Bridewell Burying Ground Bill [Lords]; Ply mouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill [Lords]; Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage Bill [Lords], read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Western Trust, Limited, to re-arrange its capital; and to provide for the extinction of its B shares and for issuing ordinary shares

551
in lieu thereof; and for altering the memorandum and articles of association of the Company; and for other purposes." [Western Trust Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for removing certain restrictions on the user of the Old Bridewell Burying Ground." [Old Bridewell Burying Ground Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Light and Coke Company; and for other purposes." [Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill [Lords].]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage Company, Limited, to pay off capital paid in advance of calls; and for other purposes." [Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage Bill [Lords].]

PETITIONS.
  APPALACHARULU, BANDARN.
  Petition of Bandarn Appalacharulu, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
Petitions in favour: from Ashton-under-Lyne; Blackburn; Brighouse; Bootle; and Derby; to lie upon the Table.
DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Arbroath, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
LAND VALUES ASSESSMENT AND RATING BILL.
Petition from Camberwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
Petitions against establishment: from Arbroath; Aberdeen; Bo'ness; Glasgow; Dysart; Kirkcaldy; and Carnoustie; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
Petitions against: from Hastings; and Chichester; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petition from Wolverhampton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY BOROUGH OF HUDDERSFIELD).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County Borough of Huddersfield altering certain Polling Districts in the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF READING).
Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Reading altering certain Polling Districts in the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
Accounts presented, for the year 1902, with an account of extraordinary works executed other than the general repairs for the same period [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PORT NESS HARBOUR, ISLAND OF LEWIS.
Copy presented, of Correspondence and Report of Mr. William Shield, M.I.C.E., F.R.S.E., in regard to the condition of the Harbour of Port Ness, Island of Lewis [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of Eighth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT).
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 27th March; Sir Seymour King]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 98.]
SUGAR CONVENTION (COMMERCIAL, No. 2, 1903).
Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the Ratification of the Sugar Convention. Signed at Brussels, 5th March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SUGAR-PRODUCING COUNTRIES (COMMERCIAL, No. 3, 1903).
Copy presented, of List of Countries engaged in the Production of Sugar, together with value of Exports from the United Kingdom to each of the said Countries for each of the last five years, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

SOANE'S MUSEUM.
Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1903 [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Transfer of Fisheries Department from Board of Trade to Board of Agriculture.
  MR. RIGG: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is contemplated to transfer the Fisheries Department from the Board of Trade to the Board of Agriculture; and, if so, when the transfer will take place.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The change requires legislation and a Bill will be introduced.

  Royal Marines—Walmer and Eastney Depôts.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total annual cost of the Marine depôts at Walmer and Eastney; what is the average number of recruits trained annually at these depôts; and what is the estimated daily cost per recruit (excluding pay and expenses unconnected with the training of recruits.)
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The annual cost of the Royal Marine depôt at Deal is £32,724. The annual cost of
  554
  the Royal Marine Artillery depôt at Eastney cannot be differentiated from the cost of the whole of the division, to which the recruits were attached as a temporary measure whilst the depôt at Deal was full. The average number of recruits trained annually during the last three years at Walmer is 1,330, and at Eastney 370. The estimated daily cost for Royal Marine Light Infantry recruits is 1s. 4d.

  Relief Drafts from Devonport.
  MR. LOCKIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make arrangements that relief drafts from Devonport shall join the transport there instead of being sent to Chatham.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The arrangements in any particular case are those which it is found practicable to make with the company in whose vessel the passages are engaged. When the number of men who would embark from Devonport is small it is not practicable to arrange for a ship, starting from London and not calling at Plymouth in her regular course, to call there specially.

  Postal Service at Clashganny Mills.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Postmaster-General is he aware that the early post arrives at Borris at 6 a.m. and at Graigue, county Kilkenny, at 7 a.m. but that letters are not delivered at Clashganny Mills, which are midway between these two towns, until 11.20 a.m.; and will he arrange for a more early delivery at the latter district.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am making inquiry as to the possibility of affording an earlier delivery of letters at Clashganny Mills, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Assessment of Land Tax.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a complaint made by the Rector of Aldingham, in the county of Lancaster, that the land tax upon his tithe rent charge had been increased by 12 per

  555
  cent. from the amount previously charged, the reason assigned being that other properties in the same parish had decreased in value; will he say whether it is in accordance with the practice of the Commissioners to increase the rating upon one property in order to supply the deficiency upon others; and what steps will be taken to give redress in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The net quota of land tax for a parish is a fixed sum, and the proportion payable by any given individual may vary according to the basis of assessment adopted by the local Commissioners of land tax from time to time. In the parishes referred to in the Question the local Commissioners have this year adopted for the first time as the basis of assessment the rateable value for poor rate purposes. This basis is, in the opinion of the Board of Inland Revenue, the fairest that can be adopted.

  Postal Service at Swinford.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to a memorial from the Swinford District Council and inhabitants of the town of Swinford regarding the despatch and arrival of mails; and, if so, will he say whether he can take any steps to remedy the alleged grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have received the memorial referred to by the hon. Member, and I have for some time had under consideration the question of improving the postal service at Swinford. I will communicate my decision to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Postal Facilities at Falmouth.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in order to be in time for the first delivery in London, letters at Falmouth must be posted at the Central Office not later than 4.25 in the afternoon; and whether, having regard to the importance of this place as a port of call, he will make inquiries with a view of affording a later despatch.
  556
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The time for posting at Falmouth letters intended to be included in the first delivery in London on the following morning is correctly stated by the hon. Member, and I regret that the time cannot be extended. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that under present arrangements letters posted at Falmouth as late as 8.30 p.m. are included in the second delivery in London on the following morning.

  Improved Postal Facilities at Carrigan, County Cavan.
  MR. M'GOVERN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience caused in the Carrigan post office district, in the county of Cavan, by the fact that no reply can be sent to a letter on the day of its receipt out of this postal district; and will he consider the advisability of making arrangements that the same messenger could bring the letters posted at Carrigan and Loughduff to Ballinagh, and of erecting a couple of letter boxes in the districts remote from Carrigan for the convenience of people in the locality.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) As the hon. Member was informed in a letter addressed to him on the 22nd of July last, it was found that the cost of the postal service in the Carrigan district then represented practically the whole of the postage from the correspondence. Unless the circumstances have materially changed, I should not be justified in incurring increased expenditure for the purpose of providing additional postal facilities at Carrigan, but I will make inquiry with the view of ascertaining whether it is now possible to effect any of the improvements desired by the hon. Member, and I will let him know the result as soon as possible.

  Granagh Postal Service.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he has yet inquired into the postal service in the Granagh district, in the county of Limerick, with a view to its improvement; and, if so, will he state his decision in the matter.

  557
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have just completed my inquiries on this subject arising out of the memorial from the Granagh Co-operative Dairy Society, which the hon. Member forwarded on the 24th ultimo. I find that it can be arranged to send correspondence for Granagh, as desired, by way of Ballingarry instead of by way of Ballinleeny. The delivery will then take place about an hour and a half earlier than at present, and a letter box will be placed at Granagh with a collection at 3.45 p.m. on weekdays. The circumstances do not, however, warrant the cost of affording a delivery or collection on Sundays. I propose to carry out these changes.

  International Conference on Maritime Law.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the draft treaties relating to the law of collision and salvage at sea, based on suggestions made at conferences of shipowners, lawyers, underwriters, and merchants organised by the Comite Maritime International at Antwerp 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, and Hamburg 1902, received from the Belgian Government, and the suggestion that these draft treaties should be submitted to a diplomatic conference for consideration, if he will state what action is to be taken by the Government; and what reply has been made to the Belgian Government.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The matter is still under consideration by His Majesty's Government.

  Dungarvan Light.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether the sectoring of Dungarvan Light, Baltinacourty Point, is now correctly laid off" on the Admiralty chart, Winslade to Wexford, which is corrected up to April, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Conflicting information has been received regarding the exact bearings of the sectors of Dungarvan Light, and it is doubtful whether the chart referred
  558
  to, or No. 2,017, on which they are shown slightly different, is correct. The discrepancy does not affect navigation.

  Education Act—Schemes submitted for approval to the Board of Education.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether, having regard to the fact that informal suggestions by the Board of Education to County Councils as to the drafting of schemes under The Education Act, 1902, have been accepted by some councils as authoritative directions, the Board will in future, after giving publicity to any proposed scheme, and before the stage of final approval, give consideration to any objection to it, notwithstanding any informal approval which may previously have been given by the Board; and will he state what steps the Board will take for the purpose of making clear to local education authorities that suggestions previous to publication are not final, and of securing that due notice and opportunity for making objections shall be given before the approval of any scheme.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The object of publication is to give opportunity for making objections to the scheme thus published. It has been made abundantly clear to local authorities that the Board cannot approve until after the period of publication has expired, and that they are bound to pay attention to objections which may be lodged during that period.

  Working of Irish Poor Law—Suggested Royal Commission.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the grievances of the Irish Poor Law medical service, and also into the question of the administration of the Poor Law, the condition of the workhouses, and the treatment and management of the poor in these institutions.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Government is about to appoint a Commission to consider the general question of the amalgamation of unions and the

  559
  amelioration of the condition of all classes of destitute poor in workhouses. The grievance of the Irish Poor Law medical officers, which can only be remedied at the ratepayers' expense, is another matter, and any amendment of the law on this subject would be highly contentious. I should, therefore, be sorry to see it brought within the scope of a Commission through which it is hoped to ensure a more economical administration of the Poor Law.

  Proposed New Road over Knockalla Mountain.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of giving a grant out of the Marine Works Act for the construction of the proposed new road over the Knockalla Mountain, towards which the Congested Districts Board have already promised a grant of £1,000.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The contribution referred to in the second part of the Question was offered in 1898, but lapsed because of the non-fulfilment of the condition upon which it was promised. The Board has no funds at present to enable it to renew the offer. I cannot undertake to assist the project out of the moneys provided by the Marine Works Act.

  Army Canteens Departmental Committee—Report.
  MR. NOLAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the Departmental Committee on Army Canteens has yet presented its Report; and, if so, at what date it is proposed to circulate it.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This Committee has reported, but it has not been decided to publish the Report.

  Report on Officers Sent Home from South Africa.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can arrange that a copy of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the causes of various officers being called upon to resign their commissions
  560
  and who were sent home from South Africa may be given to each individual officer; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. A. E. Gilmore, of the Imperial Yeomanry (unattached), was acquitted before the Committee of bad horsemanship, which was the reason given him for being sent home, he will grant him the same privilege as other officers, namely, the honorary rank of lieutenant in the Army with permission to wear the uniform of the regiment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Report of this Committee was strictly confidential and cannot therefore be communicated in the manner suggested. As regards Second-Lieutenant Gilmore, he is not eligible for the grant of equivalent Army rank and permission to wear the uniform because he did not serve for six months in South Africa. His case was fully considered at the time, and it was decided to give him the medal and gratuity, but it is not proposed to take any further action in the matter.

  Sharfleet (Medway) Fishery—Compensation for Erection of a Pier.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the War Office Authorities in the year 1899 erected a pier for the landing of troops, ammunition, etc., from the mainland of Burntwick Island, and have refused to the lessee of the Sharfleet (Medway) Fishery any award for damages to the oyster fishery, and for interference with rights and privileges under his lease, he will allow the landlords and lessee to submit their case to a fully-qualified tribunal with a view of securing compensation for their alleged losses.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) In the first place, it is not admitted that any damage was done to the fishery in question by the erection of the pier. In the second place, those concerned have been officially informed that if at any time the Rochester Fishery Board can prove any such damage, the Secretary of State for War will then be prepared to discuss the question of compensation to the board or to persons claiming under them. No representations, however,

  561
  have been received from the board to this effect since the communication in question.

  Rules of procedure for Military Courts.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether since the debate on 22nd April, 1901, new Rules of Procedure for Military Courts of Inquiry were promulgated; and, if so, will he say where they are to be found.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) These rules were promulgated by Special Army Order of 10th February, 1902, and will be found in Army Order 88 of 1902.

  Telegraphic Communication between Cocos Islands and Ceylon.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any steps are being taken to connect Cocos Islands and Ceylon by means of a spur cable; and, if not, will he state whether an early decision in conjunction with the India Office in relation thereto is likely to be reached.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have received the views of the Government of India, and am now in communication with the Treasury on the expediency of making such a line or an alternative line or lines.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    New Recruiting Regulations.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the new conditions of recruiting regarding character and physique have been issued, and will he state the precise terms of the order.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It was notified on February 27th that no recruits for Infantry should now be enlisted under the standard of age, height, or chest measurement. The raising of the standard for other arms was carried out by Army Order of March 1st. As regards character I cannot give the whole of the instructions,
    562
    but the first and main instruction is that no man is to be accepted for any branch of the Regular Army, or Militia, who cannot produce a satisfactory reference as to his character and antecedents.

  British Garrisons Abroad.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the total garrisons at Mauritius, Hong-Kong, and Singapore, and what are the numbers of British and Native troops stationed respectively at each of these.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member will find the information he requires on page 22 of the Army Estimates, 1903–4.

  Artillery Equipment.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, how many patterns there are in England and India for mountain and field guns and for heavy ordnance; and what steps are being taken to make all guns, mountain, field, and heavy guns, of identical calibre in both Great Britain, India, and the Colonies.
  MR. BRODRICK: As regards mountain-guns, after 1st April there will be no mountain batteries elsewhere than in India. The field batteries in India and at home are all 15-pounder breech-loading guns, except in the case of fifteen batteries at home, which are armed with the 15-pounder quick-firing gun. Field howitzer batteries are armed with the 5-inch howitzer field-guns. The heavy guns in India and Great Britain are of different calibres, but the importance of identical calibre is fully recognised, and as guns are replaced every effort will be made to assimilate them.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Has the decision as to mountain batteries been previously announced?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not know It is only a question of one or two batteries.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: When will the conversion be accomplished?
  MR. BRODRICK: It will be done gradually.

  Linked Battalion System.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what military stations outside the United Kingdom are now reckoned as home stations, or at which troops now serving are reckoned as on the home establishment.
  MR. BRODRICK: Under the present system, whenever circumstances require that more than the normal number of battalions should be abroad, battalions on the home roster have to be sent abroad out of their turn on what is called "short tour," and these are sent to stations where the qualifications of service are the same as at home; they are considered as temporarily detached from the home establishment. At present there are no battalions on short tour except in South Africa.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is not this the inevitable result of the linked battalion system?
  MR. BRODRICK: All battalions are maintained at home in the same proportion as those abroad, but if the exigencies of the public service require it, some of the home battalions are temporarily sent abroad.

  Officers' Examinations in the United States Army.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the new regulations for examining officers for promotion in the United States Army, and particularly to the fact that Members of the Examining Board are sworn faithfully and impartially to examine and report upon the officer about to be examined; and whether, with a view to assisting and strengthening the hands of officers detailed to examine or report upon their comrades, he will consider the advisability of introducing a similar provision into his new regulations for examination and promotion.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have seen the proviso in the regulations mentioned. In view of the existing certificate signed by
  564
  the Examining Board the alteration suggested does not at present commend itself to my Military Advisers.

  Irish Ordnance Workshops—Labourers' Wages.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will extend his inquiry into the wages paid to ordnance workers in English dockyards to the wages paid to the labourers employed in ordnance workshops in Ireland.
  MR. BRODRICK: The case of Ireland will be considered with others.

  Army Veterinary Department Inquiry.
  MR. WILLIAM M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state when the Committee of Inquiry into the Army Veterinary Department held its first Sitting; and when the Committee may be expected to report.
  MR. BRODRICK: This Committee first met on 28th November. I am not yet in a position to say when the Report will be completed.

  Tenders for Officers' Uniform.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any tenders for officers' uniforms, etc., for cash prices have been received from manufacturers in Ireland; whether any manufacturers from that country have been placed on the list selected by the War Office; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to secure for such manufacturers a portion of the orders for officers' uniforms, etc., serving in Ireland.
  MR. BRODRICK: Price lists are being received from the firms concerned. I am not therefore, in a position to make any further statement at present.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Are the prices modified as the uniform is changed from time to time?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say; I hope there are not many changes to make a modification necessary.

  Royal Marines—Terms of Enlistment.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the Royal Marines a man who purchases his discharge after some years of service and rejoins later is unable to count his former service towards the completion of his full term of twenty-one years, and that a contrary system prevails in the Army and Navy; and, if so, will he consider the desirability of giving similar treatment to the Royal Marine Corps in this respect.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The point referred to in the hon. Member's Question has recently been under consideration with a view to assimilating the Royal Marine Regulations to those governing the Royal Navy, and in future seamen or Marines who have left the service, will, on re-entry in any capacity, be permitted to count the whole of their previous time, provided that the break in their service has not exceeded five years.

  Prize-Firing in the Navy.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will grant a Return of the annual prize-firing results of the Navy for the past three years.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not considered desirable to publish these results in the form of a Return, for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Chester on the 17th December last.†

  Sokoto Expedition.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any expedition has been despatched from Kano, in North Nigeria, to Sokoto; and, if so, will he state how many men it consisted of, and has any telegraphic report been forwarded concerning it by Sir F. Lugard; and, if so, will he state its nature.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The following telegram,
  †See (4) Debates, cxvi., 1495.
  566
  dated Sokoto, March 19, has been received from Sir Frederick Lugard:—"Sokoto occupied March 15th after feeble resistance. Sultan and chiefs fled. I arrived this morning Hope to effect full settlement early. Wazeri and Sultan's brother returned to-day with many followers. I am breaking up expeditionary force. General Kemball leaves for Zungeru day after to-morrow. Lagos and Southern Nigeria reserves returning home. All well. Boundary Commissioners are here." Sir Frederick Lugard has not stated how many men the force despatched from Kano to Sokoto consisted of, but the force which occupied Kano consisted of 839 of all ranks. I think the House will feel that this most important expedition has been admirably carried out.

  Repatriation in South Africa.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the prices at which stores of all kinds are being sold by the military authorities in the Transvaal; and whether, seeing that similar stores are being brought by the Repatriation Committee from England, he will consider the advisability of transferring these stores from one department to the other.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements have been made whereby the Transvaal Government takes over all the stores which it requires for repatriation purposes from the military authorities Nothing is sold by the military authorities I to the general public of which the civil Government has not had the refusal.

  Sugar and Cotton Plantations in the West Indies.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official reports showing that sugar planters in some of the West Indian islands are taking to the cultivation of cotton in: place of sugar; and, if so, will he say in which islands this change is in progress; and bow many estates are affected.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will find full information on the subject in the publications of the Imperial

  567
  Department of Agriculture for the West Indies, published by Messrs. Dulan and Company, 37, Soho Square, and especially in the publication entitled "Information relating to Cotton Cultivation in the West Indies, 1903." It contains an account of experiments that are being made to cultivate cotton in localities where sugar growing cannot possibly be carried on at a profit.

  Indian Import Duties.
  MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the Indian Budget for 1903–4 shows a surplus of £948,700, after the reduction of the Salt Tax and the change in the incidence of the Income Tax, and that the amount estimated to be received from the Import Duty and the Excise Duty on cotton goods in the Estimates of 1903–3 was £767,000, and seeing that the final accounts for the four years 1898–9 to 1901–2, and the revised Estimates for 1902–3 show an actual surplus for the five years of £14,700,000, and of £ 9,800,000 over the Budget Estimates of the same period, and that he stated to a deputation on 11th December, 1895, that if an equilibrium could be established between Indian expenditure and revenue so that these taxes on cotton goods could be dispensed with, they were the first taxes that should be dealt with, he will now consider the advisability of dispensing with these taxes.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): As I stated in answer to a similar Question on 12th March,† I cannot hold out any hope at present of reducing the Customs duties now in force in India. The Government of India have gone as far as they consider prudent at present in remitting taxation. Since 1895 the duty on woven cotton goods has been reduced from 5 per cent. to 3½ per cent., the duty on yarns entirely taken off, and the countervailing excise duty on cotton goods woven in Indian power mills has been re-adjusted so as to prevent the import duty from having a protective effect. These changes materially modify the character, incidence and scope of the duties existing in 1895.
  † See (4) Debates, cxix., 562.

  Sugar Cane Cultivation in India.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there hag been any increase in the area under sugar cane in the united provinces of India since the passing of the Act for countervailing foreign bounty fed sugar imported into India; and what was the area under cultivation last year as compared with the year 1898–9.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The aggregate area under sugar cane in the provinces in which this crop is of importance was 2,502,000 acres in 1898–9, and 2,206,000 acres in 1901–2. Since 1898–9 the seasons have been so abnormal, owing to shortage oi rain, that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from the figures.

  India—Scientific Research.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for India, whether he will state what is the present position of Mr. Jomsetjee N. Tata's scheme for a scientific research institution in India; what support has been given to the scheme by the Government of India; and whether the correspondence, including Sir W. Ramsay's Report, will be placed before Parliament.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I understand that Mr. Tata's scheme for a scientific research institution is, for the time being in abeyance. I do not propose to publish any correspondence on the subject.

  Administration of Justice in Cachar.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. Bain, a tea planter of Cachar, who was lately committed for trial on a charge of beating to death a coolie who had absconded from his garden, was tried before a jury of five Europeans belonging to his own district, and was found guilty of causing simple hurt only; and whether seeing that the jury consisted of tea-planters and persona connected with the tea industry, he will consider the desirability of

  569
  transferring such cases for trial to a district other than that in which the accused resides, in order that they may be tried before an independent tribunal, and of arranging for a re-trial of this case.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have seen a report in the newspapers of the result of the trial referred to. The trial was held before a Sessions Judge and a jury; and if the Judge had disagreed with the jury's verdict it was open to him to submit the case to the High Court, who could have passed any sentence which they considered justified by the facts which they found to be proved. It was further open to the Government, if they thought fit, to move the High Court to call for the record; and if that Court thought the verdict erroneous, owing to a misdirection by the Judge, or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him, it could deal with the case as it thought proper. The Government can also move the High Court to order the transfer to another district. This being the law, I see no necessity for taking action as suggested in the Question. I have no power to arrange for a re-trial of the case.

  North Africa—Spheres of Influence.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have come to an understanding with France and Italy in reference to spheres of influence in North Africa.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE,): The answer is in the negative.

  Macedonian Disturbances.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will direct one of their consular representatives in the near East to visit the disturbed districts in Macedonia, as was recently done by the Russian Vice-Consul at Philippopolis, and report
  570
  upon the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte within that province.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The British Vice-Consul at Uscub, and the officer recently appointed to Monastir, are very well situated for obtaining accurate information from the disturbed districts. Moreover, our Consul-General at Salonica has been making detailed inquiry into some of the worst cases which have attracted public attention, the results of which will be laid before Parliament. In order to avoid dangerous excitement it has been considered undesirable in the present state of the country to send an officer specially to visit places where disturbances have occurred. But the matter has the attention of His Majesty's ambassador at Constantinople, and will be reconsidered if circumstances should seem to require it.

  Licence Refusals at Brewster Sessions.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the promised Return of the Licences refused at the last Brewster Sessions, he will add a statement showing the number of years during which the licence had been held by the respective licensees.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): No, Sir; to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion would, even if possible, involve great and undesirable delay in the issue of the Return. Large numbers of answers to the Return, as ordered by the House, have already come in; and the matter is being prepared for publication at the earliest moment.

  Tredegar Magistracy and the Ebbw Vale Coal and Iron Company.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the action of an official of the Ebbw Vale Coal and Iron Company in writing letters to some of the magistrates and the magistrates' clerk at the Tredegar Police Court, and asking the latter to constitute a certain bench to try a case in which the Company were prosecuting

  571
  workmen for breach of contract; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Both from the account of the incident which the hon. Member was good enough to send me and from inquiries I have made of the magistrates, I think the magistrates and their clerk dealt with the case in a way that showed clearly their sense of the impropriety of the communication which had been addressed to them, and which should effectively prevent the recurrence of any such incident. I certainly agree with them, though there are no steps which it lies in my power to take. I may add that I understand that the Manager of the Company has now stated that the communication was entirely unauthorised, expressed his regret that an official of the Company should have made it, and offered an unqualified apology.

  Transmission of Marconi's Messages over Public Wires.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Admiralty have come to an arrangement for the adoption of Marconi's system of wireless telegraphy, he will state what hindrance there is, if any, to the Telegraph Department giving the same facilities for transmitting marconigrams over the public wires as are given to the cable companies; and can he state the present position of the negotiations.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am prepared, on proof to my satisfaction that the Company are in a position to deal satisfactorily with the business handed to them, and subject to their compliance with certain conditions required in the public interest, to give them the necessary facilities for the transmission of telegrams to and from their Poldhu Station. I am in communication with the Company and other Departments on the subject.

  The Crew of the "Princess Alexandra."
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the President of the
  572
  Board of Trade if he will say whether any of the officers and crew of the "Princess Alexandra" were on leave while that vessel was laid up at Liverpool; if so, how long did the leave last in each individual case; and whether they received wages and allowance while on leave; and, if so, how much of either wages or allowance, or of both.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the Acting Commander, the Chief Officer, and the Chief Engineer of the "Princess Alexandra" each got one month's leave while that vessel was laid up at Liverpool, and received their regular rates of pay and victualling allowances. Each member of the crew had a fortnight's leave during February and March while the vessel was laid up, receiving wages and victualling allowances of fourteen shillings and threepence, and twelve shillings and threepence, respectively.

  Beer Poisoning Commission's Report.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Beer Poisoning Commission Report will be presented. I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state when the Report of the Commission on Arsenical Poisoning in beer will be in the hands of Members.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. GRANT LAWSON,): I am informed that the Commission will shortly finish taking evidence, and will then prepare their final report; but I cannot at present say when it will be presented.
  MR. GROVES: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman, in view of the importance of getting a satisfactory assurance that the brewing materials are now pure, will advise the Commission to issue an interim report.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSON: No, Sir; that would be most unusual.

  Hop Substitutes used in Brewing.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the total amount of hop substitutes, 19,422 pounds, given in the recent Return of Brewers' Licences, is the total amount used in brewing; and whether substitutes that are added after the brewing is completed are included in this Return.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): The Brewers' returns of Hop Substitutes, on which the figures in the Brewers' Licences Return are based, should include, and—so far as the Board of Inland Revenue are aware—do include, all hop substitutes, whether used in the actual process of brewing, or added to finished beer.
  MR. GROVES: May I point out that all these substitutes are also used by others than brewers.

  Birdcage Walk.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state who is responsible for the state of disrepair into which the roadway known as Birdcage Walk has been allowed to fall; and whether immediate steps can be taken to put it in a satisfactory condition.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The Office of Works have decided to repair Birdcage Walk, and the work will last about a fortnight, commencing on Easter Tuesday.

  Magisterial Differences.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of cases and the particulars therewith where magistrates sitting at petty sessions were equally divided, and where, notwithstanding this fact, two of the magistrates assumed the responsibility of sending the cases forward for trial.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): There are no materials available which would enable a Return, such as the hon. Member asks for, to be compiled.

  Irish Fisheries—Counakilla Landing Place.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what assistance will be given by the Congested Districts Board to improve the landing place and beach at Counakilla, near Glenbeigh, County Kerry, to enable the small farmers of the district to draw sand for the improvement of their holdings; and can he state the date of the visit of the Board's engineer to report on the proposed improvement, and whether the opinion of inhabitants of the district was sought.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This matter has been recently before the Board. The decision arrived at was that any benefits that might accrue from carrying out the proposed work would not be commensurate with the expense entailed. The Board's engineer has not made an inspection.

  Roads Landing Place.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the necessity of improving the landing facilities for fishermen at Roads, County Kerry, has been frequently brought to the notice of the Congested Districts Board in the course of the last few years; and can he state what action will be taken by the Board during the present financial year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Considerable improvements will be carried out in the coming financial year.

  Donegal Sub-Sheriff.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the? Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sub-sheriff for the county of Donegal keeps no office in that

  575
  county for the transaction of his official business, and that his office is in the city of Londonderry; and will he say what steps the Government intends to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Under Section 63 of 27 and 28 Vict. cap. 99, the under sheriff is required to have an office in the county town, or, with the approval of the chairman of the quarter sessions, in one of the quarter sessions towns, of the county. The under sheriff of Donegal, with the consent of the chairman, has his office in the quarter sessions town of Letterkenny.

  Longford Union—Compensation Arbitration.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cause of the delay in the issue of the arbitrator's award into the compensation to be paid to owners and occupiers of plots in Longford Union; and will he direct its issue forthwith.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The arbitrator's award has been lodged and the necessary action upon it will be taken forthwith. The delay has been caused by the persons interested.

  Land Purchase Receipts.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in any change in the arrangements for the receipt of payments of instalments due by purchasing tenants under the present Land Purchase Acts he will provide that tenants may have a receipt issued to them in respect of each payment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not proposed to make any change in the existing arrangement under which a receipt is issued in respect of every instalment paid by tenant purchasers.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Do I understand that a receipt is now issued?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.

  County Sligo Police Force.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  576
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the fact that the number of police at present stationed in the County Sligo does not exceed the number usually allocated to that county, he will reconsider the question of the chargeability of extra police to particular districts, with the view of affording relief to the ratepayers of such districts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The fact is not as stated. The number of police at present stationed in the county is forty-three in excess of the full quota, and this excess represents the extra force chargeable. The question of withdrawing twenty-nine of these men is now under consideration.

  Brown Hall Estate, County Mayo.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNEL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board will take steps to take over the grazing lands on the Brown Hall Estate, near Balla, County Mayo, now about being disposed of by the Court of Chancery, which have been in the hands of a large grazier since 1900, for the purpose of enlarging the holdings of the agricultural tenants on the estate, who are now about purchasing their holdings.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to the efforts made by the tenants on the Brown Hall Estate, near Balla, County Mayo, to obtain turbary on several neighbouring estates; and to the fact that there are on that estate, and on a grazing tract, held for the past two years by a resident in the town of Balla, about fifteen acres of excellent turbary; and whether, seeing that the remainder of this estate is about being sold to the tenants by the Court of Chancery, and that the tenants are prepared to give the same amount of purchase money for the turbary and grazing lands as they are giving for their holdings, he can take steps to have these fifteen acres divided among them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This estate is administered in the Land Judge's Court. I have instituted inquiries in respect to the matters referred to in these Questions, which are in the name of the same hon. Member. These inquiries have not yet been completed, and I would ask him to postpone them for a day or two.

  Lismore Union Mastership.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board will reconsider their decision in the case of Mr. George M'Donald, recently elected master of Lismore Union, by permitting the question of his fitness for the office to be determined by the manner of his discharge of the duties of the office during a period of probation; whether the Local Government Board will give the Board of Guardians a copy of the Questions in arithmetic submitted to Mr. M'Donald when examined, with his answers thereto; will he say what qualifications Mr. R. Kelly had as an examiner in arithmetic; and what official of the Board other than Mr. R. Kelly decided upon Mr. M'Donald's answers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Legal proceedings have been instituted by the Local Government Board with the object of requiring the Guardians to appoint a properly qualified person to the position of workhouse master. The decision of the Board being thus subject to review by a judicial tribunal, the matter has passed out of its hands, and it cannot entertain the suggestions in the first and second inquiries. The decision arrived at was the decision of the Board. Mr. Kelly is a Barrister-at-law and a graduate of Trinity College.

  Waterford New Bridge.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Tipperary County Council requesting the Lord Lieutenant to appoint an independent Commission, excluding local officials, to consider the memorial of the Corporation of Waterford
  578
  as regards the proposed new bridge; and, if so, will he recommend the appointment of such a Commission.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution was received, and the council was informed that it was proposed to reappoint the gentlemen who served at the late Commission. This has been done, and the Commission will commence its sittings to-morrow.

  Objectionable Placards in Co. Clare— Police Action.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police recently tore down some placards, issued in reference to a meeting of labourers in the neighbourhood of Newmarket-on-Fergus, County Clare, and if he will say whether this was done with his sanction.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The matter has not previously been brought to my notice. I am informed, however, that on the 20th instant the police removed some printed placards which referred to an individual as a "Tyrant." They removed one copy of another placard which was free from any such objectionable reference, and desisted from removing any more by order of the police sergeant.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the police in future not to remove placards of this nature?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that the inspector, directly he saw the one placard that had been removed, ordered the men not to pull down any others of that nature.

  Spit Bank Light, Queenstown.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say on what date the sectoring of the Spit Bank Light, Queenstown, was altered; and the date on which the notice to mariners on the subject was issued.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish

  579
  Lights that no alteration has taken place in the sectoring of the Spit Bank Light at Queenstown.

  The Wreck of the "Manchester Merchant" in Dingle Bay.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of the Dingle District Council asking to have the wreck of the steamship "Manchester Merchant," now lying in Dingle Bay, removed; and whether, in view of the danger of this wreck to trading, and especially to fishing vessels in this bay, he will take steps to have the wreck removed immediately.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the resolution of the Dingle District Council to which the hon. Member refers. The Board of Trade have no authority to take any steps for the removal of the wreck but I am suggesting to the District Council, that as it is possible the wreck may be an obstruction to vessels going to or from Castlemaine Harbour, it might be well that they should communicate with the Harbour Authority.

  Telegraphic Communication with Lanesborough.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether be is aware that dissatisfaction exists in county Longford over the refusal of the Post Office authorities to grant a telegraph service to Lanesborough, although a similar service has been given to Killashee, three miles distant; and will he direct an extension of the line to be now made to Lanesborough.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Post Office has not refused to grant a telegraph service to Lanesborough. On the contrary, an offer was made in 1898 to establish such a service under guarantee, and that offer was repeated in answer to a Question asked in this House by the hon. Member himself on the 22nd June, 1899. As to Killashee, a telegraph office there was offered under guarantee in 1899 and the offer was accepted. I am inquiring whether the
  580
  terms of guarantee quoted for Lanesborough in 1899 still hold good, and will let the hon. Member know.

  Promotion in the Dublin Sorting Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of revoking the recent promotion of a second division clerk to a first-class assistant superintendent ship in Dublin sorting office, or of giving an appointment in the Secretary's Office to an official drawn from the sorting office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot adopt either of the hon. Member's suggestions.

  Kiltimagh Mail Service.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a memorial from the inhabitants of Kiltimagh praying for a better mail service; and whether, in the interests of merchants and business men generally, he will take steps to remedy the alleged grievance.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have for some time had under consideration the question of affording a better postal service at Kiltimagh, and I hope soon to be in a position to effect some improvement.

  Killorglin Mail Service.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will make arrangements by which mails may be taken from the town of Killorglin by the 1.15 p.m. train daily by which Tralee is at the present time served, seeing that, with present arrangements, it is impossible for business men to reply by morning mail to letters received that morning.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will make inquiry into the question of despatching a mail from Killorglin by the 1.15 p.m. train and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary

  581
  to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the maximum and minimum number of years purchase, including bonus, that an Irish landowner may receive on the first term rent and second term rent respectively under the provisions of the Irish Land Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This question is of such importance, and a bare reply to it is so liable to misconception, that I must ask to preface my reply by two observations. (1) The total purchase price consists of two portions—viz, (a) the total amount advanced in respect of the several purchase annuities and perpetual rent-charges which the purchasers individually agree to pay, and (b) the percentage from the Aid Fund Grant, which is calculated on that total amount by an inverse graduation, (2) Of that total purchase price a portion, including the percentage, goes absolutely to the vendor, the remainder is paid to him after other interests and claims have been met. With that explanation the answer is: First-term rent of £100: (a) maximum £2,894·55, nearly twenty-nine years; (b) minimum £1,982·40, nearly twenty years. Second-term rent of £100: (c) maximum £3,256·8, about thirty-two and a half years; (d) minimum £2,313·15, just over twenty-three years.
  MR. LAMBERTasked if the bonus was included.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes. I have stated that the purchase consists of two portions, that which comes from the tenants and that which is the percentage amount of the Aid Grant Fund. The figures I have given are the result of the two added together.
  MR. EMMOTT: That is the bonus calculated at the highest rate?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Certainly. But it would be more proper to say the amount arrived at in respect of the instalments paid by the tenants and the bonus.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman said as to distribution of purchase price that one portion of it goes to the vendor and the rest is distributed according to claims.
  582
  The portion which goes to the vendor is the amount of arrears to the extent of one year?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, and the bonus.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in fixing rents in Ireland the Commissioners estimate the value of the tenant's interest; and, if so, can he state approximately what proportion the tenant's interest bears to the total value of the holding.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners fix rents in accordance with the provisions of a complicated schedule, of which I will send a copy to the hon. Member. It is not possible to answer the second inquiry. Lord Templetown's Return (House of Lords Paper No. 193 of 1901) gives the nearest approximate information.
  MR. LAMBERT: Is that Return available for Members of the House?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.

  The Government and British Agriculture.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will introduce legislation offering similar facilities to British landowners and farmers as are proposed by the Irish Land Bill to be given to the Irish owners and occupiers of land.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There is no parallel between the two cases.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter if British farmers cheer the defeat of a British general?

  Scottish Education.
  MR. NICOL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any, and, if so, what, steps will be taken to secure that the special education interests of Scotland are adequately represented on the body which is to be appointed to act in conjunction with the Director of Military Education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Scottish University authorities will be asked to confer on the subject referred to in my hon. friend's Question, but nothing can be said at present about the separate representation of Universities.

  Non-Renewal of Licences—Question of Compensation.
  MR. HORNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the action of magistrates in refusing to renew licences of licensed victuallers where no complaint has been adduced against their mode of conducting their businesses, and, in view of the declarations of magistrates of their intention of suppressing licences in the future, he can now state whether he will introduce legislation to compensate such licence holders for the loss of their licences; and, if so, when.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the statement I made in public recently. Certainly I can make no announcement at the present moment.
  MR. HORNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the Bill of the hon. Member for York.
  No reply was returned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. LAMBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Adulteration of Butter Bill to-morrow?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am glad that the hon. Member has asked this Question, for in view of what has occurred I wish to make a correction of my statement the other day as to the course of business. I was then under the impression that we had to discuss a very important Amendment on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, which would have raised the subject of University education in Ireland. In view of that I saw no prospect of getting the Speaker out of the Chair under two days. That Motion has, as I understand, been taken off the Paper; and, therefore, there will be no difficulty in getting the Speaker out of the Chair on Thursday night. On
584
Tuesday the first Motion, I believe, is the ordinary sessional order allowing Ways and Means to be taken after twelve. That has been passed in former years because it has been found very inconvenient not to have it. The Butter Bill would be the first order among the Bills, and after that there would be the Sheep Scab Bill and the Contracts (India Office) Bill. The Naval Forces Bill in Committee would be the fifth order of the day. On Wednesday we wish to conclude the proceedings we have already initiated on the Muncipal Trading Committee and also on the National Expenditure Committee. Both of those Committees ought to set to work again without undue delay. Then there is the Bill which my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland mentioned in his speech in introducing the Irish Land Bill—the Bill which is to hand over to Ireland a grant consequent on what was given to England in respect of the Education Act of last session. That Bill will have to be introduced in Ways and Means, and I hope my right hon. friend will be able to introduce it upon Wednesday. I imagine it is a wholly uncontroversial measure. There will also be the Second Reading of the Army Annual Bill. On Thursday, as I have intimated, the business will be to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: When will the House adjourn for the holidays?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not like to give a full detailed answer. No doubt the last day on which we shall be asked to sit will be the Wednesday before Good Friday, and I should hope that, if the House gets on with the business as I trust it will, we need not reassemble until the morning sitting of Tuesday, 21st April.
MR. BUCHANAN: When will the legislation be introduced to dispose of the Scottish equivalent grant?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is on the Estimates. There are special reasons, which my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary will explain, why the Irish grant should be made by legislation. It has nothing to do with the claim of Scotland.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The claim of Scotland is admitted?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
John Arthur Fyler, esquire, for the County of Surrey (North-Western or Chertsey Division).
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the better Prevention of Corruption." [Prevention of Corruption Bill [Lords].]
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
MARINE INSURANCE BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Ordered, that Mr. Hudson be added to the Select Committee.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

SUPPLY [5TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the committee)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
1. £1,502,000, Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid there was an increase in this Vote of £400,000, half of which was due to the automatic increase of the annuities payable under the Naval Works Acts. He asked the Civil Lord what was the total expenditure under the Naval Works Acts during the current year, and what was the probable amount of expenditure under these Acts in the succeeding year. He also wished to have an Estimate of the prospective increase of annuities payable in the immediate future under these
586
Acts. He hoped the Naval Works Bill would be introduced as soon as the Admiralty could find it convenient to introduce it. In past years it had been brought in far too late in the session. The net amount of this Vote was £1,000,000. That was a very serious matter, because ten or eleven years ago £400,000 was considered to be the normal amount of this Vote. Since then the great bulk of what used to fall on the Vote had been removed and placed under the Works Act, and thus they had a serious prospect before them of a large expenditure in connection with the Vote. That made it impossible for them to pursue the old practice of accepting the demands of the Admiralty under this Vote as primâ facie reasonable. The enormous increase of the Estimates made it necessary for the House to require a full explanation of every demand made by the Admiralty. It was impossible for a private Member to point to items in a large Vote and say they were unnecessary. They ought, at any rate, to be given information as to the new proposals made by the Government as apart from those already sanctioned by Parliament. He suggested that the Civil Lord should himself begin the debate on this Vote by giving the Committee an explanation of the new works of magnitude, such as those at Chatham, Portland, Malta, Jamaica, and Wei-hai-Wei. Particularly he would ask for some explanation of the item of £40,000 for land purchase. Had that anything to do with any previous policy of land purchase sanctioned by the House?
That was an example of the sort of large item which required a little preliminary explanation from the representative of the Admiralty before the Committee were asked to consider it at all. There was another proposal which was quite new and quite exceptional, the proposal with regard to Osborne. It was novel in this respect, that in every other case the Admiralty had always informed the Committee what the total amount would be that the Committee would be asked to authorise, but with regard to this Osborne work the Committee were asked to sanction an expenditure of £40,000 and they were not told of what whole that sum

587
was a part. That was a matter as to which the Committee ought to be informed, because when the Vote was once passed they would not have the right to put these questions. He submitted that under the circumstances the hon. Member who represented the Admiralty should be invited to commence the debate and give such information as he could upon these matters, and he would also invite him to say—in the calculation which he possibly had made, but which they were not able to make, of all the works both big and small—whether he had been able to arrive at the gross amount which the Committee was asked to sanction.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,said in answer to the invitation of the hon. Member opposite it might be convenient if he were to say a few words on the position of affairs before the Committee on the question of works of magnitude. With regard to the general increase of that Vote he was justified in pointing out that the general expenditure on works could not be very well separated between this Vote and the Loans Acts, because, after all, it was all works, but although large works were dealt with by a Loan Act, he thought on this particular Vote the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing this question as a whole and raising the question of works generally. There was a doable answer to the general increase firstly, it was clearly due to the deficient expenditure in the past, upon works which had now to be filled up, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman opposite, who partly did that work, was largely responsible on that very ground for this policy of Loan Acts It was hardly sufficiently realised by those who initiated the wholesale expansion of the Navy generally, what that would amount to. It was taken for granted that the Navy consisted mainly of ships, though it might also have been considered that men would be required, but it was insufficiently considered what land defence would be required for those men and those ships. Let him take the question of berthing, which was a good illustration
588
to enable a landsman to realise the magnitude of this question. A first-class cruiser required more than thirty acres of water space for berthing room, and when they came to talk of berthing a fleet, and to consider the further point that where ships used to be able to lie in the open roadsteads safe from all attack save from vessels of their own size, they were now liable to be attacked by torpedoes, with the result that large ships, requiring this enormous amount of space, could no longer lie out in the open roadsteads, but had to be confined in what might be described as torpedo safe harbours and required enlarged barracks and stores of all kinds, hon. Members could realise what that meant. One of the items related to oil stores, which might sound rather prosaic, but where would the Mediterranean Fleet be if there was no proper base for the supply of oil upon which that fleet depended. He sometimes thought that the responsibility of the Admiralty was really greater in these matters than in the provision of the ships themselves. If the Admiralty did not do its duty in supplying a building programme there was not an hon. Member in this House who would not claim to display his knowledge of naval matters before the Committee in criticising the Admiralty, but it was extremely difficult for any hon. Member, however anxious he might be to criticise the Naval Votes, to follow all these details and say what was necessary, and what ought to be done. The responsibility lay more heavily on the Admiralty in these matters, for which they were not so liable to be called to account if they fell behind, since the results to the country would be just as disastrous as if a fleet was not built.
The Committee was voting enormous sums to build ships, and it was the duty of the Admiralty to do what was necessary for those ships. That was the answer to the great expansion of expenditure on the fleet generally, whether in Loan Acts or this Vote. With regard to the question of the estimated expenditure under the Works Acts of last year and the previous year, the Committee would remember it was about £6,000,000, and the Admiralty had spent up to within £400,000 of that

589
amount, or perhaps a little more. He would not elaborate that point, as he understood the hon. Member only required the information generally as a financial guide. But he was afraid he would not be able to say what the expenditure was likely to be during the coming year, because the exact form of the Works Bill was not yet settled, and he had no figures which he could give with confidence at this stage. With regard to the question of the annuities on Vote 10, that was an actuarial calculation, which could easily be made so as to show what the interest would amount to on these different sums as they were borrowed. There was no doubt the whole of the annuities would amount, before many years had passed, to several millions, but he could not hold out any hope to the hon Gentleman that that would be the bulk of Vote 10, nor could he hold out any hope to the Committee that the expenditure on Vote 10 was likely to fall below one million if at all. Because if hon. Gentlemen would consider what the expenditure had been, and what it would be in the course of the year, and what a small percentage of maintenance there was on such works as docks and breakwaters—on works of that kind there was not much required for maintenance—but when they came to deal with barracks, hospitals, stores, and other buildings the expenditure for maintenance was very heavy indeed. That expenditure would and must follow the large capital expenditure that was now being incurred. The hon. Gentleman opposite had desired him to make some statement as to the new works of magnitude now being initiated, but he had not made the calculation, and was not able to do so. If the hon. Gentleman had given him notice, it would have been possible to put the exact figures together. He could say, generally, that the expenditure on real or new works under this Vote amounted practically to £100,000 this year at least, that was his impression. They were not all works of magnitude, that was an expression which might be variously interpreted. To what limit did the hon. Gentleman go?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: To the £200,000 limit.
MR. PRETYMAN: The hon. Gentleman had asked with respect to particular works at Chatham and Portland. Owing to a fire breaking out at Chatham a few months ago, it had been necessary to rebuild the mould left there completely. There was no need to speak of the extension of the electrical workshops; electrical works and machinery were constantly required to develop that shop in accordance with the advance of electrical science. A thousand pounds was being asked for new roads, and that was required merely for the development of roads as the dockyard expanded. As to the expenditure on the store for water tube boilers, the hon. Member for Gateshead would perhaps hold that the boilers were better in the store than on board ship, and possibly on that ground would be induced to support the Vote. There was also the provision of six tanks for the storage of lubricating oil. The only new item of importance at Portland was the erection of three official residences, one for the harbour master, one for the works officer, and the other for the naval store officer. The expenditure really arose from the completion of the breakwater at Portland, which place was now to be the base for the Home Fleet, a considerable increase of establishment being thereby involved. The harbour master, who would have considerable duties to perform, had only recently been appointed, and as no house existed for him it was necessary to build one. The breakwater would be taken over from the contractor in about eight weeks time, and it would then be necessary to have at Portland a superintending engineer who will be on the spot. In the same way, being the headquarters of the Home Fleet, Portland would naturally be a much larger depôt for stores than it had previously been. The land on which the houses were built had cost the Admiralty nothing, as they had been able to obtain an eligible site from the War Office.
The question concerning Os borne raised a point of greater interest and importance. Under the new scheme for the entry and the training of naval officers, it was decided to establish another training college,

591
because one college would not be sufficient. Just before that decision His Majesty had signified his intention, without knowing that it would at once be put to such good use, of presenting Osborne House and grounds to the country. It was always a matter of great difficulty to acquire eligible sites for any kind of naval establishment, but here, thanks to His Majesty, they had a most admirable site, in a situation second to none. There were also ready to hand such things as a water supply, a drainage system, and so forth, which ordinarily would have taken a long time to provide, and, in addition to the land, a large block of buildings, hitherto used as stables, which at comparatively little cost would become available for classrooms, offices, and other necessary premises. A short distance away was the Medina, suitable for boating purposes, and an excellent site had been found on the shore for an engineering school in which the cadets would be taught that branch of their profession. Cadets who entered under the present system, which would continue for another two or three years, would still enter the old "Britannia" ship. About the middle or end of next year it was hoped the new Britannia College would be available for new entrants, who in the meantime would be provided for at Osborne. Eventually the entrants would fill both the Britannia College and Osborne, but at present the accommodation at Osborne would be necessary only to meet requirements until the new Britannia College was ready. When that college was full, which would be in about two years, they would have to come back to Osborne, and the two establishments together would meet the entire wants of the service. It was hoped the buildings at Osborne would be ready for the accommodation of cadets in or about August next. The buildings, which were not to be of a high architectural character, would be in the nature of bungalows, constructed of a sanitary, and durable, material called Euralite—no wood would be used; the flooring would be of concrete with a paving; and the heating arrangement would be by steam from a separate boiler house. A large gymnasium and recreation hall were also being provided. The total number of cadets provided
592
for in the two establishments would be between 700 and 800. Changes in the naval service were very frequent, so that it was desirable to be able to vary the accommodation as required, without having to alter existing buildings to any great extent. This end would be secured by the system being adopted at Osborne. The class-rooms, gymnasium, and so forth were separate, and could be added to without difficulty when occasion arose. Each bungalow would accommodate about thirty cadets, and about 200 would be provided for at Osborne, that being the accommodation required pending the completion of Britannia College. As to the £40,000 for the purchase of land, the Admiralty had had compulsorily to take land at Deal for a rifle range, but there was no really large item involved, the sum covering all the purchases proposed for the year.
SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid it was self-evident that this Works Vote would always increase year by year. When the late Liberal Administration nine and a half years ago began to build vessels of the dimensions of the "Terrible" the Admiralty had no docks to put them in. From that time onwards there had been a gradual and natural growth of Works expenditure. Dry docks and wet docks were necessary, and, so far from being surprised at the increase, he thought the growth of expenditure under this Vote was small considering what had had to be done. Ten years ago they had no proper tools or docks at Devonport or Chatham. Therefore he could account for all the increases in the dockyard expenses. There was another item of £23,000 for naval armaments, such as torpedo boat stations and outfit, and there was an increase in the educational expenses of £74,550. That seemed to be a large item for education, but it was all necessitated by the increased cost of training officers. There was another item of £15,000 for ordinary repairs and maintenance at home and abroad, but that was a very small item indeed. He did not consider any of these increases out of the way, considering the magnitude of the work they had got to do. They had to dock their vessels and repair them, and make them fit for sea in the

593
shortest possible time. They could not do that at the present time. Had the Admiralty proper dock accommodation and repairing ships, engine factories, and a proper system for repairing the ships in their own dockyards? He contended that they had not. Speaking from a practical point of view he believed that this Vote would increase in quantity every year, and the Admiralty should not rest until every factory at Devonport, Portsmouth, Pembroke, and Sheerness was able to repair any of their ships, and if they were not fit to do this they should get the money to make them fit. So far as he was concerned he did not object to this Vote, and in future years they ought to make their dockyards fit to repair any of their ships instead of having to send them all round the coast to Glasgow or Belfast to have repairs done which ought to be done in their own dockyards.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid there were one or two points upon which he desired to obtain some further information. With regard to Jamaica he was glad to see a new charge of £1,000, because it disposed of the humour that the Admiralty were changing their policy with regard to the position of Jamaica as a coaling station. With regard to the Cape, the First Lord of the Admiralty's Memorandum told hem that the preliminary work there had been commenced. He should be had if his hon. friend would give them further statement as to what was the fact position with regard to the progress of the dock at Simon's Bay. He noticed in item for house accommodation for the police of £1,400, and another sum of 2,000 for a residence for the Commander-Chief's secretary's clerks. He noticed so that there was a further charge for new storehouse for ammunition. It speared to him that they were going spend as much on residences to commodate the police and the Commander-in-Chief's secretary's clerks as fey were spending upon ammunition stores. The Admiral had his flagship, and accommodation on board for his secretary and clerks, and he could not see why further accommodation on shore was necessary. There was another item for a cooking-house and
594
reading-room at Esquimalt, about which he should like some information. He wished to know something about the tenure of the land. Had the Canadian Government given the land for nothing, or did the Admiralty hold it under a perpetual arrangement, because in other colonies there was very great confusion as to the nature of the Imperial tenure of the land upon which Imperial buildings were built? Was this cooking-house and reading-room for the Government employees in Esquimalt, or was it for the blue-jackets or Marines when they went ashore? If the latter, was it necessary, in view of the fact that they had there an Imperial garrison under the War Office already supplied with cooking-houses and reading-rooms? These dual arrangements at our coaling stations too often involved double expense.
With reference to the Falkland Islands they would become places of the utmost importance in case the Suez Canal was blocked. Therefore, the Admiralty were right in making provision at the Falkland Islands for coaling. They were told in the First Lord of the Admiralty's Memorandum that the arrangements would be complete this year, but there was a further charge of £3,000 to complete, which was not a new charge. If this work was to be completed in the current year, he did not see why it came on the Estimates for the next financial year. He wished to know whether this expenditure covered provision for rapid coaling in order to secure that the ships should have all those facilities that modern science had provided. He wished to know if the buildings there were so arranged as to provide for protection from the weather, and whether anything was being done to protect the coaling stations in the unhappy event of war. His hon. friend might say that that was a War Office affair. Had any demand boon made by the Admiralty in the Imperial interests that the War Office should make arrangements to provide for such an event in order to give this coaling station the necessary military local protection? The point was one of very great importance. The real truth was that if war was unhappily to break out in the month of April or May, it was in the water area of which the Falkland Islands were the centre that the protection of our wheat supply would be most

595
pressing. He had often complained of exaggerated works and garrisons at coaling stations elsewhere, and he was not going to commit a breach of order by discussing the matter now. He knew that the War Office was piling on money and exaggerating expenditure for the protection of garrisons in other parts of the world, and he wished to know what was being done in regard to the coaling stations to which he had referred. Were they to be left open to attack and destruction by the most insignificant improvised cruiser? With regard to Wei-hai-Wei, he reminded the Committee that there was an expenditure by the War Office at that place on buildings. According to the Estimates it was proposed to provide a new hospital there, and he wished to know what had happened to the buildings the War Office paid for. Was it not possible to render any part of these buildings fit for hospital purposes? Was this to be a brand-new hospital? He found there was a new charge of £6,000 on the Estimates for lunatics and prisoners at Plymouth. Yarmouth had hitherto been the place for the treatment of the unfortunate creatures belonging to the Navy who had lost their mind. Was it not a new departure to have lunatic wards in ordinary hospitals where hitherto that class had not been taken in?
MR. PERTYMANwas understood to say that it was not proposed to do so.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid it was on the Estimates, but if there was no such proposal he need not pursue the matter further. If additional accommodation was required for lunatics, he wished to know whether due inquiry had been made as to the possibility of obtaining suitable ground at Yarmouth from unused War Office ground adjoining, with the view to the establishment being still concentrated there.
MR BUCHANANcalled attention to item M. M.—"Purchases of lands and buildings at home and abroad," amounting to £40,000, as against £15,000 for the year now closing. What was the reason why the Estimates did not tell the purposes for which this money was being asked? Until two
596
years ago the invariable practice was to give, on the Naval Estimates, particulars of the purposes for which the money was being asked. This year the Committee had an extra claim for particulars, seeing that there was an increase of £25,000. By giving more accurate information on the Estimates as to the purposes for which the money was asked, the tendency would be to curb the putting down undue sums. His hon. friend the Member for Dundee asked what was the amount of the commitment on the Estimates for new works during the ensuing year, but, judging from the reply, the Civil Lord hardly understood the Question. The hon. Gentleman said the Estimate was £100,000, but clearly that figure was wide of the mark.
MR. PRETYMAN: What I said was that £100,000 was the provision made for new works this year.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that what he asked was the amount of the total commitments.
MR. PRETYMANsaid the amounts were shown on the Estimates.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the amounts were not shown in regard to many of the minor items. The Committee might fairly have expected the hon. Gentleman to tell them the total amount of the commitments under the term "New Works." There were one or two items in regard to which he had given no explanation. One was £20,000 for "accommodation on shore for boys' training establishments at Harwich"; the other was £88,000 for a general hospital and sanatorium at the Cape of Good Hope. There were sums which, added to these, showed that the total commitment would be £400,000. It would only be fair to the Committee to state what they were committing them selves to by passing this Vote. He was disappointed to find that the hon. Gentleman was unable to give the probable expenditure under the Naval Works Act. It had been the custom in past years for the First Lord to give a statement in regard to estimated expenditure on new works at the beginning of the Estimates.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that was done when there was no New Works Bill. This year there was a New Works Bill.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the hon. Gentleman was not quite correct. During the whole of the time that Lord Goschen was First Lord of the Admiralty he always gave an estimate of the amount to be expended on new works. They did not ask the hon. Gentleman to commit himself to a precise figure, but they did insist upon getting a general idea of the total amount estimated to be expended during the ensuing year on new works. A further reason for insisting upon this information was that it had become the practice year after year to put later and later the consideration of the Naval Works Act. He did not think it was a fair way of treating the House of Commons and the taxpayers of the country. He should like to know how the charges were apportioned between the Naval Works Act and this Vote. Was there any principle adopted by the Admiralty as to what new works should be put on the Votes and what should be included in the Naval Works Act? He thought the general idea most hon. Members had was that expenditure was put in the Naval Works Act when it involved millions of money on works the construction of which extended over a considerable number of years, and which were of a distinctly permanent character. It was argued with force and plausibility that the expenditure on large and important naval works which would benefit not only ourselves but our successors should be borne on the expenses not of a single year, in view of the fact that the terminable annuities were for twenty-five years. But when they came to look into the details of the matter they found that while large works were undoubtedly put into the Naval Works Act, there was also expenditure which certainly did not come under that category, and which it appeared to him would be much more suitable under the Naval Works Vote. At present they were putting in the Naval Works Act exactly analogous works which had been previously included in the Works Vote. There ought to be some justification for this practice. Credit was taken under the Naval Works Act of 1901 for dredging
598
and deepening the docks at the dock yards for a large sum, and for something over a million for improving coaling facilities. That might have been right or might have been wrong, but it was not a proper purpose for which money should be borrowed. In this Vote now before the Committee, notwithstanding what was done under the Naval Works Act of 1901, they found several items for dredging and improving coaling facilities. That showed that there was no hard and fast line as to what should be in the Naval Works Act and what should be borne on the Naval Votes of the year. There was a correspondence attached to the Appropriation accounts just issued which showed that instructions had been issued by the Admiralty to confine the works at Wei-hai-Wei to those which had been actually started. That showed that these works were essentially temporary in character, and yet the cost was going to be defrayed out of borrowed money and not borne on the Estimates of the year. He thought that was most improper, and more especially as Parliament had not been informed of this intention on the part of the Government to spend no more money at Wei-hai-Wei. If the House of Commons was to retain any control over the expenditure on the Naval Works they ought to have some statement from the Civil Lord as to the general grounds on which the Admiralty included one charge on the Votes and another charge in the Naval Works Act.
GENERAL LAURIEsaid he wished to follow the line of thought placed before the Committee by the hon. Member for Gateshead in pointing out that they had been building ships but had been making no preparation for repairing them. Actually in time of peace they had been driven to private yards to get the ordinary wear and tear repairs made. What then would be their position in war time? It seemed to him to be their first duty to have dockyards in which repairs could be carried out so as to send back disabled ships to their stations as soon as possible after being repaired. There was some difficulty in obtaining official information as to the supply of docks available, and although it could be obtained privately

599
they could not use it in debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth had pointed out the importance of keeping open the route for food which came round Cape Horn by the Falkland Islands, but practically all our food supply would pass the Eastern Atlantic and strike first the West Coast of these Islands. In time of war they ought to have these ships protected, and it was probably there that we should fight, but disabled ships would find a passage round the Land's End very dangerous, and yet there was no provision for refitting them on the West Coast north of the Land's End. It was true there were two docks at Haulbowline, but, practically, at these there was no establishment of men to do the repairs. At Milford Haven, on the other hand, there was a large establishment of men but no repairing dock. He hoped the Admiralty would consider this matter and make further arrangements for repairing ships and supplying proper dock accommodation, especially on the West Coast north of Land's End.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he wished for some explanation as to the expenditure on naval works at Wei-hai-Wei.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he wanted to support the appeal made to the Government by the hon. Member for East Perthshire. Some sort of line should be laid down by the Admiralty as to what should be put in the Works Bill and what on the Navy Votes; otherwise the House of Commons would lose its financial control. He rose particularly to ask a question of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty about the expenditure at Osborne. He supposed it was much more convenient to discuss the question of the cost of the school at Osborne on the Education Vote than on this particular Vote. It was a well-established financial principle of the Committee of Supply that no item should be voted for the service of the year unless the whole Vote for the service was before the Committee, In his younger days that principle was particularly observed. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that in some two or three years there
600
might be another demand for new works at Osborne. He thought that the omission to give the total expenditure was mainly caused by the hurry in which the resolution to adapt these premises was taken; but the Civil Lord ought to say what was the total estimate which the Admiralty considered sufficient to make the buildings at Osborne fit to receive the 200 cadets. That, surely, ought not to be a very difficult thing to state; and it ought to be stated before the amount was granted.
SIR A. HAYTERsaid he wished to emphasise the importance of the principle which had been laid down by his hon. friend the Member for Perthshire, namely, as to disassociating expenditure under the Naval Works Acts from expenditure taken on the Estimates. It was almost impossible for the Public Accounts Committee to find out what the expense on any particular item was. For instance, in the last issue of the Naval Works Act, £636,000 was taken for deepening the harbour approaches at Portsmouth; and £98,000 was subsequently taken on the Estimates. Therefore, it could not be said that only small sums were taken on the Estimates; and unless a definite principle was laid down it would be very difficult for the Public Accounts Committee to ascertain what the exact expenditure was. There was one item on the Estimates which had a very extraordinary history. It was the item for a cold meat store. Originally it was intended for an ammunition store, but when completed it was found to be too damp for that purpose. He asked about the matter the other day on the Army Estimates. The Secretary of State for War stated that £47,000 had been spent between the two services in adapting the store to a frozen meat store; and the right hon. Gentleman explained that the expense was mainly due to the freezing machinery which had been put in. But that only amounted to £9,000; and he could not understand, if the store had been properly built originally, that a sum of £38,000 would be required to turn it from an ammunition store into a frozen meat store. Then it also appeared that new canteens were to be constructed at Malta and Wei-hai-Wei; and he wished to know why only

601
a very small proportion of the total amount was now being asked for.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that the amounts taken for the comparatively small items mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman really depended on the time that the operations would be commenced. If they were going to commence immediately larger amounts would have to be asked for. But they were not going to commence at once; and the amounts they had asked for would be sufficient for the financial year. With reference to the cold meat store, it was a matter entirely of War Office expenditure and War Office direction of the works. The Admiralty asked for what they required; and where the work was for the accommodation of both services, as in this case, it was usual for either the Admiralty or the War Office, according to local necessities and local capacity, to undertake it, charging a proportion of the cost to each Department. In such a case the Department actually carrying out the work was held entirely responsible. Where, however, work was done by one Department for another, it had been recently laid down that it should be carefully inspected before being taken over, and before it was paid for. With reference to the details of the works he was afraid he was not in a position to give them to the right hon. Gentleman. They were prepared to pay their proportion of the actual cost, as far as the original amount expended was concerned, and he had no doubt that they were getting value for it.
As to the general question of the allocation of expenditure between Works Acts and the Votes, it was one of considerable importance. As regarded the question in the concrete, it was one which it was proper to discuss; but the hon. Member for East Perthshire, in the actual instances he brought forward, mentioned two or three cases where small sums had been expended under loans. That was the case some years ago, but was not the case now; and the instances referred to by the hon. Gentleman were works which were entirely out of date. The Schedule was not one which contained the works
602
actually now in progress, but all the works which had ever been included in a Naval Works Act since the present series commenced. He quite admitted that, as in all cases where a line had to be drawn, particular instances might arise in which it was rather difficult to draw it; but the principle had been correctly laid down by his right hon. friend the Member for the Cambridge University, who said that where there were large works of a permanent character the policy was that they would be justified in borrowing money for them; and throwing, in that manner, a portion of the charge on posterity. He thought if the Committee looked at the Schedule of the present Works Acts they would see that no item was included not in that category. It was true that some works were still placed on the Votes for which large sums of money had been taken on the Works Acts, especially for dredging and coaling. That was easily accounted for. With regard to dredging, it was very simple to draw the line. New dredging of a permanent character, where it was necessary to dredge out a berth and convert shallow water into 20 or 30 feet deep was a charge on the Works Act. On the other hand, maintenance dredging, which was constantly going on, and which would be required to keep the berths open, was a charge on the Votes. As to coaling, a sum of £1,000,000 sterling was taken in the Works Act of the year before last, as a special provision for large coaling depôts. None of that money was allocated for the ordinary work of providing coal stores, or the ordinary accommodation of the fleet for coaling; but it was most desirable, under the principle which was accepted by the House two years ago, that a large capital sum should be voted for the provision of coaling bases with modern appliances at certain specified stations. But that did not exempt the Admiralty from continuing expenditure under the Vote on the ordinary coaling service of the Fleet, which went on as before. He did not think that anything more was necessary to be said. With reference to the hospital at Wei-hai-Wei, it was at first difficult to decide whether it should be a loan item or be put on the Votes; but when the policy of Wei hai-Wei was changed, the amount

603
became clearly a Vote item. The cost of the Cape Hospital was also charged on the Votes.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked why only £1,000 was taken for Wei hai-Wei, and why such small progress was made when the total item was £45,000.
MR. PRETYMANsaid the reason why expenditure on Wei-hai-Wei was very small was that they were fortunate in securing a very large War Office building called Queen's House. When we originally took over Wei-hai-Wei as a station, practically the whole of the property was bought by the Admiralty and the War Office. Now under the new arrangement Wei-hai-Wei would be under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office. The military establishment had been withdrawn altogether and the Admiralty establishment had been reduced, and an arrangement had been made by which all the buildings which had been the property of the War Office and the Admiralty, and which were now no longer required by either of those Services, would be handed over to the Colonial Office, who would become the owners of them; but those buildings still required by the Admiralty for use were left in their possession. The Admiralty were also obtaining from the War Office the properties which they had and which the Admiralty now required. Among those was the largest house in the island, the Queen's House, for the purposes of a canteen. It was an entirely new building, and in that way the Admiralty did not see their way to spend more than £1,000. But they were not precluded from spending money if they found themselves able to do so, because the position of this Vote was that the Admiralty, with the sanction of the Treasury, could, if in any item they were able to make more progress, and if they were saving upon another item, spend on the one what they saved upon the other, always providing they did not exceed the total Vote of the year. That was the procedure which had been adopted, and there was no other possible way of dealing with the matter, because it was impossible to tell beforehand exactly how far conditions would allow progress to proceed on any single item.
604
With reference to the points raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Yarmouth, the residences at Jamaica were being built solely on sanitary grounds. The present accommodation was very insanitary, and these residences, when built, would be allocated to those who were now accommodated in the present insanitary area. They were not for new accommodation. With reference to the residences at St. Simon's Bay, in South Africa, they no doubt were rather costly, but that was due to the cost of labour in South Africa at the present moment, and the difficulty of hiring residences there. The Commander-in-Chief found it necessary to provide accommodation, although it was not usual, but it was absolutely impossible to get residences which were already built, and it had to be done in this way. With regard to the cook house and reading room at Esquimalt there was no new policy involved. The old cook house and reading room were described as being uninhabitable, and this was simply reprovision of accommodation. It was not in any way for dockyard ratings, but solely for men of the Fleet. It not infrequently happened that crews had to be landed to wait for other ships, or ships had to be refitted, and this money was to provide for the accommodation of the men in those cases. The Admiralty tenure of the land at Esquimalt was beyond dispute, and formed part of the naval reservation before Esquimalt existed. The accommodation at the Falkland Islands was for 6,000 tons of coal, which was covered and protected from the weather. The arrangements for coaling there were not on the modern scale, which would be most costly. The hon. Baronet must remember where these islands were. The most powerful fleet would think some time before attempting to molest them.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he did not speak of fleets but insignificant marauding cruisers which could coal at neutral ports within less than 600 miles of the Falklands.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he would not deal with the naval policy on this Vote, but the tender and barges provided

605
would always be available for transferring coal to ships coaling there. There were no defences at the Falkland Islands, that was not due to the advice of the War Office but the Admiralty, which considered that these islands must always be in the possession of those who held the sea, and were quite content to trust the Navy to defend them, and had not considered it necessary to make any demand for defences. With regard to the lunatics ward at Plymouth, that heading perhaps was rather misleading. There was an entire reconstruction going on at the present time at Plymouth, and this ward was one of those which had to be reconstructed, and the lunatics and prisoners there had to be provided for. There was no change of policy so far as Yarmouth was concerned; the expenditure there was the ordinary expenditure.
The hon. Member for Perthshire expressed the opinion that from the point of view of economy every item under the sub-head "Land" should be detailed for the Committee, and that before negotiations began there should appear on the Estimates the sum the Government were prepared to pay for land, and that this sum should be as large as was necessary to cover the purchase! He did not think that such a practice would conduce to economy. He did not think the hon. Member, if he were going to negotiate a purchase on his own account, would adopt any such practice. He hoped the Committee would give the Admiralty credit for doing their best for national economy and getting the land they required as cheaply as possible.
With regard to the boys' training establishments on land, the ships now used as training establishments for boys were rotten and insanitary, and the Admiralty had many cases where there had been illness, and some, unfortunately, of death. They had been able to make some comparisons, because there was a large training establishment for boys at Greenwich where there were 1,000 boys, and the comparison of that training establishment with a floating one with a similar number of boys had shown a distinct advantage in favour of training establishments ashore. Many of the boys had been brought from inland districts and had not had any previous
606
sea training, and it might be argued that if they were to be trained on shore they would not be brought into the sea-atmosphere which was so desirable. That was a natural and justifiable criticism, but the difficulty would be provided for by there being allotted to each training establishment, not an anchored vessel as at present, but a small cruiser, in which the boys would be able to obtain sea training under conditions much more resembling those of actual service than was at present possible; so that the Admiralty hoped to gain rather than to lose from that point of view. There was also an advantage as regarded the health of the boys. At present the boys on the ships slept in hammocks, and the medical officers considered that growing boys did not develop physically so well in hammocks as they would do if they slept in beds; therefore beds would be provided in these training establishments. The buildings would be of the bungalow type, about fifty boys being provided for in each, and in that way it was roughly estimated that accommodation would be provided at about £60 per boy. For obvious reasons he asked the hon. Member not to press him on the question of the sites. The total commitments for new items on the Vote, when completed, would amount to £560,000. Some of the works would take a considerable time to carry out, and that sum included the two large items of the Osborne Training Establishment, and the training establishments ashore for boys.
As to increasing the repairing accommodation in the yards, it was of enormous importance that in peace time the commercial yards should be given repairing work so that they might acquire actual experience in the work of repairing naval vessels; otherwise in war time delays might arise with very serious results to the country. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, the £40,000 asked for would provide practically the whole of the accommodation that would be required before the Britannia College was ready for occupation. As the work was not being carried out by the Admiralty

607
he had not studied the figures as he would otherwise have done. The land being Crown land, handed over not to the Admiralty but to the nation, the Office of Works had charge of the operations. The Admiralty were greatly indebted to the Office of Works for the manner in which, at such short notice, they had taken up the work. The matter was not proposed until about last Christmas, and that the buildings should be ready for 200 cadets by next August, which he hoped would be the case, was really a phenomenal result.
MR. LOUGHsaid the total of £560,000 was a gigantic sum for new commitments, and it was only reasonable to ask that all the items should be put together in future Estimates so that they could be considered beforehand. He also asked that particulars should be given of the purchase of any land that was to be borne on the Votes. The item had jumped from £15,000 to £40,000, but the practice of explaining its object which had prevailed with regard to the smaller sum had been departed from. He objected to the liberality with which the Admiralty were acceding to every appeal made to them. Items of an extraordinary character were being introduced. For instance, why should Malta get a theatre at a cost of £8,000? The very next item was £10,000 for a new church. Why should the Admiralty put up churches? If one at Eastney, why not others elsewhere? Then there was a swimming bath and a recreation room. None of these items had been explained. He should have thought sailors would swim in the sea. The fact of the matter was that the Admiralty had got into the habit of doing everything that anybody asked them to do without inquiring as to the cost or giving any particulars to the House of Commons.
MR. PRETYMANpointed out that there were about 15,000 active service ratings in the Mediterranean Fleet, of which Malta was the headquarters, and it was of enormous importance that the men should be provided with some rational amusement when ashore. The
608
men themselves, out of the canteen takings, provided considerable sums for the furnishing and running of the canteen and for providing amusement, recreation, and instruction for themselves. This matter had received very careful attention. The theatre was on Admiralty property, and as the Admiralty had for national purposes to retain power to resume possession of the land at any moment, it was not thought right that the savings of the men should be applied to the erection of permanent buildings in which they could not be allowed any property; therefore it had been decided to provide money and place it on the Votes. With regard to the church at Eastney, the marine barracks were a considerable distance from any existing church; a new church was absolutely necessary, and it had always been the policy of Parliament to provide money for the erection of churches or chapels for large garrisons, whether naval or military, where the men had not sufficient access to the parish church. As to the swimming bath, the hon. Member appeared to be of the opinion of the man who declared he would never go into the water until he could swim. These baths were for teaching the men to swim, and were part of the establishment.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,292,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
MR. KEARLEYsaid that this Vote was £200,000 in excess of the normal sum. The dietary of the Navy was a matter he had taken a considerable interest in for some years and he had raised the matter almost every year. His complaint in the past had been in regard to the lack of variety in the food, because for many years the dietary of the Navy had remained without any deviation. The meal hours used to be very curious indeed, and he was very

609
glad that the Admiralty had now recognised that the complaints made in former years, both with regard to the lack of variety in the food and the meal hours were well founded. The Admiralty now recommended that there should be five recognised meal times during the day, finishing up with a supper at half-past seven or eight o'clock at night. This would prove to be a great boon to the men, because under the old system a man used to get his last meal at half-past four, and he had to be on duty sometimes at four or five o'clock the next morning, and that was a great trial. As regarded the rations, the Committee which had gone into this question recommended an increase in variety and also an increase in quantity. It would be seen that the Committee's recommendations were fairly liberal from the fact that the additional cost was £187,000 per year. Since the Committee's Report was published the Navy had continued to increase, and he doubted very much whether the actual increase in the future would be less than £200,000 a year. This increase only applied to the service rations, and in addition to that the seamen had to supplement their dietary out of their own money, out, of savings obtained by a money grant for rations which they did not consume. The amount of these savings was largely increasing; that was to say, that the money grant in lieu of rations was largely increasing. The total amount voted this year for food was in round figures £1,288,000, and the amount paid back in savings was £520,000. A large portion of the service rations were, therefore, not taken up at all.
As the canteens now formed an official part of the victualling of the Fleet, he wished to call attention to their management. The Committee pointed out that the extension of the system of canteens had affected the quantity of service rations taken up by the men. If any further evidence was required he only needed to mention the fact that the annual canteen turnover of a battleship amounted to something like £6,000 a year. One would have supposed that the Admiralty would have considered it their duty to instruct the Committee to inquire into the conduct and management of canteens, but the terms of the
610
reference almost excluded it from their consideration. Hon. Members would find it stated in the Report that the Admiralty were not prepared to consider the question of the management of these canteens being placed directly under the Government, because they were satisfied that their existence on board ship gave great comfort to the men, and that the present system, under which they were practically managed by the men themselves, with certain officers for disciplinary purposes, was a sound one. Those were the terms of the reference laid down by the Admiralty, and they seemed to think that there was no room for any particular improvement, and they would have no hand whatever in the conduct and management of the canteen. He would try to prove that the system was not a good one, and he believed that he would be able to show that under the present canteen system corruption and bribery were rampant, that the men were "fleeced" and robbed, and that it was really such an important part of the victualling of the Navy that he did not think the Admiralty were justified in allowing this state of things to go on. He thought it was the supreme duty of the Admiralty to see that the management of these canteens was made efficient.
There were two systems of canteens, one called the service or co-operative system, and the other the tenant system. The tenant system mainly applied to depôts and barracks, and was more of a shore system, but the co-operative system prevailed most generally upon ships in commission away from the harbours. Nominally, under the co-operative system, the management was under the control of an officer who was the president of the committee. The committee was supposed to be elective and thoroughly representative of the lower deck. The committee were responsible for the prices at which the articles were sold, and they controlled the quality also. According to the Report they also distributed the profits. The men had to supplement the dietary by providing money out of their own pockets for the canteen, and they were charged an exorbitant profit upon the cost of the articles. These

611
profits were spent in a variety of ways. They went to provide prizes at sports, general amusements, contributions to service charities, and other purposes. The men were charged an excessive price for their food so that there would be a margin for these purposes. But, as a matter of fact, the actual management of these canteens was run by a small coterie from the lower deck in a hole-and-corner manner, and the crew at large had no idea of what was going on. They very rarely saw the accounts, and if they did see them, they were not in a position to discuss them. This little coterie from the lower deck made a practice of blackmailing the contractor, who, having submitted to the usual commission, regulated his prices accordingly. Therefore the consumer was the man who suffered all the time. Those were rather strong statements to make in the House of Commons, and he should have been a little loth to make them if he could not support them. These things were, however, shown in the Committee's Report. Not long ago he wrote to Lord Selborne, asking for a copy of the evidence given before this Committee, and he also asked whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to publish the evidence. Lord Selborne replied that the Admiralty had no intention of publishing that evidence because it was given before a Departmental Committee. The Committee had abundant evidence that bribery existed. He had a fair acquaintance with the men on the lower deck, having known a number of them for the last twelve years. He had heard what they had to say, but he did not press this subject simply because he was the representative of Devonport. He had received information from various channels in all parts of the world. It was no question of his constituents; in fact, the bulk of his information came from various stations where ships were in commission; and everything he had been told, verified the Report of the Committee who inquired into the matter.
The recommendation of the Committee was hardly worth considering seriously. It was that in future the commanding officer should have the selection of the canteen system to
612
be employed—that was to say, whether it was to be the co-operative system or what was called the tenant system. The commanding officer was also to have the selection of the tradesmen who were to supply the canteen. In another part of the Report it was mentioned that officers had the greatest objection to running these canteens, they had not the necessary training, and he did not think that particular recommendation would lead to much reform. He doubted whether any commanding officer would be able, single-handed, to stop the system of bribery and corruption which prevailed. He had a small bundle of letters in his hand, written not to him directly, but to the editor of a service paper, from fifty-six ships in commission, and from every station where the Navy went, complaining of this vile system of blackmailing and robbery. He thought these were not too strong terms to use. He was not going to attempt to shield the men who did the blackmailing. He did not say that it took place on every ship. He was perfectly willing to hand the letters to the Admiralty if they treated them confidentially and did not bring the men to book for complaining. He had classified the articles referred to, and had taken only those of daily consumption. He had put against them what would be a fair price for the men to pay on shore at home ports. The canteen price for sugar was 3d. to 6d. per lb. against 1½d.; cheese, 1s. to 1s. 4d. per lb. against 7d.; tea (which was free from duty on board His Majesty's ships) 1s. 8d. to 1s. 10d. per lb. against 10d.; tinned salmon, 9d. to 11d. per tin against 5d.; tinned herrings, 6½d. to 8d. per tin against 4d.; rice, 3d. to 5d. per lb. against 1½d.; currants, 8d. to 11½d. per lb. against 3d.; tapioca, 5d. to 6½d. per lb. against 2½d.; peel, 9d. to 1s. 7d. per lb. against 4d.; raisins, 7d. to 9d. per lb. against 3¼d.; Sunlight soap, 1s. to 1s. 1½d. per box against 7½d.; Quaker oats, 10d. to 11¼d. per lb. against 5½d.; and jams, 2½d. per tin against 1d. He had extracted these prices paid on board ship from the letters. He would read some extracts from the letters. From the "Illustrious" in the Mediterranean—
"I may state that there has been a lot of trouble caused over the canteen of late aboard

613
here. I really cannot side with the men for doing what they did. Their bills were so excessive they refused to pay them. Of course they were had over the coals for this, and eventually the money stopped out of their pay, and then they threw a lot of valuable service gear overboard because they had to pay. I hope that something will be done towards clearing such robbers out of His Majesty's ships."
From the "Centurion," Portsmouth—
"Prices charged are too great according to the ship's company's idea, and the goods that we had were of the most inferior quality and far dearer than bumboat prices anywhere in China or Japan. The ship's company have always been under the impression that the canteen was not properly managed; they had a new canteen committee every quarter—one for each branch; papers were sent round to each mess at the end of each quarter, but the lower deck did not even know who the majority of the votes were for, as it was never put on the canteen notice board."
From the "Cruiser," Naples—
"Maltese canteens are nearly all alike as regards the management of them and the way they are conducted; different prices for different ratings; English weights to-day and Maltese weights to-morrow; selling goods on board at double the price they can be procured ashore, are a few of the failings of the Maltese bumboat system. … Now our canteen is nothing better than the general run of them, if it is not worse. Our commanding officer told us when we were in Malta that if we were not satisfied with this canteen we could have another one. We were not satisfied with it, but we could not see the difference in Antonio Tabonio or Baptista Borda or Michael Borg robbing us, so we decided to retain the former, as we reckoned if we had to be robbed it was immaterial to us which of them it was. It is the system which is rotten, and I think the only way it can be remedied is by abolishing it altogether and substituting a better system."
From the "Sans Pareil," Sheerness—
"The general run of mess bills each month is 7s. 6d. to 10s. per man drawing 5s. per week, poor devils! and if they cannot pay their mess bills their leave is stopped till they can, so most of them get it stopped, as it takes over one week's pay to settle their mess."
From the "Cæsar," Lagos Bay—
"The goods supplied are far from being the best quality—in fact, it may be safely stated that the most inferior goods that can be purchased either from the local or British markets are the general rule."
From the "Perseus," Persian Gulf—
"I am sending an accurate list of our canteen stores, the exorbitant prices of which must surpass the prices of any other ship in the British Navy. Our men are up in arms about it. There are dozens of men whose private canteen bills during the last month have exceeded their month's pay, and then they have only just the bare necessaries of life. We
614
commissioned on March 7th last, and no statement whatever as to canteen accounts has been made, and all we can hear is 'canteen is so much in debt.' At Kurachi, where we could get things cheap, they stopped the bumboatmen from bringing these aboard, as it was stopping the sale of things in our canteen. Some of the things are of a very inferior quality, the butter not being fit for scouring bright work let alone eating."
He had scores of letters all contributing the same testimony. The Committee had suggested a reform, but he held that the Admiralty had a far larger responsibility than could be met by carrying out what was proposed. The Admiralty ought themselves to become buyers of those articles which were taken into the canteen, and sell them at a fair margin of profit. The men should not be left to the tender mercies of the scoundrels who blackmailed them by charging extravagant prices. If it would necessitate storage all over the world why not provide it? The present methods were quite out of date. The Admiralty objected to make a change on the ground that it would interfere with the general principles of victualling the Fleet. The general principle of victualling the Fleet was most extraordinary and reeked with red-tape. In time of war the whole service rations, the Admiralty Regulations stated, would be available, all accounts would disappear, and no savings would be granted to the men, who would have to take up their full sea victualling. And in pursuance of that principle the Admiralty said that they had always ready reserve stores to meet the emergencies of war. Therefore they crowded their Victualling Yards with stores which were not consumed, and were largely in excess of their requirements. The result was that the stores deteriorated, and became stale. There was little outlet for the articles in reserve in time of peace because they could be procured on shore. Consequently, when the Admiralty did issue them out of reserve, in the majority of cases they were stale. It was on record that beef thirty years old had been issued to the Fleet, and ten-year-old beef was not uncommon. The Committee said that the beef was satisfactory, but with that he disagreed, and he maintained that the system was antiquated and complicated. The Committee said that these stores were treated like superannuated servants, and after a certain period were compulsorily

615
retired. They were sent to a "rummage" sale, where they fetched a quarter of what they cost. The system was, therefore, not only costly, but it involved the Fleet receiving provisions that were not in a fit state to eat. He contended that, in the face of all these revelations, the Admiralty were not justified in retaining this antiquated system of keeping large reserves. He believed that the only satisfactory thing in the South African war was the feeding of the men. When the war came the manufacturers of the Empire were called upon, and they furnished sufficient supplies for the needs of the Army. He understood that the Admiralty said that the case of the Navy was quite different; but if they could not victual their Fleet in time of war, how could they expect to hold command of the sea in time of war? The Committee were entitled to ask the Admiralty to make some inquiry into this belated system. He sometimes wondered who would have to eat those articles which had been passed out of the reserve stores as not being considered good enough for the men of the Navy!
He had a few words to say as regarded the question of quality. There were two sources of supply from which rations were stocked for, and distributed to, the Navy—first, contractors, and second, the Government manufactories in the Victualling Yards. The Committee said in their Report that, so far as the quality of the goods supplied by the former was concerned, everything was satisfactory, and that the quality of the goods from the latter was perfectly satisfactory. But from facts frequently brought under his notice, he held that every article manufactured by the Government was bad except cocoa, and the very best proof of that was that the men refused to take them up. On page 16 of this Report of the Committee there was a reference to flour. Now, the Government made their own flour. But the Committee admitted that there was a consensus of opinion among the officers and men that the service flour was inferior to that purchased in the canteen. The service flour was—
"Coarser, darker in colour, did not mix readily for the purpose of making bread, and was regarded by the men with a good deal of prejudice."
616
The Committee investigated the matter very carefully, and were convinced that although it differed from the canteen flour it was not of inferior quality. Now, he always thought that the consumer was the best judge of the quality of an article: and he insisted that the men of the lower deck were better judges of the service flour than two or three admirals, post-captains, and the other members of the Committee. Again, that Committee said that the flour was manufactured from the finest wheat that could be procured, and underwent no adulteration during manufacture. Nobody suggested that it was adulterated, but why was it that the flour manufactured in the Victualling Yards was "coarser, darker in colour, and did not mix readily for the purpose of making bread?" Were these the attributes of the flour milled from the "finest wheat" by the flour manufacturers in the country provided with the best machinery in the world? Why should the Government engage in this sort of manufacture and in turning out rascally bad flour—as they did? Then take the ships biscuit. The Committee said that there was no real ground of complaint. He had heard that statement over and over again. The fact was that the biscuit was complained of. If there was not very much to be said about the quality of the biscuit, he should have a good deal to say about the cost. He was certain that from some of the best firms of biscuit bakers in the country the Admiralty could get a better quality of biscuit at a much lower price. Again, the Admiralty manufactured their own oatmeal at the Victualling Yards. At page 20 of the Report of the Committee there was a criticism of the consumer of oatmeal. It was said that as an ordinary article of diet oatmeal was not appreciated in the Navy, and, except by stokers, was scarcely ever taken up. Therefore it was to be abolished from the dietary of the Navy. But why did not the men take up the oatmeal? It was because it was a bad article. He had seen the oatmeal himself and he declared that it was shocking to attempt to impose it on the men. It was a libel to call it oatmeal at all; it was a most inferior article. The Scotch had a worldwide reputation for making oatmeal. There were great firms in Scotland who could manufacture oatmeal very much cheaper and better than the Admiralty

617
could manufacture it He had been examining the Victualling Accounts and found that it cost the Government 15s. 9d. per 100 lbs. to manufacture oatmeal, while the price at which they could buy it in the open market, delivered at Deptford, was 11s. 2d. per 100 lbs., so that the Admiralty were imposing an additional tax on the poor seamen of 39 per cent for every 100 lbs. of oatmeal supplied to them from their Victualling Yards. He was perfectly safe in saying that the additional cost of production of those articles in the Victualling Yards was from £10,000 to £20,000. Again, take ships biscuits; the cost of these, manufactured in the Victualling Yards, was 16s. 1d. per 100 lbs.; while he had it from channels that might be relied upon that biscuits as good in quality, if not better, could be purchased by the Government in the open market at 9s. 6d. per 100 lbs. Why should the Admiralty go on producing an inferior article at a cost 41 per cent. dearer than they could purchase it from outside manufacturers of the highest repute? There was another article for which the Admiralty were responsible, and that was suet. There was general complaint throughout the Fleet that this suet was an abomination. It was not fit for anyone to consume; it was wholly insanitary; and were it not for that fact, he would press the hon. Gentleman to have a sample of it placed on the Terrace—he would not suggest the tea room—in order that hon. Members might see for themselves what a vile article it was. He had said enough to show that the whole output of the Government, excepting cocoa, was bad. But as regards that, he would suggest that some of the great cocoa manufacturers in the country would be able to produce the article the Admiralty required at a lower price than they could produce it themselves. He would suggest to the Government that they should reconsider their position as manufacturers, and that they should appoint an expert Committee to inquire into the prices for which the articles they now manufactured could be produced by manufacturers of good repute. They were commonplace products, which did not require technical knowledge, as was required in the manufacture of guns; and there were many firms of the highest reputation in this country and
618
the colonies from which the Admiralty could draw their supplies. In conclusion, he would ask whether the hon. Gentleman was disposed to recommend to the Admiralty that they should grant an inquiry into the manufacturing side of their operations. He was perfectly satisfied that they were costly, and that it would be in the interest of all concerned that they should be discontinued. He begged to move the reduction standing in his name.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,292,400, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Kearley.)
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that this was a cross issue, and not a question as between one side of the House and the other. The real principle of the matter was that the Government should themselves supply the great bulk, indeed almost the whole, of what the men required. Then the notorious abuses of the canteen system would be removed. The Secretary to the Admiralty had himself recently seen the German Fleet; and he would be able to tell the Committee what the German system was. They knew what the American system was. He had some reason for thinking that the German system was superior to their own, but undoubtedly the American system was enormously superior. Although in the past the United States Fleet was comparatively small, yet there had been a rapid increase in recent years; and undoubtedly the feeding of the United States Navy was immeasurably superior to that of the British Navy. He could not but think that they would have to level up the quality and conditions of supply, not only in the manner suggested by the Committee, but to a much greater extent. The Committee laid down that it was the duty of the State to give the men all they needed to keep them in a thorough condition of health; and that the men should not be required to purchase additional food, but should be given a sufficient ration to keep them in health. That would get rid of the enormous amount of purchasing which existed at present. He had no experience which would enable him to say how far the men ought to be allowed

619
to pay for canteen purchases; but if the general principle were accepted that the Admiralty should supply enough of sufficiently varied food to keep the men in health, then a great proportion of existing canteen abuses would be removed at once. No one would deny the existence of these abuses. The Secretary to the Admiralty knew the Fleet so well that he must have heard of them; and if anyone went even to Malta and kept his ears open he would hear of them there. The abuses were grotesque in their character and amount; but he doubted whether the remedy suggested by the Committee was sufficient to strike them all away. He thought they would have to go farther. In the United States Fleet there was a much more plentiful and regular supply of fresh meat, vegetables and soft bread for the men. He was certain that the baking of bread would have to become general in their ships just as it was general now in the ships of the United States Navy, where bread was baked every morning sufficient for the ship's company. There must be some grounds for the statements of his hon. friend as to the inferiority of the provisions supplied from the Victualling Yards; but he hesitated to go the whole length of his hon. friend, and to say that any inferiority of food damned the whole system of manufacturing for themselves. Was it not possible that the very abuses that they had been pointing to year after year, threw some light on the inferiority of those products. Year after year, they had said with regard, for instance, to the Deptford Victualling Yard, that men were employed even below labourers' wages to perform skilled work. His hon. friend especially excepted cocoa; and said there were fewer complaints with regard to it. Nevertheless, a few years ago a condemnation of Government chocolate on an immense scale took place at Malta. On the Estimates this year would be found a special grant to the person who supervised the manufacture of chocolate; but their complaint, year after year, was that they employed for the purposes of skilled manufacture a class of labour from which they could not expect a finished product. He would conclude as he began, by saying that the canteen
620
abuses were very great, that they were universally acknowledged, and that they could hardly be entirely remedied by the measures proposed by the Departmental Committee. The Government must look forward to acting in the direction of the United States Government, and to greatly improve and modernise the food of the seamen.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER)said no apology was needed for bringing this question before the Committee. It was a very important question; and he hoped he should be able to show, in the first place, that the discontent was not as serious as the hon. Gentleman represented it to be, and also that the Admiralty were fully alive to certain defects, to some of which the hon. Gentleman called attention. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been very great delay—three years—in carrying out the recommendations of the Victualling Committee. That was in exact on the hon. Gentleman's own statement. The Report was received in July, 1901; and its recommendations would be brought into effect in October of the present year. That was an interval of considerably less than three years. Of course, it was absolutely necessary that an important Report of this kind should be very carefully considered by several Departments of the Admiralty, and should be laid before the Treasury before any action could be taken. When those processes had been gone through, a decision was come to, very properly as he thought, by the Admiralty, and steps were taken in the direction of the recommendations in the Report. A new scale of rations was decided upon, but before it could be brought into operation, it was necessary that stocks of the provisions not hitherto included in the ration should be provided at all stations throughout the world, in order that on a given day the whole Fleet should be uniformly able to adopt the new scale. He hoped that in October they would arrive at that stage, and the improved scale would then take effect. Perhaps, however, hon. Members would like to know that the Admiralty had been able in one not unimportant particular to anticipate that date, for they had already intro-

621
duced the new scale recommended by the Committee on board the home training ships. He thought no one could exaggerate the importance of giving boys, not only as much food as they required—that they had always had—but food of that description which was essential to them at their particular time of life, which he was not equally certain that they had always had. The hon. Member spoke of the quality and the quantity of the food, and of the times at which the food was taken. The Admiralty had recognised that there was room for improvement in all these respects. The character of the food was to be changed. A greater variety of food was to be included in the ration; and the additional cost, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman himself, might be taken as some measure of the improvement which was to be made. The meals had been increased from three to five; though it should not be supposed that at present a man did not get a meal between his supper and the time he turned in. He was always able to obtain additional food. [Mr. KEARLMY: At his own expense.] Yes, out of savings. He mentioned these points to show that the Admiralty did not appoint this Committee for nothing. The Committee took a vast amount of evidence from every class of officer and man in the service; and the Admiralty were not going to throw that information away, but were acting on it in an effective manner. Now he would come to a much more debatable matter.
The hon. Member referred to the question of canteens; and he thought that some hon. Members were probably misled by the hon. Gentleman's somewhat vehement attack on the canteen system In reality, whatever was important in the hon. Member's indictment should be turned to quite a different direction. He should like to explain the circumstances with regard to these canteens. They had been told that there was a large amount of corruption in connection with the canteens. Statements to that effect undoubtedly appeared in the Report of the Victualling Committee, and one hon. Member stated that the corruption was aggravated owing to the fact that men who drew stores from the canteen got inferior
622
articles, and had to pay too much for them. How did that arise? The Admiralty had always undertaken to be responsible for furnishing rations adequate and sufficient for the maintenance of the men; but it had been contended that they had misconceived the amount and the quality that fulfilled that condition; and they had agreed to give larger and more varied rations. There their responsibility ended. They could not prevent the men who had money in their pockets from spending that money in supplementing any rations that might conceivably be given. The hon. Member had contended that the supply of additional food to the men should be taken over by the Admiralty, who should create in each ship a sort of general store from which the men could purchase what they wanted. That would, perhaps, be an ideal solution; but it must be remembered that they were now dealing with the expenditure by the men of their own money, and he would undertake to say that every naval man would say that the moment an attempt was made to transfer the canteens to official direction there would be discontent on the part of the men. It was entirely in deference to the personal wishes of the men that the canteen committees were being continued. These committees were elected freely and openly by the men. They were representative of the men, and everybody who knew anything about Englishmen knew very well that they would exercise their own judgment in spending their own money, however bad that judgment might be. He was quite certain that if the feeling of the lower deck were taken, it would show that to prohibit the men from laying in a stock of provisions for their own use would create a large amount of discontent. They would immediately find that the men would complain that the articles provided for the canteen were either not suitable, or that the prices charged for such articles were more than they could afford to pay. The hon. Member had spoken of the price of the articles. It was perfectly true that many of the prices were exorbitant, but that was due entirely to the action

623
of the committees who managed the canteens, and who were representative of the men themselves, and the men must themselves control those they appointed, seeing that they were the persons who suffered. That was the most effective remedy for the evils from which they, undoubtedly, did suffer. But the Admiralty was not blind to these difficultics. They regretted as much as the hon. Member that there should be these cases of mismanagement and corruption; which were alleged and, indeed, proved against members of the ship's company who were put in a position of trust by their own comrades. Since the Committee reported, the Admiralty had issued a circular to the whole Fleet which had done something to mitigate that state of affairs. That circular declared that mess men, ship's stewards, and others should not have any interest in canteens, and provided that the accounts should be under the direct supervision of the captain and officers, and should be audited at frequent intervals. This would deprive the members of the committees of the temptation which resulted from having supplies of moneys in their hands not accounted for. He did not know whether this circular would produce the effect they all desired; but he believed that, taken in conjunction with the larger rations the Admiralty proposed to give, it would do something. But unless and until the Admiralty saw their way to forbid men making any purchase of provisions for themselves, they could not prevent men spending their money in the way they thought best.
With regard to the quality of the rations, he thought the hon. Member had greatly exaggerated. The hon. Member had spoken of beef having been kept for something like ten years. He did not know whether there had even been an actual period of ten years, but he did know of one case where a large amount of salted beef had been bought and kept for a long period and was absolutely unfit for use, and that directly that case was discovered, steps were immediately taken to provide against a recurrence of any such thing in the future. The Admiralty had taken steps, which ought to be of great advantage, to secure a more regular
624
turnover of all provisions, in order that they should be withdrawn before they had any opportunity of deteriorating. It was very difficult to secure a turnover of what he might term the stock victualling provisions of a ship, but the Admiralty were taking steps to see that they were turned over periodically.
MR. KEARLEY: Once in how many years?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That would depend on the class of provisions
MR. KEARLEY: Take beef.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not say as to salt beef, of which very little was supplied or consumed, but as to tinned beef the Admiralty had arranged to draw direct from the trade what they wanted for their war reserves, and were endeavouring to extend the arrangement still further, so that if they did not draw the amount arranged, then the trade were to pass it out of stock and sell it. With regard to flour, he entirely disagreed that the flour supplied had been bad. It was very good flour, but this was one of those cases in which what was good was not always appreciated. He believed it contained a certain amount of bran, and was what was called wholemeal flour, and though it was very wholesome and very nourishing the men did not appear to like it.
He had often had bread baked for him from this flour, and was bound to admit that when he had this flour before him side by side with the Hungarian flour which the men preferred, he rather shared the opinion of the sailors. Under the circumstances he thought the Admiralty had taken a wise course. Inquiries were now being made as to whether the flour the men desired to have could not be better obtained in the open market. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had drawn attention to the fact that in the fleets of Germany, France, and other nations, bread was baked on board the ships That had been tried upon our ships, but whether it was that we were not a bread-eating nation to the same extent as others or not, he did not know, but the practice had

625
not been generally adopted. The Committee, after Carefully considering the matter, decided that it was not desirable to have on every ship a regular installation for baking bread for the whole ship's company. The criticisms of the hon. Member for Devonport as to the quality of the food supplied were greatly exaggerated; they certainly did not apply to the flour, the pork, the cocoa, or the biscuit. The biscuit was an exceedingly palatable and excellent form of food, but be did not know whether Members would like to take it in perpetuity instead of bread; as a matter of fact the sailors did not do so. It had, however, to be remembered that in time of war it was absolutely necessary to have a store which could be depended upon as a substitute for bread when the ships were a long time away from harbour. Oatmeal had not been appreciated, and there seemed to be no reason why it should be continued as a ration. Another ration which at one time it was thought would be appreciated was dried potatoes, but that again, in accordance with the wishes of the men, it had been decided to discard.
The hon. Member, who spoke on this point with great authority, said that the cost of manufacturing some of these articles in the victualling yards was in excess of the cost to private manufacturers. While he would like to hear the other side of the question he did not seriously dispute the hon. Member's knowledge. But the Admiralty had to consider, not only the question of peace, but the question of war, and as long as the Admiralty adhered to the policy—he thought it was a good policy—of being able to supply certain of the principal stores in time of war, it was necessary to keep up in the victualling yards establishments capable of extension, with plant to enable the demand, which would be very great in time of war, to be overtaken. He did not in the least undervalue the remarks of the hon. Member would give the Director of Victualling the benefit of the views, he would be heard with courteous attention, and the exchange of views would probably be of benefit. The Admiralty had really
626
done a great deal more than the hon. Member would have the Committee I believe in the way of improving the arrangements for the comfort of the men on board ship. They had improved the scale of victuals; the quantity had been increased, and the quality improved. The new scale had been introduced on the boys' training ships, and steps were being taken to ensure the freshness and the quality of the provisions to a greater extent than had hitherto been the case. Lastly, the Admiralty were taking a step which he thought would commend itself to the Committee, and certainly to the sailor. From time immemorial the sailor had used his pocket-knife to cut his provisions, and there was a time when not only the agricultural labourer, but almost every working man did the same thing. But that time had long gone by on land; and the superior refinement of modern civilisation had dictated the use of knife, fork, and plate That innovation had been begun at sea. A certain class of the ship's company had been supplied with those really elementary utensils, but they had not hitherto been served out to the ship's company at large. Money was now being taken to provide the whole of the ships' companies with knives, forks spoons and plates, which it was believed would be a welcome addition, and prove a great boon to the men when the new vitualling scale came into force.
SIR JAMES JOICEYwas glad to find the Admiralty had not lost sight of the Report on these food questions, for they were matters of great importance. One of the first duties of the Admiralty, if they desired to have efficient and contented men, was to see that the food supplied was of the best description. He recognised the difficulty of the Admiralty dealing with the canteen system when the Committee was elected practically by, and was responsible to, the men themselves, but, at the same time, having to a certain extent regulated or approved of the system, they could not altogether divest themselves of the responsibility of seeing that it was carried out satisfactorily. The system of illicit commissions was dangerous and

627
injurious to any industry. A committee, whether connected with a ship or an organisation on shore, could not serve two masters; and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would look into this question, and put a stop to the system if possible. The Government were not free from responsibility as to the class of goods supplied by these committees. Employers on shore were prohibited from having anything to do with the truck system, and the least the Government could do was to see that the goods were properly inspected. As to the stock of provisions for time of war, he could not agree that the quality was always good. During the recent war it had been noticed that whereas the food on the ships supplied by private owners was always of excellent quality, that on ships supplied by the Admiralty was often extremely bad. An officer had stated to him that he was unfortunately on board a ship where the food was from Admiralty stores, and the beef supplied to the men was disgraceful. After being boiled for two hours it was still black and hard as leather, and some of it had to be thrown overboard. There was much to be said for the abolition of the victualling yards. He agreed that instead of themselves manufacturing many of the supplies it would be better to buy them in the country, because private firms, having to face competition, had for their own sakes to keep the best qualities of supplies.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that what the men wanted was not so much greater variety as increase of quantity. He asked whether there was really any bonâ fide provision made for supper for the men.
MR. JOHN BURNSthought that when a man with the commercial skill and technical knowledge of the hon. Member for Devonport made such statements as he had done in the full light of publicity, in the House of Commons, there must be a grievance at the back of them, even though the statements were exaggerated in some particulars. The hon. Member had stated that the condition of the Navy was not so
628
bad as had been stated, and he had said that he was fully alive to what was going on. That was only a roundabout way of endorsing the substance of the complaint of the hon. Member for Devonport. The Admiralty ought to give this question immediate consideration. Some of the grievances which had been laid before the House did not exist in the French, German, or American Navies, and what was said to be the most efficient Navy in the world, in the matter of feeding 120,000 men and boys, ought not to be behind the French, German, or American Navies in supplying an excellent variety of food. It had been said that the canteen was not an official institution, but it was recognised by the Admiralty to such an extent that the canteen on board every ship was a feature of naval life which was officially recognised, and which the officials were responsible, to some extent, for carrying on. He rose to remind the Admiralty that even if they had not officially recognised the canteen, it was such an important part of ship life, and made either for peace or discontent, that it was exceedingly important that it should be properly managed in order to stop the lower-deck grumbling and discontent which unfortunately prevailed. He believed that the right way out of the difficulty was to dispense with the necessity for these unofficial canteens by altering the variety and the quality of the food, and minimising the jobbery which existed under the present system.
The Secretary to the Admiralty admitted the high prices charged. When they heard that men had to pay from 50 to 100 per cent. higher prices for the common necessaries of life, it indicated that things were not as good on board as they ought to be. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would give this matter closer attention, and see if such abuses could not be stopped. It had been said that arrangements were being made for a better and more frequent turnover of the food. He supposed that meant that certain beef casks would be examined and if found unsatisfactory would be returned to the stores; that tinned food was to be more often inspected. He did not think that was

629
sufficient. When tinned or salted food was considered unfit for consumption in the Navy, it should be subjected to a chemical bath and for ever destroyed. He was convinced that much of the food given to some of the soldiers on the South African transports was food that had been condemned by the Admiralty as unfit for the sailors. This food was bought up again at such places as Stepney and Mile End, and consequently the troops were fed upon condemned naval stores. But even if the soldiers were not fed upon such food, civilians had no right to be tempted by their poverty to buy those stores. He believed that the food recently condemned in the East End would be found to be the food which was considered not good enough for the sailors, although it was considered good enough for some of the alien Jews in the East End of London.
They ought to put an end to the incessant discontent and grumbling and occasional fights which the present canteen system begat aboard many of their vessels. It was the duty of the Admiralty either to abolish the canteen altogether, as at present existing, or else lay the responsibility of the chairman-hip of the canteen committee upon two of the junior officers, so that the men would have some one to appeal to. He believed that if two of the junior officers were made chairman and vice-chairman of the canteen committee, they would find out the petty officers who were responsible for making the jailors pay 1s. 4d. instead of 7d. for cheese, and 1s. 8d. or 1s. 10d. instead of 9d. for tea. They should run the canteen committee under the supervision of one of the commissioned officers, and then all the cause of this discontent would be removed. He hoped the admiralty would give the men a greater variety of food, and appoint officers to be canteen committee as he had suggested. Failing this, the Admiralty light to remove the discontent by abolishing this unofficial canteen committee, and by seeing officially that the nations were of such a character and variety as the men below deck would be intent and satisfied with. The men id a right to demand that they should be treated in such a way as to get their food as fresh and with as great a variety
630
as possible. A French sailor was able to get cheap and fresh food, and so were the sailors in the American Navy; and if the hon. Gentleman would inquire, he would see how those navies had suppressed red-tape and brought their food arrangements up to date. He felt sure that the same thing could be done by the British Admiralty. He was indebted to the hon. Member for Devonport for raising this question, and he was satisfied that the Admiralty recognised the truth of all his statements. He asked the hon Member who was responsible to the Committee for this section of naval administration to go further than he had been willing to go that afternoon, and to overhaul the victualling yard at Deptford. If he found after inquiry that the management at Deptford was not as good as it ought to be, then he should get rid of the present management. Apart from the wages being bad at Deptford he did not believe that there was that practical knowledge of technical manufacture that the Navy demanded. He suggested that the hon. Member for Devonport, the Secretary to the Admiralty, and another practical man should form a small sub-committee to visit Deptford victualling yard in order to see if it was up-to-date; and if it was found defective a small Committee should be appointed to reorganise the victualling department.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he agreed that the hon. Member for Devonport deserved thanks for the persistent war he had brought this question before the House. He thought, however, that great credit was also due to the persistent efforts of a late Member of the House, Admiral Field, who, in season and out of season, had kept before the House the necessity for making an alteration in the dietary of the men. He thought it was going a little too far to say that the State could provide everything that was wanted by the different tastes of men on board ship. The policy of the Admiralty ought to be to do everything that was possible to bring the different branches of the Service together, so as to make them a homogeneous naval service, and that meant an entire change in the position occupied by the Marines. The whole

631
trend of policy (which must end in that) was an acknowledgment that the Marine was now an anachronism and was bound to be absorbed in the Navy. In regard to the simple matter of clothing, he would point out that the State paid £4 17s. per head for bluejackets, whereas the cost per head for the unsuitable dress of the Marines was £6. If the Admiralty were to clothe the bluejackets in the same way as the Marines there would be an addition to this vote of over £100,000. The attention of the Admiralty ought to be directed to this matter. He wished to call attention to another matter, which was of some importance in promoting perfect harmony betwixt the different branches of the Service. On board ship the Marines and the bluejackets were not all on an equality with regard to victuals, allowances in lieu of victuals, tobacco, and so on. Where they were in the same naval barracks on shore they were all on an equality, but the Marine in a marine barracks was not on an equality in these matters with either bluejacket or Marine in a naval barracks and he therefore asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to look into the matter with the view to introducing a remedy. He thought the Admiralty should endeavour to equalise the conditions of the two branches of the Service when in barracks on shore.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERthought the hon. Member for Battersea was rather hard on the Admiralty in dealing with them in the spirit in which he did. As he had already stated, the hon. Member for Devonport, whose earnestness in the matter they all recognised, had in some respects rather exaggerated his case. Many of his criticisms applied only to the state of affairs prior to the Report of the Committee being received and acted upon, and the Admiralty had recognised that in many respects the old arrangements might be improved. It was a little unfair to say that all the hon. Member's remarks applied to the present state of things, when by instituting the the new scale of rations and introducing other improvements, the Admiralty were carrying out to the best of their ability the recommendations of the Committee. The Admiralty often received very
632
good advice from hon. Members on subjects which had already engaged attention, and on which action had already been taken, and he was always glad to find that excellent advice given by hon. Members had already been anticipated. The hon. Member for Battersea had furnished him with another case in point. He said it would be a good thing if, in the effort to regulate the canteens, the Admiralty could introduce commissioned officers into the management. As a matter of fact the Admiralty already had given orders, in the Fleet Circular already referred to, that the canteens were to be administered by a representative Committee, of which the executive officer of the ship was to be ex officio president, and of which at least one other officer was to be a member. He attached great importance to the presence and co-operation of officers on these Committees, to see that irregularities were not allowed to occur. He wished the hon. Member, however, had been a little more explicit as to this question of canteens; for it was really a question of taking or leaving. Were they or were they not prepared to stop the existence of canteens on board ship? The Admiralty were not at present prepared to take the responsibility for the canteens on board the ships, The irregularities did not occur in respect of any of the Admiralty regulations, but on account of the differences between the various members of the Committees. He thought that it was going a little too far to accuse the Admiralty of not doing something in a matter which they had no power to control, beyond taking the steps he had already described. With regard to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth as to the difference, under certain circumstances, of the treatment in respect of allowances of Royal Marines and bluejackets, he said they must have regard to the conditions of the two Services as a whole. The Royal Marines were raised under a different engagement, they had different duties to perform, different emoluments, and a different system of training from that in the other branches of the Service. The question of these allowances could not be considered apart from these

633
other points of difference. As to the question whether it would be desirable to alter the dress, he said his impression was that the uniform of the Royal Marines was very much appreciated by the men themselves, and he had never heard of any complaint from them as to its unsuitability for the Service. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had asked a number of questions in regard to rations. The full ration for the mid-day meal had now been divided into two parts. The second portion, which was retained for the evening meal, was taken with cocoa. He understood that was regarded as a satisfactory arrangement, because, as he had more than once stated, the chief complaints that had been made in regard to the victualling were not that the food was insufficient in amount or of inferior quality, but that it was supplied at times which were not agreeable to the men or consistent wth due attention to health.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought that on the whole the answer of the Secretary to the Admiralty was satisfactory. His hon. friend the Member for Devonport might very well rest satisfied with the discussion he had initiated. In the circumstances he hoped his hon. friend would not think it necessary to proceed to a Division.
MR. KEARLEYsaid he would withdraw the Amendment. The Committee had pointed out in their Report that the canteens were officially recognised, and therefore the Admiralty had a direct responsibility for the men getting value for their money. He asked the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind, and see whether the grievance which he had ventilated could not be remedied. The men, also, should not be levied upon for the purchase of prizes for regattas, or for oilskins for boats' crews, which he maintained was an illegal exaction. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original question again proposed.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he wished to draw the attention of the Committee for the fourth time to
634
the question of the wages paid to the unskilled labourers employed at the Royal Victoria Victualling Yard at Deptford. The men worked in that yard under precisely similar conditions of employment as the men engaged by the War Office at Woolwich. Everything which had been urged with so much weight by the hon. Member for Woolwich in regard to the payment of a living wage at Woolwich held good, and was even more emphasised at Deptford. House rents were even higher than at Woolwich. Three shillings per week was the lowest price for which a decent room could be obtained, while the rent of two rooms was 8s. 6d. per week. He was aware that the Admiralty had improved the wages of these men a year or two ago by 1s. per week; that was to say, after keeping the men waiting for two or three years, and placing them in a worse position than the men working under like conditions for the War Office at Woolwich, the Admiralty had given them a rise of 1s. per week, which had improved their condition but very slightly indeed. It had been shown in the debate connected with the Woolwich workmen that 24s. was practically the lowest living wage for an unskilled labourer in the area of the county of London. He was not exaggerating when he stated that, except in the case of well-known sweaters, no employer of labour in or near Deptford, or in South London, paid less than 24s. per week. It was time the men working under the Admiralty were treated with some consideration, and he was not disposed to let this Vote pass without moving a reduction of £100, in order that it might be clearly ascertained what proportion of the Committee were in favour of giving these men the living wage to which they were entitled. At the wages now paid the best labour could not be obtained, and the coming and going of labourers in the establishment at Deptford was a detriment to efficiency, and a loss to the taxpayer. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £2,292,400 be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that when a similar question was raised in regard to the payment of labourers at Woolwich below the current rate, the Secretary of State for War had expressed a desire to consult with the Admiralty officials as to what the rate of pay should be at the Government establishments. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to go into sympathetic consultation with the Secretary of State for War with the view, if possible, of raising the wages in Deptford and Woolwich from 19s. or 21s. a week to 23s or 24s. a week. He was sure that if the hon. Gentleman did that he would have the consensus of the opinion of the House behind him. He knew that 19s. or 21s. a week for making biscuits or cocoa was below the current rate of wages in South London.
MR. KEAELEYpointed out that the discussion the previous week had not been confined to Woolwich, but had referred to other Departments in the country. He himself had shown that the question related also to the Admiralty establishments at the home ports. It was ten or twelve years since the Admiralty had given any consideration to the wages of the poorest paid men in these establishments.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that the pledge given by the Secretary of State for War that this question would be considered by the War Office and the Admiralty in consultation would be fulfilled. Any one who heard what had been stated in the late debate could not but have sympathy with the men who had to pay such high rents. But the question was a very large one, which affected not Deptford alone, and not the labourers alone; they could not go beyond the pledge already given.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was glad to hear that an inquiry would be made into the general condition of the labourers employed by the Admiralty as well as of those under the War Office. Certainly such a pledge had been given the other night by the Secretary of State for War. The Civil Lord had said that this was a large question; it was a large
636
question, and had been often raised in this House. He congratulated his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Newington, W., for his praiseworthy persistency in bringing this matter before the House, and he hoped that good would be done. He would remind the Committee that the House of Commons had passed a specific Resolution that contractors should pay the current rate of wages; and it should not be forgotten that the House of Commons had also said, by Resolution that the Government should be a model employer of labour. If the Government were to be a model employer of labour it would not do to fall behind other employers. He did not think that up to the present moment any Government had fully recognised their responsibilities in this respect. After all, the taxpayers themselves did not desire that the Government should be a sweating employer.
MR. ARNOLD - FORSTERsaid he wished to make it quite clear that he was not competent or authorised to vary in any way the pledge given by the right hon. the Secretary of State for War that he would consider this matter in consultation with the Admiralty.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not wish to go further than that. But the Committee understood that the Secretary of State for War had promised to inquire into the state of the labourers employed under the War Office, and they wanted the same promise made in regard to the Admiralty labourers.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he did not attach the slighest importance to the promise given by the hon. Gentleman. He had been put off year after year with such promises; and after five years he only succeeded in getting an advance of a shilling. He was now about to be put off with another promise would the hon. Gentleman definitely promise to give the men in the Deptford victualling yard an advance of a shilling? If the hon. Gentleman would not promise that he would divide.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 76;

AYES

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Ambrose, Robert

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rose, Charles Day

Bell, Richard

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Burns, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burt, Thomas

Labouchere, Henry

Soares, Ernest J.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sullivan, Donal

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

Crombie, John William

Levy, Maurice

Tennant, Harold John

Cullinan, J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Dalziel, James Henry

Lundon, W.

Toulmin, George

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Delany, William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wallace, Robert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Govern, T.

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Dunn, Sir William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Fenwick, Charles

O'Dowd, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

O'Mara, James

Gilhooly, James

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Reddy, M.

Captain Norton and Mr. Lough

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

Rigg, Richard

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Gretton, John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cranborne, Viscount

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Cust, Henry John C.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hogg, Lindsay

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

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

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

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Beckett, Ernest William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Duke, Henry Edward

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Bignold, Arthur

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bigwood, James

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lawson, John Grant.

Bull, William James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Butcher, John George

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasg.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dnblin Univ

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maconochie, A. W.

Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm

Flower, Ernest

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. (Worc

Forster, Henry William

Majendie, James A. H.

Chapman, Edward

Eyler, John Arthur

Malcolm, Ian

Charrington, Spencer

Galloway, William Johnson

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Gardner, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

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

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Milvain, Thomas

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

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

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Noes, 171. (Division List, No. 46.)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Morrell, George Herbert

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Valentia, Viscount

Mount, William Arthur

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

Russell, T. W.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

Myers, William Henry

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Nicholson, William Graham

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Scton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wodehonse, Rt. Hn. K. R. (Bath

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Percy, Earl

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Younger, William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Pretyman, Ernest George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Purvis, Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

Sir Alexander Acland-

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether the Government intended to take any other Navy Votes to-night.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid not unless the Army Votes were concluded.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he thought they should have an undertaking that no other Navy Votes should be taken to-night.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would give that undertaking.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,820,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1904."
COLONEL LEGGEcalled attention to the recent Army Order limiting the use of the lance in future to ceremonial occasions, and replacing it on active service by the carbine or rifle, and the sword. He said the lance was introduced by the Duke of Wellington into the Army of this country. He had been so impressed by the value of the lance as it had been employed by the French in the wars in which he had been engaged against them, that in 1816, the year after the Battle of Waterloo, four regiments of Dragoons, the 9th, 12th, 16th and 23rd were converted into Lancers, and in the following year the 19th took the place of the 23rd, the 19th were disbanded in 1823, and the 17th became the 4th Lancer regiment. It was thirty years after their first institution they first had an opportunity of showing what they could do, the 16th got their chance in the Sikh War, the 17th got their chance in the Crimea, and also used their lances with effect in South Africa in 1881, the 9th got their chance in the Indian Mutiny, when the officers were so pleased with it that they discarded their swords and armed themselves with the lance as well as their men. In 1858 the Royal Irish Dragoons, which had been disbanded in 1798, were resuscitated and formed into the 5th Lancer regiment, and at a later period it was considered desirable to increase the Lancers, and the 21st Hussars were converted into a Lancer regiment and distinguished themselves at Omdurman in the attack on Khartoum. That was the history of

641
the Lancer regiments, commencing with the last century. It might be said it was ancient history, but he would remind the House that during the late war these Lancer regiments had served with great distinction, the 5th at Elandslaagte and the 9th and 16th at the relief of Kimberley, and also at Diamond Hill. Later on the lances were practically laid aside in South Africa, and the men depended entirely on the carbine with which they were armed, but that, in itself, was not a sufficient reason for discarding the lance, as the inability to use it arose principally from the fact that the Boers retreated with greater rapidity than the British could advance, and from the fact that the horses of the regiments were not in the best condition to carry out the duties which Cavalry ought to be prepared to carry out. He did not wish to protest in any way against any Army Order of this description being issued, because these Army Orders were issued by the right hon. Gentleman on the advice of those who had a full sense of the responsibility of the advice which they were giving. All he said was that if the lance was to be regarded as an obsolete weapon, then logically it ought to be deposited in the Tower, or the British Museum, and should not be carried on ceremonial parade simply as a show to the public. Personally he had very great dislike to anything in the nature of a sham.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERagreed with what had been said by his hon. and gallant friend, who had commanded with distinction the 9th Lancers, and shared with him his regret at the abolition of the lance as a weapon for active service. He had a recollection of being present at a military tournament where there were two contests between two sergeants-major of the Dragoons and two sergeants-major of the Lancers, sword against lance, and in both cases the Lancers were successful. He did not dispute the wisdom of the Army Order, but could only regret that this weapon, which had such a great history behind it, should be now abandoned. It was impossible that this question should remain where it was, and to say that the lance should be kept only for field days. He expressed doubt as to whether the War Office
642
could, with propriety, take a Vote for a weapon which was to be practically discarded. It was not fair to make a man responsible for a part of his equipment which he was not to use. He also asked whether the carbine for Cavalry was to be done away with, and whether in the future the Cavalry were to be armed with the same rifle as the rest of the forces. He was glad to see that the sword had been disconnected from the saddle, and that men armed with the rifle would not in future be dependent on that weapon only for their defence.
GENERAL LAURIEwent out to South Africa during the Transvaal war of 1881, and was assured on all sides that among many causes none encouraged the outbreak more than the withdrawal of the 17th Lancers, for the Boers most dreaded what they termed the men on horses carrying spears. They dreaded the lance more than any other weapon in the field, and it counted for something if one could instil a fear of a weapon into the hearts of the enemy. When that was done they were half-way towards beating them. He thought it a most unfortunate thing that the weapon was to be withdrawn. Either they should give the soldier what he was to use on active service or not give it him at all. With regard to the barrack furniture Vote, he was curious to know what was being done with regard to fitting up the rooms of officers with furniture. Was it a promise, or was it to be a performance; and if it was to be a performance, when was it to be carried out?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): said that the question of the abolition or the retention of the lance was one which they could not discuss with great advantage in this Committee. It was one entirely for the military experts of the War Office. But he agreed from sentimental reasons that if the lance were no longer to be used as a weapon it ought not to be retained for parade purposes. This was a matter for experts, and that being so the Committee would pardon him if he read a

643
private letter written to Lord Roberts by Sir Ian Hamilton, who commanded a large mounted force during the South African War, and who had strongly recommended the abolition of the lance. In the letter Sir Ian Hamilton said:
"Please may I beg of you very earnestly to show a stiff front to the reactionaries who will, I know, try to get at you over this business. The lance, though the queen of weapons in hand-to-hand combat, and though still, therefore, necessary for regiments in India, who may have to deal with swordsmen, is quite incompatible with that dismounted work which, whether in this country or on the Continent will, nine times out of ten, afford the best chances to cavalry. Woe betide the cavalry, whether in Europe, Africa, or America, who tries to use the sword or lance when the occasion lends itself to effective rifle fire. I cannot now discuss this big question point by point, but as regards the lance and its adaptability to dismounted work, just note the following. With the lance you cannot possibly, in practice, dismount more than one-half of your men, whereas with swords yon can dismount two-thirds. In peace time, all sorts of ingenious devices have been made to enable. Lancer regiments to dismount a larger proportion of men at a time, but far the shortest and best argument for disposing of this contention will be found in the fact that, after trying their level best, officers commanding Lancer regiments in this country have bad to give up all such devices in despair. Even when you have succeeded in dismounting your miserable half regiment, the mounted portion with the led horses is so hampered and helpless with the two lances per man, that in war you have actually to remount a portion of the dismounted half to serve as escort. Thus, in Lancer regiments you get considerably less than half your total numbers for use with rifles in the firing line. Then the lance makes men much slower at mounting and dismounting, for they have to change the lance over. In scouting, the Boers have a saying 'When you see a bush with a pole sticking out of it there you know are the British Paardereiters.' Theoretically, of course, the lance is carried at the trail, but practically when a Lancer regiment is scouting, the curious sight is seen of what appears to be long thin sticks moving up and down on the sky-line."
Every one recognised the great gallantry shown by the Lancer regiments; but things had changed, and the rifle had become the principal weapon in every army, whether offensive or defensive, Lord Roberts, the one man who knew best the requirements of the Indian service, was strongly in favour of the abolition of the lance; and while the disappearance of the weapon might be regretted on sentimental grounds, it was necessary in the interest of the efficiency of the Army. The new rifle would also be used in place of the carbine
644
with which Cavalry regiments were now supplied, and then there would be a uniform arm throughout the Army.
GENERAL LAURIEagain pressed his inquiry what was being done with regard to the furnishing of officers' quarters in barracks by the War Office.
LORD STANLEYsaid the War Office in this matter were endeavouring to avoid doing anything hurtful to officers who owned their own furniture. They were, therefore, trying to meet the cases, not only of messes, but of individual officers, by purchasing their furniture and treating it as Government property, allowing both, however, to dispose of their effects otherwise as they pleased. In the case of officers joining, furniture was at once supplied by the War Office. But it might take years before all the barracks were furnished under the new regulations.
Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid two important reforms in the organisation of the Army had been introduced without anybody being aware of the changes; the first was the abandonment of the lance and the abolition of mountain batteries in all places outside India. Such important changes ought not to be made without something more being said than that which appeared in the most meagre Memorandum which had been presented. In his hand he held both the Memorandum of the Secretary of State and that of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the latter though it did not disclose all the Admiralty secrets gave all the important changes likely to take place in equipment, organisation or policy during the year. He asked for fuller information of the reasons for the abolition of mountain batteries in all places outside of India. Were any mountain batteries being used at the present moment in Somaliland; because in the previous expedition they were used and found of great assistance. As he understood, it would now be impossible in the future to utilise mountain batteries unless the assent of India was first obtained for their transfer, which would entail great delay and inconvenience. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would give some definite information with regard to this. He also

645
noticed that there was a decrease of half-a-million in the Vote for armaments for field artillery. Some explanation should be given of the decrease in the normal service of field artillery. He also called attention to the small differences in the calibre of field guns and howitzers. For these differences there was no sufficient reason, and they must sometimes cause confusion and mishap. They also vastly increased the transport and the bulk of the stores to be carried. They could only be a source of danger therefore in times of war. Gun carriages might be made with one type of wheel, and with alteration of axle might take mountain, field, and even siege gnus. Similar uniformity in wagon wheels would conduce to economy and convenience. The Admiralty were doing something in the way of standardising the guns; why should not the War Office adopt a similar policy in regard to wheels? In one of Lord Roberts' earlier despatches from South Africa he mentioned that from seven miles distance three men were killed and sixteen wounded from shrapnel. General Buller, in his operations for the relief of Ladysmith, recommended a larger proportion of common shell in lieu of shrapnel. Was that recommendation to be carried out? He appealed in conclusion to the War Office to make its Memorandum more useful by clothing what was now a mere skeleton of figures with real flesh of facts, so that hon. Members might be able to get some idea of the general Military policy of the Government as apart from organisation.
MAJOR RASCH, as an old Dragoon, thought the War Office was right in the course taken in reference to the lance. In relation to accoutrements, he mentioned the claim of the Essex Regiment to wear the badge of the eagle. This badge was conferred on the regiment when the 44th, after the capture of a French eagle at the battle of Salamanca. They were allowed to wear it for some time, but the eagle eye of the general commanding at Colchester saw it, and he ordered it off They were allowed to have an eagle on their colours and red tunics, but their colours were never seen on service, and the red tunics were worn chiefly for the delectation of nursemaids on Sunday.
646
The regiment undoubtedly deserved consideration at the hands of the War Office. It was raised in the middle of the eighteenth century; it fought in 1745; it was in North America; it was at Waterloo; it took part in the first Afghan War; it fought in the Crimea; it formed part of the expedition for the rescue of Gordon; and last, but not least, it was engaged in the South African War, having the honour of forming part of the escort of Lord Roberts when he marched into Pretoria. He asked that a regiment with such a record should be allowed to wear on its service kit the distinguished badge for which, if necessary, the men were willing to pay. Seeing that the regiment garrisoned one of the towns in the constituency he had the honour to represent, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consider him a busybody for having thus intervened in the debate.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERendorsed all that had been said as to the importance of the Essex eagle, holding it was desirable that a regiment which had done such good service in the past should not have its privileges withheld from it. But he desired more information as to the abolition of mountain guns. Were they used in Somaliland or in the recent operations in Sokoto? He understood that they were not to be done away with in India, and he thought it would therefore be well to have one or two of these batteries kept in England for the training of the men who were to be sent abroad. What, however, was more important was the inconvenience arising from the variety in the sizes of field guns. Judging from an answer given by the Secretary of State for War that day, one would have thought there were only four sorts of guns in use, whereas, as a matter of fact, there was an enormous variety of guns in each class. He would like to know what progress had been made with fitting batteries with quick-firing guns. Apparently we had only fifteen batteries of quick-firing guns, which were bought in Germany. Something ought to be done to increase the number, for undoubtedly this class of gun had proved infinitely superior to other guns in active warfare.

647
It was of no use increasing the efficiency of the Army unless at the same time efforts were made to provide it with efficient guns. There was only one other point he wished to touch upon, and that was the question of commissariat carts. There were some hideously heavy things manufactured in large quantities at Woolwich; they lasted no doubt a very long time, but they were out a lot of horseflesh, and in the course of the South African campaign they were found to be useless. Did the authorities intend to adopt any modification of these wagons; could they not replace them with something more modern and adaptable.
SIR JOHN COLOMBwished to emphasise what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division. He agreed with him that anything in the way of the abolition of regimental emblems or anything which interfered with the sentiment of a regiment was to be avoided. With regard to the interchangeability of parts of artillery, he thought the War Office was now fully alive to the necessity for a nearer approach to similarity of calibre. He had been rather astonished at one remark of the hon. Member for Bristol. He had suggested that much was to be done by a simple alteration of the axle of the gun carriage.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: For field, horse, and mountain batteries.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he wished to point out the extreme importance of interchangeability of guns on sea ports and naval guns, but that this was a question partly for the War Office and partly for the Admiralty, probably more for the War Office. It was monstrously absurd that the War Office should have one gun and one kind of ammunition for firing at the enemy's ships from the sea faces though our ships for the same purpose were supplied with a different kind of gun and different ammunition. The greater the progress they made in standardisation in this matter the more economical they would become. There was a heavy charge under this Vote for vessels. Did that mean for
648
buoys and lighters, etc., or were these the vessels used for submarine mining purposes? He would like some explanation of that.
LORD STANLEYsaid it was necessary nowadays, in times of peace as well as of war, to have fast towing boats in order to take cargoes for purely military purposes to Gibraltar and Malta and some of our sea-port towns. By a recent invention the speed had been made to approximate to that of our cruisers, and, in addition, special winding-up apparatus was being placed on the boats. This accounted for the heavy expenditure. It was not a new departure, but a matter of old practice.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was talking about the £49,000 in sub-Section (e), which had been almost a standing charge, whereas he presumed his noble friend was referring to sub-Section (i.)
LORD STANLEY: No.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that in that case he congratulated the War Office on having made a great improvement without increasing the cost. Under sub-Section (i), the Vote for submarine mining, etc., amounted to £92,000, or an increase in two years of nearly £20,000. The more the Admiralty spent on the fleet to keep the sea free, and therefore to keep the ports open, the more the War Office spent on arranging to close the ports, because that was what submarine mining did. He desired again to request the War Office to represent to the Council of Defence that these charges should not properly fall on the Army Estimates.
MR. SOARESreferred to the increase in the Vote for engineers' stores, and pointed out that whereas the Vote this year was £172,000 last year it was only £160,000, in which sum was included £41,000 in respect of the South African War, so that there was an increase in the normal services of nearly 50 per cent. There were increases in regard to submarine mining, ballooning, and railways, and a new item of special engineers' stores amounting to £42,000. He hoped the right hon.

649
Gentleman would give some explanation of these increases, and why special engineers' stores were included in the Vote.
MR. LLEWELLYNasked whether there was any truth in the rumour that the Light Infantry Regiments were to be deprived of the badge of the bugle. As to the order affecting only the service dress, it should be borne in mind that the Militia battalions had nothing but the service dress, and therefore if the bugle disappeared from that it disappeared altogether so far as they were concerned.
MR. WHITLEYsaid there were several instances in the Estimates of the scale of salaries laid down for various Departments not being adhered to. He instanced the case of a chief clerk, in whose case the salary was given as commencing at £300, rising by £10 a year to £400. The salary paid last year was £400; the amount taken this year was £360. That meant that a fresh person had been appointed; therefore the salary should have been £300. It was not an isolated case, and he thought some explanation should be given why the scale had been departed from. Then there was an item of £11,000 for ballooning. In connection with that, the Committee ought to have a statement from the War Office as to the success or otherwise of military ballooning in the recent war. A balloon was sent out to catch the Mad Mullah in Somaliland, but unfortunately it burst and was not likely to be of any further use. He would like to know the real opinion of the War Office as to the use of balloons in military operations.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said the explanation with regard to the salary of the clerk referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax was a very simple one. Whatever powers the Secretary of State might have for squandering money in other directions, he had no power over the salary of any official whatever. The scale of salaries was fixed by Parliament and the Treasury, and if, according to the
650
Estimates, a clerk whom the hon. Member thought should receive £300 was receiving £360, it simply meant that the clerk in question was previously receiving that rate of salary in some other capacity. The reason engineers' stores now figured under this Vote was that they had been removed from one Department to another, and, instead of appearing under sub-head (f) they appeared under sub-head (i). The general disturbance was due to the adoption of the recommendations of Sir F. Mowatt's Committee, in pursuance of which large reserves were being provided, and until those reserves were fully provided it was impossible to institute comparisons with the normal figures. The hon. Member for East Bristol had made a comparison between the War Office and the Admiralty, unfavourable to the former. That did not surprise him in the least, because such comparisons were now always made to the disadvantage of the War Office. He remembered the time, however, when the Admiralty used to be compared unfavourably with the War Office, and he should live, he hoped, to the time when that event occurred again. The hon. Member for East Bristol seemed to doubt that.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: No; I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will live so long.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that if he or the hon. Member only lived the allotted span of three score years and ten he would undertake to say that that event would have occurred at least twice over. The hon. Member for East Bristol had asked why the War Office did not publish a Memorandum as comprehensive as that of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. Member forgot the circumstances. When he wrote his Memorandum he had already been called to the bar of the House and tried for a capital crime for about six days during the present session, whereas the First Lord of the Admiralty sat aloft, and never had anything to bring before this House. If he had written such a Memorandum he would only have been repeating items of policy which, to the confusion of his opponents, he had

651
already several times stated when attacked; therefore, out of sheer indulgence to the House, he had restricted his Memorandum to the narrowest limits, leaving himself some new items of information to bring out in debate. With regard to mountain guns, he thought that, considering the very few occasions on which they were needed in any expedition equipped by this country, and remembering that, after all, India was a part of the Empire, on principles of economy we must depend on India when such a case arose as to need the provision of mountain guns. As to the question of special badges for special regiments, he assured his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Mid Essex that the one thing they were anxious to do was to avoid too many changes in the service kit, which they wished to keep in hundreds and thou sands to be served out to each regiment in case of mobilisation. It was a real practical difficulty in mobilising in any part of the world to keep a sufficient number of suits, not only of full dress, but also of service kits.
MR. LLEWELLYNreminded the right hon. Gentleman that Militia regiments had no full dress on which these badges could be worn. They had nothing but the service kit.
MR. BRODRICKadmitted that Militia regiments were in a little different position, and he recognised that his hon. friend had a case. But he could not go further than that. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth had made a further plea that they should show more clearly what was spent on behalf of the Army and what was spent on the Navy. When the Return which he proposed to give his hon. and gallant friend was laid before the House, he thought it would be a revelation as to the relative sums spent on the two services. He would say again, however, that he did not invite these comparisons between the two services. Both were parts of one whole, and it mattered little to the country on which Estimates various items were charged if they were really necessary for the purposes of Imperial defence. But if there was the feeling that the Navy was being starved to find
652
money for the Army, then the proposal to state clearly the amount spent by the Army on behalf of the Navy was perhaps a convenient one to adopt.
SIR CHARLES DILKEthought the answer given by the Secretary of State for War on the points raised by the hon. Member for East Bristol was of a most perfunctory character. The right hon. Gentleman had announced in the most casual way that the mountain batteries were to be retained in India only. Were only the native mountain batteries, or were both British and Indian batteries to be retained? If the latter was the case, were no troops to be trained in the necessary duties in this country? Were there to be no reliefs going to the white battalions in India who had been trained in this country in mountain battery duties? How was it possible to abolish all the mountain batteries in the British artillery and yet retain them in India? Hitherto there had been in India two descriptions of mountain batteries—the white mountain batteries of the British artillery and the native batteries.
It was essential that they should have some mountain batteries. Surely mountain artillery was a service which ought not to be abolished without the knowledge of the House of Commons, and merely in answer to a Question in the House without any previous information being given to the House. Every other army in the world had mountain artillery, which was found to be useful not only as mule batteries, but for camel batteries. It seemed to him amazing that so complete a change should be made in this great branch of artillery in such a casual way, and that this change should be defended in the extraordinary and perfunctory way in which it had been defended; as a matter of fact there had hardly been any defence at all. The War Office was also showing a curious freedom in dispensing altogether with all previous military experience. The abolition of the lance in our Army was exactly opposite to the policy being pursued in Germany, which had decided that the lance was to be the weapon of true cavalry in the future. Those people who were opposed to cavalry altogether had abolished the lance, and the House

653
of Commons was expected to accept that change without any argument at all in favour of it. The War Office were abolishing mountain artillery, while every other Power thought it was essential that it should be retained. Although his hon. friend the Member for Bristol had received a perfunctory answer upon some of his points, he had received no answer at all to his main point in regard to the difference in the calibre of the guns in the Army. The variety in the calibres of the guns had not been explained. When the different calibres were introduced it was looked upon as most unfortunate at the time, and no steps had been taken to do away with this difference of calibre. His hon. friend had addressed questions, which had also received no answer at all, as to the extent to which quick-firing guns had been introduced into the horse and field artillery. In 1899 his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Essex, and others, repeatedly brought before the Committee of Supply the necessity for following the example of other Powers in regard to the introduction of quick-firing guns. The Government replied that they had quick-firing guns, but it was found that they had not; and then they stated that they were making inquires into the question. Then came the war in South Africa, after which they had to buy batteries of quick-firing guns in Germany. They had been informed that even now they had not got the proper number of quick-firing guns; and the questions which had been addressed to the Government upon this subject were as important as any others in regard to military affairs, and yet no answer had been given to them.
MR. BRODRICK: A very short time ago it was argued in this House that we were spending large sums of money upon the Army in this country and not calculating the large sums we were spending in India. Now the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean tells us that we ought to have some mountain batteries of artillery, and he thinks we ought to be equipped in this respect in this country in the same way as Germany or France. It has not been considered necessary to
654
have mountain batteries in this country. The right hon. Baronet probably knows as well as any Member of this House that a well-trained artillery is admirably fitted, with a minimum amount of training, to serve mountain artillery. We find no difficulty whatever with the artillery which we send out to India in organising the few mountain batteries which are needed for the white troops there. It would be an absurd reduplication if, when an emergency calls for it, we should not only have field and heavy artillery, but that we should keep a number of batteries ready equipped for a European war, which the right hon. Baronet is never tired of telling the House we shall never be called upon to engage in. I object to this method of blowing hot and cold, always with the aim of throwing discredit on the War Office. As to the different calibres of guns, the right hon. Baronet knows that it is impossible as modern science makes progress to secure that we shall have all over the Empire the same calibre of guns at the same moment. If the whole of the Empire was going to fight the same battle with the same ammunition and the same guns, the whole being set up on the same basis, no doubt it would be of the greatest importance to have uniformity; but there may be occasions on which a 5-in. gun might be served on the northwest of India, and when in the event of the emergency requiring it a 4·7-in. gun would be served on the Surrey hills. The War Office professes to secure uniformity in all the main calibres, and above all to take care that fresh guns are not made by the Indian Government or by ourselves which are not of the same calibre.
The right hon. Gentleman has made an unfortunate attack upon the War Office for not having sufficient quick-firing guns. It is true that the field guns we had five or six years ago could be improved upon. It is also true that the batteries of quick-firing guns the War Office obtained from Germany have been admirable for their purpose. If we felt that they were the final instalment of what we can expect to secure, we should have rearmed the whole of our artillery with those guns. But Lord Roberts believes that it is possible to improve on those guns. A variety of

655
experiments have been made, and we believe we have now come very near a gun of excellent calibre, most suitable for the field artillery. We must be guided by experts in this matter. We hold that we are sufficiently near a better gun not to ask the House to spend a large sum on the manufacture of a less efficient gun which would be out of date very shortly. I believe that in a very short time we shall be able to propose and to commence the manufacture of a quick-firing gun of adequate calibre which will be far superior to those which we now have.
COLONEL LEGGEsaid in the regiment with which he was connected there was no difficulty in dismounting three-fourths of the men. For the purpose of holding a position all the men could be dismounted, and they could hold their position as long as the ammunition lasted.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that he did not think the Committee could complain of the attack made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean upon the Secretary of State for War, because they had never been able to get any information until they had made two or three attacks upon some particular items in the Vote, and they had had to literally drag information out of the Secretary of State for War by reductions, or threats of reductions, in the War Office Votes. What had been the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? Did the Secretary of State for War not see that he was using a two-edged argument? If they were providing Army Corps to contend with Continental troops, surely they must be armed in the same way and to the same extent as the Continental troops. If it were true that every Continental army contained batteries of quick-firing guns, surely similar armaments ought to be supplied to the British troops. There was no fact which had been more emphasised during the war in South Africa than the extraordinary gallantry and devotion to duty displayed by the gunners, and everyone acknowledged the courage with which the gunners clung to their officers under the most trying circumstances. If they were going to send their Army Corps on to the Continent armed with inferior armaments to their foes, they would be handicapping that gallantry to an extraordinary extent. Therefore the argument
656
with which the Secretary of State for War had assailed the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, was a bad argument and would not hold water He wished to have some information about the new gun which had been alluded to. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had come very near a suitable gun. He wished to know how long it was since the War Office had begun to get near this very suitable gun. He understood that experiments with this gun had been spread over four or five years, and they had not yet arrived at a proper and suitable gun. There must be some finite period to which the right hon. Gentleman could point when either a suitable gun would be found, or at all events, when some gun must be introduced into the artillery of this country. If they could not get a perfect article, then they must produce the nearest they could get to perfection. They had been told that they were going to have a very suitable gun. He wished to know what was its calibre. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman tell them what he was doing in the direction of reducing the calibre of the guns to one common denominator? If he told them that they would not stand in the way of passing the Estimates, but he warned the right hon. Gentleman that there were a great many hon. Members who felt that unless they got the information they desired upon these points they would oppose the Estimates until these matters were properly explained to the House.
MR. BRODRICK: I take exception to the hon. Member's tone. I do not believe that any Minister has given to the House more information during the last four weeks than I have done. I am now asked to repeat information I have already given, or to give information which it is not in the interests of the public service to give. My noble friend has already told the House that we have ordered 220 4·7 guns. Of these 160 have been issued, or are ready to be issued. This shows the type of gun on which we are putting our money.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked whether the other guns of a similar calibre were to be abolished.
MR. BRODRICK: I cannot undertake to abolish them if they are serviceable. I appeal to the Committee whether we should abolish every good gun we have because they are not of the same calibre as another gun. Who can be so anxious to arrive at the best type of field gun as the Secretary of State for War? The War Office will incur a great responsibility if they ask the House to spend, not several hundred thousand, but some millions of pounds on new field guns unless and until we are satisfied that we are getting the best article. We are pressing forward the matter to the best of our ability.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERreminded the Committee that in the year 1899 the Financial Secretary to the War Office said they were getting near this quick-firing gun. Almost the same words were used in that year as had been used that evening. The Secretary of State for War had found fault with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean for desiring to reduce the expenditure on the Army, and at the same time wishing to spend money in order to make the artillery efficient. He denied altogether that by using such an argument the right hon. Baronet was blowing hot and cold at the same time. What his right hon. friend advocated was that they should not have a large inefficient Army but a small efficient one. The Committee had been assured in connection with Item B of this Vote that only a small portion of the guns had been quick-firing guns. He thought every Power in Europe had its field artillery equipped with quick-firing guns. At a time when we were spending enormously in increasing the numbers of the Army we ought surely to expend a small amount in equipping the troops with the most approved weapons. He regarded the answer given on that point as unsatisfactory, and he hoped the Committee would hear something more about it. He believed there were four different kinds of guns in use in the British Army, and four different kinds of ammunition. He was sorry that information on these matters had to be dragged out of the War Office representatives. He asked whether the First Army Corps was to be equipped
658
with one class of field gun. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,819,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
MR. WHITLEYcalled attention to the item in the Vote for ballooning, and stated that this was a matter in which a great many Members of the Committee were interested. They had never yet had a statement from the War Office on the subject, although year by year increasingly large sums were asked for the purpose.
LORD STANLEYsaid the balloons used in South Africa had not been miserable failures as had been alleged. There were great possibilities in connection with ballooning, but he thought the hon. Member would understand that there were reasons why it was not advisable to give details of the experiments which were being made.
LORD ALWYNE COMPTONasked whether the hon. Member for Lichfield could explain the precise difference between the existing quick-firing guns of the British Army and those of German and French armies.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had seen the quick-firing guns which were brought from Germany. That was the only quick-firing gun we had at present. What he asked was that some further move should be made towards getting a quick-firing gun for the Army. For four years the question had been investigated, and there had been no result except the buying of this German gun. What they objected to on this side of the House was that there were still very many guns which were not quick-firing guns in the British Army.
MAJOR SEELYsaid this subject had been treated with undue levity. He quite understood that the Secretary of State for War could not give a pledge that within the next month or two he

659
would be able to say that a new quick-firing gun would be issued to the British Army. He would, however, respectfully ask that the right hon. Gentleman should, for the benefit of certain hon. Members who took an interest in this question, give the Committee to understand that at a not very distant date a quick-firing gun would be introduced into the British Army. Otherwise he could hardly give a vote against the Motion.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that attention was drawn to this subject twice in the year 1899, and a promise was twice given as to the immediate adoption of a quick-firing gun in the British Army. Those promises had not been redeemed. Since then we had had the war, and everybody had become aware of the facts to which the attention of the House was called in 1899. Germany changed her gun, and so did France, and Germany afterwards changed her gun again. But the British Government had done nothing except to acquire the fifteen batteries of quick-firing guns from Germany.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he challenged the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's assertions in every particular. His remarks about foreign nations were even more inaccurate than his remarks about this country. He protested against the statement that nothing had been done by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman was simply endeavouring to create prejudice on a subject with regard to which Members on the Treasury Bench were quite powerless. They could not adopt a gun against the advice of their military advisers. They could do nothing but urge on these advisers to discover, or use every means to assist in the discovery of, a weapon which might be recommended. It was impossible that he should give the pledge asked for by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. Nobody desired more than he did to obtain the best gun that could be obtained for money; but how could he force on the military authorities the manufacture of a gun which they would not recommend as an improvement? He was neglecting nothing that could be done. Lord Roberts was an artilleryman, and took his present post
660
immediately on his return from the war, and he was impressed with the necessity of a change in our artillery as soon as a really suitable gun could be found. He had called to his assistance the very best knowledge and experience he could get. The Government had, however, not yet been able—they hoped very shortly they might be able—to recommend a change which would be to the advantage of the country. But he thought the Committee would make itself ridiculous if it were to insist, at a moment when everybody was crying out for economy, on the adoption of an expensive change which the military advisers of the Government were not prepared to say was to the advantage of the country. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman's statement that since 1899 Germany had changed her gun. The British Government had neglected nothing. They had even gone to the extreme length to which British Governments could go in ordering a considerable number of batteries from abroad, because our manufacturers could not produce anything that seemed equal to them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Much better guns."] These batteries were an improvement on our present guns, but he thought we could do better still. When that point was reached we should begin to manufacture. In the meantime he urged the Committee not to insist on the adoption of an unsatisfactory course in order to satisfy those who were in a hurry to obtain something which could not at present be obtained.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If he had said that the country was not rich enough to re-arm the Artillery, and that the re-armament should therefore be postponed a year, that would have been an argument of great weight. The right hon. Gentleman combined in a way he did not understand an argument for economy and an argument that the experts had not yet made up their minds. Of course, if the experts could not invent a better gun, then in the view of the experts the present gun was perfection. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "No; the German gun."] Well, why did we not have the German gun? On the other

661
hand, he quite understood that the right hon. Gentleman might say that though that was a better gun we could not afford to pay for it; but he did not understand how it could reasonably be argued that there was somewhere in the clouds a hypothetically better gun for which we were to wait for ever. [Cries of "No."] Well, for an indefinite time. If it was so certain that a better gun than the present was capable of invention, surely it was possible for his right hon. friend to say that it would be invented within a definite, limited time. Could he mention any day? [Cries of "No."] Well, then, what became of the whole case of the Government for the Army schemes they were putting forward? The right hon. Gentleman was prepared to run any risk, for a year, or two or three years, in the matter of artillery, not on the ground of economy, but on the ground that the ideal perfection was not yet attained, and that nothing short of that would he engage upon. His right hon. friend was under suspicion from many of them of indulging in economy in the right place in order that he' might spend in the wrong place. Their objection to this was not a fatuous one, as other persons who were less intelligent than his right hon. friend and who sat behind him seemed to think. [Cries of "Oh" and "Order," and OPPOSITION laughter.] Was it insulting to say that they were less intelligent than his right hon. friend? They believed that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to save money on artillery in order that he might spend it on battalions, and that they believed to be a very unwise form of saving expenditure. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman if he would say that he would be prepared to recommend anew gun within a reasonable interval, but at present he was endeavouring to combine two incoherent arguments, and that was impossible.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he would venture to suggest to his noble friend that he should not treat serious matters from a jocose standpoint. He shone greatly in ecclesiastical controversy, but he would most distinctly say that in the atmosphere of military controversy, and
662
especially on serious matters of this kind, which ought to be dealt with from a serious standpoint, the sort of criticisms the noble Lord indulged in were beside the point. His noble friend invited him to name a definite time in which to settle that a gun was fit for adoption, in order to give him and his friends an opportunity in a brief period of falling upon the War Office for their behaviour in providing something which was not up to standard. He did protest against his noble friend getting up to speak on this subject, in which he took no interest, in order to get off a few sarcasms on matters which were important. He was there to maintain not merely the policy of the country in this matter, but, when it was a matter which meant three or four millions of public money, to act with some regard not only to expert opinion, but to the public purse. He declined to fix a date according to the demand of the noble Lord, and he trusted the Committee would show that they agreed with him in that course.
SIR PHILIP MUNTZsaid that he had listened to the speech of the noble Lord with amazement. Here were a number of gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House crying out for economy; and then the noble Lord complained that the Secretary of State for War was not manufacturing new artillery before his expert advisers had told him which was the best gun. The noble Lord would involve the country in great expenditure, and next year his worthy friends on this side of the House—whether they ought to be there was another matter—would be criticising and cavilling at unnecessary expenditure on useless artillery. He thought the War Office had received very unfair treatment. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would stand to his guns until his experts advised him which were the best guns to manufacture, so that next year he could not be criticised for having wasted the country's money.
MR. BECKETTsaid that the hon. Member's thoughts seemed to be straying far away from the House of Commons. His hon. friends above the Gangway seemed to think that they had a monopoly of

663
sincerity, and that nobody could criticise the Army projects of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, either in general outline or in detail, without interested or unworthy motives. That was the attitude that had been taken up towards hon. Members below the Gangway who had ventured to hint, and more than hint, that the right hon. Gentleman's Army scheme was not perfect.
MR. BRODRICK: We do not object to criticism. What we were asking for is intelligent criticism.
LORD HUGH CECIL: We want an intelligent reply.
MR. BECKETTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think no criticism directed against his Army scheme could be intelligent; but he contended that he and his hon. friends beside him had been endeavouring to apply intelligent criticism to the right hon. Gentleman's Department for several weeks; they had brought forward argument after argument, and these had never been answered. It was not really the way to arrive at a satisfactory understanding on War
Office matters to attribute motives and apply epithets to those who directed criticisms against the War Office. He ventured to urge that, considering all that had been said, it would be well to recognise that they were not to be diverted from their object—believing, as they did in their hearts, that they were acting not only in the interest of the nation, but in that of the Government—by the badinage and abuse of those whose intellects were rather atrophied by dieting upon the crumbs that fell from Ministerial tables. (Laughter, and cries of "Oh, oh!") Let those who had done so apply his observation. A large sum was asked for on the Votes for guns. (An Hon. MEMBER: Do you mean guns in the air?) He meant the guns that were on the Estimates; and he asked his right hon. friend whether it was wise to spend so much money on those guns if there was a probability of their becoming obsolete and their being superseded by better guns.
Question put.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 51; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 47.)

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

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gretton, John

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

Percy, Earl

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Purvis, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hogg, Lindsay

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Davenport, William Bromley-

Johnstone, Heywood

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

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

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lawson, John Grant

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Duke, Henry Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

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

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

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Valentia, Viscount

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macdona, John Cumming

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Fisher, William Hayes

Maconochie, A. W.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Flower, Ernest

Majendie, James A. H.

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

Forster, Henry William

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

Fyler, John Arthur

Morrell, George Herbert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Gardner, Ernest

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Sir Alexander Acland-

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

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

Myers, William Henry

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Original Question again proposed.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that the Secretary of State for War had stated he was there not only to defend the policy of the Government but the pockets of the taxpayers; but the Vote they were now considering showed that the right hon. Gentleman was not only not defending the pockets of the taxpayers, but depleting them. The normal expenditure for transport, as distinct from war expenditure, was £119,000, but the right hon. Gentleman, in pursuance of his policy of protecting the taxpayers' pockets, now asked for £207,000 for transport. Some explanation of this item ought to be given.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that this was for a portion of the transport used in the South African War which did not come into course of payment till this year.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, but it would curtail debate if further explanations were made. After spending nearly £2,750,000 for the purchase of transport wagons during the South African War, why was there still a charge of nearly £100,000 more than in normal times for these vehicles? In 1899, when Lord Roberts went out to South Africa, he discovered that the transport of the Army was governed by the regulations of 1898, and was in a state of chaos, and he changed

667
the system from regimental to departmental transport. Since that time no new regulations had been issued governing the organisation of the transport of the Army. What he wanted to know was whether the old system of regimental transport had been abandoned, and a new departmental system organised in its place.
MAJOR RASCHsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would give him a more or less satisfactory answer in regard to the claim of the Essex Regiment to wear the badge of the Eagle, if the regiment paid for the badge themselves.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman had not given him an answer he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £200.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,819,800, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
LORD STANLEYsaid it was almost impossible to give the hon. Gentleman a definite answer. The question of transport had been very much debated, and there was great diversity of opinion with regard to it. The war in South Africa undoubtedly showed that, although in some instances regimental transport was the best, still, for the general purposes of transport, it was better to have brigade transport. Without actually abolishing the whole of the regimental system of transport, they would endeavour, as far as possible, to have the transport arranged for brigade service, allowing it to be supplemented
668
by a certain amount of regimental transport.
MR. BECKETTsaid he thought it was a matter for urgent investigation as to whether the inspectors appointed by the War Office should be given the power of inspecting work carried out by contractors during the course of manufactures. There appeared to be a difference of opinion on the subject, and he should like to know what conclusion the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at. It had been shown that owing to the absence of inspection during the process of manufacture of particular articles, no responsibility rested on anyone until the articles were handed over to the Departments concerned, when complaints were very often made as to their quality and character; and it was thought that, in order to avoid that, inspection should be allowed during the process of manufacture. The reason given against it was that there would be danger of collusion between the contractors and the inspectors. But that was overrated. Certainly inspection would prevent loss and delay; and would prevent such a mishap as the supply of 200,000 tent mallets, the handles of which would not fit the heads. Inspectors were also not allowed to exercise reasonable discretion in the passing of goods not according to specification. The articles might slightly deviate from the specification, but an inspector who knew his business would see at once whether that deviation was important or not. It was also complained that the War Office inspectors were not ready to take responsibility in passing articles which deviated from the specification, and consequently there was frequently con-

669
siderable delay. Curiously enough, the inspectors appointed by the War Office were far more unwilling to exercise responsibility than the inspectors appointed by the Admiralty. Evidently the atmosphere of the Admiralty was more favourable to the exercise of responsibility than the atmosphere of the War Office. It was peculiar that inspectors were discouraged from doing the very thing at the War Office which they were enjoined to do at the Admiralty.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to press for a reply to the question raised by his hon. friend with reference to the transport vehicles, on which no less than £2,750,000 was spent during the war. He wished to know what had become of them. Were they in store; or had they been disposed of; and, if disposed of, for what amount?
MR. BRODRICKsaid that a very large sum had been obtained from the Colonial Government for the wagons used in the war; and the country obtained a much better bargain by disposing of them than by keeping them in store after service in South Africa. The arrangement between the War Office and the Colonial Government was a very fair bargain. With reference to the questions of his hon. friend, he fully realised the importance of the suggestion made by the Committee of which his hon. friend was a member, both as to constant inspection during construction, and as to reasonable discretion being given to inspectors. That had gone much further since his hon. friend inquired into the question, and would be further increased.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
2. £1,745,000, Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, and others.
3. £195,000, Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities.
Resolutions to be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £530,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, etc., of the Medical Establishment, and for Medicines, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he wished to ask a question with reference to a matter which was creating a great deal of anxiety in the country, and the as to pensions and gratuities given to those wounded in the War; and also as to what was being done for the relatives of those killed in the War. The matter had often been brought before him by his constituents; and he should be very much indebted if the Government would make a clear statement on the subject.
LORD STANLEYsaid that with regard to pensions for wounds, each case was

671
dealt with on its merits by the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners, which were distinct from the War Office. It was better that these cases should be decided by a practically independent body on which, of course, the War Office was represented. It was impossible to give any regular scale. As a general rule a man was given a temporary pension for a year with a view to seeing how far he recovered at the end of that time and became fit to earn a livelihood. If the disability was shown to be permanent the pension was then fixed. There was a regular scale for widows and children. The widow of a sergeant received 7s. 6d. a week and 2s. for each child, the widow of a corporal 6s. a week and 1s. 6d. for each child, and the widow of a private 5s. a week and 1s. 6d. for each child. In cases in which children were left motherless double the rate per child was given to those who were looking after them. The same rate was given when it was found necessary to remove children from their mothers.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONasked up to what age the gratuities were paid.
LORD STANLEYsaid up to the age of fourteen or sixteen.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if the pensioner were informed that his pension was only temporary. He was aware of a case where a man only knew that his pension was temporary when it ceased.
LORD STANLEYsaid all pensioners were informed that their pensions were
672
temporary, and that they would be required to come up again for medical examination.
DR. FARQUHARSON DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.) moved to report Progress. The Vote was of some importance, and many hon. Members who were interested in it were not present.
Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
MR. BRODRICKsaid he did not think the proposal unreasonable.
Question put, and agreed to.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House that Mr. Speaker was unable, owing to indisposition, to resume the Chair
Whereupon Mr. JEFFREYS, the Deputy-Chairman, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker in pursuance of Standing Order No. 1.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Adjournment.
Motion made, and Question "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood)—put, and agreed to.
Adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock.