Commons Sitting of 14 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid 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, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Kips Patents Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Cork Harbour Bill (King's Consent signified). Read the third time, and passed.
  Coventry Electric Tramways Bill; Gorleston and Southtown Gas Bill; Hyde Corporation Bill; Nelson Corporation Bill; Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Colne and Swansea and the South Staffordshire Joint Small-Pox Hospital District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Colne and Swansea and the South Staffordshire Joint Small-Pox Hospital District," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]
  Local Government Provisional Order (No 15). Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Liverpool, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Liverpool," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Woolwich Borough Council Bill; South Yorkshire Joint Railways Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Transfer) Bill; West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 7).
  Mr. SEALE-HAYNEreported from the Committee on Group No. 7 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Thames River Steamboat Service Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Thames Steamboat Trust Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the existing loans of the Southampton Harbour Board and to empower them to raise further money; and to authorise contributions by and agreements with the London and South Western Railway Company and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Southampton; and for other purposes." (Southampton Harbour Bill [Lords]).
  Southampton Harbour Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Truro, against; to lie upon the Table.

  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Onllwyn; Merthyr Lantwit; Aberpergwm; Garswood; Gelly Ceidrim; Emlyn; Cwmteg;

  667
  Trimsaran; Cawdor; Wyndham; Abram; and Hepthorne Lane Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Rafford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions against: from North Wales; and London; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Coupar Angus; and Finsbury; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Hamilton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from West Wylam; Radcliffe and Pilkington; Ashton-under-Lyne; Leeds; Holloway; Doncaster; Burnbank; Wellington Quay; New Basford; Walker; Shrewsbury; Tiverton; Glasgow; Chorley; Withnell; Failsworth; Oldham; Clay Cross; Rhodes; Cannock; Hayfield; Royton; Brandon and Byshottles; Tudhoe; Mirfield; Willington; Pleasley; North Shields; Oxford; Irthling-borough; Kettering; Townhill; and Ashford; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petition from Birmingham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SATURDAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition from South Shields, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition from St. Pancras, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Onllwyn;, Merthyr Lantwit; Aberpergwm; Garswood; Gelly Ceidrim; Emlyn; Cawdor; Cwmteg; Pontardulais; Rockingham No. 1; and Abram Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EXPLOSIONS (LOWWOOD GUNPOWDER FACTORY, NEAR ULVERSTON).
  Copy of Report by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred in a press house of the Lowwood Gunpowder Company at Lowwood, near Ulverston, Lancashire, on the 12th March 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 8th July, 1902; The Lord Advocate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 159.)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st April; Mr. Hayes Fisher]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 160.)
  RAILWAY (CERTIFICATES) (LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
  Copy presented, of draft certificate of the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a railway across the Western Shore Road, Southampton, to form a connection between a siding of the London and South Western Railway and the electric generating station belonging to the Corporation of Southampton [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 161.)
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2976 to 2978 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Practice Ammunition for the Navy.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty in what way has the supply of practice ammunition, which was stated on 23rd April to have been recently revised, been affected by that revision; and is the allowance for heavy guns of eight rounds per gun per quarter the same allowance as was made thirty years ago, when the Navy had only muzzle-loading guns with a rate of fire of one round per minute as against the ten rounds per minute of the present day.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The following alterations have been recently made in the regulations governing the supply of ammunition for practice purposes—1. The allowance to guns mounted on tops of turrets and barbettes was increased in March, 1899, from ten rounds per gun a quarter to forty rounds. 2. The ammunition for aiming rifle practice from heavy guns was increased at the same date from sixty to 100 rounds a quarter. 3. The following additional ammunition is now allowed to every man qualifying for the ratings of acting second captain of gun and acting qualified gunner.—Acting qualified gunner: aiming rifle, twenty rounds each; light quick firing gun, five rounds each; heavy gun, five rounds each; acting second captain of gun: aiming rifle, twenty rounds each; heavy gun at towing target, ten rounds each. This alteration was made in April last. 4. There is also an additional allowance
  670
  of 200 rounds per quarter of Morris Tube ammunition for use with the deflection teacher for each captain and second captain of gun. This alteration was made in February last. 5. The new prize firing regulations, now about to be issued, provide for turret and barbette guns, carrying out prize firing by the method of independent firing instead of, as heretofore, firing singly. This will increase the expenditure of ammunition under more practical conditions. 6. Firing of lyddite shell in addition to the ordinary allowance of ammunition has recently been introduced. With regard to the latter part of the Question, the proportion of eight pounds a quarter is the same for breech-loading guns and heavy quick-firing guns as it was for muzzle-loading guns, but there is an important exception with regard to the allowance for prize firing. Under the old regulations any excess of ammunition expended when prize-firing was deducted from the following quarterly allowance, whereas there is now no limit to the number of rounds that a gun fires when prize firing; and however many rounds in excess of the normal allowance are expended, the usual quarterly allowance is fired next quarter without any deduction. Provision is thus made for the exercise of the utmost rapidity of tire that can be attained.

  Native Labour in Transvaal Coal Mines.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the output of coal from the Transvaal coal mines since the war exceeds by nearly 50 per cent. the output in 1898, he can state whether the increased Kaffir labour in these mines has been obtained by any increase in the wages offered by the coal-owners to the Kaffir workmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have no information on the subject.

  Repairs to Boilers of H. M.S. "Ocean."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the nature of the repairs required to the Belleville

  671
  boilers of H.M.S. "Ocean," during her present detention in Hong Kong dockyard.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The repairs required to the boilers of the "Ocean" during the refit at Hong Kong comprised the renewal of the economiser tubes in four boilers out of the twenty fitted, moderate repairs of the boiler and uptake casings, and repair of the furnace fittings in all the boilers. The repairs have been completed.

  Naval Shooting Returns—Defective Sights.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether any of the shooting returns from ships in the Navy have been affected by defective gun-sights; and if so, in how many cases have the sights had to be re-adjusted.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) There have been two cases in which the shooting returns have been affected by defective gun-sights Sights require frequent re-adjustment, and this is done by the gunnery officers of the ship in accordance with instructions contained in the Gunnery Manual.

  "County" Class of Cruisers—Speed Tests.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state how many cruisers of the "County" class have passed the three-hour full power speed tests of twenty-three knots per hour; and which vessels, if any, have failed in this test.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Three cruisers of the "County" class, namely, the "Bedford," "Kent," and "Monmouth," have passed their eight-hours full-power trials, and have attained speeds of 22·6 to 22·9 knots. These speeds are not considered final, as the question of the suitability of the screws fitted to these vessels is under consideration.

  Licensing Prosecutions for Opening during Prohibited Hours.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
  672
  his attention has been called to the action of the Highgate bench of magistrates in dismissing, on the 5th instant, a police summons for keeping open during prohibited hours, the ground of dismissal being that a licensed house could be kept open all day on Sunday so long as it was not open for the sale of intoxicating liquors; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas) I understand from inquiries which I have made of the justices that the ground on which the case was dismissed was not as stated in the Question. The charge was brought under Section 9 of The Licensing Act, 1874, for keeping licensed premises open for the sale of intoxicating liquors during the time the premises were required to be closed The facts of the case, as admitted, viz.: that two men, who claimed to be bonâ fide travellers, were being served at 11.20 on a Sunday morning with ginger beer, were held by the bench not to substantiate the charge.

  Destruction by Police of Animals Mortally Injured in Street Accidents.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of giving the police authority immediately to kill any horse or dog that may be mortally injured in the streets of London and other towns in Great Britain and Ireland, so as to avoid the torture which animals constantly undergo whilst the consent of their owner is being obtained for their destruction.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The police are already empowered under The Injured Animals Act, 1894, to kill an injured horse without the consent of the owner if a veterinary surgeon certifies that the animal is injured mortally or so severely that it is cruel to keep it alive. This power is frequently exercised by the police in London; and there are standing arrangements by which the services of veterinary surgeons can be obtained

  673
  without delay. There is no similar provision with regard to dogs; but I believe that injuries to dogs in the streets are not so common as to require special legislation.

  "Black List"—Consent of Persons Placed Thereon.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Home Office propose to do anything to remove the disabilities attaching to persons who have lately without their consent been sentenced by magistrates to be placed on a so-called black list, some being also committed to an inebriates' home, having regard to the fact that such sentences the High Court, in the case of the Commissioner of Police v. Donovan, has decided to have been illegal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the effect of the decision referred to. The High Court decided that in order that an inebriate may be dealt with summarily it is necessary that he should consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate. If he did not so consent the magistrate would be obliged to commit him for trial, when an order under Section 6 of the Licensing Act, 1902, or under the Inebriates Act, 1898, could be made upon the prisoner's conviction by a jury. The consent is not necessary in regard to the actual making of any such order. There appears to be no action for me to take in the matter.

  Employment of Children Bill—Date of Next Stage.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to take the further stages of the Employment of Children Bill before Whitsuntide; and whether he will undertake that the Bill shall not be brought on without notice.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I hope to be able to make progress with this Bill before Whitsuntide; but I cannot make any definite statement as to dates. I will, however, undertake that due notice shall be given.

  Waima Incident—Payment of Compensation.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the compensation due to the sufferers by the Waima incident has yet been paid by the Government of the French Republic; and, if not, what is the cause of the prolonged delay in the settlement; has any correspondence taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of France since the publication of the award in the matter; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The French Ambassador has been authorised to settle this claim, and the money will be paid during the next few days.

  Sea Police Duties of H.M.S. "Seamew," "Speedwell" and "Cockchafer."
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether H.M.Ss. "Seamew," "Speedwell," or "Cockchafer" have been engaged on sea police duty during the present year; and, if so, will he say what areas have come within their respective patrol and the number of days each vessel was engaged at sea.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) H.M.S. "Seamew," after undergoing her annual refit, commencing 2nd March left Harwich on the 6th May for the protection of the trawl fishing from Ramsgate to The Wash (later on from Brown Ridge and Broad Fourteens), also of the whelk fishing in The Wash. She has been on duty continually since that date. H.M.S. "Speedwell," after undergoing her annual refit, commencing 22nd January, left South Queensferry on the 7th May for fishery duties in the Shetlands, with head quarters at Lerwick. She has been on duty continuously since that date. H.M.S. "Cockchafer" is at Queensferry making good defects, which were taken in hand on the 16th March, and has not yet been detailed for fishery duties. She will proceed to the Shetlands about the 1st proximo.

  Sir Bhashyam Aiyanger.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state under what circumstances and for what reasons has Sir Bhashyam Aiyanger been continued in office after the assignment of a special land grant as pension, and after passing the age limit, upon which understanding he had been originally appointed.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) Sir Bhashyam Aiyanger has been continued in office after the date on which he would otherwise have retired because the sudden illness of another Judge created an unexpected vacancy, and it was thought desirable to make as little change in the Court as possible. I explained, in reply to a Question by my hon. friend on the 24th ultimo, the circumstances under which a special grant of land revenue was made.†

  Elections Declared Void—Eligibility of Candidate for re-election.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESS: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law to prevent the nomination of candidates at municipal elections whose previous election has been declared void by a decision of a court of law.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) Provision is already made by the law for the disqualification of persons convicted of corrupt or illegal practices. I do not know what is the precise alteration of

  Quantity.

  Imperial Revenue.

  Local Taxation Revenue.

  Total.

  Customs:

  £

  £

  £

  Beer

  55,561 barrels

  23,255

  693

  23,948

  Spirits

  8,589,265 gallons

  4,739,779

  215,256

  4,955,035

  Tobacco

  81,132,874 lbs.

  12,442,949

  —

  12,442,949

  Excise:

  Beer

  35,370,000 barrels

  13,263,900

  442,100

  13,706,000

  Spirits

  34,757,000 gallons

  18,164,300

  869,000

  19,033,300

  † See (4) Debates, cxxi., 357.
  the law as to disqualification which is suggested, but it would be going too far to provide that avoidance of an election for any cause whatever should entail subsequent disqualification.

  Postal Facilities at Ballahacomane, near Killarney.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that a daily delivery of letters takes place in part of the townland of Ballahacomane, near Killarney, county Kerry, whereas only a bi-weekly service is given in the other part of the same townland; and, if so, can he arrange for similar treatment for the entire townland.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I will make inquiry as to the arrangements for the delivery of letters in the townland of Ballahacomane, near Killarney, in order to ascertain whether any improvement can be effected, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result as soon as possible.

  Customs and Excise Duties on Beer, Spirits, and Tobacco.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of duties (Customs and Excise) respectively received from beer, spirits, and tobacco in the year ending 31st March 1903, and the quantities of beer, spirits, and tobacco in respect of which such duties were paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The particulars are approximately as follows:—

  Pensions of Abstractor Clerks.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to cases of efficient Abstractor Class established clerks who have been retired at the age of sixty, and who, although they were recommended for pensions on all their temporary service by the heads of their departments, have been awarded pensions of less than 15s. per week for continuous services of from twenty-eight to thirty-one years; and, if so, whether he will reconsider the cases of these clerks, with the view of granting to each of them a pension based on all admitted temporary service, under the powers of Clause 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) My attention has not been called to specific cases of the kind alluded to in the Question, but I can hold out no hope that the present practice as to reckoning the pension of these officers will be reconsidered.

  Transfer of Voluntary Schools.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether in the event of the managers of a voluntary school in a non-school board district passing a resolution, prior to the appointed day for the area in which the school is situated, to transfer the school to the local education authority, under Section 23 of The Education Act, 1870, and conforming with all the necessary conditions of such transfer, the local education authority would be empowered to accept the transfer without reference to Section 8 of The Education Act, 1902, and to conduct the school as a council school from the appointed day.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) As the transfer could not be completed before the appointed day, the provisions of Section 8 must necessarily apply to such case.

  Newport County Council's Education Scheme.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of
  678
  Education whether the scheme passed by the Newport County Council on 14th April, and afterwards submitted to this Department, was passed by an absolute majority of the whole Council; and whether, seeing that the scheme of 14th April was, in principle, the same as that of 13th February, but modified in detail to comply with the suggestions made by the Board of Education to the Council, he will state the specific object of the inquiry proposed to be held under Section 22 (10) of the Act of 1902.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The scheme submitted to the Board on the 13th of March was of a wholly different character to the schemes referred to by the hon. Member. As I stated on the 7th May, † there is evidently a wide difference of opinion in the borough as to the composition of the Committee, and the object of the inquiry will be to ascertain whether a scheme cannot be framed which would satisfy both parties that the educational purposes in which they were interested would receive fair treatment and full consideration at the hands of the local education authority.

  Sligo Police Barracks.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will direct further inquiries to be made as to the original ownership of the land upon which the barracks for the Royal Irish Constabulary at Sligo have been built; and if he is aware that the owner of the adjacent lands upon which a further extension has been proposed has beeen informed that no record exists, nor is any title forthcoming of the original acquisition of the land in 1866.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) It is not proposed to make further inquiry on the point referred to. No extension of Sligo Barracks is at present contemplated. The extension contemplated in 1891 was not carried out. The owner of adjacent lands was informed that certain particulars applied for in reference to the acquisition of the site of Sligo Barracks cannot be furnished.
  † See page 29.

  Poor Law Superannuation (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the alterations made in the Poor Law Superannuation (Ireland) Bill so far as the financial clauses of the Bill limiting the charges on the rates under its provisions to a farthing in the pound are concerned, and the increase in the amount of the officers' contributions from a stationary 2 per cent. to a graduated 2, 2½, and 3 per cent. deduction; and, if so, whether he can afford facilities for a discussion of the Bill during the present session of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Bill of this year differs in no material respect from the Bill of last year. The actuary, whose report upon the Bill of 1901 was presented to Parliament, considers that, even on the very favourable assumptions on which he based his report, a rate of one farthing in the pound on the valuations of the unions would be wholly inadequate to meet the liabilities of the fund proposed in the Bill. The question whether facilities will be afforded for discussing the Bill during the present session is properly one that should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  Valuations of Licensed Premises in Ireland.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the valuation of the licensed premises occupied by Mrs. Lowe, Kiltegan, County Wicklow, has been raised without giving Mrs. Lowe notice in time to allow of her entering an appeal; and, if so, whether he will take steps to provide, by legislation or otherwise, that the Commissioners of Valuation in Dublin shall not increase the valuation of licensed premise, without giving due notice to the occupier.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Mrs. Lowe received the same notice that all ratepayers do under the Valuation Acts in similar cases. The revised valuation lists were issued to the County Council on 1st April, and were then published by the Council in the manner prescribed
  680
  by statute. Mrs. Lowe had twenty-seven days within which to appeal. No legislation, as suggested, is called for.

  Pay of Volunteer and Militia Medical Officers.
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why those medical officers of the Militia and Volunteers whom the War Office has employed continuously for the last three years or more in lieu of Royal Army Medical Corps officers, and whose services it still finds necessary, through the dearth of Regular medical officers, to retain for the same duties, no longer receive the pay and allowances of their corresponding Army rank, but have been reduced to a salary of £270 per annum, a reduction in the case of a lieutenant of more than £50, and in that of a captain of nearly £100 per annum. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) These officers have been demobilised and are now employed as civil medical practitioners. They act as such entirely at their own option, and it is impossible to treat them differently from other civil medical practitioners.
  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    21st Lancers—Alleged Ill-treatment.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to give any information to the House in reference to the ill-treatment of an officer of the 21st Lancers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): No, Sir, I am not yet in a position to give any information on this subject. An inquiry is being held.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the statements which have appeared in the Press on this matter, he will say when he will be in a position to give information.
    MR. BRODRICK: I really cannot say. The question is being inquired into by

    681
    the Field Marshal the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, and until a communication is made to the War Office I will not be in a position to say.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When the right hon. Gentleman receives that communication will he inform me or tell me when to put down another Question?
    MR. BRODRICK: When a Question is addressed to me I always endeavour to give the information required. If the hon. Gentleman wishes I will inform him when I am in a position to give information on this matter.

    Irish Garrison—Supply of Brushes.
    Mr. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the contract value of the brushes supplied from the Receiving Depôt at Woolwich for the use of the troops in Ireland during the years 1898, 1899, and 1900 respectively.
    MR. BRODRICK: The figures are as follows—1898, £2,733; 1899, £1,621; 1900, £3,180.

    Belfast Barracks Canteen Arrangements.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state under what arrangements are the troops of Holywood and Victoria Barracks supplied with groceries, and when is it tendered for; and whether, seeing that the canteen shops are supplied by a person who pays an annual sum for liberty to do so without tenders being asked for, he will state what sum is so paid.
    MR. BRODRICK: This is a matter resting entirely with the General Officer Commanding, to whom my hon. friend should address any communications on the subject he may like to make.
    MR. SLOAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any tender was asked for under this contract?
    MR. BRODRICK: With regard to canteens the contracts never come to the War Office at all. We have no cognisance whatever of the arrangements made by General Officers Commanding in
    682
    their districts for the supply of the canteens.
    MR. SLOAN: Then I may take it the War Office are not aware whether these things were contracted for or not?
    SIR JAMES HASLETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the existing arrangements work satisfactorily?
    MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend a reply to that. The question of canteens is never dealt with at the War Office. With a view to decentralisation and placing a proper responsibility on commanding officers it has been deemed very undesirable that the War Office should assume duties which they have never undertaken before.

    Guild of the Holy Standard.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the number of commissioned and officiating Army chaplains who are members of the Guild of the Holy Standard.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Army Guild is a voluntary association of Church of England communicants in the Army, and the War Office has no knowledge whatever of the point raised in the Question.

    The Mullah—Treatment of a Spy.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has now any information as to a native having been arrested in Berbera in December last on suspicion of being a spy of the Mullah, who denied the charge, but eventually, under punishment, confessed that he was a spy; and whether he can say if the punishment was inflicted for the purpose of obtaining the confession, what was the nature of the punishment, and by whose orders it was inflicted.
    MR. BRODRICK: On inquiry General Manning stated, on 27th December last, that there was no foundation whatever for the statement made in the Question as to the punishment of the spy, but that the Press message to which the

    683
    hon. Member evidently alludes should have read as follows: "Prisoner confessed that, under threat of punishment, he was employed by the Mullah as a spy."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Where is the Mullah now?

    Gunnery in the Mediterranean Fleet.
    MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the comparative merit of the shooting efficiency of twenty of the ships in the Mediterranean Squadron has been published; and whether he will now lay this information before the House.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): My attention has been drawn to the fact that certain Returns with respect to gunnery in the Mediterranean have been published. They were not published with the authority of the Admiralty, and, as I have previously stated in answer to Questions, it is not considered to be in the interests of the service that detailed Returns with regard to the gunnery of individual ships should be given, especially in view of the fact that similar information is not obtainable with regard to ships of any other Navy. It is not proposed to lay any such Return as that referred to before Parliament. As I have already informed the hon. Member in answer to Questions, the Admiralty will always be prepared to give information to the House with respect to the progress of gunnery in the Navy, and an abstract of the Gunnery Returns showing the order of merit of the respective ships will, for the future, be issued to the ships, and will, of course, be available for the information of Parliament.

    Cretan Operations.
    MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when the medal for the Cretan operations is to be distributed.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think the hon. Member's Question must be due
    684
    to a misapprehension, as no medal has been authorised for the Cretan operations.

    Practice Ammunition for the Navy.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty in what way has the supply of practice ammunition, which was stated on 23rd April to have been recently revised, been affected by that revision; and is the allowance for heavy guns of eight rounds per gun per quarter the same allowance as was made thirty years ago, when the Navy had only muzzle-loading guns with a rate of fire of one round per minute as against the ten rounds per minute of the present day.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I can only answer my hon. friend's Question fully by a detailed statement, and I must therefore ask him to allow me to furnish him with a printed reply, which will be circulated with the Votes, as I think it is not desirable to reply at such length in the House.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I could, but it would have a very misleading effect if taken by itself.
    The following is the reply referred to in the above answer:
    The following alterations have been recently made in the regulations governing the supply of ammunition for practice purposes: 1. The allowance to guns mounted on tops of turrets and barbettes was increased in March, 1899, from ten rounds per gun a quarter to forty rounds. 2. The ammunition for aiming rifle practice from heavy guns was increased at the same date from sixty to one hundred rounds a quarter. 3. The following additional ammunition is now allowed to every man qualifying for the ratings of acting 2nd captain of gun and acting qualified gunner:—acting qualified gunner, aiming rifle, twenty rounds each; light quick-firing gun, five rounds each; heavy gun, five rounds each. Acting 2nd captain of gun: aiming rifle, twenty rounds each;

    685
    heavy gun at towing target, ten rounds each; this alteration was made in April last. 4. There is also an additional allowance of 200 rounds per quarter of Morris Tube ammunition for use with the deflection teacher, for each captain and 2nd captain of gun. This alteration was made in February last 5. The new prize firing regulations, now about to be issued, provide for turret and barbette guns carrying out prize firing by the method of independent firing, instead of as heretofore firing singly. This will increase the expenditure of ammunition under more practical conditions. 6. Firing of lyddite shell in addition to the ordinary allowance of ammunition has recently been introduced. With regard to the latter part of the question, the proportion of eight rounds a quarter is the same for breech-loading guns and heavy quick-firing guns as it was for muzzle-loading guns, but there is an important exception with regard to the allowance for prize firing. Under the old regulations any excess of ammunition expended when prize firing was deducted from the following quarterly allowance, whereas there is now no limit to the number of rounds that a gun fires when prize firing, and however many rounds in excess of the normal allowance are expended, the usual quarterly allowance is fired next quarter without any deduction. Provision is thus made for the exercise of the utmost rapidity of fire that can be attained.

    Gunnery Efficiency in the Navy.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, is he aware that in 1901 H.M.S. "Alarm," "Dryad," and "Renard," and that in 1902 H.M.S. "Renard," "Speedy," and "Gleaner," did not once hit the target at prize firing; did the special reports with regard to gunnery efficiency, forwarded to the Admiralty for consideration at the time of the half-yearly recommendations of lieutenants for promotion, disclose the cause of these unsatisfactory results; and if not, what inquiry has been made to ascertain whether these results were due either to faults in the gunnery officers of these ships, or to the ships themselves, or to
    686
    the gunnery officers having been deprived of necessary facilities for conducting gunnery training by the Admiral, the captain, or the executive officer.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The facts are as stated in the first portion of my hon. friend's question. In these and in all similar cases the reasons of failure are reported on by the Admirals under whose orders the ships are acting. The reports are fully considered on receipt by the Admiralty, and such steps are taken with regard to the individual officers concerned as in the opinion of the Admiralty are required. My hon. friend is doubtless aware that the mere absence of direct hits in the case of such small vessels as the "Speedy" and "Gleaner," is not in itself an evidence of bad gunnery.

    Coal Storage.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how far the experiments directed towards preventing the deterioration of coal when stored have proceeded; and, seeing that the deterioration which takes place in weathered coal is said to be physical rather than chemical, will he arrange that a chemical analysis shall be made of the coal at the beginning and close of each further experiment.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Experiments for the purpose of ascertaining the result of storing coal under water are in progress. Chemical analyses are made at intervals, but sufficient time has not yet elapsed for a complete and satisfactory report to be furnished.

    British Indian Subjects in the Transvaal.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he has yet received the report of the Inter-Colonial Conference that was held at Bloemfontein, and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the proposals of the Transvaal Government with reference to the conditions of residence and trade of British Indian subjects.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The right hon. Gentleman is unavoidably absent and has asked me to read his answer as follows—"I have received the report of the Inter-Colonial Conference at Bloemfontein, but the report makes no mention of any special proposals with reference to the conditions of residence and trade of British Indian subjects as having been put forward by the Transvaal Government. A despatch from Lord Milner dealing with the question of the position of the Asiatics in the Transvaal is on its way to me."

    Coolies in Trinidad Gaols.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that a large proportion of the convicts in the Trinidad gaols are indentured coolies sentenced under special regulations for breach of service rules, he will lay upon the Table of the House those regulations, and state what arrangements exist for the protection of indentured coolies in Trinidad.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): The provisions made for the protection and control of indentured coolies in Trinidad are embodied in the Immigration Ordinance of 1899 as amended by Ordinances 2 and 33 of 1902. These Ordinances are in the Library of the House.

    Russian Import Duties on Scottish-Cured Herrings.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to a Report of the General Inspector of Sea Fisheries relative to the Continental herring trade, showing that a uniform rate of duty is charged on all kinds and qualities of herring imported into Russia; and whether, in view of the effect upon the trade if the duty on the cheaper classes of Scottish-cured herrings were reduced to a level somewhat similar to that imposed by Germany, he will consider the expediency of making efforts to secure the desired reduction.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The subject of
    688
    the Russian duty on Scotch herrings has been under the consideration of His Majesty's Government for some time past, and, after receiving a Report on the matter from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, they came to the conclusion that no good purpose would be served by any representations to the Russian Government with a view to the lowering of the Customs tariff.

    Monastir Massacres.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make any statement in reference to the alleged massacre of Christians near Monastir.
    LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Monastir telegraphed on the 7th instant that a panic prevailed there on the previous day as a result of a fatal quarrel between a Bulgarian and a Turk. In several quarters of the town Bulgarians were attacked by armed Mussulmans. Several Christians, principally Bulgarians, were believed to have been killed and wounded. The whole garrison was under arms, and the Vali had taken energetic measures to restrain the Turkish population. Disturbances were also reported from outlying villages, and a number of prisoners had been brought to Monastir. The reports which reach us from Turkish sources are somewhat inconsistent, but they all agree that the statements in regard to the loss of life are greatly exaggerated, that there have been no disturbances within the last three days, and that business is being transacted as usual.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether any representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Turkish Government with regard to the massacre of these Christians?
    LORD CRANBOUNE: His Majesty's Ambassador is constantly in communication with the Porte on many of these matters.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It does not do much good.

    Liverpool Small-pox Outbreak—Escape of Patient from Fazakerley Hospital.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state under what circumstances a man named Costello, of Latimer Street, Liverpool, recently escaped from Fazakerley Smallpox Hospital; and, in view of the danger which may result therefrom, will he state what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am informed that on the evening of the 19th March the patient referred to, who up to that time had shown no indication whatever of mental derangement, left his ward and went into the grounds of the hospital. He was followed by the hospital officials, and found on land belonging to the Corporation adjoining the hospital grounds. It may be mentioned that the hospital site is 130 acres in extent. The incident was not attended with any ill effects either to the man or anyone else. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

    Liverpool Emigrant Lodging Houses.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that out of thirty-four houses in Great George Square, Liverpool, eleven are habitually used as emigrant lodging houses and are overcrowded; is he aware that when the houses Nos. 11 and 18 Great George Square were visited on the 25th March last by Inspector Ball, he found at the former house no fewer than eighty-six persons in excess of the regulation number, while at the latter house he found sixty-one in excess; and, seeing that the houses are the property of the Corporation of Liverpool, will he consider the expediency of communicating with that body on the subject, having regard to the fact that an epidemic of smallpox has been raging at Liverpool for upwards of six months.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have communicated with the Town Clerk of Liverpool on this subject, and he informs me that in Great George Square there are nine houses registered for the
    690
    accommodation of emigrants. None of these are in the possession of the Corporation. It is stated that the houses are of a high class of respectability, and that the emigrants using them are chiefly Scandinavians, who are cleanly and well conducted people. The houses are stated to be kept scrupulously clean. They are under the supervision of the Corporation and are visited daily and frequently by night also. The unexpected arrival of a large body of emigrants on the 25th of March resulted in an excessive number being received into Nos. 11 and 18. Proceedings were taken by the Corporation in respect of the overcrowding thus caused and a fine was imposed in each case. As regards small-pox, I am assured that the disease is very rarely introduced into Liverpool by emigrants, who, as a rule, are vaccinated before starting. I am glad to add that the outbreak at Liverpool is stated to be subsiding—a result which appears to be largely owing to the strenuous action taken by the Corporation.

    Local Rate Collections.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the fact that in certain parts of the country where ratepayers have refused to pay a portion of the local rates the rate collectors have refused to accept the portion tendered, whereas in other districts the rate collectors have accepted as much of the rats as was offered; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of issuing a circular to the local authorities advising them to instruct the overseers and rate collectors to accept as much of a rate as is offered them by the ratepayers.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have not received any communications drawing attention to cases of the kind alluded to, but I have seen references to the matter in the newspapers. It rests with the overseers to decide whether they will or will not in any particular case accept part payment of an amount of poor rate due from any ratepayer; but I am advised that in any case where part of

    691
    a rate is accepted it cannot be allocated to any particular purpose, but must be treated as paid towards all the purposes for which the rate is levied. I do not propose to issue a circular of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

    Scottish Industries and the St. Louis Exhibition.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Irish Department of Agriculture are arranging for a special exhibit of Irish industries at the St. Louis Exhibition, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of making arrangements for an exhibit of Highland industries.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Secretary for Scotland is not in a position to add anything to the reply given on the 11th March.†

    Loans to Scottish Fishermen.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that out of a sum of £30,111 16s 7d. advanced by the Fishery Board for Scotland to fishermen by way of loan up to 1891 the Board have recovered £23,282 6s. 5d. of the principal and £3,579 5s. 4d. interest, will the Board now consider the expediency of resuming the practice of granting loans to fishermen in crofting fishery districts.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Fishery Board has no present intention to revert to the practice of granting loans to fishermen, which was discontinued only after mature consideration.

    Civil Code for the United Kingdom.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he has observed that the Reichstag has formally sanctioned the Civil Code framed by a Commission of distinguished jurists for the German Empire; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of preparing a similar code for the United Kingdom or British Empire.† See (4) Debates, cxix., 384.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): My hon. friend will realise that it would not be practicable to have one Code for the whole Empire, owing to the many systems of law which are in force within the United Kingdom; there are great divergences between the laws of Scotland and England. Considerable progress has been made with the codification of particular parts of the law and more would be done in this direction, if it were possible to make arrangements that the details should not be discussed in Parliament.

    Holyrood Palace.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state whether during the last three years the Office of Works surveyor at Edinburgh reported on the condition of Holyrood Palace, and, if so, on what dates; and will he say when and by whom the defective condition of the drainage was first brought under notice.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The condition of Holyrood Palace has been the subject of annual examination and report for several years past. The architect and surveyor of the Office of Works reported last October that the drainage was defective.
    MR. WEIR: Was the Report sent in to the gentleman deputed to represent the Office of Works in Scotland?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Certainly.

    Rotten Row.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has considered the condition of the ride in Rotten Row, the defects wherein have continued for many years and are yearly increasing; whether measures cannot now be adopted to take up the whole of the existing soil of the Row to a depth of several feet in order to

    693
    provide such a new sub-soil and surface as will secure permanent and adequate drainage to the Row; and whether he will take further steps in order to secure an increase in the present provision of labour for keeping the Row in good order.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The First Commissioner has had under consideration the improvement of the ride in Rotten Row. He proposes to ask the Treasury to sanction the provision in next years Estimate of £500 as the first annual instalment of a total expenditure of £2,500 on this service. To do the work all at one time would be a great inconvenience to the public; and it is therefore better to do it in sections. In the First Commissioner's opinion, it is not necessary to incur the excessive outlay which would be involved in the drastic measures of my hon. friend; the renewal of the sand will provide an adequately and sufficiently rapid drainage; and the additional sum proposed to be taken will enable more to be spent on labour.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the whole £500 to be spent on sand and nothing on the drainage? Is the hon. Gentleman aware the complaint is of defective drainage and not so much of surface?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: If the sand is placed there I am told it will improve the drainage.

    Education Bill—Hyde Park Demonstration.
    SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire what arrangements have been made as to the number of platforms authorised for the demonstration in Hyde Park on Saturday.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Under the Parks Regulations the First Commissioner of Works has sanctioned only six platforms for the demonstration on the Education Bill on Saturday; but he has since, in response to representations that these were insufficient, allowed the use of twelve vans as platforms.

    Education Department—Resignation of Mr. Sadler.
    MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he can state what the new proposals or arrangements affecting the department of special inquiries and reports are which have led to the resignation of Mr. M. E. Sadler, the director of that department; and whether any correspondence on the question will be laid upon the Table.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The Board of Education made no proposals affecting the department of special inquiries, nor did they suggest any departure from the terms of Mr. Acland's minute adopted by the Treasury when the office came into existence in 1895. Such new proposals as were made, were made by Mr. Sadler, who some weeks ago asked as a condition of his continuing to hold his post for an increase in the funds, staff, and accommodation for his branch of the department, and for a discretion in the use of them so wide as to appear inconsistent with the terms of his appointment. The Board were anxious to meet the wishes of Mr. Sadler but felt bound to call his attention to the terms under which his office was created by Mr. Acland; to his relation to the Heads of the Department; and to the fact that his services and those of his staff must at all times be at the absolute disposal of the Board. Mr. Sadler considered that the general inquiries which he might be conducting should take precedence of the immediate wants of the Board if in his opinion they were of greater importance. This was not the view of the Board, and Mr. Sadler thereupon declined to continue in his office. I shall be happy to lay the Papers on the Table if the hon. Member desires it.

    West Horsley National School.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the managers of the West Horsley (Surrey) National School have dismissed the head master because he refused to

    695
    sign an agreement accepting the school-house as it stood, and promising not to require the managers to put it in good repair; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of issuing a circular requesting the local authorities to instruct their surveyors to report on the condition of each house before they accept any liability in connection therewith.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: My attention has been drawn to the facts stated. I do not think that the local authorities need advice in a matter which concerns the ordinary relations of landlord and tenant.

    Public Offices (Dublin) Bill.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will arrange to invite Irish architects to submit plans in competition for the proposed new buildings contemplated by the Public Offices (Dublin) Bill.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): I do not propose to adopt the suggested method of selecting an architect for the proposed new buildings.
    MR. MOONEY: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that the architect will be selected by the Board of Works, acting upon the advice of the Board of Agriculture.
    MR. ELLIOT: I can assure the hon. Member that any recommendations from the Irish Board of Agriculture and the Office of Works for Ireland will carry with them great weight.

    Cork Model Schools.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the estimated number of children the Cork Model Schools were constructed to accommodate, and the number now in daily average attendance,
    696
    and the annual cost per child at present; and whether, in view of the public meeting of the citizens held on the 10th instant in regard to these schools and the claim of the Technical Instruction Committee, he will state what steps the Commissioners of National Education are prepared to take in view of the expenses incurred by the Technical Instruction Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,, for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Cork Model Schools were built to accommodate 1,226 pupils. In 1902 there were 359 pupils on the rolls and 260 in average daily attendance. The expenditure on the schools in 1902 was £1,819 18s. 4d. This, divided by the average attendance for the past year, gives a sum of £7 per pupil. But this money is not all expended on the pupils. The schools are normal schools for the training of pupil teachers and are a centre for the training of national teachers in elementary science, hand and eye work, cookery, and other extra branches. The circumstances under which the Commissioners decided to require possession of the school premises from the Technical Instruction Committee were mentioned in my right hon. friend's reply to a Question put to him on the 18th December last.† The matter was again before the Commissioners on the 31st March, when they decided to adhere to their determination.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Inasmuch as the Technical Instruction Committee, which got possession of a portion of this building last January, is now under notice of eviction from the National Board may I ask whether the Irish Government would make some representation to the Board to postpone the eviction until the Irish Education Estimates, come on when an opportunity will be had of discussing the matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: As I understand, the point in dispute between the Committee and the Commissioners is this: The Technical Instruction Committee got
    † See (4) Debates, cxvi, 1631.

    697
    permission to occupy the premises temporarily. They thereupon decided upon making alterations of the structure entirely at variance with the general scheme of the premises. And therefore the Commissioners required them to leave. I do not think it is in the power of the Irish Government to coerce or force the Board.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Of course, I recognise there is no power to coerce the Commissioners, but inasmuch as the matters in dispute are of such enormous importance as to require discussion in this House, will the Irish Government re present to the Commissioners the necessity of postponing for a month the eviction of the Committee so that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask whether it is a fact that this body, which spends £1,300,000 of Irish money annually, is a body over which the Government has no control.
    MR. ATKINSON: I think the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of that circumstance.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should not have asked if I had known.
    MR. ATKINSON: I will communicate with my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary on the matter.
    MR. FLYNN: Is it not a fact that the Local Government Board Inspector was sent down on behalf of the Commissioners and certified that the alterations were satisfactory and that no structural alterations were intended, and that the Committee have spent £700 already upon the building.
    MR. ATKINSON: I must ask the hon. Member to put that Question down upon the Paper.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Borough Council and the County Council have both protested against the high-handed action of the Commissioners.
    MR. ATKINSON: Both bodies are anxious to get this school for their own purposes.
    AN IRISH MEMBER: All classes and creeds are united in this matter.

    Dromore Labourers' Cottages.
    MR. WILLIAM M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several labourers' cottages were applied for in the Dromore West Union, county Sligo, and that the sites were approved and the plans perfected; and, if so, whether he will explain the cause of delay in the erection of these cottages.
    MR. ATKINSON: The District Council in January last made an improvement scheme for the erection of a number of cottages, but the scheme has not yet been forwarded to the Local Government Board for approval. The District Council are, apparently, solely in default.

    Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act—Convicted Justices of the Peace.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that all the prisoners under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act have been liberated, will he consider the advisability of restoring their commission to those Justices of the Peace who, through imprisonment under the Act, have been deprived of their seats on the magistrates' bench.
    MR. ATKINSON: The disqualification is statutory in Ireland, as it is in England. The Executive have no power in the matter. I refer the hon. Member to my right hon friend's reply to a similar Question addressed to him on the 31st March by the hon. Member for North Longford on the question of legislation necessary on the subject.†
    MR. DELANY: Cannot the Government take steps to remove the disqualifications from county and district councillors?
    MR. ATKINSON: It can only be done by legislation.† See (4) Debates, cxx., 690.

    Irish Electoral Divisions.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will

    Electoral Divisions (Ireland).—Return showing the area, valuation, population, and occupiers in the electoral divisions of each Union in the counties of Galway, Sligo, Leitrim, and Roscommon, in the following form:—

    Electoral Divisions.

    Area of each Electoral Division in acres.

    Valuation of each Electoral Divisions.

    Population.

    Decrease in Population in two decades.

    Number of Occupiers in each Electoral Division whose Valuation amounts to—

    Valuation per head of the Population.

    Valuation per head of Population excluding Valuation of grazing farms.

    Area and Valuation of grazing lands.

    1881.

    1901.

    £4 and under.

    £6 and over £4.

    £8 and over £6.

    £10 and over £8.

    £15 and over £10.

    Over £15.

    Total Occupies in each Electoral Division.

    Area in acres.

    Valuation.

    £

    £

    Districts scheduled as congested are marked thus *.

    MR. ATKINSON: The information indicated in the last three columns of the proposed Return is not officially recorded, and cannot, therefore, be given. Nor is it possible to give the valuation of holdings in electoral divisions within the particular limits mentioned. If the hon. Member will amend the Notice in the form which I have communicated to him the Return will be granted.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid his desire was to get the information before the Committee stage of the Land Bill. He wanted to show the fallaciousness of the policy adopted by the Congested District Board in fixing congested districts.

    Commission on Trade Disputes.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury into what questions it is intended that the Commission on Trade Disputes is to inquire, and whether it is to be limited to the matters dealt with in the Trade Disputes Bill rejected on Friday last, or to include that of the legal liability of the funds of trade unions involved in the first Taff Vale judgment.
    grant the Return, Electoral Divisions (Ireland), on to-day's Notice Paper.
    The Return referred to is as follows:—
    MR. BELL: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when he will proceed with the appointment of the Royal Commission to inquire into the present position of trades unions under the existing laws and the various judgments of the Courts; and whether he can state the number and composition of such Commission, and what he proposes to refer to them.
    SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: I beg further to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Commission of inquiry into suggested amendments of the law in trade disputes will be appointed, and the terms of its reference.
    MR. BRYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when it is proposed to issue this Commission—will it be within two or three weeks or, at any rate some time before the end of the session?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I desire to get on with this matter as quickly as I

    701
    can; but Members of the House who have had any experience of the appointment of Royal Commissions are well aware that it is not an easy matter to get together a Commission which would prove satisfactory to all parties interested in an answer to the three Questions which are down upon the Paper.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is it the intention of the Government that the Commission shall be what is called an impartial Commission, consisting of persons unconnected with the questions in dispute—a Commission of a somewhat judicial nature—or a Commission which will represent employers and employed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I have a personal preference for the first kind of Commission when one can be appointed, but the difficulties are almost insuperable in this case. Probably the more ordinary course will be followed of endeavouring to have an adequate representation of, I do not say any violent partisanship, but of persons thoroughly cognisant of, and interested in, the various competing views, who, I hope, might not find it impossible to come to something in the nature of a unanimous conclusion.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the questions raised by the Taff Vale judgment come before the Commission?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should doubt whether any Commission would be satisfactory from the purview of which that question was deliberately excluded.
    MR. BELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any encouragement to hope that the appointment of the Commission is in the near future?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should certainly hope so.
    SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: Is it likely to be appointed soon enough to ensure that legislation shall be possible early in the ensuing session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a very difficult question, which it is impossible to answer with certainty. It is difficult even to give a conjectural answer to
    702
    it. I do not know whether the Commission might think it necessary to take a great mass of evidence. I should rather hope not; but that must be, after all, left to their discretion. If a Royal Commission is appointed it is impossible for the Government to control their arrangements.

    Whitsuntide Holidays.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give the House any authentic information as to the date and probable duration of the Whitsuntide recess?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to be able to give information on that agreeable subject if I had power to do so, but it must depend on the course of business. I cannot as yet foresee what business the House will get through in the next fortnight.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures:—Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Sir Frederick Wills, Colonel Long, Sir William Tomlinson, Sir William Mather, Mr. Burt, and Mr. Dillon; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Sir William Walrond, Colonel Denny, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Charles Douglas, and Mr. Black.
MR. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Licensing (Scotland) Acts Amendment and the Licensing Acts Consolidation (Scotland) Bills:—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Asher, Sir Andrew Agnew, Mr. Hunter Graig, Sir John Leng, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Nicol, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Shaw Stewart, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Sir John Tuke, Mr. Ure, and Mr. Wallace.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

SUPPLY [9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,991,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of the personnel for shipbuilding, repairs, maintenance, etc., including the cost of establishments of dockyards and naval yards at Home and Abroad which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he desired to call attention to the enormous increase in the Vote as a whole for shipbuilding and repairs.
MR. LOUGHasked whether a general discussion on the Vote as a whole would be in order.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought it would be inconvenient to divide the Vote and discuss it in sections. The first part showed an increase, and the second a decrease, and the third an increase. He should think it desirable to treat the Vote, therefore, as a whole, so far as its general character was concerned.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he desired to call attention to the enormous increase which had taken place in regard to the expenditure on the construction of new ships. But first he must express his satisfaction at seeing the First Lord of the Treasury present, because he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the subject was last discussed he was greatly missed. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman could remain for a time the Committee would be greatly benefited. The details embodied in this Vote were almost innumerable, but the only thing he wished to impress on the Committee was that this was the predominant Vote for the Navy. If they desired to stop the growing increase
704
in the Navy Estimates at its source they must begin with this Vote, and especially with the particular part of it now before the Committee—namely, the expenditure on new construction. The Vote represented nearly one-half of the whole Navy Estimates; it amounted to more than £17,000,000 altogether, an increase of more than £2,000,000 as compared with the Vote of last year The increase on the Navy Votes as a whole was £3,000,000, and more than £2,000,000 of that was for shipbuilding alone. The Government was asking this year more than £10,000,000 for construction of new ships alone. This did not account for the whole of the increase, for there was an increase of £1,000,000 on the item of reconstruction and repairs. It was important to bear in mind that they were now spending three times the amount that was spent on repairs six years ago. It was significant when they remembered that they had a brand new Navy on which they were spending for repairs as much as was formerly spent on reconstruction alone. He now passed to the general question of the expenditure on new construction. As he had already pointed out, the sum asked for was £10,000,000, and he would like to ask the attention of the Committee to the gradual progress in that item. In 1879 the estimate for new ships was £6,600,000; in 1898 £7,600,000; in 1899 £8,800,000; and now it had risen to £10,000,000. It was proposed to begin this year the construction of four battleships, three first-class cruisers, fifteen destroyers, four scouts, and ten submarines, and he contended that they ought to have a financial statement on these proposals. What was the total amount to which the country was committed in sanctioning this construction programme. That was what the country ought to know. It was important to consider the corresponding amounts which were being spent this year on new ships by other Powers. According to Brassey's "Naval Annual," France, which was always the great bugbear, was spending on new construction no more than £2,400,000; the amount quoted for Russia was £4,200,000; and for Germany £3,600,000. So that the Government were proposing to spend for additional ships an amount which equalled, if it did not exceed, the expenditure of the three great Powers named. The

705
United States were going to spend £5,000,000 for new ships and £1,700,000 for reconstruction and repairs. It might be that the growth of the American Navy was to be treated as an asset on our side, justifying a diminution of the expenditure on our Fleet. On the other hand it might be treated as a reason for increasing our expenditure in order to counterbalance it. But that was not a question for the Admiralty; it was a question of policy for the Government, and especially for the Prime Minister. It was not for the Admiralty to decide our foreign policy. His authority was Lord Brassey, who published a letter in the Daily News some days ago, which the hon. Gentleman probably saw. He could not quite make out on what authority it was based, but it referred to a German official's naval annual of some sort. He was not quite sure what the figures meant. The Committee might take it from him, however, that the figures apparently came to this, that not only in shipbuilding but in manning, victualling, and everything, the expenditure of Great Britain was more than equal to the combined expenditure of France, Germany, and Russia. In naval works our expenditure was vastly greater than the combined expenditure of all these Powers. The only other thing relating to strengths that he wished to say was that two years ago the present First Lord of the Admiralty calculated that the British Navy accounted for one-third of the battleships in all the world. He had himself made a calculation separately from that statement, and he had come substantially to the same conclusion, namely, that so far as battleships were concerned we were years ago working not on what was called the two-Power standard but a standard equal to one-third of the navies of the rest of the world. What they desiderated on this occasion was a reasoned defence and justification for the great increase that was proposed this year. He was sure he was doing no injustice to the hon. Gentleman who represented the Admiralty so well in this House, if he said that for years past these great and growing Estimates had been laid before them almost as a matter of course, with the underlying assumption that whatever the Admiralty asked for would be given and that no special defence was needed for any special increase. In humbler times
706
than these, ten, or even eight years ago, they could afford to do that, but when they came to Estimates of £34,500,000 from which naval works were entirely excluded, and which amounted to £2,500,000 more, they were driven to consider the question of policy, and they were forced into regions of political speculation in which naval opinion had no particular place at all, and where statesmanship came in and the Government alone was responsible.
The Committee would perhaps pardon him if for a moment he referred, by way of example of the sort of thing they should have, to the speech made in July, 1898, by Mr. Goschen. Some members of the Committee would remember that at that late period of the session he came down to the House with what was substantially a new naval Estimate, beyond the original Estimate for the session, and asked for four battleships, four cruisers, and a certain number of smaller craft. The speech Mr. Goschen made on that occasion was a precedent which he wished to dwell upon. He told the Committee that the principle on which he and all his predecessors for many years past had been acting was the principle of the two-Power standard, and it was because something had happened that imperilled that standard that he came down to the House with the new proposal. He gave the House frankly and fully the reasons which justified him in saying that the two-Power standard was in danger, and that in order to preserve it he must have this additional number of ships. He said—
"I regret that it should be my misfortune to have to introduce the name of any foreign Power, but it is impossible to conceal the fact that it is the action of Russia, and the programme on which she has entered, which is the reason for our strengthening our Fleet and taking parallel action with her."
Then he went on to say, and his language was unexceptionable, that we did not propose anything aggressive, and that we did not blame Russia for anything she was doing, but that this increase on the part of Russia necessitated an increase on our part also. What was the answer of Russia to this strong and impressive demand made in the face of Parliament by the First Lord of the Admiralty? The answer of Russia was given within five weeks, and it was an invitation to

707
this and other countries to take part in a conference, having for its object the stopping of the further increase of naval armaments, and not only that, but the devising of means by which these naval armaments might in future be reduced. The increase that Mr. Goschen asked for that day was rather less, he imagined, than the increase the Admiralty was asking for now. The size of the Estimates now was so enormous and so monstrous that they were entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty to follow the example set by Mr. Goschen in 1898 and to tell the Committee as frankly as he did, why it was that he was calling upon them to spend £10,000,000. Since he last spoke on this subject the present First Lord of the Admiralty had made a speech in another place to which he should like to direct attention. On the 24th of March, Lord Selborne made a statement in which he said that the Government had not abandoned the two-Power standard. But if that was so, and he was not challenging the statement, how came it that that standard necessitated an expenditure of £10,000,000. The only answer to that could be by showing that there had been increases in other navies in the intermediate time, which compelled us to spend the sum now asked. One thing which he thought the Committee ought to have was a detailed and authoritative statement making good the position taken up by Lord Selborne that we were still standing by the two-Power standard. It had been said that we had only followed other countries whose shipbuilding had compelled us to keep pace with them. That was a statement also which he thought ought to be made good, for, in the speech to which he referred, Lord Selborne did not mention other countries at all. He thought they had come to a pass when they were entitled to ask the Government to tell them what countries they were, and here again they came to the domain of policy which the Government, and not the Admiralty, were responsible for.
There were different definitions of the two-Power standard. It might mean the two Powers next apparently in strength to ourselves. In that case America would become an important element,
708
and it would be interesting to know how that was to be dealt with. If America was left out he supposed they would not build against Japan. These were all difficulties in the application of the two-Power standard which could not be settled by naval opinion alone. It might be that we were going to build against the next two Powers, whoever they might be, which in all probability would be fighting on our side. The two Powers in Europe, however, from which we most apprehended danger ten or twelve years ago were France and Russia. The two-Power standard in the olden days referred to France and Russia. It might be these two Powers to-day, but on that point they ought to have some information. The rest of Lord Selborne's speech referred to the sea-borne traffic which the British Navy had to protect. That appeared to him to be rather a development of the two-Power standard, and he did not know for what purpose it was introduced. Possibly the hon. Gentleman might tell them. There was this to be said about it, namely, that the sea-borne traffic did not increase in proportion to-the increase of the contribution for the Navy, so that this could not, so far as he could see, be an argument for the increase.
SIR JOHN COLOMB: Does the hon. Gentleman include the Indian and the colonial trade?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he took it that the First Lord had included this. He gave an average of twenty years. When the noble Lord urged the vast extent of that trade as a defence for the large Navy Estimates he did not say what he told the Colonial Conference; he did not tell the audience what he told the Colonial Premiers, and that was that of the entire trade defended by the British Navy one-fourth consisted of ships in which the people of the United Kingdom had no interest whatever.
SIR JOHN COLOMB: No direct interest.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not going to be drawn into discussion of the colonial position, but he would say they had never been able to get the reasons of the colonies for not contributing to this increase. He believed the reasons had

709
been published in Australia, and the arguments of the Colonial Premiers had also been published. If that was so he thought they ought to have a publication of them in this country now. He thought he had said enough to show that whatever defence there might be for the specific demand on the part of the Admiralty, the question underlying it was a question of policy. He thought the Committee ought to have some explanation, if possible, on the part of the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury. Coming back to, not the menace, but the warning addressed to Russia in 1898 by Mr. Goschen; Russia laid down a certain number of battleships in 1898—four, he thought—and Mr. Goschen met that by six, or an increase of two, which he provided for in the supplemental programme of the summer of 1898. Russia's answer to that was the invitation to the Peace Conference, to sit down and consider how these great naval and military armaments could be prevented in the future and reduced in the present. That was the point on which he hoped the First Lord would have an opportunity of saying something, because his Government were committed to the policy of considering the question of a general reduction of naval armaments. The proposal as regarded the Navies was in the original letter of invitation. The nations were to be invited to take measures to check the progressive increase in military and naval armaments. One of the main points was—
"To seek without delay the means of putting a limit to the progressive increase of naval armaments, a question the solution of which becomes evidently more and more urgent in view of the fresh extension"
that was the extension of which he had spoken
"of these armaments."
Still more specifically, in a sort of agenda prepared for the Commission, the Russian Government suggested an—
"Undertaking not to increase the present effectiveness of the naval and military forces and at the same time not to increase the Budgets pertaining thereto, and a preliminary examination of the means by which reductions might be effected in the future of the forces above mentioned.
Now, that was the policy suggested by the Czar of Russia in 1898 in answer to the appeal made to him by Mr. Goschen. The right hon. Gentleman,
710
the First Lord of the Treasury, in the absence of Lord Salisbury wrote in reply stating that Lord Salisbury expressed himself as being glad to accept the invitation addressed to him by the Russian Government—of which this was the first and most important point. The Peace Conference was appointed, and it had been of a great deal of use, but it did not touch this question, to the regret of himself and indeed, of all of them, including the right hon. Gentleman himself. It was found impossible to deal with it. There were various meetings at which it was mentioned, but from want of time—he was quoting shortly from the official papers—the Commission of the Conference to which it had been referred contented itself with expressing the opinion that a further examination of the Russian invitation in regard to the naval as well as military proposals, by the Powers would prove of great benefit to humanity. And the last words in the report were that "for the present" that was abandoned, and the abandonment for the present was accompanied by the expression of the hope that the Powers by which the Ambassadors were accredited, would take up the subject themselves and consider it, and the further expression of opinion that, if they did so, great benefit would result.
Well, four years had elapsed since that great Conference was held, and one of the things that immediately followed was the devastating war in South Africa. He was not going to say anything about that war, because it would be irrelevant to the Vote under discussion, but it was not irrelevant to point out that all the Powers which entered into this undertaking to consider the question of stopping the increase and bringing about a reduction in naval armaments, had continued making increases. This Government had most certainly given an effusive welcome to the proposal to stop the increase, but what had they done? The Naval Estimates in 1898 amounted to £23,000,000, and this year they were £34,500,000, not counting the naval works at all. Having come to a decision that it was desirable to reduce our Naval Estimates, they had made an addition of 30 per cent to them! He did not think that was a satisfactory position. One wondered what it all meant on the part of ourselves and others? Was it all hypocrisy, the

711
sort of hypocrisy that prevailed at the beginning of the session, when they all clamoured for economy and then spent the rest of their time in piling up more expenditure? He hoped that it was not hypocrisy. The right hon. Gentleman must have given the matter more consideration than formerly on account of his relation to the Defence Committee, and now that he occupied a more responsible position, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as a principal and not as a deputy, could assure the Committee that he, at this moment, stood in the position to which the Government was committed in 1898, in reference to stopping the increase and reducing the expense of the Navy. If he took the noble and patriotic course of offering to the rest of the world an example of disarmament, being the first to say that this expenditure—as was set forth in the Conference papers—was ruining all the nations; that it was becoming more ruinous than ever — if the right hon. Gentleman who had done much, did nothing else than make such a declaration as that this day, he would add to his career the greatest of all his achievements.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the hon. Member for Dundee had dismissed from his speech the large expenditure this year for repairs, and he would follow the hon. Gentleman's example in that respect. His hon. friend the Member for Gateshead would, no doubt, deal with that subject by itself. The hon. Member for Dundee hardly broke through the principle he laid down to limit the debate rigidly to the great main lines touched upon by the First Lord of the Admiralty by introducing the topic of the Colonial Conference. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that they had had one or two discussions on that subject in the course of the present session, and that it would do little good to repeat the arguments. The specific point alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was the publication of certain reports in the Australian papers. An explanation, he thought, might be given. The Australians were led to believe that the publication of Sir John Forest's Memorandum in this country was a breach of faith as anticipated, and it was in consequence of that publication that the
712
statements of the other Australian Ministers were published elsewhere. The speech of the hon. Gentleman divided itself into two parts—the part in which he appeared to give some sanction to the doctrine of his hon. friend, the Member for Islington, and the hon. Member for Camborne—whose return to the House he gladly welcomed—of putting economy before efficiency. [Mr. LOUGH was understood to dissent.] At all events, the hon. Gentleman put economy first. The latter portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee touched upon another, though connected, matter—the possibility of this country taking some initiatory steps with a view to the reduction of naval armaments. He had more sympathy with that portion of the speech than with the former, as he had shown on more than one occasion. The statement of his hon. friend as to what he called the enormous increase in this Vote was, he thought, perhaps a little exaggerated. Although he hesitated to use that phrase in connection with the Naval Estimates, these were, no doubt, immense. The figures which the hon. Gentleman gave to the Committee showed that there had been something like a stationary Building Vote for three years, and that that period was followed by an increase of £1,000,000 this year. Looking at the programme of the two other great naval Powers, he did not think that these facts quite bore out the expression, "enormous increase." But his hon. friend himself was responsible for a very considerable increase in 1894—an increase proportionately greater for new construction than had ever been made before or since. He was sorry to hear him use the words that if we wanted to stop the increase in the cost of the Navy we must strike at this Vote, which was the root cause of all the increase. That was not the way he looked at this Vote or the Estimates generally. He did not want to stop the increase in the cost of the Navy at its root, unless we could do it safely and consistently with the action of the other Powers. He was afraid his hon. friend gave a dangerous colour to his remarks; and even a weightier authority than the hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given likewise a dangerous colour to his view in his speech at Bristol. In drawing

713
a line apart from the consideration of the safety of the country, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer laid it down arbitrarily, that there ought not to be an increase this year in the Building Vote.
Speaking at Bristol the late Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down the twin positions, that taking the Army and Navy together there might be a small decrease in the Army expenditure, but that the naval expenditure should be stereotyped at the figure at which it was. On this Vote it was not possible to discuss the economies which might be effected in the Army, but the Committee had given an earnest in the present session that they would make the reductions which they could make with safety, in the Army expenditure. He could not, however, agree with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that we must stereotype this Vote at its present figure. If we took to praising economy as economy in the abstract there was a danger that, at a moment when the pressure of taxation was considerable and expenditure was unduly high, and there was a desire on all sides of the House to reduce it, we might take an unintelligent view of particular items of expenditure, the reduction of which might lead to those ups and downs occurring in the naval Estimates which had always been condemned and which had been so unfortunate in the past. In former times there were sharp pitches up and down, and it was universally admitted that those sharp pitches had been most costly to the country, consequently there had been a general desire in the past few years to keep in the view of the Board of Admiralty and of the House of Commons that in steadiness lay safety.
With regard to the two-Power standard, the greatest proportionate increase ever suddenly made in the Fleet was made by Lord Spencer in 1894. For that his hon. friend was responsible. That increase was powerfully defended in the House of Lords by Lord Spencer, and in this House by the Secretary to the Admiralty, Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth, who said—
"Whatever it may cost, and whatever sacrifice it may entail, we shall keep our Navy equal to defending our interests against any combination which may be formed against us,
714
and to performing those exceptional duties which in time of peace or war fall upon our ships."
Sir Ughtred added that that was a truism accepted by people of all shades of opinion. It was difficult to understand how any one could get it into his mind that this Shipbuilding Vote was to be stereotyped at a particular amount. Quite apart from the position we held in the world, it seemed to him to be idle to suppose there could be any possible stereotyping of this Vote. Those principles which were laid down by Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth, and which must at all times guide this House, were laid down in far more sweeping terms than he should have ventured to have adopted, because "any combination" was there used without any information being given. It had never been supposed by anybody that we should be ready to meet the world in arms. What was supposed was that the two-Power standard gave this country a sufficient margin against any probable combination; but seeing that a fleet could not be suddenly increased in fighting strength, it was necessary to look a few years ahead in making calculations. The United States had now reached the second place, and meant to remain there; but he agreed that it was not necessary for us to build against the United States, which was the protector of the rights of neutrals. It would be as great a mistake to count on them as an enemy as it would to regard them as an active ally. The hon. Member for Dundee had compared our expenditure with that of three Powers; but the weak point in that argument was the two-Power standard meant not only a little more than equality in battleships, but a great deal more than equality in cruisers. The two-Power standard was ascribed to a most respectable author. Lord Spencer stated that it was Cobden who first laid down the two-Power standard for our Fleet. He stated that our Navy ought to be sufficient to efficiently cope with the Navies of any two Powers; that standard allowed a certain margin of strength even as regarded battleships, but the two-Power standard had never been explained by anyone, or even suggested by those who supported it, to have any relationship to anything

715
except battleships. As regarded cruisers, it was always admitted that we wanted a larger number than would be required by the two-Power standard. That fact vitiated all comparisons of mere expenditure and personnel. They could not take the Fleets of France and Russia, and say we were beyond the two-Power standard, without taking into account our enormous number of cruisers. As regards personnel, our personnel was more costly than the personnel of other nations, as we had no conscription, and had, therefore, to keep up a larger supply of long service men than they. Lord Spencer, in 1894, in defending the two-Power standard, said, with regard to cruisers, we had already two to one as compared with any two Powers together, and that we needed cruisers far beyond the proportion of the two-Power standard. What was meant by the two-Power standard was that it gave us a sufficient superiority in battleships over the Fleets of any two Powers. Our position with regard to our Fleet was and ought to be such as to make any three Powers pause before they attacked us. How had these matters been affected since 1894? At the present time it could not be denied that we did not stand in that position with regard to a maritime alliance with Italy, that we stood in some years ago; and, on the other hand, Japan was now building more slowly. Though our expenditure on the Navy was very large now, our expenditure on the land forces of the Empire was still larger. Our naval expenditure was, with war money, under £38,000,000, whilst the expenditure for our land forces was £52,000,000.
His hon. friend had raised the question whether it was possible to take any steps, in conjunction with other Powers, toward reducing the naval expenditure of the world. He never thought himself that the particular proposals indicated by the Russians in their circular were likely to be fruitful; and they were put in a form which was perhaps not the best form. He held that something might be done, not by treaty or by any attempt at a formal engagement, but by a general understanding with the Powers. In that he was with his hon. friend. In the present disposition of France and the peaceful and friendly
716
attitude of the French Government, with the presence at the Quai d'Orsay of a man so weighty and possessing so much the confidence of Europe as M. Delcassé, he could not but think that it might be possible for England and France to talk the matter over and see whether they might not themselves meet Russia on the subject. If these three Powers agreed, even if Germany stood out, something might be done towards promoting that reduction—not very large, perhaps, in such circumstances—to which his hon. friend pointed. While he would always oppose anything like an attempt to make a binding arrangement, which would be certainly dangerous, and would be likely to cause, rather than prevent war, yet, he thought it might be possible to do something in the direction of reducing armaments by a friendly conference of the Powers.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)said that he only intervened at that stage of the discussion because he was anxious that what he had to say on the particular question raised by the hon. Member opposite should be said before the Committee proceeded to discuss the more technical matters connected with the Vote. He did not know that it was altogether convenient to attempt to discuss great questions of policy on what was, after all, only one Vote in the Navy Estimates, but it appeared to him that the speech of the hon. Member opposite divided itself into two entirely distinct parts. One related purely to a matter of policy; and he certainly would have thought that this was not the best time for discussing the question of the policy of the Government quite independently, as the hon. Member said, of the policy of the Admiralty. The hon. Member said truly that the question whether we could, or could not, make a pause in our naval preparations was one which did not concern the Admiralty at all; but that being so, it was not altogether convenient on a Vote purely concerned with the administration of the Admiralty to introduce a subject which, ex hypothesi, the Admiralty was not able to decide or in any very remarkable degree to affect.
MR. LOUGH: When are we to introduce it?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would have thought there were many opportunities.
MR. LOUGH: We are always put off.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there were many opportunities, such as on the Address, or on votes of censure, when the general policy of the Government could be brought under review. He would not labour the point, however. He still maintained that the course taken was an inconvenient one; but since the question of policy was before the Committee he would like to say a word upon it. The hon. Member opposite had pointed out that no conclusion was arrived at at the Hague Conference upon the question of naval disarmament. In those circumstances he would submit whether it was not the plain duty of the Admiralty to deal with facts as they were, and not with facts as they might have been. The facts as they were they knew perfectly; the facts as they might have been they knew very little about. The facts which he, as a member of the Board of Admiralty, knew, were these—that so far from there having been any cessation in the maritime preparations of any of the great Powers concerned, there had been an increase of activity, and if that increase had been more marked in respect of one nation than of another, it had been in respect of the particular nation which the hon. Member cited as having proposed this reduction. That was the state of facts they were compelled to contemplate, and when the hon. Member asked them to base a reduction on a hypothesis of what might have happened, but did not happen, he was asking of them a great deal too much. The hon. Member for West Islington made an interruption which he confessed did not commend itself to him as a wise contribution to the discussion, remarking that economy was the first consideration.
MR. LOUGH: With efficiency.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman also com-
718
mitted himself to the observation that the policy which was considered necessary in 1894 ought to have been the guide to the present policy.
MR. LOUGHsaid he had only alluded to the statement which the Liberal Government made at that time, that it would make adequate provision for the needs of the Empire. He did not mean to say there ought not to be progression afterwards in proportion to population and commerce, but certainly not such bounds as had taken place since then.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that that was a generous amplification of the hon. Gentleman's interruption; but as he heard the interruption, he would say that economy based on any lines of that kind was the worst possible sort of economy. There seemed to be an impression in some quarters that they could measure the Navy as they could measure money in the bank. It was a very good thing to have £100,000 in the bank, but if they could not have that, then it was good to have £90,000; and if they could not have that, then it was good to have £50,000. That was true in regard to money in the bank, but it was not true in regard to the Navy. If they had not a Navy which could do their work, and not only go into action but come out of it successfully, it was far better not to have a Navy at all. What he would ask the hon. Member to address himself to was this—not the question whether we were spending so much money in 1894 and so much more money now, but whether the problem which the hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite, as representing the Board of Admiralty, set himself in 1894, and thought he had solved, could be solved by the same means at the present time; and until he had an answer which convinced him that what was sufficient then was sufficient now, he confessed that he would pay very little regard indeed to these statistical comparisons. He thought he would be able to show that what was sufficient in 1894 was not sufficient now. It had been pointed out with great truth that the increase in the Navy Estimates in that year was one of the largest increases on record

719
in view of what had preceded it. His hon. friend, and the Administration of which he formed part, acted then, he knew perfectly well, on precisely the same considerations as those on which the present Government were now acting. They adopted precisely the same process of informing themselves as the Government were now utilising. They consulted their representatives in foreign countries; they took stock of their resources at home; and as a result of their consultation and consideration, they decided that a certain strength was necessary for the British Navy. That was precisely the process the Government were adopting at the present time.
He was not going into the details of the actual list of ships of foreign countries. He noticed that his hon. friend did not do so either. He noticed that his hon. friend had referred him to a book which he himself had in his hand. He had it in his hand because he thought it was one of the sources of inspiration on which his hon. friend would draw for his information, and he was correct. But he observed that the hon. Gentleman did not quote some of the figures, which he believed were on the very page to which he was referring. If he had done so he would have been able to demonstrate to the Committee that arguments based entirely on the naval expenditure of two different countries were not at all a safe guide in this matter. What they wanted to know was what were the available forces likely to be opposed to us in time of war in any conjuncture which was reasonably likely to happen; and if his hon. friend had read the list of ships given in that book—a list to which he personally would not commit himself, but which for the moment he would not dispute—if he had read that list of the ships, not of all the Powers which he was pleased to take into consideration, but of the two Powers which he himself selected—if he had told the Committee that according to the figures given there, the battleships of those two countries being built, or about to be built, were three more in number than the battleships of this country, he would have impressed the Committee rather less by a mere statement of expenditure than he had done. Expenditure, indeed, was one of the many items which had to be considered; but it was only one. This country had
720
costs to contemplate and to bear which were unknown to other nations. We were not extravagant. There was no question at all about that. We were not extravagant in producing what we did produce. He had seen it stated that we were producing our battleships for 37 per cent. per ton less than were the French. But we had imposed upon us an enormous amount of expenditure not common to other countries, and the mere expenditure on the ships themselves was not by any means the limit of the total expenditure. We had, in the first place, the expenditure on the personnel, which grew, of course, with the number of ships. Our personnel was a very highly paid and was a voluntary one, the whole charge, of which fell on us, while a similar charge did not fall on other countries. Then we were compelled to keep up costly naval establishments throughout the world for the protection of our commerce. All those causes of expenditure were absent from the Budgets of the countries with which comparison was made. He submitted that he was right in choosing as his test of the duty devolving upon the Admiralty the actual force in ships which was capable of being raised against this country in the unfortunate event of war. That was not the only consideration, but it ought to be the principal consideration, which weighed with the Admiralty in deciding the standard to which the British Navy ought to be kept up. If they were to upset the conclusions which had been arrived at by the Board of Admiralty on that basis, they must submit a much fuller and more elaborate indictment than the hon. Member had brought to-day.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I did not bring an indictment. I called for an explanation.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he, would not stick at a word, and he would not say indictment, but he would say that the hon. Member had brought what he considered to be a very grave charge. He had suggested that the Admiralty, which in this matter was the adviser of the Government, was insisting upon an expenditure and a

721
scheme of naval development which were in excess of the naval requirements of the country.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No.
MR. ARNOLD FORSTERsaid if the hon. Member did not mean that, what did he mean? If the hon. Member did not mean that, then he had very little to reply to. If it were the fact that the Admiralty were only preparing a fleet for an emergency which it might reasonably be expected to encounter, then they were simply doing the plain duty placed upon them by the House of Commons and the country.
He did not intend to follow the hon. Member into the question of whether this or that Power ought to bulk differently in our consideration in the future from what it had done in the past. He did not desire to express any view at all about the position of the United States. That was a situation which would no doubt have to be considered in the future, and about which something would have to be said. But he would adhere to this—that, taking into consideration only those Powers which had been referred to, the position the Admiralty were now contemplating was at least as serious as when the hon. Member for Dundee was partly responsible for the Navy Estimates. They were, he believed, carrying out in the letter and in the spirit the injunctions which had been laid upon them by the House of Commons, and he heard very little from the hon. Member which tended to convince him that he really questioned that fact. But he still held the view that the Committee could not profitably discuss the question of policy on a wide scale—that was to say, the question of whether or not the European Powers and the great Power across the Atlantic might come to some further agreement as to the cessation of armaments. He was not certain whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had not the better advised view of this matter when he suggested that that was the last development of military activity which some foreign Powers would desire to review. But whether that were so or
722
not, the Committee were not dealing with that question. The duty of the Admiralty, as he understood it, was to give an assurance to the nation that, under the circumstances which existed, they were prepared to guarantee it against attack, and, what was much more important, against defeat, by any combination of Powers with which they might reasonably expect to be at war. He challenged the attack on the Admiralty on that ground. The more closely the Committee examined what was going on in other countries, the more abundantly they would find that the Admiralty were not only justified in, but compelled to adopt, the course they were following. It was true that shipbuilding was much more expensive than it used to be, and that was a matter that could be discussed in detail when they dealt with the different parts of the Vote. On the general question his answer was that they were merely dealing with the problem with which the hon. Member for Dundee had to deal in 1894, but that though that problem was the same in its nature it was not the same in its degree, and the Admiralty were varying their methods exactly to the extent and in the measure of the change in the circumstances they had to meet.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he would not attempt to deal with the technical portions of the hon. Gentleman's speech; he wished to refer only to one matter raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, in regard to which no answer has been given, viz., whether any effort was being made to come to an understanding with foreign Powers by means of which these enormous Estimates might be diminished. So far as the Estimates were concerned, when the Admiralty came forward with their knowledge and declared they found it necessary for the safety of the country that so much money should be spent, he was not prepared to go against them. He did not consider himself qualified to gainsay the view of the Admiralty, and if they insisted that these ships were required, he could not do otherwise than comply with their demand. But he felt that some answer should be given as to whether any effort had been made in

723
the direction he had suggested. It was well known that the matter was expressly included in the invitation to the Hague Conference. Russia, who had increased her expenditure more than any other power of late, originally made the proposal in 1898, but it was not carried to any conclusion because the time was inopportune. Obviously, provided we maintained our relative strength, that was all we required. No harm could result from an attempt being made to come to such an agreement. At the same time certain alterations in the laws of naval warfare might be considered with a view to withdrawing from the different nations the inducements they now had to maintain large navies. With regard to this country there was the necessity of maintaining its food supply, it ought to be seriously considered by the Government whether they should not try to come to an agreement that food stuffs should be definitely considered as being not contraband of war.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether the hon. and learned Member would really stake the food supplies of this country upon an international agreement that food should not be regarded as contraband of war.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he would do nothing of the kind. It would be a foolish thing to do, but it would be for our advantage to get that ruling into international law. The hon. Member, however, had not permitted him to finish his suggestion. It would be to our advantage if we could get the law, which was doubtful at present, established upon a sound basis in that sense; and if we made a concession in return it might induce other nations to make a proportionate reduction in their navies. The concession to which he referred was one which the United States had been pressing on the civilised world for the last twenty years, viz., that private property at sea should be exempt from capture in time of war. He was aware that that might diminish our naval power in the way of bringing pressure to bear, but it would withdraw nearly all the inducements that foreign nations now had to keep up strong navies. It
724
was, however, a matter of opinion whether such an arrangement would procure an ultimate reduction of naval armaments, but what he really wished to know was whether the Government had the slightest intention of approaching foreign Powers in an endeavour to come to an understanding by which that result could be achieved.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that with regard to approaching foreign Powers, he understood the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean carefully to guard himself by saying that he could not contemplate a formal or binding agreement; what he wanted was a friendly understanding. All he would say on that was that in preparations for war a friendly understanding was about the most dangerous thing they could have. He desired to protest against the use of the phrase "building against" Powers. Our shipbuilding programme was not against any Power; it was for ourselves, and it was based on the real necessities of our position, having regard to what other countries were doing. As had been pointed out, to stop naval expenditure, they must stop this Vote, because it really ruled every other Vote. The growth of expenditure on this Vote had been treated purely by reference to the building of other Powers. But did not other elements enter into the matter? Whatever ships were built must be up to date, with all modern appliances, fulfilling all modern conditions, and to meet the demands of science itself involved an enormous advance in expenditure. But that was not all. When the personnel of this Vote was reached, the Committee would ring with appeals not for reduced but for increased expenditure. Dockyard representatives would get up and protest against alleged inadequate wages.
MR. KEARLEY: Yes, some of them protested against Irish landlords getting such a pull.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was simply stating the fact. It had been stated that our naval expenditure was based upon a Jingo policy, but he wished to point out that from the very circumstances of the case there must be an inevitable growth of naval expenditure

725
by increase of wages. With regard to the question of approaching foreign Powers, he did not think there was a man either inside or outside the House of Commons who was not anxious to have a diminution of armaments. In this matter they were all in the same boat, but what they wished for and what was obtainable were two different things. When they talked about asking foreign Powers to come to some friendly understanding for reduction of armaments, he could not conceive how such a thing could be practicable. If foreign Powers built more ships, this country would have to do the same. Suppose they went to Germany and said, "We want you to come to a friendly understanding to stop this mad career of shipbuilding." What would Germany's answer be? She would reply, "Go to the United States and get her to stop building, and then we will talk to you." In dealing with a very great and serious question like that of naval construction, it was right that they should have material principles before them before coming to the details of shipbuilding. In such matters as this he deplored getting into the sentimental stage and being misled by a will-o'-th'-wisp.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that like his hon. friends he had strong opinions in favour of the maintenance of the peace of the world, and he regretted that the heavy expenditure upon armaments, which this Vote contained, was necessary. When the hon. Member for West Islington, who was such a pronounced apostle of economy, as a concomitant of efficiency spoke of reducing the cost of construction, he appeared to confuse the word efficiency with deficiency. When his hon. friend suggested economy on the Army Votes he deserved the support of hon. Members on this side of the House.
MR. LOUGH: Yes, but I didn't get it.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he believed that the best economy his hon. friend could advocate was that they should maintain the strength as well as the efficiency of the Navy. It had been stated that our naval strength was so great that an explanation was necessary for the great naval expenditure proposed
726
this year. It had been stated that in battleships alone Great Britain was as strong as one-half of the world. He did not know what figures that contention was based upon, but if they took the battleships afloat at the beginning of this year, they would find that Great Britain had fifty-seven, whilst of those the number under twenty-five years of age was forty-eight. On the same scale Germany and France together had fifty-two battleships afloat, and the number under the age of twenty-five was forty-five. If they took Germany, France, and Russia together, they had seventy-three battleships, fifty-one of which were under the age of twenty-five years. Therefore, as a matter of fact, so far from Great Britain having as many battleships as half the world, she had not as many as Germany, France, and Russia together, and barely a preponderance over Germany and France together. If a comparison was made of what the strength of the various Powers would be in 1906, the deficiency was even greater, and the present naval programme would only provide for the increase made by France and Germany, or by Germany and Russia. It would have been as well if the Secretary to the Admiralty had justified, by a comparison, the programme of this year, for it was not beyond his ingenuity to give comparisons in order to justify the heavy claims he was making upon the National Exchequer. In regard to their Navy, France had stood still, and might continue to do so for some years to come; but in Russia and Germany the increase in their naval programmes had been enormous in recent years. So long as Germany and Russia maintained those increases it was essential for our national safety that this country should not be allowed to drop behind. It was impossible to go into a comparison without dealing with their cruiser strength as well as battleships. The position of this country was peculiar, and necessitated a large cruiser fleet. At the beginning of this year Great Britain had fifty-four large cruisers over 5,000 tons, whereas Germany, and France, and Russia together, had forty-nine large cruisers. The Admiralty might have been working to a two-Power standard in battleships, but apparently they were working up to a three-Power standard in regard to cruisers. Taking those under twenty

727
years of age, which was the limit stipulated in the German naval law, Great Britain still had fifty four large cruisers over 5,000 tons, whereas the three Powers he had named had forty-four; there again this country exceeded the three-Power standard. If they took the beginning of the year 1907, when the Continental programmes would be completed, and when our programme for the present year would be completed, Great Britain would then have seventy-six large cruisers afloat, and Germany, France, and Russia would have fifty-five. It was perfectly clear that the Admiralty were not working up to a two-Power standard, but to a three-Power standard in large cruisers. Considering the position of the British Empire he did not think a three-Power standard as regarded cruisers was at all to be deprecated, and he should be one of the first to vote in favour of a vote of censure if the Government dropped below a safe two-Power standard as regarded battleships and a three-Power standard in regard to cruisers.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he could not quite agree with what fell from the Secretary to the Admiralty as to this not being a suitable occasion for discussing questions of general naval policy. They did not get very many opportunities of discussing naval questions in their general aspect, the aspect which was undoubtedly the most important part of this subject and one which he thought the House of Commons was most fitted to deal with. He was surprised that the Secretary to the Admiralty referred them to the King's Speech as a good opportunity for discussing these questions. Hon. Members below the Gangway had had bitter experience of the debate on the Address in regard to questions of general naval and military policy. They knew that when these questions were raised on the King's Speech, immediately the Secretary to the Admiralty, or some other more distinguished Member of the Government, rose and said it was a question of confidence, and the vote which was taken did not in the least represent the opinion of the House on the merits of the question. There had been, in the course of the debate, very general agree-
728
ment among all parties in the House that the British Navy should be the finest in the world, and that it should be strong enough for all the work it was likely to be required to do, and he supposed the Committee would not dissent from the proposition that if the British Navy was to have predominance among other navies the Shipbuilding Vote should be rather ahead of the other Votes. Guns could be borrowed, soldiers had in war times served on board ships, engineers could be obtained in an emergency from other quarters. But while there would be a reserve which we could count upon in other quarters, ships took a longer time to build. It was a curious fact that while soldiers and sailors for scientific war might be produced more rapidly than in former times, the great weapons took a longer time to produce. How strong ought the Navy to be? They had heard of the two-Power standard and the three-Power standard, but having listened to many debates with great attention, he had not gathered what was the view of the Government as to the actual standard they were trying to work up to. One thing was perfectly clear—we could not make ourselves secure against an attack by the entire civilised world. Nothing would be more ridiculous than if we were to try it, and if we so conducted our diplomacy and statecraft that other nations regarded us with general and universal hostility, then it might be a good thing that we should realise that no preparations we could make, however great our patriotism and however prodigious our sacrifices, would make us absolutely secure. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was a great supporter of international law and agreement. He confessed that he should himself be sorry to see us influenced in our naval policy by an international interpretation of what constituted contraband of war. Assuming the effective blockade of this country and the effective subjection of this country by a coalition of Powers we might depend upon corn being contraband of war. Notwithstanding many Hague Conferences to the contrary corn would be declared contraband of war.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the hon. Member misunderstood him. What he

729
said was that if international law by treaty were altered there would be less inducement to the nations of the world to have strong navies.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that appeared to him to be putting too great dependence on international assurance. We must allow something for our diplomacy and statecraft. We could strengthen our Navy not only by increasing the number of ships at our disposal, but by reducing the probabilities of hostile combinations against us. If we could cultivate a friendly policy towards the foreign nations with whom we were particularly associated, we should really be strengthening our Navy by indirect means; and, so far as we were able to establish particularly friendly relations with any other Power, in that very respect we might modify our Estimates to the amount of force we required to have at our disposal to deal with contingencies. For instance, he did not think that the growth of the navies of the United States and Italy need cause us any anxiety or disquietude; both were nations with which, with occasional lapses, we had consistently cultivated very good relations. The most formidable nation to which this country might be opposed—France—had not of late years shown any inclination to force the pace in the matter of naval armaments. On the contrary, he believed it was an indisputable fact that France had fallen behind very much in the race of naval armaments, and thereby, he ventured to say, had shown how very strongly the instincts of that great democratic people were towards peace. They were all agreed that when the last word had been spoken in diplomacy, when every precaution we could take had been taken, the British nation must be strong enough to face all outstanding liabilities.
The Secretary to the Admiralty said that it was no good having a Navy unless they had a good enough Navy to face the probable combinations which might be opposed to it. They were nearly all agreed with that, and they did not grudge the money to attain that result. But what was England's great advantage over all other nations in the attempt to procure
730
a really predominant Navy? It was not altogether our wealth. Other nations were wealthy, and some nearly as wealthy as we were; it was not altogether that there was any inherent superiority of seamanship in English sailors, because, now that the matter had passed so much into the realms of machinery, seamanship did not appear to be such an important factor in naval strength as it used to be. He had often been told by people who had studied these matters that if it came to mechanical skill and mechanical genius, the French, or Americans at any rate, had shown that they were not likely to fall very far behind the mechanical attainments of this country. There was one advantage we possessed over other countries in Europe, which enabled us to have a Navy far greater and better than they could have, no matter how great were the sacrifices they made, and that was, while all these Powers had to depend upon a great Army and to consider enormous land preparations for the defence of their frontiers, we, in this Island, were able to concentrate the whole of our energies and strength upon the Fleet. It was with that indisputable assertion in his mind that he would respectfully direct the attention of Ministers on the Treasury Bench to the present ratio between naval and military expenditure. He was not going to elaborate the point now, but he would say without any doubt that those who advocated a military expenditure well over £30,000,000 a year as a permanent part of our strategic policy, were the real enemies of our naval predominance, and were far more to be feared by those who had the interests of the Navy at heart than a certain hon. Gentleman opposite who was such a strict economist. He would suggest to those who were rightly interested in the Navy that they should, at any rate, look at the growing Army Estimates with all attention and with a critical eye.
MR. LOUGHsaid he did not suppose in considering the needs of the Navy they should neglect economy. He put economy first, and he interpreted economy in a wide sense. It was no economy not to make judicious expenditure. He was very glad that the Committee had

731
been allowed to have a general debate on matters connected with the Navy. He thought the Committee had not been treated very well by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote, who had protested against any general debate on what was only one Vote in the Navy Estimates. It had been said that this was the Vote that led to all the other expenditure. His hon. friend the Member for Dundee had asked what was the reason for the great expenditure now proposed for shipbuilding; but no answer whatever had been given by the Government. Such questions had been deprecated as unseasonable, but the Committee never came to a time when they were seasonable. He wished to emphasise the demand which had been made for an explanation why this increase had been proposed. Last year the amount spent fell £600,000 short of the amount voted, though the amount voted was £2,500,000 less than they were asked to vote now.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The whole of the money was spent except £35,000.
MR. LOUGHsaid the total spent for new construction under contracts last year was 6·3 millions, whereas the Vote was 6·9 millions.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member's statement is misleading. There were reasons why the new construction did not progress so fast as was anticipated, but the whole of the money, except £35,000, was expended in doing other work.
MR. LOUGHsaid it appeared to him that the figures he had quoted were correct. The whole of the money was not expended on that Vote, although it had been expended in another way. It seemed to him that the total amount of the Vote was in excess of anything the Admiralty would be able to spend within the year. The figure of this Vote was 17·3 millions, and that was more in proportion to the whole Navy Estimates than Vote A ever was before. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to make some explanation of this increase. Ten years ago the total expenditure on the Navy was £17,000,000 odd, and this Vote
732
was £6,500,000, or less than 40 per cent. of the whole, while to-day Vote A was more than 50 per cent. of the whole. The important point was that the expenditure on Vote A would govern the whole of the rest of the Estimates, and it was large enough to provide for a total naval expenditure of £42,000,000 instead of £34,500,000. They ought to have some, explanation of the principle on which the Government was working. His hon. friend behind him had given the Committee some figures to show that we were working up to much more than the two-Power standard in regard to shipbuilding—taking battle-ships and cruisers very considerably above the two-Power standard. In 1901 the Secretary to the Admiralty stated to the Committee that the Admiralty had received definite instructions from the House not to allow the standard of the strength of the Navy to fall below that of the two Powers which ranked next to us in naval construction; and last year, in answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury, the hon. Gentleman said that the Admiralty were working at the standard which for many years past had been enjoined upon them by the House of Commons—that the Navy should be in such a condition that it should be able to contend, with hopes of success, with any two naval Powers. In working up to that two-power standard, however, it would be very wise for this country, which was the leading country in the matter of naval expenditure, to do only what was absolutely necessary. In 1898 we spent 1·4 millions more on new construction than any other two great Powers. In the next year we spent £300,000 more; in the following year £70,000 more, and the next year £1,000,000 more. What was the result of that expenditure? It simply stimulated the other Powers into greater activity, and last year we somewhat fell behind, and the two other Powers spent £1,000,000 more than we did. This year we resolved in an exaggerated way to make good this defect, and the increase of the Vote for construction was £1,100,000 and £2,000,000 on the total Naval Estimates. He thought that the conclusion must be drawn that the more we spent and went anything beyond the two-Power standard we d d

733
not improve our relative position, and only stimulated other Powers to make greater exertions. He thought that we ought to make some approach, direct or indirect, to the other Powers to see whether anything could be done to reduce this gigantic expenditure. The time was most opportune.
A remarkable incident in connection with the Newspaper Press of the country took place some time ago. One enterprising newspaper was attracted by the provision made for the German Navy by the German Parliament, and it applied to the German Embassy to know what Germany was really doing. A most polite reply was sent by the German Ambassador by direction of the Emperor to the effect—
"You ask me what we are doing. Look to your own Parliament, and ask your own Government what they are doing. They are the motive Power. If you can get them to abate these vast armaments, that will be a start in the solution of this great problem."
Something had been said about France. He thought they must all agree that the nation was to be congratulated on the happy visit of the King to France which had just taken place, and which was calculated to promote better relations between the two countries. He noticed that the French Minister had already modified the Navy expenditure in that country, and he believed the Army expenditure too. The time was therefore opportune for this country to take some steps in the direction of a friendly approach to the Powers with the view of abating this huge expenditure. Yet they did not hear from the Government of anything of the kind. The hon. Member for Dundee had pointedly asked the Prime Minister to remain and make a statement. The right hon. Gentleman did remain for a short time, but said nothing, and neither from him nor from the representative of the Government who had spoken, had the Committee received the slightest satisfaction. Why should there be this increased Estimate of £2,000,000 at a time when the olive branch was held out, and when our own people were complaining of the heavy burden of taxation? The Government ought to respond in a more sympathetic spirit than they had done, to the appeals made to them. He
734
was not preaching any new doctrine. Thirty or forty years ago Mr. Disraeli in this House used to say exactly the same as he was now inadequately saying.
He was standing up for a policy of economy rather than a policy of successive panics. He thought every man in the House ought to try and think out for himself some policy in regard to this matter. The position he took was that of a well-conducted Liberal, as he ventured to call himself. His hon. friend who opened the Debate was rather twitted by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Forest of Dean, with having started these great increases in the Naval Estimates in 1894. The increases really began in 1888, but he remembered that the programme of 1894 was accompanied by the statement that the provision then made was adequate for the needs of the nation. It had been assumed that the giant leaps in naval expenditure had been made to put the nation in line with the other Powers, and that in future there would be only a reasonable expenditure proportionate to our expanding commerce, and growing population. But we found the panic increasing from year to year, and the expenditure had jumped up from £17,000,000 in 1894, to £34,500,000 this year, and there was much evidence that it would be £42,000,000 two or three years hence. He could only utter his protest now as he had done before. He was not the sole advocate for economy. There had lately been some distinguished converts to that creed. The notable speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been already alluded to, but nothing had been said about the equally remarkable speech of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced his Budget, in which, in the course of along digression, he deplored the growing expenditure and said that the Government would respond to any approach that might be made to them from abroad with regard to a modification of the national expenditure on the Navy. The Estimates before the Committee, however, did not give any indication that they were making any proposition of the kind. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would respond to the demand for a full and

735
clear statement of the naval policy of the Government. The hon. Gentleman invited the Committee to plunge at once into the weary details they were always discussing. He would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would not give some explanation of this great increase in expenditure, and also whether there was to be any limit to it.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he should like to explain to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that his fear that the Naval Estimates, as a whole, were increasing in proportion to the Shipbuilding Vote, was founded on inaccurate knowledge. The reason why the Shipbuilding Vote had increased to such an extent was that ship-building was becoming more and more expensive in proportion to the number of men that was carried. In the days of Nelson a first-class battleship carried rather more than a first-class man-of-war carried to-day. The latter would, however, cost £1,000,000 sterling, whereas in Nelson's time five or six line-of-battle ships could be built for that amount. Another reason for the increase in the Shipbuilding Vote was that the Admiralty were now getting rid of a number of obsolete vessels, and were transferring their crews to new and improved vessels. Therefore, the increase in the Shipbuilding Vote was entirely out of proportion to the increase in the Naval Vote as a whole; and that would continue for some years, until all the obsolete vessels were expunged from the Navy. He rejoiced that the broad question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, and supported, with all the eloquence the Committee expected, by the hon. Member for Dumfries, had been very fully discussed by the Committee. He remembered two or three years ago, when there was a modest attempt to make a comparison between expenditure on the Army and on the Navy, that it was ruled, no doubt properly, out of order by the Chair. To-day the Committee had had a pungent comparison from the hon. Member for Oldham as to the proportion between naval and military expenditure, and the basis on which it should be founded. He ventured to say that the statement of a well-known statesman that the Navy
736
was the first line of defence, and that the Army was the second, was not well-founded on fact, because he believed the Navy was the only line of defence, and that if the Navy went, this country would be powerless against other countries. The Navy was the only hope of the country. If that proposition were accepted, then one must realise the vital importance of the question raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, with all the authority of his former position at the Admiralty. He did not wish to criticise the speech of the hon. Gentleman; but he thought it right to point out to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman did not condemn this expenditure. The hon. Gentleman criticised the wisdom of the expenditure, and he asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to explain and justify it; but he did not, either himself personally, or on behalf of those whom the hon. Gentleman represented in naval matters, condemn this expenditure. He ventured to say that the Government and the Admiralty had done splendidly as regarded the Navy. Everything they had done was entirely justified; and had been done in answer to an agitation from outside, which was of the most powerful character, and in which practically the whole of the people of the country, without distinction of Party, had taken their full share.
Some years ago a letter was published which was written by Lord Charles Beresford, then second in command of the Mediterranean Squadron, in which he stated that there was not sufficient preparation either as regarded the number of ships or the details to justify the position which the Fleet ought to hold in relation to the defence of the country. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty then justified the existing condition of things; but since that time, what had happened? The Mediterranean Squadron had been strengthened by eight battleships, four cruisers, and sixteen destroyers. That had been done quietly, without much fuss, but it had been done out of the money voted by Parliament during a period of two years. If the Admiralty had done that, they had not wasted the resources which had been placed at their disposal. The hon. Gentleman asked his hon. friend if the Government were going to build up

737
an alliance. He ventured to say that any Government, however constituted, which would rely on a treaty or an alliance, or on the well-known and undoubted friendship and cousinship between the American people and the people of this country, and reduce the naval strength of the country below the two-Power standard would be creating a dangerous precedent. It might be that they could have an understanding of the character indicated during the debate, which might lead to a mutual reduction of armaments; but to allow the Navy to fall below the standard which had been accepted, because of any treaty or any evidence of friendship would, he ventured to think, be a mistake, the consequences of which might perhaps be fatal. He desired to support by all the means in his power the policy of the Admiralty during the last two years, especially the establishment of the Council of Defence. The Council was a safeguard that Parliament might rely on a proper proportion between expenditure on the Army and on the Navy being observed. On that Council there were the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but even more important than these great officers, they had, as integral parts of the Council, experts from the Army and Navy. They had the Sea Lords and the Commander-in-Chief, who would be able to give advice, not as witnesses, but as Members of the Council. There would be a permanent record of the proceedings of the Council.
THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now getting far away from the Vote. There was a desire for a general discussion on the shipbuilding Vote, but that cannot be extended to the Council of Defence.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he was only showing how it would be possible under the new organisation to co-ordinate between the Army and the Navy. That had been discussed under the Vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: I beg pardon. I have not allowed it to be discussed. It is true the hon. Member for Oldham did make a passing reference to it, but he stopped. There was no discussion on co-ordination.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he would, of course, bow to the decision of the Chair. He was referring to the excellent steps which the Admiralty had taken for spending money to the best advantage of the country. The Shipbuilding Vote was larger in point of money and ships than ever before. In the past financial year seventy-two vessels of all classes were being built, and in the course of the financial year we had entered on the Admiralty expected to commence thirty-nine more, so that during the course of the present financial year we should see 111 vessels in course of construction. When contrasted with the building programmes to be finished in 1907 of other Powers with whom we were likely to be in competition, it would be found that it would not leave us very far above the two-Power standard except in regard to cruisers, in regard to which we had a special and peculiar justification having regard to our trade and commerce.
SIR WILLIAM ALLANasked whether he would be in order in showing how this increase had arisen in naval expenditure.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not say until he heard what the hon. Member said. He would not be in order in dealing with the particulars of the Vote. If he chose to say the charges for the personnel were too high he could do so, but he could not deal with the price of vessels on contract.
SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid his idea was to show how such a great increase had taken place in the naval Vote. He foretold it many years ago, and he had seen it increase year by year until it had reached its present proportions. Hon. Members had preached economy and efficiency. He did not object to the money being spent on these ships providing the ships were efficient, but when he looked at this large and growing amount of money, and saw how it was wasted and squandered, he considered it was his duty to show the Committee how it was wasted. He could prove that £1,100,000 had been absolutely squandered. The Government gave £2,200,000 for some French

739
articles which could have been obtained in this country at half the price.
THE CHAIRMAN: Belleville boilers are not on this section of the Vote.
SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid in that case he would reserve his criticisms on the Navy until he came into line with the Chairman's ruling.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Member for Islington had put economy first; he, himself, put the defence of the country first. When he had secured that he was prepared to consider what economies he could make consistent with safety. Great regret, in which he shared, had been expressed at the absence of the Prime Minister from this discussion. He thought it mostly concerned the Prime Minister to hear the general discussion on the increase of the Navy expenditure, but it must be remembered that the Prime Minister had other duties. He was always present at Question time, and very often for five or ten minutes afterwards, and he was perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman would come in in time to answer speeches which he had not heard and to close a debate in which he had taken no part. The hon. Member for Islington had reproached this country with setting the pace in naval matters, but that was not the case, because Germany was proceeding faster. With Germany it was not a question of life and death but a secondary matter. Her principal frontiers which were likely to be menaced by an enemy were land frontiers, and, if Germany was increasing her Navy as she was, it could only be against one country, and that was this country, and the fact that she was increasing her Navy was sufficient for us increasing ours and being on our guard. Passing to the point initiated by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, that we ought to come to some understanding with certain Powers by which this increase in the Navy could be stopped, he thought the basis of the suggestion was sound, because the increase of the Navy could only be relative. The whole question was one of relativeness. If other countries had no navies we might have
740
one battleship and two cruisers, but we must consider the eventualities of the future, and the naval forces of other Powers were so considerable that he doubted whether we could come to such an understanding. Suppose they took France. She had dropped out of the lists and had ceased to increase her Navy. The two-Power standard must mean any two Powers, and the two principal Powers at present in this respect were Germany and Russia. He doubted very much whether any understanding was possible between Great Britain on the one side and those two Powers on the other. Meantime, there being no understanding, the Admiralty had no choice but to do as they were doing, to go step by step with those Powers, so that the Fleet should be kept in such a condition as to be able to cope with either or both of them.
MR. LOUGHasked whether the hon. Member was aware that Germany had reduced her shipbuilding programme by £600,000.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that even then her programme was not one to be neglected, and in any case Germany was not the only element to be considered. He was ready to reduce Army expenditure by a very large amount indeed, but he could not consent to reduce the Navy to a niggardly standard. He would rather see a most extravagant increase than anything approaching a dangerous diminution. In dealing with the Navy, economy was altogether a secondary, and not a primary, consideration. As to the suggestion that private property at sea should be exempt from capture, so far from diminishing, it would increase the necessity for a large naval Power. Its effect would be to deprive our cruisers of the power of stopping supplies for the enemy and forcing him to submit by thus exhausting his taxable capacity. The Secretary to the Admiralty was to be congratulated on the course of the debate. In some interesting figures the hon. Member for Dewsbury had conclusively shown that the proposed increase in the shipbuilding programme was none too large. There had been no serious attempt to show that that programme was excessive, except by the hon. Member for West Islington.

741
But although the hon. Member's constituency was not on the sea shore, it was as much in need of defence as any other part of the Empire. The Committee must remember that this country could not be defended with soldiers. The Navy was our only protection, and when that had been made perfect they might indulge in the luxury of foreign expeditions which required soldiers. The programme of the year was not in the least exaggerated, it was not uneconomical, and it was not one whit beyond the naval necessities of the case.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONheartily supported the general policy of the Vote, which he did not think was excessive in view of the greater costliness of the ships, the rapid shipbuilding of other countries, and the necessity of keeping up to the two-Power standard. He was a little surprised, however, that the hon. Gentleman should have complained of the debate turning on general policy, because if the Committee was to express any opinion at all upon the Shipbuilding Vote, it could do so only by having regard to the foreign and naval policy of other countries as well as of our own. The Committee had had no reason to place confidence in the old Committee of Defence, and the present Council had not been sufficiently long constituted to command their confidence; consequently, they were dependent, in coming to a conclusion as to what the construction for the year should be, upon such information as was given by the Government, of the shipbuilding programmes and general policy of foreign Powers. On the occasion of the recent reduction in the personnel of the French Mediterranean Fleet, it was stated on apparently good authority that that was equivalent to an invitation by France to reduce the burden of naval armaments. It would be interesting to know whether that view was taken by the Government, although, if he recollected aright, we were very active with our own preparations at the time. He merely mentioned that as being one of the occasions which sometimes arose, when it might be possible to do something to relieve the present burden. It was especially desirable that that should
742
be done at a time like the present, when the Government of France was not only exceptionally strong, but also so friendly towards us—an attitude which he believed was reciprocated by everybody in this country. He looked forward to an increase rather than a decrease in the cost of the Fleet for some time to come, but the country had a confidence in the Admiralty and its system which it was less prepared to extend to the system of the War Office. He would not wonder if the naval expenditure rose to £40,000,000, but if the plea for an increase in the Naval Vote could be made out, it was all the more necessary that at the same time the plea for economy in the Army services should be recognised. It would be a great mistake to encourage the belief that the Naval Vote could be diminished, and that was a reason why the Committee had the right to ask that its powers of discussing general policy should not be limited. He regretted that neither the Prime Minister nor the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been present to deal with questions of general policy. The Government would have to take the House of Commons into its confidence if it was to obtain the great Votes that would be necessary to maintain the unquestioned supremacy of our Fleet. That was the first consideration before the Committee—a consideration greater, he believed, than even that of economy.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would be sorry for any hon. Members to think that he failed intentionally to give an explicit answer to a plain question; but as that suggestion had been made by more than one speaker, he desired to clear himself of the accusation. He still hold that it was not altogether profitable that they should discuss questions of general policy on this Vote—not because he underrated the importance of the discussion, but because, without the presence of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or the Secretary of State for War, there could be no adequate reply to the points raised, and a discussion under such circumstances was not of much value. Nor was it reasonable to expect the presence of these Ministers, as it was not the practice to discuss these matters on a detailed Vote of the Navy

743
Estimates. The introduction of the Estimates was the occasion on which a discussion on general policy was taken. He had been asked whether he could not give a plain answer to the plain question of why this Vote was increased. He thought he had given the answer almost ad nauseam. The explanation was not an elaborate one, nor one that required any large amount of detail to make it clear to the Committee. It was simply that the Admiralty were pursuing the policy they had pursued in past years, and this increase was the normal and inevitable outcome of that policy. They had instructions, which the House of Commons had given and still maintained, to preserve a working balance; over any two Powers, which was only a way of saying they should provide a force adequate to preserve the country in any emergency that might arise. It had not been said that they were not doing that, or that they were exceeding their duty in doing it, or that they had taken steps in excess of what the House of Commons had authorised. Until some accusation of that kind was brought—it had not been even formulated, much less supported, by evidence—he thought no further answer was necessary. An increase in the expenditure was inevitable and necessary if that policy was to be pursued, and it had not been disputed that that policy should be pursued. He thought he had given a plain answer to the question put to him as to how the increase in this Vote had arisen. The hon. Member for Islington had dwelt upon what foreign Powers were doing, but he was astonished to hear the hon. Member speak of a Power like Germany and ourselves as being upon exactly the same terms in connection with their Naval necessities and dangers. He thought it would be better if the hon. Member, when he spoke of what was being done by a foreign Power, would give a little more attention to their relative requirements. He told the Committee just now that Germany was diminishing her Navy Estimates.
MR. LOUGH: This year.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Member did not tell the Committee the nature of that diminution. Nearly
744
the whole of the reduction of £600,000 alluded to was due to the fact that Germany had not agreed as to whether she would shift the quarters of her Admiralty Department or not, and it had nothing whatever to do with the German naval construction programme.
MR. LOUGH: But I think that programme is smaller this year.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that was not so. When they were accused of large increases in their Navy Estimates he thought it was only right to say that there had been no increase so rapid and formidable in this way as the increases in the German naval expenditure during the last few years. In conclusion, he wished to say once more that he regretted this discussion because he did not think it could lead to any practical issue at the present moment. He noticed that in the course of the debate three different Ministers had been quoted by hon. Members opposite as being in sympathy with them, and as having expressed themselves as being in strong sympathy with the proposals made on the opposite side of the House, and supported on the Ministerial side of the House, for a reduction in the expenditure on the Navy. He noticed that every one of those persons was a Minister sitting on this side of the House. The names mentioned were the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Viscount Goschen and the present Prime Minister.
MR. LOUGH: And the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, and he might add a fourth—the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore he thought it would be unfair to say that there was any want of sympathy with that idea on this side of the House. It might be within the memory of some hon. Members that he himself as a subordinate member of the Government and the representative of the Admiralty had expressed himself as strongly as he could in the same sense. But there must be reason in all things. He thought he was right in saying that every step that could be taken had been taken by this country in this direction. That being so, they had a right to some response on the part of others

745
less intimately concerned in their naval safety than this country. He rather reproached the hon. Member for continuing that accusation against this country alone and not remembering that we were dependent to a much greater extent than any other nation in the world upon our naval preparations.
MR EDMUND ROBERTSONcontended that when an increase of £1,000,000 was proposed on an Estimate which was already enormously high, the burden of showing the necessity for it was on the Government. It was the duty of the Secretary to the Admiralty to come forward when asked, and prove why such an increase was necessary. That duty the hon. Gentleman had not discharged. The hon. Member did make in part the answer which ought to have come from the Treasury Bench. He thanked the hon. Member for that answer, but he thought a reasonable and detailed answer ought to be given by the Secretary to the Admiralty. The specific question he put was that if £6,000,000 satisfied the two-Power standard six years ago, how did it come about that £10,000,000 was required this year? He also wished to know how much money was being taken for the new shipbuilding programme which was announced in the First Lord of the Admiralty's statement, and what would be the total cost of that programme? He thought that on this Vote, and at this stage, they were entitled to know what the new shipbuilding programme was to cost altogether.
MR. KEARLEYsaid his hon. friend had just asked why £10,000,000 were necessary this year while £6,000,000 was sufficient six years ago. The reply was quite obvious, and he was not at all surprised that the Secretary to the Admiralty had not dealt with it. It had been made clear that the Committee were in favour of an efficient Navy, and did not put economy first. They all stood out for an efficient Navy at all costs. His hon. friend the Member for Islington had asked where they were going to stop? He wished to ask the hon. Member when he would like to stop?
MR. LOUGH: As soon as you can.
MR. KEARLEYsaid they all wanted to stop but they were not going to be foolish enough to stop so long as the act of stopping would put the country in danger. That was his reply as to the necessity for this £10,000,000 to be spent upon new construction, for that expenditure had been necessitated by the expenditure of other Powers upon new construction. His hon. friend had said that it was no good looking for any economy in naval expenditure. He contended that there was plenty of scope for economy, and when they had got over the difficulty of having the discussions confined to such narrow limits they would be able to demonstrate that there was any amount of scope for economy in naval expenditure. He believed that they could get the same quantity of efficiency for much less money than they were now paying. He regarded with great satisfaction what had fallen from the hon. Member for West Islington and the hon. and learned Member for the Dumfries Burghs as to their being in favour of a thoroughly efficient Navy. That cleared the situation very much. He had been rather under the impression that they wanted to reduce the Estimates, irrespective of consequences. He had suspected that fulsome years, but he was now in the happy position of knowing that he had formed an erroneous impression.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he thought it was not too much occasionally to have a general discussion on the Navy, seeing how much interest was felt in the Navy by the country, and how much time had been taken up with a general discussion on the Army. He shared, to some extent, the regret expressed that these debates were not attended by more representatives of the Government, but he would point out that it was a very general practice for hon and right hon. Gentlemen, as soon as they had spoken, to leave the House and remain away a long time, if they came back at all. A curious feature in all the speeches that had been delivered that afternoon was a disinclination to look facts in the face. No one had said that in the future we must be prepared for

747
a large increase of expenditure. The hon. Member for West Islington had come before the House as the apostolic successor of Lord Beaconsfield. But the hon. Member, and those who thought with him, seemed to have omitted one important fact on which his argument turned, namely, that whatever Lord Beaconsfield might have said thirty years ago, the situation had now entirely changed, because other countries had begun to build large navies which, in the time of Lord Beaconsfield, were not contemplated, certainly not by England. They had better announce at once their determination to maintain British superiority and make in the future still greater sacrifices than they had already made. The most plausible suggestion brought forward was that we should approach other countries with a view to arranging for a reduction of naval strength, but he was bound to say that that seemed to him to be a sort of confidence trick and from what he had heard and seen, he had no hope of any great result in that direction. He shared the belief of the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth, who hit the nail on the head when he said that if they went to Germany and suggested a reduction that country would immediately refer them to America. He did not believe that it was necessarily against this country that other Powers made naval preparations. We did not sufficiently consider what other countries had to bear in mind. Some time since he quoted an extract from a German newspaper in which loud complaints were made as to the inferiority of Germany in the Far East as compared with Russia, Japan and France. Great Britain was not even mentioned. Therefore he said that although he did not desire to diminish the significance of the situation or cast responsibility from off their shoulders, they ought to realise that there were other Powers besides ours against which the force of other navies might be brought, and therefore it was by no means certain that we should succeed if we took the initiative in this matter. The Member for Oldham attached great importance to better Statecraft. Sounder diplomacy the hon. Gentleman thought might ensure our being able to give way a little in our naval preparations. But he himself thought he would find
748
that diplomacy was not omnipotent. Let them assume that Germany was their great enemy. Surely it was not the Government who were going to embroil this country with Germany over the Venezuela and the Baghdad questions, but it was the people who charged the Government with being too subservient with Germany. It was also said there was a distinct desire in France to reduce their navy. He had thought so himself, but he had been reading a debate which took place in the French. Chamber in November last, and there seemed to be a stronger feeling against naval reduction than was imagined. He could not see very much hope at present of securing general disarmament in Europe. If they intended to occupy their present position in the world they must be prepared for a still larger naval expenditure in the future.
MR. CREANsaid he agreed with the Secretary to the Admiralty that a general discussion of policy was very inconvenient when they were dealing with a particular Naval Vote. Little had been said on the particular subject to which the Vote referred. If he might join in the general irregularity he would say that the policy of increasing the Navy to the strength of any other two Powers was one for which the Government had no alternative until some arrangement could be come to among the Powers themselves. That time was very far distant. The people of Ireland had no interest in any portion of the increased amount of money which was being extracted from the Irish taxpayers. That was certainly an injustice to Ireland, and there should be some protest raised against it. While these extravagances were being lavished on English constituencies, and, specially dockyard constituencies, the people of Ireland were treated in the reverse way. He wished to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the treatment of the workmen engaged at Cork labour docks. These docks being situated on an island the major portion of the employees were compelled to travel by water. He believed that boats were formerly provided by the Admiralty, but now for the first time they had been taken from the workmen. A certain portion of the employees

749
had the advantage of the use of a Government launch to take them to the island, but most of them had to pay for a steam launch. He was informed that formerly the poorest class of workmen were supplied with row-boats, and for the first time on record they had lately been deprived of the use of these boats, which amounted to a reduction in their wages. He and some of his colleagues had waited on the Secretary to the Admiralty and asked him to inquire into the matter, which the hon. Gentleman promised to do. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman if that inquiry had been made, and if he intended to do justice to these poor men.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was quite a mistake for the hon. Gentleman to suppose that he had made no inquiry. He had telegraphed at once to stop any change being made until he had made inquiry into the whole facts. That inquiry had been made and he had satisfied himself that nothing unjust or unfair was being done to these workmen and that no departure had been made from the dockyard regulations. If the hon. Gentleman wished it he should be happy to show him the case as it had been represented to him.
MR FLAVINsaid the Secretary to the Admiralty declared that no change had been made, while his hon. friend insisted that these poor workmen had been deprived of the boats to take them to their work, the use of which they had had for thirty or forty years. The Committee should have a definite answer as to why these, the poorest working men on the island, were being penalised in this fashion.
MR. KEARLEYsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper, but perhaps it would not be necessary for him to move it. The Secretary to the Admiralty must be aware that he was expected to make some communication in regard to certain labour questions that had been under the notice of the Admiralty for a certain number of months. If he understood the silence of the hon. Gentleman to mean that he had nothing
750
to communicate to the Committee, he should have to trouble the Committee with some details.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that this matter had been under careful consideration, and the members of the Board of Admiralty had visited all the great dockyards and had had the advantage of hearing their case from the men of all sections and kind of rating. They had also the advantage of hearing from the dockyard representatives, who had necessarily the means of knowing what the views of the men were. Certain financial considerations had, however, to be dealt with separately.
MR. KEARLEYasked what these might be. He did not follow the hon. Gentleman.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that the financial considerations were what the cost to the country would be of all these matters. The Board of Admiralty had arrived at the conclusion that there was no general grievance, and that the rate of wages paid per hour for work done in the dockyards compared not unfavourably with the rate paid in private yards. There was a perfect mosaic of ratings in different branches of employment, all of which fitted into each other. There were some individual grievances, apart from wages, about which some changes would be made in the interest of the men, but until the general consideration of the cost to the country of the other demands was completed, nothing further could be done.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that that explanation did not go very far. The hon Gentleman said that the Admiralty, which had had these matters under consideration since October last, had them still under consideration. The hon. Gentleman evidently meant that irrespective of the merits of the case the Admiralty were considering whether it was going to cost money. He wondered if the hon. Gentleman, or even the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth, had ever heard of the Resolution passed by the House of Commons in 1893, which had been disinterred by an old and distinguished representative of a

751
dockyard constituency — the present right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University—and who had recently expressed his utter astonishment that a Government was still in office which continued on the old, antiquated, and unfair lines of payment of their employees. A paragraph in that Resolution read as follows:—
"That, in the opinion of this House, no person should in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments be engaged at wages insufficient for proper maintenance."
Now, what was proper maintenance? The Civil Lord might probably have heard of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, an active member of the celebrated firm of Kynoch's. That gentleman made a statement the other day in regard to the men in his employment. He said that he had come to the conclusion that any wage under 22s. per week was not a living wage, and consequently that he had to pay that wage. Mr. Rowntree, in his interesting book dealing with the working classes in York, pointed out that after the most careful inquiry and deduction from the facts collected, he arrived at the conclusion that 21s. 10d. per week was the lowest wage on which a man could live under ordinary rental conditions. It was a matter of notoriety that the rental conditions at such dockyard towns as Devonport and Deptford were abnormal; but there were men employed in the Devonport dockyard who only received a wage of 20s., and some as low as 19s. per week. How was the hon. Gentleman opposite going to reconcile the continuance of that rate of wages with the Resolution of 1893, which had never been repudiated by this or any other Government? Two years ago Mr. Goschen, during a similar discussion, undertook to have the whole question of rates of pay gone into, but that promise had not been carried out; at least, they had seen no results of it. A few weeks ago a deputation from the Trade Union Congress had an interview with the Board of Admiralty, and put before them the exceptionally strong case of the dockyard joiners. It was then disclosed that whereas the joiner's wage in private yards, doing the same work, and even Government work, was 39s. 6d. per week, the rate prevailing in the Government dockyards was 31s. per week. The question
752
of the wide disparity between the number of men on the establishment in the dockyards and the number of hired men had been raised more than once. The hon. Gentleman opposite had admitted that the disparity did exist, and stated that the matter was receiving consideration. Had it received consideration? The Government were now going to start on the east coast a new naval base. He should like to know what would be the policy that would be adopted there. The Committee would wish to know whether, at the commencement of this new naval base, the Government would obtain control over a sufficient area of land as would insure their employees being housed, not only under sanitary conditions, but at a rental well within the competency of their pay. He hoped his hon. friend would be able to give him information on those points.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he thought that the Committee would not accuse him of taking part in this debate on electioneering grounds. He had, however, undergone a long apprenticeship in these matters in other days, and he was quite astonished to hear from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and from communications he had received from his old constituents, that matters had not gone very far during the last ten years; and that the Government, which, ten years ago, a Resolution of the House of Commons declared should be a model employer of labour, was not a model employer at all, and was carrying on the dockyards in the same hand-to-mouth way as they were ten years ago. He would give the Committee one example. He did not think that any employer of labour would have two distinct, classes of workmen in his employ at different rates of pay, and in different positions as to pension, and permanency of service. He alluded to the distinction between the hired men and the established men at the dockyards. The question was brought before the Admiralty a few days ago; but he supposed it was no nearer a solution now than it was ten or twenty years ago. Of course, one could under stand the principle of having established men in order that a body of efficient workmen might be at the command of the Admiralty for the repair of the Fleet.

753
On that the very existence of the country might depend. It was necessary to have a number of permanent men who would receive a lower rate of wages in consideration of the permanency of their employment and other conditions, by which it was supposed they were placed in a better position than the out side workman. At the same time there was a large number of what were called hired men—men who had no claim to superannuation, or to permanent employment, and who were as a matter of fact formally discharged every year, and taken on again. Although those men were nominally only engaged for a year, their employment was really just as permanent as that of the established men. A hired man might retire from a dockyard after working twenty or thirty years, and would have no claim to superannuation. He would merely receive a gratuity. It was quite clear that the maintenance of a system of that kind was a very bad thing. Even before the Model Employer Resolution was passed, the Admiralty used to admit that it was not a satisfactory arrangement, and that it ought to be discontinued. Of course, it was quite right that the Admiralty should have a certain number of men temporarily employed; but when in the case of a temporary man experience brought out his capacity as a workman and his other qualifications, he ought to be put on the establishment. The Admiralty ought to have a certain number of hired men for two or three years; and then when they were satisfied as to their character and industry they ought to be put on the establishment after undergoing a certain period of probation. If a man remained a hired man for seventeen or twenty years it was quite clear that there would be discontent and dissatisfaction. It was a system which no commercial employer of labour would ever dream of attempting to carry out. He was not quite sure that the Admiralty should not take the advice of some practical business man accustomed to employ a large number of workmen of various classifications and trades, in order that the work of the dockyards might be organised in the same way as work in the great shipyards was organised.
754
In that way, the work would be much more efficiently done, and the Admiralty would have a much more contented and satisfied class of workmen. It was not, of course, an easy matter, and not a matter which they expected the Secretary to the Admiralty to carry out without expert assistance. Many hon. Members knew how difficult the employment of labour was; but if the Government was to be a model employer it must face that difficulty. A scheme should be drawn up on commercial lines for the employment of labour at the dockyards, and if that were really taken in hand by the Admiralty, it would not only satisfy the workmen, but the business of the country would be much more efficiently and economically carried on.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he did not think that it was necessary for dockyard Members to intervene in the debate except to express their thanks to the Board of Admiralty for receiving a deputation of Members interested in dockyards. At the interview they had an opportunity of laying their views before the Admiralty in a much more businesslike manner than by a debate in Committee of the House. As the Admiralty knew the case was not an easy one, as there were so many details that they could not discuss in Committee because of the technicalities of the subject. It was much better to meet and discuss it in a less formal fashion. Another thing for which he expressed thanks was that the Admiralty had acceded to their wish that they should interview the men personally, because while dockyard Members might understand their case to some extent, they could not possibly know the facts and interests so well as the men themselves. He did not wish to be unduly suspicious of the Admiralty. They said they were still considering the matters raised by the men. There were so many matters under consideration that he was prepared to wait until they stated what they were prepared to do, with the confident hope that the statement would be satisfactory and encouraging to all parties concerned.
MR. CREANsaid he wished, as a protest, to move the reduction of the Vote by £200. There was no alternative left to him, as he had not received a satisfactory reply. The statement of the hon. Gentleman, that the men to whom he had referred were not deprived of any privileges, was contrary to the facts. He was aware of the facts from the men themselves, and knew that they had to pay out of their small wages for being taken to and from their work. The men had been deprived of a privilege which they had enjoyed for twenty or thirty years. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B be reduced by £200, in respect of Wages of Men."—(Mr. Crean.)
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was sorry that the hon. Member should think that he was making a mis-statement.
MR. CREANsaid that he did not believe the hon. Gentleman capable of that; but wrong information had been supplied to him.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He thought, however, he was under some misapprehension. He himself did not say that no change had been made. The hon. Gentleman came to him with another hon. Member on the subject, and said that there was a case for inquiry. He telegraphed at once that no change should be made in the arrangements until he had had an opportunity of fully investigating the question. What he said was that he was satisfied that no injustice had been done, but that he could not at the moment recollect all the circumstances of the case, as the matter occurred some time ago, and that he should be glad, if the hon. Member desired, to send him the particulars which led to the decision of the Rear-Admiral at Queenstown. He still thought that no injustice had been done. Perhaps, he had an apology to make to the hon. Gentleman for not communicating with him at the time. It might have been better had he done so, although it was not a matter which really came within his province.
CAPTAIN DONELANwished to assure the hon. Gentleman that the statement made by Mr. Crean was
756
absolutely true. The men were told they must pay their own fares or hire boats. The matter was a small one but to these men it meant a considerable loss. Since the interview with the hon. Gentleman nothing whatever had been done to restore to these men the privileges they had enjoyed for so long a time.
MR. GILHOOLYasserted that no expense was incurred by the Admiralty in placing the boats at the disposal of the workmen going to and from their work, because they rowed the boats themselves. They felt it was a great hardship and injustice that while the men coming from the other side of the harbour were carried to and from their work by the boats, they should be compelled to pay their own fares. The men were deserving of consideration because their wages were lessened by two shillings per week. He was glad that the hon. Gentleman was going to look into the matter again.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERundertook to refresh his memory and supply Mr. Crean with the Admiral's decision and the reasons for it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PRETYMANsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for Devonport, the hon. Member and the Committee would see and sympathise with the rather difficult position in which the Board of Admiralty was placed in having to reply on the question of dockyard workers. There could be no doubt that the Admiralty, as well as every Member of the Committee, must have every sympathy with the men in this matter. The Board of Admiralty desired to be a model employer of labour, but it was one thing to be a model employer of labour and quite another to accede to every request made on behalf of the men. So far as the general conditions under which the men were employed were concerned the Admiralty had not fallen very far short of private employers in this matter. The men worked eight hours a day in the dockyard, and as to the particular point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport and the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, his right hon. friend must have forgotten the fact

757
that in private employment no workmen were established and that a pension at the end of their service was only obtained in the Government service. Therefore the Government service did not compare unfavourably with that of private employers. Another misapprehension which he desired to try and remove was this, that repeated suggestions of complaint as to the conditions of employment of the men in the dockyards led people to believe that these workmen were a discontented set of men. He had derived great advantage from seeing these men and hearing their views, and he did not think they were at all a discontented set of men. They were like any other set of workmen in the country. They wished to see the conditions of their labour improved, and thought they had certain grievances which they wished to have remedied. Those grievances were not of an extensive character, and were now being investigated. He had held out hopes that he would have been able to give on this occasion a more definite reply to the hon. Member opposite, but, unfortunately, he was not in a position to do so, and he thanked the hon. Gentleman for the patience with which he had waited for a reply. Another suggestion that was often made was that the Admiralty should secure the advice of business men, and place the labour of the dockyards on a business footing. That was a suggestion made by everybody who desired to find fault with the Government Departments. He had had some experience of business men outside the Government, and some short experience of Government methods, and he unhesitatingly said that in those who superintended our dockyards they had business men. No general advantage would be gained in trying to remodel all the labour in our dockyards. What was being done was to endeavour to improve the system that existed by ameliorations and small alterations in it, which were found to fit in with the requirements of the persons who worked under it. He repudiated the suggestion that all the business men of the country were to be found outside the Government Departments. With regard to the question of the hon. Member opposite, it would be a little out of order to enter into the question of the sites for housing the workmen at St. Margaret's Hope at this moment, but he intended to
758
make a statement on the matter at a future date. It was a matter that could not be lost sight of, and he asked that his reply on that question might be deferred until the introduction of the Naval Works Bill
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,786,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Matèriel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid he had great pleasure in taking up the subject which he had hinted at previously, of the great and extraordinary increase in the Naval Vote. It was all very well for hon. Members to vote money, but it was their duty to ask the question, how was that money spent? They ought to make themselves acquainted with the expenditure, and ask whether the money was wisely spent. The Government had paid for Belleville boilers £2,200,000 of that amount—they had boilered sixty ships with Belleville boilers. Had that amount been spent in Scotch boilers—safe boilers—they could have boilered 120 warships. That meant a dead loss to this country of £1,100,000. Over and above that sum, they had paid in royalties to Belleville £175,000. Had anybody made inquiry as to the validity of the patent? He did not believe any inquiry had been made, and yet they had paid for royalties a sum which would have sufficed to boiler eight warships of 20,000 horse-power. For repairs and renewals of boilers in fourteen vessels only they had spent £350,000, and these vessels were new, having done practically no work. For that money they could have boilered sixteen ships of 20,000 horse-power each. That was an absolute waste and squandering of public money. Then there was the extra coal bill. These boilers required double the ordinary amount of coal. The additional amount taken this year was £233,000, but taking it at £200,000 they could have

759
boilered nine vessels for the money. Then they had to have extra stokers and artificers, and, putting the cost of these down at £30,000 a year, they could have supplied 1,200 tons of Scotch boilers, or the equivalent of one ship of 30,000 horse-power. That extra expenditure was due to the foolish blundering of the Admiralty. The summary of all this was that Great Britain could have had ninety-four additional ships boilered with safe, economical boilers, requiring fewer men and running no risks, for the money they had given for French boilers and squandered on things that were now running up the Estimates every year. There was no denying those facts. But that was not all. There was the depreciation of the ships to be looked at. The point that determined the value of merchant vessels which were to be sold was the condition of the boilers. Taking the depreciation at 7½ per cent. in the cost of the ships—it ought really to be more — and taking the average cost at £700,000 each—some run to £1,250,000, and some to £300,000 and £400,000—it gave an outlay to be incurred by the taxpayer within from one to four years, which was the limit of the life of the boilers, of £3,150,000 for depreciation. What wonder was it that there should be an increase in the Estimates? For repairs this year there was an increase of £881,000—deducting certain items he took the additional amount for repairs at £546,728, or over half-a-million of money for repairs to these boilers.
Taking another case, to show how the business was done, there was the "Hecate," which had £9,700 spent on her and was sold the other day for £5,000. Was that business? He was glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer present, as he was trying to show where the money was running out, and that it was time for him to put the plugs in the rat holes. They were told that the dockyards were conducted on business lines. If that were so why were they out in their Estimates to the extent of £30,000 or £40,000 per ship? Then the Admiralty spent on the "Medusa," for a German boiler, £56,300, and on the "Medea" £61,300; and they took out of those vessels first-class boilers and put the
760
others in. They did the same with the "Hermes" at a cost of £47,000. That made a total of £164,600 absolutely flung away. Was that business? He called it an unmitigated squandering of public money That was where the money was going. Let them not cry "Economy" or roar "Efficiency." There was neither economy nor efficiency. Look at the coal bills, at the cripples in China, at the Cape, and in the harbours. Where was the efficiency? That was a bogus cry. It was inefficiency. For that £164,600 which was being spent on experiments with these boats, they could have boilered seven vessels of 20,000 i.h.p. with safe and economical boilers. After these experiments they would doubtless get the usual highly satisfactory reports! Coming to another phase of the question, he would take the Royal yacht.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERpointed out that there was no Vote for the Royal yacht in the Estimates.
SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: There is in the repairs.
THE CHAIRMAN: It does not appear in the Estimates, but the hon. Member is entitled to use it as an illustration.
SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid he was using it as an illustration to show the business-like character of the Admiralty. The first Estimate for the Royal yacht was £353,000, and she cost £558,000 up to March of last year, or 60 per cent. in advance of the Estimate. Last year the Admiralty put down £18,530 for estimated expenditure on this new boat. That was more business! But she actually cost £77,400. It was, therefore, no wonder the Estimates were rising to such an inordinate extent. He had not gone through the whole of the Estimates because they were so framed as to puzzle and not to enlighten. When the Admiralty declined to take Belleville boilers for three cruisers what happened? They had to pay £41,000 more. The total cost of the changes which had been made amounted to £2,548,600, and that was where the

761
money was going. That was the business of the Admiralty, and nobody else could do business in that way. His estimate of a business man was a man that could give him 22s. for £1. Probably there were plenty of business men at the Admiralty who could give them 15s. for £1, and that was the kind of business they did there. He wanted to know how it was that the "Enchantress" went to Belfast to be built. The Admiralty invited several shipbuilding firms to tender for a yacht, and certain firms sent in tenders. He put a question upon this subject in the House and he was told that Messrs. Harland and Wolff's firm sent in the lowest tender. He wished to point out, however, that none of the other firms were asked to tender for the same class of boat as that which Messrs. Harland and Wolff tendered for. He wanted to know why that yacht went to Harland and Wolff's to be built, and why the other firms did not get an opportunity of tendering for the same size of yacht? He wanted to get at the bottom of that job. The yacht builders of this country felt very much aggrieved at being treated in this way.
He would now deal with another aspect of this great question, which he might warn the House would lead them into far greater expense in the very near future. It was well known to all shipbuilders and engine builders that some of their latest class of cruisers were badly designed. Take the "Good Hope," which conveyed the Colonial Secretary to the Cape. The design of that ship was such that they could not fire the guns, and she was a wet ship built with hollow lines. All your "County" class of cruisers are also very bad sea boats. They had had many apologia for hollow lines, but he thought he could impress the Committee for once with the simplicity of shipbuilding, by simply saying that nature never made a hollow line fish, or when splitting wood a curved wedge was never used, and yet the man of genius at the Admiralty had constructed ships on this principle, putting in bad boilers in a bad design of hull. This was all due to that ideal theory that the lines of a ship should be like the top of a wave. The
762
"County" class of ships were useless as sea-going boats, although they might be all right for sailing on the Serpentine. They were absolutely useless when put into the rough-and-tumble work of sea life. Had the Admiralty learned anything by this experience? No, for they were putting at this moment into their first-class ships one-fifth cylindrical, and four-fifths Babcock and Wilcox boilers. He could give them an instance of the working of Babcock and Wilcox boilers. In the case of one ship, after being two days out from Philadelphia the Babcock and Wilcox boilers they had in the stokehold began to leak. Two days after this had been put right the leakage commenced again, and it was found necessary to use salt water in the boiler. Upon arriving at Glasgow it was found that the bottom row of tubes had curved up three inches, and the second row one-and a-half inches, and there were various blisters which proved to be only one-tenth of an inch in thickness. That was practical experience of those boilers, and those were the boilers they were now putting into their first-class ships. What did the Admiralty mean by it? Why couldn't they put in the safe circular boilers which the French were now adopting? The French were now putting aside the water-tube boilers altogether, and the latest French battleships were to be been fitted with ordinary circular boilers, and two of their very the latest cruisers were to be fitted with the same type of boilers. Why could they not imitate the French now? The Admiralty many years ago were ready enough to imitate the French, in fact, they would imitate anybody but a Briton. They went to America, and Germany, and to France for their boilers, but what had they done for Britain, where they got the money? The Admiralty were clinging to boilers which would not only pile up the Estimates but would cause all their ships to be cripples in a few years.
But apart from the burning of more coal, and a greater number of men required, they got inefficiency in their ships. They should not talk about economy and efficiency while their ships were all inefficient.

763
Take the "Ocean," the "Glory," the "Canopus," in fact any boat fitted with water-tube boilers—they were all failures. He felt this matter as a Briton—they could put it as a North Briton if they liked. It was no use for them to run down the dockyards, for the fault lay at Whitehall. It was not the fault merely of those who sat on the front Ministerial Bench, for they merely cried out what was put into their mouths, and they dare not do anything else. He knew the sentiments of the Secretary to the Admiralty, for they had fought this battle years ago. But notwithstanding the lessons the Admiralty had received by using Belleville boilers, they were still plunging into Babcock and Wilcox boilers, and they would be sure to come to grief. All he had to say was that by this policy the Admiralty were simply perpetuating increased cost in men and in coal, and at the same time they were also perpetuating increased inefficiency.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERexpressed his regret that he had not time to reply. He did not see why the hon. Member should have brought in the question of the Royal yacht. There was no item in the Vote referring to the Royal yacht. If once they began discussing matters not in the Estimates they would have very little time to discuss those items which were included in the Vote.
And it being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  ULSTER AND CONNAUGHT LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL [BY ORDER].
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Debate arising.
  MR. O'DOWDsaid he understood with regard to this Bill that some arrangement for a final settlement had been entered into. He had a Motion on the Paper that the Bill should be read a second time this day six months, but all he wished now was that the Bill should be postponed until Monday next in order to see what the terms of settlement were.
  MR. CARVILLsaid all the objections to the Bill had been completely met, but if the hon. Member for South Sligo desired to have the matter postponed until Monday he would not stand in the way, but he considered it would be a great waste of time, and that no useful object would be served.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said he hoped the hon. Member for Sligo would not persist in his attempt to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill. As it had been amended all it asked for was Parliamentary powers to extend this railway. By the Amendments it had been so narrowed down that the Bill only gave the railway company an extension of time to exercise powers which had already been granted to them. Under the circumstances he asked the hon. Member not to persist, and pointed out that if the Bill was postponed it might never come on again.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he could not understand the last observation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Bill might never come on again if it were postponed until Monday. He himself was in favour of the Bill, and therefore must not be taken as speaking against it. So far as he understood the position, his hon. friend the Member for Sligo, before expressing himself satisfied with the concessions that had been made in the Bill, desired to communicate with those he represented. That was a perfectly reasonable position to take up, and in order to do that he desired to have the Second Reading postponed until Monday, when the matter could finally be dealt with.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he failed to see any reason for the postponement of the Bill. As altered it did not affect Sligo in any way whatever. It merely extended for three years the time in which to make a railway in the North of Ireland which the Company had already powers to construct. The rest of the Bill had been dropped. The Bill had been postponed time after time, and if postponed again it might be too late to do anything with it.
  MR. O'DOWDsaid he did not oppose the Second Reading in any captious spirit. He represented Sligo and Connaught generally in this matter, and all he desired was to see the terms of the final settlement. There were always two parties to an arbitration and he failed to see why he had not been consulted.
  COLONEL MCCALMONTsaid so far as the North of Ireland was concerned all their objections had been dealt with.
  MR. CARVILL, by permission of the House, read the following letter from Mr. Kennedy, the Parliamentary agent for the Bill:—
  "I am instructed by the promoters of this Bill to inform you that following on an interview with the Treasury this morning they have undertaken to strike out from the Bill in Committee all the new railways proposed to be authorised thereby, together with the provisions which sought to sanction a grant and loan by the Treasury from public funds towards the cost of construction of these railways."
  He said on behalf of the promoters he would repeat the undertaking embodied in that letter, and thus, he thought, remove all objections to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he did not know whether it was agreed that this debate should be postponed or not, and therefore he would move that the debate be adjourned. Hon. Members opposite stated that they were satisfied with the understanding. That conveyed to him the fact that they had been treated in a privileged way in this matter, and had seen a copy of the document containing the conditions of the arrangement. He would have supposed under the circumstances that the hon.
  766
  Member for Newry would have had the courtesy to send the hon. Member for Sligo—who it was notorious took great interest in this matter—a copy also. He had been long enough in the House to have serious doubts with regard to statements made by promoters of the Bill. He liked to see these things in black and white. It was only right that his hon. friend the Member for Sligo should have this document in his possession for a couple of days in order that he might consult his constituents upon it.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned"—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
  Put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next (Evening Sitting).

SUPPLY [9TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
>[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [9TH ALLOTTED DAY].

  NAVY ESTIMATES 1903–4.
  £4,786,700, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Matériel.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he wished to cancel the few remarks which he was compelled under the stress of circumstances to make before the dinner hour, and to say what he had to say now. He would like to say what he had to say clearly and emphatically, because he thought it was time that the Committee and the House generally should realise what was the value of the exaggerations in which his hon. friend the Member for Gateshead was accustomed to indulge, and how much harm might be done to a good cause by the repetition of statements which did not illustrate, but disguised, the facts which the speaker desired to bring to the notice of the Committee. The hon. Member had done to-day what he always had done. He indulged in a series of violent attacks on the Admiralty. He had said there were no business men and no business faculty and that there was gross waste of

  767
  money at the Admiralty, and he had adduced what he thought were instances illustrating his assertions. He asked the Committee to test the value of the hon. Member's charges by the light of what he was going to tell them. To begin with, the hon. Member had not yet arrived at the commencement of his Parliamentary career in connection with the Admiralty. The hon. Member had been digging like a sort of ghoul among the corpses; he had been digging among the dead incidents of the past.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Does the hon. Member suggest that those are the dead men of the Admiralty?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he meant the dead ships. The men were very much alive, and most of them were at sea doing their duty. His point was that most of the hon. Member's examples referred to matters which had no more to do with the Admiralty existing now than with the moon. The hon. Member had said that the Admiralty had been extraordinarily extravagant and foolish with regard to the "Hecate." But the question of there boilering of the "Hecate" came up for consideration two years before he happened to be a member of the Board of Admiralty. The boilers were never put into the "Hecate" as the hon. Member led the Committee to suppose.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I did not say so.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked then what the hon. Member did say. His charge was that there had been a grave dereliction of duty because the Admiralty bought boilers, put them into a ship, and then sold the ship and lost the value of the boilers. It was said that £9,000 was paid for the boilers.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: That was the amount given by the Committee of Public Accounts as having been spent on her.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was represented that so much had been spent on the ship, and that then the
  768
  ship was sold and that the money was lost. That related to the affairs of five years ago. But the boilers were never put into the ship. The ship was condemned as inefficient. The boilers were retained and were to be utilised for dockyard service, whilst the ship was sold for scrap iron. The hon. Member had referred to the Royal yacht. This matter had been discussed up hill and down dale. The hon. Member had interrupted him and told him that the question of the Royal yacht came up in the Estimates of this year. It did nothing of the kind. The hon. Member was a great deal too free in interrupting him. The other day, presuming on the ignorance of the House about a technical matter, with which he affected to be acquainted, the hon. Member told him that he was wrong in saying that certain evaporators primed, and stated that evaporators could not prime. The hon. Member was entirely wrong on that occasion, whilst he himself was entirely right and moreover happened to be perfectly acquainted with every circumstance with regard to those particular evaporators at the time. He asked the Committee not to take the statements of the hon. Member quite at the foot of the letter. The hon. Member had suggested that there had been some underhand work about the Admiralty yacht. He strongly resented the imputation which was put upon him by the hon. Member, and which was none the less an imputation because the hon. Member chose to pretend that he imputed nothing. The yacht was put up to tender, and the same specification was sent out to every one of the firms. Neither the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead nor any other hon. Member, if called upon to decide on a question which depended solely on the appropriateness of a vessel for the purpose for which it was designed and the cost of that vessel, would have come to any other conclusion than that at which the Admiralty were compelled to arrive. The reason the yacht was taken from this particular builder was that it was thousands of pounds less in cost.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: It was smaller.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that, small or large, the reason why the yacht was accepted was because it was appropriate to its purpose and light in cost. The hon. Member had raised the question of boilers. The Committee had heard a good deal about that before, and he did not intend to repeat what he had said on a great many other occasions. The hon. Member and he happened to be a good deal in agreement with regard to these boilers, but it was a waste of time to come to the Committee now and revive these dead and buried stories. The hon. Member had spoken of "the boilers which the Admiralty were putting into our ships." The Admiralty were not putting the Belleville boiler into ships; that boiler had been abandoned by the Admiralty for all ships in the Navy. What was the use of the hon. Member getting up and attacking him on the subject of the Belleville boiler?
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I am not attacking you.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he took responsibility on behalf of the Admiralty. The hon. Member had misled the House and the Committee on this as on almost every other matter on which he had spoken that evening. He had led the Committee to believe that certain boilers were being put into ships when, as he knew perfectly well, they had been discarded. The hon. Member got up as a specialist—he was sometimes tempted to believe that there was only one engineer on the whole of the earth, and that was the hon. Member for Gateshead — and the hon. Member, speaking as a specialist, excited the mirth and approbation of the Committee by saying that these ships burned twice the amount of coal that the old cylindrical-boilered ships did.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: So they do.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member had now repeated the statement. It was an exaggeration so gross, so utterly unfounded, that the hon. Member had absolutely no business, even with the liberty which it was customary to accord to him in that Committee, to make such a statement. He had not come across one
  770
  single statement in the hon. Member's speech which, so far as his information went, had any reference to the facts as they were. The hon. Member said that French battleships and cruisers were being fitted with cylindrical boilers. He believed there was absolutely no foundation whatever for that statement. He had always admitted that the water-tube boiler ships—the Belleville boiler ships—had been extravagant in their consumption of coal; but if any advantage was to be gained by an attack on the policy of using them, or any other policy, that good was neutralised by gross exaggeration, such as they had heard from the hon. Member. The hon. Member also attacked the Admiralty for an alleged under-estimate. He had read the Report of the Public Accounts Committee with great interest and respect; but he held that if any other Department could show that on an expenditure of £31,000,000 there was so little to find fault with they might be proud of it. What was the gravamen of these charges? One charge had reference to an event of fifteen years ago. No one of them had relation to any modern event. The hon. Member had said that there was an under-estimate of £34,000 with regard to a particular ship. That was not so. The under-estimate was in respect of a contribution in aid on a particular Vote, and he submitted that when they were dealing with a sum of £31,000,000 an under-estimate in regard to a contribution in aid of £34,000 was a trivial matter and could not form ground for the attack the hon. Member had made. The hon. Member spoke of the cases of the "Medusa," the "Medea," and the "Hermes" in the extraordinary slapdash style he was wont to adopt. He said the Admiralty had wasted £164,000 on the boilers of those ships. The "Medea" and "Medusa" were two small cruisers which had been running a very long time with cylindrical boilers; but it was decided as a matter of policy, on the authority of men of great experience at the Admiralty, to devote these two ships to experiments with two different classes of boilers, and the old cylindrical boilers were taken out and new boilers were put in. He admitted it was an experiment; but experiments had to be paid for, and he submitted that the price of restoring the boilers in the "Medea" was not excessive when it was considered, in the first place,

  771
  that by making the experiment they were contributing largely to their knowledge of these boilers, and, in the second place, that they were making the ships eminently fit for service as fast cruisers. The hon. Member had thought fit to lump together the case of the "Medea" and the "Medusa," on the one hand, and that of the "Hermes," on the other. The two cases had no more to do with each other than the moon had to do with the Medway. The "Hermes" broke down badly, and her breakdown was one of the circumstances which led him to distrust and dislike the Belleville boilers. There was no more ardent advocate of the change in the boiler installation of the "Hermes" than himself. He was astonished the hon. Gentleman should use the "Hermes" as a stick to beat him with. He believed that no wiser step had been taken than to put a better class of boiler into that ship. To say that the money had been wasted was to entirely mislead the Committee. The hon. Member had done great service in the House, and was capable of doing more, and he was largely in agreement with him on many matters; but no good purpose was served by these exaggerations and mis-statements. He was prepared to take his stand on this, that in case after case the hon. Member had made statements to the Committee which were absolutely incorrect. He knew these attacks would recur, but he might be blamed if he allowed the hon. Member's exaggerations, of which he was exceedingly conscious, to pass unnoticed, if the hon. Member would ever accept any advice from him, he would moderate his transports and would endeavour to confine his great knowledge and ability to subjects he had followed Out more accurately than those to which he had referred. If he did so he would continue to be an ornament to the debates of the House, instead of, as he thought he had been in this case, a detriment.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid the hon. Gentleman had accused him of exaggeration. He only took his stand on the figures given to him in the statement published by the Admiralty itself. In the Appropriation Account the "Hermes," the "Medusa," and the "Medea" were lumped
  772
  together, and a total sum of money was set against the three. There was no exaggeration on his part. It would not pay him to exaggerate. He knew the hon. Gentleman was omniscient and knew all things. Why, he might command the Channel Fleet. Let him now bring the hon. Gentleman to his senses. As to the "Enchantress," what did Messrs. A. & J. Inglis say? They said that from Mr. Forster's statement any business man would infer that all the Estimates were based on a certain definite specification and design, whereas each firm submitted their own designs and specifications, embodying their conception of the requirements of the Admiralty. He had only quoted the Admiralty's own way of doing business. The Admiralty never asked the firms to tender on one specification alike.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. All the firms were invited to tender on a definite specification.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid that what the hon. Gentleman called a specification was not a specification at all. He had had more specifications of ships and engines through his hands than the hon. Gentleman. That was only an outline. If Messrs. A. and J. Inglis had been asked to tender for a 3,000 tons ship, he questioned whether their tender would have been more than that of Messrs. Harland and Wolff. He repelled the insinuation that he exaggerated. He did nothing of the kind. The exaggerations were the hon. Gentleman's, who was sitting there as a barrister for the defence of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal yacht. There was an expense connected with that vessel which ought to be accounted for. If it was not mentioned in the Estimates it ought to be. The hon. Gentleman had called in question what had been said about the consumption of coal on the "Spartiate." He should like to see the diagrams from the engine-room showing what the boat had been doing. The vessel did not go at more than ten knots. She took forty-three days to go to Hong Kong, a distance of 9,600 miles. There was no use holding up the "Spartiate"

  773
  as a low-consumption boat. He could give the Committee the opinions of Admirals on the whole thing. He supposed the hon. Gentleman thought he had scored off him, but he had not. It was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to come down to the House with a sort of righteous indignation. That was what he was paid for, but facts were facts.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether the hon. Member could substantiate the statement that the consumption of coal in certain ships was double that in others.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANasked what the "Europa" burned going to Australia, and the "Good Hope" going to the Cape. What did the "Hyacinth," the "Ocean," and the "Glory" burn? He asked the hon. Member to compare the consumption of coal with the indicated horse-power.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member does exaggerate grossly. He says they burn double. He is entirely wrong.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid that was an easy way to try to shut up a Member, but the day had gone by for minimising facts, more especially with the Navy, the first line of defence. He was surprised that he should be accused of exaggeration. What interest had he in this beyond a desire to see that the Navy, the first line of defence, was capable of doing its work at all times? He took their own figures; and the day had gone past for standing at that box and accusing him of exaggerating. It would not do. Ministers must stand up there and tell the truth. They must let the country know the reason of the increase of their repairs bill. Why was their "Terrible" at Glasgow, their "Canopus" at Laird's, and other boats scattered all over the country? The hon. Gentleman is paid to minimise and hide everything, and not tell the real facts of the case. While he had the honour to be in that House he would vote against that hiding of the truth. The Secretary
  774
  to the Admiralty had not told the Committee why they took Babcock and Wilcox's boilers without any experience. Were the Admiralty to spend the nation's money without being called in question? He would call them in question every time it was necessary in the interest of the Navy, and while they got ships that could neither steam safely nor well.
  SIR J. COLOMBsaid the hon. Member for Gateshead showed the true characteristic of the British Navy, for he did not know when he was beaten, and the Secretary to the Admiralty adopted in the debate the principle in naval policy of offensive defence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say whether the progress made up to 1st April with regard to the six battleships and eleven armoured cruisers, and so on, which, according to the First Lord's statement, were to be completed this year was satisfactory. Was the progress made during the past few weeks up to what was anticipated? He thought it would be very interesting to know the precise nature of the experiments which were being made in regard to the storage to prevent the deterioration of coal stored all over the world. He also asked whether any further information could be given in regard to the experiments with oil fuel, and whether the smoke difficulty in connection with the use of oil fuel showed any probability of being solved? He further asked whether any information could be given as to the results of the trials of the "Velox"? He wished to know particularly in regard to the progress made with the three submarine boats included in the list of vessels which were to be completed this year. He himself believed that the submarine vessel was mainly of value for defensive purposes. Could any information be given as to whether these vessels were to take the offensive and not the defensive? It was extremely important that the submarine boat should be experimented with in order that its qualifications and efficiency might be tested. It was necessary that they should know how far these vessels were capable of being navigated in varying depths and in tortuous estuaries. Fixed military

  775
  defences and garrisons presupposed a visible attack, and therefore the nature of the work which the submarine boat would be able to perform had a very important bearing as affecting our military policy, which was costing so much on great fortifications and garrisons.
  MR. MARKHAM, while acknowledging the past services of the hon. Member for Gateshead on the boiler question, said the Admiralty would have incurred a grave responsibility if they did not now follow the advice of the experts who were consulted. They took the best advice obtainable in the country, and the Report they received from leading engineers was unanimously in favour of the adoption of water-tube boilers in the Navy. Last autumn when he was in America he went very carefully into this question with officers and engineers of the American Navy, and they were unanimously of opinion that our Government had taken the right course in making a combination of cylindrical and water-tube boilers. The hon. Member for Gateshead stated that the coal consumption with water-tube boilers was more than double that with cylindrical boilers. His impression was that in full-speed trials between the "Hyacinth" and the "Minerva" the coal consumption was rather more economical in the "Minerva," and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give the Committee some information on that point. He could only trust that the Admiralty would pursue the course they had taken, using discretion before they adopted any particular boilers; but he was convinced that a water-tube boiler was necessary for the country.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that so far as he was able to judge we were much better off in the matter of rapid ship-building than either France or the United States, but he was not quite so sure that we were as well off in that respect as Germany. There was no doubt that there had been an improvement this year. The matter was most important, and it should be remembered that a saving of time was a saving of
  776
  money. The motto should be "More-haste, less waste." He thought it would be an assurance to the country if the hon. Gentleman could give the Committee some information as to the "County" class of cruisers.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he thought it would not be inopportune if he took the opportunity of congratulating the Admiralty on some judicious reforms which had been carried out as the outcome of suggestions made last year. He, himself, had then stated that it would be advantageous to the Navy if ships built by private contract were completed in the contractor's yard, and not brought round to the Naval Arsenals and subjected to what was termed a process of completion. The latter process had involved a great waste of time and money. The Admiralty had accepted the suggestion, and the ships built in private yards were now completed there. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the good results that had accrued from that course to the taxpayers and the Navy generally. Another reform that had taken place was to send ships for repairs to contractors' yards, so as to leave the Government dockyards free for new construction. He, however, wanted to call the attention of the Committee to the basis of the arrangement between the Admiralty and the contractors. He understood that no estimate of the cost of the repairs was given by the contractors beforehand. That was quite contrary to the system which prevailed in the Government yards. An estimate was there made, and consequently the Admiralty knew what the repairs were going to cost. The working basis between the Admiralty and the contractors, he was informed, was that the contractors were permitted to take a profit of 20 per cent. for wear and tear expenses; and over and above that they were assured a clear profit of 10 per cent. That seemed to him to be rather an extravagant arrangement. It would be more economical and businesslike if the contractors were called upon to give an estimate before the repairs were undertaken, for he believed if they were given a free-hand the repairs in the long run would be very costly. He also

  777
  congratulated the Admiralty on the good progress made in expediting the output of ships and in overtaking arrears of construction since the strike. That was to be attributed largely to the ability and energy of the Controller. That gentleman had also made it his special business to turn out excessive weights from the ships, which enabled him to give greater gun-power, a thing which was much required. In regard to the work carried out in the contract yards, both as to the completion of new ships and as to repairs, the Admiralty were fortunate enough to have obtained the services of a very distinguished man, Captain Jellico, as naval assistant. It was most necessary that the professional staff at the Admiralty should be strengthened, and that men of experience, with a practical knowledge of naval needs, should be employed in superintending the building and repairs in private yards. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that at Devonport next July there would not be a single ship on the slips. Quite an exceptional state of things prevailed in that dockyard, as there was only one ship building there at the present moment. He wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman how he proposed to place his orders for new construction, because it would be rather a serious thing for the Government yards to be short of work. Another question was as to dockyard equipment, so far as regarded machinery. The hon. Gentleman last year had admitted that the equipment was by no means up-to-date, or as efficient as the Admiralty wished to make it. He believed that some additions of modern machinery had been made, much to the benefit of the yards, but there was enormous room for further improvements, both in the machinery and the haulage in the yards. Inferior methods of hauling were very costly, and it would be a most material help if tramlines were laid down throughout the whole of the main avenues in the yards, and also into the workshops.
  The Government seemed to have an attachment to lighting their workshops with gas; they did not appear hardly to realise that there was such a thing as electric light. The expense of burning gas
  778
  was very high, and at this time of day every workshop in the Government establishments should be thoroughly equipped with the electric light. Then most valuable space in the Government dockyards was taken up by great quantities of rummage. It would be more economical to get rid of this rummage rather than store it, and devote the space to more useful purposes. There was no doubt that the men on the constructors' staff in the yards had not opportunities afforded to them of widening the horizon of their knowledge. He thought it would be a good thing for the Admiralty if they afforded the constructors an opportunity of seeing what was going on, not only in this country, but in other countries, where they might obtain ideas of what up-to-date methods meant. He also made the suggestion that the workmen should be invited to submit any idea of improvements in machinery. The spirit of repressing all initiative led to apathy. It was within his own knowledge that the Government had men of ideas in their employment, and if these men were encouraged to submit their ideas in any direction for adoption it would be of the utmost benefit to the service. He had heard that suggestions for improvements which had been made to the chief constructor had not been received with any great favour. It was the practice in America, as well as in most private yards in this country, to give the greatest possible encouragement to workmen to submit the ideas which occurred to them for improvements to their superiors, and that had frequently led to the development of great inventions. The Secretary to the Admiralty, who was a reformer at heart, was to be congratulated on the good work which he had done, and he submitted to him that if the suggestions which he had made were carried out, the result would not be detrimental, but beneficial, to the Admiralty.
  MR. GROVESsaid it was quite evident that the hon. Member for Gateshead had devoted a considerable amount of time to special matters connected with the Navy, although it was difficult sometimes to discriminate between the point where the

  779
  hon. Member for Gateshead was naturally carried away by his enthusiastic temperament and the real facts of the case. While he would be the last man in the House to depreciate the enormous amount of good and earnest work which the Secretary to the Admiralty had done, yet he thought the hon. Gentleman might have imparted less heat into the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead. He wished to ask the hon. Member whether the consumption of coal in the "Minerva" and the "Hyacinth" was identical, and whether the complement of stokers was the same on both ships. They knew that in trials a considerable addition was often made to the complement of the lower deck from the seamen class. Before he sat down he wished to congratulate the Secretary to the Admiralty on the enormous advances which had been made at the Admiralty under his administration.
  MR. GODDARDsaid that anyone who suggested economy in connection with the Navy, laid himself open to criticism, if not to condemnation; but there was one kind of economy which might, with great advantage to the finances of the country, be put into practice without in any way interfering with the efficiency or strength of the Navy. The method of transferring surpluses from one Vote to another was often the cause of considerable extravagance. In connection with the Shipbuilding Vote and the last Appropriation Account, the Public Accounts Committee found that on an original Estimate of £13,802,000, and a Supplementary Estimate of £191,500, there was a surplus of £346,405. But the total amount surrendered on the whole of the Navy accounts was only £94,184, so that, roughly, £250,000, deliberately voted by Parliament for the purposes of shipbuilding had been spent on other Naval Votes altogether. Such a system, he thought, was not conducive to economy. Misapprehension, too, was caused by the form in which the accounts were rendered; they were not sufficiently clear to be properly understood by the ordinary observer. For instance, in the last Appropriation Account on Vote 8, Section 2, there was a deficiency of £16,662. That was
  780
  a small sum on a very large Vote. But when the figures were examined there was an immense variation. Under different sub-heads there were deficits amounting to £149,500; on four subheads there were savings of £62,755; and there was an excess of appropriations in aid over the Estimate of £70,164; so that the variation, instead of being £16,662, was really £282,497. That was one of the reasons why a more economical working of the Shipbuilding Vote could not be shown. Too often the Estimates were altogether wrong, and even after they had been revised they were exceeded. When once a ship had been begun, there was no means of stopping it; they were obliged to pass the revised Estimates because the ship had to be completed. The Admiralty ought to take steps to see that their Estimates more nearly approximated to the actual cost of the ships. He was not an advocate of any unwise reduction in the expenditure on the Navy, but he was a strong advocate of true economy, and when an estimate for the building of a ship was presented, he thought it ought to be adhered to as nearly as possible, and that when a certain sum of money had been voted for shipbuilding purposes, it was an unwise step to allow any surplus to be used for totally different objects.
  MR. RUNCIMANunderstood that the Admiralty were making experiments in the use of oil fuel, and he suggested they should be cautious so as to be able to drop it, if necessary, without great expense. The supply of oil fuel was in extremely few hands. A large number of wells in the Far East had recently been acquired by an American trust, and one of the largest lines, which had been practically the pioneer in the use of oil fuel, had been obliged to lay up a large number of their vessels in consequence of their supply of oil being so much restricted by this trust. He hoped, therefore, that the Admiralty, before they committed themselves to the use of oil fuel in any of their ships, would be sure they had sufficient supplies, to prevent any irrevocable mistake being made. Although he could not endorse in detail all the hon. Member for Gateshead had said, there were matters in

  781
  his speech on which further inquiries were desirable. Had the Secretary considered how badly the ships of the Navy compared in point of consumption of coal with the ideal set before Mercantile Marine engineers of 1 lb. per i.h.p. per hour? An exact analogy between the Merchant Service and the Navy in this respect was, of course, impossible, but of the vessels added last year the "Russell's" consumption worked out at 2·09 lb. per i.h.p. per hour, the "Exmouth's" at 2·13, which was more than double the ideal of the Merchant Service. Only one vessel came anywhere near the Merchant Service minimum, and it would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman could give some explanation of the fact. One could not help seeing that behind the powerful denunciations of the hon. Member for Gateshead there was a great deal of truth. One of the things that made those who were watching the trials of His Majesty's ships anxious was the fact that a vessel seldom went on a trial without having a serious breakdown. Whatever might be the cause of that, it ought to be cured sooner or later. He suggested that it was due to the fact that the naval architect invariably put too much pressure on the engine builder, with the result that he had been compelled to lower the engine weights below the point of safety. That was very poor economy, and it did not tend to the efficiency of the various vessels. He hoped that under the régime of Mr. Phillip Watts, whose appointment to the Admiralty the whole country greeted with satisfaction and confidence, this state of things would be altered. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport, he might mention that Germany last year sent a Commission to all the large private shipbuilding yards in the United Kingdom and the United States to acquire information for use in their own service. Without altogether following the German model, he thought that perhaps the Admiralty might take a hint from Germany in that respect.
  MR. DUKEsaid it had been stated that the Admiralty had no plans at present for laying down any
  782
  new ships at Devonport Dockyard. Up to the present the shipbuilding there had been carried on satisfactorily, the ships having been completed mostly within the programme time and in some cases under the estimate. Unless a new ship was laid down when the "King Edward VII." was launched, the very extensive plant at Devonport would be idle, except for repairs, a result which would be looked at with some apprehension by the people of the district. He desired to ask, therefore, whether there was any prospect of a ship being laid down at Devonport within any reasonable period after the completion of the one now being built
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich that any substantial economy could be effected by the plan he proposed, that every allocation for the Navy should be stereotyped, and that if it were found impossible to apply the money to the particular purpose named it should go back to the Exchequer. That would be a very undesirable result. It was the considered opinion of many Parliaments that the Admiralty should be allowed to apply money which was found not to be applicable to one purpose to another, provided that the sanction of the Treasury was given. That sanction was always asked for, and he believed invariably obtained. They could not in practice carry out these allocations to their final conclusion with absolute certainty. They could not prophesy a war in China, or a strike, or the breakdown of a particular contractor.
  His hon. friend the Member for South Salford had reproached him for using perhaps too much heat in answering his hon. friend the Member for Gateshead. He regretted that he should think so, but perhaps his hon. friend hardly felt as he did how serious it was that misstatements of this kind should be made in the House of Commons. Statements which had not the slightest foundation, when made in that House, would be regarded as having some substance; and it he had shown undue heat he regretted it, but it must be set down to his zeal for the Service. He believed his hon. friend would himself speak with some heat, if he were face to face with

  783
  statements such as those with which he had to deal. To take one example—the hon. Member for Gateshead declared that £2,200,000 had been paid by the Admiralty to a French firm in respect of certain boilers. There was not the slightest foundation for that statement. Apart from the royalties, of which the hon. Member had spoken separately, not one single brass farthing had been paid by the Admiralty to any French firm in respect of any of these boilers. The statement in itself was, of course, absurd, but he knew that it would be disseminated all over the country, and that it would come back to him as an accepted article of belief. Statements of this kind were calculated to do much harm, and he could not accept them without demur. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Dewsbury in regard to oil fuel, he could assure him that the Admiralty were fully aware of the grounds for proceeding with great caution in the matter. It was a fascinating, but a very difficult subject, and the circumstances which the hon. Member had brought to their notice were not unknown to the Admiralty. The questions with regard to the sources from which oil could be supplied were important indeed. They were now continuing their experiments in the use of oil fuel, and they had been, on the whole, a success. Both in regard to the efficiency of oil as compared with coal and the diminution of smoke, there had undoubtedly been progress. But the hon. Member might reassure himself that there was no danger of the Admiralty's committing themselves so far in the matter of oil as to make it impossible to withdraw. Should the use of oil be found, for one reason or another—and there might be many reasons—to be undesirable they would be able to resume the use of coal, not only in ships in general, but in the ships fitted for oil purposes; and if at anytime there should be a breakdown in the installation in any ship they would be able at once to resort to the use of coal. He did not propose to go further into the question of submarines beyond saying that the Admiralty were satisfied with the progress which had been made with the boats made at Barrow and now being tested at Portsmouth. He had been asked for some reassurance on the important question of the rate of shipbuilding. He
  784
  fully admitted that that was a very important question which the Committee of the House of Commons had not only a right, but almost a duty, to press on the Admiralty. He was glad to say that they were very sanguine that the difficulties which had been so serious in the past were not likely to recur in the future. On the contrary, so far from there being any undue delay anticipated, they believed that the delays which they thought would be inevitable in the case of the ships of the "County" class, postponed owing to alterations in the armour and difficulties in reaching a decision as to the type of boiler, would be overcome, and that in some cases there would be no final delay in the delivery of the ships. The hon. Member for Devonport had alluded to the great services of the present Controller, both in furthering the rapidity and construction in the dockyards and in initiating and conducting reforms in the matter of weights carried on our ships. He believed a great deal was to be gained by a reduction of weights, which were involved in the carrying on board ship of non-essential articles, and he was certain that the inquiry and the execution of any work which might result from it could not be entrusted to better hands than those of the present Controller of the Navy.
  The hon. Members for Plymouth and Devonport had asked him a question with regard to a matter which affected that port very closely—viz., whether it was proposed to lay down any new ships at Keyham or Devonport this year. He had to say that the Admiralty did not intend to do so. The whole scheme of shipbuilding for the Navy had to be very carefully considered, and the allocation of ships to dockyard or contract establishments was decided by what were believed to be the general interests of the Navy. But he could reassure the hon. Members in one respect, for if they would consult the Navy Estimates they would find that the provision for these dockyards was not only not diminished but was increased in the ensuing year. The Admiralty would find ample work for the whole of the establishment of Keyham and Devonport dockyards, and

  785
  though he would never pledge himself to the principle that the Admiralty were not entitled, in the interests of the public service, at any time to discharge men from the dockyards, in this case, he was glad to say, there appeared to be no necessity for any discharges such as the hon. Member feared. The hon. Member had called his attention to the question of the machinery in the dockyards; that was a very important matter indeed, and one which had engaged the attention of the Admiralty very closely. He did not think hon. Members realised how much bad already been done, or whit large sums had been spent during the last few years in improving the machinery of the dockyards. There had been, speaking from his own experience, extending over a period of twenty years, almost a revolution in regard to the machinery in the dockyards, although there remained a large margin to be made up. But he was very sanguine that before many months they would be in a position to tell the House that they were able to contemplate the entire recreation of the dockyards as efficient naval establishments. He had seen enough of the manufacture of ships to know that the truest economy lay in the efficiency and perfection of their machinery. They were contemplating the introduction of electrical installation in all the dockyards, which they believed would enormously tend to economy by the centralisation of their sources of power; they would obtain the convenience of electric light coupled with the economy that would be derived from the power of transmitting weights from one place to another by electric traction.
  He had been asked whether they were taking adequate steps to control their new departure in the matter of completing and repairing ships by contract in the contract yards. This he could say, that whatever might be the ultimate result of the experiment,—and at present they had not had sufficient experience to justify them in forming an opinion—it had relieved them from a congestion of the dockyards, it had enabled them to do work that could not have been contemplated under any other circumstances; and, as far as they had been able at present to investigate, the work was being turned out in a manner
  786
  that would prove very satisfactory to the comfort and health of the officers and men of the ships. With regard to the question of cost, these were perhaps too early days to form a definite opinion; but at any rate he could say that the prices of repairing ships in the contract yards had been such as not to deter them from continuing the experiment. Weighing in the balance the advantages gained and the cost, they were convinced that they would gain considerably by continuing this experiment. The hon. Member for Dewsbury made some remarks, with which he had great sympathy, with regard to the question of the engine machinery of our ships. He thought the hon. Member had perhaps exaggerated a little in regard to the amount of coal consumed in relation horse-power, although he knew the hon. Member spoke as an expert. He thought, however, that although 1 lb. might be the ideal, 1·4 lbs. was nearer the actual minimum consumption in merchant steamers. He thought the hon. Member must be aware that the circumstances did not allow them to predicate the same results from a marine engine for a warship as in the case of a mercantile marine. He would point out, however, that there had been a very considerable reduction in the coal consumption on the ships as they were running now. He confessed he should like to see a greater return to the longer stroke and the larger engine, if the circumstances of marine construction would allow it. He had great confidence in the resource of the Director of Naval Construction, and believed that whatever engineering science was capable of accomplishing in this direction would be accomplished. But, as the hon. Member knew, the stress put upon the engines in the engine-room of a modern man-of-war was tremendous, and it was astounding what efficiency there was in the engines of a warship, considering the enormous task they had to perform in a limited space.
  With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport that our dockyard officials should visit home and foreign dockyard establishments more frequently, he would say that very little went on in the great engineering establishments which, in one way or another, was not brought under the

  787
  notice of those who were concerned with naval construction. He believed a great deal was to be got from the initiative and ingenuity of those employed in engineering work, and it was not a new idea to him that they should ask those thus engaged to contribute their ideas from time to time. He did not want hon. Members to think that the scientific departments of the Admiralty in these matters were ill-equipped, which he knew they were not, or that they were non-receptive of suggestions. He believed that in regard to all the matters raised in the course of the debate there was a considerable amount of real progress. He had been asked a question with regard to the coal consumption of the water-tube and the cylindrical boilers. It was perfectly impossible for him to give the coal consumption of the very large number of ships, over 500, unequally divided between these two systems, but he happened to have before him the coal consumption of two ships that recently ran out to Gibraltar under precisely the same conditions of speed—the "Hyacinth' and the "Minerva." The "Hyacinth" and the "Minerva" ran out under 7,000 horse-power from Plymouth to Gibraltar. The coal consumption of the "Hyacinth" was 2·10 lb. per indicated horse-power, and of the "Minerva" 1·97 lb. per indicated horse power. There was, therefore, a very slight difference, but the advantage was in favour of the cylindrical boiler.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had rarely heard a more fruitful and useful discussion on the Navy than they had had that night, or a more ample answer than that just supplied by the hon. Gentleman. He wished to refer to the appropriation of money voted for the Admiralty for one purpose to another purpose. He looked on this as a serious abuse, and as involving an entire departure from the system of finance laid down by the Act of 1866. It had been done in the War Office, and, to his knowledge, from experience gained on the Public Accounts Committee, they had been deprived of the power of tracing millions. As to the use of oil fuel, which he brought to the attention of the House as long ago as 1893, he had a suspicion that those concerned in
  788
  the experiments had not tried to succeed. He had always held the firm conviction that the use of oil on board ship would be of enormous advantage, especially in the case of torpedo-destroyers, for they would he able to get rid of the smoke and would not require stokers. But with their experiments the Admiralty had gone on, year after year, failing, while the mercantile marine had gone on, year after year, succeeding. If they could not get the oil in this country, he should admit that that was a serious reason against using it. But we had large quantities of shale in this country stretching from sea to sea. It began at King's Lynn, where there were 600 feet of it, and reached to Portland. He did not know whether the whole of the shale at King's Lynn was oil-producing, but large portions of it were. He should like to know whether the Admiralty had made experiments with some of it.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad to hear that. It showed that the hon. Gentleman was not inaccessible to good ideas. He thought there had been some slackness in adopting the turbine. It was no longer an experiment. The hon. Member for Dumbarton had constructed three vessels which had been an unqualified success. The turbine was a beautiful engine, and had a most smooth motion. He thought turbines might be fitted to large vessels as well as destroyers.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: We are fitting them to a cruiser and to a destroyer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad to hear that. He trusted that the question of fitting them to battleships would be considered. The advantages were enormous, and it was much easier to get them below the water-line.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid the French battleships which he mentioned earlier in the debate as having multi-tubular boilers were the "Democratic," the "Justice," and the "Vérité." There

  789
  were also two first-class cruisers. With regard to the £2,200,000, in October, 1898, Belleville boilers were ordered for forty-one ships, representing 577,700 indicated horse-power. Taking the average, that represented sixty ships boilered and to be boilered, the price being from £2 10s. to £2 12s. per indicated horse-power. If the Secretary to the Admiralty would multiply that he would arrive at the total he had given.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was not good at sums, but he knew that not one penny of the sum referred to had gone abroad, but that, all the boilers were made by British makers, which made a very great difference. The hon. Gentleman led the House to believe that this money had been paid to a French firm, but there was no foundation whatever for that statement. With regard to the French battleships and cruisers, his information was contrary to that obtained by the hon. Member, but these vessels had not been begun. When they were begun they might receive a different kind of boiler. It had only just been decided by the French Chamber that the vessels should be proceeded with.
  MR. CREANthought that in many ways the Admiralty could effect economy, and at the same time maintain efficiency. Within the last few days he had received a communication from the only southern port in Ireland capable of executing any work for the Government, and that information was to the effect that one of the ships there had been ordered off to a dockyard in another part of Ireland which was already congested with work. He thought this was a great injustice to
  790
  the district he represented, for at the port he referred to warships had been repaired to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, and it was a great hardship that those vessels should be taken away from that port, and sent long distances by sea to dockyards which did not want the work. The transfer of this warship from Cork Harbour to Belfast was an extraordinary state of things. He was not speaking as the advocate for any private firm, but he thought it would be to the advantage of the Admiralty to have auxiliary docks in this part of Ireland to execute their own work. If the Admiralty would encourage dockyards which were capable and willing to execute repairs, and give such dockyards in Ireland a fair share of the money allocated for this work, it would be to the advantage of this country in the end. The dockyard to which he referred was for many years derelict until this English firm took it up. He understood that this Government work was done by schedule, and therefore he was not asking for any preferential treatment. Not only was this particular dockyard capable of executing Admiralty work, but he complained that the quantity of work given to this firm was of such a niggardly character that it was not worth having. There was no complaint of the inefficiency of work done by this firm, and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would consider these facts and not treat them differently to other dockyards. The Government were now initiating a new policy to try and keep the Irish peasantry at home, and they should at east try and help other industries and see that Ireland had fair play in the gigantic race that was going on in the commercial world. He hoped that in

  791
  future they would receive fair play, and that a fair proportion of work would be given to them. Ireland contributed its fair share to the taxation of the United Kingdom, and the colonies could not compare with Ireland in regard to the amount of money they were contributing towards the upkeep of the Navy. Therefore, he thought they ought to get a fair proportion of that money back in their own country. He asked the Admiralty not to take vessels out of Cork harbour and send them to Devonport and Liverpool.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he wished to correct a mistake which appeared to have been made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn in regard to liquid fuel. He knew that within the last few years the Admiralty, under the energetic guidance of Lord Selborne, had been dealing with this question with energy and with every possible skill. His hon. friend had stated that the Mercantile Marine had been using liquid fuel with success, and that was absolutely true. He wished to point out, however, that the conditions under which vessels in the Mercantile Marine were worked were entirely different to vessels in the Navy. In the Mercantile Marine considerations of weight and space were of almost no importance, or at any rate that consideration was considerably less than in the crowded machinery room of a warship. There was three times the quantity of space in the vessels of the Mercantile Marine as compared with battleships and destroyers. On account of the confined space these difficulties had arisen. He believed that the experiments the Admiralty were making were in the right direction, and
  792
  they had now gone far towards solving the difficulties. Speaking from practical experience upon this question of liquid fuel, he thought the Admiralty were doing the country a great service and advancing the cause of science, and very shortly they would overcome the difficulties. He did not think they deserved the censure which his hon. friend had passed upon them. The vessels in the mercantile service had followed the first experiments made under the care of the Admiralty in regard to the use of turbine engines. The chief difficulty was that they were enormously wasteful in coal consumption, and he thought it would be found that their wastefulness would stand very much in their way; nevertheless, for vessels where speed and economy of weight and machinery were of first importance, the use of turbines was an enormous advance. Upon these points of liquid fuel and the use of turbines, he thought the Admiralty were showing the greatest possible progressiveness, and their enlightened policy deserved the appreciation of the House.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid he represented a constituency which included a considerable area of Cork Harbour, and he wished to support the claim made by his hon. friend on behalf of the South of Ireland in regard to the Admiralty work to private yards. He considered that warships ought to be sent over to Ireland, provided that the work could be done as cheaply and satisfactorily as in English dockyards. With reference to this particular dockyard, neither his hon. friend nor himself had the slightest personal interest in it. They made this claim solely on behalf of the South of Ireland, which possessed a very well-equipped private yard; he

  793
  knew that any small work which had been given to this private company had been carried out very satisfactorily. An opportunity now arose of sending work to private firms, not under contract but at scheduled prices. Why should this dock not be given some share of the work? He thought that the claim was a very reasonable one. He had not the least objection to Belfast getting any amount of work, but he claimed that the South of Ireland was entitled to a share of Admiralty work. The private firm to which he alluded had expended a considerable sum of money in the development of this dockyard and they were paying about £1,500 a week in wages. That amount of money spent in a poor district in Ireland was a very important matter, and he thought this firm were entitled to some encouragement for being plucky enough to sink such a largo amount of money in a dockyard in Ireland. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give this matter his favourable consideration.
  MR. MARKHAMasked what was the consumption per indicated horse-power guaranteed in these turbines which had been fitted in the torpedo destroyer he had mentioned.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASasked for some information about the "County" class of vessels.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that upon former occasions Irish representatives had thought it their duty to call attention to the claims of Ireland upon this question, and they had succeeded in getting some small recognition of the fact that a small share of the enormous amount spent
  794
  upon the Navy should be expended in some parts of Ireland. They had succeeded in getting something, and perhaps should be thankful for small mercies. But the question raised by his hon. friend with reference to the unfair treatment meted out to the Passage Docks was an entirely different matter, He found there was an increase of £576,000 for repairs; and it seemed to him very singular that the year in which the estimates jumped up to that extent should be the very year in which the Government sent work away from Cork Harbour. They had no interest in the Passage Docks or in the particular company owning them, except a public interest. The Company had sunk a very large amount of capital, and had given considerable employment; and their work, on their own showing, was as good as could be obtained at any other yard. In the circumstances it was a very unfair proceeding on the part of the Admiralty to send this ship to be repaired at Belfast. The Passage Docks was on the Admiralty list, was thoroughly well equipped, the management was enterprising and active, and claimed that they were in a position to do the work at the same price as any other private yard. That being so, he was puzzled to understand the action taken by the Admiralty. A short time ago the Passage Docks Company under took work of a very difficult and costly character on the east coast of Africa. A large ship was burned nearly to the water's edge. The company sent out a crew, brought the hulk back, and repaired it so well that it was classed A1 at Lloyds and sold for a large sum. A company which could do that could certainly repair a Government ship; and he thought he

  795
  was amply justified in making a protest and asking the Admiralty to reconsider the matter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FOPSTERsaid he did not think there was any reason for alarm with regard to the ships of the "County" class. He did not know to what his hon. friend referred, unless it was the failure of some of the ships to attain the high speed of twenty-three knots on their trials. They had attained a very high speed, but the Admiralty were not satisfied, and he believed that by changing the screws a speed of twenty-three knots would eventually be obtained. Apart from that the ships had given satisfaction. In reply to the hon. Member for North East Cork, he thought the hon. Member did not feel as much surprise as he would have the Committee believe. He himself was very familiar with the character of the yard referred to, as he had caused inquiries to be made into its capabilities. A certain amount of work had been given to the yard. Of course, it was practically a new yard; but the Admiralty were sufficiently satisfied with the work done to be able to inform the Company, as they did a few days ago, that the capabilities of the yard were understood, and that its claims for receiving Admiralty work would be considered. The hon. Gentleman might spare himself the trouble of applying any pressure, because, as long as he had anything to do with the Admiralty, the distribution of the work would depend on only one consideration—namely, what was best in the interests of the Navy. There was no unwillingness, on the contrary there was a disposition, to take every opportunity that the peculiarities of the yard would allow, to make use of it. The
  796
  Admiralty were very glad that the yard was there, but it must not expect to obtain all at once the amount of Admiralty work which the older yards obtained. With reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, the "Velox" was the only boat fitted with reciprocating and turbine engines. The consumption of coal on the "Velox" was at first very formidable, but it had been now reduced to more satisfactory proportions, and it was hoped that it would be reduced still further. He could not give particulars with respect to the other two turbine vessels, as they were still under construction.
  MR EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid they had had a long and very exacting day, and he would suggest that the Vote be now taken, and that Rrogress be reported.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he had no objection; but he thought it was understood that, as they had been discussing the two Votes together they would, as a corollary, vote on them together. He could not possibly pledge himself to have a discussion on Section 3.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he quite understood that.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee 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 ten minutes before Twelve o'clock.