Commons Sitting of 23 February 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Bexhill Water and Gas Bill; Croydon Gas Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Marylebone Chapels (St. James Westmoreland Street). Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Rotherham Corporation Bill; Torquay Tramways Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22nd February],

711
"That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding eleven Members, to be called the Police and Sanitary Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question again proposed.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it was necessary he should reply to some observations made by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham, on the previous day, in regard to the appointment of this Committee, and the part it took with respect to the action of municipal corporations and local authorities. Many hon. Members on the Government Benches were of opinion that municipalities should be crushed, while those of the Opposition mostly thought with himself that the Committee had rather erred in the direction of preventing these bodies acting freely on the views of the local inhabitants The opinions of the hon. Members in favour of restricting the grant of powers were rather against those to which he was giving expression. However, he took it that the hon. Member was not opposed to municipal trading. He had cited two cases in which police powers given in the 1886 Parliament had led to debate in that House, but he had admitted that the objection to which they gave rise had not arisen in regard to later Acts. It was therefore not necessary to go into that matter. There was a great deal to be said on both sides of the question, but he wished it to be understood that the House generally must not be taken as concurring in the suggestion that local authorities were going too far in these matters.
MR. HALSEY, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, said they took the greatest care in choosing members for this particular Committee and he believed that the manner in which it did its work met with the approbation of the House. He agreed with the hon. Member that it would be desirable that the declaration
712
he referred to of absence of personal interest in the business to be done by the Committee should be made by the members in the same way as was done by members of all Committees on Private Bills, but he feared that that would involve a very complicated alteration of Standing Orders. He wished to take that opportunity of bearing testimony to the admirable manner in which the Committee had done its work—work which did not come before the public in any way, but which was more severe than that of Private Bill Committees, and which involved great personal inconvenience.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 150 and 173A apply to all such Bills.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Four be the quorum of the Committee.
Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than clauses containing police and sanitary regulations) are such, as having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of

713
which shall have the full powers of, and be subject to the instructions which apply to, the undivided Committee, and that Three be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—(Mr. Cochrane.)

PETITIONS.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Newry, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  JURORS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCE HOLDERS.
  Petition from Newport (Isle of Wight), for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Whitchurch; Barnstaple; Ilfracombe (three); Altrincham; Sheffield; Bolton; Millom; Burnley; Cleckheaton; Kingston on Thames; Llannor; Ashton in Mersey; Moreton in Marsh; Shipton Oliffe; Rochdale; Cefny Bedd; Halkyn; Seven Sisters; Trealaw; Luton; Ffestiniog; Mountsorrel; Brockley; Rusholme; Partick; Pye Bank; Bromley; York, Aberdovery; Tottenham; Oxford; Chorley; Westminster; Llanarmon; Ruthin (three); Colwyn Bay; Abergele; Llangollen; Stepney; Oldham; Paisley; Penrhyndendraeth; Salford; Builth; Yngs; Pennal; Talgarth (two); Gwynfa; Llanon; Brynhiwgaled; Bala; Maida Vale; Hackleton; Huby; Dewsbury; Manchester; Gwyddgrug; and Kidwelly; to lie upon the Table.
  TAXATION OF FEU DUTIES.
  Petition from Kilmarnock, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE ACT, 1903
  Paper [presented 11th February] to be printed. [No. 71.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 15th September, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 72.]
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland in substitution for Rule 28 of 1st May, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum summarising the Regulations in force in foreign countries with regard to British Commercial Travellers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Progress made with Pier at Aultbea.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that last year the Board of Trade granted a Provisional Order for the construction of a pier at Aultbea, Ross-shire will he state what progress has been made with the works.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray) Under the Provisional Order the undertakers are not under any obligation to commence the works until 1905; but by their courtesy I am informed that they hope to complete the pier during the present year.

    Prosecutions for Illegal Trawling.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state the number of prosecutions for illegal trawling during the past year; and in how many cases convictions were secured.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) During 1903 there were twenty-seven prosecutions undertaken in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland for illegal trawling; and convictions were obtained in twenty-five of these cases.

    School Board Electorate in Scotland.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that

    715
    thousands of ratepayers in Scotland who are entitled to vote for the Parliamentary representative, and at county and parish council elections, have no vote for school board elections by reason of their rentals being less than £4, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will place the school board electorate on a more satisfactory footing.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I have already given notice of a Bill relating to education in Scotland, and must decline to make any statement on the subject until I have an opportunity of introducing that Bill.

    New Equivalent Grant for Schools in Scotland.
    MR.HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state how much of the £40,000, allocated in the Minute regulating the distribution of the new equivalent grant for assistants qualified under Article 79, has been taken up; and how much has been taken up in the Highland counties.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) There is no special sum, £40,000 or other, allocated in the Minute of 28th May, 1903, for the purposes of Section 1 thereof. The claims for grants under that section have not all yet reached the Department; but, so far, the total amount found to be payable under Section 1 of the Minute equals £13,700. Of this sum, £3,310 is payable on account of schools in the Highland counties. The total sum payable is not likely to exceed £15,000, nor is the part thereof payable on account of schools in the Highland counties likely to exceed £4,000.

    Auditing of Public Accounts.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amount of the revenue receipts during the past ten years, the number of the Controller and Auditor-General's officers employed in auditing those receipts, and the number of weeks in each year during which each of those officials are so employed, and the number of officials in this department at work in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The average annual amount of the
    716
    revenue receipts (including local taxation revenue) during the past ten years was £124,079,562. A test audit only is given to revenue receipts. Nine officials of the Exchequer and Audit Department are engaged in auditing them, and the total time occupied by the audit is equivalent to sixty weeks for one man. Three officers are employed in Ireland upon the audit of revenue, and are occupied for a time amounting to three weeks in all.

    Civil Service Commission Vote—Amount of Fees from Candidates.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amount of the Civil Service Commission Vote for the past ten years, and the annual average amount of fees received by the Civil Service Commissioners from I all candidates who presented themselves at Civil Service examinations and from those who presented themselves in Ireland, and the annual average amount of this Vote expended in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The average annual amount of the Civil Service Commission Vote for the past ten years is £42,025, and the annual average amount of fees received by the Civil Service Commissioners during the same time from all candidates is £16,595, of which £1,566 was from candidates who presented themselves in Ireland. The amount expended in Ireland cannot be separately stated.

    Board of Trade Vote—Branch for Irish Affairs.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average amount of the Board of Trade Vote for the last ten years, and also give the average approximate amount spent annually in Ireland; also whether there is a separate branch for Irish business; or whether the accounts and the returns of exports and imports are amalgamated.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The average annual amount of the Vote for the Board of Trade and subordinate Departments for the last ten years was £187,299. There is no separate account of the sums expended in Ireland, and no separate branch for Irish business.

    Customs Certificates for Treacle used for Feeding Stuffs.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused to grain and other merchants by His Majesty's Customs requiring them to obtain from their customers a certificate that treacle, which has been sold and invoiced to be used for feeding stuffs only, has in fact been so used; and whether he will give instructions that, where a trader has given such a certificate, he shall not be further required to make inquiries from his customers.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen. Chamberlain.) Under Section 1 (1) of the Revenue Act, 1903, the Commissioners of Customs are authorised to impose such conditions as may be necessary, in their opinion, for the protection of the revenue, in connection with the duty-free importation of molasses intended to be used as food for stock. Regulations have accordingly been made under which an undertaking is required to be given by the importer or proprietor to produce, whenever called upon to do so, evidence to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs that the molasses has been actually used as food for stock only, or in the preparation of articles which can only be used for that purpose. The Commissioners usually require such evidence to be in the form of a certificate that the molasses has been actually used for the prescribed purpose, and such certificates can obviously not be given by traders themselves in respect of molasses which they have sold to other persons. It therefore rests with the traders to make their own arrangements with their customers to provide themselves with the necessary certificates from the actual users for production to the Customs when required.

    Sylviculture in Scotland.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, whether the Board is responsible for dealing with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Forestry in Scotland, or whether responsibility for sylviculture training in Scotland is shared
    718
    by any other Department; and, if so, can he state in what respect and to what extent.
    (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are generally responsible for dealing with the recommendations of their Departmental Committee, but forestry education and educational demonstrations are allied to agricultural education and therefore come under the control of the Scottish Office. Purely experimental work and research, on the other hand, even though carried on in Scotland, fall within the province of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The two Departments are in constant consultation with one another, and forestry interests are likely to gain rather than suffer by the fact that both Departments are in some degree concerned.

    Delays in Delivery of Scotch Mails.
    MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state on what occasions, between 1st June and 31st October, 1903, the down night mails from London to Scotland by the West Coast Railways were late in being delivered at Carlisle, Perth, and Inverness, and the extent of the delays at these places respectively.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Between the 1st June and 31st October, 1903(153 days), the down night mail train to Scotland by the West Coast Railways was more than fifteen minutes late in arriving at Carlisle on fifty-three days, at Perth on 130 days, and at Inverness on 115 days. The average lateness was at Carlisle fourteen minutes, at Perth twenty-seven minutes, and at Inverness thirty-four minutes. The railway companies have had some special difficulties to meet this year, especially in the tourist season, but, after making all due allowance for this, the working of the service cannot be regarded as satisfactory, although it shows improvement as compared with previous years. Frequent representations on the subject have been made to the companies concerned.

    Resignations in the Postal Service.
    MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will direct that a tabulated statement of resignations from all

    719
    branches of the postal and telegraph service, together with the causes of resignation, be included in future in his annual Report.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is undesirable to include additional tables in the Postmaster-General's Annual Report unless some strong reason exists for doing so. I do not think that any such reason can be shown in the case of the tabulated statement referred to by the hon. Member.

    Unexpended Parliamentary Grants for Devonshire Schools.
    MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state what were the amounts of the Parliamentary Grants unexpended on outstanding liabilities before the appointed day of schools not provided by school boards for the administrative county of Devon, specifying the total amounts paid to individual school managers and to associations of voluntary schools.
    (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I am afraid that I cannot give the figures the hon. Member desires. All Parliamentary Grants, due for periods previous to the appointed day, are in course of being paid over to the managers, except a part of the Aid Grant which is being paid over to certain associations of voluntary schools which have satisfied the requirements of the Act. The payment of the grants will not be completed for some time to come; but in any case the Board have not the information as to the liabilities of managers on the appointed day which would enable them to say how much of the Parliamentary Grants will remain over after these liabilities have been met. The Board cannot yet say how much the portion of the Aid Grant paid over to associations of voluntary schools will eventually amount to.

    Erection of Statue of Queen Victoria in Westminster Hall.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the hon. Member for the Chorley Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any steps have yet been taken to secure the erection
    720
    in Westminster Hall of a statue of Queen Victoria.
    (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) No steps have actually been taken as to the erection of a statue of Queen Victoria in Westminster Hall since the Question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne was answered last July, † The matter is still under consideration. The First Commissioner regrets that at this stage it is impossible for him to make any definite statement on the subject.

    Ringworm Hospital for Poor Law Children.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any hospital has been erected by the Asylums Board for the treatment of poor law children affected with ringworm; and, if so, will he state the number of cases at present in the hospital and the number that have been treated there each year, the cost of the building, and the annual expenditure for the maintenance of the institution.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Metropolitan Asylums Board have two establishments for the reception and treatment of poor law children suffering from ringworm—one at Sutton, Surrey, and the other at Witham, Essex. They were purchased from the Managers of the South Metropolitan School District for £99,307 (viz.: the Sutton establishment for £88,261 and the other for £11,046). In addition, an expenditure of £13,650 was authorised in 1902 in respect of the provision of a laundry at Sutton. The number of children in these schools on the 13th inst. was:—Sutton,419; Witham, 143; Total, 562. The total number of children admitted into the Sutton school from 26th February, 1903 (the date of opening) to the end of that year was 618. In the case of the other school, which was opened on 12th February, 1901, 316 children were admitted up to the end of 1902, and during 1903, 69 were admitted. The expenditure for the maintenance of the Witham school for the year ended Michaelmas, 1903, was £5,004, and in the case of the other school for the half year ending on that date £6,995.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxvi., 688.

    Vaccination Act—Interpretation of Section 2.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the diverse action of different magistrates throughout the country in the treatment of applications under Section 2 of the Vaccination Act, 1898, it is the intention of the Home Office to issue to magistrates throughout the country a circular stating the views of the Home Office and the Local Government Board as to the correct interpretation of the section.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) This matter is, by the Statute, left in the discretion of the magistrates. I have no authority over the exercise of that discretion, and I do not, therefore, contemplate the issue of a circular such as the hon. Member suggests, which would, in the circumstances, serve no useful purpose.

    Phœnix Park, Dublin—Treasury Contribution to Rates.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the reason of the contribution in lieu of rates in respect of certain portions of Phœnix Park being discontinued; whether he is aware that the Dublin County Council passed a resolution upon the subject in the interest of their ratepayers; and whether, seeing that the financial returns from Phœnix Park are much more remunerative than those from Brockwell Park, upon which the point was raised and a decision taken, he will, under the circumstances, advise the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to resume payment of the contribution paid for so many years to the local authority.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The contributions for Royal Parks in England, Scotland, and Ireland were discontinued on the ground that no rate would be payable if the parks were in other hands than those of the Crown and used for the same purposes as at present. I am aware of the resolution referred to. The financial returns from Phœnix Park are but a small percentage of the cost of maintenance and do not affect the principle involved.

    Delay in Delivery of Eggs from Claremorris, County Mayo.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that consignments of eggs from Claremorris, in Mayo, frequently were delayed for nine days before they reached their destination, Leigh in Lancashire, about eleven miles from Manchester; and whether he will cause the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to inquire into and report upon the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham). No complaint has been made to the Department of Agriculture in respect to this matter, but any definite representations on the subject made by aggrieved persons will be duly inquired into.

    Rent Dispute on Wetherell Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at a recent quarter sessions in Longford, complaint was made that Mr. Alexander W. Percival, a receiver under the Land Judges' Court, had compelled a widow named Mary Heally, living on the Wetherell Estate in Ballincurry, county Longford, to pay two years rent, although he had only receipted her for one year's rent; and whether he will bring these facts to the notice of the Judge, with a view to his removal from the post of receiver in that Court.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) An ejectment for non-payment of rent was brought against this tenant at the Longford Quarter Sessions, in April, 1903. The amount claimed to be due was found on examination to be correct, but it appears that the agent, Mr. Percival, had been in the habit for several years previously of giving a receipt for a half-year's rent in advance of that actually paid. The tenant was thus under the impression that she owed a half-year's rent less than the amount actually due. With his consent a half-year's rent was subsequently struck off and credit was allowed to the tenant for this amount in the decree which was subsequently obtained against her. There is nothing in

    723
    Mr. Percival's action calling for notice, as suggested.

    Promotion of Irish National School Assistant Teachers.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many assistant teachers in Irish national schools have been promoted from third to second grade since the introduction of the new rules.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Three assistant teachers have been promoted to the second grade since the date mentioned, in pursuance of Rule 195 (f). Ninety-three assistant teachers have been promoted to the second grade on appointment as principal teachers since the same date, pursuant to Rule 200, III.

    Case of Late Private Norris.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether any moneys were due, or effects unclaimed, to the credit of the late Private P. Norris, No. 6694, 2nd Battalion South Wales Borderers, who was killed at Modderfontein on 29th January, 1901; whether, in view of the circumstances of this man's parents, any recommendation has been made on their behalf to the Royal Patriotic Fund; and whether some relief or gratuity will now be paid to them.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The sum due to the estate of the late No. 6694, Patrick Norris, 2nd Battalion, South Wales Borderers, amounted to £16 3s. 5d. The whole of this sum has been paid to the late soldier's father. The father's application for assistance has been twice brought before the Royal Patriotic Fund Commissioners, but they have not seen their way to granting any monetary assistance. There is no fund at the disposal of the Secretary of State from which help can be given.

    Compensation for Injury to Gunner William Murphy.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in consequence of an accident at gunnery practice in county Donegal, Gunner William Murphy, of the
    724
    Donegal Artillery (Militia) Regiment, has been an inmate of Longford Union Hospital for nine months; and whether, seeing that this man was only granted 12s. by way of remuneration for the accident, he will direct an inquiry into this man's case with a view to having him paid compensation for the injuries received.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The hon. Member has been misinformed. This gunner broke his leg through slipping on the flooring of his tent and not while at gunnery practice. He was admitted to hospital where, as he was considered to have been injured on duty and not to have been to blame for his accident, hospital stoppages were remitted. He was discharged from the hospital at his own request on 22nd September, and was admitted to Longford Union Infirmary on 13th October. Gratuity for injuries is not issued concurrently with maintenance at the public expense, and he accordingly received a gratuity of 12s. a week for the period 22nd September to 13th October only, amounting to £1 14s. 3d.in all. If on leaving the infirmary he is found incapacitated from earning his living, application for a further gratuity will be considered; but it must be added that a medical officer who visited him there reported that he had recovered from the fracture and did not seem inclined to use the leg.

    Estate of the Late James M'Gowan.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the late James M'Gowan, alias James M'Gavan, alias James Murray, who died in Rhodesia in 1897, possessed of an interest in the Lendy Estate, which has since been realised, was at the time of his death in possession of a sum of £25 0s. 10½d. in cash for which no account has been rendered; and will he, following the example of the late Colonial Secretary, request the Master of the Higher Court to report on the whereabouts of this sum.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no information as to the sum of

    725
    £25 0s. l0½d. referred to, but I will communicate with the Administrator of Southern Rhodesia, through Lord Milner, with a view to obtaining a report upon the hon. Member's statement.

    White British Born Labour in the Transvaal.
    MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if steps can be taken to ascertain the number of white British born workmen in actual employment in the mines, railways, and manufactories in the Transvaal on any one day at the present time.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am asking Lord Milner to furnish this information so far as it is practicable to do so.

    Employment of Convicts in the South African Mines.
    MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state upon what terms and under what conditions convicts are employed in the mines in South Africa; whether any payment is made for their services; if so, upon what basis and to whom made; whether they are under the inspection of a Government official when at work; and whether they are living in compounds with other natives or in compounds set apart for convicts.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have already given the information at my disposal on the subject of the convicts employed in the Transvaal mines in reply to Questions recently addressed to me † I have asked for full particulars. The employment of convicts in the Kimberley mines takes place under the provisions of an Act of the Cape Colony, No. 23, of 1888, Section 52.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    New Service Rifle.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1320.
    726
    intended to fit the new service rifle with a wind gauge sliding bar, so as to ensure greater accuracy in marksmanship.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): A wind gauge back sight is being fitted to the new rifle.

    Devonport Dockyard Blacksmiths.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that recently a number of blacksmiths at Devonport Dockyard were offered the option of resigning or accepting the post of hammermen, at a reduced rate of pay, in consequence of a falling off in the demand for blacksmiths, he will arrange that, in the event of their transfer or discharge, they shall have their full title of blacksmith, as they were originally engaged, and not of hammermen, in which capacity they are now employed.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed with regard to this matter, as no incident of the kind has occurred recently at Devonport Dockyard. Cases, however, do sometimes occur in which, on a reduction of hands, smiths are offered the option of resigning or accepting employment as hammermen, and in all such cases it is the rule for the men on discharge to be given their full title of smith.
    MR. CROOKS: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. My information was to the contrary. I will let him see the letter.

    Royal Naval Reserve Station at Ullapool.
    MR. LEVESON-GOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, after considering the respective advantages of Ullapool and Lochinver, the former has been chosen as a Royal Naval Reserve Station; whether he is aware that the greater number of Reservists are from the neighbourhood of Lochinver, and from the north of it; and, if so, if Ullapool has been chosen, will he state what measures the Admiralty propose to

    727
    take to facilitate the training of those Reservists who may experience difficulty in training there.
    MR. PRETYMAN: The decision to establish the Royal Naval Reserve Station at Ullapool in preference to Lochinver was only arrived at after the most careful consideration of the comparative advantages offered by the two localities. It is true that at present the majority of the Royal Naval Reserve men come from the neighbourhood of Lochinver, and from the north of it, but as Ullapool is the centre of a much larger fishing population it is considered that there are greater possibilities of developing the Reserve in this direction. It is not anticipated that any special facilities will be required, as suggested in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, as the journey to Ullapool will be shorter and less expensive than the journey to Inverness, which the men at present have to undertake.
    MR. BIGNOLD: Then may we take it that the negotiations are still in progress?
    MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir.

    Swaziland.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the greater part of Swaziland is the subject of real or pretended concessions, said to have been granted by King Umbandine, and that the effect of such concessions is both to exclude native rights and also to shut out traders, even though as a fact they have been there from earlier dates, unless they choose to make payments at the will of the alleged concessionary companies; and, seeing that these concessions have long been the subject of consideration by the Swaziland Administration at Johannesburg and by the Department of Native Affairs of the Transvaal Colony, whether he will take steps to cause some equitable settlement to be at once arrived at.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The matter,
    728
    which is one of unusual complexity, is receiving my earnest attention, and I hope that it will be possible to arrive at a settlement at no distant date.

    British Colonies and the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any objection to have printed and circulated amongst Members the communications which passed between the Governments of Australia and New Zealand and the Colonial Office in reference to Chinese labour in South Africa.
    MR. LYTTELTON: There has been no communications direct to the Colonial Office beyond that from the Government of New Zealand, published at p. 231 and the reply thereto at p. 327 of Cd. 1895. The telegrams which passed between the Premier of New Zealand and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Transvaal Government will be published in the next Parliamentary Paper.
    In reply to a Question by Mr. FLYNN (Cork, N.), Mr. LYTTELTON said that so far as he was aware the protests only came from Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony. The other self-governing Colonies, so far from protesting, replied that the matter was one for the Transvaal to settle for itself.

    British Indian Subjects and the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has drawn the attention of Lord Milner to the fact that Clause 34 in the Ordinance relating to Chinese labour for the mines, relates to British Indian subjects, to whom the Ordinance itself is not applicable; and whether he will advise the Crown to veto that clause if the Transvaal Legislative Council does not take steps to abrogate it.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have already informed the hon. Member it is not proposed to employ British Indians in the Witwatersrand mines under the Ordinance. The clause is intended to be a

    729
    temporary provision pending the passing of special legislation in regard to Indian labour and to provide for the possible contingency of Indian labour being employed on the railways and other works under the control of the Government.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the question of British Indian labour in Africa is not at present the subject of correspondence between the Government of India and the Colonial Office, and whether it is not pre-determinating and, in fact, prejudicing one of the important points under discussion to bring British Indian labourers under the operation of the repatriation clause of the Chinese Ordinance?
    MAJOR SEELYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table the communication received from the Indian Government with reference to the proposed importation of Chinese labour and the applicability of the Ordinance to British Indian subjects?
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that Question.

    Cantral African Labour for the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. PEEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs 'whether authority has been given for the recruiting for the Transvaal mines of 5,000 natives in the British Central African Protectorate; and whether he is aware that in consequence of the want of labour the work upon the railway in course of construction in the Protectorate has come to a standstill.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The answer to the first part of the Question, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for East Perthshire on the 15th instant,† is in the affirmative. We have received no information of the character indicated in the second part of the Question.

    East Africa and Uganda Currency.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix, 1324.
    730
    Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that trade in the British East Africa and Uganda Protectorates is seriously hampered by the absence of any currency of a higher-denomination than one rupee, no gold or paper money being in circulation; and whether any steps will be taken to introduce a paper currency into those protectorates.
    EARL PERCY: A draft Order in Council providing for a paper currency has been prepared and submitted to the Commissioners of the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates for their observations.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the noble Lord consider at the same time the expediency of introducing a lesser coinage?
    EARL PERCY: That matter is under consideration.

    Brussels Sugar Convention—Permanent Commission.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what, meetings of the Permanent Commission or the Permanent Bureau, set up under the Brussels Convention, have taken place since July, 1903; when will the next meeting take place; whether any regular periods for meetings in the future have been arranged; whether any report on questions submitted to these Commissions has been received; and. if so, whether it can now be laid before Parliament.
    EARL PERCY: A meeting of the Permanent Commission took place in October last. The next meeting will take place in March. No regular periods for meetings in the future have been arranged. A report of the proceedings at the last meeting has been received, but its presentation has been deferred in view of the fact that the discussion of the questions raised at that meeting will be resumed next month.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any change has been made in

    731
    the representation of the United Kingdom on the Permanent Commission and the Permanent Bureau set up under the Brussels Sugar Convention; how many delegates or assistant delegates are sent by this country; what is the total number of delegates and countries represented on each body; who are the present British representatives; and what amount will appear in the Estimates of this year to provide for their cost?
    EARL PERCY: There has been no change in the British representation on the Permanent Commission. The Permanent Bureau is an office for the discharge of the clerical business of the Commission. The United Kingdom is represented by one delegate and four assistant delegates, one of whom was appointed on behalf of the Colonial Office and another on behalf of the India Office. Eight countries are represented, each country having one delegate and from one to four assistant delegates. The British representatives are, Sir Henry Bergne, Delegate, and Mr. Martineau, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Ozanne, and Mr. Pittar, Assistant Delegates. The provision for their cost will appear in the Estimates under the heading of Special Missions.

    Superannuation in the Post Office Telephone Service.
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the date from which the service of those telephonists who were transferred from the National Telephone Company to the Post Office is counted for the purpose of bonus, pension, or marriage gratuity.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The service of telephonists transferred from the National Telephone Company to the Post Office is reckoned for the benefits of the Superannuation Acts from the date of their transfer to the Post Office, provided that their Post Office service fulfils the conditions prescribed by those Acts. As regards marriage gratuities, telephonists come under the general rule that an officer must have served in the Civil Service in some capacity for six
    732
    years altogether, but the gratuity is calculated on her established service only. The unestablished Post Office service of these telephonists is reckoned towards the qualifying period of six years.

    Municipal Contracts with Foreign Firms.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of tons of tram rails purchased by the Birmingham and other Corporations from Belgium and Germany during the last three years.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): If the hon. Member will supply me with the names of the Corporations in addition to Birmingham from which he desires information, I shall be happy to communicate with them, but as he is no doubt aware I have no power to require any Corporation to give the information.
    Mr. CROOKS: Have you the figures for Birmingham?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, I have not.

    Motor-Cars Committee.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state why he has refused to place a representative of the Rural District Councils Associations upon his Departmental Motor-Cars Committee; whether, seeing that the Rural District Councils Association represents over 240 rural district councils, he will reconsider his refusal, seeing that the County Councils Association has been given representation.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The Committee has not been formed on the basis of giving representation to associations of local authorities, and no such representation has in fact been given, although I believe that one member of the Committee is also a member of the County Councils Association. I understand that the several associations of county councils, municipal corporations, and rural district

    733
    councils have given or will give evidence before the Committee, and this is, I think, the proper course and sufficiently meets the case.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that it was only by accident that the County Councils Association was represented.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: That is so.

    Land Purchase in County Kilkenny— Mount Loftus Estate.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Mr. Murphy, of Mount Loftus, county Kilkenny, lately in the Land Judge's Court, has been sold to the tenants; and, if so, whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners will be directed to the case of Eliza Eaton, of Powerstown East, on that estate, an evicted tenant, with the view of having her reinstated in her former holding.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The greater portion of this estate has been sold to the tenants. I am not aware whether application has been made to the Estates Commissioners by, or on behalf of, Eliza Eaton; but if such an application be made it will be considered.

    Tubbercurry Police Hut.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of police at present stationed in the hut evicted some years ago on Leitrim Hill Farm, near Tubbercurry, county Sligo; will he say what is the nature of the duties assigned to these men; and whether he intends to have this hut retained as a permanent fixture in the district.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: There are three men quartered in the hut. It was erected on its present site to meet a condition of affairs which happily has now almost passed away. The question of its removal is under consideration.

    Irish Magistrates and the Irish Language.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that magistrates in Canada are permitted to sign their names in French to official documents; and, if so, will he explain why Mr. McDonagh Mahony, of Cahirciveen, is prevented from signing in Irish, though that is the language of his country and is spoken daily by more than three-fourths of the people amongst whom he lives.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My right hon. friend has requested me to reply to this Question. The Irish Government has no information that the fact is as alleged in the first part of the Question. In answer to the second inquiry I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar Question of the 11th instant. †
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: And has the Lord Chancellor power to remove a magistrate for signing his name in Irish?
    MR. ATKINSON: He has done so because this gentleman persists in over-riding the Statute.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: But has he acted illegally? The Statute says that English shall be the official language in the body of the documents, but it says nothing about the signature.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the Chief Secretary really think that in a case of this kind a magistrate should be removed because he signs his name in Irish? It is ridiculous.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rolls of Parliament have been signed in Irish for some years?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! The Question on the Paper has been answered.

    Kerry Railway and Harbour Guarantees.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1032.

    735
    of the fact that Kerry pays annually out of its rates eight times as much as Connaught and Donegal together for railway and harbour guarantees, that the rate raised for this purpose alone every year averages 1s. 1d. per pound of the total valuation of the whole county, he will reconsider the advisability of applying a portion of the money accumulated under Section 58 of the Local Government Act of 1898 to the relief of those expenses in Kerry.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The total amount contributed by way of railway and harbour guarantees in Kerry during the last completed year for which I have information was £21,591. But sums amounting to £12,755 were paid to the county in relief of such charges, and the net charge against the county was thus reduced to £8,836. In the province of Connaught and county Donegal the figures under the same heads were £15,404, £7,740, and £7,664. With respect to the concluding part of the Question, I cannot at present supplement my replies to the Questions put to me on the 15th instant by the hon. Member.† He is aware of the protracted efforts which I have made to arrive at such an arrangement over the Dingle Railway as would, incidentally, relieve its rates.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: From what source are these figures obtained? I have returns which show they are not correct.
    MR. WYNDHAM: They have been arrived at, after considerable labour, from a House of Commons Return of last year.

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.
    1."That, in the case of the London United Tramways, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 1A, 1B, lC, 1D, 1E, 3, 4, 5, and 5A be struck out of the Bill:—That the Com-
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1329.
    736
    mittee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
    2. "That in the case of the Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the Earl of Harewood' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
    3."That, in the case of the London United Tramways (Railways), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."
    First Two Resolutions agreed to.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee: Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Baird, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Boland, Mr. Griffith Boscawen, Mr. John Burns. Mr. Cawley, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Channing, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Jesse Collings, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crombie, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Doogan, Sir J. Fortescue Flannery, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Garfit, Sir Alfred Hickman, Sir William Houlds-worth, Sir James Joicey, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Bonar Law, Sir Elliott Lees, Mr. Lloyd-George, Colonel Long, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Charles McArthur, Dr. MacDonnell, Mr. William McKillop, Sir William Mather, Mr. William Maxwell, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Mara, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Pike Pease, Colonel Pilkington, Sir James Rankin, Sir Charles Renshaw, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Round, Mr. Runciman, Mr. T. W. Russell, Sir Henry Seton-Karr, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Sir John Barrington Simeon, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Theodore

737
Taylor, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Whitley Thomson, Sir William Tomlinson, Mr. Tully, Sir William Walrond, Mr. George Whiteley, Colonel Williams, Lord Willoughby de Bresby, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Wolff, and Mr. Young.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee: The Lord Advocate, Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Barran, Sir George Bartley, Mr. Boland, Mr. Butcher, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Coghill, Mr. Colston, Mr. Cripps, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. George Faber, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Flynn, Sir Frederick Godson, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Henry David Green, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Harwood, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. James Heath, Mr. Helder, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Henry Hob-house, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Jordan, Sir Lees Knowles, Mr. William F. Lawrence, Sir Joseph Leese, Colonel Legge, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Loder, Mr. Loyd, Mr. Macdona, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Middle-more, Mr. William Moore, Mr. Arthur Morton, Captain Norton, Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Colonel Pryce-Jones, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Matthew White Ridley, Mr. Bryn Roberts, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Soames, Mr. Soares, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Stevenson, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Ure, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Robert Wallace, and Sir James Woodhouse.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection: That, in pursuance of the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following additional Member to act as a Commissioner: Mr. Charles Douglas.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  "To amend the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882," presented by Mr. Cripps; supported by Sir George Bartley; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (REPORTS OF MONEY COMMITTEES).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Reports of the Committee of Ways and Means, and Committees authorising the expenditure of Public Money other than the Committee of Supply may be entered upon at any hour after midnight, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the provisions of the Standing Order Sittings of the House."—(Mr. Secretary Alters Douglas.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it might be thought by some that the position of that Motion under the heading "At the Commencement of Public Business" brought it within the ten minutes rule, but that was not so. This was a proposal for a new Sessional Order, true it was in the same terms as one passed last year; but still it was open to very serious objection. Under the present Rules opposed business stopped at midnight, and the Sittings had to be suspended at I a.m., but to those Rules there were exceptions, including Bills originating in Ways and Means Proceedings in pursuance of Act of Parliament, Proceedings relating to Standing Orders, and those exempted by specific Motion made at the commencement of public business. He thought the exceptions were sufficiently numerous, but this proposed Sessional Order went far beyond them all, for it not only provided that business under consideration at one o'clock might be continued, but that certain business even if not reached by one o'clock might be taken after that hour. He was strongly in favour of adhering to the Twelve o'Clock Rule, and though if good reasons could be shown for it he would not oppose this Motion,

739
he did ask for some explanation which it was made.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsupported the contention of the hon. Member. He reminded the House how the taking of the Supply after twelve o'clock in former years led to great scandals and to the voting of enormous sums of money without discussion, as well as to remarkable scenes in the House. Everybody must agree that it was desirable all financial business should be taken before midnight, and he hoped the hon. Member therefore would press his opposition to a division.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that he had put the Motion down in exactly the same terms as those in which it was put down last session. It was to enable certain Bills founded on Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means to be brought in without undue delay. However, in the absence of the Leader of the House, he would not press the Motion, and would postpone it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What Bills are to be taken under it?
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Chiefly the Cunard Bill and the Telegraph Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I shall strongly oppose it.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I showed the Motion to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds last night and he raised no objection to its being put down.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Better postpone it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I shall object to postponement. Let it be withdrawn.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to move the Adjournment of the debate.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that the right hon. Baronet had already spoken.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): Then I will move the Adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Pretyman.)
MR. LOUGHsaid the business for which this Order was asked was really far more important than the business usually covered by such a Motion. He hoped that before the Government put the Motion down again they would seriously consider the necessity of taking the Bills named before twelve o'clock. The Resolution would be strongly opposed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)promised to consider the point. He repeated that the Motion had been put down with the general concurrence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He hoped the debate would be adjourned.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could see no reason for adjournment. The House was quite ready to come to a decision. It would answer the purpose to withdraw the Motion; otherwise he would press his opposition to a division.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and negatived.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
1. £1,270,000 (Supplementary), in respect of the following Navy Services, viz:—
Vote 8, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—

Section I. Personnel

£53,200

Section III. Contract Work

1,254,800

£1,308,000

Section II. Materiel—Deduct Appropriations in Aid

38,000

£1,270,000

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONobserved that this Vote involved, though he would not dwell on them, the questions of Supplementary Estimates and Appropriations-in-aid raised the previous day. The discussions which had already taken place had presented problems to the solution of which some half-dozen Ministers and ex-Ministers had contributed without, he was afraid, enlightening the House, but he hoped that the debate that day would result in their getting answers both intelligible and satisfactory. He wished the Committee to bear in mind that these Supplementary Estimates could not be considered apart from the original Estimates for the year to which they were to be attached. He was in the recollection of the House when he said that last session began with loud declarations from the Government and indeed from all parts of the House of economical intentions, which never came into effect. After all those violent declarations for economy it was his duty to point out that last year's original Estimate was the largest Estimate ever submitted for the Navy in time of peace, and now a Supplementary Estimate was presented. The original Estimate was dumped down on the Table of the House without any explanation from the Minister whose duty it was to state the international policy which made this expenditure necessary and, having failed last year to elicit the explanations, they required, they, the Committee, were bound to approach the consideration of the Supplementary Estimate with even greater gravity and attention than had been displayed the day before in regard to the Army.
He would like to point out the financial effect of the proposals before the Committee. This Estimate, if passed, would bring the total expenditure on the Navy in the year about to end to the highest point yet reached. In his opinion the Leader of the Opposition had under estimated the amount of the expenditure for the year. The gross naval expenditure submitted in the original and Supplementary Estimates amounted to £37,500,000, but to that must be added what his right hon. friend did not add, more than £4,000,000 under the Naval Works Act, making a total of
742
£41,500,000, or nearly £1 per head, man, woman, and child, of the population of the United Kingdom. A more serious point was the Vote to which this large addition was being made—because it was a Vote the enlargement of which involved an increase in all the other Navy Votes. The Shipbuilding Vote was raised by the Supplementary Estimate from £17,300,000 to £18,600,000, a sum in excess of the whole Navy Estimates of 1895. New construction was increasing at an alarming rate. Two years ago the Government asked for £9,500,000 for this purpose; last year they asked for £10,500,000, which the Supplementary Estimate now increased to £11,500,000. He thought such figures deserved the serious attention of the Committee. Notwithstanding the overwhelming importance of the Navy in the matter of national defence some regard must be had to the finances of the country; and these figures were so vast that hon. Members were bound to ask for explanation and justification, even as regarded comparatively small items. He asked for information regarding this new Vote. What was the million and quarter asked for, and why was it demanded at this time? He thought it was more or less an open secret that the bulk of the demand related to the acquisition of two warships which were built for the Chilian Government, but which had been purchased by our own Government. £700,000 of the Vote, he understood, was a payment on account of those battleships, the balance of the purchase money falling due in the coming financial year. Then, he took it, that part of the Supplementary Vote was required for repairs and reconstruction, and as to that he would like some information, as reconstruction would seem to point to defects in the original plans. But the second Question he desired to put was of a more delicate nature—Why did the Government buy these Chilian warships? In reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn on 2nd March last, the Prime Minister stated that the question of the purchase of the battleships referred to had been carefully considered by the Admiralty, who had clearly come to the opinion that the ships were not suitable for their purposes and that it was not advisable to buy them. That statement seemed to

743
involve the Government in a certain amount of difficulty. Having declared the ships to be unsuitable, they had now bought them and were asking the Committee to ratify the contract. It was incumbent on the Admiralty to explain why a purchase which was inadvisable, imprudent, and improper a year ago was advisable, prudent, and proper now. It was not the duty of the British Admiralty, with the enormous resourses entrusted to them, to rush in and buy every warship they saw for sale in order to prevent its falling into the hands of a foreign Power. Such a course of action would simply offer a premium to, or encourage the creation of speculative builders of battleships. He presumed it was simply a question of confirming the contract, and that no money had passed.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)was understood to intimate that money had been paid.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it was extraordinary that this should have been done without the assent of Parliament. Somewhat loose things were done three or four years ago when Mr. Goschen arranged a supplementary programme. No Vote was taken in Committee of Supply; but the House was informed of the matter and debated the subject before it was carried out. In this case, however, the battleship programme had been increased to the extent of two vessels, and not only had the contracts been made, but money had been paid, and all this had been done without the assent of Parliament. He did not blame the Admiralty. Another department was here involved, and when a transaction so peculiar was brought before Parliament there ought to be some representative of the Treasury present. The reason suggested last year for the purchase was that it would prevent the ships falling into the hands of a foreign Power, but the Prime Minister appeared inferentially to reject that reason. What other reasons were there? He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would throw as much light as possible on the matter, but as delicate considerations might be
744
involved he would not press this part of the case too strongly.
The next point would not admit of much development at this stage, but it was a very material consideration. The Committee wore asked to add to the already colossal Estimates of the year. If such a thing were done in private life the first question asked would be whether they could afford it. Surely the Committee ought to pause before consenting to this additional expenditure. He hoped that by passing these Estimates they would not be deliberately creating a deficit in the finances of the year. How much of the expenditure here proposed would fall upon the naval funds of next financial year? The Committee were entitled to that information, and also to an assurance that the Estimates and programme, shortly to be introduced, would be reduced by an amount corresponding to that represented by these supplementary proposals. (At this stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered the House and the hon. Member repeated his remarks concerning the Treasury.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLESheld that the Supplementary Estimates did not so much concern the particular department in charge of special items as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. They represented a financial operation of the most objectionable character, and every good financier who had occupied the position of Prime Minister had done his best to prevent any Supplementary Estimates whatever. This year the gross Supplementary Estimates amounted to £7,800,000. That was a stupendous amount to add to the already enormous Budget. It represented a mistake in calculating the original Budget, and, so far as it was a mistake, the Government had, involuntarily no doubt, deceived the House in regard to the financial situation, and by that false view had extorted from Parliament consent to the reduction of some taxes and the imposition of others; in fact they had deprived the House of the opportunity of dealing with the finances of the country as a whole. In these Supplementary Estimates the gross sum authorised was £1,401,500. There was to come off that a surplus of

745
£93,500, and there were Appropriations-maid (extra receipts) £38,000. First of all, with regard to the surplus of £93,500, which represented a miscalculation, and the Appropriations - in - aid, which also represented a miscalculation and a deception. The Admiralty calculated the receipts they were likely to get in the course of the year and this calculation was exceeded by £38,000. If this Vote was not passed this sum would go to the extinction of the National Debt under the general financial rules of the House; that £38,000 was on its way to the National Debt Office, and it was only by these Supplementary Estimates that its course to the National Debt would be stayed and it would be applied in diminution of the gross Supplementary Estimates. All that was extremely objectionable and calculated to impair the control of this House over expenditure, and to deceive the public as to the total amount spent. All such financial proceedings were of the most objectionable and dangerous character, and it was because, of this that the country had failed to appreciate the extraordinary gravity of the situation. Perhaps his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to give them some explanation and justification for the presentation of any Supplementary Estimates at all. There was no explanation in his opinion which could justify them except one, and that was the sudden arising of unforseen circumstances since the Estimates were presented. That was the only explanation which the Government would be justified in giving. The hon. Member had accurately quoted the Question he put last year to the First Lord of the Treasury, and the answer he received with regard to the "Triumph" and the "Swiftsure." He gave that answer not as the President of the Council of Defence, but as the head of the Government responsible for the finances and for the military and naval policy. The answer the right hon. Gentleman gave was that these vessels were unsuited to our purpose, but he was entirely of the contrary opinion, and he ventured to say that they were better than any we had. He challenged the hon. Member to state if that was the Admiralty opinion now, or whether it had always been their opinion. He still affirmed that
746
these battleships were far superior to anything we had in our Navy before they were purchased. He could not help thinking, when the First Lord of the Treasury replied on the 2nd of March last that these ships were unsuited to the requirements of the British Navy, either that he must have been misled by the Admiralty, or else the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat on the strong box like a bulldog showing his teeth, and refused to let them have the money. In regard to building there were no firms in this country who would venture to produce a battleship costing nearly £1,000,000 on the mere chance of finding a purchaser. He adhered to his statement that these vessels were better than any we then had, and better than we now have. In the first place, for size and displacement they were the most powerfully armed ships yet constructed. They had four 10-inch guns each, fourteen 7·5-inch guns, fourteen 14-pounders and ten smaller guns. As to their armaments he challenged contradiction that they were superior to anything in our Navy, or any other Navy at this moment. They were not the production of the inventive brain of any Admiralty official, but the production of a private shipbuilder. Their armour was equal to that of our very latest battleship, the "Russell," and as to speed they were even better, for they could do twenty-one knots, and the "Russell" could only do nineteen knots.
MR. PRETYMAN: No!
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that at any rate they were a bit better in speed. Their radius of action was 12,000 yards. In consequence of the great enterprise of the firm that built these vessels and; gunned them they were fitted for using a nitro-cellulose powder. The Admiralty being desirous of having everything of the Admiralty pattern had chosen to condemn this new powder. He maintained that this powder was better than our cordite powder, but the Admiralty did not approve of it, and the result was that they were going to make some sort of modification of their cordite powder for these guns, He understood that was so.
MR. PRETYMAN: No!
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was mistaken then. He understood that those guns were not fitted for cordite powder and that they would have to make some modification of the cordite powder because it could not be used in those guns. When the Admiralty bought the ships and the guns they certainly ought to have bought the powder and the whole bag-o'-tricks. The maker believed that this powder was far superior to cordite and the guns were made for it, and when under those circumstances they bought new ships and new guns using a new powder it was much better that they should buy the whole thing throughout instead of trying to modify it. Some objection had been made to the ammunition supply, and he was informed that the Admiralty were wedded to a system of ammunition supply by hand. These new guns were fitted with mechanical ammunition suppliers and that was a very great improvement, and he hoped the Admiralty were not going to interfere with it. He had made these remarks because he was convinced that they were superior to anything we possessed in our Navy. He trusted they would use the powder invented for the guns. It seemed to him that a battleship represented so much of the naval defence of any country that the acquisition of these two vessels by any other country would have altered the balance of naval power. They were equal to two divisions of an army, and therefore in times of doubt and difficulty to allow any foreign country to acquire two battleships which this country needed, was to allow a change in the relative balance of naval power which might be a source of very great danger. In March, last year, he urged His Majesty's Government to buy these vessels, and the reply he received was that they were unsuited to our requirements. That reply must necessarily be abandoned in face of the facts he had adduced in respect of the ships, otherwise the Admiralty would not have purchased them at all. Why did not the Admiralty purchase them last year? He strongly suspected there was a reason for it.
He recalled with some apprehension the accumulation of these expenses, but the Committee should know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going
748
to do in the way of providing for the deficit he would have to face when he came to his Budget. His idea of the way in which these ships should have been purchased was that they should have taken the place of two in the existing programme. They would not then have saddled the country with extra expense, and they would have had the advantage of having two battleships ready two years earlier—two battleships of that superior quality which he had endeavoured to describe to the house. He regretted that they were not purchased last year, but he was glad that they were purchased this year. He was extremely sorry for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the financial consequences of the purchase. He had only one other thing to say with regard to the Supplementary Estimates. They did not clearly show—and he wished to ask his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to state—what part of the total Estimate was represented by the purchase money of these ships. Ho always regretted Supplementary Estimates, and he regretted those now before the Committee more than usual. It was not a fact that this was the first time he had complained of them. He had, year after year, protested against them. His voice had seemed like that of one crying in the wilderness. He hoped the House was becoming more or less alive to the great importance of this wicked system of Supplementary Estimates and he hoped this was one of the last which would be. presented to the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said the hon. Member for Dundee and his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had pointedly addressed themselves to him for some explanation. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to give his reply at once. The Committee would not expect him to enter into the merits of naval guns or considerations of naval construction which the hon. Member for King's Lynn put forward, nor would they expect him to go into the details of the Estimates. He thought these would be fully explained by his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty. What did concern him were the remarks of his hon. friend

749
as to Supplementary Estimates in general. The hon. Member was perfectly right in saying that this was not the first occasion on which he had drawn the attention of the House to the inconvenience of Supplementary Estimates, and no one who had been, as he had been, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, could be unaware of that inconvenience. He took his present office long after the current financial year began, but he and his hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had done their best to limit the Supplementary Estimates. They perfectly agreed that Supplementary Estimates were in themselves an evil, and that they ought not to be used as a method of meeting the ordinary and foreseen expenditure of the year, but that they ought to be reserved for cases which could not be foreseen, or which had some special character attaching to them, It would not be in order for him, in connecton with this matter, to make any observations on the other Supplementary Estimates presented this year. He would confine himself to the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee. It was due practically to three causes. In the first place it was due to the purchase of the Chilian battleships; in the second place to contractors for Government work having made greater progress than the Admiralty thought it possible to anticipate when the year's Estimates were framed: and in the third place to the fact that the original sums taken for repairs of ships then actually on active service in connection with coaling stations, had been proved to be insufficient for the necessary repairs when the ships came into the dockyards. He thought the Committee would see that the Estimate for the amount of work to be done on ships which were still actually serving on foreign stations must be a speculative Estimate, and even the most jealous guardian of national finance could not blame the Admiralty if they could not always estimate accurately the amount shown to be necessary when a ship was in dockyard and when the machinery was actually accessible to investigation. Then there was the question of progress on the part of the contractors. He had the honour to serve for five years on the Board of Admiralty. It was a constant
750
complaint from both sides of the House, during those five years, that the Board failed to obtain from the contractors the work which it was anticipated they would be able to perform within the year to which the Estimates were applicable. They were constantly urged that it was the bounden duty of the Board to take steps to accelerate the work of the contractors, and to see that they secured the output of work estimated. The present Board of Admiralty were in a more fortunate position. The contractors had more than fulfilled their expectations.
The Committee would remember how long in advance these Estimates had to be made. He found from experience that the chief anxiety was lest the Government should not have sufficient money to pay, and they over-estimated very much the amount of work within the year, and unless one cut down that estimate one was forced to ask the Committee for more money than was actually required. It was extraordinarily difficult to get an accurate estimate of the amount of work which would be done in a particular year on a contract extending over two or three years, and there seemed always to be an element of uncertainty in regard to it. In the present year, the contractors had earned more than was estimated, and. of course, the Government were bound to ask the House to make provision for that. It was not, however, new expenditure in the sense of being expenditure of which the House had no knowledge or control, but it was payment for a more rapid rate of progress which would result in our having the goods for which we paid more rapidly than we anticipated. As to the third cause for this Supplementary Estimate—the purchase of the Chilian ships—he said the Committee might take it that His Majesty's Government did not contemplate the purchase of the ships last year. That purchase was an unforeseen emergency of the kind to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn alluded. The hon. Member for Dundee did not question the discretion with which the Government acted in purchasing those ships at the time, and the price paid for them.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he only asked for information.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was not incompatible with what he had stated. The hon. Gentleman did not question the purchase, but he did question the propriety of the action of the Treasury in sanctioning any payment on account of this purchase, until the Vote had been submitted to the House of Commons. It was in connection with that matter that the hon. Gentleman required his own presence in the House. He had been called away from a Committee meeting which he was attending. He accepted as Chancellor of the Exchequer full responsibility for having anticipated the sanction of Parliament for the purchase of these ships. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, it was not desirable that they should purchase the ships at the price which was asked, and under the circumstances which prevailed at the time when they were questioned on the subject in last session of Parliament. When the matter arose again this winter at the reduced price then obtained, and under the circumstances of the time, the Government thought it was not only desirable, but they thought they should be greatly lacking in their duty to the House and the country if they did not secure these ships. Two battleships added to the strength of another Power might seriously disturb the balance of naval power, and might gravely affect the Naval Estimates which would have to be estimated to this House in the future. We got them on much more favourable terms than there was any prospect of obtaining them when the question was mooted last spring or summer, and in the circumstances of the time the Government felt that it was their bounden duty to obtain the vessels. It was an essential part of the contract that the payments falling due on these ships should be met before Christmas, and in the course of the present financial year they could not have carried the contract through unless they were willing to make these terms. Under these circumstances he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government, of which he was a member, did not hesitate to take the responsibility of making the payment which this Committee were now asked to ratify. They took the responsibility of acting on behalf of the country, at a moment when it was essential that action should be taken if the result desired
752
was to be obtained at all, without waiting for Parliamentary sanction, which there was no doubt, under all the circumstances, Parliament would be willing to give. There was only one other point to which he would refer.
AN HON. MEMBER: What was the price?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the price was £1,875,000, of which there was included in the present Estimates £707,000; and the remainder would appear in the Estimates for next year. The hon. Members for King's Lynn and Dundee had asked what effect this purchase ought to have on our naval programme generally. He thought that the Committee would see that a purchase made at that period of the year could not materially affect the programme of the year in which we now were. Whether or not it would affect the calculations for next was obvious to everyone; but he conceived it would be out of order to discuss the programme for next year on the Supplementary Estimates. It would be more convenient to do so after the First Lord of the Admiralty had made his statement.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that as he understood it, the real reason why these ships had been purchased now was that they were to be had cheaper than ever before.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman's question really was.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that when the purchase was first mooted they were told that the ships were absolutely unsuited for the British Navy.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that the term used was that they were "unsuitable."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that that was a merely grammatical criticism. The Prime Minister's answer was that the Admiralty had clearly come to the opinion that the ships which were on sale were not suitable for their purpose, and that it would not be advisable to buy them. The explanation which he and his friends

753
had asked was why were they bought now or at all; and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was because they could be had at a more reasonable price. The right hon. Gentleman did not allude to the question why the Government purchased ships now which were unsuitable a year ago? The net result of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that the Admiralty bought ships because they were cheap. When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement had he the Prime Minister's answer last year in his mind? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of an immediate urgency having arisen; but what was the urgency? He did not so much object to the contract having been entered into, but to the fact that the contract had not only been made but executed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that of course he had in his mind the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury last year, but the hon. Gentleman had not correctly followed the reasons he had given for the purchase of the ships now. Ships more than anything else might be unsuitable to purchase if the price were exorbitant, and suitable if the price were reasonable. But he did not confine himself entirely to the question of price, nor even did he lay great stress upon it. He did not want to go into much detail on this question, but in the circumstances of last year the Government did not consider the ships a desirable or suitable purchase: although the circumstances of last autumn, and the price at which they could obtain them, made their acquisition suitable. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not object to the Government making the contract, but to the Government paying money on the contract without the sanction of the House of Commons. Now, he had told the hon. Gentleman in the most explicit language that he took full responsibility for that action. If the Government had not agreed to make that payment as, and when, they did, they could not have purchased the ships at all. They considered it essential to purchase the ships, and that if they had not done so they would have been lacking in their duty to the country. Hence, they had not hesitated to tike the responsibility and find the money.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that the Committee was reduced to this condition of affairs—that when the Government in March last declared that the Chilian ships were unsuitable, they really meant they were unsuitable as regarded price. The hon. Member for King's Lynn ventured to say last year in a supplementary Question that these ships were very much better than any of our ships, and the reply of the Prime Minister to that was that the Admiralty thought differently. Now the House was told that the reason was that the price was too high. He supposed the Government thought that at some future time they could make a better bargain. That seemed to him to be trifling with words. They were plain men in the House and they wanted to know the meaning of it in plain words. When told that the ships were unsuitable they could come to no other conclusion than that the Admiralty were advised by their professional advisers that the ships were unsuitable for the British Navy. Was the question of the purchase of these ships submitted to the consideration of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer Between the time when these ships were offered to the Government and when they were finally purchased a great deal had happened to the Government. Their Chancellor of the Exchequer and others had left them, and it was possible that something new might have arisen and actuated the Government to buy the ships, overriding what the right hon. Gentleman had said. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any voice in vetoing the purchase of these ships. The Government had not succeeded in convincing the House that there was any emergency for buying these ships at a later period. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] What was the emergency? He was not aware of it. If it were a competition to prevent Russia or other nations getting the ships he did not consider that an emergency at all. What had been made clear was that at a later period the Government bought the ships because they could buy them cheaper although they had said at an earlier stage that they were not suitable. They were beginning to understand what the words "suitable" and "cheaper" really did mean. But there was another reason. He was not ready to accept

755
the opinion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn that these ships were superior to anything we had. It might be that they were, but he could not take it on the hon. Gentleman's pure word.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the hon. Gentleman might take it on the details of the figures he had laid before the Committee.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that they did not always understand with great clearness what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Gentleman was so full of knowledge that ordinary persons with ordinary brains found some difficulty in filling in the details. But the hon. Member would agree with him that the Admiralty had striven to get homogeneous ships for our Navy. Now the two Chilian ships, they knew at the outset, were not of that kind. They would require a special kind of ammunition. That of itself would be a great difficulty. He knew sufficient of the working of the Naval Ordnance Department to know that there was sometimes great difficulty in serving out to our ships ordinary service ammunition. He had known ammunition found in ships of the Navy which was quite unsuitable for what was required. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in explaining some of the items in the Supplementary Estimates attributed it to inaccurate estimation of repairs, and rather suggested he thought, that the inaccuracy largely took place in the Government establishments. As a matter of fact, if anyone would refer to the Supplementary Estimates he would find that the item of £275,000 was all for repairs and alterations of ships built by contractors and repaired in contract yards. Last year he (Mr. Kearley) called attention to the very unsatisfactory basis upon which these repairs were carried out. In the Government yards an estimate was asked for and expected to be worked to. In the contractor's yard nothing of the kind took place. Ships went in there for repairs and a schedule of prices was worked on, but the contractor was allowed to put on a large percentage of profit, and consequently the Government never knew what the repairs were going to cost when a ship went into the contractor's yard. That was
756
really the cause of the expenditure of the £275,000. It was not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—namely, inaccuracy in estimating, but that no price was fixed at the outset. Contractors had a real good thing of it in these repairs. Last year he urged the Admiralty to treat the contractors, when carrying out repairs, in precisely the same way as they did the Government yards in this matter. He believed the Estimates given in His Majesty's dockyards were exceedingly correct. The Chilian battleships they were told cost £1,875,000. They were bought through a distinguished firm in the city, Messrs. Anthony Gibbs and Co. He would like to be informed what commission the Government paid for the purchase of these ships.
MR. PRETYMAN: I do not know that any commission was paid upon them.
MR. KEARLEY: Then why did Messrs. Gibbs have to vacate their seats in this House?
MR. PRETYMAN: Because they sold us the ships.
MR. KEARLEY: Did they get no profit?
MR. PRETYMANsaid the Admiralty contracted to purchase these ships from the firm in question, and that was the transaction which caused the vacation of the seats. What arrangement was made by Messrs. Gibbs with the Chilian Government he did not know.
MR. KEARLEY: They were acting as principals in the transaction and not as agents?
MR. PRETYMAN: Yes.
MR. KEARLEY: Then I am content.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that he had been asked to state what his share in these negotiations had been. These ships were offered to the British Government when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer; but as to his having vetoed the purchase, "vetoed" was hardly the right word.

757
He and the First Lord of the Admiralty had a great deal of discussion as to the propriety of accepting the offer of the ships; and under the circumstances and at that time he certainly objected to sanctioning the purchase, the money for which would have been over and above the amount already agreed to for naval purposes. Of course he had much communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty while Naval Estimates were being prepared, and the amount which he sanctioned for naval purposes was the largest amount that had ever been presented to the House of Commons on that account. After the discussions which had taken place, he did not doubt that the Admiralty were justified in asking for the grant which was sanctioned; and he would have been taking a great responsibility on himself if he had tried to reduce the Estimates presented to him beyond the point which had been reached in negotiation between himself and the First Lord. Having sanctioned this very large but justifiable expenditure, he was unwilling to increase the amount by the purchase of two ships which had never been contemplated as necessary at the time the Estimates were prepared. He might also say that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not by any means press him in the matter, but quite saw the force of the objection to this very great increase in the naval expenditure of the year. While they were discussing the question the First Lord of the Admiralty made him aware that in some respects the ships were not exactly the kind of vessel which the Admiralty would have built if they had been building new ships; but the language used never amounted to anything like a statement that for all naval purposes the ships were unsuitable. The price at which the ships were then offered was a higher price than that at which they had since been bought.
MR. KEARLEY: What was the price?
MR. RITCHIEsaid that it might not be advisable to mention it. Although he was far from saying that the price alone would make the vessels unsuitable, yet having regard to the fact that they were not exactly the type of vessel that the Admiralty would have built, it was
758
proper to take the price into consideration. He did not think that, even though ships were cheap, they should be purchased if we did not want them. Nothing was more to be avoided than purchasing a thing simply because it was cheap. At that time the ships were not absolutely essential, because the Estimates amply provided for all the wants of the Navy. But having said so much, he must add that, having accepted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there were circumstances connected with the present situation which amply warranted the right hon. Gentleman in assenting now to what had been refused before, it would be very unwise of the Committee to press this matter further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said truly that it would have been very inadvisable to allow these ships, under all the circumstances of the case, to pass into other hands and so disturb that balance of naval power which we had endeavoured to keep. For these reasons, he considered that the Government were perfectly justified in entering into the bargain; and after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not believe that the country would suffer financially from the purchase, because the right hon. Gentleman had given a distinct engagement that these two ships should take the place of two other ships which would otherwise have been built. Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, he thought not only that the Government were right in purchasing the ships, but that they would have been wrong if they had not purchased them.
MR. LOUGHthought the Committee should consider this matter a little more carefully than it was being considered. The Prime Minister on this point had, in the previous year, said in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for King's Lynn—
"The important point to which the hon. Member calls attention has been considered, and carefully considered, by the Admiralty and they have come to the conclusion that the ships offered for sale are not suitable for their purpose and it would not be wise to buy them."
That was an emphatic and clear statement and he was greatly astonished when he read in the newspapers the account of

759
the purchase of these ships, and he felt greatly astonished still on two grounds. The first was that the Estimates submitted that year for the purposes of the Navy were the largest ever submitted, and the second was that the whole increase in those Estimates was taken for the building of ships on Vote 8, which was £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 higher than ever before. Whatever was the situation when these Estimates were taken, there was one of the most serious financial crises impending that this country had ever had to deal with. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been more clear on this point. We had not the money to buy the ships with, and with the prospect of a deficit it was a very grave responsibility for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to add these large Supplementary Estimates to the amount already voted. No real explanation had been given on any of these Estimates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that enough money had not been taken for the repairs of ships on foreign stations. If only necessary repairs had been included in a Supplementary Estimate he did not think the Committee would have raised any serious objection, but to swell the Estimates by so large an amount as was now proposed was perfectly unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had stated that the Estimates next year would be reduced by the amount paid for these two ships.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that what he stated was that he understood a distinct pledge had been given that these two ships would take the place of two others which would otherwise have been built in the future. He did not say next year.
MR. LOUGHpressed for as distinct a pledge as possible on the point. They did not want this expenditure of £2,000,000 to be added without it making any impression on the expenditure of next year. In addition to an assurance on that point, he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would state definitely on whose authority the Prime Minister declared that the ships were not suitable for the purposes of the Navy.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he had to reply somewhat under difficulty, but perhaps
760
the House would extend to him their indulgence, The opening remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee were entirely directed to the question of economy, and the impression left on his mind was that the hon. Member was unwilling to grant to the Navy sums of money which the Board of Admiralty considered absolutely necessary if the Fleet was to be kept in the state of efficiency demanded by Parliament. The cry for economy could be accepted only subject to the standard which Parliament itself had set. That standard was that the Navy should be kept up to a position of equality with that of any other two Powers. Nobody realised more than the Admiralty how heavy were the demands they made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country, but he could assure the Committee that those demands were made with a full sense of responsibility, and that nothing was asked for which was not considered absolutely necessary. With regard to the purchase of the "Triumph" and the "Swiftsure" from the Chilian Government, he thought the Committee would agree that it was really an economical transaction, because, if they kept to the two-Power standard, it was evident that if those two ships had been purchased by any European Power whose fleet had to be taken into calculation in considering that standard, it would not only have entailed the construction of two similar ships by this country, but it would have counted four on a division. As to the payment of the money, the first instalment of £707,000 was due this year, and the balance of the £1,875,000 was due next year. These were the payments which fell due under the contract. What the Admiralty had actually purchased was not two completed ships, but the benefit of a contract to build two ships, and the terms of that contract entailed upon this country the payment of £707,000 during the present financial year, and the balance during the next financial year.
MR. LOUGHasked whether the Admiralty were buying at the exact price for which the Chilian Government contracted?
MR. PRETYMANsaid they were not, as the ships were contracted for for

761
£2,200,000. With regard to the answer given by the Prime Minister, of which not unnaturally a great deal had been made, he would say at once that the Admiralty accepted full responsibility. He agreed with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon as to what passed with regard to those ships. He was quite willing to allow that the expression used was perhaps a little too strong and a little too abbreviated. What was in the mind of the Admiralty was that the ships were not suited to our purposes in themselves, because they were not of the pattern of our Fleet, That was a point to which the Admiralty attached great importance. But it would be perfectly clear to the Committee that many considerations had to be weighed one against another. And at that time the balance was against purchasing these ships. But although the ships were not entirely suitable for the British Navy it was obvious that different circumstances might justify the Admiralty in deciding to purchase something as a special bargain which was not "entirely suitable," and under these changed conditions a decision was come to that the ships should be purchased. He thought a little more had been made of the matter than was really warranted by the circumstances of the case. The effect of the transaction upon this year's Estimates was perfectly clear. It meant an addition of £707,000. The effect upon next year's Estimates would be to add the balance of about £1,100,000.
MR. LOUGHasked whether any further expenditure would be necessary to complete the ships.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that the entire cost of ships to the nation would be £1,875,000. That included the armament, and the last payment was actually due on the 1st August. Then as to the effect upon next year's programme. The Admiralty had intended to lay down three battleships at the beginning of April. Instead of laying down those three battleships at the commencement of the financial year they proposed to lay down two battleships, but not to commence them until the autumn. That would mean a saving of several months cost of
762
construction on the whole of three battleships and the entire saving of one ship. The Admiralty hoped that it might be possible to leave out two ships, but they did not desire to pledge themselves beyond the extent he had stated. It should be borne in mind that the whole saving would not come into one year only. One battleship was entirely omitted, and the Admiralty had bought two excellent battleships at a price which did not exceed the cost of building two armoured cruisers. They had therefore really obtained two battleships fit to place in the line of battle at the cost of two armoured cruisers, and that would save them building, at any rate, one battleship at a cost of £1,250,000.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked, in order that the matter should be quite clear, whether, instead of laying down three new battleships on the 1st of April, none would then be laid down, but that two would be laid down in the autumn, and in certain contingencies only one.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that was not so. Three battleships were to have been laid down early in April; now there would be only two laid down, and they would not be laid down until the autumn.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORunderstood the hon. Member to say that another one might be dropped.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he meant not this year, but in the future. It was nut considered wise to drop more than the one in one year. The ships were of good quality and compared very favourably with other vessels in the Navy. The final completion of the ships and their availability for service was really governed by the time within which their ammunition could be raised, and that would not be until June. The ammunition had had to be prepared to the order of the Admiralty.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it had been necessary to make some alteration.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that there was no ammunition ready for these ships. Whatever ammunition the Admiralty had ordered would not be ready before June, and they had ordered, not nitro-cellulose powder, but cordite, as it would have been most objectionable, seeing that our ships had to be ready to serve in any quarter of the world, and for that it was necessary that there should be reserves of ammunition, if the Admiralty had introduced an entirely new kind of powder. The use of cordite entailed a loss of some eighty foot-seconds in initial velocity, but it was perfectly suitable for these guns. The 7·5 guns were the same essentially as the 7·5 guns would be in our new ships, and the ammunition would be interchangeable.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESunderstood, then, that they had had to alter their cordite.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that was not so. If they used the very best sized cordite they would obtain the same velocity as by using nitro-cellulose, but by using a size of cordite which was not entirely suitable they only lost about ninety foot seconds of velocity, and they could use the pattern which they already had in stock.
With regard to contract work, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport, he would remind the Committee that the estimates made in the dockyards were made after opening up the ship, whereas the estimates made by contractors were made before the ships could be opened up. Anybody who had had anything to do with the repair or construction of ships would agree that an estimate of the repairs necessary to a great battleship made before her machinery and boilers had been opened up could be only a matter of guesswork. The Admiralty, therefore, acknowledged that estimates made beforehand for work in contractors' yards could not be absolutely reliable. Consequently they had taken other measures to secure economy, and they were perfectly satisfied that extra cost was not involved to any appreciable amount, if at all, as compared with the
764
work done in the dockyards. The extra cost was due to the fact that when the ships were opened up, the amount of repairs estimated turned out in many cases to be considerably under the mark, and much more work had had to be done. Another reason was much more satisfactory. For several years the amount of work for which money had been provided had not been completed during the financial year, and the money thus saved was available under the present system of accounts for unforeseen expenditure in other directions. It was satisfactory to note that this year the work in the dockyards and by the contractors had been fully up to the requirements laid down for the twelve months, and their capacity of output appeared fully to meet the requirements of the Navy. That was a satisfactory state of affairs, but it had this result—that money with which in former years they had been able to meet unforeseen expenditure had not been forthcoming this year, and hence they were obliged to bring in a Supplementary Estimate.
SIR EDWARD REEDsaid as he had been responsible for these Chilian ships from their initiation he should like to say a few words about their purchase. When the Chilian Government made their treaty with Argentina they naturally proceeded at once to endeavour to sell the ships, and they applied in the first place to the British Admiralty. The ships had then been only recently commenced. He knew that it was the idlest possible thing to attempt to sell ships, just commenced, to the British Government because, were the Admiralty to fall in with such proposals, the House of Commons would naturally say, "If you wanted the ships why did you not put them into your own programme? Why do you wish to buy from other people ships which have been only just commenced?" In making that refusal the Admiralty had to give a reason, and they stated that the ships were not suitable for the British Navy. That remark caused him no anxiety, because he knew there were reasons which were perfectly valid why the ships should not be suitable for the British Navy at that time. They had a very special armament. They were equipped with 7½-inch guns, and they

765
were supplied with Yarrow boilers. The Admiralty had, however, since made use of such guns and boilers, so that the old objection no longer existed. With; regard to the point that had been raised as to the use of cordite in the guns of these ships, he could say that they were perfectly suited for the use of cordite powder; in fact, all the gun trials had been carried out with cordite. As to the quality of these ships, in the first place, they were the fastest battleships we had, and, in the second place, they had an armament of so much power that, if it J was valued in the correct manner, they had actually greater gun power than any other battleship in our Navy. The Admiralty had for many years past been in the habit, in calculating the broadside power of their ships, of putting the four guns in the two turrets on one broadside. Although it was perfectly true that a ship could in certain cases use both her turrets on the same side, it was obviously most misleading to calculate as part of the broadside the whole of the guns in the turrets. Surely the most proper and scientific way was to place one-half of the guns on one side of the ship and one-half on the other. Taking the muzzle energy of the guns of these ships, ascertained by multiplying the weight of the shot by the velocity with which it left the gun, he found that the figure which expressed the striking force of these ships on each broadside was 138,960, while the figure which expressed the striking force of the "King Edward VII."—a ship of 16,350 tons, while these ships were under 12,000 tons—came out at 138,700. The figure in the case of the "Duncan" was 104,000, and in the case of the "Canopus" 88,000. Therefore, the House might rest quite satisfied as to the fighting capabilities of these ships. As to the price of the ships, the price at which alone he could obtain them from the builders, under the keenest competition, was a very high price, for the reason that they were to be finished in eighteen months. It had been said that no reduction in price was obtainable when the proposal to sell was first made. That was so true that not four months ago the Chilian Minister assured him that he had not obtained permission from his Government to sell the ships for anything less than the
766
price at which they were being constructed, and the change in their position was brought about quite recently. Whatever might be said or thought of the price, there was the satisfaction of knowing that these ships would be economical in the working, because instead of having to drive ships of 16,000 or 15,000 tons through the sea at high speed, it would only be necessary to drive ships of less than 12,000 tons.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid the hon. Member for West Islington had stated that these ships were "black sheep," and therefore unfit to take their places in the British Navy.
MR. LOUGH: Black sheep are often very good.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that was not the impression given by the hon. Member's remarks. The Committee should bear in mind the principle on which their ships of the Navy were built. So many of the different classes were laid down in order to make a homogeneous whole. Therefore if two extra ships of a particular class were introduced they were in that sense unsuitable, as they could not form part of the general scheme.
SIR EDWARD REED: If the ships steam alike, turn alike, and fight alike, what is the object of calling them "black sheep"?
MR. REGINALD LUCAScontended that as these ships were not designed on the same lines they could not be regarded as belonging to the same class as other ships. In reply to the hon. Member for West Islington, who had suggested that the ships were unnecessary, and that their purchase was a waste of public money, he would put as an analogy the defects which existed in our military organisation in 1898, and which would never have been discovered but for the war. Surely in time of peace they should prepare for any emergency that might arise. The hon. Member for Devonport seemed to suggest that there was no emergency for the purchase. He envied the hon. Member the serene atmosphere in which he lived, or else he admired the confidence

767
shown by him that His Majesty's Government would avoid every conceivable contingency which might arise in the future. He was rather curious to know what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean would say when he knew that another ship had been dropped out of the naval programme. He confessed that he learned with some apprehension that this very valuable addition to our Navy was to receive a set off by the fact that other battleships were to be dropped. He wished to know on what principle His Majesty's ships were fitted with electricity.
THE CHAIRMANsaid it was not in order to discuss that matter. There was no Vote for that in the Supplementary Estimates.
MR. REGINALD LUCASdesired to know what were intended to be the duties of the Fleet Reserve as compared with the dockyard labourers.
THE CHAIRMANsaid this was also a matter which it would not be in order to discuss at present.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was sure the House must be satisfied with much of the information as to the battleships purchased last year. They were powerful vessels, well designed, and it was obvious that they were cheap. Up to the present they had not been told when they would be delivered.
MR. PRETYMAN: I said the vessels would be ready in a month but that their ammunition would not be ready until June.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that made the purchase all the more satisfactory. But the hon. Gentleman did not justify the purchase by stating that the Admiralty were still working up to the two-Power standard. Last year it was made evident on the Estimates that the Admiralty were working on the two-Power standard in battleships, and three-Power standard in cruisers. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman, when the Estimates were introduced, would not attempt to persuade the House that the Admiralty were working on a two-Power standard. Of course
768
they were anxious to know what the effect of this purchase would be on the new programme, and he thought they might take by the forecast which had been given that the Admiralty would save to the extent of a second instalment on these vessels by dropping one battleship out of the programme. He took it, therefore, that they counted on two battleships next year at a somewhat later date and that they would be able to diminish the Construction Vote by £1,200,000. If that were so, the Committee, he knew, would view the Vote with great satisfaction. On the Supplementary Votes now before the Committee the increase had been enormous. The precedent set that day by bringing in the Supplementary Estimates for the Navy was singularly bad. The wages for men had gone up by £29,000. That meant a large increase in this Vote for 1903–4 over 1902–3, while the total increase over last year on the next item was as much as £73,000. When they came to contract work they had a more serious item. Repairs and alterations on ships by contracts was for 1902–3 only £175,000, but they found the revised Estimate of the year came to nearly £1,000,000. That was an enormous increase which had only been partially explained by the Secretary. No doubt a very large amount of this was due to the fact that the repairs that used to be done in the dockyards were now let out to private contractors, and also because the Admiralty had had to replace many internal fittings and boilers, provide new engines, and to alter to some extent the armaments. There was scarcely a department in which they had not had to make renewals in the case of vessels which were new only a few years ago. He asked to what extent re-boilering had gone. They had heard that the Yarrow boilers formed one of the stumbling blocks of the Admiralty in connection particularly with the last two purchases. The Committee wished to know how far the Admiralty had changed their opinion about the Yarrow and the Belleville boilers, also how much of the sum expended on repairs went in re-tubing, how much in altering engines. It had been stated that one reason for the increase in the cost of repairs was that the vessels came back from long voyages and that, therefore, they unexpectedly required more repairs than could

769
have been anticipated. But vessels had been coming back from long voyages ever since the Admiralty were created. If the truth were known, it would be found that a very large amount of the increase was due to the fact that the Admiralty had been placing the repairs to be done in private dockyards on the "time and material" basis. Private dockyards had been given not an absolutely but a comparatively free hand, and they had been allowed to add a percentage on the turnover. If adopted indiscriminately that was a thoroughly unsound and unbusinesslike proceeding. It had been stated it was impossible to contract for repairs. Anyone who knew much about vessels knew that was only comparatively true. There was a large amount of renewals that could be contracted for, and there was no reason why a better system should be adopted than that of giving a percentage on the costs of all repairs. It was a system that must lead to increased charges. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said quicker work was done by private dockyards. Of course quicker work was done, because the owner of a private dockyard, who was paid a percentage on the turnover, would be a fool if he did not turn out the work quickly. He would urge upon the Secretary of the Admiralty that they should be cautious at the present time and that they should not hasten any of their new schemes or rush into the adoption of new methods, new materials, new guns, and new boilers, until they had considered the experience of the present war in the Far East. By doing so they might be able to reduce the Estimates without reducing the efficiency of the Fleet in succeeding years.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid these Estimates were, with one exception, the largest produced during the last twenty years, and ought on that account to be fully considered by everyone who was anxious to promote economy. Supplementary Estimates in their essence were estimates that tended to encourage extravagant expenditure, and they did not give the House that accurate and strict control over expenditure which they had when criticising the ordinary Estimates of the year. During time of war it might be excusable,
770
but in time of peace it was inexcusable that there should be higher Supplementary Estimates than on previous records. When he sat on the Committee on National Expenditure, Supplementary Estimates received a great deal of attention, and it was felt by that Committee, and embodied in their Report, that it was necessary that these Supplementary Estimates should undergo a good deal of criticism before they were presented to the House. It would be a great advantage in discussing Votes like those before the Committee during the past two days, if they had some statement by a Committee of the House with reference to the cause of excessive extra expenditure. A precedent established the previous day by the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary for War, in making a general statement when laying the Supplementary Estimates before the Committee, was one he should like to see extended in some form, e.g. by a Report from the Public Accounts Committee or some other similar Committee, which had considered and enquired into the Estimates before their presentation to the House. If that were done, and it ought to be done, it would make for efficiency and economy There were certain proceeds from sales of old stores on which the Estimates had been reduced. These sales had brought £38,000 more than estimated, and that sum had been brought in to reduce these Estimates. He was afraid that sometimes in the sale of these stores the Government did not get value for their money, although that did not happen probably so often in the Navy as in the Army. In the purchase of the Chilian battleships, he thought they had got value for their money. There was, however, a tendency to lose public money by over-haste or carelessness in looking after public property. A remarkable instance of that occurred last autumn under his own personal observation. When the Channel Fleet was at St. Andrews, in September last, an unfortunate accident happened which resulted in the loss of a steam launch. On 19th September it ran ashore on the rocks, in a position in which the crew had little or no difficulty in landing. That launch was an admirable little vessel, some thirty or forty feet long, and must have cost some thousands of pounds. The Fleet sailed the very

771
same day although the "Sutlej" was left in the bay to look after her launch. He was told that some engines were removed from the launch, but when he saw her the next day, almost high and dry, there was scarcely any damage done to the hull. The British Fleet sailed away and left the ship and her crew, who failed to move her off the rocks and so save her for the nation. He was told that the launch was sold for £110. The purchaser patched her up in a few days, and found no difficulty in getting her off the rocks on 3rd October, and taking her into St. Andrews harbour, where she was sold, according to his information, for £800, although she cost probably some thousands. He thought it was something approaching a scandal that a launch like that should have been lost on a friendly coast and no sustained attempt made to save her. A fisherman told him that if it had been one of their own fishing boats they would have had her off the rocks practically without any damage. It was not creditable to the Fleet, and indicated a slackness on the part of the naval officers and the handy-men of the Navy. The hon. Gentleman should, not only in the interests of the public purse, but of the reputation of the Navy, make a thorough inquiry into this discreditable incident so that such an occurrence should not happen again.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had been somewhat hard on the men connected with the steam launch. It was quite impossible to judge of a case like that unless they had the full facts before them as to weather, etc. He admitted that the naval sailor was not a very good beach-man, but he could not believe that some effort had not been made to save a steam launch of that sort. The hon. Member opposite had commented on the system by which the Admiralty got their repairs done by contract. The Admiralty had always been most unfortunate in regard to their contracts; and the reason was that the Admiralty never knew its own mind. When they made a contract for a ship or repairs, before these were completed the Admiralty made some alteration in the plans. That was the reason why they had never been able to obtain penalties
772
for non-fulfilment of contracts. As a matter of fact the Admiralty had given up any idea of recovering any penalties for anything except——
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is wandering outside the Vote.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that his remarks might come under repairs but he would not pursue the subject. A great deal had been said about the purchase of the Chilian battleships. It was now put forward that there was some gain in the price for which they had been purchased, and not because they were not suitable. His own belief was that they were not purchased last year because the then Chancellor of the Exchequer would not agree to the deal; and that now the question of unsuitability had been given up. What was the price at which these ships were offered to the British Government by the Chilian Government in March last?
MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Government never had any offer at that time lower than the price at which the ships had been built. The hon. Member for Cardiff had stated of his own knowledge that the Chilian Government had not authorised the sale for anything less than the contract price.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, as he understood, the agents of the Chilian Government bought the ships themselves for Chili, and then re-sold them to our Government: with the result that we had got them for practically £400,000 less than we could have done last year.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that his hon. friend had asked whether the large amount required in the Supplementary Estimates for repairs was due to the system under which the Admiralty was working. Any business man knew that the system which really existed was likely to lead to a great deal of expenditure in the nature of waste. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that, at any rate, some of the repair work was being done on terms of 5 or 10 per cent. being paid to private dockyards on their time and materials. It was within his knowledge that a number of these yards

773
were working both night and day on this work. He imagined that all these highly-skilled work men had to be paid double time for night work, and that would be a very substantial increase on the cost of day work. Were these private firms sending in sheets of overtime, and, if so, were they being accepted by the Admiralty? He would also ask with reference to repairs to the boilers on these ships. The House and the Committee had experienced a great loss by the death of Sir William Allan, who was so great an expert on these matters, and it would be a great misfortune if they had no one in the House to take the place of that gentleman, and question the Government on this matter. The chief part of the discussion that afternoon had reference to the purchase of the two Chilian warships. Personally, he was pleased to hear that the purchase would go in the reduction of their future shipbuilding programme, and in that sense it would not be an additional expense on the national finances. They felt that the Government, as a whole, did not appear to realise that after all there was a greater thing to consider than the naval superiority and the military superiority, and that was the financial superiority of the country. If it ever came to a trial between this nation and other nations the crucial point would arise on the financial question. We could not go on with the national expenditure as it was now in times of peace and yet secure the reserve that we should require if a crisis arose. He was especially glad to have the assurance from the Secretary to the Admiralty that the Government had declared their intention that the purchase of these ships would not be considered an additional burden to the Exchequer and the taxpayers.
COLONEL DENNYsaid the question of ship repairs was a most difficult thing to deal with. When the Admiralty sent a ship to a private yard for repairs, if the shipbuilder knew what was best he took care to quote a price sufficient to cover any extra details that might arise. In dealing with a shipbuilder the Admiralty must put themselves entirely in his hands. contented themselves with checking the details of the work by means
774
of overseers, and let the shipbuilder render his bill for materials and wages and take a commission. From his own experience as a member of a shipbuilding firm they never executed repairs on any other system. The Admiralty officials could tell what the cost of repairs would be by comparing them to somewhat similar repairs executed at the Royal Dockyards. If they were dealing with men they could trust they might leave themselves in the hands of those men and they would never have any reason to complain. Personally he never did any work for the Admiralty for the reason that if he did he would render himself liable to a penalty of £500 for every division in which he took part. In conclusion he was convinced that assuming the work to be given out was handed to a man who could be trusted, it was the best thing for the Admiralty.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the net result of a long debate seemed to have been that the whole Committee had come either to regard with approval, or at all events with resignation, the purchase of these two Chilian warships. Even those who did not approve of the purchase were quite inclined to be friendly with it because it caused the recent Hertfordshire election. In taking Naval Estimates they were unable to discuss other expenditure. Last year in the course of their Naval, Military and Budget debates they found it impossible to separate the consideration of military and naval expenditure. They would not be in order that day if they referred to a pledge given by the Government to reduce their military expenditure because of the increased cost of the Navy, but he trusted that the pledge would not be departed from in the current year. He agreed with the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Whitley) that there was a large and a very rapidly increasing item in the original estimate for repairs, which he could not but help thinking was due to the extraordinarily large number of breakdowns in the cruisers. He had never been inclined to fall in with the attacks on the water-tube boilers, because all other Navies, and especially those advanced in scientific views, were more and more adopting that class of

775
boiler, and were using an older type even than that we had rejected. In his view the root of the whole question was to be found in the training of the stokers and engineers. He desired to know how far breakdowns were responsible for this very large increase in the cost of repairs.
MR. PRETYMANsaid in answer to the right hon. Baronet's Question he must freely admit that a large portion of the cost was due to repairs to the machinery and boilers of cruisers. Two of the largest items were in respect of the renewal of machinery and Belleville boilers and of the rather heavy expenditure incurred in fitting up certain old vessels for auxiliary purposes. The amount of work in those cases was much more than was anticipated. Experiments on Belleville boilers had been entered upon on too large a scale, and it was the fact that trouble was caused by the placing of the new machinery in the hands of men who had not been thoroughly instructed in the matter. It had to be remembered, however, that the very large increase in the cost of repairs in this particular year did not involve a permanent increase. This was a special occasion, and he hoped, when they came to the discussion of Vote 8, to be able to satisfy the Committee that the number of ships to be sent for repair next year would be very largely reduced. In fact, they were only going to send four ships to be repaired in the course of the next financial year. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury he thought the hon. Gentleman had a little misrepresented the object of sending Admiralty repair work to contractors. It was said the work would be more quickly done, but that simply meant that when there was a large amount of work to be done it could be effected more quickly if a part of it were sent to private yards than if the whole was kept for the dockyards. The advantages of the contract system were that the Admiralty only paid for the work actually done, and actually necessary, and they got it done in the most reasonable time. The disadvantage was that they were obliged by he nature of the work to give it out without having a specific lump sum
776
estimate at the time the contract was given out. In order to meet that disadvantage, a system of percentages was introduced. There was a charge for material and labour, all the work being under the close supervision of the Admiralty inspector; no work was undertaken unless with the authority of the Admiralty inspector, who also supervised the amount of labour and materials put into any contract. There was not any question of overtime. The Admiralty paid the usual rate of wages. The Admiralty paid for no extra time whatever. On the work done there was a ercentage of about 10 per cent. on materials, and about 35 per cent. on direct wages. Those percentages included profit, but they also covered indirect charges, such as the use of machinery, drawing of plans, etc. That was a business arrangement not peculiar to the Admiralty. It was entered into by the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, the White Star Line, the Hamburg American Company, the Union Castle Line, and many others. They were not firms likely to throw their money away. The Admiralty, as the result of the experiment they had made, had succeeded in introducing the competitive element. Having arrived at a basis of percentage by experience, they had placed two large ships out to be repaired, after inviting different firms to tender on the basis of percentages upon actual labour and materials. They were taking a further precaution, and that was, after the work was completed, to have a careful estimate made by the officers of the dockyards as to what it would have cost had it been done in the dockyard instead of in a private yard. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Ilkeston division of Derbyshire his hon. friend had been kind enough to allow him to postpone his answer, as he had only recently had notice of the matter. He did not think the incident referred to showed the British Navy to be in a decadent state.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid there was not an exact parallel between private shipowners and the Admiralty, because there was often a close relation between the firms in question and the repairing firms, whereas no such relation existed between the Admiralty and their contractors. He

777
asked whether the Admiralty paid for night work in a private yard when work was going on night and day.
MR. PRETYMAN: Certainly, if the work is required to be done by night, but no night work has been required.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid night work had been carried on in private yards.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he was not aware of the fact.
MR. WOLFFsaid he could not see that there was any difference between the relations of private shipowners and the repairing firms and those of the Admiralty and their contractors, when all parties worked under a similar system. The arrangement made by the Admiralty for the repair of their ships in private yards was such as his firm had adopted for many years in the case of large shipowners, and he failed to see why the Admiralty should not be satisfied with the system. His firm had built and repaired ships on this principle for more than twenty years. The hon. Member had asked whether the Admiralty paid for night work. Of course the wages bill of the contractor would include extra pay for overtime. He believed the arrangement had worked very satisfactorily. It was clear that until a ship was opened out for repairs or alteration they could never tell exactly what was wanted, and any shipbuilder asked to send in a price under such circumstances would be likely to put his estimate in excess of the work which would have to be done. He hoped the Admiralty would continue this arrangement, not only in repairing but building ships.
MR. CREANsaid that although Ireland was called upon to pay a share of the cost of our Navy he found that when work had to be executed Ireland was generally ignored. A short time ago he received a communication from a number of workmen who had been thrown out owing to work in one of the Irish dockyards having been stopped, and although he had written to the Admiralty
778
on the subject he had received no reply. He thought that when the amount spent on repairs had been increased it was not unfair that the taxpayers of Ireland should get some of it back in the shape of wages.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the complaint that none of the money was spent in Ireland could not be made on this Supplementary Estimate, and that the hon. Member must wait until the Naval Estimates came on if he desired to enter into that.
MR. CREANsaid in that case he would not pursue the matter further. He agreed that the contract work could not be better done than in the way the Admiralty did it. The system of having a tender on scheduled prices was the best way in which the work could be done. He could not now go into the details as to where the work was done, but at the same time he hoped on another occasion he would receive more courtesy and attention from the Admiralty than he received on the last on which he had to approach them.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he was extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman had not received any reply to the letter he had sent, and if the hon. Member would send another letter to him personally it should have his attention. It was the desire of the Admiralty to give work to the Irish yards, and the hon. Member would see, when the Estimates came before the House, that that question had not been forgotten.
Vote agreed to.
Resolution to be reported.

ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,700,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending

779
on the 31st day of March. 1904, for Additional Expenditure, in respect of the following Army Services, viz.:—

£

Vote 1. Pay, &c. of the Army

2,000,000

Vote 6. Transport and Remounts

2,100,000

Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

2,030,000

Total

£6,130,000

Excess Appropriations in Aid (Votes 1, 6. 7, 9. and 10)

3,430,000

£2,700,000"

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEdrew attention to the difference in the form in which this Vote was presented to the House from that of the Vote which had just preceded it. He pointed out that in the Supplementary Vote for the Navy, it first of all gave the amount of the Supplementary Estimate, and immediately underneath that was the amount of the whole Estimate required. This, he pointed out, was an infinite convenience to hon. Members who desired to criticise these Estimates, and he trusted that on a future occasion, which he hoped would never occur, when the War Office required to present a Supplementary Estimate, they would present it in the form adopted by the Admiralty. The sum asked for by this Vote was £150,000 for the Imperial Yeomanry. The Financial Secretary had stated that he had put down a certain sum on the Paper as the total sum. He (Mr. Hobhouse) had put a reduction on the Paper as a protest against the principle adopted in the Supplementary Vote. The amount asked for the Imperial Yeomanry in the year 1902 was £l,350,000,and the year1902–3 £1,300,000. Then a Supplementary Vote for £750,000 was asked for, and in 1903–4 a sum of £10,000 was put down, and now the hon. Gentleman came and asked for a Supplementary Vote for £150,000. The total sum asked for in the whole period on the Estimates was £3,750,000, of which 33 per cent. was taken upon Supplementary Votes. That disclosed a very undesirable state of things, because in future they would not be sure that the amounts presented to the House in the
780
Estimates would be all that was required. He thought it would greatly lighten the task of the War Office if they presented all that was required in one Estimate. He complained that a good deal of the difficulty which arose over the Yeomanry accounts was due to the fact that 35,000 men were sent to South Africa with an insufficient number of paymasters to keep their accounts for them, there being only two to keep the whole of the accounts of the Yeomanry. These Yeomanry were enlisted for a term of service of either a year or for the whole period of the war. Some were enlisted in the winter of 1902. There could be no pretext for putting forward this account that there were still existing in the service any relics of an organised Imperial Yeomanry Corps, and it must be that these accounts had not yet been disentangled from the mass of documents at the War Office. If the matter stopped there, he should not say anything further, but out of the total number of Yeomanry a very considerable portion—not less than 2,000 or 3,000—never left these shores at all. Some of them were enlisted in the London district, but they never went out of the country. One thousand of them the moment they got to South Africa were shipped back again. Consequently they had been paying 5s. a day for some 2,500 men who never took part in the war. They were all fitted out in the most costly manner and remained at Aldershot some time and were afterwards disbanded. Some of the methods adopted as shown in the Blue-book were worth mentioning. Some of the Yeomanry were enlisted by the hall porter at the War Office. Others obtained forms from the same hall porter, filled them up, and in return were given commissions. All this was proved by the evidence in the Blue-book, and it did not reflect credit upon the War Office. This was all given in the evidence of Major Knight in answer to question No. 7170. In the case of one man who was enlisted the only thing he could do was to play the piano and he refused to get on a horse at all. Several officers arrived drunk without their drafts, and 184 officers were sent off out of 530.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)asked if it were relevant on this Vote to discuss the whole of the organisation in regard to the war.
THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to ask the hon. Member if he maintained that the pay of these individuals came on the Vote; otherwise his observations would not be relevant.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid it was impossible for him to say whether the pay of a particular officer was included in this Vote or not.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member ought not therefore to refer to particular instances.
MR, CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid there was £150,000 in the Vote for the pay of the Imperial Yeomanry, and it was impossible for a person in the House to say to what individual items it referred. All they knew was that it referred to the Imperial Yeomanry.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot refer to individual cases. He is entitled to comment upon the money spent and the rate of pay, but he is not entitled to bring in individual cases.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he should not have done so only he was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. A great deal of the confusion of the accounts was consequent upon sending out the Yeomanry in a very haphazard manner. One squadron was put upon one ship, and another on another ship, and upon arrival in South Africa they never saw each other until they came home. If troops were sent out in this higgledy-piggledy fashion there must be confusion in the accounts. Consequently delay in paying the men who had earned the money ensued, and the financial control of the War Office was reduced to a farce, and gave no satisfaction to anybody concerned. He moved a reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "'That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head F (C), Pay, &c. of the Corps of Imperial
782
Yeomanry (South Africa), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that yesterday on a former Vote the excuse was made that the accounts could not be got in because of negotiations with the Colonies, and certain claims were made which took time to decide. There was, however, nothing of the kind in this case, because the men had been home for eighteen months. He knew one great difficulty was that there were no paymasters, and the accounts might have gone in to the wrong person, but that was entirely the fault of the War Office. As far as these men were concerned it appeared that all their accounts must have been in about eighteen months ago. It was said that the officers did not send in the accounts properly, but that again was the fault of the War Office, because they sent out officers before they had learned any of their duties. Naturally, there was a great deal of confusion in consequence. He thought they ought to protest against such gross negligence. This was not the original wiping out, but the second wiping out and finishing off of the business. They wished to know if this merely round sum, which was not the actual amount required, would finish off these payments. He could not understand how the War Office could now have accounts coming in from persons who ought to have ceased to draw pay more than twelve months ago. This was the kind of accounts which the War Office were very fond of putting in without explanation, and which they could not fathom, and it was apparently for the second batch of Yeomanry. It was the second batch which was so inefficient.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that. I have already given my ruling upon this point.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that some of these cases would naturally come into this Vote, and unless they could get some assurance as to who this Vote applied to, the natural assumption was that it applied to the last batch. He hoped this was the last they would hear of the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa, and that the question of their pay would not be brought up year after year.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid they had had no opportunity until to-day of pointing out how misleading were the accounts presented to them, during the war, on many of the matters in connection with the Imperial Yeomanry. This had been amply proved by the witnesses before the Commission. The whole confusion in these accounts was explained by the facts set forth in the evidence of Lord Chesham and others before the Commission. All this money had been paid long ago. There had been no case of money recently paid for the Yeomanry. As far as he could make out, this large sum left over was an imaginary account, a sort of banking account for money which had been actually paid out. The confusion and delay, in connection with the accounts, was much greater than could be accounted for by mere delay in the making up of regimental accounts for money which was paid eighteen months ago. It was pointed out in the House, over and over again, that the confusion in regard to the Yeomanry arose because the Government had acted in defiance of their own inspector, Colonel Lucas. This was shown by correspondence which had been accidentally laid before the House. It was a correspondence relating to other matters as well, but it showed that the whole of the Yeomanry system broke down because the Government refused to send out drafts. The Prime Minister in this House and Lord Raglan in another place had thrown the whole blame for the confusion on the military commanders in the field, but now the evidence of those commanders showed that Yeomanry were sent out prematurely and when they were unfit for service, and that they were forced upon them against their wish. Then, as regarded officering, it was stated at the time that a large number of officers had been sent home as incompetent. The evidence taken before the Commission showed that that was correct, and that officers were sent home as hopelessly incompetent. He would not develop this question, but as the present was probably the only opportunity they would have of referring to it, he wished to point out to the Committee that every word which he and others had said about the Imperial Yeomanry in the field had been justified
784
to the full by the evidence before the Commission.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,)said the explanation of this charge was a very simple one. The money taken I last year was £2,050,000 and only £1,587,000 could be brought into account before 31st March. Obviously in any other business except the public service, in which the accounts terminated automatically on 31st March, it would not have been necessary to ask for this Vote. With regard to the administration of the Yeomanry by the War Office, he made no apology whatever for the failure of the War Office to employ all the Yeomanry available at the end of the war.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that men sent out to Africa were disbanded as useless in the middle of the war.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that if the hon. Member supposed that it was possible for the Secretary for War to supervise the training of all the men demanded in such large numbers as they were demanded in South Africa, he must be under a delusion. Special tests were laid down in every case, and the Adjutant-General assured him that those tests had been applied. If it was true that some of the men could not ride or shoot, they must have evaded the tests. The only thing a Minister could do was to see that the tests were imposed which his military advisers considered adequate. He admitted that the second contingent were raised too hastily, and were sent out too hastily. The Government claimed credit for absolute bonâ fides in the statement made on the authority of those who advised them, that the war was coming to an end; and hon. Members who believed and frequently stated that that was merely an electioneering cry attacked the Government for not sending out drafts to continue the war, which the Government thought was coming to an end. In 1901 no drafts were raised, as arrangements were being made for all classes of troops to be sent home. Within a fortnight he had to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for authority to send out fresh troops, and all the mounted men he could lay hands on. Shortly afterwards they began to enlist

785
again for the Yeomanry; and it was in answer to the urgent appeals of Lord Kitchener that men left this country before, in his opinion, they should have gone. There was no doubt that the men were not sufficiently trained, and they gave both Lord Roberts and himself considerable anxiety before they were sent out. When the third contingent of Yeomanry were raised he asked Lord Roberts to certify that every man who left the country was properly trained for the purpose for which he was required, and he did so; and he had no complaint whatever of that contingent. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had attacked the quality of the officers. When in ordinary years 600 to 800 officers were commissioned for the Regular forces and that number increased in 1899 to 1,500, in 1900 to 2,500, and in 1901 to 4,500, did it not stand to reason that when officers had been found with the greatest difficulty for the other forces the choice for the Yeomanry should be much more limited. That had proved what he had long felt—the necessity of having a very much larger reserve of officers than we had had hitherto.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not very clear as to this £150,000. When was the money paid? He understood from his right hon. friend that it was paid before the beginning of the present financial year; but if that were so it was very extraordinary that it should come up on the Supplementary Estimates this year. Or, if the men were not paid before 31st March last, he thought it was a gross scandal that they should have been kept fifteen or eighteen months without their money. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about the criticism which had been made as to the efficiency of the new Yeomanry, he wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman had read the Report of the War Commission. In that Report Lord Chesham said that of 1,900 Yeomanry under his command, 75 per cent. had never been on a horse before they passed the test, and 25 per cent. had ridden very little. They had never had an opportunity of discussing this matter in the House of Commons; and when criticism was made, the right hon. Gentleman seemed inclined rather to cast
786
the blame upon Lord Kitchener. But Lord Kitchener repudiated responsibility. Fuller explanation ought to be given as to the real nature of this transaction, because it would enable the Committee to understand better War Office finance in the future.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,)said he thought he could speak with some little authority about this matter at any rate. The facts were as follows. The officer had an account with his men, and afterwards an account with the War Office which paid upon the lists sent in. He admitted that these pay lists were in a state of confusion, and he could not say absolutely that every single man had been paid. It was a fact that it would have been very much better for all the officers concerned, and possibly for the country, if some better provision had been made for the proper payment of the men during the war. That everybody recognised. It must not be forgotten that the first contingent of Yeomanry was despatched from this country under conditions of hurry. He himself happened to be in command of the first squadron which sailed from Great Britain, and he remembered perfectly that he was not ready when they got orders to sail on the following Saturday, and he did so sail under protest. The answer to his protest was that great pressure had been put on the War Office by the authorities in South Africa, and there was an earnest desire and necessity to get the men to the front. It had been asked, why were not the units followed up with drafts? No doubt that would have been better. At first drafts were sent out, but they were not continued, because the Government believed that the war was coming to an end. He could assure the hon. Gentleman who laughed, that the Government did believe the war was coming to an end, and that there were some credulous people in South Africa who believed likewise. He himself, however, had doubts about it; and as a matter of fact he pressed for drafts to fill up his regiment. The second contingent of Yeomanry was sent out. There were some unsuitable men among that body, but there were also a large number of splendid men. A

787
thousand of that contingent were sent to fill up the corps with which he was serving, and he assured the Committee that, speaking generally, they were a very fine lot of men indeed. They could not ride, yet they could shoot extremely well, and for pluck, dash, and determination they were quite equal to the first contingent. They could not ride, but they took to riding with extraordinary aptness. They remained in South Africa for many months, and rendered magnificent service to the Empire. The reason why there had been delay in completing these accounts was that when they came into the War Office they were in confusion. The officers who were sent out had, like himself, no familiarity with regimental accounts, and where they had with them a member of the permanent staff, like a sergeant-major, the accounts were kept pretty straight. But when the sergeant-major was wounded, or sick, or was lost to the unit, nobody was able to take over the pay lists. In the end, therefore, the lists came into the War Office in a state of confusion, and it was inevitable that a long time should be taken to investigate them. Special officers of great ability and experience had unravelled the mystery of these accounts, and the men had been paid, he believed, in all cases. There were, however, sums of money due as gratuities to officers which had been withheld until their accounts had been properly audited. He could assure the Committee that no further item would appear on the Estimates; at any rate it would not come up in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. He believed that this sum of £150,000 was the final settlement of the whole account.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the speech the hon. Gentleman had just delivered, so far as the Yeomanry was concerned, was satisfactory, but so far as the War Office was concerned it was very unsatisfactory. With regard to the delay in the payment of the Yeomanry the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary had said that in all probability those claims had all been paid before the 31st of March last. If that were so, then what had been outstanding since that date had been the payments due to the officers who had advanced money for the sake of their
788
men. That made it all the more hard to understand the Estimate presented last year and that presented to-night. The Secretary of State for India had told the Committee that on the 31st of March there was £450,000 not paid out of the sum voted last year, and had gone on to state that if the War Office had been any other body than a public department they would have held it over and spent it next year. But the right hon. Gentleman must have known that the full satisfaction of these claims was going on very slowly, and he must have become aware that they had not been able to spend all their money, and that there would be many of these claims outstanding, but the Estimate of the previous year was nothing like the £450,000 now stated to be wanted but an Estimate of £10,000. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why under those circumstances last year they only asked for the paltry sum of £10,000 and now came to the House with this unaccountable sum of £150,000.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTthought the Committee ought to press for something more definite as to whether the Yeomanry were or were not paid before the 31st of March. He thought the hon. Gentleman was in error in stating that. It was absurd to suppose that the officers advanced money out of their own pockets to pay their men. This discussion had certainly destroyed whatever impression the Committee might have had before as to the soundness of the War Office finance. The Estimates were mere tokens and emblems and represented nothing like what was really required. The one thing which distinguished English finance favourably from that of other countries was the fact that the financial exercise of one year was kept entirely separate from that of the year which followed it. If the guiding idea of English finance were once lost we should lose the accuracy of the Budget.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not pretend to be a postmaster in these matters, but he really did not think the matter was so involved as hon. Members supposed. These accounts were all rendered, but were not rendered at the

789
time. Some were brought into the Army accounts for the financial year and the others had not been rendered in time for that account.
SIR EDGAR VINCENT: Were these sums paid out of the Treasury in the last financial year or this financial year?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there was no doubt that they were paid, and therefore it was necessary in the coming year to cover these payments out of the military chest. The hon. Member for Perthshire had asked why it was that the whole of this account was not estimated for at the beginning of the year; that was accounted for by a circumstance with which the hon. Gentleman was well acquainted, namely, that the accounts were rendered up to the end of the year; but the surrender of the actual balance did not take place until the October or even the November following, when settlements were drawn up in the War Office for the October of the preceding year. When the Estimates were framed it was necessary that they should be framed on the knowledge possessed by the War Office. In the War Office it was believed that these claims would have come in and would have been passed before the surrender of the balances. Owing to the complication of the accounts, however, these amounts did not come in for payment at the time that the balances were surrendered. In all these cases the accounts had been passed since the surrender of the balances.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it appeared to him that there was some little uncertainty about this matter. It was clear now that this £150,000 had been spent in the financial year 1902–3, but had not been brought into the account of the Appropriation Bill for that year. The Committee was now in this strange position, they were asked to transfer this amount of £150,000 which was admittedly spent in the year 1902–3 to the expenditure of the year 1903–4. With regard to the amount of £900,000 referred to on the previous evening. Last year when they passed the Appropriation Account they thought they had thereby prevented any Minister from appropriating any money to any
790
other purpose than that for which it was appropriated. But that it appeared was all moonshine. This £150,000 it appeared was paid out of the military chest, which it seemed to him was an immense suspense account to which the Government had paid money and thus defeated the Appropriation Account. The House having passed that Account thought they had the Government absolutely secure against taking money for any purpose for which no appropriation had been made by that specific act of Parliament, but the Government were in such a position that without the authority of Parliament they were able to find £900,000, pay it away, and then three or four years afterwards come to this House and ask them to sanction that proceeding. Such disclosures as this showed that our financial system was absolutely defective; that the Government had power which Parliament never thought they possessed; and that it was time for them to put their financial house in order.
MR BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he feared the hon. Gentleman was labouring under some error. The procedure was quite common. These men had to be paid week by week out of the money provided by the officers who depended on the paymaster to draw it from the military chest. It could not possibly come into the account until the end of the financial year.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if this £150,000 was paid by the Treasury into the military chest in 1902–3 was it not treated as expenditure by the Treasury in that year.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid unless it was regarded as expenditure by the Treasury it was impossible to work from account to account.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid it seemed to him that the whole of the financial affairs of the War Office were in a fashion muddled up. Money was laid out under the exigencies of the moment and they had to discover afterwards where it was to come from. Then they were told that in the pressure of events

791
drafts of Yeomanry were hurried out to the war who could not ride. This disclosed a state of affairs which if it occurred in a commercial undertaking would bring it to a state of bankruptcy within twelve months. In the reorganisation of the War Office the Secretary for War and the Financial Secretary should turn their attention first of all to its financial affairs. In all businesses the whole amendment depended on the finance and if the finances of the War Office were in an orderly state then there would be a good result, but if they were not there would always be a muddle.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERagreed that it was desirable that the finances of the War Office should be put upon a basis which was beyond criticism. He was glad to be able to inform the House that the subject was now being considered with a view to recasting the whole of the finance of the War Office. Hon. Members appeared to think that the explanation which he had made just previously was not very lucid, but what he said in that explanation was absolutely correct although it might not have been quite clear. He was as conscious of the fact that there must be reform in the finance of the War Office as any hon. Member could be and he was endeavouring to reduce the finance of that department to such a condition of simplicity that all would be able to understand it as well as the hon. Member who had just spoken appeared to understand it now. With regard to sending out Yeomanry who were not able to ride, they had a precedent for that; one of the smartest cavalry regiments in the French Army had been made out of an infantry regiment which could not ride, but which after six weeks training became one of the crack cavalry corps in the Army. With regard to the finances of the War Office, active minds were now engaged on the problem and endeavouring to simplify and make them more lucid. That being so, he asked the Committee to say that the matter had been discussed sufficiently and that the Vote might now be taken.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpressed for the answer to the question of the hon.
792
Member for Exeter, whether the item of £150,000 was accounted for last year.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, it was not brought into the account last year, it was paid to the soldiers but not accounted for; it was appropriated for another purpose, but used for this.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is really exceedingly unfair to the House of Commons. Here is money appropriated for one purpose which is used for entirely another purpose.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is done every year.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I know, but it is time that it was brought to an end.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERthought that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. When he was at the Admiralty, it was recognised that they might transfer money within the limits of a Vote, by permission of the Treasury.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he understood the money voted last year and paid away for this purpose was about £200,000. If they voted this money again to-night how was it going to be disposed of?
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid this Vote was to bring into account money that had already been paid.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEon a point of order asked whether, during the current financial year, a Vote could be asked in respect of sums of money voted in the previous year and paid away. Could there be another Vote this year for the same thing?
THE CHAIRMANsaid he doubted whether this was the first time that this had occurred. It appeared to be a very common process. The money was actually paid out to certain individuals but was not brought into account within the financial year, and the House, in passing this Vote, would be simply sanctioning a payment which had now been finally completed. The completion of the payments and the closing of the accounts took place in the present financial year.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he rose to protest against this Vote being taken now.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This is not a question of a Vote. It is a question of a reduction.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to continue this discussion.
Mr. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 10.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Maconochie, A. W.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

Fison, Frederick William

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Arnold-Foster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fyler, John Arthur

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Galloway, William Johnson

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gardner, Ernest

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Baird, John George Alexander

Garfit, William

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

Morrell, George Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

Morrison, James Archibald

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goulding, Edwd. Alfred

Mount, William Arthur

Bignold, Arthur

Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Bigwood, James

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hain, Edward

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bond, Edward

Hall, Edward Marshall

Myers, William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

Parkes, Ebenezer

Brymer, William Ernest

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Butcher, John George

Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

Percy, Earl

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

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heaton, John Henniker

Plummer, Walter R.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hogg, Lindsay

Pym, C. Guy

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Renwick, George

Charrington, Spencer

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Richards, Henry Charles

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hunt, Rowland

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kerr, John

Rollit, Sir Albert Kayo

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Keswick, William

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Kimber, Henry

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Knowles, Sir Lees

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Laurie, Lieut. -General

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dalrmyple, Sir Charles

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Davenport, William Bromley

Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Denny, Colonel

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside

Doulgas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Spear, John Ward

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Reginald, J. (Portsmouth

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Tuft, Charles

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

Stock, James Henry

Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Valentia, Viscount

Wylie, Alexander

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Webb, Colonel William George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Pellowes.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Tollemache, Henry James

Whiteley, H (Ashton und Lyne

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Ailen, Charles P.

Grant, Conic

Partington, Oswald

Atherley-Jones, L.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harwood, George

Rea, Russell

Bell, Richard

Hay den, John Patrick

Reckitt, Harold James

Blake, Edward

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Reddy, M.

Boland, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brigg, John

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Broadhurst, Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rickett, J. Compton

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rigg, Richard

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hutchinson. Dr. Charles Fredk.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Burns, John

J ones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roche, John

Burt, Thomas

Jordan, Jeremiah

Runciman, Walter

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Joyce, Michael

Shackleton, David James

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cameron, Robert

Kilbride, Denis

Sheehy, David

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Slack, John Bamford

Causton, Richard Knight

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Crean, Eugene

Levy, Maurice

Soares, Ernest J.

Cremer, William Randal

Lloyd-George, David

Sullivan, Donal

Crombie, John William

Lundon, W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cullinan, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tennant, Harold John

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Davies, M. Vanghan (Cardigan

M'Kean, John

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Delany, William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Toulmin, George

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Mooney, John J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Murphy, John

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, George (Norfolk)

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Duncan, J. Hastings

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Dowd, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

O'Malley, William

Gilhooly, James

O'Mara, James

Question put accordingly, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head F (C), Pay, etc., of the Corps of Imperial Yeomanry (South
Africa), be reduced by £100."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122: Noes, 190. (Division List No. 11.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Boland, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Brigg, John

Allen, Charles P.

Bell, Richard

Broadhurst, Henry

Atherley-Jones, L.

Blake, Edward

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burns, John

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Rea, Russell

Burt, Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Reckitt, Harold James

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cameron, Robert

Jordan, Jeremiah

Redmond, William (Clare)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Joyce, Michael

Rickett, J. Compton

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rigg, Richard

Crean, Eugene

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, John Bryu (Eifion)

Cremer, William Randal

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Crombie, John William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roche, John

Cullinan, J.

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Runciman, Walter

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leng, Sir John

Shackleton, David James

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Levy, Maurice

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Delany, William

Lloyd-George, David

Sheehy, David

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Lundon, W.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Slack, John Bamford

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kean, John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Donelan, Captain A.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Soares, Ernest J.

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

Sullivan, Donal

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Murphy, John

Tennant, Harold John

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, James F. K. (Cork)

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Toulmin, George

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

White, George (Norfolk)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Grant, Corrie

O'Dowd, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Malley, William

Yoxall, James Henry

Harwood, George

O'Mara, James

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Warner.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Partington, Oswald

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Forster, Herny William

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fyler, John Arthur

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

Galloway, William Johnson

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Charrington, Spencer

Gardner, Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Garfit, William

Arrol, Sir William

Coates, Edward Feetham

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Coghill, Doulgas Harry

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

Baird, John George Alexander

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Balcarres, Lord

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hain, Edward

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bignold, Arthur

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Bigwood, James

Davenport, William Bromley

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Denny, Colonel

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

Bond, Edward

Dickson, Charles Scott

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Brassey, Albert

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Brymer, William Ernest

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Duke, Henry Edward

Hogg, Lindsay

Butcher, John George

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A (Glasgow

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Houston, Robert Paterson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fison, Frederick William

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Flannery, Sir Forsescue

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Flower, Sir Ernest

Hunt, Rowland

798

799

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Kerr, John

Myers, William Henry

Spear, John Ward

Keswick, William

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Kimber, Henry

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Knowles, Sir Lees

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Stock, James Henry

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Percy, Earl

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pym, O. Guy

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Thornton, Percy M.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tollemache, Henry James

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale

Renwick, George

Tuff, Charles

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Richards, Henry Charles

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Valentia, Viscount

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Maconochie, A. W.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Warde, Colonel C. E.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Webb, Colonel William George

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Malcolm, Ian

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wylie, Alexander

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morrell, George Herbert

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Morrison, James Archibald

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

Mount, William Arthur

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Original Question again proposed.
And, it being after 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 to-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DISRAELIsaid he rose on behalf of the Buckingham County Council to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. It was a matter of great concern to them that an attempt should be again made to seize part of the water area of Buckingham for the supply of water to other places. Not
  800
  only were the Buckingham County Council opposed to the Bill, but almost every local authority interested in the matter. The Buckingham County Council, the Eton District Council, the Gerards Cross Parish Council, the Hertfordshire County Council, the Rickmansworth District Council, the Thames Conservancy, and the Grand Junction Canal Company had all petitioned the House against this Bill, which they contended would have a very injurious effect if it were allowed to become law. This Bill was practically the same as that promoted in 1901 by the same company, which measure having been discussed on its merits was thrown out without a division. This Bill was objected to by the local authorities, especially by the Bucks County Council, on the ground that no water company should be allowed to take water out of the county unless it was prepared to give water back again, and this undertaking had not been given to the county council. They had little water to spare in Buckinghamshire, and much damage would be done to the wells of some of the poorest if unlimited pumping was allowed. The scheme here was to pump all the

  801
  water out of Buckingham into Middlesex and Herts, and as the Amersham Water Company were prepared to supply Gerards Cross, which was the only district that wanted water, and were also prepared to give back to Buckingham whatever water they took from it, the Buckingham County Council was prepared to support that company and not this. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. ROTHSCHILD, in seconding the rejection of the Bill, supported the protest that had been made by the local county council. The underground wells and lakes near the Chiltern Hills would suffer great injury if allowed to be depleted of their stores of water in the manner proposed. It had been noticed that when pumping operations had been resorted to, the level of these lakes and wells fell very rapidly. In his opinion the Rickmans worth Company had no right to come into an area and to deplete that area of its water supply, and dispose of all the water in other places, without giving a satisfactory undertaking to the county council concerned.
  Amendment proposed—
  To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that this matter was an extremely simple one. When the original Bill of 1901 was upstairs before the Committee, it was found that Gerards Cross, the district in dispute, had been omitted by accident. As a result, the Rickmans worth Company had promised the Board of Trade to remedy that mistake as soon as possible, and this Bill had been brought in in consequence. He hoped the usual course would be adopted of reading the Bill the second time and sending it to a Committee, which was the proper tribunal to decide the points at issue between the two competing water companies.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman
  802
  who spoke last, spoke from instructions, and had therefore only contributed second-hand opinions to the debate. He (Mr. Walton) lived in Buckinghamshire, and could fully endorse what had been said by the hon. Member for Mid-Buckinghamshire as to the Chiltern Hills districts, the well supply of which was very seriously affected by the rainfall, and any tampering with or draining of the underground reservoirs would have a serious effect on the district. He contended that local opinion as to local needs ought to have a deciding influence in a matter of this kind, and this Bill was opposed by all the local authorities concerned.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsupported the Second Reading. He thought the House ought not to reject a Private Bill on its Second Reading unless there were very strong objections to it; and he failed to see such objections in the case of this Bill. In his opinion it should go to a Committee upstairs, where evidence could be taken on both sides, and where arguments could be adduced which could not be heard in this House. Before he voted for the rejection of this Bill, he should like to be assured that no damage would be done to the people who wanted the water which was to be supplied under this Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought the hon. Member for Epping was under a misconception with regard to this question. He pointed out that though the Bill of the Rickmansworth Water Company introduced two or three years ago was rejected without a division, the company now came to Parliament with their old weak case, but with a more extended scheme. There was one other point he would like to draw attention to. He thought the time had come when the House ought to appoint a Commission or Committee to inquire into the whole question of water supply. It was monstrous that all the suburban counties should be depleted of their water for the purposes of London and other large places, without some complete scheme showing how much should be

  803
  taken away and how much should be left in the locality.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid it had been suggested that there was some ulterior motive in bringing forward this Bill. Well, it was brought forward to remedy an error in a previous Bill and asked for no further powers than the company at present possessed. The Rickmans worth Water Company was opposing the Amersham Company, and the Buckingham County Council was acting the part of the dog-in-the-manger. It was clearly a Bill which ought to be sent upstairs where all the points in dispute could be thoroughly threshed out.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said it was very undesirable that these matters, which were purely local, should be discussed in the House; they ought to be referred, almost without question, to a Committee upstairs unless they involved some question of a new principle. The House was asked to found its judgment on purely ex parte statements which could not be subjected to the test of cross-examination. What were the merits of the Bill? There seemed to be a quarrel between two water companies as to who should possess a certain district known as Gerard's Cross. The Bill involved no new principle, and that being so he held that that ought to go in the ordinary course before a Committee upstairs.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsubmitted that it was the right of the House to express its opinion on all Bills, and he was therefore surprised at the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. In this case an invasion was proposed of the rights of the County of Buckinghamshire over its own area, and it was the privilege of the House to discuss such a question, and to say whether a private company should, in opposition to the wishes of the county council, take water from a given area without any obligation to supply that area with water.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that all the local authorities were opposed to the proposal, and he hoped,
  804
  therefore, especially in view of the distressed condition of agriculture in Buckinghamshire, they would not be put to the expense which proceedings before a Committee involved.
  MR. HUDSONsaid the inhabitants of Hertfordshire feared that if the Bill were passed the result would be that they would be deprived of a much larger quantity of water than the company took already and which might be used in the county of Buckinghamshire. They had suffered from droughts more, perhaps, than any other county in England. Their springs were drying up and already many of them had had to deepen their wells. Hence the opposition of their county council.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDappealed to the House to come to a decision on this Bill, inasmuch as the sitting had been especially set apart for the discussion of a question of vital importance to Ireland—viz., transit facilities—more important, indeed, than the fiscal problems raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. One of the blessings of the present system of Parliamentary Government was that Irish Members were forced, against their will, to come there and decide on the merits of a purely local English question, and he could only say that as they found the local bodies were unanimously on one side in this dispute, it would be their duty to support them.
  SIR E.DURNING-LAWRENCEhoped the Bill would be sent upstairs on the ground that the House was not in a position to decide upon the facts in dispute.
  MR. HAROLD RECKITTsaid he thought the districts around London had been most unfairly treated by the demands made upon their water areas for the supply of London, and he felt the House ought to exercise its right, therefore, of expressing its opinion on the general principle of Water Bills. He hoped the day was not far distant when county councils would be made the water authorities in their own

  805
  areas, and he felt that this was the proper time to make a protest against individual water companies or authorities seeking to take water for their own use, outside their own areas, without any compensation whatsoever.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but
  Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 24; Noes, 150. (Division List No. 12.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kayo

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Balcarres, Lord

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Bond, Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Caldwell, James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Colonel Lockwood.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. W (Cum. Pen

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Allen, Charles P.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Hamilton, Marq of L'nd'nderry

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O' Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Blake, Edward

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.)

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

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horner, Frederick William

  O'Mara, James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burns, John

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Partington, Oswald

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cameron, Robert

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Carlile, William Walter

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Delany, William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Roche, John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Shackleton, David James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel, Daniel

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehy, David

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Kean, John

  Spear, John Ward

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stock, James Henry

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Grant, Corrie

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Trevelyan, Chales Philips

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw., M.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Rothschild.

  Toulmin, George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

  ST. MARYLEBONE ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

IRISH RAILWAY RATES.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENsaid he wished to call the attention of the House to the question of transit and railway rates in Ireland; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, excessive railway rates and defective transit facilities generally constitute a serious bar to the material advancement of Ireland, and should receive immediate attention from the Government." It was a mere truism to say that the railway system of Ireland could, and ought to, help powerfully towards facilitating and developing the prosperity and trade of that country. But he regretted to say that at no time had that railway system been a help. On the contrary it had always been a great hindrance to trade in Ireland. So oppressive, indeed, had it been, that it had made the development of trade in that country impossible. The following figures showed very briefly how railway travelling was discouraged in Ireland, as compared with England and Scotland. In 1880 the average Irish railway rates were higher by 21·83 per cent. than the English, and 27·13 per cent. above the Scotch; in 1890 they were 22·75 per cent. above the English, 29·22 per cent. above the Scotch; in 1900 they were 37·14 per cent. above the English, and 33·97 per cent. above the Scotch. On 15th April, 1902, Mr. Wyndham, who was then Chief Secretary, acknowledged the correctness of these figures. Now, a striking result of these excessive
808
rates charged by the Irish railways was, that while in England each inhabitant made on an average twenty-three journeys yearly, and in Scotland each inhabitant made on an average fifteen journeys per annum, in Ireland the average was only four. If he were to stop here, he should say that he had already made a strong case against the manangement of the railway system in Ireland. But he would proceed. The rates charged by Irish railways on agricultural produce were three-half-pence per ton per mile; on the Continent they were a halfpenny, and in the United States and Canada they were one farthing per ton per mile. He found that the French flax spinners and manufacturers could send their goods from Lille to London for 28s. 9d. per ton, while the Irish flax-spinners and manufacturers had to pay from Belfast to London 42s. 6d. per ton, from Stranorlar to Belfast (86 miles) the rate was 21s. 8d.; but from Ghent, via Goole, Hull or Leith, to Belfast, the rate was 18s. 8d. In Ireland ten barrels of petroleum were carried fifty miles at the same cost as fifteen barrels were carried from New York to Belfast, or to any other Irish port. Sheep were carried fro in Boston, Mass., to Liverpool or Manchester for 2s. 6d. per head, while from Ireland to Liverpool or Manchester the rate was 4s. per head. A Galway distiller for several years bought annually 1,000 tons of barley, grown in the valley of the Shannon. It was shipped on canal, at various points, for Ballinasloe and thence by railway to Galway. The railway company gave notice of higher charges, and the result was that the distiller now got his barley from Glasgow. A company in county Sligo started pressing peat into bricks for fuel. The place was 150 miles from Dublin or Belfast, and the industry was killed by a railway rate of l1s. per ton. On German lines the rate for that article would not exceed 7s. 3d. per ton for any distance. He must refer to the case of eggs recently noticed in

809
the papers. Eggs were carried from Normandy to London, Birmingham, and Nottingham for 16s. 8d. per ton, from Russia the charge was 22s., from Denmark 24s., while the rate from Galway to the same towns was 94s. per ton, or nearly six times the rate from Normandy. As to transit facilities, an egg merchant in Leigh, near Manchester, writing on 16th February of this year, said that eggs from Claremorris were often nine days in transit. Bone dust for manure was carried in England 120 miles per five tons for 25s.; in Ireland the cost of carriage for twenty miles of the same weight was 20s., or nearly five times as much. In fact, goods were sent to all parts of Ireland from England, the European continent, and America cheaper than goods produced in Ireland were sent to different parts of the same country. The Irish railways gave a preference to goods from foreign countries over Irish goods.
Coming to passenger fares, they knew that the minimum rate in Ireland was a penny per mile per 3rd class passenger. In Prussia the rates were by express trains at forty-four miles an hour, 1st class 1·70d; 2nd class 1·25d; 3rd class 0·88d. On ordinary trains, which ran twenty-five miles an hour, the charges were, 1st class l½d., 2nd class l⅛d., 3rd class ¾d., and 4th class ⅜d. per mile. In the same country 4th class return tickets, available for forty-five days, were issued at one farthing per mile, while civil servants, soldiers, and sailors were carried free. If one member of a family took a season ticket at full price, all the other members of the family could get tickets, not necessarily for the same journey or the same class, at half price. This system had naturally created enormous traffic into the large towns. All kinds of facilities and encouragements were given to the public with the very best results, as the following figures showed. In Prussia the railways were State property. In 1899 the total debt on these railways was £370,000,000; and there had been paid off, since 1882, £146,000,000. The profits from 1889 to 1899, inclusive, were £302,000,000. Twenty-one directors managed 21,174 miles of railway, and in 1900 they made a profit of £34,000,000 as against £18,000,000 in 1898. The profit, in fact, had nearly doubled in two years.
810
What a lesson for poor Ireland! In Hungary one could travel 400 miles for 8s; an equal mileage in Ireland cost 33s. 4d. In Austria one could travel ten miles for 6d., 24 miles for 1s., 50 miles for 2s. 6d., 112 miles for 5s., and 180 miles for 7s. 6d.; but in Ireland the lowest charge for 180 miles would be at least 15s. Now he thought he had said enough to justify the terms of his Motion. There were about 3,000 miles of Irish railways managed by a number of directors, variously stated at 135, 169, and 303. He did not know how many separate lines there were, but the number of secretaries stood at ninety-seven, and there were other highly -paid officials, such as solicitors, actuaries, &c, to the number of sixty. Then, each line had a full staff of all kinds, and in the Clearing House, Kildare Street, Dublin, there were 128 clerks. Again, each line had its own rolling stock. What an awful waste was here! But this money waste was not the whole of it. If they compared the Irish lines with the Prussian, which had a mileage of 21,174 miles, they found the latter managed by twenty-one directors; while some English lines, which had a mileage of about 3,000 miles, were managed by one board of some fifteen to twenty directors and one staff. Surely there was something rotten in the State of Denmark so far as Ireland was concerned. These various Irish boards of directors, as might easily be conceived, had no idea of working their lines harmoniously for the good of the country. Indeed, the way in which they had been accustomed to antagonise each other had long been notorious. He, himself, had had experience of it some time ago. He had to travel over the Midland system, and wanted to connect with the Great Southern and Western system at Athlone, and found that the train on the latter system was timed to start from Athlone just two minutes before the other was due. Now, he asked, could any language be strong enough to condemn a system of railway management which, in the poorest country in Europe, charged goods rates 37 per cent. higher than the average English rates, 34 percent, higher than the Scotch rates, 200 per cent. higher than the Continental rates, and 500 per cent. higher than the United States of America and Canadian rates. The

811
Irish railway system offered inducements and facilities to producers from all parts of the world to compete on Irish soil with Irish manufacturers on terms favourable to the foreigner. It was oppressive to the Irishman, and handicapped the Irish producer by excessive rates to his principal market. England.
A remedy for such a state of affairs naturally suggested itself, and that was to amalgamate all the railways in Ireland under one common board. The Board of Trade could easily formulate a scheme under which this common board should work' all the lines for the benefit of the trade and prosperity of the whole country. And as the scheme would greatly benefit Ireland, that country might fairly be asked to guarantee present incomes to the companies. It is needless to say that the Government should be represented on such a board. In the Irish Parliament, as it existed in 1782 to 1800, the interests of Ireland were looked after, and under the fostering care of that native Parliament, unreformed though it was, and in which only the Protestant minority was represented—even under such a Parliament the trade and prosperity of Ireland made wonderful progress, from which he thought it was safe to conclude that if Ireland were now endowed with a native Legislature they would promptly settle this railway question and the other questions that had so long hampered, distracted, and impoverished their country. This question of Irish railway transit and rates had frequently been before this House. In 1844, Mr. Gladstone suggested to a Commission that—
"At any time after twenty-one years the railways could be acquired at twenty-five years purchase of the average dividends of the three preceding years."
In 1868, he found that seventy-two Irish Peers and ninety Irish Members of Parliament asked for—
"A general board of management, with a view to reduce expenses;"
and
"For a general and uniform tariff for goods and passengers."
They also proposed that any loss arising therefrom should be borne by Ireland alone. In 1874 the right hon. Member for West Bristol, then Chief Secretary for
812
Ireland, on a Motion for the purchase of Irish railways, expressed, on behalf of the Government, willingness to give financial assistance to the companies in consideration of amalgamation. On the 30th April, 1901, the present Chief Secretary, on a Motion regarding Irish railway rates and charges, said—
"There is another difficulty showing how closely social questions are interlocked in Ireland. That is the difficulty of obtaining a properly trained staff for any large Government department without appearing to ignore the claims of Irishmen. The question of Irish railways is interlocked with that of Irish education, and if you do not make progress with Irish education you cannot find the technically trained men for the administration of Irish railways."
Yet, only a few days ago, the same right hon. Gentleman, on the question of University education, banged the door of higher education in their face. Eight years ago the present Prime Minister, then Chief Secretary, used almost the same language; but neither would help the people of Ireland to that education so necessary, as they acknowledged. Who could wonder at their constant protest against this prolonged and cruel injustice. He begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
MR. POWERsaid he wished to second the Motion proposed by his hon. friend in so admirable a speech, which showed the care and exactitude with which his hon. friend always discharged any public duty committed to him. He did not think any one interested in Ireland could look with satisfaction at the railway system of that country, or the way in which the lines were worked. In the first instance, in a poor country, it was necessary and desirable to have narrow gauge railways, but in Ireland the gauge was very much wider than in this country, necessitating larger cuttings, embankments, and tunnelling, and entailing a great deal of unnecessary expense. His hon. friend had shown conclusively that though Ireland was the poorest country in Europe, its railway rates were about the highest. They had heard a great deal about the dumping, due to preferential rates and tariffs, which took place in this country; but in Ireland, which traded more with the British Empire than with

813
foreign countries, the rates which prevailed were a great inducement to (lumping. So great was the difference between local rates and through rates that he was informed that it was more economical for manufacturers who wished to send their goods to some place in Ireland to send them first over to England, and then back to Ireland in place of sending them direct. The late Mr. McCann, whose loss they all deplored, said that unless the railway rates in Ireland were reduced 50 per cent. there was little or no hope for Ireland. He maintained that if this reduction took place, although at first there would he a certain loss to the shareholders, in the long run it would be economical, double if not treble the traffic would be secured, and there would consequently be the greatest good to the country. Some of the directors were Irishmen, and some were not, but at any rate they were men who were selected as a rule from the loyal minority in Ireland, and they were people unsympathetic towards Irishmen and Irish interests in general, and certainly not 2 per cent. of them would obtain any public position in the gift of the people. But these men managed the railways of the country with little or no regard to the interest of the country. It was absolutely necessary if there was to be any good done in this matter in Ireland that the control of the railways should be placed under some central body. His hon. friend had shown the enormous advantage which the German people derived from the system prevailing in that country. The figures submitted showed that it was a system which was not only for the industrial advantage of the country, but that the Government were enabled to make an enormous sum by which to lighten the general taxation. He knew that some of his hon. friends thought that the remedy was to hand over the railways to State control, and in regard to that proposal he would say that whatever happened they could not be worked very much worse than they were at present.
He would give an instance of the utter indifference of the directors in Ireland to the comfort of the people who travelled over their systems. Their carriages were particularly uncomfortable, and, only
814
within the last few years, any servant on the Great Southern and Western Railway who ventured to put a foot-warmer into a third class carriage was liable to dismissal. They could hardly imagine such a thing possible, but he could vouch for the accuracy of the statement because he had personal experience himself of that matter. Although the system was bad at present, he would for his part hesitate long before he would put the control of the Irish railways into the hands of an essentially Government department. A sort of compromise was suggested by his hon. friend, namely, a Board nominated partly from the existing directors and partly by the local traders. So far as Government Boards were concerned Irish Members knew from experience that they were packed by men of anti-Irish feeling who did not command the confidence of the people, and for his own part he thought it would be a mistake to increase the number of these Boards, which would do little or no good to Ireland. His hon. friend the Member for Roscommon introduced this matter in 1901, and on that occasion he reminded the Chief Secretary that a deputation of a most influential character waited on him some months before and asked him whether something could not be done to remedy the state of things. The deputation suggested that a Vice-regal Commission should be appointed to inquire. When that point was raised in the House of Commons the right hon. Gentleman said that a new department had been formed, and that, as some powers had been conferred on it, it would only be reasonable to give them an opportunity of using those powers, and seeing what could be done in the matter. That was three years since, and although he did not wish to describe this as chicanery, he would say that he believed that the Treasury was largely at the bottom of the standstill in this matter, and that the department of which Sir Horace Plunkett was vice-chairman really had no power to take action in the matter. He hoped that, in his reply, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some assurance that he was alive to the grave interests involved in this question. They heard very much of the resuscitation of Irish industries, and so forth, but he did not

815
think they could have a proper resuscitation of them until this question was grappled with, and until traders and manufacturers in Ireland had an opportunity of competing, at any rate, on an even footing with other manufacturers. At present they were handicapped in the way he had described. He begged to second the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, excessive railway rates and defective transit facilities generally constitute a serious bar to the material advancement of Ireland, and should receive immediate attention from the Government."—(Mr. Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien.)
MR. FLYNNsaid his hon. friend had referred to the statement of the Chief Secretary in 1901 that the newly-formed department should be given facilities for dealing with this and cognate questions. That raised a very important question, because that department, so far at any rate as this question was concerned, and as regarded Irish industrial life, seemed to have retrograded rather than progressed. He found that the Reports of 1902 and 1903 were more full and explicit, and showed a greater desire to deal with the question of railways in Ireland, than the Report presented yesterday. That was rather a regrettable fact. He might be allowed to express regret that the right hon. Gentleman who was vice-chairman of the board was not here to explain the inaction of the department. He was not going to censure the Agricultural Department in this matter at undue length. He believed that in regard to technical instruction they had done useful work, which had been largely supplemented by the work done by the county councils and various local bodies throughout Ireland. But with regard to the all-important question of transit and railway rates he did complain, not in a spirit of bitterness, but of disappointment, that a department which ought to have been the champion and custodian of these particular interests, had really largely neglected the work which was one of the most important features of the work committed to its care. The department might have done much more
816
in two or three respects, and first of all by taking up the complaints of traders and manufacturers with regard to the deficiency of transit. It would be obvious to every business man in the House that an ordinary Member of this House or a trader or manufacturer suffered under this disadvantage. Grievances with respect to unfair charges and want of proper facilities were brought forward, but no Member of the House, and no body of Members, had the facilities for getting hold of information that a public department gave. He thought the Board of Agriculture and Technical Education might have continued their labours of 1901, and gathered from agricultural societies. chambers of commerce and shipping, any amount of information, without which it was difficult for any private Member of the House to establish a case. They all knew the general grievances, but when they complained they were confronted with the answer by the President of the Board of Trade that they should bring forward explicit cases. When such cases had been brought forward they had never found the President of the Board of Trade very sympathetic with Ireland in regard to these matters. The Board of Agriculture had neglected their duty in this matter. They should have supplied information to the Board of Trade. They could have helped in the bringing forward of specific instances with regard to the inequality of rates. It was almost impossible for a private Member to get the figures to enable him to make comparisons between the rates charged in Ireland and those in England and Scotland, and also between the charges made by shipping companies whose vessels plied between this country and foreign parts and those plying to Ireland. He marvelled at the industry of his friend the Member for Cork, who had brought forward such a mass of information. He said advisedly, and without any desire to censure the Board of Agriculture unfairly, that the return just issued by that department was absolutely valueless for the purpose of this debate. He found from a previous return that in 1890 the average rate per ton for merchandise in Ireland was as much as 27·14 per cent. in excess of the rate charged for the same traffic in

817
England, and further the average rate per ton for merchandise in 1900 was higher by nearly 2 per cent. than in 1890. They were therefore confronted with this fact, that while the average rates for merchandise in England had been decreasing, they had been increasing very considerably in Ireland. That was an alarming state of things which deserved the consideration of the Government. In the last reliable Return which was available, it was shown that the average rate for merchandise in Ireland was 37·14 per cent. in excess of the English and 34 per cent. in excess of the Scotch average. These were very disquieting figures. They asked for something more from the Chief Secretary than an academic or a mere finely phrased expression of sympathy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to point to something in the way of practical work. Unfortunately, in regard to this important question they seemed to be retrograding. They wanted a simpler and more centralised system of management, and he hoped they would have a definite pledge from the Chief Secretary that he would take this matter into his serious consideration at the earliest possible moment.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WYNDHAM,)said the subject which the hon. Member for Cork City had brought under consideration was not only of particular interest to Ireland but also of very general interest. Questions of transit were beginning to loom very large, and they were likely to loom larger in the future. The hon. Member for Cork City, who moved this Resolution, made an interesting speech and cited a number of statistics, but he would hardly expect him to deal seriatim with all his figures. Certain criticisms, however, of a general character occurred to him. There were certain points which he thought the hon. Member did not take sufficiently into account, such as the difference between through rates by land and sea, and rates for short distances. Then, too, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that in most countries abroad the railways were owned by the Government, and were run almost at cost price. The hon. Member for East Waterford, who seconded the Resolution, referred to
818
a speech which he had made three years ago in the House, and in which he said the question of improving the transit facilities of Ireland was one which depended upon a settlement of the land question and the education question. He had done all he could to lay the foundation of that settlement. Without doubt, men in Ireland of humble origin had not the opportunities in regard to education as men in England, or as men in Scotland. The hon. Member opposite had asked for some assurances that the Government were alive to the great interests at stake. The hon. Member for Cork had also referred to the Report of the department for 1902–3, which he had described as meagre, and he alluded to the difference between the rates obtaining on the railways in Ireland and in other countries. But the hon. Member opposite was dealing with figures for general merchandise, which included iron ore and material of that kind, which was carried long distances, and there was very little indeed of that from Ireland; therefore that comparison was somewhat fallacious. Of course, that did not make it any more agreeable to Irishmen, when they were presented with the difficulty of getting satisfactory rates for the agricultural produce of small farmers upon a railway system for comparatively small consignments. In spite of the critical and pessimistic tone of the speeches to which they had just listened, he regarded the Resolution as rather an incentive to the Government to proceed with greater energy on the lines that were already being followed than a censure on the Government for not adopting other lines of a totally different character. Even if that were not so, he would make bold to answer that they were doing what they could.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is the same story from all English Governments.
MR. WYNDHAM, continuing, said that in the Resolution there was very little to which exception could be taken. It was alleged, and truly, that transit facilities in Ireland were defective. The epithet "excessive" applied to the charges was ambiguous. From the point

819
of view of the producer they were excessive, but from the point of view of the railway shareholder it would be difficult, almost impossible, to reduce these charges unless they were in a position to enforce drastic remedies. Were they in such a position? Take the proposal that railways in Ireland should be nationalised in some form or other. Without entering into the political or economic merits or demerits of such a plan, it might very well be held that Parliament would have been well advised to accept the proposition of the Royal Commission fifty years ago, that in the conditions of Ireland, so different from those of England, railways could be promoted with better results by the State than by private enterprise. That advice, however, was not taken, although not altogether repudiated, because construction had been assisted, and in the course or the last ten years there had been free grants for assistance of transit in Ireland amounting to £1,349,000. So something had been done by the State. But the recommendation of the Royal Commission was outside the sphere of practical politics now. After the advance of £100,000,000 for the purchase of Irish land he would be giving encouragement to false hopes if he were to say any word that would lead hon. Members to believe that he saw his way in the near future to an advance of £49,000,000 or £50,000,000 for the purchase of Irish railways. In the same way he would, in existing circumstances, put on one side the idea that the State could enforce amalgamation of railways in Ireland and lay down a conventional rate at a lower figure than those which now obtained and recoup those who had invested in these companies by a practical guarantee. That also was outside the sphere of practical politics. If that could not be done, for finance was a hard taskmaster, as they all knew—if heroic measures were out of the question—they should refrain from taking any action or using any language which might seem to threaten measures which they were not in a position to take up. The capital of the Irish railways was much less than that of English railways. Their receipts per mile were about one-fourth of the receipts of the English
820
railways, and they were not in a condition to show very great enterprise unless they received encouragement rather than discouragement from that House. It was true that there were a number of lines in Ireland, but the point of fundamental importance was that they were very short lines. The Irish railways were not comparable to those in England, the total mileage of the Irish lines, including light railways and all railways built by the Government, was very little more than that of the Great Western Railway of England. Everybody would allow that this made it hard to run the railways cheaply and to give very low rates. There were difficulties also arising from the weight, size, and shape of consignments, and it was not possible to have an organisation for the collection of produce such as existed in England and, in a nearer approach to perfection, in America. Amalgamation had been tried by voluntary effort, and, though it had been attended with some local disappointments, on the whole it was a sound policy to pursue, and by it difficulties of haulage would be reduced.
Those being the difficulties, what action had the Government taken? He wished to consider this question from the points of view of rates, nature of consignments, and difficulties of collection. As far as the rates were concerned Irish railways were controlled by the same public Acts as controlled railway rates in Great Britain, namely, the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts of 1888 and 1894 and the Railway Rates and Charges Act of 1892. The new department of agriculture and technical instruction had taken action under those Acts repeatedly, and although they did not always succeed it must not be supposed that nothing was done. Representations were made and suggestions were offered which had sometimes been adopted, and the new department had special powers such as were not enjoyed by a department in England; it had power to prosecute inquiries and to act as complainant before the Railway Commissioners, and to charge the expenses to the public account. Complaint had been made of the meagre character of the reports

821
issued, but it would be understood that the hon. Member who made the complaint was alluding to what was a mere summary of action of the Department. It 'was true that only in one case in 1902 did the Department bring this matter to a trial but in that case they were successful. There were, however, a number of cases where their representations had resulted in a reduction of the rates. It was very dull to read statistics, but with the permission of the House he would quote some cases in which reductions were obtained as the result of friendly correspondence with the companies concerned. For example, the Great Southern and Western Railway reduced butter rates from county Kilkenny to Belfast from 40s. to 35s. per ton and from Newcastle West to Liverpool from 32s. 6d. to 30s. a ton. The Midland Company reduced their rates on maize between Dublin and Castlerea from l1s. 6d. to 9s. 4d. per ton. and like reductions were made from other stations on their system. The Great Northern Company reduced their rates for apples and pears from Annaghmore to Londonderry from 15s. to 13s. 4d. per ton, for strawberries to Belfast from 12s. 6d. to l1s. 4d. per ton, and to Dublin from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 3d. per cwt. Fruit growing in the North of Ireland was a very important industry, and it was above all things necessary that such industries should get a fair chance, and it was in cases like this that the new Department could intervene with advantage. He admitted that Irish railways were somewhat timid in regard to initiative, but this new Department brought facts before the railway companies which were not previously within their knowledge, and when they had been able to convince the companies that certain kinds of produce could be put upon the market at a profit then the rates were reduced. It was difficult to make an impression by reading out long lists of statistics, but the figures he had before him did not deal simply with dairy produce and fruit alone. He had some figures with regard to live-stock which were of great importance. The Great Southern Company reduced their rates for the conveyance of horses from Patrickswell to Dublin from 84s. 4d. for
822
four horses to 78s. 3d. Several lists of rates for the carriage of Irish and Continental produce were in the hands of the departmental transit inspectors but they had not yet been classified.
He wanted to come to the question of the collection of agricultural produce, and he must take note of the criticism which had been passed on Irish railways for giving undue preference to the foreign producer. That was a matter of such importance that if the House would bear with him he would quote some figures upon this point. He would give two instances dealing with butter. These rates were, from Limerick to Manchester. 37s. 6d. per ton; from Copenhagen to Manchester, 47s.; from Gothenburg to Manchester, 47s.; from Montreal to Manchester, 45s. 6d. per Ship Canal; from Enniskillen to Manchester. 45s.: from Hamburg to Manchester. 46s. 8d.: from Rotterdam to Manchester. 40s.; from Sligo to Manchester by steamer 35s. 10d., by Irish rail 40s. a ton. The rates on butter to Birmingham are from Cloughjordan, Tipperary, 48s. 4d. a ton; from Kenmare; 36s. 8d. via Cork, 40s.; via Dublin from Sligo, 43s. 4d.; by steamer and by Irish rail, 48s. 4d: from Hamburg,42s. 6d.; Rotterdam, 39s. l1d.; Esbjerg, Denmark, 38s. 6d. The rates to Glasgow from Kenmare are 35s. l0d.; Cork route, 40s. l0d.; Dublin route from Buttevant, 30s.; via Cork. 34s. 2d.; via Dublin from Enniskillen, 28s. 4d.; from Clones, 30s.: from Hamburg, 50s.; from Rotterdam, 49s.; Esbjerg. Denmark. 45s. Besides these amounts, additional sums varying from 1s. 6d. to 7s. per ton had to be paid for the carriage of the butter by rail from the interior of Denmark to the port of shipment. Of course in Denmark the railways were owned by the Government, and the goods were carried almost at cost price. In regard to eggs, he would take the transit of eggs from a number of Irish centres, and make a comparison. The foreign rates are from the port of shipment, and therefore the comparison was more favourable. From Limerick to Manchester the rates were 43s. 4d. per ton; from Listowel to Manchester, 50s. per ton; Sligo, 40s., Kenmare, 45s. 10d., Hamburg, 48s. 4d., Rotterdam, 41s. 4d., and Copenhagen, 48s. 6d. From Ballyhaunis to London,

823
the rates were 65s.; from Kenmare to London, 50s. 10d.; from Sligo, 56s. 8d.; and from Copenhagen, 50s. Would anybody say from those figures that there was preferential treatment in favour of foreign countries when these rates did not include a single penny for the cost of transit upon Continental railways. He would be happy to supply hon. Members with further figures, and agreed that it would be well, perhaps, to bring out a paper giving a long schedule of these important rates. Through rates were of advantage to the places which obtained them, and although other places might feel that they did not share in the advantages, it was to the general advantage of Ireland that there should be such through rates. He trusted that they would increase in Ireland and England, and increase not only as between Ireland and England, but between the United Kingdom and our colonies, especially Canada. He was not going into the tariff question, but he was suggesting that they could not look upon the economic problem in Ireland, in a wayside district deprived of the advantage of through rates, isolated from the question that free land was given by the Canadian Government to the farmers, that their produce was carried by Government railways or by private railways with a Government guarantee against loss. The subject was so intricate that it might lead him into the vista of speculation, from which he intended to refrain.
When hon. Members complained that through rates had not given as great advantages to country districts as they had to towns along the main line, he asked them to take the larger questions into consideration and remember that, on the whole, in view of the short haulage of the Irish railways, it was to the advantage of Ireland that there should he through traffic arrangements, and in his opinion it would be to the advantage of the United Kingdom if such through arrangements could be carried even further. Another sphere of activity of the Department was an important one. Instruction was given by the Department to Irish farmers not only in the cultivation of produce but in the best methods of presenting their goods in an acceptable shape
824
for the market. This instruction had been of enormous value, because it enabled the farmers to know the form, size, and the weight of parcels which could be carried at cheap rates. The Department had taken up many complaints, and it was found that in many instances the cause of the high charge for articles which were put on the railway was due to the fact that they were in weights of less than 3 cwt. or sent by passenger trains when goods trains might have served. There was great need for an organised effort in the direction of teaching the producer how to put up his produce as a collecting consignment and more attractive for handling by the railway companies. Since there was no practical chance of adopting heroic measures, the Department did: their best to push along all those three roads—keeping a jealous eye on the Irish railways; investigating the markets of Great Britain and the Continent; and teaching the Irish farmer to cultivate better. The farmer was grateful for the instruction given to him in the way of consignment in size and weight, and by seeing what could be done to collect such consigments and place them on the rail-head in a convenient form.
That led him to ask the House to consider the efforts made by two distinguished Irishmen, Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie, to assist in this third feature in the problem, namely, the proper methods for collecting produce and placing them upon the Irish railways. He would deal with this question as briefly as he could. The problem connected with the proper methods of collecting produce and placing it on the Irish railways had been harder than might at first sight be supposed to be the case. The idea of Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie was not to spread over the face of Ireland an enormous system of motor traction, but to find out the districts where the experiment of applying motor traction could be made and, if it succeeded, extend its application. Accordingly they mapped out Ireland into three sections, and selected men from amongst the pick of their staffs to investigate them. He felt it his duty to place at their disposal the staffs of all the Irish Departments, where they were needed, and, in addition, everywhere the Commissioners went they were met by the county councils. Altogether seventeen

825
experimental districts, covering 363 miles, were surveyed and investigated. He would not go into all the details of the very interesting general Report which was drawn up by the Commission, which gave a detailed report upon each one of the seventeen routes, and which Lord Iveagh was good enough to submit to him for his observation, but certain questions arose which had to be dealt with. He would, if the House would allow him, deal with one or two of those problems. In the first place the Commissioners said that during the course of this inquiry they had been compelled to leave unvisited many districts which seemed to them worthy of attention. The hon. Member for East Clare must not be disappointed if the districts reported upon did not include some of the places in his constituency.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am used to disappointments.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Commission proceeded upon purely business lines and they were very anxious that their first effort should be crowned with success. Everywhere not only the county councils, but the local priests, clergymen, and doctors were in favour of the scheme; but some of the difficulties to be surmounted lay in the habits of the people. One was the idle and desultory practice of cartage, by which a farmer having his own horse and cart was content to occupy two days over 15 or 20 miles. These men thought only of the fact that they spent no money in the transaction, taking no account whatever of the loss of the two days; and, when it was suggested that payment should be made for an organised service, they were inclined to say, "I can take my own cart, in my own time, in my own way." But the people were being brought to see that that was not a sound economical method. The cardinal difficulties, however, in the application of a system of motor traction in Ireland were two—first, the speed limit and the weight of the motor and trailer; and secondly, the condition of the roads. As President of the Local Government Board he had endeavoured to meet Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie to the utmost length; and he was prepared to increase the speed limit to 10 miles—which they
826
had asked for—and to increase the weight of the motor to 4 tons, and the trailer to 1½ tons; but that must be subject to the approval of the county councils. Some of the county councils, while showing the greatest willingness to meet the promoters of the enterprise in every way, were disposed to object to the weight of the motor and trailer. All the counties of Ireland, except five—Antrim, Kerry, Donegal, Meath, and Kildare—had accepted the three-ton engine, the 18 cwt. trailer, and a speed of 10 miles an hour, subject to the condition that the wheels did not track in the same line, and were of a minimum breadth of 4½ in. Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie assented to this, and as a matter of fact the width of the wheels would be greater. It had been suggested that in order to meet the question of roads there should be a certificate of the county surveyer, viséd by the Local Government Board, to the effect that the road was fit to bear such a weight travelling at such a speed. He did not believe there would be any difficulty about that at all; the Commissioners had travelled round the country with the county surveyors, and there was no intention of doing anything in the matter except in close co-operation with the county councils of Ireland. If there were any reconstruction it would be limited to comparatively short lengths of road. The roads of Ireland were as a whole good roads and the population was sparse, and in many districts the rate of speed would not be a low one. There were portions of the roads which ought to be strengthened if such weights were put on them, and for the reconstruction of such portions of the roads the Local Government Board would be prepared to lend money on very easy terms. He felt that he ought not to develop this at greater length, but he wished to say that all that had come before the promoters of this scheme encouraged them to proceed with it, and they felt that apart from the carriage of produce, which had been more immediately considered, that there was a prospect of carrying live-stock, and at a later date passengers. But, in the first instance, the problem was to carry agricultural produce which had to be collected on reasonable terms.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the Chief Secretary could give them a list of the seventeen routes, and whether he would leave the means of communication at present in existence in certain districts, as they were until the motor system was introduced.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would give a list of the districts. He would not give the whole of the seventeen routes originally contemplated because some of them had been rejected, but he would give a list showing where they were now. One effect of this scheme had been that the railway companies already had begun to take up the idea themselves, and certain routes which they had been examining had been taken up by the railway companies. This was the case in respect of 32½ miles of the route in the North East of Ireland and the railway company were now working 35½ miles at Newtowards-Portaffery by motor traffic. There were 20 miles from Derry to Feeny and Park to be worked, and nine miles from Ballymena to Port-Glenone awaiting to be worked. From Newcastle to Kilkeel 13½ miles were now being worked. Now he came to the lines which were sanctioned subject of course to making the neceessary arrangements with the Local Government Board. One of the most important of those, in his opinion, was the route from Ballina to Belmullet. Then there was another from Ballinasloe to Mount Bellew, and another from Galway to Costelloe. One more route which would probably be arranged was 14 miles from Parsonstown to Portumna. Other possible routes included 18½ miles from Portumna to Loughrea, and 15 miles from Enniscorthy to Kilmuckridge. It was very difficult to convey to the House without a map an idea of these arrangements. In all 220 miles of route were either sanctioned or in course of being agreed upon. They were still in the experimental stage. Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie wished to take up districts where the need was great and where success would crown their efforts. But anyone who had attended to the difficulties involved in this problem would agree that really no time had been lost, and that it was better, in a matter of this kind, to proceed slowly and surely than to rush into a more extensive, perhaps more flashy, plan.
828
He had detained the House at very great length and he did not propose to enter into further detail in regard to this scheme of motor traffic. He might point out, however, that transit facilities included something more than railways. They had to look to the canals as well as the harbours of Ireland, and he hoped that by improving the harbours, private enterprise would be stimulated to do something. The offer of one company to allow one of their largest steamers on the West Coast of Ireland to call at any harbour which was made fit to receive their ships was encouraging. He wished to conclude his observations by pointing out that all such efforts necessitated a good deal of negotiation. At this moment he was on the point of concluding negotiations with the great Midland Company in Ireland in respect of one of the harbours, but all this involved a vast amount of detailed examination of roads which hon. Members opposite would scarcely conceive. Again, he was in negotiation with the Great Southern and Western Railway for an arrangement by which the Tralee and Donegal Railway would be put into a proper condition. Those negotiations were not quite concluded, but in view of all the circumstances, he thought they ought rather to encourage than to threaten Irish railway companies at the present time. He thought they ought to continue to enforce the provisions of the Acts o 1888, 1892, and 1894 and make representations to the companies. They ought to secure a reduction of rates wherever possible, and resist any increases in every case, and prevent as far as possible any preference being given to foreign producers. In addition to such efforts they must continue to prosecute investigations as to the condition of the markets, whether in Great Britain or on the Continent, and they must continue to give instruction to the farmers not only as to the best methods of raising produce but as to the best methods of putting it on the market. His experience was that Irish railways were too timid, but he doubted the wisdom of holding vague threats over their heads. On financial grounds it was a difficult question to nationalise the railways of Ireland or give them a State guarantee. Their object should be to get the railway companies

829
to pluck up courage and to take their part, side by side with private enterprise, in that development of Irish agriculture and Irish industry which, though of recent growth, was very real and full of much promise for the future.
MR. LOUGHsaid that at one time it would have been a very easy thing to secure some sort of amalgamation amongst these struggling railways in Ireland which had done so much harm to the country. The right hon. Gentleman had not stated the case quite fairly, for he had said that they complained of preferential rates to foreign countries. He wished to point out that these were not the preferential freights to which Irishmen objected. What they complained of was the preferential rates given to foreign goods brought into Ireland, which could be produced in better quality in Ireland itself, but where there were no facilities at all for cheap transit. If the policy of amalgamation was pursued by the Government in a proper spirit there would be no trouble in solving the difficulties which had been presented to this House. Years ago, when the House of Commons considered how the Irish railways should be built, the Railway Commission recommended that they should be built by the State. In 1837 the British railway promoters thought the whole system of private enterprise was in danger, and so they blocked and destroyed all the efforts of the Royal Commission, and supported this foolish system, which had never met with any success of any kind. Thirty years afterwards there was a Commission which reported in favour of amalgamation, and twenty years later the Allport Commission made a similar Report. This House had proved itself incapable of solving any Irish problem on an Irish basis. It was no use the Chief Secretary for Ireland telling them about motor traffic, for it was time the House put this childish treatment of the Irish question upon one side. He quite shared the disappointment with which the right hon. Gentleman's remarks had been received. He
had no objection to the efforts which the Board of Agriculture were making in Ireland, and he did not object to the new effort which was being made by Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie. They belonged to a noble band of Irishmen who were constantly striving to alleviate human suffering, in Ireland, which had been caused by the neglect of the House of Commons. With the greatest respect for those efforts he objected to the House of Commons perpetuating this infamous railway system, which was paralysing every Irish industry. The House ought either to deal with this question, or else let Irishmen deal with it for themselves. The Chief Secretary talked about preparing goods for the market instead of dealing with these admitted evils. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Motion which had been proposed, for that would at any rate be a step forward. The hon. Member opposite had made a strong speech in favour of the nationalisation of Irish railways and The Times newspaper, which was not much prejudiced in favour of Ireland, had also advocated the nationalisation of the Irish railways as an urgent and necessary reform. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would at least accept the Motion.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that as far as railway reform was concerned the right hon. Gentleman's speech must be considered disappointing, although he had listened with very great pleasure to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had foreshadowed. He only wished to say that, once the suggested scheme was started, it would be impossible to stop with the routes suggested, for routes were also required in a great many other districts which were quite as deserving of better means of communication.
Question put:
The House divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 13.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Blake, Edward

Crean, Eugene

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Boland, John

Cremer, William Randal

Allen, Charles P.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Delany, William

Ambrose, Robert

Burke, E. Haviland

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbt. Henry

Burns, John

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Caldwell, James

Doogan, P. C.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bell, Richard

Causton, Richard Knight

Flynn, James Christopher

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Gilhooly, James

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Roche, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mooney, John J.

Rose, Charles Day

Hayden, John Patrick

Morrell, George Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Murphy, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sheehy, David

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sullivan, Donal

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Toulmin, George

Kilbride, Denis

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

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

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Dowd, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Levy, Maurice

O'Malley, William

Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)

Lough, Thomas

O'Mara, James

Young, Samuel

Lundon, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Pirie, Duncan V.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Power, Patrick Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Reddy, M.

M'Kean, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Redmond, William (Clare)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Grenfell, William Henry

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Groves, James Grimble

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Arrol, Sir William

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Percy, Earl

Balcarres, Lord

Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

Plummer, Walter R.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Pym, C. Guy

Bignold, Arthur

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hoult, Joseph

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bond, Edward

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Renwick, George

Brassey, Albert

Hunt, Rowland

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

Kerr, John

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Keswick, William

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

Kimber, Henry

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Coates, Edward Feetham

Knowles, Sir Lees

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

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

Stock, James Henry

Oust, Henry John C.

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Thornton, Percy M.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Davenport, William Bromley

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Tuff, Charles

Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Dickson, Charles Scott

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Valentia, Viscount

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Webb, Colonel William George

Duke, Henry Edward

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Flower, Sir Ernest

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Forster, Henry William

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Fyler, John Arthur

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Wylie, Alexander

Galloway, William Johnson

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Gardner, Ernest

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

Morrison, James Archibald

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Mount, William Arthur

Gray, Finest (West Ham)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.