Commons Sitting of 13 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Brentwood Gas Bill; Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill; Seaham Gas Bill; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

  NORWICH UNION LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY [STAMP DUTIES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the chair].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or assurances which, in case the Bill had not been passed into an Act, would have been required to pass to and vest in the Society certain property, there be charged a Stamp Duty of five pounds, and such Duty shall be impressed upon the copy of the intended Act to be delivered to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies under the section of this Act the marginal note whereof is 'Copy of Act to be registered.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. WHITLEYasked what was the estimated amount of the stamp duty which it was proposed to compound for the sum of five pounds. And further, he would like to know what was to become of the five pounds? Would it be applied to the reduction of debt or

  1169
  would it go into the ordinary revenue of the year?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVEN-DISH, Derbyshire, W.)said he was not aware that this question would arise, but he would communicate with the hon. Member the result of the inquiries he would undertake to make. He might explain that the composition of five pounds had been made in place of the stamp duty of ten shillings on every separate deed. The arrangement was a satisfactory one to all the parties concerned, including the Exchequer, and there would be no loss of revenue.
  MR. WHITLEYreminded the hon. Gentleman that this stage had been twice postponed in order to get information from the Treasury. He thought it was important they should know what they were losing and what was to be done with the five pounds.
  SIR SAMUEL HOAREthought they might be content to let this matter go before the Committee. The question, as the hon. Member knew, was one which touched on the fringe of revenue and hence the necessity for this stage. A clause, of this nature could not be put into the Bill by the promoters. They were bound to get the sanction of the Treasury. After all, this was only a formal stage, the clause could be dealt with by the Committee upstairs, and, if necessary, when the Bill came back to the House the point could be again raised. The completion of this stage would not in any way hamper the Committee upstairs.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScould not agree that this was a formal stage. It was a stage rendered necessary by the Standing Orders of the House, and he thought the questions put by the hon. Member for Halifax were extremely proper. They ought to have information on the points raised and they ought to know what was to be foregone in return for the composition.
  And it being quarter past Three of the clock the debate stood adjourned.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday (Evening Sitting).

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petition from Cathcart, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Knutsford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Jarrow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRELAND) PENSION FUND.
  Account [presented 1st June, 1904] to be printed. [No. 79.]
  REDISTRIBUTION OF THE FLEET.
  Copy presented, of Statement of Arrangements consequent on the Redistribution of the Fleet [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAM BRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of University College, Oxford, on 26th November, 1904, amending Statute III. ("The Fellows") of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 80.]
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
  Copy presented, of First Annua Report of the Metropolitan Water Board for the year ending 31st March, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th February; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Copy presented, of Thirteenth Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th November, 1904, with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 82.]
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of the Postal Order (Colonial) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations, 1905, dated 28th February, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment) Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158b];referred to the Committee on the Bill.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Appointment of Irish Magistrates.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is competent for the memorialists who approached the Duke of Abercorn with respect to the appointment of Catholic magistrates to the petty sessions bench of Pettigo, and whose memorial was not acknowledged by the Duke of Abercorn, to approach the Lord Chancellor of Ireland directly on this matter; and whether it is competent for the Lord Chancellor to appoint to the Commission of the Peace persons of whose competence to discharge magisterial functions he may be satisfied, even although such persons be not recommended to him by the lieutenant of the county.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Answer is in the affirmative to both Questions. I am not aware if the communication alluded to has been addressed
  1172
  to the Duke of Abercorn. The Lord Chancellor always considers most carefully all recommendations, and, according to practice, consults the lieutenant of the county on the subject.

  Loan Expenditure on Naval Works.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state the estimated amount of Loan Expenditure on Naval Works during the ensuing year.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) This amount cannot be stated, as the Naval Works Loan Bill is still under consideration.

  Repair of Rotten Row.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES:To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the condition of the ride of Rotten Row, especially that portion of it lying east of the barracks, and of the long period during which this ride has been neglected, he can give an assurance that it will be now put into and kept in complete order by the remaking of the roadway, and by the allocation to it of a sufficient staff to keep it drained and in repair; and whether he can arrange that some sum, corresponding to the £4,000 recently spent on replacing over an acre of grass in the Green Park by a broad path leading no whither, can now be expended on Rotten Row.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to give any assurance that the foundations of the ride in question will be remade this year, though he is anxious to do all in his power, by placing fresh sand, to improve its condition. The Answer to the concluding paragraph is in the negative.

  Disturbances in the Bahr-el-Ghazal.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government have any information concerning troubles in the Bahr-el-Ghazal with the Azande tribe; and whether the Azandes are receiving, or have received, supplies of quick-firing

  1173
  rifles and ammunition through the territory of the Congo Free State.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The hon. Member presumably refers to the Niam-Niam tribe in the Azandi country. A patrol sent through that country by the Soudanese Government has encountered slight opposition from the chief of the tribe, but the matter does not appear of any material importance. As regards the second paragraph of the Question. we have received no such information.

  Building of Forts in the Congo Free State
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information as to the building of forts in Congo Free State territory near the boundary line dividing the Congo Free State from British territory in East Africa and on the Upper Nile, the accumulation of military stores, and the increase of Congolese troops at various strategic points along these frontiers; and, if so, whether he will present it to the House.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject to present to the House.

  Alleged Outrage by Turkish Troops at Kuklish, Salonica.
  SIR A. HAYTER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in possession of any information relating to the recent misconduct of Turkish troops in the village of Kuklish in the vilayet of Salonica; whether he is aware that out of 140 houses forty-three have been burnt and a large number looted; and whether any report has been received from His Majesty's Consul at Salonica as to the number of those massacred or violated by the Turkish troops.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) In reply to the hon. Member's Question and the Question which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tyneside, it appears from a narrative supplied by a Russian gendarmerie officer, who was present during the later phases of the conflict, that the numbers of casualties and house burnt are correctly stated; but
  1174
  we expect shortly to be in possession of further details of the occurrence, as an inquiry has been held on the spot by the Russian Adjoint, the secretaries of the Austrian and Russian Civil Agents, and Colonel Ali Riza Bey, representing Hilmi Pasha. The revolutionary band, whose presence had been denied by the villagers when summoned to surrender them, escaped during the attack. The exact number of killed and wounded among the Turkish troops is not stated.

  London Unemployed Committee—Suggested Grant from Imperial Exchequer.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the statement on Friday last by the Bishop of Stepney, to the effect that there is a danger of the work of the London Unemployed Committee, established under a scheme suggested by the light hon. Gentleman, being arrested for want of money; and, if so, whether he will recommend to the First Lord of the Treasury the desirableness of making a grant of money to this Committee from Imperial sources.
  (Answered by Mr. Grant Lawson.)My right hon. friend has seen the letter from the Bishop of Stepney, which appeared in The Times on Friday last, and hopes that the result of the appeals made by him and others for additional subscriptions may be to provide the Central Committee with the funds which they require. My right hon. friend fears that he could not promise to make any such recommendation as that suggested by the hon. Member; but, as he stated in reply to a previous Question † from him, he has been expecting some further information from the Committee as to their financial position. I understand that this will be furnished almost immediately.

  Privacy of Income-Tax Returns
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, are the income-tax returns made by private individuals and companies treated as entirely confidential by the Income-Tax Commissioners, or are they allowed to be inspected by, or is information extracted from them given to any other
  † See (4) Debates, exli., 1477.

  1175
  person, official or otherwise; are the officers of the Estate Duty Department allowed to obtain information regarding the income of private persons or companies from the returns made to, or the a sessments made by, the income-Tax Commissioners; if so, will he state all the officials who are allowed access to the information; and will he further state whether there is any, and, if so, what, statutory authority for the disclosure of income-tax accounts.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Board of Inland Revenue do not consider that any use they may make of income-tax returns within their own Department, and for their own official use, constitutes a disclosure of such returns within the meaning of the provisions of the law relating to secrecy in income-tax matters. Care is taken, however, that only responsible officers should have cognisance of such matters.

  Barrack Accommodation in North China.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has now received the replies to the inquiries he promised should be made as to the character of the barrack accommodation in Northern China and the health of the officers and troops; whether he will furnish a Return of the various reports made by medical and other inspecting officers as to the accommodation provided for our troops in Northern China; and how much of the money taken in the Army Estimates last year for the improvement of this accommodation at Pekin and Shan-hai-kwan has been expended.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I have received a Report on the barrack accommodation in North China. As regards the last part of the Question, about £9,000 of the money voted for Pekin will be spent this year, but the money provided for Shan-hai-kwan will not be spent.

  Derrylaur
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of statutable acres in the electoral division of Derrylaur, in the
  1176
  Loughrea Union; whether he will state when this district was last visited by an inspector of the Congested Districts Board; what recommendations, if any, were made by the inspector at the time, and have they been given effect to; and whether, in view of the poverty of this mountain district, he will state the total expenditure of the Congested District; Board upon works of utility in this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The area of this electoral division is 10,088 acres; it contains only 88 inhabited houses. The division has not been inspected by an officer of the Board since 1893. His report is a confidential document, and I cannot disclose its contents. There has been no expenditure by the Board in the division. In 1897 they offered to contribute one-half the cost of constructing a road, estimated at £900, but the local authority did not accept the offer.

  Irish Education—New Rules.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the effect on boys' schools in Ireland of the rules of the Commissioners of Education, by which boys under eight years of age are ineligible for enrolment in a boys' school unless there is an assistant-mistress on the staff; and whether, in view of this fact, he will have these rules superseded.
  ME. P. A. Mc HUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many men teachers is the new rule of the National Board (127b) likely to throw out of employment, and how many to place on reduced salaries; do the Commissioners intend that the rule shall apply to teachers in the service at present; and, in the event of the amalgamation of small schools, will the principal teachers of such schools, when reduced in rank, be allowed the salaries and pension rights previously held by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) It is not practicable to reply to these Questions to-day, as the inquiries that are being made are not yet complete. I would

  1177
  ask the hon. Members to postpone them until Thursday next.

  Irish Education—Issue of New Rules.
  MB. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland it he can state when the Commissioners of National Education intend to issue their new rules.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.)the rules are now being issued.

  Disestablishment of Police Barracks Kildalkey.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police barracks at Kildalkey, county Meath, are to be disestablished; and, if so, will he state the reason, and what is the number of offences reported for the sub-districts of Ballivor, Killyon, Stirrupstown, Lisclogher, and Kildalkey for the past three years; whether a memorial, signed by persons of all creeds and classes, has been received by the the Lord-Lieutenant against any disestablishment of the barracks at Kildalkey; and, if so, what was the district inspector's report on the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) It has been decided to disestablish the police stationed at Kildalkey. There are four other stations within a radius of six miles, and the authorities are satisfied that the requirements of the locality can be adequately met by the police at these stations. The offences reported during the past three years from the sub-districts named numbered 133, 80, 43, 36, and 162 respectively, all of which, with five exceptions, were minor offences. Representations have been made against the removal of the police from Kildalkey. The reports made by the district inspector and other officers of the force are confidential documents.

  The late W. T. Galway's Estate.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been directed to the, estate of William Thomas Galway, deceased, situated in the county of Galway, and now for sale in the Land Judge's Court; and whether they have
  1178
  made a request under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 to the Land Judge for the purchase of this estate; and, if not, whether it is intention of the Commissioners to do so and thus give the tenants an opportunity of becoming the owners of their farms.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.)On the 2nd February the Commissioners issued to the Land Judge a request under the 7th Section of the Act with respect to this estate. The matter came before the Land Judge on the 7th instant, when directions were given to have the rental, which was settled many years ago, resettled.

  Submarine Mining Volunteer Corps.
  SIR CHARLES PALMER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the services of the Submarine Volunteer Corps, for the protection of commercial harbours, have been dispensed with because of their having failed to carry out the duties and work assigned to them, or for other reasons not explained; and whether the corps will now become Royal Engineer Volunteer Corps.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) As I have already explained to the House, submarine mining in the estuaries and harbours of the United Kingdom will be discontinued. This step has been taken after full consultation with the Board of Admiralty, who consider that under existing conditions submarine mines are not necessary for purposes of defence, and may, in some cases, constitute a danger to our own vessels. It is obvious, therefore, that the reason which has led the War Office to dispense with the submarine miners is the impossibility of utilising their services, and is due to no want of appreciation of the excellence of the work of the past. The question of how the services of officers and men who have hitherto been engaged in submarine work could be best utilised is now receiving careful consideration.

  Discharge of Employees in the Barracks Department.
  GENERAL LAURIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that

  1179
  notice of discharge has been given to employees in the Barracks Department on the ground that they formerly served in the Army; and whether, in carrying out the policy of placing the department under a civilian head, it is also his decision that men who have served their country as soldiers are disqualified for employment in this department.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Works under the Military Works Loans are reaching completion at twenty stations on or before the 31st March next. A considerable amount of the work done under these loans is carried out by temporary employees, and accordingly a number of these will no longer be required. The reply to both points raised in the Question is in the negative.

  Ex-soldiers in Government Offices.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has noted the statement of the Director of Recruiting that only nine posts have been filled during the year in Government offices, exclusive of the War Office, by soldiers, while the number of ex-soldiers employed in departments under Government shows considerable diminution; and what he proposes to do in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) As regards the smallness of the number of vacancies as messenger in Government offices, other than the War Office, which have been filled by pensioners, the matter is at present receiving very careful consideration. As regards the diminution of the number of ex-soldiers employed in departments under the War Office, to which the Question apparently refers, I must point out that, owing to the decrease of work in these departments since the cessation of the recent war, there has been a corresponding decrease in available employment.

  Trainfield Gate, Victoria Barracks, Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain for what reason, and by whose instructions, has the Trainfield Gate, in connection with Victoria Barracks, Belfast, been closed;
  1180
  whether, in view of the fact that residents in the barracks have used the Trainfield Gate for years for the purpose of buying necessaries, he will direct the use of this gate as heretofore.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) My hon. friend has been some-what misinformed. The general officer commanding reports that liquor only is not permitted to be brought into the barracks through the Trainfield Gate by soldiers or their families.

  The Royal Horse Artillery.
  GENERAL LAURIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a regulation is now in force prescribing that after five years service in that rank a subaltern officer of the Royal Field Artillery cannot be appointed to serve with the Royal Horse Artillery; whether a further regulation exists that an officer who has not served in Royal Horse Artillery as a subaltern cannot be appointed as captain or major to Royal Horse Artillery; whether he is aware that, owing to the practical stoppage o£ promotion in the Royal Artillery since the South African War, officers who were on active service with field batteries during that war, and were thus precluded from obtaining appointments to Royal Horse Artillery, have now completed five years service and are thus, under above rules, precluded from appointment to; Royal Horse Artillery; and whether he will, under the circumstances, not enforce the prohibition against these officers serving in the higher ranks when through the exigencies of active service they have been prevented from serving as subalterns with Royal Horse Artillery.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It has been the rule for many years that subalterns should not be appointed to the Horse Artillery after completion of five years service. Officers who have been passed over as subalterns for this reason are not, however, debarred from appointment in the next rank. There is no intention, therefore, of precluding such officers as those alluded to in the last part of the Question from appointment to Horse Artillery hereafter, provided that they are in every other way qualified.

  Building of Married Soldiers' Quarters at Woolwich.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the building of the married soldiers' quarters, Artillery Place, Woolwich, for which the House has voted the money, will be commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold -Forster.) The scheme is being pressed forward with a view to commencing building operations early in the summer.

  Military Manœuvres in Ireland on St. Patrick's Day.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on last St. Patrick's Day, which is in Ireland a religious festival and a statutory national holiday, there was a field day for the garrisons of Newbridge, Kildare, and the Curragh, the Catholic troops being thus unable to assist at divine service and the, inhabitants of the area covered by those operations being put to inconvenience; and whether steps will be taken in future that field days will be fixed on days other than St. Patrick's Day or other Catholic holidays.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The responsibility for the training and exercise of the troops in Ireland rests with the General Commanding-in-Chief there, and it is not desirable to interfere with his discretion in these matters. I will, however, under the special circumstances bring this particular matter to his notice.

  War Office and Treasury—Jam Contracts for South Africa.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Comptroller and Auditor-General of Public Accounts addressed inquiries to the War Office on the 26th April, 1904, to ascertain what were the terms of the contracts for the supply of jam to the War Office for South Africa; what examination had been made to insure that full contract weights were delivered; and whether a reported deficiency of 337,704 lbs. was investigated by a Court of inquiry and reported to the Treasury; and that the
  1182
  War Office neglected for more than ten months to reply to the Auditor-General's inquiries; and whether any reply has in fact yet been furnished; and, if so, what is the nature of the reply.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This Question deals with a matter arising from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the accounts for 1903–4. These matters will come before the Public Accounts Committee, and I am not, therefore, prepared to discuss them at the present time.

  Colonial Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister.
  GENERAL LAURIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any communication from any of the self-governing Colonies urging the legalisation in the United Kingdom of marriages lawfully contracted in other parts of the Empire; and, if so, whether he proposes any action.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer given by the Prime Minister to a similar Question asked on the 20th February †.

  Security for Lagos Government Inscribed Stock.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is the Imperial. Government responsible for interest and principal on the Lagos Government3½per cent. Inscribed Stock; and whether, seeing that the security for the loan, principal and interest, is the surplus revenue of the Lagos Government, and in view of the proportion of that revenue derived from the import of gin and rum, will he say what steps have been taken to secure the loan in the event of the duties on gin and rum being largely increased or restriction imposed upon the sale of the same to natives.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer the lion. Member to the prospectus of the loan, from which he will also perceive that the
  †See (4) Dabets, cxli., 620.

  1183
  loan is secured on the general revenues and assets of the Colony. No steps such as are indicated by the hon. Member have been taken or are necessary or usual. Both the expenditure of the Colony and the taxation from which the revenue is derived are subject to the sanction of the Secretary of State. If the revenue received from the import duties on gin and rum should be reduced from any cause, there is no reason whatever to suppose that the Colony will not be able to meet its obligations by obtaining the requisite amount from other sources or by reducing its expenditure if necessary.

  Transvaal Contribution and Profits of Premier Mine.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the profits derived by the Transvaal Government from the Premier Mine will be more than sufficient to meet the interest and sinking fund on the first £10,000,000 of the Transvaal contribution, he will say whether the mineowners have represented to Lord Milner that the floating of this loan was inopportune till the revenues from the Premier Mine would meet the interest and sinking fund on such loan; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table the despatches he has received from Lord Milner bearing on this question of the revenues of the Premier Mine in respect to the financial position of the Transvaal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no information as to any such representations having been made to Lord Milner.

  The Premier Mine.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the directors of the Premier Mine have entered into an agreement with a Mr. S. Neumann, a director of the Premier Mine, giving this gentleman the sale of all diamonds found in the Premier Mine; and whether, seeing this gentleman is associated in business with the directors of the De Beers Mine, a competing company, he will say what steps, if any, he proposes taking to safeguard the interests of the Transvaal Government
  1184
  in connection with the sale of these diamonds.
  (Ansivered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have received no information to this effect.

  Alleged Outrage by Turkish Troops at Kuklish.
  MR. HUGH SMITH: To ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received any official information to the effect that on 16th February the village of Kuklish, near Strouhnitza, was sacked and burned by Turkish troops; that while an insurgent band of twelve men was allowed to escape from the village thirty-six villagers and one girl were massacred and many women violated; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any representations on the subject.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) In reply to the hon. Member's Question, and the Question which stands in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall, it appears from a narrative supplied by a Russian gendarmerie officer, who was present during the later phases of the conflict, that the numbers of casualties and houses burnt are correctly stated; but we expect shortly to be in possession of further details of the occurrence, as an inquiry has been held on the spot by the Russian Adjoint, the secretaries of the Austrian and Russian Civil Agents, and Colonel Ali Riza Bey, representing Hilmi Pasha. The revolutionary band, whose presence had been denied by the villagers when summoned to surrender them, escaped during the attack. The exact number of killed and wounded among the Turkish troops is not stated.

  Physical Condition of School Children.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the attention of the Board of Education has been directed to the evidence given in December, 1903, by Dr. Eichholz, one of their inspectors, before the Committee on Physical Deterioration, in which he testifies that in a school in Lambeth he considered 90 per cent. of the children

  1185
  unable, by reason of their physical condition, to attend to the duties of the school in a proper way; that in a school in West Ham he found in a similar condition, 87 per cent. of the infants, and 77 per cent. of the elders; in a school in Manchester, 66 per cent.; in another Manchester school, 60 per cent, of the infants, 44 per cent. in the lower standards, and 27 per cent. in the upper standards; and in many schools in other towns a considerable, though less, proportion; and what steps the Board of Education have taken to prevent the waste of public money involved in providing instruction for children thus unfit to receive it.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I have carefully read the evidence referred to, and have myself visited the Lambeth school referred to in the Question. The right hon. Member is probably aware that there are very wide differences of opinion as to the extent of the evil complained of, and the remedies to be applied. A Departmental Committee has been appointed by the Lord President for the purpose of providing useful and precise information on the subject.

  Post Office and National Telephone Company—Transfer of Staff.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the wording of the purchase agreement between the Government and the National Telephone Company in relation to the staff of the company is causing uncertainty amongst the employees and may check the entrance of qualified candidates during the next seven years, thus affecting the efficiency of a future Government service, he can give any definite assurance that the members of the staff will be taken into the Government service upon the transfer in 1911 provided by the agreement.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) When, as provided by the agreement, the National Telephone Company's system is purchased in 1911 it will be necessary for the Post Office to provide a staff to carry on the service. It seems probable, therefore, that employment will be offered to qualified members of the National Telephone
  1186
  Company's staff whose services are necessary for that purpose. The reasonable probability of employment in the Post Office service with its many advantages will, I feel sure, be sufficient to attract qualified candidates during the next seven years; and I am convinced that any definite assurance or undertaking given now as to the transfer of staff or the conditions of service under the Post Office would be found very embarrassing by my successor in 1911.

  Pay of Post Office (Provincial) Night Messengers.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in considering the claims of the provincial night messengers, the scale of pay of the night messengers at Sheffield and Hull at present in force will be taken into account as well as the advisability of awarding good conduct badges to messengers of approved service, or whether he will consider the question of establishing a scale of pay for these officials on a similar basis to that prevailing in the Customs service for watchers employed in somewhat similar duties as the night messengers.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The scale of pay for the adult night telegraph messengers at Sheffield and Hull is obsolete, and cannot, therefore, be taken into account as the hon. Member suggests. I see no reason for awarding good conduct stripes to provincial night telegraph messengers, but I am considering their rate of pay, and, if I find any change is necessary, I will announce it when I am able to state to the House my decision as regards other classes.

  Appointment of Sub-Postmaster and Telegraph Extension, at Limerick.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the appointment to the sub-post office, Rutland Street, Limerick, has yet been filled; and, if so, by whom; will he say if the person appointed must have a knowledge of post office work; and whether consideration has yet been given to the memorial asking that telegraphic communication be made with the branch post office, William Street, Limerick.

  1187
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The vacancy at the sub-post office at Rutland Street, Limerick, has been filled by the appointment of Mr. Patrick Webster. It is not essential that the person appointed should himself have a knowledge of post office work. Consideration is being given to the memorial asking for a telegraph extension to William Street, Limerick. I fear, however, that such an extension will not prove to be warranted.

  Evicted Tenants in North Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state the number of evicted tenants in North Wexford in November, 1903; the number of cases settled since that date; the number of cases in process of settlement; and the amount of money granted to the evicted tenants whose cases have been settled up to the present in North Wexford.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Estates Commissioners have received application from 192 persons claiming reinstatement as evicted tenants in this county since the passing of The Irish Land Act, 1903. The applications are not tabulated according to Parliamentary divisions. Of these 192 persons, five are outside the scope of the provisions of the Act. The Commissioners have reinstated thirty-seven in their former or new holdings, and it is hoped to reinstate six others at an early date. The landlords have, it is understood, restored some thirty or more evicted tenants. The Commissioners have advanced sums amounting to £3,674 for the improvement of the holdings of reinstated tenants in the county.

  Land Commission Appeals in Longford.
  MB. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state whether any steps will be taken by the Land Commission to hold a sitting for the hearing of appeals at an early date in Longford; and, if so, when.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) A sitting will be held at Longford on the 30th May next.

  Illegal Trawling off the Isle of May.
  CAPTAIN ELLICE (St. Andrews Burghs): To ask the Lord-Advocate whether, in view of the destruction to the gear of fishermen which has been caused during the past two months by trawlers that have been trawling in prohibited waters off the Isle of May, the cruiser "Brenda" will be stationed more continuously off the Isle of May; and whether he will reconsider the advisability of making arrangements whereby the lightkeepers on the Isle of May might report to the police authorities cases of illegal trawling coming under their notice.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Secretary for Scotland has drawn the attention of the Fishery Board to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, and has requested them to instruct that these waters should be as closely patrolled as duties on other parts of the coast permit. He will communicate with the Northern Lights Commissioners with reference to the latter part of the Question.

  One-man Companies and Poison Regulations.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a recent judgment in the Cardiff County Court in which it was revealed that a one-man company incorporated under the Companies Acts cannot be punished for any disregard of the poison regulations sanctioned by the Privy Council; and whether, in the public interest, the Departmental Committee of Inquiry on the Companies Acts will be directed to consider and report on this effect of incorporation.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My attention has not been called to the recent judgment in the Cardiff County Court referred to in the Question. The Board of Trade are not prepared to direct the Departmental Committee of Inquiry on the Companies Acts to consider and report on the sale of poisons by one-man or other companies, inasmuch as any amendment of the law in this respect would not be germane to a Companies Bill.

  Joint Stock Companies—Case of Attorney-General v. Appleton.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Master of the Rolls in the High Court of Justice in Ireland (Chancery Division) in the case of the Attorney-General v. Appleton and others; and whether the Board of Trade proposes to take any action in reference to that decision with a view to preventing in Great Britain such abuses of the Companies Acts as were disclosed in the course of the proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My attention has been called to the decision in the case of the Attorney-General v. Appleton. The Board of Trade are at the present moment taking the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to the instructions to be given by the Board of Trade to the Registrars of Joint Stock Companies in England, Scotland, and Ireland as to the registration of dentist companies.

  Removal of Wreck off Blackwater, County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state who is the harbour or conservancy authority or the general lighthouse authority for the district whose duty it is to remove the wreck of the "Albert," which lies off Blackwater, in the county of Wexford.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed that this vessel was wrecked some fifty or sixty years ago, and a few remaining portions of her lie within 200 yards of the shore, inside the limits of jurisdiction of the Wexford Harbour Commissioners, who have power under Section 530 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to remove or destroy any vessel that may be sunk in the harbour or tidal water under their control in such manner as in their opinion to be an obstruction or danger to navigation or to lifeboats engaged in lifeboat service.

  Outside Employment of Medical Officers of Local Government Board.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the medical inspectors of the Local Government Board are permitted to accept
  1190
  appointments for pay outside their official duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Grant Lawson.) A medical inspector is required to devote the whole of his official time to the duties of his office; but this is not intended to interfere with the manner in which he employs the rest of his time or his holidays.

  Accidents caused by Gas coming in Contact with Leakage of Electric Current.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of accidents reported by the police during the last three years as having occurred in the streets of the Metropolis through gas escaping into a telegraph inspection chamber and coming into contact with leakage in an electric wire; and will he state whether such accidents are brought under the notice of the Postmaster-General with a view to the insulation of the electric wires, or such other preventive measures as may be deemed prudent.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) During the three years ending on 31st December, 1904, the Metropolitan police reported six explosions as having been caused by gas escaping into a telegraph inspection chamber and coming into contact with a leakage in an electric wire; and a seventh case, in which a similar explosion of gas in a telegraph inspection chamber was supposed to have been caused by a lighted match. In addition to these seven cases, the police reported twenty-three similar accidents in which explosions occurred through the accumulation of gas in electric light or supply boxes. It is the duty of the police to report such accidents at once to the Post Office authorities or to the electric supply companies, as the case may be.

  Employment of Young Persons in Coal Mines.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information showing the number of young persons of sixteen and seventeen years of age employed underground in coal mine in the United Kingdom; and if he could furnish an approximate estimate of the number so employed in 1903 or 1904.

  1191
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The number of young persons under sixteen employed below ground in mines under the Coal Mines Act was, in 1903, 45,234; and in 1904, 44,628. I regret that I cannot give the number of persons between sixteen and seventeen so employed, as the returns which owners are required by the Act to make do not distinguish the ages over sixteen.

  Precautions against Accidental Poisoning.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths which have recently occurred through accidental poisoning; whether he is aware that a locking poison bottle has been recently invented by which, at a trifling cost, accidental poisoning can be prevented; and, if so, whether he will take steps to compel distributors of carbolic acid and other virulent poisons to refrain from selling poisons except in some kind of locked bottle.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My attention has been drawn to several recent cases of accidental poisoning, and also to several inventions designed to minimise the risk of such accidents. Under the regulations made by the Pharmaceutical Society under Section 1 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and approved by the Privy Council, it is at the present time required that all liniments, embrocations, lotions, and liquid disinfectants containing poison must be sold in bottles rendered distinguishable by touch from ordinary medicine bottles, and that each such bottle must bear a label giving notice that its contents are not to be taken internally. The Lord President of the Council is of opinion that it would be undesirable to prescribe the use of any special form of bottle which might give a monopoly to the patentee, and further, that the inconvenience of a locked bottle might not improbably lead careless purchasers to transfer its contents into some ordinary vessel.

  Promotion in the Customs Service.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs by their General Order 78 of 1902, had granted an annual
  1192
  allowance of £15 as compensation for retardation of promotion to officers who served less than twelve years in the grade of outdoor officer prior to promotion to the rank of second-class examining officer; and, if so, whether he can state upon what grounds a similar allowance of £15 has been refused to those officers who joined the Customs service between 1885 and 1888, all of whom served as outdoor officers and assistants for twelve years and upwards before being promoted to the rank of second-class examining officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The condition of the two classes of officers referred to by the hon. Member is dissimilar. Officers who were appointed between 1885 and 1888 were in a position to forecast their prospects better than the entrants during and prior to 1883, who could not have foreseen that their promotion might be retarded by the warehousing changes effected in 1882 and 1883.

  Irish Ancient Monuments—St. Mels Cathedral.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is now a prospect of the ancient ruins of St. Mels Cathedral at Ardagh being vested in the Board of Works for the purpose of protection under the Ancient Monuments Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member on July 18th, 1903, on this matter. The circumstances therein described remain unaltered.

  India—Case of Imperator v. A. C. Bolt.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether there will be placed before Parliament, at the earliest practicable date, a full report of the proceedings in the case Imperator v. A. C. Rolt, tried in the Calcutta High Court on 20th December, 1904, together with full particulars of the action taken in the early stages of the suit by the Collector of Purneah and the Commissioner of Bhagalpur
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am in communication with the Government of India with regard to this matter, and I do not at present see any sufficient reason for laying Papers regarding it before Parliament.

  Relief Works in County Galway.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number and character of the relief works now in operation in the Clifden and Oughterard Unions, county Galway; the

  Clifden Union.

  Number of Relief Works in Operation.

  Number of Workers Authorised.

  Supervisors.

  Paymasters.

  Gangers or Timekeepers.

  Number.

  Weekly Wages of Each.

  Number.

  Weekly Wages of Each.

  Number.

  Weekly Wages of Each.

  10

  157

  4

  £1

  4

  £1

  10s.

  10

  10s.

  The works which are at present being undertaken consist of road construction and repairs. The wages paid to labourers are at the rate of six shillings a week. The Local Government Board have been advised that the recipients of exceptional relief under Section 13 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, are not thereby disfranchised, but in order to remove any doubt on the subject provision will be made in the Seed and Distress Bill exempting such recipients from any electoral disability.

  Irish National Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that many of those Queen's scholars who were in training at the time of the abolition of the results system got notifications from the Pension Office to the effect that they were recognised as second-class teachers, and, as such, are subjected to the stoppage of this class for the Pension Fund; that they are now paid third-grade salary; that, in the year 1900, the words "Special
  number of men employed in each case, the number of supervisors, inspectors, gangmen, and others engaged, and the rate of wages paid to the labourers and the others; and whether the men relieved by these works are thereby disfranchised.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.)
  Distinction" were marked on the pass papers of those candidates who obtained sixty-five per cent. of answering; that these teachers are in first division of second class, and therefore rank higher than third grade; and whether the remuneration will be increased accordingly.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The system of promotion of teachers by examination and classification was abolished from the 1st April, 1900. But teachers already "classed" were allowed to retain their classification, and others who at the time were seeking promotion in classification either by undergoing a course of training or through efficient service extending over a number of years, were granted special consideration when the amounts of their consolidated salaries were being fixed. In some cases where the teachers had already qualified for promotion in classification on or before the 1st April, 1900,or were then completing service that would qualify them for higher classification, the promotions were granted

  1195
  subsequently by the Board, and the Pensions Office was duly advised. But it did not follow as a necessary consequence of such promotion in classification that the teachers concerned should get a corresponding promotion in gradation, classification and gradation being very different things. There are very many teachers in the service whose classification is higher than their gradation, and there is a considerable number whose gradation is higher than their classification. The remuneration of teachers under the present system of payments depends entirely on their "gradation," and though the classification of a teacher may be a not unimportant element in the determination of a teacher's gradation, it is only one of such elements.

  Teacher's Residence attached to St. James' National School at Athboy (County Meath).
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with the residence attached to St. James' Mixed National School, Athboy, county Meath, no outlet was provided in the Board of Works' plans for surface water, although the residence is surrounded by high ground; that, as a consequence, the foundations sank immediately after the residence was built, and the house had to be rebuilt at the expense of the manager; and whether, seeing that the manager was refused any aid by the Commissioners, although he offered to bear a reasonable proportion of the cost, and that this site has been condemned by the medical officer of health as insanitary from want of drainage, he

  1st October, 1903, to 31st December, 1903.

  1st October, 1904, to 31st December, 1904.

  Resignations of combatant officers

  363

  372

  Number of combatant officers who joined

  286

  244

  Total number of officers and men, all arms, returned as having "voluntarily quitted"

  23,290

  18,024

  Total number of officers and men, joined, whether as recruits or with previous service in Army or Auxiliary Forces

  12,775

  10,173

  will say what steps he means to take to have the site put into a sanitary condition.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) This Question is based on a misapprehension of the functions and responsibilities of the Board of Works in respect to the erection of teachers' residences out of moneys advanced by the Board. In such cases typical plans are supplied by the Board to borrowers, but the special plans to meet individual cases are prepared, not by the Board, but by the architects employed by the borrower. The borrower also provides the site, selects the contractor, and arranges for the supervision of the work. The responsibility for efficient work in connection with the erection of the residences rests entirely with the borrower. The maximum loan allowable under the regulations has been granted in the present instance, and it is not practicable to give further aid towards these houses.

  The Volunteer Force.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many resignations of officers and of non-commissioned officers and privates have been received from the Volunteer Force between October 1st, 1904, to December 31st, 1904; and how the numbers compare with those in the same period of the preceding year; and how many officers were appointed and how many recruits joined within the same time in each of the two years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The figures are as follow:—

  Army Recruiting and Pay.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the length of Colour service, Reserve service, and pay in the Regular Army in 1895; what have been the changes since in service, both Colour and Reserve, and pay; also the number of recruits enlisted each year since that date.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I cannot undertake within the limits of a reply to a Question to give the hon. Member the full information for which he asks. As regards the Colour and Reserve service, and the number of recruits enlisted, he will find full information in the General Annual Report of the British Army in Part III. Table 6, for the years up to 1902, and including nine months of 1903, and in the Annual Report of the Director of Recruiting and Organisation for 1903–4. The General Annual Report for 1904 will be very shortly published. As regards the pay, the figures for the infantry will doubtless serve the hon. Member's purpose, and are as follows:—The pay of a private of

  Officers.

  Non-commissioned Officers and Men.

  Total,

  1899

  2,924

  103,647

  106,571

  1900

  2,744

  98,130

  100,874

  1901

  3,033

  92,741

  95,774

  1902

  2,688

  102,845

  105,533

  1903

  2,919

  102,420

  105,339

  1904

  2,713

  90,909

  93,622

  1905

  2,577

  88,282

  90,859

  Schools of Instruction for Volunteer Officers.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state where schools of instruction for Volunteer officers are held, and the regulations and conditions of attendance attached to them.
  infantry of the Line in 1895 was:—Regimenta pay, 1s. a day; deferred pay, on completion of Colour service, £3 a year; good conduct pay, 1d. after two years, 2d. after six years; Reserve pay, 6d. a day. The following alterations have since been made:—From 1st April, 1898, messing allowance of 3d. a day was added, and a gratuity of £1 for each year's service substituted for the deferred pay of £3. From 1st April, 1902, kit allowance of 2d. a day was given to cover various stoppages, and men who after two years service extend their Colour service from three to eight years were granted service pay at rates varying from 4d. to 7d. a day. Good conduct pay was abolished. The actual payments of service pay began on 1st April, 1904.

  Strength of Militia.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the strength, excluding permanent staff, of officers and men, respectively, serving in the Militia at the commencement of the years 1899 to 1905 inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The figures are as follows:—
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The schools of instruction for Volunteer officers and the regulations governing attendance at them are laid down in the Volunteer Regulations. As regards infantry officers, the approved stations for the schools referred to in the regulations are London, Preston,

  1199
  Lichfield, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. The instructions for the courses for 1905 will be found in Army Orders for December, 1904.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Anchorages for Disused Ironclads in the Clyde.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty who was the official employed to report on the alternative anchorages for the disused ironclads recommended by the Clyde Yacht Clubs; and whether he will lay upon the Table particulars of the report which induced the Admiralty to retain the vessels in their present positions.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): The Admiralty has acted on the advice of its professional officers and is alone responsible. It is neither usual nor desirable to comply with the request contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: If it is necessary to have this "Rotten Row" why not have it at Felixstowe?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Non-effective War Ships.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Dockyard Expenses Account, 1903–4, to which reference is made in Return No. 74 of vessels struck off the effective list, is not yet issued; and will he state the number and names of the vessels in the above Return which would come under the heading, in former Dockyard Expenses Accounts, "ships unfit for service and ordered to be sold."
  MR. PRETYMAN: The Dockyard Expense Accounts, 1903–4, will be in the hands of hon. Members on Wednesday next. The number of vessels included in the Return which were classified in ormer Dockyard Expense Accounts (1902–3) as "unfit for service or ordered
  1200
  to be sold, &c.,"is nineteen, and their names are as follows:—Amphion, Melita, Peacock, Pheasant, Pigeon, Ringdove, Flamingo, Iron Duke, Emerald (old), Widgeon (old), Dapper, Forte, Hector, Raleigh, Boadicea, Active, Pigmy, Fancy, and Swinger. These vessels were included in the previous Dockyard Expense Accounts under the heading mentioned, but their classification has since been amended as shown in Return No. 74.
  MR. CROOKS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in order to provide work for Englishmen, the Admiralty will arrange to have these ships broken up in this country?
  MR. PRETYMAN: As far as possible that will be done.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Then the headings of these accounts are being entirely altered.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, in the manner shown in the Return.

  Sugar Convention—Russo-Grerman Treaty.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, under the new Russo-German Treaty, Russian sugar can be imported into Germany on paying a surtax of six francs the 100 kilos., and that surtax is sufficiently high to countervail the Russian bounty; that, under the same treaty, Russian sugar may be ground, coloured, repacked, and exported from Germany so long as the word Russia is placed on the packages; and, if so, whether it is necessary to put the word Russia on original packages, not repacked, on export from Germany; and, if not, what steps do the Government propose to take to prevent the importation of Russian sugar into the United Kingdom by way of Germany; whether the arrangements made between Russia and Germany have been agreed to by the British Government and by the Permanent Sugar Commission at Brussels; and, if not, whether they amount to a breach of the International Sugar Convention, which would justify the exclusion of German as well as Russian sugar from the United Kingdom.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: The statement in the first part of the Question is without foundation. As regards the second part of the Question, the treaty provision to which I suppose allusion is made is that whereby Germany agrees to adopt no restrictive measures with regard to the importation of Russian sugar destined for re-exportation or the operations to which such sugar is allowed to be subjected in German ports. All sugar imported into this country has to be accompanied by a certificate of origin showing inter alia the country of production and origin, and signed by the fiscal authority having jurisdiction at the place of production, despatch, or transformation of the sugar. I am not in a position to give an interpretation of the effect of the treaty arrangements between Russia and Germany. Should the Permanent Commission consider that any steps taken by one of the contracting States infringe the Convention they would no doubt report accordingly.
  MR. LOUGH: Is the import of Russian sugar for the purpose of re-exportation allowed into this country as well as Germany?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, it is not.

  Sugar Freights on German Railways
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that immediately before or just after the Brussels Sugar Convention came into operation the rates of freight on German State railways were materially reduced, in order to partially make up to the German sugar producers for the removal of the sugar bounties; does such reduction amount to an indirect export bounty; and, if so, whether, under such circumstances, he proposes to exclude German sugar from this country.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In the spring of 1904 the question of proposed reductions of sugar freights was considered by the Permanent Tariff Commission of the Prussian Railways, which reported against the proposal. Since then no change has been made.

  Higher Education of Nurses.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Board has received an application for a licence to incorporate a society for the higher education of nurses, from gentlemen unconnected with medicine or surgery; and, if so, do the Board still adhere to the view expressed in a letter written by the Board on August 6th, 1891, to Dr. Bedford Fenwick, in which it was seated that it appeared to the Board of Trade that they were not competent to determine the very important question connected with the establishment of a register of nurses, which should be settled before the register can be effectively established; and that, under the circumstances, the Board of Trade were unable to grant the desired licence to the Royal British Nurses' Association; and that the Board were convinced that full inquiry (by competent authorities) into all the facts and circumstances of the case, and into the objections that have been raised, should precede any further steps on the part of the Government; and whether, if any change has since taken place in the policy of the Board in dealing with the question of the registration of nurses, he can indicate the nature and grounds of such change.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An application has been received by the Board of Trade for a licence to incorporate under Section 23 of the Companies Act, 1867, without the word "limited," a society for the higher education of nurses. The proposed memorandum and articles of association which have been submitted to the Board of Trade are subscribed by seven gentlemen, none of whom are members of the medical or surgical profession, one of whom, however, is the Chairman of a London hospital. The Board of Trade propose to hear both the applicants and the objectors to the grant of a licence, and until after such hearing do not propose to come to any decision as to policy or otherwise.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has any change taken place since the decision of 1891, and if so, what?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think we consider ourselves bound by the decision of 1891.

  Increase of Conventual and Monastic Institutions in Great Britain.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the influx of conventual and monastic institutions from France; whether there is any official record of their numbers; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to secure their inspection.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I am aware that a considerable influx of these institutions has taken place, but there is no official record of their numbers. They are, of course, subject to the ordinary law of the land; and I am not aware that any special inspection is required.
  MR. SLOAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on what ground he bases his statement that there is no ground for special inspection?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I said that I am not aware that any special inspection is required. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that if these institutions require to be inspected they will be inspected under the ordinary law of the land.
  MR. SLOAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge that they are only religious institutions?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: May I ask whether conventual laundries are inspected under the ordinary law?
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the influx of Scotch candidates into Welsh constituencies?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Aliens in His Majesty's Prisons.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of aliens at present undergoing sentences in His Majesty's prisons in the United Kingdom;
  1204
  and how the figures compare with the four previous years.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The total number of convicted aliens received into prisons in England and Wales was, in the year 1899, 2,437; 1900, 2,761; 1901, 3,101; 1902, 3,845; 1903, 4,099. The figures for 1904 shall be sent to the hon. Member as soon as they are completed. To give the figures for a particular day would involve the collection of a special return, and they would be much less satisfactory, for purposes of comparison, than the total number received.
  MR. LOUGH: Does this increase approximate to the general increase of crime in this country?
  *MR. AKERS - DOUGLASasked for notice of that Question.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: Is it a fact there is a general increase of crime in this country?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Sale of Poisons.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce legislation this session to regulate the sale of poisons; and, in view of the deaths which have occurred through the taking of poisons by misadventure, notably a recent case in which a fetal dose of carbolic acid was administered to a patient under the impression that the bottle contained the prescribed medicine, will he take into consideration the advantage to be derived from a clause directing that all poisons shall be sold in bottles of a distinctive shape, so that the risk of bottles of poison being mistaken for medicine may be reduced to a minimum.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The Lord President of the Council has under his consideration the question of legislation on this subject, but I am not in a position to make any statement as to the introduction of a Bill. Under the Regulations made by the Pharmaceutical Society under Section 1 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and approved by the Privy

  1205
  Council, it is at the present time required that all liniments, embrocations, lotions, and liquid disinfectants containing poison must be sold in bottles rendered distinguishable by touch from ordinary medicine bottles, and that each such bottle must bear a label giving notice that its contents are not to be taken internally.

  Post Office Savings Bank—Registrar of Friendly Societies and Depositors.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Registrar of Friendly Societies is empowered to compel the attendance of depositors in the Savings Bank to appear before him and answer for the means by which such deposits were procured; and further, seeing that this practice may entail serious expense and very often inconvenience on depositors, will he take steps to have this alleged grievance removed.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies is not under my control; and it is not, therefore, within my province to reply to the hon. Member's Question. I may say, however, that I am not aware of any suggestion for a cheaper or more convenient method of settling disputes between Savings Bank authorities and depositors than that at present in force.

  Post Office Savings Bank—Depositors' Accounts.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General can ho say under what statutory authority the Registrar of Friendly Societies is empowered to inspect the accounts of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank; under what conditions is this inspection made, and are the whole of the accounts of Savings Bank depositors open to this inspection; are there any other authorities or persons who are allowed to inspect Savings Bank deposit accounts; and, if so, who are they; and can he assure the House that in future these accounts will be regarded as secret and confidential, and will not be permitted by him to be inspected by any other person than the depositor; or, in the alternative, will he undertake that they shall be open to inspection
  1206
  by all creditors of the depositor, or other persons having pecuniary interest in the inspection.
  LOUD STANLEY: Section 15 of the Savings Bank Act of 1844, which defines the powers with reference to Post Office Savings Bank matters which are now vested in the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, authorises the inspection of any book or books relating to the matters in dispute. With the exception of the Assistant Registrars in Edinburgh and Dublin, who act on behalf of the Chief Registrar, no other authorities or persons are allowed to inspect Savings Bank deposit accounts, unless under the order of the Judge of some competent Court. The statutory obligation to treat depositors' accounts as secret and confidential will be carefully observed in future, as it is now, and as it has been in the past. The hon. Member's alternative suggestion is incompatible with the observance of this obligation, and I do not propose to adopt it.

  The Postmaster-General and the Bradford Committee's Report.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Postmaster-General in 1903 appointed a Committee, presided over by Sir E. Bradford, to investigate the question of wages amongst certain classes of postal workers, that an assurance was given that the composition of the Committee would command the confidence of the House as well as the general public, that the staff were asked in the official circular to give evidence before it, and that nearly two years have transpired since the original promise of the formation of the Committee was announced, he will, in view of the condition of unrest among the postal and telegraph staffs, and in the interest of the efficiency of the service, declare his intention of adopting, as dating from May. 1904, the whole of the remedial recommendations of the Bradford Committee.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. I have already announced publicly that I am not prepared to take the course suggested by the hon. Member; but I propose shortly to announce the changes in wages

  1207
  which I find to be justified. Provision is made for these changes in the Estimates for the coming financial year.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the noble Lord aware that the seething discontent in the service is now aggravated by his announced intention to brush aside the Bradford Report? Can he not pledge himself to adopt that Report?
  LORD STANLEY: No, I shall bring forward the scheme I feel justified in proposing.
  SIR ALBERT BOLLIT: But will the noble Lord have regard to the recommendations of, and views expressed by, the Bradford Committee.
  LORD STANLEY: No, I propose to bring out the scheme I think most desirable.

  Dingwall Post Office.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the accommodation afforded at the Dingwall Post Office is altogether inadequate for the increasing postal and telegraph business; and will he consider the expediency of making arrangements for more commodious premises.
  LORD STANLEY: There is no doubt that, although the accommodation for the public in the Dingwall Post Office is fairly good, the rest of the accommodation is rather cramped. I shall be glad to consider any offer of a suitable building or site for an enlarged office.

  Inverpolly (Ross shire) Letter Delivery.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether arrangements can be made for the delivery of letters in the township of Inverpolly, near Ullapool, Ross-shire.
  LORD STANLEY: There is already a delivery at Inverpolly Lodge, but I find that at a shepard's cottage three miles away no delivery is at present afforde. The amount of correspondence for this cottage is very small indeed, and as the cost of servicing it would be 1s.6d. on each occasion, I should not be justified
  1208
  in sending the postman there every time a letter arrived. If, however, a delivery once a fortnight would be acceptable, I will give instructions for such a service to be afforded.

  Girls Public Day School Company.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the net profits of the Girls Public Day School Company for 1904 was £9,327 or over 7 per cent, on the capital, and that of this profit £4,200 was received from Imperial taxation, out of grants from the Education Department; and whether, seeing that he stated on the 26th July, 1904, that these grants, would be discontinued after July, 1904, he is aware that the fees of the pupils in those schools average £15 a year per pupil; and whether, if these grants are to be continued to pay dividends on. educational joint stock companies, they are to be given also to all other private adventure schools for the children of well-to-do parents.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM AN.SOX, Oxford University): As regards the first part of the Question, I may remind the hon. Member that by their articles of association the Girls Public Day School Company are not allowed to pay a dividend of more than 4 per cent. All profits beyond this amount go for educational purposes. As regards the second part of the Question, I can assure the hon. Member that no grants will under any circumstances be paid after the end of the current educational year to the schools conducted by this company or any other similar body, unless they can so alter their constitution as to come within the present requirements of the Board.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Is it not the fact that although they only paid 4per cent dividend the company earned 7 per cent.?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: That may be so; but, if so, the rest went to educational purposes.

  Fees and Restriction of Free Places in Non-Elementary Schools.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether representations from local authorities for education against the Board's requirement as to fees and restriction of free places in schools for other than elementary education, provided or aided by a local authority, have been received by the Board; and, if so, in how many cases.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Representations have been received by the Board from various local education authorities, but I am afraid I cannot state the number.

  Island of Lewis Line Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the quantity of line-caught fish landed in the Island of Lewis by Lewis fishing boats for the years 1901, 1902, 1903, and 1904.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSUX, Glasgow, Bridgton): The estimated quantities of line-caught fish landed on the Island of Lewis were:—In 1901, 63,895 cwts.; in 1902, 42,669 cwts.; in 1903, 36,067 cwts.; in 1904, 64,192 cwts.

  Island of Lewis Fishermen and the Mansfield Commission.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that at a recent meeting of fishermen at Portnaguran, Island of Lewis, disappointment was expressed that the scope of the inquiry of the Mansfield Commission was not extended to the Island of Lewis, in view of the depletion in the line-fishing industry in that island; and will he state whether the Secretary for Scotland can see his way to receive a deputation from the island consisting of the Secretary to the Lewis and Harris Fishermen's Association, and other representative fishermen, in order that the difficulties under which the fishermen labour may be personally placed before him.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The Secretary for Scotland does not consider that it would serve any useful purpose to receive
  1210
  the proposed deputation. For his reasons for arriving at this conclusion I may refer the hon. Member to a letter on this subject addressed to him on February 15th.

  Rating of Ecclesiastical Buildings in Scotland.
  MR. CATHCART WASOX: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he is aware that churches which may have been occasionally used for temperance meetings, lectures, and objects connected with Christianity have been called upon to pay rates, and that exceptions have been made in certain cases in respect of parish churches; and, if so, whether, in remote districts where no other building is available for such meetings, the old practice will be reverted to.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The matter referred to by the hon. Member is governed by the Statute 37 and 38 Vic. c. 20. An important decision was given by the Court of Session in January, 1901, in a sense adverse to exemption in the particular case before it (The Trustees of United Free Church v. Parish Council Edinburgh 3 Fraser 414). The Secretary for Scotland is unable to take any action, the question being one which must be governed by the decision of the Courts. I am not aware of the exceptions referred to. Details as to the exemptions allowed are given in the Local Government Board's circular of 28th October, 1896.

  Belfast Licensed Victualler's Valuation Appeal.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that by a recent decision in the Court of Appeal in Ireland, in the case of W. J. Armstrong, Shankhill Road, Belfast, with regard to the valuation of his licensed premises by the Commissioners of Valuation, the principle is laid down that licensed public-houses in Ireland may be valued in regard to their licences; and, if so, whether, seeing that the Irish practice is recognised in the Inland Revenue Act of 1880, which was passed for Excise purposes, and that the effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal would be that a much heavier burden would be laid on the licensed traders of

  1211
  Belfast, he will, in view of the disparity of the taxation and the taxable capacity of England and Ireland, introduce legislation to restore the Irish practice in regard to publicans' licences.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I cannot admit the construction put by the hon. Member on the Inland Revenue Act of 1880. The chief benefit of the increase in rating upheld by the judgment of the Court of Appeal will be conferred on the general body of the ratepayers of Belfast. The practice referred to is identical with that prevailing in England. There is no intention to introduce legislation on the subject.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Is it not the fact that the ratepayers of Belfast in the city council protested against this; was not a Select Committee appointed to deal with the matter, and did it not object to the system on which the valuation has been based; and will its recommendations be carried into effect?
  MR. ATKINSON'S: reply was inaudible.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: The Select Committee in its Report condemned——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot make a statement.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Well, do the Government intend to carry out the recommendations of the Committee?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have said there is no intention to introduce legislation.
  MR. CLANCY: Was Ireland not exceptionally treated by the Act of 1880 by allowing 20 per cent, to be added to the valuation in consequence of the lower valuation under the Act of 1852?
  MR. ATKINSON: That was not the question discussed in the Court of Appeal.
  MR. CLANCY: pressed for a more definite Answer, but Mr. SPEAKER directed that notice must be given of any further Questions.

  The Administration of the Land Act by the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Government or the Lord-Lieutenant has issued any regulations, directions, or instructions, in correspondence or otherwise, to the Estates Commissioners causing an alteration in any way of their policy or administration of the Land Act of 1903 in respect to evicted tenants, or the sale of estates, or any other matter connected with their administration of the Act; and, if so, whether these regulations, directions, or instructions will be laid on the Table of the House in accordance with the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Dover on behalf of the Government on July 1st, 1903.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the confidential communications in relation to the reinstatement of evicted tenants, which have been addressed to the Estates Commissioners by the Irish Government, were of such a character as to control in any way the discretion of the Estates Commissioners in dealing with carrying out the work of reinstatement.
  MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend the Member for Dover stated on February 20th†that no regulations of the nature contemplated by Section 23, Subsection 8, of the Act of 1903 had yet been made. There has been no change in the position in this respect since that date. Communications have passed between my right hon. friend and the Commissioners, but these are Departmental and of a confidential character. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone the last query till my right hon. friend the new Chief Secretary has had an opportunity of considering the whole matter.

  County and District Council—Elections in Ireland.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for
  † See (4) Dubates, exli., 609.

  1213
  Ireland whether county councillors, district councillors, or Poor Law guardians holding uncontested seats may act as presiding officers at the forthcoming election of county and district councillors in Ireland.
  MR. ATKINSON: This is an abstract question upon which I must respectfully decline to express an opinion.

  Construction of Piers in County Mayo.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state the reason for the delay in proceeding with the construction of the proposed new piers at Belmullet, Mallaranny, and Innishlyre, county Mayo; and, if it is still proposed to go on with these works, when a beginning will be made.
  MR. ATKINSON: Negotiations are still in progress between the Government and the Midland Great Western Railway Company in reference to the scheme of which the construction of marine works in the county Mayo formed a part. Until these negotiations have been brought to a conclusion I cannot make any further statement in the matter.

  Sales to Urban Tenants in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the town of Boyle, situate on the King-Harman Estate, recently sold under the Land Act of 1903, has been included in the general terms of sale to the tenants, both urban and rural, and that these terms have been ratified by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will he state what action will be taken in regard to the case of Ballymote, on the Gore Booth Estate, similar in all respects to that of Boyle.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. I beg to refer to my reply to the Questions of the hon. Member for North Roscommon on the 7th instant,† in which the facts were fully set forth. On the 9th instant.‡ I informed the hon. Member that the town of Ballymote was expressly excluded from the originating
  † See page 583.
  ‡ See page 93I.
  1214
  application lodged in the case of the Gore Booth Estate.

  Sligo and the Marine Works Act.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, will he explain why Sligo, although a maritime county, has hitherto received no grant under the Marine Works Act, or from any other fund; whether he is aware that the necessity for the opening of marine and other works of public utility has been repeatedly urged on the Government by the county council and other local public bodies; and whether, seeing that distress exists in many portions of the county, the Government will now consent to the giving of a grant towards the drainage of the Owenmore, and the erection of piers in Sligo.
  MR. ATKINSON: The money provided by the Marine Works Act was allocated to works, the selection of which was made according to their relative importance. For this reason it was not found practicable to expend any portion of the money in Sligo. But the hon. Member is in error in stating that no grants have been made to the county from other funds. Free grants amounting to £18,814 have been expended in marine works in this county under the 43 Vic. cap. 14 and the 46 & 47 Vic. cap. 26. In addition, the greater part of the free grant of over £88,000 on the Swinford-Collooney Railway was expended in Sligo. There are no funds at the disposal of Government for undertaking the works mentioned at the end of the Question. The Congested Districts Board, however, has undertaken to construct a small pier at Knocklane at a cost of £300, and the county council have agreed to contribute the sum of £100 towards the work.

  Case of H. J. Livingstone, of Newry.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state if H. J. Livingstone, late of Newry, absconded before, or if he absconded after, the issue of the warrant for his arrest.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg also to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state under what statute the Inspector-General of the

  1215
  Royal Irish Constabulary was empowered to forbid the execution of the warrant issued by a resident magistrate in public Court, for the arrest of H. J. Livingstone, of Newry; whether he can state the precedents, if any, for such a course; and whether he can state what official or what member of the Government directed the Inspector-General not to execute the warrant.
  MR. ATKINSON: Livingstone had, before the warrant issued, left his usual place of abode in Newry, and it is believed had succeeded in escaping from this kingdom. I have already informed the hon. Member that no direction was given relative to the execution in this country of the warrant against Livingstone. Livingstone had absconded before any direction was asked for, and the direction given had reference solely to the steps necessary to be taken to have him arrested abroad and brought back to this country. The charge made in general terms was one for which the accused person could not be prosecuted under the 24 & 25 Viet, c. 96 s. 80, without the sanction of the Attorney-General. Every effort was made to obtain evidence to sustain the charge, and as sufficient evidence was not forthcoming a direction was in the usual course given by the Irish Executive to the Inspector-General not to take any steps, which would necessarily have been futile, to have Livingstone arrested abroad. I decline to give a list of such cases, which are of frequent occurrence, and I also decline to state the names of the officials before whom the matter came, or by whom the directions were given.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman himself directed the Inspector-General with regard to this matter?
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member must understand nothing of the kind.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Did Livingstone abscond before the warrant was issued?
  MR. ATKINSON: He had left the place before the information was sworn on which the warrant was granted.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Then on what authority did the right hon. Gentleman the other day make the misleading statement that he absconded after the warrant was issued. I press for an Answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has declined to answer.
  MR. MACVEAGH: No, he declined to give me a list of cases.
  MR. ATKINSON; I am not aware that the hon. Member's interpretation of my former Answer is the right one.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Look at Hansard.
  MR. ATKINSON: At any rate, I have now more precise information.

  Segrave Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the position of the tenants on the Segrave Estate, at Kilconnell, country Galway, consisting of forty-seven families living on less than 500 acres of land; whether he is aware that there were 400 acres of grazing land on this estate let to four grazing tenants, and that because the agricultural tenants refused to purchase without having these 400 acres divided amongst them, an arrangement has now been made by the agent to create new tenancies in these farms for the purpose of defeating the chances of these forty-seven tenants to get the 400 acres divided amongst them; and, if so, whether he will call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this case, with a view to having these holdings inspected before any agreements for sale are sanctioned.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Commissioners have received a memorial from the tenants on this estate relative to the grass lands referred to. No proceedings, however, have yet been instituted before the Commissioners by the owner. In the event of such proceedings they will consider the question of the grass lands.

  Alleged Outrage at Woodville.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for

  1217
  Ireland if he will state if he has any official reports in regard to an alleged outrage at the residence of Mr. Persse, Woodville, county Galway; and, if so, whether he will state their purport.
  MR. ATKINSON: The occurrence referred to consists in this, that the fanlight over the door of Mr. Persse's residence was broken, it is believed, by a blow from a stone and not by a shot from a firearm. The matter has received and will continue to receive the close attention of the police, but for the reason given by me on Thursday last† I must decline to disclose the contents of their reports, which are confidential documents.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then the two columns of sensational journalism had no foundation in fact?
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Good old Globe.

  Rent Reductions in Clare.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by representative bodies in county Clare at the reductions of 5 pet cent, in West Clare and 10 per cent. in East Clare given by the Sub-Commission at the last hearing of fair-rent applications; will he state what previous knowledge or experience had this gentleman who inspected these lands of Clare farming or the nature of Clare land and the climatic conditions of that county; and whether, in view of these expressions of want of confidence in the Lay Sub-Commissioner, he will represent to the Land Commission the advisability of transferring the services of this gentleman to a part of the country with which he has had some previous acquaintance.
  MR. ATKINSON: Representations have been made to the effect mentioned in the first part of the Question. The qualifications of Mr. Esmonde, the Lay Assistant Commissioner referred to, are set forth in Parliamentary Paper, No. 151, of the session of 1902. From his appointment in June, 1899, to March, 1901, Mr. Esmonde was employed in the counties
  † See page 933
  1218
  of Monaghan and Fermanagh; from March, 1901, to April, 1902, in the county of Cavan; from April, 1902, to September, 1904, in the counties of Cork and Kerry, and since the latter date in Clare. The Commissioners have every confidence in the ability and impartiality of Mr. Esmonde.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Had Mr. Esmonde before his appointment any practical knowledge of county Clare land.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Parliamentary Papers give his qualifications.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I have seen them. He had no practical knowledge.

  Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he intends to introduce the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill during the present session; and, if so, what period of the session it will be brought in.
  MR. ATKINSON: I should hope during the course of this week.

  Typhoid Fever at Derrygonnelly.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will say what steps, if any, the Local Government Board have taken to insist upon the local authority dealing with the insanitary, condition of the village of Derry-gonnelly, county Fermanagh; if he is aware that at present an outbreak of typhoid fever exists, and that one death at least has taken place therefrom; and if he will state what immediate action the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter.
  MR. ATKINSON: It is the fact that five cases of enteric fever have occurred in this village and that one of the patien s has died. A complaint has been made to the Local Government Board under the 15th Section of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, that the sanitary authority has made default in the performance of its duty. The Board have accordingly directed a local inquiry to be held and the rural district council has been so informed.

  Horse Disease at Waterford.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if the Government intend compensating owners for the loss sustained by them by the death or the destruction, by the directions of the veterinary authorities, of horses suffering from epizootic lymphangitis, in the Waterford district, owing to the fact that the disease was introduced by artillery horses sent from South Africa to Waterford.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Department, in pursuance of the powers conferred upon them by Section 19 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, propose to make an Order providing for the slaughter of horses in the county Waterford suffering from the disease mentioned, and for the payment of compensation out of the rates to the owner. One-half of the amount of such compensation will, under Section 72 of the Act, be repaid to the local authority from the General Cattle Diseases Fund.

  Belturbet Postal Service.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what would be the cost of despatching a post on the 9.5 or 9.45 a.m. train from Belturbet, which connects locally and with the English mail; and also to state the weekly wage paid to the messengers in the district between Belturbet and Mill-town for the six-day service.
  LORD STANLEY: The cost of a mail service from Belturbet to Cavan by the 9.5 a.m. or 9.45 a.m. train would be about £6 or £8 a year, but the correspondence which would be included in such a despatch would be trifling in amount. The postman who works between Belturbet and Milltown receives wages of 20s. a week. He, however, performs certain duties in the town of Belturbet in addition to the delivery to Miltown.

  Belfast Mail Service.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can now say to what extent he proposes to give greater facilities in the mail service between Belfast and London.
  LORD STANLEY: I have not yet been able to arrive at a decision on this subject. The negotiations with the various railway companies are proceeding and there shall be no loss of time in dealing with the matter.
  MR. SLOAN: Has the noble Lord any idea when a settlement may be expected?
  LORD STANLEY: No, the negotiations are with railway companies, and I have no idea when they will conclude.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the noble Lord take into consideration the claims of other parts of Ulster in this matter?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, I am doing so.

  Letters Addressed in the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the letter sent by Mr. Thomas Murphy was addressed to Bean in Ghabhraim, Teac-osda Priomhaideach, Radharc an Chuain, Kilronan, Aran Island, Galway; and can he state what is the error alleged to be found in this address which caused a delay of four days in the delivery of the letter. The hon. Member, on putting the Question, said he regretted the amount of space which the address occupied on the Notice Paper. It was due to the use of ordinary instead of Irish characters.
  LORD STANLEY: I have not seen the letter to which the hon. Member refers; but if I had seen it I fear that I should be in no better position for answering him, for I understand that the address, which I do not venture to pronounce, was written in Irish characters and not in the Roman characters which the hon. Member is good enough to use in his printed Question.
  MR. BOLAND: If I supply the actual envelope containing the address, will the right hon. Gentleman have it submitted to a competent Irish authority to decide the question?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
  MR. BOLAND: I will put down another Question.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: Is it a fact that the addressee was unable to read this address?
  LORD STANLEY: It is more than likely.

  Clerical Duties in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General will be state what system is adopted when selecting men for clerical duties in the Post Office, Dublin; is he aware that some of those employed upon writing duties in the Controller's Office and in the sorting office have but a few years service, and took comparatively low places in the entrance examinations; can he state what special qualifications these men possess; and, seeing that clerical work is a necessary qualification for promotion, and that men have been debarred from promotion because they did not qualify in clerical duties which they were not allowed to perform, will he see that every officer is afforded an opportunity of performing writing duties.
  LORD STANLEY: The officers are selected on the reports of their superior officers as to their intelligence, zeal, and general good conduct, and not with regard to the place they obtained in their entrance examination. Two or three of the officers employed on writing duties are comparatively junior and they are employed on duties of a routine and minor character. All that is possible is done to give officers who are in any way fit for promotion opportunities of qualifying, but it would not be possible to test all the officers in the sorting office on writing duties. Experience in such duties is not an essential qualification for promotion.

  Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of his refusal to appoint a Select Committee to enquire into the present condition of the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund and of the discontent of the teachers in connection with this matter, he will allow an actuary
  1222
  nominated by the teachers to be present at, and take part in, the quinquennial investigation to be held this year; and can he say when the investigation will be held.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by employing more than one actuary, but care will be taken to select an actuary of independent position and high attainments.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: But will the Government allow an actuary to be nominated by the teachers?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I do not think it necessary.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: Will you consider the point?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I do not think it would lead to any satisfactory result.
  MR. FLYNN: Is not the present condition of the fund entirely due to Treasure neglect?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Report of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under Section 23, Sub-section 14, of the Irish Land Act, 1903, instructions have been given to the Estates Commissioners under that Act to make one of the periodical Reports authorised by the section; and, if so, when these instructions were given; and if the form of the Report was prescribed.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Yes, Sir; the form of the Report has been prescribed by the Treasury and was communicated to the Irish Government on February 28th, 1905.

  Use of Dredger for Galway Harbour.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now say when the Board of Works' dredger will be available for

  1223
  loan or hire to the Galway Harbour Commissioners.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on March 9th.* It is not yet possible to say when the dredger will be available.

  Galway Docks—Lighting and Dredging.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the nature of the assurances and promises made to the deputation which some months ago waited upon the Board of Works to make representations on the subject of the lighting of the docks at Galway and the need for the loan of a dredger.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No promises nor assurances of any kind were given. The deputation was informed that the dredger was bespoken for the summer of 1905.

  Private Members' Bills.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will grant facilities for the early consideration of the Trawlers Certificates Suspension Bill.
  The following Questions were put at the same time—
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is prepared to give facilities for a Bill to extend the Crofters Act, 1886, to Buteshire.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the feeling aroused by the operation of foreign trawlers in areas on the coast of Scotland in which trawling is prohibited, he will afford facilities for the discussion of the Foreign Trawlers Regulation Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J.
  BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In the present state of business it is not possible to undertake to give special facilities for
  * See page 937.
  1224
  either of the measures referred to in these Questions.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other day the Lord-Advocate held out hopes that a Trawling Bill would be dealt with?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not, but if it be the fact it does not alter the condition of public business.

  Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: On behalf of my right hon. friend the Member for Stirling Burghs, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to explain the relations between Sir Antony MacDonnell and His Majesty's Ministers, he will lay upon the Table further Papers bearing on the matter; and, in particular, any statement submitted by Sir Antony MacDonnell to his official superiors, either before or after his censure by the Cabinet.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on the appointment of a new Chief Secretary, the position of Sir Antony MacDonnell and the conditions of his office will be the same as those set out in the correspondence disclosed to the House by the late Chief Secretary on Wednesday, February 22nd, last.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to lay no Papers on the Table. As regards the second Question, the tenure of the present Under-Secretary for Ireland, as that of all his predecessors, and as that of all his successors, will be that of an ordinary Civil servant.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to state whether, when the Cabinet censured Sir Antony MacDonnell, each member was aware of the correspondence which had passed between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I decline to answer any Question of that character; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that to the best of my belief the really relevant facts of this case were fully before the Cabinet.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Are we to understand that the position of Sir Antony MacDonnell is not what it was when the right hon. Member for Dover offered, and the Prime Minister sanctioned, the appointment, and that he now serves on new terms? What are these terms?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have always told the House, what I believe is the fact, that the terms of the appointment have always been those of an ordinary Civil servant.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The late Chief Secretary expressed the opinion that they were extra and extraordinary terms connected with the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell. I should like to know whether these extraordinary and unusual terms are now abrogated, and, if so, whether Sir Antony MacDonnell accepts that abrogation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not accept that interpretation of my right hon. friend's statement. It is perfectly true that in the letters read to the House there was a mention, for instance, of the maintenance of law and order and the passing of a Land Bill. ["University education and co-ordination."] Yes. there were two or three questions, I am not quite, sure what they were; and it is also true that it has not been usual, no doubt, for an Under-Secretary appointed in the ordinary way to discuss before his appointment questions affecting policy. Nevertheless, when an Under-Secretary is brought in from the outside, like Sir Redvers Buller or Sir Robert Hamilton, there may properly be discussion between the Under-Secretary and the Chief Secretary upon matters of policy. That, however, does not affect the fact that the Under-Secretary accepts and holds office on the ordinary tenure of an ordinary Civil servant.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Did not the right hon. Member for Dover state that it would be impossible to expect a man of Sir Antony MacDonnell's position to take office on the ordinary terms of a Civil servant; and did he not state specifically that he accepted him as a colleague.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman in what respect there was a difference. It was not a difference which affected his tenure as a Civil servant. It was a difference which is to be found in the case of every distinguished Civil servant brought in from the outside to fill an office in a branch of the service of which he has not been a member before. It is not my business to interpret other people's language, but if a Secretary of State refers to an Under-Secretary as his colleague that does not imply that they are on an equality.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear this matter up by answering this Question: Has there been any change in the position of Sir Antony MacDonnell owing to recent events?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by change. He holds under the tenure I have described. Of course there has been a change. The Land Act, for instance, has been passed.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am sorry to press this matter, but I should like to ask whether, in the letter which has been quoted from Sir Antony MacDonnell, the phrase was used that mere secretarial criticism would be altogether below what his position required. Has any change been made in the conditions on which he holds office in that respect?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true that Sir Antony MacDonnell most naturally stated that mere secretarial criticism was not work he cared to undertake, having, as he had, the choice of joining the Indian Council. Nor is it the work commonly given to distinguished Under-Secretaries. They are not, as a rule, except through some disagreement with their chief, confined, and they ought not to be confined, merely to secretarial work.
  MR. SLOAN: Does the Under-Secretary still hold the same right to represent the Irish Executive on special missions to the North on the question of higher education?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He has no right except the rights he derives from his chief.
  MR. DALZIEL: Is there any foundation for the report that the Government have decided that the Under-Secretary shall be dismissed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  The Colonial Conference and the Fiscal Question.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Colonial Conference which meets in 1906 taking place before a general election, the question of Imperial unity on the basis of preferential duties on colonial produce will be submitted to that Conference.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that we have over and over again stated that in the course of this Parliament we propose to take no steps with regard to fiscal reform.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the British representatives at the Colonial Conference to be held in 1906 will have power, subject to the subsequent approval of this House, to negotiate a scheme of preferential trading with the Colonies on the basis of the taxation of food and raw material.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I answered that Question when I replied to the hon. Member for Kincardineshire.
  MR. SOARES: Do I understand they will not have the power?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are not dealing with that question.
  MR. BRYCE: I should like to clear this matter up. The right hon. Gentleman's statement has been that he will make no proposal in Parliament, but the question now asked refers to action taken outside of Parliament—in the Colonial Conference.
  MR. A. T. BALFOUR: I have over and over again said that in the course of
  1228
  the present Parliament we do not propose to deal with the fiscal problem.
  MR. CROMBIE: Will the instructions to the Conference be given by Parliament or the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman had better wait till the date of the meeting of the Conference is rather nearer.

  High Fees and Restriction of Free Places in Non-Elementary Schools.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that among local authorities and persons concerned with public education, dissatisfaction is felt with certain regulations of the Board of Education which prescribe high fees and restrict free places at schools which provide education other than elementary; and whether he will appoint an early day for the discussion of the Education Votes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that this subject is being considered by the Board of Education, and that the views of that Board are set out in a letter to the Association of Education Committees published so recently as March 2nd. The general effect is that the Board do not intend to apply a hard and fast rule, but all cases will be considered, with regard to local conditions and their requirements modified accordingly. I cannot fix any special date for the Education Vote, but probably an opportunity will be found on the Vote on Account.

  Navy Estimates.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the important issues raised in connection with the Navy by Part II. of the Return granted to the hon. Member for Dundee, he can see his way to postpone further discussion of the Estimates until this portion is issued.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Every effort has been made to supply this information, and I would like to point out that the fact that the Return is not ready does not throw any obstacle in the way of the proper discussion of the Navy Votes, as later on the House will have an opportunity of dealing with details.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Not on the elimination policy. How can We discuss that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put down that Question I will consider it in consultation with the representatives of the Admiralty in this House.

  STARRED QUESTIONS UNANSWERED.
  It being now five minutes to three o'clock thirty-six starred Questions to various Ministers remained unanswered.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give fuller information as to the business of this week, and can he say when the Army Estimates will be in our hands?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Army Estimates will be in the hands of Members to-night. I propose to take Supplementary Estimates to-morrow, and probably also on Wednesday.

  STORE ACCOUNTS.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a notice of Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for the St. George's Division of the Tower Hamlets in reference to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the wastage of supplies in South Africa and elsewhere, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will grant early facilities for the discussion of the Report and Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have regretfully had to say more than once, in the present state of public business it is impossible for me to grant the facilities asked for.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask if a day can be given for the consideration of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would be quite ready to allocate one of the Supply days if that would meet the view of the House.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law in relation to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children." [Sale of Intoxicants to Children Bill [Lords.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. SOARES,Member for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire, rose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "The appointment to the important office of President of the Board of Trade of a person not being a Member of this House;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen—
  The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting, this day.

NEW BILLS.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  "To amend the Agricultural Holdings Acts, and to make other provisions as to the tenure of agricultural land," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Mr. Price, Mr. Harold Reckitt, Mr. Brynmor Jones, and Mr. Lambert; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 5th, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
  TOWN HOLDINGS BILL.
  "To give compensation to occupying Tenants of Town Holdings for beneficial improvements," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Sir Walter Foster, Sir John Brunner. Mr. Emmott, Mr. Kearley, and Sir James Woodhouse; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 5th, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

  SUPPLY [1ST ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on March 31st, 1906, including 20,211 Royal Marines."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid they were entitled on that Vote to discuss the whole naval policy for the current year. That policy was one of unusual importance, and after the Answer given him by the First Lord of the Treasury that afternoon he need not offer any excuse for calling attention to the entirely unsatisfactory conditions under which they were invited to approach the debate. In the forefront of these Estimates stood a new proposal with reference to the distribution and mobilisation of the Fleet, and in the forefront of that in turn was to be found a sweeping proposal to throw out of the Navy List, as the Prime Minister had stated, some 130 vessels. These were to be abolished or removed. As soon as he found that to be the intention of the Government he put down early in the session a Motion for two Returns. In the first he asked for a list of the vessels to be struck out, showing their names, date of building, cost of repairs, and the cost of the last substantial repairs; and in the second he asked to be supplied with the number of cruisers which had not been struck off. He admitted that the second Return had been fully given, but he did wish to point out that there were sixteen vessels the names of which appeared on both lists. He had honestly tried to work out the information from the material given them, but he had been unsuccessful; and there was ample justification for their insisting on further information before the debate was proceeded with. For instance, he found in the list of vessels struck off the "Pallas," completed in 1891, of 7,500 h.p., 19½1 knots, cost
  1232
  £151,000; yet in the Estimates for this year there was a proposal to spend a sum of nearly £8,000 on her for repairs. On another vessel of the same class, built in 1892, and costing £160,000, it was proposed to spend this year £8,450. Then in regard to two other vessels, the "Medea" and the "Medusa," both of which originally cost £164,000, having been completed in the year 1889, only two years ago the sums of £75,000 and £70,000 were spent respectively on them, and yet these vessels were to be relegated to the llama class, from which nothing more was to be expected. He was not now challenging the policy of the Government, but he was submitting that the Committee could not proceed to consider these Votes, and to pronounce any judgment upon them unless it had before it all the information relating to these ships. He therefore proposed to move formally, so as to give the Secretary to the Admiralty an opportunity to explain, to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge)said he thought the hon. Gentleman had taken a line of argument which rather defeated his own object. He had stated certain specific facts in regard to ships, and he had indicated that those ships were on the Navy Estimates for the present year, and, therefore, it was quite evident that in regard to those particular matters and the expenditure on these individual ships there would be ample opportunity of discussion.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I was not referring to this year, I was referring to the year just completed.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he had certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to refer to repairs to be carried out in the coming year, but he would like to point out to him that the whole policy of the Government could bediscussed on Vote 12. He would further put it to him on higher ground, and he would submit

  1233
  to the Committee that the question of expenditure in past years on individual ships really did not affect the main question of the policy which the Committee had under discussion. His view was that this was a great question of policy—a policy of which there were three parts, the redistribution of the Fleet, the nucleus of the crews, and the, laying-up of particular ships. The Committee had information on all these points. It had been given the actual names of the ships which were to be laid up, and the only point which remained open and on which the House had not information was the actual amount of money which had been spent in past years on these particular vessels. But on that, surely, did not depend the question whether the policy they were pursuing was right or wrong, and even if hon. Members opposite were able to prove entirely to their own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Committee that more money had been spent upon these ships in past years than was necessary, he did not think it would alter their policy, or could convince them that it was an undesirable one. Each one of the three branches of the policy to which he had referred was interdependent, and he asserted that it was impossible to carry out their plans unless the three parts were carried out together. Therefore, the whole thing narrowed itself down to this, could the hon. Member succeed in proving that the Admiralty in past years had not sufficiently anticipated the policy which was now being adopted, could he prove that money had been wasted? That surely was the whole object in view. [Cries of "No, only one object."] That, at any rate to his mind, was the issue, and he submitted that in order to prove that they would have to show that the expenditure was unnecessary, not merely under the circumstances which existed at the time the money was spent, but also under the circumstances as they existed to-day. He maintained that the question of expenditure upon particular vessels, even if the figures asked for in the Return were forthcoming, would not affect the opinion of the Committee or of the hon. Member upon the general question of the policy now proposed.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: A full examination of the complete Returns would affect and determine my opinion.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: Then we are to take it that the question whether more or less money was spent upon a particular ship will affect the opinion of the hon. Gentleman as to the present policy of the Government?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am asking for full particulars.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he was afraid that some hon. Members always attached more value to the lost sheep than to the ninety-nine that remained in the fold, and, therefore, they seemed to attach more importance to information which it had been found impossible to give than to that which had been given. He submitted that the information before the Committee, which gave them the names of all the ships, was sufficient to meet the case, especially as details of their original cost were easily available. He would like to explain that a large proportion of the ships now struck off had not for a long time been in the fighting line. Many of them had been withdrawn for some time, and had not been regarded as fighting ships, so that the number actually withdrawn from the fighting line was not so large as had been stated. Taking all the facts into consideration, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman had made out a case why the House could not perfectly well continue the discussion on the general question of the policy of the Admiralty.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he was a strong advocate of the new policy of getting rid of obsolete ships, but he thought there was something in the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had not got the information they had asked for. He thought much of it could have been obtained by the Secretary of the Admiralty. For instance, the hon. Gentleman had omitted to give a Return of the complement of men to each of the ships to be laid up.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he was not asked for that.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Oh, yes.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Return asked for the cost of the ships and the complement of men, and there could have been no possible difficulty in giving those particulars. He, therefore, thought the hon. Member for Dundee had some cause for complaint. But he was personally a strong advocate on general grounds of this new policy of getting rid of useless ships, and it would be convenient, if possible, to do without the information which had been asked for and to discuss the policy on its merits. He, therefore, hoped that the Motion would not be pressed to a division. Let hon. Members come forward manfully and tackle the new policy, and show, if they could, that it was a bad policy. His own conviction was that it was an extremely good policy, and he rejoiced that so strong a man as Sir John Fisher had been found able to impose at on Lord Selborne. His only regret was that the policy was not adopted years ago.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid he was entirely in favour of the policy of getting rid of obsolete and useless ships, and if they were all agreed upon that it really did not seem that there was any necessity whatever for postponing the discussion. If the hon. Gentleman who moved to report Progress would look at the Return he would see that page 1 was entirely occupied with the names of vessels which it was not intended to sell, and in the first category of which were included the "Medea" and the "Medusa." Their armaments were not to be taken out of them, they were to be retained, and, therefore, if money had been spent upon them in
  past years they would be all the more efficient in case of emergency. The only point which seemed to be doubtful was in regard to the ships that were to be sold and those which were not for sale, and he would suggest that on that subject further information might be given, and that the Prime Minister should give an undertaking that no ship should be sold until hon. Members had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions as to the advisability of getting rid of individual ships. That would be, in his opinion, a more business-like proceeding, and if, as he believed, the majority of the House were in favour of the general policy of the Admiralty—the policy of getting rid of old and obsolete vessels—surely it would be well for them to proceed to take the discussion on that policy and leave details for a future occasion.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBagreed that they ought not to report Progress because they had insufficient information. It appeared to him that this question of removal of ships might well be dealt with on the Construction Vote. He was entirely in accord with the policy of removing ineffective, inefficient, and obsolete vessels. It was no doubt an important matter that the House should be given reasons why certain ships were retained and why others were to be sold, but he could not see anything whatever to hinder a full discussion on the Naval Estimates on these points, and therefore he did not think they would be justified in postponing the whole consideration of the general naval policy of the Government.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 42.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N.E.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Crean, Eugene

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burns, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Benn, John Williams

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Crombie, John William

  Black, Alexander William

  Caldwell, James

  Crooks, William

  Blake, Edward

  Cameron, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Boland, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Davies, M. Vaughan, (Cardigan

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Delany, William

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Runeiman, Walter

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Russell, T. W.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Edwards, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehy, David

  Ellice, CaptEC(S. Andrw'sBghs

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mooney, John J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Murphy, John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sillivan, Donal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norman, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Toulmin, George

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wallace, Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Russell

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

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf' d

  Labouchere, Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Young, Samuel

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John

  Causton.

  Levy, Maurice

  Rose, Charles Day

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Campbell, J H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Invern'ssB'ghs)

  Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Chamberlain. Rt Hn J. A (Wore.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chapman, Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Fitz Gerald Sir Robert Penrose

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flannery, Sir Forteseue

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J (Mane'r

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balfour Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

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

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gordon Maj Evans-(Tr'H'mlets

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gouliding, Edward Alfred

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Bill, Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bingham, Lord

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Bond, Edward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bull, William James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Helder, Augustus

  1238

  1239

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Maxwell, W. JH (Dumfriesshire

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Moore, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hunt, Rowland

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Kerr, John

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Lawson, Hn H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Taylor, Austen (East Toxteth)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Thorbnrn, Sir Walter

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Percy, Earl

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tuff, Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Turnour, Viscount

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Welby, Sir Charles G E. (Notts.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Randles, John S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

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

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Maconochie, A. W

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Viscount Valentia.

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the Committee having decided by a majority of twenty-one that they must proceed with the discussion of the Estimates on the meagre material before them, he would proceed to speak on the point with which they were more immediately concerned in this Vote. He was tempted to go back to the debate of Monday last, but he would not follow his instinct. He thought it was useless now to pursue the controversy about the size of the Navy. His belief was that the international competition which resulted in large navies could only be ended by international negotiation on the line suggested by his hon. friend behind him. One consoling feature of the present situation was the determined attitude of that growing naval Power, the United States, to put an end to the rule by which private property at sea could be captured by belligerents. That, he thought, caused the danger to commerce which had demanded and tolerated large naval expenditure. The hon. Gentleman
  1240
  opposite had, following the example which was set in this House a year ago, attributed to one official much of the extravagant administration which had taken place. That was a dangerous course to take. He associated himself with what was said on the other side of the House the other day, that in the Navy administration continuity of policy was essential. To single out one official for special praise or special responsibility was a gross injustice to previous Boards of Admiralty. It was unfair to existing naval officers in or out of the Admiralty, and he ventured to say that it was specially unfair to the officers themselves who were singled out for praise or invidious distinction. In recent times he deplored the too frequent appearance of the Admiralty Department in the province of advertising. The Admiralty had never been an advertising Department, and the less they heard of it in advertising circles the better.
  That led him to the few words he wanted to say about the new distribution of officers, and the new role that was to be

  1241
  played by the First Sea Lord. The Committee had now full information on that point, and he did not think the change amounted to so much as some newspapers would have them believe. He read in one paper the other day that they had constituted a Commander-in-Chief for the Navy, the sort of thing which the noble Lord the Member for Ealing on the occasion of the debate ten years ago denounced on the ground that we must not have a naval autocrat to rule. He did not know that it had come to that, but the sting of the new system was contained in the tail of the Memorandum, which assigned to the First Sea Lord the position that all the other Lords and all other persons were to communicate with him on everything of importance. That was a large extension, and if it meant more than that which the Admiralty system allowed ten years ago he should withhold his assent to it. On that occasion ten years ago he was authorised on behalf of the Admiralty to state that the position of the First Sea Lord was that of a primus inter pares—the first among equals—without special responsibility for the disposition of the Fleet. If anyone shared hisdoubts as to the new system he would point out that whatever disposition might be made by Lord Selborne or his successor, the part assigned to the First Sea Lord was personal to the present holder and might be altered. That was all he would say about the distribution of the business.
  He now came to the scheme of distribution and mobilisation of the Fleet. He was sorry that the First Lord of the Treasury had left the bench, because that right hon. Gentleman was responsible, by the statement he had made, for a great deal of what might be called the misunderstanding. He hoped that the representative of the Admiralty would be able to defend the right hon. Gentleman's words. He wished to deal with two points of the new scheme; one relating to the distribution of the Fleet, and the other to the elimination of ships from the active list. By distribution he meant the location of the ships, the settlement and composition of the squadrons, and the determination of the number and classes of ships which constituted these squadrons. All of that he had always held to be the special and particular business of
  1242
  the Admiralty acting on its own responsibility. Four years ago this question was discussed in the House in connection with what was called the Mediterranean scare. A most deplorable agitation arose, fomented by letters circulated in the House, stated as having been received from distinguished naval officers actually in high command. The Admiralty of that day did not show the courage which they ought to have done, and condemn the scare. He was content to abide by what Lord Selborne said in another place on this subject of the distribution of the Mediterranean Fleet. He said that if Parliament or the Press intended to take out of the hands of the Admiralty the distribution of the British Fleet, he for one should cease to be personally responsible. It would be for the Admiralty acting on its knowledge, on the knowledge of the Foreign Office, and on the responsibility of the Government, and for no one else to settle the distribution of the Fleet. That was good enough for him, and he was surprised that anything more should have been said about it by the Admiralty on this occasion. What had happened? The new scheme of distribution had been announced with much parade, but with very little information. Any one who took up the two documents—the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty issued in December last, and the Statement explanatory of the Estimates, would find a pseudo-scientific system which they had chosen to adopt. They rang the changes on devolution and decentralisation; they bandied names about; changed the name of one Fleet, and gave high-sounding titles to certain Admirals. It was very much a question of names, and he defied any one who read the two State Papers to say what had actually taken place. For instance, he found in the Memorandum of December a reference to the China squadron and its proposed distribution, but in the Statement, so far as it contained any reference to the China squadron, it was to the effect that there was no change at all. As to this new scheme of distribution, what was wanted—if they wanted anything at all—was a sort of diagram showing the stations, the ships, and the strength of the squadrons last year and

  1243
  this. Such a diagram ought to be easily made, and he hoped the Admiralty would prepare one and lay it before the Committee before the discussion went much further.
  The new distribution was said to be founded on strategical principles; but he did not find the strategy explained at all. On his theory the question of strategy was for the Admiralty, and the less they said about it the better; it would have been better if they had said less than they had done. He did not like the references in the papers to foreign navies. In so for as they were not truisms, they were not necessary and certainly not tac ful. Did any one think there was any good in telling Germany that she could keep her navy at home, or in telling Russia that her fleet was decreasing, or in telling the Committee that the navy of the United States would soon reach a limit that would only be bounded by the willingness of the American people to pay for it. These things, he thought, need hardly have been said, but having been said, the Committee should have had a little further information. The hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had been much criticised for a statement he had made during the recess. He was not going to quarrel with the words in the first report of the hon. Gentleman's speech. By some unfortunate accident the words which got into the condensed report were not those which the hon. Gentleman actually used; but in the authorised version which appeared in The Times the hon. Gentleman summed up as the views of the Admiralty that the British Fleet was now prepared, strategically, for every conceivable emergency, and we must assume that all foreign naval Powers were possible enemies. If that was so, we were in a very happy position, although he failed to grasp the kindly disposition shown in the remark that we should be able to meet all conceivable emergencies.
  Finally, on the scheme as a whole, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to what, as he had said already, added to the confusion in the public mind as to the consequences on the public finances of the Memorandum issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty
  1244
  in December last and the Statement now submitted to the Committee. It was alleged that the new scheme of distribution, including the scheme of eliminating certain ships from the active list, would lead and had led to great financial economy. Undoubtedly that was the belief of the Press and the popular belief; but he held it was a popular delusion that the £3,500,000 by which the naval expenditure was reduced was attributable in any appreciable degree to the new scheme of distribution. The saving of £3,510,000 took place almost entirely on Votes 8 and 9. The amount of money to be spent on ships in course of construction or about to be built was cut down by £2,200,000; on armaments £660,000, on repairs £540,000, and on sea stores, £110,000, or a total of £3,510,000, almost exactly the amount of the net saving. What part of this was attributable to the new scheme of distribution? Certainly not new construction or armaments. His belief was, from what he knew of the present state of affairs in the dockyards, that the reduction of armaments was not a permanent or real reduction; and that instead of being reduced it would go up in future years. The saving on sea stores was 12 per cent. and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would explain how the reduction came about, and whether any portion of it was attributable to elimination. Repairs had gone down £540,000. Was any portion of that attributable to the new scheme? His belief was that very little of it would be. He would remind the Committee that in the First Lord's Memorandum it was stated that all the great repairs undertaken in the last five years had been completed, and that the Fleet was now in a more complete state of repair thin it had been for many years. If so, that would account for the reduction in the Repairs Vote.
  Passing to the subject of elimination of the ships from the Active List, it was said that we were now in a condition to deal intelligently with that part of the scheme. The proposal was that certain ships were to be sold and others laid up; but the Committee were not told what the value of the ships involved was, what the ages of the ships were, or what the opinion of the Admiralty on this part of the case was last

  1245
  year. On two of the ships which were to be laid up—the "Medea" and "Medusa"—the Government had spent on maintenance or repairs within the past two years sums equal to 50 per cent, of the original value of the ships. The First Lord of the Treasury stated at Glasgow that the Government had abolished 130 vessels; but that the Navy had not been weakened in the process, On that occasion, there was a voice, "Good riddance of bad rubbish," and the right hon. Gentleman remarked that that observation put the position more correctly, more concisely, and more pithily than he could. The right hon. Gentleman added that the ships would not only be useless but worse than useless if in time of war they did not possess fighting power and speed; and that with one courageous stroke of the pen, as it were, they had been struck off and the cost of their maintenance and repair removed from the Navy Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman also declared that the strength of the Navy had been increased three-fold; but of that the Committee had not been given any particulars. He would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he adopted the language of the First Lord of the Treasury at Glasgow. Was it a correct statement of the policy of the Admiralty to say that 130 vessels had been abolished? He did not think it was consistent with what the hon. Gentleman himself had stated. He confessed he had some difficulty in realising what the policy of the Admiralty was. The hon. Gentleman stated that the key-note of the scheme was that current expenditure should only be incurred on ships which could be instantaneously ready for war; and he added that no fewer than eighty-four ships had been placed on the scrap heap.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the number he mentioned extended over three years.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that there was a discrepancy between the two statements of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman stated that there would be no more expenditure on what he called the llama class; which, however, would be extremely useful for subsidary purposes, in war; and that in the course of three months they could be fitted
  1246
  up for active service. In his opinion, however, that would not be possible. Did this policy mean that these ships were to be in the hands of caretakers, and that no attention was to be paid to their maintenance and repair? That would be a dangerous policy. Deterioration would be certain to occur. Therefore, the Committee should be given a farther explanation. He himself did not believe that it would be possible to fit out these ships in three months after they had been lying idle for perhaps two or three years. A fallacy which ran through all the Admiralty statements on the subject was that they compared the minor vessels with the best vessels. Here were a few facts. Germany in recent years had established a class of cruiser of the "Pearl" type. They were built possibly in answer to, certainly in imitation of, the "Pearl" class. That class was now condemned to the scrap heap under the new policy. The United States were also building a class in answer to the "Apollo" class, which was now condemned to the llama class. Then the "Warspite" was to be sent to the scrap heap, although the type was regarded as of some consequence in the Russian navy. He was not condemning the policy of sending these ships to the scrap heap; but the Committee ought to be informed how much money had been expended on them. No less than four first-class cruisers had been condemned; and it was incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to show how he reconciled the present policy with the policy which had prevailed during the last few years of repairing these ships at great expense, when, as a matter of fact, they should have been condemned to the scrap heap.
  As regarded new construction, he desired to direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to a discrepancy. On page 91 the figure was given as £9,566,000, and on page 184 at £9,451,000.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid there was a satisfactory explanation of that.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that there must be a mistake somewhere. The two figures could not be correct. The analysis of new construction showed that dockyard-built boats had

  1247
  gone up by £648,000 and contract-built ships had gone down £2,700,000. Eliminating small vessels the total gave a net reduction of £2,200,000 on the Vote for building new ships this year. His first observation upon that was, that this was not the great reduction that it appeared to be. The Committee had to remember what happened in the previous year with regard to the Chilian ships. It was idle now to go on with the pretence kept up by both sides of the House with regard to the purchase of the Chilian ships and to speak of the purchase of those ships, a purchase made in breach of the law, although it was set right afterwards by a Supplementary Estimate, as anything but a special transaction. He struck off, therefore, £960,000 as the amount paid last year as the second instalment of the price of those two Chilian ships, so that the real reduction in new construction this year was only £1,250,000. The First Lord in his Memorandum had made a statement to the effect that new construction should, the bulk of it at all events, be given out to contract, and that less should be taken by the dockyards, which should be devoted mainly to repairs. He did not find that reflected in the First Lord's figures, because he found the Vote for wages of the personnel for building new ships in the dockyards reduced by 5 per cent., whilst the reduction in the corresponding item in the contract yards was not less than 25 per cent. That seemed to be somewhat contradictory to the First Lord's Statement that the main work should be given to the contract yards.
  There was one thing to which he should like to call attention, and that was the depreciation table, which, if it meant anything at all, meant that our present efficient fighting Fleet could be replaced by an expenditure at the rate of £5,000,000 a year. Therefore if our present Fleet was adequate to the needs of the nation, instead of our paying £9,500,000 as we were going to do this year, we ought to be spending only £5,000,000.
  With regard to new construction there were several gaps in the Estimate. The Committee was asked to vote £1,330,000 for ships not yet laid down, which were to be began in the
  1248
  coming year. When they were asked to vote large sums like that, the better plan would surely be to have an estimate of the total expenditure on that construction. They got the total amount for the next twelve months, but they ought at this stage to have, not the estimate for twelve months, but for the whole expenditure. There was another item not for ships not laid down, but for submarines. There were on the Estimates twenty-four submarines in course of construction, and there was not a single particular or detail given in the Estimates. No doubt there were some details which could not be given, but none of the details which were given with regard to other ships, such as dimensions, etc., were given with regard to submarines. Was there any reason why these particulars, which were known to the Board of Admiralty, and which must be made known to the country by and by, should not be put upon the Estimates now. They ought to be able to fill in the gaps in the Estimates with regard to these submarines, and the Committee ought to be given all the details which might properly be given. They did not know the average cost! He put a Question to the hon. Gentleman recently as to what was the average price of the submarine, and the hon. Gentleman replied about £50,000. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give some further details with regard to this. He complained also that there was not more information with regard to the "Scouts," of which there were eight. They were in course of construction and had been for some time. They were introduced under conditions of some alarm, and he would invite the hon. Gentleman to say now when the orders for the "Scouts" were placed—the first one had not been delivered yet—as he wanted to know the amount of progress made. The history of the "Scouts" was not consistent with the promise of acceleration which had been made with regard to them. Acceleration was a very important thing, but he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman would get up and say that the Admiralty Board of to-day could do any better than the Board of ten years ago did in the case of the "Majestic" and "Magnificent." That was a record of acceleration then, and it was the record now

  1249
  His complaint in the main was that in this matter the Committee had not before it the sort of information which was necessary to enable it to carry on a discussion of this kind: that there had been unnecessary concealment of material facts.
  A great point had been made of the institution of the Designs Committee. A whole page of the First Lord's Memorandum was given to the constitution of it! He, however, did not intend to say anything about its constitution except that it was too largely official and too little independent in its character; that it was composed too largely of persons to whom the Admiralty had easy access. He thought the proper tribunal would have been one of greater independence—a tribunal of outsiders so to speak—before which the present Committee ought to come as expert witnesses. What he complained of most was the determined secrecy under which their proceedings were carried out. Why should not the Committee know something about the reference to this Committee, and something of its Report. Did the hon. Member justify his not giving the information by precedent?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: No.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid then if he did not, he would ask the hon. Gentleman how he justified his departure from precedents. The Committee was aware that there had been previous Committees of this kind. There was one in 1871, and before the Naval Defence Act programme was completed a Committee of Naval Designs was called in to assist the noble Lords. He submitted that those were precedents which should not be disturbed, but which ought to be followed in a matter which was of public interest. He did not know whether his hon. friend behind him would agree with him, but he believed there was also a Dockyard Committee and his remarks would also apply to that. He saw no reason why the reference to that Committee should be suppressed and its Report concealed.
  He absolutely repudiated the suggestion that the Opposition were as responsible as the Government for these large Navy
  1250
  Estimates. The responsibility rested solely upon the Government of the day. Year after year Estimates of naval expenditure had been laid on the Table without a word of explanation or defence. He had never admitted the expenditure of last year or the year before to be justifiable upon any recognised standard of naval power, nor had that expenditure ever been adequately defended or explained. He took up the same position with regard to the present Estimates. The Opposition took no more responsibility for them and no more admitted their necessity than in former years; the responsibility for them rested entirely upon the Government who proposed them, and at the same time refused to give the full information for which the Opposition were entitled to ask.
  *MR. PRETYMANthought it desirable that he should reply to the hon. Member at once, especially as there were a number of Questions asked while Mr. Speaker was in the Chair to which he had not yet had an opportunity to reply. As to the general criticisms of the hon. Member for Dundee, he did not at all complain of the tone of his remarks with regard to the Board of Admiralty. The Committee would doubtless agree with the hon. Member's deprecation of any discussion which would tend to differentiate between the individual personal responsibility of the various members of the Board of Admiralty. No principle could be of greater value to the Navy than that of the collective responsibility of the Board of Admiralty. As long as they had the collective responsibility of four of the best officers in the Navy, it was clear that the best brain of the four, whether it belonged to the first, second, third, or fourth Lord, would impress itself upon the whole body. That was the real advantage of the Board—that, while there was no individual responsibility outside, the Navy got the full value of the individual knowledge and brain inside.
  He hardly followed the criticism of the hon. Member for Dundee with regard to the distribution of the Fleet. The responsibility for the distribution of the Fleet must, doubtless, rest with the Admiralty, and he agreed that the local issues as between one station and

  1251
  another could not profitably be discussed in the House. But the question had to be looked at as a whole. The last thing the Board of Admiralty themselves would think of doing was to discuss such a question in compartments. They could not take this or that particular sea, this port or that base, and discuss it by itself. The question must be discussed with reference to the whole available force of the Fleet. The essence of naval force was extreme mobility, and that consideration alone made it impossible to discuss in the present debate the particular issues of the distribution of the Fleet.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid his point was that as the Admiralty had chosen to lay this matter before the country, the Committee might as well know what the changes really were.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that while the particular considerations which influenced the Admiralty could not profitably be discussed in the House, it was most right and proper that the results should be placed before the country. It was necessary to lay before the House and the country the general effect of the new policy in the distribution of the Fleet, and the hon. Member would have been the first to complain if the change had been carried out and nothing said to the House about it.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked whether it was not intended to give in outline the principles which had guided the Admiralty in the distribution of the Fleet.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he had made a statement on the general policy which had guided the Admiralty, and he did not think it necessary to add to or repeat the statement.
  MR. RUNCIMANdid not wish to press the hon. Gentleman if he thought it improper to give the information, but he would mention one specific point, A large number of small vessels had been called in from distant stations and a considerable amount of policing work given up. Could he give any information on that point?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that was a matter of detail to which he would come in due course, but he did not propose to discuss further the general policy. The police work was of great value not only to the country, but also to the crews engaged, but the first necessity of a Navy was instant readiness for war. That involved the maintenance of Fleets in commission, and the maintenance or an efficient Reserve in instant readiness for war. After the men, stores, equipment, and so on necessary for those ships had been provided, if it could be afforded it would be very nice to have small ships scattered all over the world performing the useful, and, to some extent, important functions discharged by those ships to which the hon. Member had referred. But the country had to bear an enormous burden of naval expenditure, and if there was superadded to what was absolutely necessary for war that which was only desirable in peace, the burden might become unbearable. The efficiency of the Navy demanded the concentration of the existing personnel upon ships in commission and in the first line of defence, and tint had involved the withdrawal of these ships from policing duties. The question of the bases was connected with the same principle. Every base was a source of expenditure, and, unless absolutely necessary, a source of weakness to a fleet in being. The increased mobility of the Fleet to which he referred last week enabled squadrons to command a much larger area without the multiplication of bases.
  That brought him to the question of finance raised by the hon. Member for Dundee. The Admiral y had never claimed that the whole of the reduction in the Estimates was due to the new scheme. The hon. Member took the view that because the expenditure on the Chilian warships was exceptional it could not be counted in the reduction. But last year he complained of it as part of the increased expenditure on the Navy. He could not have it both ways. What the Admiralty contended was that at one and the same time they had increased the fighting efficiency of the Fleet and reduced the Navy Estimates by £3,500,000. The hon Member had referred to the reduction on stores.

  1253
  The reduction of £110,000 for stores arose directly from reduction of bases and the setting free of stores there laid up, so there was not the necessity to purchase so largely in the coming year. Of course a very large proportion of the reduction of over £500,000 in the cost of repairs was due to the fact that the llama class would not require to be repaired in future. That was a very large direct saving. With regard to what had been said as to deterioration, he would remind the Committee that all the machinery would be painted so that the deterioration would be as little as possible, and he did not think the injury under this head would be very great. There would be caretakers on all these ships, and they would be gradually passed out of the class, because every year there would be a certain number of ships fall out of date from the first line of defence, and they would pass into Class 1b, which included ships with armaments which might be used for actual fighting. Ships in Class 2a could not be used for actual fighting, but only for subsidiary purposes in time of war. As other ships now in commission, or in commission in reserve, became less up-to-date, they would be removed into Class 1b., and the older ships would go down either into the sale list or into Class 2a., so there would be a constant interchange in this matter. It was quite true that these ships would deteriorate, but the only other alternative was to spend large sums keeping these ships actually in commission, and of the two courses the Admiralty had deliberately chosen the one which, while it was not absolutely costless, was far better viewed from the point of view of economy and efficiency, because it allowed the men and the money which would otherwise be spent on those ships to be devoted to the first line of defence. As to the large expenditure on repairs of particular ships, to which the hon. Member had referred, it would be better to deal with that subject on a later Vote; but in regard to the "Medea" and "Medusa" it was to be remembered that a large part of the expenditure was in the nature of experiment and was not purely for repairs. The ships were in commission, but they were also experimenting with new boilers, and the Admiralty had good value for the money in the results.
  1254
  As to other ships mentioned, of course it was necessary that ships in commission should be kept efficient, though, of course, it was competent for the hon. Member to say they should not have been kept in commission. It could not, however, be said that while in commission they should not be efficient for the service required from them.
  As to the policy of new construction, the hon. Member would remember that the new construction already allocated could not be interfered with; but it would be seen that, of the figure of £1,370,000 for the new programme, £401,000 only was to go to the dockyards, and £968,000 was to be contracted for in the coming year.
  *MR. McCRAEasked what part of the saving was due to the new scheme of distribution.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid this was a question a little difficult to answer. The main reductions in Votes 8 and 9 were due to the swelling of the Votes last year. An additional reason was the omission, in view of changed conditions, of a fourth cruiser and certain additional destroyers. This was part of the general policy of the Admiralty, having regard to probable requirements, and the demand, on general grounds, not being so large for the coming year. In reply to the Questions put by his hon. friend the Member for Dundee, he wished to point out that on page 184, referring to the programme of ship building there was an item, "net value of stores issued." On page 91 the whole sum provided for new contraction is given, including material actually put into the ships, the labour, and contract work, but in addition sums for steamboats and transferable gun mountings not put into the ships before the end of the year. It also includes advances on such of these articles as are in course of manufacture. The new policy of concentration was partly responsible for it not being necessary to lay down so many ships as would have been necessary under the old scheme.
  He disagreed entirely with the proposition laid down that it would have been better that the designs of the ships should have been dealt

  1255
  with by a tribunal of outsiders. As to the question of designing warships, he would most strongly urge that the greater part of the technical knowledge was within the walls of the Admiralty, and that there also the greatest experience was to be found. It was very desirable and important that by means of a Designs Committee of this kind the Admiralty should be able to draw in and to use some of the very valuable experience outside, and that was what had been done. But that was a very different thing from the Admiralty admitting that outsiders were competent to sit in judgment on the designs drawn up inside the Admiralty. The hon. Member had quoted the precedent of the Designs Committee appointed in 1871. He himself did not pretend to be familiar with all that occurred then, but what he had heard of that Committee would lead him to say that it was a precedent not to be followed, but rather one to be avoided. The reference to the Committee now proposed was drawn up by the Commanders-in-Chief of the Navy, in consultation with the First Sea Lord, and it necessarily included considerations regarding some of the most delicate points in naval strategy, which, after all, governed the designs of the ships which were to be built. It was obviously undesirable that these particular considerations should be laid before the public. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] He was afraid he could not say more if the hon. Gentleman could not understand what he had said.
  The hon. Member for Devonport had raised a point in regard to night firing. He might tell the hon. Member that very great attention had been paid to that point, and that a new form of night sight had been adopted for which money was taken in these Estimates. The hon. Member had experience enough to know that real accuracy in night firing was not obtainable. With a search-light some approach to accuracy could be obtained, but without it any approach to accuracy was hardly possible. Practice at night with the Morris tube was going to be initiated. The difficulties in connection with firing at night were exceedingly great. Several hon. Members had raised the very important question of gun
  1256
  sights, and reference in this connection had been made to the "Centurion" and the "Barfleur." It was not so much a matter of sights as the fact that the gearing and the mountings of these ships were of such a character that, at the time they were designed, it was not realised the important effect they would have on the sights. It was impossible absolutely to prevent back lashing. The arrangement in connection with sights was a matter of difficulty, but he was glad to be able to assure the hon. Member that a new system of sighting and gearing had now been devised which was much simpler, and which, in the new ships, was giving great satisfaction. Another new system of gearing was being tried in the "Dominion," which could be fitted to the ships now in commission. It promised extremely well. In regard to the "Drake" sights, to which reference had been made, he had to say that they were being altered to meet some of the new improvements, and steps had been taken to have the work done quickly.
  As to the administration of the dockyards, he would point out that it was stated in Lord Selborne's Memorandum that a Committee was to be appointed on that subject. Hon. Members would agree that it would be premature for him to discuss the question of dockyard administration, but any criticisms that might be made by hon. Members would be noted by the Admiralty, and all the points would be carefully considered. For him to lay down any policy before that Committee had reported would be absolutely useless. He would content himself with stating that the members of the Committee were—the First Sea Lord, Sir John Fisher, the Controller, Admiral Henderson, the Superintendent of Devonport, the Permanent Secretary of the Admiralty, the Director of Dockyards, the Accountant-General, and the Superintendent of the great Fairfield Yard.
  MR. KEARLEY: There is only one civilian, and the rest are all Admiralty men.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid the Superintendent of Fairfield Yard was the only one outside the Admiralty. As to the policy with respect to repairs, the hon.

  1257
  Member for Islington had asked what was the change. It was stated at the time that the policy of having repairs executed in private yards was a temporary one, and that it was undertaken to overtake arrears which were due to the introduction of Belleville boilers. These arrears had now been entirely wiped off. The hon. Member for Dewsbury had frequently pointed out in the House the costly nature of the policy of resorting to private yards for repairs. He was perfectly ready to admit that experience had shown it was a costly policy, and that the hon. Member's criticism was perfectly justified. The hon. Member would be glad to know that it would not be needful to resort to it again. He did not admit, however, that the Admiralty were not justified in resorting to it as a temporary expedient.
  MR. KEARLEY: For the past three years you denied that it was more costly.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he did not deny it. They had not the results before them in individual cases, but experience had shown that it was more costly to have the work done in private yards. If the work could have been done in the Royal dockyards it would have been cheaper.
  The question as to what was to be done at Rosyth was more appropriate to the Loans Bill which would be introduced at a later date. He would only say that nothing had occurred since this date last year which in any way reduced the value of Rosyth in the opinion of the Admiralty. On the contrary, recent changes had rather accentuated the eventual value of Rosyth as a naval base, but, whether the reduction of the number of ships which would now require to be berthed would enable the Admiralty to some extent to postpone expenditure he was not prepared at that moment to say. It would not be finally decided until the Loan Bill had been introduced whether they would be able to carry out large works there as early as they had expected, but the value of Rosyth was clear and undoubted in the view of the Admiralty.
  MR. BUCHANANasked what was to be done as to Chatham and Bermuda.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he must leave the question of Chatham to be discussed on the Loan Bill.
  GENERAL LAURIEasked what the Admiralty proposed to do in regard to the establishments at Halifax and Jamaica which were to be abolished.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid the establishments would remain without men or stores; but, should the necessity arise, they could send men and stores out there. There was no expense proposed to be incurred except for caretakers.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid caretakers did not appear in the Estimates.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid there was no specific charge. They did not put a special item in the Dockyard Vote for caretakers. The function of the Naval Volunteers was to learn as far as possible the duties which they would have to perform on board ship, and when necessity required mobilisation they would be drafted to ships of war and would perform a part, and a very useful part, in the general working of the ships.
  The hon. Members for King's Lynn, Dundee, and Great Yarmouth had raised a point as to the redistribution of duties within the Board of Admiralty itself. There had been rather a misapprehension on the subject. The hon. Member for Dundee was quite accurate in saying that there had been undue importance attached to it. So far as there was any alteration, it lay in the sense of relieving the First Sea Lord, as far as possible, of detail duties. It would be remembered that the First Sea Lord was necessarily an important member of the newly created Committee of Defence. This involved constant attendance on that Committee, and the whole object of the change had been to relieve the First Sea Lord of duties which could be as well performed by others, leaving him with the sole care of the efficiency of the Fleet and its instant readiness for war. The note at the end of the Vote implied that if any proposal were made by any other member of the Board of Admiralty which would have some effect on the instant readiness of the Fleet for war, it would

  1259
  not be desirable that that member should exercise his authority to carry out the change without having first referred it to the First Sea Lord. The whole principle of the working of the Board of Admiralty was that ordinary minor departmental matters were dealt with by the individual members of the Board, and if any matter was of great importance there was joint responsibility by two, three, or four members of the Board. But where the matter was of a character which affected the particular province of the First Sea Lord that must be brought before him.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid that, assuming a naval Lord brought forward a matter from his department to which the First Sea Lord objected, would that prevent the matter going to the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid no, clearly not. Exactly the contrary would be the case. The First Sea Lord had no power whatever when that matter was referred to him to decide. There was joint responsibility between him and the member whose department had referred it to him. If they were agreed on the point, it might not be considered necessary to refer the matter further; but if they were not agreed, the matter was referred to the First Lord of the Admiralty or to the Board of Admiralty as a whole. As to comparing the First Sea Lord to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, he hoped the present practice would long continue. When the First Sea Lord went down to a dockyard he wore a top hat; and the wearing of a top hat marked that he was there as an administrative and not as an executive authority. The mark of the executive authority was the wearing of a uniform.
  A discussion had been raised as to the position of the new Inspector of Target Practice in relation to the First Sea Lord. The appointment of that Inspector was solely and entirely made with reference to the improvement of the gunnery of the Fleet. The Inspector would have no executive authority. When he visited the Fleet he would be under the Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet, and every report that he made would be made through the Commander-in-Chief.
  1260
  He would be able to do something to assist in co-ordinating the methods of shooting and introducing the very latest improvements in one part of the Navy to all parts. He was not an Admiralty officer; his salary as an ordinary Admiral would be on Vote 1, and his headquarters would be at Portsmouth. His name had not been attached to any particular ship. As the Naval Ordnance Department was specially in the province of the First Sea Lord, it was perfectly clear that his immediate chief would be the First Sea Lord.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that in order to elucidate the point, might he ask if the Inspector of Target Practice would not be an Admiralty officer.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Inspector was not an Admiralty officer in the sense that he was not domiciled at the Admiralty, and would not be borne on Vote 12, which was the Admiralty Vote. He was an executive officer of the Admiralty and as such primarily under the Admiral commanding the particular Fleet with which for the time being he is connected.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if the Board of Admiralty could dismiss him if they wished?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Board of Admiralty could dismiss any naval officer and this one not more than any other.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that the sending of ships for repairs to private yards was only a temporary policy. That was not what was said last year. The plan was that of Admiral May, who held that it would be a saving to send ships for repair to the yards where they had been built. That seemed a sensible course, but it had been very costly. The hon. Member for Dewsbury had called attention to the extraordinary waste of money going on for repairs, not because the repairs were done in private yards, but because the Admiralty did not take the ordinary business method of calling for estimates, but had allowed the private yards to

  1261
  work at schedule prices. A Committee had been appointed to overhaul the dockyard administration, bur it consisted entirely of Admiralty men with one notable exception. No fresh ideas were likely, in these circumstances, to be imported from the outside, and the vision of the Admiralty in that respect was rather narrow. A larger proportion of the Committee should have been appointed from the outside. The system of the Government dockyards being controlled by naval men was not a good one. There was no continuity of policy. One man came who was a reformer, and then another would be appointed who liked things to go on pleasantly. That was not the system which prevailed in private yards. He went over a Government dockyard the other day with the admiral-superintendent, and saw some of the reforms that had been introduced. He was shown a sawing-mill, and was told that when that superintendent first went there he found the timber was stacked three-quarters of a mile from the mill, and had to be brought there at a great waste of time and money.
  As regarded the llama class, he did not like the word. Both officers and men called this Fleet the "forlorn hope fleet," which was a more comprehensible and intelligible title. It was not to be called into being until the first line had been exhausted. That really meant until the first line was beaten. It would, nevertheless, involve an enormous amount of wasteful expenditure. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that this "forlorn hope fleet" could be got ready in three months. He was assured it could not be got ready under four or six months, especially as the light armament would be removed from the vessels. But what use would these ships be if the first line were exhausted. He did not believe that the first line would ever be exhausted; and, therefore, to maintain this policy would be very wasteful, and involve expenditure to no purpose. If steps were only to be taken when the first line was exhausted to get the "forlorn hope fleet" ready, that would not be much security for the country to depend on. There would naturally have to be a weeding out of this decaying materials very year. He
  1262
  was not condemning the policy; but there appeared to be an extraordinary lack of foresight on the part of the Admiralty in spending thousands of pounds on the repairs of these ships while this policy was maturing. It could not have been arrived at at twenty-four hours notice. It was pretty notorious that it had been settled upon; yet the Admiralty continued to spend thousands of pounds on repairs which they might have spared. For instance, the "Retribution" was reboilered and refitted, and soon afterwards sent to the scrap heap. It was only a question of time when the ships in the "forlorn hope fleet" would be superannuated and not worth the water on which they floated from a naval point of view. Then a new sloop which was only commissioned in 1902 was sent to the scrap heap, and he understood that fifteen other vessels of the type had been constructed at a cost of between £60,000 and £80,000. Reference had been made in the First Lord's Statement to more rapid construction; but, curiously enough, it was mentioned that a vessel of the "Lord Nelson" class had been given to the Palmer Company to build and that it would be completed in three years. That was not a good illustration of rapidity of construction, especially as the Government yards were able to complete a ship in two years.
  As regarded torpedo boats, it was stated that the Board of Admiralty had decided to combine speed and sea-keeping power. Last session, he called attention to the danger of the policy the Admiralty were adopting in diminishing the speed of torpedo boats, whereas every other nation of naval standing was increasing their torpedo boat speed. The Japanese boats which were built in England had a speed of thirty-one or thirty-two knots, whereas the speed of our boats was reduced from thirty knots to twenty-five. The Committee was aware of the cause. Defects were developed in some of the torpedo boats, notably in the "Cobra" class. They were badly designed and of inferior workmanship and material. That was well known. The Admiralty had not admitted it; but they had appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter. Last session the hon. Gentleman denied that there was

  1263
  any comparison to be drawn between our torpedo boats and those of Japan; yet the Japanese boats travelled thousands of miles of ocean and arrived safely in the Far East, and were engaged in the early part of the war against the Russian Fleet with a considerable amount of success. Last session he suggested that it would be possible to have in torpedo boats sea-keeping power combined with considerable speed; and the hon. Gentleman replied that the most eminent experts declared that they could not design a boat of greater strength and greater speed.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid at anything like the same cost.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that cost did not enter into the question. He was glad that the Admiralty had changed their policy. He did not object, as the change was in the right direction. It was strange, however, that he should be told on August 4th, 1904, that great firms had stated their inability to construct vessels of sea-keeping power and high speed; and then to read in the First Lord's Statement that this very class of vessel was being ordered. They were always told when it was a question of getting the most effective weapon that it was a question of cost. Cost did not enter into the question. Surely they were not to be told now that last year we could not afford thirty-two-knot boats. That was what the hon. Gentleman was saying now. When confronted by his own words of last year, the hon. Member turned round and said the cost was too great. The real reason why we could not get the best boat last year was because the specification was limited by the length of the boat, and the Admiralty specified for an excessive thickness of the hull. What was this new type of "sea-keeping quality and greater speed?" He would be glad if the hon. Gentleman could give some further particulars with regard to it. In the First Lord's Memorandum he saw we were to have one boat as an experiment of "great speed and sea-keeping qualities."
  *MR. PRETYMAN: No, no! One experimental boat, but there are to be five
  1264
  other boats of high speed and sea-keeping qualities. One is an experimental boat, but there are to be six boats in all.
  MR. KEARLEY: Are those the five boats which were in the programme of last year or five new ones?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: If the hon. Gentleman pleases, five new ones.
  MR. KEARLEY: No, it is not what I please. There is some point in my question. The five boats of last year were to be 25-knot boats.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: At that time?
  MR. KEARLEY: Are those boats the same as the ones now alluded to?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: Those five boats are eliminated altogether, and there are to be five boats of high speed and sea-keeping qualities in their place.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he was glad, at all events, to have elicited that fact. The Government had now abandoned those old slow-going boats. The 25-knot boat had passed away, and we were now going to have boats of high speed which could compete with the fleets of the world.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid the Estimates laid before the House and the country this year were of abnormal interest. He had read very carefully the Papers issued and had studied the Estimates for the coming year, and was glad to find himself in a position of almost unqualified agreement with the proposals which the Board of Admiralty had made. Last year he expressed the opinion that the expenditure might be reduced without diminishing the efficiency of the Fleet, and he was glad to find that the Government had reduced the Estimates by £3,500,000, and that that had been done without any detraction from the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. It had been effected by the new disposition of the Fleet and the placing out of commission of a certain number of vessels which were not necessary to our security. He would like to give his hon. friend one hint with regard to this reduction. When

  1265
  a reduction of this kind exactly hit off a large round figure, it rather smacked of a prior arrangement. Strongly as he was in favour of economy, he disliked the policy of attempting to enforce it by reducing aggregates without having regard to the amount appropriated to each item. That was the policy which was pursued wish great detriment to the Navy many years ago, and which resulted in millions of money being sacrificed for the want of a few thousands of pounds. A great deal of exaggerated language had been used about the distribution of the Fleet. What had been done was simply to give effective development to the principles which had been in force in the Admiralty for many years. Where the present Board of Admiralty had the advantage over preceding Boards was that they had effected large expenditure during recent years, which had given them the benefit of a properly equipped dock at Gibraltar and had enabled that to be made a base of considerable magnitude. They also had the advantage of a large number of armoured cruisers, and they could supersede the fleets of small cruisers which were scattered over the world. He objected to the British Navy's doing police work for the rest of the world. There was no need whatever for us to lock up capable officers and men in obsolete vessels in out-of-the-way stations of the world, and the Admiralty were now able to utilise lieutenant commanders for separate commands in torpedo boats rather than in policing distant parts of the world. He thought the more these proposals were looked at the more they would be liked.
  The Admiralty had also made it clear that it was essential in modern warfare that fleets should be concentrated. Our Fleet had first to assert its fighting superiority, and then it could give adequate protection to commerce. We could go to distant parts of the world and assert our presence with one or two of these big vessels with much greater effect than three or four little gun-boats. There was an illustration of that some years ago. We sent two vessels with four funnels each up the Persian Gulf and they created a very great impression, until some ingenious Russian discovered that Russia had a vessel with five funnels
  1266
  which was then sent up the Gulf, and he was told made a much greater impression. A large number of persons thought that because we commanded the sea, merchant vessels would be as immune from attack in time of war as in time of peace, but although we had numerous vessels it was absolutely essential, if we were fighting for naval supremacy, that our Fleet should be concentrated at certain places, no matter what happened to our commerce. The Admiralty deserved credit for getting rid of a considerable number of small and detached bases and naval dockyards abroad. It was a delusion to suppose that the more naval bases we had the better would it be for our Fleet. If we looked at the lessons of the Russo-Japanese War we might fairly say that if Russia had only had one naval base instead of two in the Pacific the Japanese would not have got the command of the sea as soon as they did.
  With regard to the vessels which it was proposed to place on the scrap heap, the Admiralty, on further consideration, might decide to preserve one or two of them. If they desired to combine efficiency with economy it was absolutely necessary to pay great attention to designs. In some cases the hasty adoption of new designs had led to terrible waste of money. He could give an illustration of this. There were two vessels designed twenty-five years ago; they each cost about £700,000 for their armament. Neither of those vessels, so defective was their design, had been in active commission except for naval manœuvres. For many years they had been detached for use as tenders to the gunnery school at Devonport where any wooden vessel would have done just as well. He thought we were bound to admit that we had adhered too long to the large unarmoured cruisers, and that we had not given sufficient attention to giving them armaments in proportion to their displacement. Therefore, he welcomed the idea of a Committee of Designs to apply the lessons of the recent naval war. He hoped that great benefit would be derived from this Committee, and that the Admiralty would consider the propriety of forming a small permanent Committee to which designs should be referred. He did not wish to impair the responsibility of the Chief Constructor of the

  1267
  Navy, but it practically meant that the safety of the whole British Empire was upon one man, and he thought it was more than one man could do to be responsible for an expenditure of £10,000,000 a year.
  With regard to the distribution of business there seemed to be an impression that the status of the Naval Lords other than the Senior Lord would be modified under the present arrangement. Sir John Fisher was a man of immense initiative, great energy, and an unbounded capacity for work, and Lord Cawdor, he was confident, would develop into a most efficient First Lord. But the circumstances were peculiar. The Senior Naval Lord alone of the Naval Lords had a seat on the Committee of Defence, so that he was no longer primus inter pares, Lord Cawdor might have been singularly successful with the management of a great railway, but it would be a profound mistake ever to attempt to manage the Navy on the principle of the general management of a railway. The Board of Admiralty had done extraordinarily well when left alone, but twice within his experience it had broken down. One occasion was when Mr. Childers got rid of the old Board and tried to work the Admiralty himself with two assistants; the other was in 1885, when Lord Northbrook, the then First Lord, had to go abroad on a diplomatic mission. Sir Cooper Key, the Senior Naval Lord, a man of exceptional ability and extraordinary power of work, who undertook the duty of practically managing the whole Admiralty, gave the go-by to the other Naval Lords, and tried to work the Admiralty through civilian officials. It went on till the country was on the verge of war with Russia, and then the whole fabric broke down. He (the speaker) was suddenly appointed First Lord; the Admiralty was in a state of chaos; a special Committee, of which Lord Goschen was chairman, was appointed to examine into the matter, and made certain suggestions. He was fortunate enough to have the assistance of a singularly able body of officers as Naval Lords, and the first thing they did was to put the Naval Lords back into their old position. That position was a somewhat peculiar one. Each Naval Lord was responsible for the
  1268
  executive work of the department of which he was the head, and had civilian assistants to help discharge the work. The Board of Admiralty met for consultation and advisory purposes, and the Naval Lords were in a position of perfect equality. He attached the greatest importance to that equality of status. It was that which had made the Board of Admiralty efficient, and it was the lack of that equality which had rendered the War Office inefficient. There were in the Navy two schools—a young school and an old school—and the probability was that the old school would be more represented by the Senior Naval Lords than by the Junior Naval Lords. If the First Lord were a sensible man and had free access to the inner mind of the Junior Lords, he would very often get hold of some ideas of the young school which if Put forward in his name, the Senior Lords would at once accept while they might dislike to take them up if the ideas originated primarily from the Junior Lords. At the War Office, on the other hand the moment a military officer, was put in the position of Commander-in-Chief, or in a position of dominance over others, the sense of loyalty was such that the junior officers would never give an opinion contrary to that of their seniors. That was a state of things which should be prevented at the Admiralty. He did not Say there was any likelihood of its happening, but when changes were being made it was as well to take care that they did not drift into a system which nobody desired.
  With regard to dockyard administration, he was surprised by the statement in Lord Selborne's Memorandum that new construction could be carried out more cheaply in private yards than in dockyards. He fully agreed that with so large a Fleet in commission it was advisable that the dockyards should do the greater part of the repairs, but he submitted that dockyards would never be thoroughly efficient unless they were given a considerable amount of the new construction. Dockyards ought to be able to build more cheaply than private yards. They had to find no interest on capital, they could buy materials when prices were lowest, and they had a most efficient body of workmen. He would like his hon. friend to explain

  1269
  how it was that dockyards had gone back while private yards had gone forward. He hoped a large portion of the work in the yards would be new construction, as it was very discouraging to first-class establishments to find themselves confined to mere repairing work.
  It was stated to be the desire of the Admiralty to derive as much benefit as possible from the lessons taught by the war between Japan and Russia. There was one lesson which he hoped the Government would take seriously to heart. Our fighting sea-going Fleet was, from the point of view of efficiency, stronger than it had ever been, but it was no use having that strength and efficiency if there was associated with it an ineffective system of harbour defence. It was through the inefficiency of harbour defence at Port Arthur at the commencement of the war that the Japanese were able to go in to torpedo the Russian fleet and to prevent it ever again fighting on terms of equality. He unhesitatingly declared that our system of defence of our naval bases was inefficient and indefensible. It was in the hands of the military authorities. At Portsmouth there was an aggregation of the most powerful ships in the world; there were a number of officers who in ability of knowledge could not be surpassed in the world, and yet in time of war the movement of ships in and out of the Solent would be controlled not by naval officers but by the military officers who for the moment happened to be in command at Portsmouth. There was not another nation in the world who would dream of having so ridiculous a system, and yet our Navy was of far greater importance to us than the navy of any other nation was to them. The Admiralty admitted that submarine warfare was being rapidly developed and that it was by submarines that harbours would be defended and attacked. How was it possible for military officers or engineers to know anything about submarines? Nor was that all. We had a magnificent force in the Marines. The officers were a most capable body, but their prospects were poor, and the country got very little benefit from their ability and talents because they were never employed after they had attained a certain rank. In Portsmouth, Plymouth, and
  1270
  Chatham there were numbers of Marine officers who understood the movements of ships and the management of heavy guns; they alone of officers on shore had that double knowledge, and yet they were the one class who were never allowed to go inside the forts. Was that common sense? When at the Admiralty he effected a change which became the foundation of the present system of naval reserves. They found a number of ships in reserve tumbling to pieces for want of attention, and men on hulks doing nothing but clean decks. They brought the men to the ships which wanted attention, and that principle had been greatly amplified and developed by successive Boards of Admiralty. In the same way there were these Marine officers and the forts, and he hoped the matter would be borne in mind. He did not press the Government for an answer now; he knew the difficulty of the matter. He himself had tried to effect a change by getting the duties transferred to the Navy, but he was opposed by both military and naval experts. The system, however, was indefensible, and he intended to raise the matter on the Army Estimates, when he hoped to be able to convince the Committee that it ought not to be allowed to exist any longer. Meanwhile he hoped the Secretary of State for War, who had many problems to solve, would not in his future alterations of the Army take such steps as would preclude any reform of the kind he had suggested. In conclusion, he congratulated the Secretary to the Admiralty on having presented to the House a Statement and a document combining with a higher degree, than any other Naval Statement of recent years the attributes of efficiency, progress, and economy.
  MR. BENNdesired to associate himself with the protest of the noble Lord against the policy of reducing the Royal dockyards to repairing shops. In Lord Selborne's Statement there appeared a passage of serious import, viz.—
  "The first business of the Royal dockyards is to keep the Fleet in repair, and accordingly the amount of new construction allotted to those dockyards should be subordinated to this main consideration."
  He should like to learn the true import of those words. The following sentence

  1271
  went on to say that in the United Kingdom they had a splendid national asset in the numerous private yards; that new construction could be as cheaply executed in them as in the Royal dockyards; and that repairs were more economically effected in the Royal than in private dockyards. That statement gave him surprise and alarm. He agreed that they had in their private dockyards a magnificent national asset, but if the Admiralty pursued the policy of starving the Royal dockyards that would be fatal to national efficiency. He hoped they would receive some assurance that whilst giving every encouragement to the private yards the Government would maintain a fair proportion of shipbuilding in their own dockyards, which in the past had contributed so much to the strength of the Navy. The testimony of the noble Lord the Member for Ealing was very remarkable. They were all aware of the inadequacy of the machinery and the red tape which impeded work in the Royal dockyards, but it was a fact that they could build cheaper there than in private yards, and he hoped the Royal dockyards would receive the first consideration when new ships were laid down.
  Since he had had the opportunity and the honour of looking into dockyard matters he had been very much distressed at the cumbersome way in which those associated with the lower grades of labour had to make their wishes and wants known to the authorities. The Department received once a year curious documents known as "humble petitions." They were given a more or less considered answer, and those in the lower walks of labour were constantly in a condition of doubt and disappointment. One of the duties of the new Committee, which was to see to the organisation of our dockyards, would be to provide a suitable and proper way of enabling the workers to state their case, and he should like something in the nature of a trade council established. He could, if necessary, cite different rates of pay for identical labour, and all sorts of grievances and anachronisms existed in the service which could be settled by such methods as he had indicated. He hoped that some means would be found of getting rid of this old-fashioned method
  1272
  of petitioning, and of giving the men an opportunity of coming before those who employed them in order that the rates of pay might be made fair all round. He had nothing to say against the new naval policy, for he had always been in favour of a strong and an efficient Navy, but these sudden strokes of the pen meant a great deal of suffering to some of those who served the State in the humbler ranks of the Civil Service. It was a serious business to have in midwinter in Devonport something like 450 men discharged. In this introduction of a new policy more consideration should be shown to those who had served under the State in the lower ranks of labour. Speaking from the labour point of view, he hoped that this new programme would lead not only to efficiency in naval affairs, but also to a greater consideration for those who worked in the Royal dockyards.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he did not think any previous Board of Admiralty had shown itself so practical as the present Board, and he did not think the Admiralty would ever adopt any other policy than one which contained a proper intermixture of building and repairing in the Royal dockyards. He would not like this discussion to conclude without placing upon record his humble testimony to the satisfactory progress which had been made in naval affairs, and also his high appreciation of the services of one who had just retired from office. Lord Selborne took charge of the supreme direction of the Navy at a time when it was in an admittedly efficient condition, and perhaps the difficulties of Lord Selborne's task were rendered all the greater because of that efficiency; therefore the praise to be given to him ought to be increased because Lord Selborne commenced his term of office with the Navy in a high state of efficiency, and he had left it in a still higher state of efficiency, particularly as regarded personnel, the change in the arrangements for executive and engineer officers, the creation of a new section of reserves, an enormous increase in the number and efficiency of the reserves, and very little increase in the expenditure in time of peace. Besides this there had been the inevitable increase in the

  1273
  amount of new construction. For all these things the greatest credit was due to Lord Selborne, and they would form a permanent monument to the wisdom with which he had administered the affairs of the Navy. He only hoped that the new First Lord of the Admiralty would be equally successful. The appointment of Earl Cawdor formed quite a new departure in the system of selection of First Lords of the Admiralty, because there had been in the past no sort of connection beeween Lord Cawdor and the Navy. Nevertheless, the selection of the noble Lord who had been so successful an administrator for some ten years in one of the largest railways in the Kingdom, during which time that railway had prospered exceedingly, was a very excellent omen for his success in dealing with the Navy. They all hoped on the Ministerial side of the House that Earl Cawdor might have a lengthened time in which to show his ability to confer some benefits upon the Navy, but whether that time was long or short he believed there were many hon. Members who sympathised with the system which the First Lord of the Treasury had inaugurated of selecting a man who had a successful business career behind him for directing one of the most important offices of Stale.
  The Naval Budget was remarkable chiefly for one thing, and that was the economy of so large a sum as £3,500,000. The hon. Member for Dundee, opposite, sought to belittle this economy, and pointed out that it arose from a reduction of Vote 8 for naval construction. The First Lord of the Admiralty in his Memorandum stated that that reduction was principally due to economy. That economy was possible on account of recent events in the Far East, which had rendered it unnecessary for this country to lay down so many ships as were necessary in former years, and would have been necessary again but for the fact that a very large proportion of one of the fighting fleets of the world had been crippled and destroyed. He thought the Government deserved sympathy and support, and a definite expression of support, from the Ministerial side of the House, and particularly from those who had urged in former years the necessity of taking advantage of the very first opportunity possible of economising in the new construction
  1274
  programme when the balance of the British Fleet with other fleets made it possible to do so. There was no doubt some economy in the llama, system of laying up ships, and he understood that there was no intention of departing from the system that where ships were absolutely useless, with no reasonable prospect of ever coming into the, fighting line again, they would be sold and broken up. In respect of ships which had some reasonable prospects of being usable in the future, he thought the system which the Admiralty had inaugurated for the first time of laying up a large number of ships at a comparatively small expenditure for maintenance was a new system which would work well and assist in making adequate naval preparation, and in providing them with vessels which might be used in times of emergency and maintained at a minimum cost in time of peace.
  There were one or two items in the explanatory Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty to which attention had not, as yet, been very fully called. The first of these was the statement that the Special Committee upon Dockyard Administration was intended to bring about, if possible, a full decentralisation, so as to make the admirals superintending the dockyards more responsible for the work of the particular yards under their charge. That was to say, that each dockyard was to be more self-contained and to enter into competition with the other dockyards in regard to economy and speed of construction, and generally as regarded efficiency. If that object could be carried out he believed it would be a very desirable thing, and the object which the hon. Member for Devonport had in view of securing greater efficiency in the dockyards would be promoted by a healthy rivalry between the rival dockyards. He thought in this way that the Committee would ultimately do an excellent service.
  There was another equally important statement on page 4. in which reference was made to the steady increase in respect of the Royal Naval Reserve and of the Royal Fleet Reserve. That was the direction which had been so often urged in that House by his right hon. friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, namely, that every effort should

  1275
  be made by the Admiralty to bring about more co-operation with the Colonies in regard to naval defence. This contribution differed considerably from what had been advocated by his right hon. friend, but it was one which had not been forced from them in any way, and that, to his mind, was much more valuable, because, besides being a contribution of men and some of the expense, it was a manifestion of patriotism in the Colonies.
  The noble Lord the Member for Ealing had referred with approval to the establishment of the Committee of Designs by the present Board of Admiralty. He himself could not wholly support the appointment of that Committee, because he believed it would have the effect of largely reducing the responsibility of the Director of Naval Construction. That would be a great calamity. When that Committee was brought in to share with the Director of Naval Construction the responsibility for carrying out the duties of his office, they lowered the importance of his office and created a precedent which might be extremely dangerous. Reference had been made to a Committee which was formerly appointed, but he would point out that that was done under entirely different circumstances. There had been attacks made on the designs for naval construction and the Committee, which consisted of independent experts, was called in to report. In the case of the Committee now appointed there would be no Report, or, if there was, it would be kept secret. As to the Royal yacht, on whose style of construction so many attacks were made in that House at the time it was built, it was now an established fact that it was a great success in yacht building, and he thought the utmost prominence should be given to that statement because Sir William White, who had been particularly attacked in connection with the matter, took the full responsibility on himself at the time in the most chivalrous manner. There were some, indeed, who thought that he showed undue generosity in taking full responsibility on himself. The fact that the yacht had proved an entire success showed, after all, that little or no weight was to be attached to the criticisms of those who formerly commented adversely on Sir William White's scientific work.
  1276
  The First Lord's Memorandum referred to the importance of oil fuel. It was destined to play a very important part in the future of the Fleet, because it practically doubled the range of a vessel's operations. In other words, if a ship was capable of carrying sufficient coal to steam across the Atlantic, and then required to re-coal for the return voyage, by substituting liquid fuel for coal the ship would be able to cross the Atlantic and come back again without renewing its supply. One great difficulty which attended the adoption of oil fuel in the British Fleet was that we had not under the British flag any territory which produced petroleum. [An HON. MEMBER Yes]. Perhaps his hon. friend referred to Burma, where there was petroliferous territory, but so far the power of production had been limited, and the full extent of that source had not yet been proved. He urged that the Admiralty should co-operate with the Foreign Office and the India Office in increasing to the fullest possible extent the area from which liquid fuel might be obtained. The restriction which had recently been imposed on Burma was not in the best interests of the Navy. Certain British corporations were ready and willing to explore the liquid fuel resources of Burma, but, unfortunately, the Admiralty had not shown them the encouragement they might have done. Taking the Statement of the First Lord as a whole and the speeches of the Secretary to the Admiralty, they should create confidence in the House and country that whatever might be the difficulties at the War Office, we had at the Admiralty an organisation; amply prepared for the discharge of all the duties of naval administration.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman, who had just sat down, into the question of the use of oil for the Navy, or into that general and unbounded praise of the Admiralty and all connected with the Admiralty with which he concluded his speech. It was remarkably that throughout the debate—one of the most important epochs in the history of the Navy—they had had nothing like an epoch making speech from any representative of the Admiralty. He freely acknowledged

  1277
  that the Secretary to the Admiralty had, with his usual courtesy, answered all the smaller points which had been put to him; but on the general policy which underlay those changes he had refrained from giving them anything like the requisite amount of information which would enable the Committee to form a clear judgment on the problems presented for their consideration. We were now in a time of great revolution. We had re-grouped our fleets. We had discarded something like 160 ships from our fighting line. We had relieved the congestion of our dockyards. We had altered the system, under which we repaired and rebuilt our ships. Those changes were described, on high authority, as of the greatest moment. And yet the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty thought it inadvisable, in the House to which he was answerable for the policy of the Admiralty, to lay down the principles which had guided the Admiralty in the changes they had instituted. Here, he fancied, the hon. Gentleman was legitimately afraid of the charge of inconsistency. In the first place, he was afraid of the charge of inconsistency as regarded Rosyth, for whenever that subject was referred to be shirked it judiciously. The story of Rosyth had been told very well by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. In 1903 a statement was made by Lord Elgin, after an interview with the Admiralty, that when the naval base at Rosyth was completed there would be 30,000 or 40,000 bluejackets stationed there, and he went on to say that he had had a conference on the previous afternoon with the officials at the Admiralty, and was informed that it would not be wise to lay down pipes for a water supply for a population of less than 30,000 in the next thirty years. Only as late as December last, Lord Selborne, in writing to a Member of that House, said that since the scheme was sanctioned in 1903 much had happened which had accentuated the future importance of Rosyth in regard to the Navy. It was really absurd for the hon. Gentleman to say that the views of the Admiralty with regard to Rosyth had not undergone very serious changes. He had no doubt the hon. Member was rather nervous of the charge of inconsistency.
  1278
  He came to another question. It was only a year ago since the South Atlantic squadron was formed under the present arrangement; a separate squadron, then, would be no longer required. He had no complaint to make of these changes of policy. He thought they were good; but the hon. Gentleman should have the courage to say that they had changed their minds, and that they were justified in doing so, and should have also given the Committee the requisite reason for the change. The hon. Gentleman occasionally talked about continuity of policy, but he supposed he did not refer to such items as he had mentioned. It was very remarkable that the policy which the Admiralty advocated last year, and held up to last autumn, had suffered a complete change immediately Sir John Fisher was appointed. Those changes had been put down to the genius of Lord Selborne. He did not wish to detract from the ability of Lord Selborne; but it was apparent to the world that those changes were coincident with the appearance of Sir John. Fisher once more at Whitehall. Year after year the Admiralty had always resented any criticism of the total amount spent on the Navy. They had occupied a position of great privilege in the House. They had been to a large extent free from criticism. The danger that was run by withholding information was that the faith in the Admiralty's judgment had been seriously damaged. The one thing he should deplore would be that the faith of the country in the Admiralty should suffer the same shock that people's faith in the War Office suffered during the South African War. One of the matters which he had urged was that we might quite advisedly drop one of the battleships of the "King Edward VIIth" type. Nothing would have been wiser than to have waited until the war in the Far East had proceeded for some little time in order that we might have benefited from the lessons to be learned there. And yet we were told that to drop one of these battleships would have been a dangerous expedient! They urged that it would be unwise to accelerate the pace of the shipbuilding, first, because we had bought two Chilian battleships; secondly, because the Russian navy had been considerably weakened; and thirdly, because

  1279
  we could build better in 1905 than in 1904. They were told that there was no time to be lost. The Admiralty even embarked on building two more ships of the "King Edward VIIth" type when they had decided to build more ships of the improved "Lord Nelson" type. He understood that these latter had not yet been commenced. He wanted to know why, if no time was to be lost last year, these ships were not only deferred from August to January, but even now were not under construction. Then they urged also that the amount of money spent on repairs was far in excess of the value received. When they raised that point the hon. Gentleman said that the reason for repairing vessels in private yards was not merely that the dockyards were overcrowded, but that they wished to send the vessels back to the yards where they had been originally constructed. The ground for that apparently was bad, the expedient was extravagant, and he was glad the policy had now been dropped. The reason why they objected to these vessels going into private yards was not to deprive private yards of the work, but that the "time and material" basis was an extravagant one, and that it bound the Government to a certain extent to the private yards, and that it was bound to work out extravagantly. Nothing had been said as to what was to be done with the new Cunarders. They would like to know if the present Board of Admiralty had the same high opinion of the value of those vessels in time of war as their predecessors. This was one of those things in which there was room for criticism. He believed the original reasons which prompted the Admiralty to embark on this scheme were not naval reasons at all, but were the result of the great trade revolution on the Atlantic, at which some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had been bold enough to smile.
  In his opinion the reasons given for the redistribution of the Fleet were utterly inadequate to explain the great changes that had been made. It had been said that the real reason for the redistribution of the Fleet was to be found in the reliability of wireless telegraphy. But there was no doubt, whether wireless telegraphy had become reliable or not, the Admiralty was moved in the first
  1280
  instance by the alteration that had taken place in strategical geography. There had been a great change in the strength of the navies of the world and he had no doubt that that was the main motive in the mind of the Admiralty for the scheme of redistribution. They might also have been moved by the fact that the increase of torpedo stations in the Mediterranean and the introduction of submarines had made dangerous some of our most important stations and waters upon which we thought we were supreme. The hon. Gentleman had truly said that in calling in some of the more distant vessels and dropping a great deal of the police work he had set free a large number of officers and men; but if this revolution was necessary, if it had added to the strength of the Fleet, and at the same time had reduced the money spent upon it, why on earth was it not thought of two or three years previously? Many of the, reasons urged to day were just as applicable then. Those who thought we were building sufficiently fast were prepared to pour scorn on any figures of comparison, and those who thought we were building too slow would always appeal to them. It was only by a study of numerical comparisons that we could gauge our strength. To show the relatively powerful position which we occupied, he would just compare our Fleet with the fleets of Germany, France, and the United States. Taking the battleships under twenty-five years of age ready on January 18th, 1905, Great Britain had no less than fifty-six battleships of 742,000 tons; France had twenty-eight: Germany, seventeen; and the United States, fourteen; i.e., those three great Powers had together fifty-nine battleships, of 1,617,000 tons, whereas we had fifty-six battleships, of 742,000 tons; so that we were almost up to the three-Power standard. Taking armoured cruisers of twenty years of age, the three Powers together had twenty-five vessels, of 202,000 tons, whereas we had twenty-eight vessels, of 258,000 tons, so that we were well up to the three-Power standard. But let them look two or three years ahead, and take the vessels which would be ready on April 18th, 1908. Here they had another very interesting comparison. He found that on that date

  1281
  Great Britain would hive sixty-one battleships, of 850,000 tons; France, twenty-nine; the United States, twenty-six; and Germany, twenty-three; i.e., those three Powers would have seventy-eight battleships, whereas we should have sixty-one, this being well over the two-Power standard and close up to the three-Power standard. In armoured cruisers we should have seventy-five of large displacement, and they would have fifty-one or fifty-two. With comparisons such as these, it was perfectly obvious that we were nearly up to the full limit necessary for our naval strength. He doubted whether it was necessary oven now to accelerate our building or to go forward with one or two armoured cruisers now in contemplation. The comparative strength of our Fleet was so great that there was no reason whatever for accelerating building, but important reasons why we should economise on the Construction Vote.
  The work of purging the Fleet had, no doubt, been wisely conceived. It required a great deal of courage to, within a few months, get rid of every ship in the list that was not necessary to our security, and a greater amount of courage still, to throw something like 160 of those vessels on the scrap heap. The hon. Gentleman, in speaking of the new policy, would appear to have never heard of the introduction of steam into the Navy. That was, of course, a greater revolution than the redistribution of the Fleet. The truth was that the extravagant language which had been used in connection with the changes in the Fleet was totally unnecessary. There had been a re-sorting of the cards which would, no doubt, result in great economies and add to the efficiency of he Fleet. For his own part, he would give the Government all the support he could in endorsing the policy which had been initiated by Sir John Fisher, but he objected, when they offered criticisms on Admiralty matters, to be waved aside as beneath the consideration of Gentlemen in office. During the last few years they had offered many suggestions, and it was gratifying to find that many of them had now been accepted.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was spared the unpleasant task of having to
  1282
  make a lengthy speech as the result of the speech which had been delivered by his noble friend he Member for Ealing. He agreed with the general trend of that speech, although there were some points in it with which he ventured very respectfully to differ. He strongly supported his noble friend with reference to the local defences of our naval ports. He himself had previously brought the matter before the House, and he hoped his noble friend, if he pursued it, would be strongly supported in his endeavour to obtain a rational policy in regard to our ports which would not only be economical but also efficient. The salient feature of the First Lord's programme was a reduction of £3,500,000. Like his noble friend, a round sum of that kind made him rather suspicious. It was remarkable, further, that in the First Lord's Memorandum the reduction was only put at £3,000,000, whereas in the Estimates it appeared as £3,500,000. The First Lord, in his Memorandum, stated that the Navy was never in a more perfect state of preparedness than at present, and he paid a well-deserved compliment to the late Controller, Admiral May. He desired, however, to protest against the secrecy which was to attach to the proceedings of the Committee of Designs. That was a new departure of which they had been given no explanation or justification. What was the use of talking about secrecy when the very first ship of a type that was built would disclose its design and its object to the world? He regarded it as a shelter-trench in which the Board of Admiralty collectively and individually could take refuge from responsibility or even criticism. Any member of the Board might say, "Do not blame me, I merely carried out the design of the secret Committee." He, therefore, protested against the principle of secrecy as applied to the designs of ships. He did not know whether the Committee was advisory or consultative, or how long it was to be in existence, or whether its decisions were to be the collective opinion of the Committee, or whether individual members were to report on the particular part of the ship regarding which they had expert knowledge. The composition of the Committee was somewhat peculiar; and the only two members

  1283
  on it who appeared to him to be able to adequately deal with the subject were the Director of Naval Construction and the Assistant Constructor. He could not understand why the Controller of the Navy was left off this Committee while admirals, who were mostly at sea on the other side of the Atlantic, were placed upon it. How was the Committee to meet, and what were to be the relations between the Committee and the Controller, or the Controller and the Committee?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: The Controller of the Navy, Captain Jackson is a member of the Committee.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the point referred to by the hon. Member had escaped his attention, and consequently he withdrew his remarks on that head. As to dockyard administration he regretted that the element of business experience and knowledge was not better represented upon that Committee. The Committee was to inquire into the organisation and administration of dockyards: Did that include the finance system—the most important part of all?
  While postponing any detailed observations upon construction until the Vote came on, he felt bound to say that he did not regard the construction proposals with unqualified satisfaction. He regretted the postponement of the fourth armoured cruiser, and thought the Admiralty had taken upon themselves a great responsibility by the course they had adopted. He feared that they were drifting far too rapidly towards a by-policy of submarines. Submarines were entirely in an experimental stage, and while nations compelled to contemplate the expensive role in maritime war might find it necessary to develop their submarine policy very rapidly, there was no such necessity in our case. But the feature in the new construction to which he most strongly objected related to destroyers, as it disclosed a tendency of a very dangerous kind. The programme was to build a large number of coastal destroyers because they were cheap, and a small number of ocean-going destroyers because they were dear. That was a most dangerous policy. The deciding factor should be national
  1284
  maritime necessity. If they commenced building an inferior type of destroyers because they were cheap it was a very short step to a similar policy in other types; in fact, that passage in the Memorandum gave a possible clue to the idea which had prompted a reduction of £3,500,000.
  It had always been the policy to weed out obsolete vessels, and, while possibly in the past they had been over-cautious, he was very much afraid they were now acting rather recklessly. There was an uncertainty about the ships themselves. On the first of the month the Navy List was published showing the obsolete ships that were to be sold, and then, ten days afterwards, Parliament was furnished with a list, but the two lists did not agree. That seemed to show that there had been undue haste in the practical application of the policy of weeding out, tending to produce a sensation. He altogether condemned any attempt on the part of anybody connected with, correpresenting, the Admiralty to lend themselves to anything of a sensational character. The mobilisation scheme was a tremendous step in the direction of bringing men from sea to serve in harbours and on shore. The distribution of ships at sea was merely a further step in the development which had been in process ever since the establishment of the Channel Squadron. There was nothing remarkable about that, but it was put forward in a sensational way, and soon attracted great attention. But the great point so far as the personnel was concerned was that it would keep more officers and men in harbour and on shore than ever before. What was wanted to prepare men for war was constant sea experience, but he calculated that there would be rather less than one-half of the 129,000 officers and men on active service at sea, the remainder being comfortably installed on land, or in harbour on stationary ships. The House could not be too careful in watching that in any effort towards economy the sea experience of officers and men should not be diminished. Was it true that under this new scheme naval officers and men would be for a longer time on shore and in harbour than they would be at sea?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: They will go to sea.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was quite aware that they would go to sea, but for how long? He knew that a few of these ships would be mobilised and sent to sea during the manœuvres of 1905, but it was no answer to his argument to say that they would go to sea for some three weeks in the summer occasionally. He thought it was a tremendous step, and a very serious step, under the new scheme to gravitate officers and men more towards life in harbours and on shore rather than at sea. The reason why victory went with our Fleet during the Napoleonic Wars was because our vessels were always at sea, and therefore they should watch carefully any scheme that deprived their officers and men of sea training and experience.
  With regard to the grouping of the ships in different fleets, very little could be said as far as the Atlantic was concerned, but when they passed to the Eastern Hemisphere a great deal could be said. He confessed that he was disappointed with the First Lord's Memorandum in sketching out this programme. The China Fleet was really the most important area of the other hemisphere, and they were told in December that this would be more fully dealt with in the Memorandum accompanying these Estimates. That hope, however, had not been realised, because the present Memorandum only gave details of the substitution of one ship for another. In the other hemisphere they had the United States flanking one side and Japan in the northern part of it. Those were the two countries that had made the most extraordinary developments in naval strength in recent years. Although the First Lord of the Admiralty told them of increased mobility, he could not see anything in the Memorandum of December 6th last year or in the Memorandum of to-day dealing with the distribution of the Fleet, showing the scheme to be the result of a world-wide look at the naval position, for it absolutely paid no attention whatever to the British position in the Pacific in the very near future, and he protested against that. Much as he hoped that amity with the United States would long continue, he declined to base the British naval policy upon pious hopes. With every hope for continued amity, they could not ignore the development
  1286
  there, and they must have regard to their own position in the Pacific. Take, for another example, Japan. Did anybody believe that our alliance with Japan was an everlasting covenant. It would be a firm alliance as long as it suited Japan, and as long as both countries had a common interest, but let there be a divergence of interests and that alliance would soon come to end. He asked his hon. friend not to shirk this question of the future of the Pacific. The Pacific formed one-half of the world of water, and British interests in trade and commerce and our hopes and aspirations for the future, were hugely in excess of those of every other nation in the world, and yet they were expected to hold that hemisphere with no primary base. The Power that controlled the Pacific one day, would control the Indian Ocean the next. The new scheme was not a calm review dealing with the whole policy of the Empire in the near future. The policy dealt with one hemisphere under the conditions of to-day, but it took no notice of the developments going on in the world, and the necessity of Britain combining with Australasia and Canada to prepare to hold the Pacific. He asked the House to ponder over the fact that a scheme had been produced apparently to settle the arrangements as to how the British were to command the sea for a long time to come, yet those arrangements ignored the simple elementary facts with regard to the British position in the Pacific, and the developments that were taking place in power of producing locally the instruments of naval warfare in the Pacific. This was, therefore, a small scheme rather of the politician than the statesman. The scheme was admirable as far as it went, because it went a little ahead of what was done before, but it failed as a statesman's scheme. If this Empire of ours was to survive it could only be by securing the assured freedom of the waters of the world, by combining the, resources of all parts of its territories scattered over the world to attain that object.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10) APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE).
  *MR. SOARESsaid in moving the adjournment of the House on this subject he should like to make it perfectly clear and plain that this was in no sense of the word a personal attack on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. They all liked, respected, and admired the hon. Gentleman, and had he obtained promotion they would have had no objection. The Motion now moved was for the purpose of protesting against the appointment of Lord Salisbury to the highly important office of the President of the Board of Trade. No one would deny that that was a most important office, and everyone hoped that as time went on its importance was destined to increase rather than diminish. The office was instituted in 1786, and its members were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the First Lord of the Treasury, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the principal Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Speaker, certain Privy Councillors, and last, but not least, the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, and ruling over those gentlemen were a president and a vice-president. It was hardly necessary to say that owing to its constitution that Board never met, and by custom and by practice the whole responsibility now rested on the President of the Board of Trade. The duties of the President of the Board of Trade were many and complex. He had to preside over the great railway systems of this country, arteries which were neither more nor less than the living of the great home trade of this country; over our mercantile marine, which, thanks to free trade, was supreme on every sea, and which provided work for 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of men, and brought to this country £80,000,000 or £90,000,000 annually; he had control over harbours, and over the lighting of our coasts; and he had now to deal with the settlement of labour disputes, and many other matters of a similar nature. Ought not a Minister with all these duties to perform to be a Member of the House
  1288
  of Commons? The House of Commons was composed largely of business men; many of the mercantile princes were in the House, and every Member was from time to time brought into touch with the great mercantile undertakings in their constituencies, and it was their duty to bring the interests of those great under-takings before the President of the Board of Trade. They wished to ask him questions across the floor of the House, and to argue with him on these matters, and they did not want to be told, as they would now be told whenever a difficult and complex matter came before them, that no definite answer could be given because the hon. Gentleman had to consult his noble friend in another place. Of all the unsatisfactory answers given from time to time in the House that was the most unsatisfactory, because they all knew that it led to nothing.
  There were two matters in which the House of Commons ought to be considered supreme, one was finance, and the other trade. Members of that House had more personal knowledge of these matters than noble Lords in another place, and had more practice in regard to them. It always seemed to him that the Prime Minister desired to exalt the other place at the expense of that House, when he allowed blocking Motions to stand in the Order Book which prevented this House from discussing questions of interest, though they could be discussed in the other place. Then the Prime Minister had a theory that all great Ministers of State should sit in the House of Lords. He said in the year 1903, when speaking on a somewhat similar Motion—
  "Yet I am convinced that the difficulty of carrying that out will be found increasingly great, and that as you pile one duty after another upon the heads of great Departments, so it will make it less and less possible for a man to be a Member of the House of Commons and a great Minister at the same time."
  With this theory and with the new rules of the House of Commons passed by him it was evident that the Prime Minister was quite willing to exalt the Upper House at the expense of the House of Commons. What was the reason of this appointment? He would not discuss Lord Salisbury's qualifications. He knew that Lord Salisbury was a good

  1289
  free-trader; that he was a lieutenant-colonel of Volunteers, and also that he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in that House for three years and had lately been Lord Privy Seal, an office somewhat in the nature of a sinecure. The other day, speaking at King's Lynn, Lord Claude Hamilton gave instances of how Governments were formed. He said that he had been asked by Mr. Disraeli to join his Government, but he was subsequently told that he could not be taken in as Lord George Hamilton had displayed more industry; and then Mr. Disraeli went on to say that he could not take in Lord Claude because he could not have more than one member of the same family in a Government. He did not know whether the Prime Minister agreed with that or not. But the real and true reason for this appointment was to be found in the Parliamentary poll-book. The theory of the Prime Minister seemed to be, "Come what may, appoint whom you will, but by all means let us avoid a by-election." During recent times the House had been accustomed to these constant changes in the Government. In the eye of the Prime Minister a week-end reconstruction was almost as popular as the week-end holiday, but the real reason which governed him in making this appointment was to prevent the electorate getting at him under any circumstances. The Prime Minister might be able to quote precedents for the action that he had taken. He might point out that Tory Prime Ministers had appointed Peers to be Presidents of the Board of Trade. Whig Ministers no doubt had done the same thing, but since the time of Mr. Gladstone—from 1868 onward—no President of the Board of Trade appointed by a Liberal Administration had sat in the House of Lords. But he did not wish to rely upon precedents only. They should not be guided by precedent in a case of this kind. The Government themselves admitted that times were changed, and there would have to be some alteration in the Board of Trade. They told the House in the King's Speech that they intended to alter the Board of Trade and establish a Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Everyone thought that meant an improvement in the status of the President of the Board of Trade, but the
  1290
  first thing they found after the debate on the Address was over was that the Minister of Commerce was to sit in the House of Lords. It was because he thought this appointment detrimental to the trade and commerce of the country, derogatory to the House of Commons, and injurious to the interests of their constituents, that he moved the adjournment.
  *MR. TREVELYANsaid he was glad to support this Motion, not only for the general reasons given by his hon. friend, but because he thought in the first place that the Prime Minister had lost a great opportunity of altering the balance of administrative offices in favour of the House of Commons. This House had predominance in the government of this country, both in the matter of finance and in legislation, but in a case of this kind he thought it did not protest sufficiently against so large a portion of the administrative positions in the country being in the hands of Peers. Of the ten great Ministerial appointments, one third had, during the last few Ministries, been held by Peers. No one would say that a Peer of distinguished ability should be excluded from administrative office. Far from it. But it seemed to him that no Peer who had obscure and mediocre abilities ought to hold distinguished office in the State when there were men of the same caliber to be found in the House of Commons. In the other House there was nothing to test the capacity of a man as to the way he carried on his office. In this House, whatever a man's ability might be, he had to stand the test of constant criticism, and it was easy for the House to form an opinion of his character. This House ought to be very jealous of allowing any great office of State to be held by a Member of the other House, except he be one of the most distinguished Peers of the kingdom. The Department to which this Motion had relation had two sides to it. It had a commercial side and a labour side, and from both the commercial and the labour world there was a demand for a special Minister in their special interests. Ideally, it seemed to be an office which should be represented in this House by both the President and Parliamentary Secretary. One of those Gentlemen should be a commercial man and the

  1291
  other a Labour Member, but the Prime Minister could no more get a Labour Member to fill one of those positions than the hon. Member for West Birmingham could get a Labour Member to occupy a seat on his Tariff Commission. Perhaps Lord Salisbury was appointed because of the difficulty in which the Government found themselves. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was admirably fitted for the post, but he was a strong protectionist. His late chief was an avowed free-trader, and the Parliamentary Secretary was a strong man. He was almost the only man besides the hon. Member for Sleaford who had the courage to make protectionist speeches in the House, and, no doubt, he required a strong free-trader to balance him. But it would have given more confidence to the House if the right hon. Gentleman had selected the House of Commons representative of the distinguished race to which Lord Salisbury belonged, the Member for Greenwich.
  The serious part of the present situation was the way in which the Prime Minister made appointments. His right hon. friend had alluded to what the right hon. Gentleman had said upon the last occasion when this subject was discussed. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say in that speech that never again should we see a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House. That statement was received with some astonishment, but it showed the length to which the views of the right hon. Gentleman tended to carry him. During his Administration he had made many new appointments. Putting aside appointments to Court offices and to the positions of Whip, the right hon. Gentleman had made five new appointments in his Government; he had appointed one commoner, the Colonial Secretary, and four Peers. He had raised from subordinate positions in the Ministry, not counting lateral transferences from one office to another, two Peers and eight commoners, but three of the eight commoners were heirs to great Peerages. He did not say the right hon. Gentleman was wrong to appoint these gentlemen, but, in considering these appointments, the House had to consider the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not only appointing Peers to Ministerial positions,
  1292
  but that he was also appointing and promoting hon. Gentlemen who, in the course of time, would be in the Upper House. The right hon. Gentleman in the appointments he was making was not having regard to the fair proportion of appointments which this House had a right to claim, and he thought his hon. friend had done well in the interests of this House to call attention to the fact.
  MR. PURVISsaid as long as there were two Houses of Parliament, the judgment of the Cabinet and the sentiment of the political Party which supported the Cabinet must be adequately represented in both Houses. The House of Lords and the House of Commons were independent bodies, and the adequate representation of the Executive Government by Ministers in both Houses secured that uniformity of deliberation which was necessary on great public questions. Every question was presented to both Houses from the same point of view. This Motion claimed for the House of Commons the privilege of having the President of the Board of Trade in this House. Such a privilege had no existence, it was not so many years ago that the Duke of Richmond was President of the Board of Trade. With all due deference to hon. Gentlemen opposite, the House of Lords contained many men qualified to give the very best opinions on trade and commerce. One had only to mention such names as Lord Goschen, whom they all knew, and the late Lord Hardwicke, whom many of them had known, to justify that statement. Lord Salisbury would not, in discussing matters of trade, speak in a back room, as it were, in the House of Lords, and even if they admitted that this prominent Department was not represented in this House except by an official of inferior grade, there was the other side to the question, which was that in the case of the noble Lord there would be no necessity for attending at night at nine o'clock, and he would, therefore, have more time to devote to the questions relating to his office.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): It appears to me that the mover and the seconder,

  1293
  to say nothing of my hon. friend who has just spoken, have perhaps travelled a little wide of the relatively narrow terms in which the Motion for the adjournment has been couched. The mover began by giving a short historical survey of the Board of Trade. He was not afraid to air again that well-known joke or gibe about the constitution of the Board of Trade, that among its members are to be found distinguished dignitaries who have from the nature of their employment nothing to do with trade, such, for example, as the Archbishop of Canterbury and even the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is not, after all, the constitution of the Board of Trade which is in question. We are not going to discuss whether the Board of Trade should have at its head an official corresponding in status to a Secretary of State or whether the ancient and dignified fiction of the Board should be longer maintained. On that point there is much to be said pro and con, but really it is quite irrelevant to our debate, to-night, and I do not know how the hon. Gentleman who initiated the discussion thought fit to deal with it. The real question we have before us, I imagine, is whether or not the President of the Board of Trade for the time being should necessarily be in this House or whether he may be occasionally or often in another place. I do not think that in dealing with the subject hon. Members have sufficiently considered the problem which must always be dealt with by any Minister on whom falls the duty of advising the Sovereign on the constitution of the Government for the time being. I understand, however, that this duty will soon fall upon themselves, and I do not think that they will find it to be an easy one—at any rate, not easier than their predecessors have found it. I would seriously say in the best interests of the country, wholly irrespective of Party, that it is eminently desirable as few difficulties should be thrown in the way of the Prime Minister of the day as, in conformity with other overmastering interests, it is possible to arrange.
  The mover of the Motion indicated that the one solitary consideration which influenced the present Prime Minister was the desire to avoid by-elections. Supposing
  1294
  that were true—it is not true—but supposing it were true, can there be a severer condemnation, of our existing system? I remember in my early days the Party to which I belong [OPPOSITION cries of "Which Party?"]—it was in 1780; I should have said 1880—derived infinite enjoyment from the satisfaction of turning the late Sir William Harcourt out of his seat at Oxford on his taking office as Home Secretary. He found a seat elsewhere, but his absence from the House was a temporary inconvenience to Mr. Gladstone's Government; and, in my opinion, although it gave us great satisfaction as a good practical joke, it was a severe condemnation of the system on which we now carry on business. There is no practical Assembly in the world but our own which would tolerate such a system for an instant. I am not going into that question, on which I feel very strongly and on which some day I hope to have the pleasure or the pain to trouble the House with a longer speech. I only mention it because the hon. Member chose to throw across the floor of the House a taunt of which I do not complain, and I do not think was directed against, me, but against the system which I desire to see destroyed, not in my interest or in the interest of this side of the House, but in the interest of both sides of the House and of sound government, and the interest which, after all, must be of the greatest importance to the whole community—the free choice of those persons best qualified to fill particular offices.
  The seconder of the Motion laid down the proposition that in dividing the offices between the two Houses no account should be taken of the fact that there were two Houses of Parliament—in other words, for the purpose of distributing office you had to consider the individual himself without considering whether he, belonged to one House or the other, or the equitable and fair division between the two historic branches of the Legislature. That has never been the principle on which any Prime Minister up to the present time has acted. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that every Prime Minister, to whichever Party he belonged, has

  1295
  always considered that the House of Lords had a claim as an equal branch of the Legislature with ourselves to a proportion—not necessarily an exact equivalent proportion—of the great offices of State. I do not know whether that is going to be, with other constitutional maxims, abandoned by hon. Members opposite. Some of them desire to "mend or end" the House of Lords; and this may be, indeed, the beginning of that campaign with which they threaten us against that Assembly. But so long as the House of Lords exists, occupying as it does an essential and an historic place in our constitutional system, so long will it be a grave dereliction of duty on the part of any Minister who has to advise the Crown in the formation of a Government to ignore the claims of the House of Lords to a portion of the great administrative offices of the State. I had to make important changes in the Government owing to the resignation of the late Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, and the resignation also of Lord Onslow. Have I altered the balance of Cabinet Ministers between us and House of Lords? I have retained it exactly where it was. That the changes had to be made no one regrets more than I do; but as the changes had to be made, I do not believe that the necessity could have been better met than as I have endeavoured to meet it.
  The seconder of the Motion has chosen to mix up two different questions in his attack on the Government. He was not content with endeavouring to show that I had displayed undue partiality to the House of Lords in giving to that Assembly the Presidency of the Board of Trade, but he set himself to prove that I had a peculiar partiality for those who either were, or in the course of nature would become, Peers of the realm. Supposing that somewhat absurd accusation were true, what would it have to do with this Motion, if I may say so without offence? Because my noble friend the Postmaster-General is the heir to a Peerage, what has it to do with the fact that Lord Salisbury has been appointed President of the Board of Trade? It has not the remotest connection. But I suppose that the hon. Member desired to raise a prejudice, to make something
  1296
  in the nature of a personal attack, because I think too well of his sense of relevance and logic to suppose that he would have dragged in such irrelevant matter if he had not had the motive which I suggest. A good deal has been said about a speech which I delivered in the House some years ago—I forget what speech it was.
  MR. SOARES: It was in 1903, when Lord Onslow was appointed Minister for Agriculture.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had forgotten that. Did the hon. Gentleman and his friends object to it because Lord Onslow was a Peer? [Cries of "Yes."] Then their last shred of argument is gone. They are of opinion not only that the Board of Trade but the Board of Agriculture should be in this House, and they think that the necessity is equal. I do not think they ought to be in this House, but I admit that the necessity is equal, and therefore I have transferred the Board of Agriculture from the other House and put the Board of Trade there. That should be a fair arrangement even according to the views of hon. Members. I am greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having reminded me of a Parliamentary episode which had escaped my recollection. He reminded me of a speech I made on the occasion of Lord Onslow's appointment. I Though I had forgotten that speech, I recognise that the sentiments contained in the extract are those which I entertained and still entertain. The hon. Member reminded the House that I had stated that the growing labours both of administrative and of Parliamentary life are such that the difficulty of holding a very heavy office in this House is day by day an increasing difficulty. Those two hon. Gentlemen who have not held important administrative offices seem to regard it as an absurd paradox and as a wanton attack on the privileges of this House. Really it is not a paradox, and it is not an attack on this House. The tendency of events, and the natural course and development of an Assembly such as this, throws upon the Ministers of the day and upon the non-official Members of the day an ever-increasing burden of work and sacrifice. Compare

  1297
  the hours and the strain put upon Members when I first entered the House more than a generation ago, or the generation before that, and you will find that the one uninterrupted tendency, whoever was in power, whatever the questions occupying the attention of the country or the state of our foreign relations, has been more and more to make the labours of individual Members, and not less the labours of Ministers, in the House of Commons become greater and greater. And while that is going on within these walls there is a similar tendency going on with regard to all the great offices of State. A century or a century and a half ago what had a Minister to do? What was the administrative work thrown upon him? It was practically, as we should say in these days, nothing. Now, year by year, the closer intercourse of nations, the development of means of communication, the growing policy of this House and the other House, but chiefly of this House, to throw more and more labours upon Departments—these are all tending to make separate administrative offices more and more absorbing in the continuous labour which they impose upon their occupants. I am not talking of duties which fall upon me, which are of a somewhat special kind; but take the very office of the Board of Trade we are considering. The hon. Gentleman, in his speech, said that every year the House of Commons throws new duties on the President of the Board of Trade. So it does; and, therefore, every year the House of Commons makes it more difficult for the head of that particular office also to carry on the great labours incident to a Member of this House. And as for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I repeat what has been regarded as a paradox by the seconder of the Motion. I say you will not again see in this House a Foreign Minister unless you are prepared deliberately to release that Minister from the ordinary obligations of a Member of the House. Because if you ask him to come down at two o'clock or a quarter past to answer Questions or when his own office is under discussion; if you require him to be down, as my right hon. friends are required to come down, whenever there is a Government division or an important Government
  1298
  debate; if you require him to be here throughout the whole afternoon, to come again, if need be, at nine, and at the same time to carry on the work of such an office as the Foreign Office, you cannot do it. I respectfully say it with full knowledge both of what the House of Commons requires and what is required of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The strain in any case is great, and I say that to add to the labours which are thrown on the Minister for Foreign Affairs the labours of the day-to-day work of this House is really out of the question. In truth, much as we may dislike it, we have to recognise that our ambitions as legislators do conflict with those other natural ambitions to have the heads of the administrative Departments in this House. I believe that in the interests of administration as well as in other interests the immemorial constitutional practice ought to be maintained—that of keeping in the other House a certain number of the great Departments of State and not necessarily those which entail least labour upon their occupants.
  Beyond a few covert sneers, nothing has been said against Lord Salisbury's capacity for the office; and I am sure hon. Gentlemen are anxious to say nothing of a personal character find nothing that could legitimately hurt the feelings of anybody, certainly not of the noble Lord himself. But the hon. Members did imply that what they called a business training was, or ought to be, an invariable accompaniment of anybody holding the office of President of the Board of Trade. [Cheers.] I really do not think those enthusiastic cheers will be repeated when I recall the fact that the last occupant of the office on their own side was a very distinguished gentleman whose great services to mankind were chiefly connected with history and scientific law—much more important qualifications, I think, than those of a mere business training. Nor do I think that anything should be sacrificed in order to obtain purely business qualifications. Get them if you can, but sacrifice, nothing in the way of general ability in order to gain them. That is the constitutional practice, and I believe it is a perfectly sound one. It was Lord Beaconsfield, I think, who said that a business man was a man who has left

  1299
  business, or whom business has left; and it is certainly true that to neglect the greater qualities in order to obtain technical ability in some particular branch of business would be a very evil practice, and one which would be little calculated to advance the general business interests of the country represented by the Board of Trade. May I just read out a short list of the Presidents of the Board of Trade for the last half century? Lord Stanley of Alderley, the right hon. Joseph Henley, Lord Donoughmore, the right hon. Thomas Milner Gibson, Sir S. Northcote, the Duke of Richmond, the right hon. John Bright, the right hon. Chichester Fortescue, Sir Charles Adderley, Lord Sandon, the right, hon. Joseph Chamberlain, the right hon. E. Stanhope, the right hon. Anthony Mundella, Lord Stanley of Preston, Sir M. Hicks-Beach, the right hon. James Bryce, the right hon. C. T. Ritchie, and the right hon. G. W. Balfour. That is the list of fifty years, and those are the choices made by successive Prime Ministers during that time, drawn from both Parties; and I venture to say that in that list there is conclusive proof of two things—first, that Prime Ministers have not shrunk from putting the President of the Board of Trade in the House of Lords, and, in the second place, that they took no special pains to search out men of business training in order to fill the office of President of the Board of Trade. As for the general capacity of the new holder of the office, I admit the full responsibility which I have undertaken in recommending his name to the King, and I imagine we shall not debate that point, because it is undebateable with advantage or even with propriety, across the floor of the House. But on the particular points that I have not increased the number of Cabinet offices in the House of Lords, that I——I am sorry to have to use the first personal pronoun, but it is my advice, after all—have not violated tradition by putting a Peer in the position of President of the Board of Trade—those two things, I think, are perfectly clear, and I do not think there is the smallest justification for the Motion which has been proposed and seconded this evening.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his hon. friends who moved
  1300
  and seconded the Motion for the adjournment refrained very carefully from making any personal attack upon Lord Salisbury, and the Prime Minister had reciprocated that courtesy by criticising the qualifications of the Liberal President of the Board of Trade ten years ago.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I specially said that I thought the right hon. Gentleman had much greater claims to our consideration than could be derived from a business training.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he accepted the explanation. He had probably misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister had skilfully tried to divert this into an attack on the House of Lords, but the Motion had nothing to do with the particular view held by Members on either side about the House of Lords. The question was whether the President of the Board of Trade ought to be in the other House or in this House. That was a totally different proposition. The Prime Minister said he had considered the relative claims of the two Houses, and had distributed the offices in such a way as to give the House of Lords fair representation. He pointed out that Lord Onslow, who was Minister of Agriculture, was in the House of Lords, and that now the Minister of Agriculture was in the House of Commons. But the right hon. Gentleman did not point out, first, that the predecessor of Lord Onslow as Minister of Agriculture, the late Mr. Hanbury, was in this House; and, secondly, that when Lord Onslow was appointed all the chambers of agriculture throughout the country memorialised the Government that the Minister of Agriculture should be in the House of Commons. The appointment of a Member of this House as Minister of Agriculture was the result of the unanimous request of the agricultural societies of the country. If that was the case in regard to agriculture, surely the case in regard to the Board of Trade was overwhelming. If ever there was a chief who ought to be in the House of Commons it was the chief of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade had to deal with commerce, trade, and industry. How many representatives of the working classes were there in the House of Lords? The representatives

  1301
  of the commercial interests—the shipping interest, for instance—were to be found in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Peterborough said there were many Members in the House of Lords who knew a great deal about trade and commerce. That was perfectly true, but how was it that they were not appointed? The great majority of the representatives of the commerce of the country were to be found in the House of Commons, and it was important that the Minister of the Department concerned with trade should be in contact with those representatives day by day. Although there were three or four Peers on the list of those who had represented the Board of Trade, they were only there for a year or, at most, eighteen months at a time; and when the Prime Minister gave his list he did not mention the fact that for forty-five years out of the total of fifty the President of the Board of Trade was in the House of Commons, That showed that not merely Liberal but Conservative Administrations had alike recognised that the head of the Board of Trade ought to be in the House of Commons.
  Did not the Committee which was appointed to consider the re-arrangement of offices report that they were satisfied that the work of the Board of Trade had greatly increased in importance in late years, as new duties and responsibilities had been imposed on it by legislation in connection with railways, trade disputes, etc? The Report went on exalting the importance of the office, and it all ended in the appointment of a Peer, who had had no training at all in these matters, to the headship of the Department. He did not say that if a Peer was pre-eminently fitted for the office he should not be appointed. He was making no attack upon Lord Salisbury, and if the noble Lord stood alone—if it was felt in both Houses of Parliament that he was the best man to represent trade in Parliament—he did not mean to say that there would not have been a good deal to say for the position of the Government in appointing him. But that was not the case. He did not wish to draw invidious comparisons, but could it be fairly said that the new representative of the trade and commerce of the country was a man better fitted for the post than
  1302
  his subordinate, the hon. Gentleman who, according to the hon. Member for Peterborough, held an office of an inferior grade. Had it been left to be decided by any one in this House who should be the new head of the Department, would it not have been the hon. Gentleman who now sat in this House?
  After all, the Prime Minister's defence was contained in the first part of his speech. What was it? The only defence was the unpopularity of his Government; that practically he could not face by-elections. The Prime Minister was not free to consider the material of his own Party; he could not consider who was the best man for a post; he had to consider the man whose seat was safe. That was not fair to the country. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well he had not a free hand to consider who was the man in his Party who was best fitted to hold this position. After all, it was a very important post, a most important post, perhaps one of the most important in the Ministry. We were attacked in our trade, and this was the way the Government were going to defend it—by supporting the previous Question and appointing the Marquess of Salisbury! For the last two or three years we had heard that our trade was going, that it was being attacked by foreign countries. The Ministerial Party had got their remedy; they, on the Opposition side, had got their remedy—on that they were all agreed. [HON. MEMBERS on the MINISTERIAL Benches: What is your remedy?]
  MR. DALZIEL: A general election.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that their remedy was free trade. He could not discuss that at present; but, at any rate, that was his proposition. They were all agreed that trade was a very important matter from the point of view of the administration of the government of this country; but at this particular moment, when they were all agreed on that, the Government instead of selecting the best man for President of the Board of Trade had regard only to electioneering considerations. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Why should they make any pretence about it in this House?

  1303
  Did the House of Commons wish to take its facts, if he might say so, like its fresh air, through cotton wool? Everybody knew why this appointment had been made. The Prime Minister himself did not really deny it. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, he did so in a very half-hearted way; he did not seem to have any settled convictions about it. The Prime Minister was fighting a rearguard action; everybody knew that he was fighting it with very great skill; but he had loitered too long in a bad position. His own Party were entitled to require that he should put his best man in command, and Grand Dukes were not always the best men; they should not be always of the blood. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well, at any rate, why the thing had been done. His hon. friend had alluded to a former connection of the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Department—he did not know whether tradition required the association of anyone with an ecclesiastical turn of mind with the office. The Prime Minister said that it was of importance to have heads of Departments in the House of Lords. That was a most dangerous attack on the House of Commons, for the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be that Ministers should be in the other House, members of his Party in the House of Commons being so much engaged in coining down to talk against time, between nine and ten o'clock, in order to keep an unpopular Ministry in power. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: No, no!] Was that really denied? [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: Yes.] Well, he saw that there was one hon. Member who was not going to stand again.
  What would the result be of having the representative of this great Department in the House of Lords? After all, the head of the Department was the only one who could answer finally any difficult and complicated question. He remembered when Lord Salisbury was in the House of Commons he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but he was not allowed to answer supplementary Questions. Why? Because his chief was in the House of Lords. Were they going to allow him to answer supplementary Questions in the House of
  1304
  Lords? And who was to be the chief? Was it to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, or was it to be the Marquess of Salisbury? There was no Department in the Government which required to be more constantly interrogated than the Board of Trade on questions of shipping, commerce, and labour, and, above all, on questions of sugar. He wished to point out the importance of having in the House of Commons a strong man who knew something, of his own knowledge, of trade, and had an independent judgment of his own. What better proof could they have of that than the stupid blunder of the Sugar Convention? But there was a much bigger question than that looming—that of free trade. He did not believe there was anyone in that House who in his heart would defend this appointment. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes."] He ventured to ask if any hon. Member opposite would get up and say that, in his judgment, the Marquess of Salisbury, out of the 200 odd gentlemen who represented the Government in that House, and the 400 odd gentlemen who represented it in the House of Lords, was the best qualified man to be at the head of the trade and commerce and industry of this country? They knew perfectly well that he was nothing of the sort. He supported the Motion for the adjournment in order to object to this sort of recasting of the family settlement.
  MR. MARKSsaid that no one outside that House and Party politics would deny that in the matter of the appointment of a high official the main question to be considered was the capability of the man to be appointed. The mover of the Motion for the adjournment had refrained from entering into the question of the Marquess of Salisbury's qualifications, and prided himself on the fact; and without considering these qualifications the hon. Member came to the conclusion that this appointment would be detrimental to the trade of the country. A very serious matter, if true; but the hon. Member had made no attempt to justify his statement. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had asked who was there in the House of Lords who represented the working classes. That was an astounding inquiry to come from

  1305
  a Liberal leader. The Liberal Peers in the House of Lords represented the working classes, and there or elsewhere would work with the hon. Member if and when a Liberal Government came into office. The hon. Member had asked where were the representatives of commerce in the House of Lords; he had asserted that they were to be found only in the House of Commons. He, however, contended that the representatives of commerce who had been most successful were to be found, not in that House, but in the House of Lords; and those who had been only moderately successful sat in this House, in the hope that before long they would go to the House of Lords. They were told that the President of the Board of Trade was the head of the trade and commerce of the country. He was nothing of the kind, and was never intended to be. He was meant to direct matters in connection with the trade, commerce, and industry of the country, but he was also responsible for other matters. Prominent amongst those other matters which the President of the Board of Trade had to deal with was the erosion of our sea coasts; a subject which required very serious consideration, and which was more likely to receive that consideration at the hands of a President whose whole time was not taken up with routine work in this House.
  MR. MACVEAGH: And the amendment of the Company Laws.
  *MR. MARKS: Yes, the amendment of the Company Laws; and, in addition to that, the question of the manning of the merchant marine, with which a Departmental Committee had lately been dealing. One could not help believing that questions of such magnitude and urgency would be better dealt with by a President of the Board of Trade who had more leisure than a Minister who was subjected to the constant harrassing and labour of the House of Commons. It was a very well-known fact that for years past the proportion
  of foreigners engaged in the mercantile marine——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must have got the wrong speech in his hand.
  *MR. MARKSsaid that in his inexperience he had thought that any speech which dealt with matters of trade would have been germane to the discussion on the Board of Trade. He would conclude, however, by saying that no argument had been adduced against this appointment. The speeches which had been delivered from the Opposition side of the House had been merely campaign speeches directed against the general policy of the Government.
  MR. BELLsaid he desired to add a few words, as a representative of the working classes. He had listened with great attention to the speeches of the hon. Members who had supported the Prime Minister, but had not heard a single word in justification of this appointment. The President of the Board of Trade, as well as many other heads of Departments, should sit in that House. He was the head of a Department which dealt not only with commerce, but with the interests of the working classes, and he failed to understand why such an appointment should be made in a House where the Minister would be far away from criticism. If the Government did not choose to place within the Cabinet or in the Department dealing with the industry of the country some representative of the labouring class, the least they could do was to place the head of the Department in the House of Commons, where he could be thoroughly questioned. Nothing would give the working classes of the country less confidence in the Government than placing the head of the Board of Trade in the other place.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 239. (Division List No. 43.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Boland, John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Bell, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Benn, John Williams

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Blake, Edward

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Burns, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Reddy, M.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John Bryu (Eifion)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roche, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Crombie, John William

  Levy, Maurice

  Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

  Crooks, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehy, David

  Cullinan, J.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Slack, John Bamford

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  McCrae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mc Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Doogan, P. C.

  McKenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mc Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Duffy, William J.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Edwards, Frank

  Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Esmond, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  O' Dowd, John

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Harwood, George

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, Samuel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Scares and Mr. Trevelyan.

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Bull, William James

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bill, Charles

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Balfour, Rt Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Bond, Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  1308

  1309

  Chapman, Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pym, C. Guy

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Randles, John S.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hozier, Hon James Henry, Cecil

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kerr, John

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  kimber, Sir Henry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dewar, Sir T R. (Tower Hamlets

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson, Hn H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowstoft)

  Sloan Thomas Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Finlay, Sir R B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Fisher, William Haves

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

  Fison, Frederick William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stanley, Rt Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Mc Calmont, Colonel James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Forster. Henry William

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Taylor Austen (East Toxteth)

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gardner, Ernest

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Tomlinson Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Maxwell. W J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Tuff, Charles

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(TrH'mlets

  Moles worth, Sir Lewis

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Moore, William

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Walrond Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury.

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Gretton, John

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Myers, William Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow

  Hambro, (Carles Eric

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson J W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry)

  Parker Sir Gilbert

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

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wright son, Sir Thomas

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W

  Percy, Earl

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Holder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Plummer, Sir Waiter R.

  Viscount Valentia.

  SUPPLY [1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, including 20,211 Royal Marines."
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it was desirable that Vote A and also Vote 1 should be passed to-night. He would endeavour to answer as briefly as possible some of the points which had been raised in the discussion. The question of sea time had been very carefully calculated; and the result of the present system would be that there would be two years active service for officers and men in full commission, and from fourteen to sixteen months in harbour. It might be necessary to work ships in time of war with reduced crews; and the nucleus crews which had been formed would under this scheme obtain very valuable experience. With reference to the question of the secrecy of designs, he did not think he had anything to add to what he had said before. When a ship was completed or partially completed the design was, of course, known; but it was quite another matter to allow the particulars of a design to transpire while the ship was on the stocks, even though it was inevitable that the design would be public property later on. His hon. and gallant friend raised the question as to the two classes of destroyers, one for ocean work and the other for work in narrow waters. It was not true to say that the new twenty-five-and-a-half "knotters" had proved inferior to the old thirty "knotters." In anything like dirty weather the twenty-five-and-a-half "knotters" had shown their superiority. As he had stated to the Committee, they had failed to produce a better design which would combine greater speed with greater stability at a limited cost. After all cost was a convenient standard and index. The evolution of these two classes
  1312
  was the result of the old battle of opposing factors—navigability and invisibility. It was not true to say that they had abandoned the policy of reducing the size of the destroyers; but they could not get in one class maximum speed and maximum invisibility both in narrow waters and in the open. Therefore, instead of trying to build one class of destroyer, which would attain a maximum speed in all waters, they had designed two classes, each of which advanced to some extent, separately, as regarded speed and invisibility, so as severally to meet requirements in narrow waters and in the open sea.
  MR. LOUGHasked if the present destroyers were useless.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid certainly not. Far from being useless they were as good to-day as any destroyers that could be pitted against them.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid one of the reasons given for the building of these wastal destroyers was that they were cheap.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that, as he had already explained, cost was an important factor; but other considerations had also to be taken into account. As regarded the point raised by his noble friend the Member for Ealing as to taking over the defence of naval bases by the Navy, that was a point of great difficulty, and involved a very large question of policy. It was desirable that the defence of naval bases should be, as far as possible, in one hand, and under one control; but there ust be a dividing line somewhere, and he could think of no more convenient dividing line than the natural dividing line between the Army and Navy—land and sea.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid his suggestion was that the duty discharged by the Army in connection with naval bases should be transferred to the Navy.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Navy had already a very considerable area to administer; and the defence of naval bases would be a very large additional

  1313
  commitment. He hoped that, as the Vote had been fully discussed, the Committee would now allow it to be taken.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he was somewhat surprised at the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. So far from suffering from superabundance of information he thought the Committee had some reason to complain that more information had not been given. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be somewhat chary of given information. There was a fundamental difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on his side as to the position in which the hon. Gentleman, as the representative of a great spending Department, should stand before the House of Commons. At this most important stage in the history of the Navy, when Estimates were brought forward which marked a new departure in naval policy and finance, the Committee was entitled to receive a full statement from the Minister with regard to that policy. He was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not make a fuller and more complete statement with regard to the finance of the new system. The hon. Gentleman stated that the redistribution of the Navy was a matter which it was hardly proper for the House of Commons to discuss. He took exception to that. What was the House of Commons for, if not to discuss fully all that concerned the policy and finance of the Navy? What was the use of devoting several paragraphs in the First Lord's Statement to the redistribution of the Navy if the representative of the Navy in this House said it was not a proper subject for discussion? Of course, it would be absurd for him to suggest that there should be eight battleships in the Mediterranean instead of ten, but that was not the question they desired to discuss. It was the general cause which prompted the Government to alter the main lines of the distribution of the Navy, and regarding that no information had been given. His view was that the hon. Gentleman, particularly when he had to bring forward a scheme marking a new departure in policy, ought to take the House of Commons and the country fully and frankly into his confidence. That was not only fair to the House of Commons,
  1314
  but it was best and wisest for himself. A few days ago when a demand was made that the Secretary to the Admiralty should make his statement in Committee instead of with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, the Prime Minister asked what was the good of discussing the policy of the Naval Estimates before they had heard the representative of the Government in charge of them. There seemed, at the time, to be much force in the argument, but, as a matter of fact, so far from making a full statement of the policy of the Admiralty, the hon. Gentleman gave very little information at all, though his statement had been to a certain extent supplemented in response to the interrogatories of the hon. Member for Dundee and others.
  The present Navy Estimates were important for two reasons—first, as marking a new naval policy, and, secondly, as indicating a new financial policy with regard to naval affairs. Personally, he cordially welcomed the reduction in the Naval Votes, having always striven, to the best of his ability, to place some curb upon the constant advance in naval and military expenditure, but he would like to be satisfied that it was a real reduction, based upon policy, which would entail further or consequential reductions in years to come. He submitted that the Committee had a right to expect further details with regard to the new policy, especially as much would be heard in the country of its merits and the reductions it had resulted in. A lead had already been given on the subject by the Prime Minister in his rather foolish speech at Glasgow a couple of months ago, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would, doubtless, gladly follow in the same direction. A full defence should be given in the House of Commons, where statements could be, criticised, questions asked, and foundations carefully examined. The Secretary to the Admiralty declared the policy to rest upon three foundations—the new distribution of the Fleet, the elimination of out-of-date slaps, and the organisation of new bases.
  *MR. PRETYMAN:I said the organisation, of nucleus crews.
  *MR. BUCHANANsaid he was quoting from The Times.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Then I was misreported.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that might be so, but he would certainly desire to say a word about the reorganisation of naval bases. He would found his observations not upon the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty, but upon the Statement of the First Lord, who called attention to the reorganisation of existing naval bases as an important reform. First, with regard to the distribution of the Fleet. A full statement ought to be made of the grounds upon which the large and far-reaching alterations had been made. In his Memorandum of December last, the First Lord stated that he could not then say what was to be done with the China Squadron. But there was no mention of the China Squadron in the new Statement, nor had the hon. Gentleman given any satisfactory explanation. As to the elimination of out-of-date ships, he was at a loss where to begin. Confusion had been worse confounded with regard to the ships that were being weeded out and the ships that were being retained. The Memorandum of the First Lord, in which was enunciated the policy of removing a number of ships from the active list, was dated December 6th. The Prime Minister's speech containing the remark about "the courageous stroke of the pen" was delivered about the middle of January. Surely, then, it would have been possible and only right and courteous to have placed the House of Commons, in the middle of March or before the Navy Estimates were introduced, in possession of full information with regard to the ships that were being struck off the effective list. So far as the Admiralty were concerned they had given no information at all voluntarily. From the Papers issued in response to the demands of the hon. Member for Dundee it was difficult to make out what the action of the Government was in the matter. There was a list, of vessels being struck off the effective list, and there was also a list of cruisers not being struck off; but would the Committee believe that there were actually sixteen vessels which appeared in both lists? What did that
  mean?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it all arose out of the use of the word "effective." By the order of the House of Commons a Return had been prepared of effective and non-effective ships, but those terms no longer definitely covered the new classification of ships. He therefore communicated privately with the hon. Member for Dundee asking in what form he would like the Return prepared. The ships in Part I. were all combatant ships, and therefore those in 1b, "Ships of comparatively small fighting value," appeared as combatant ships in the effective Return referred to by the hon. Member, while at the express desire of the hon. Member for Dundee they were included in the Return originally moved for of non-effective ships.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid there was a further difficulty. The Return referred to "the classification of ships affected by the redistribution of the Fleet since October last as will be shown in Appendix B of the Dockyard Expense Accounts Blue-book, 1903–1904." But that Blue-book was not yet issued. He would not have complained of that if the classification in this Return corresponded in any degree with the classification in previous Dockyard Expense Accounts Blue-books, but it did not. Appendix B was entirely altered in form. He submitted that that was not at all a fair and straightforward way of treating the House of Commons.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that all this difficulty had arisen from his great anxiety to give hon. Members the information they had asked for. At their request he had given the information in the form asked for, but rather piecemeal. If he had refused to give the information until he could supply it in its final form there would have been none of these complaints.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the hon. Gentleman knew that this most cardinal point in the new naval policy was mentioned in the First Lord's Statement of December last, and he would have better shown his anxiety to meet the reasonable demands of the House of Commons for information if, when the Estimates were produced, and not afterwards under pressure,

  1317
  he had supplied the information in a complete and intelligible form. The reason given by the First Lord for the removal of many of these ships from the effective list was not that they were out of date, but that they were of such a character as to be a source of weakness and a cause of anxiety to British Admirals. and that they might bring discredit on the British Navy. But which of the ships were really to be considered as coming within that category? As a result of the information given and the Answers supplied, the Committee were completely in the dark as to what vessels were really considered to be obsolete and fit only to be sold. What really was the policy of the Government with regard to the ships they were removing from the effective list? Information had been given as to the amount recently spent on repairs on the ships included in one or other of the lists. In 1903–4 £51,000 and £48,000 were spent on the "Medea" and the "Medusa" respectively. But in the present year there were the following amounts put down for repairs of vessels struck off the effective list: the "Sans Pareil," £12,300; the "Collingwood." £20,858; the "Naiad."£33,578; the "Philomel," £22,538; the "Barracouta"—which was to be sold—£28,066. Other vessels were down for smaller sums, and the total amounted to between £140,000 and £150,000. Surely that showed a great want of foresight on the part of the Admiralty during recent years. In the face of these hard facts and figures the confidence of the country in the wisdom of the Admiralty would be sorely shaken. Then, taking these lists in their widest form, there were still left upon the active list eighty or a hundred vessels of the same character attached to squadrons throughout the world. What were the Government going to do with those vessels? Was this only the beginning of a policy, or was it a policy complete in itself? Was it the policy of the Admiralty that in future the British Fleet should consist of battleships, armoured cruisers, scouts, torpedo destroyers, submarines, and vessels of that character, and that eventually protected and semi-protected cruisers should disappear altogether?
  Then with regard to the bases. The hon. Gentleman had said that he did
  1318
  not mention them in his introductory statement. But the First Lord had called attention to the subject. Why did not the Admiralty make a clean breast of the matter? It was a new departure; why not tell the House of Commons all about it? He was inclined to think the policy a wise one, but more information was necessary. As he understood the statement, Halifax, Esquimault, Jamaica, and Trincomalee were to cease to be naval bases at all. Why could they not be told what was being done in regard to Bermuda? Apparently there was going to be a large alteration in the position Bermuda held as a naval base. The personnel there had been, largely reduced, and the expenditure had been reduced from £12,000 to £5,000. They had also had a statement from the Secretary of State for War that the garrison at Bermuda was to be reduced by one-half. The statement of the Secretary of State for War made it quite clear what was going to be done, and why could they not have a similar statement from the Secretary to the Admiralty? In the past they had been spending money out of the Naval Works Loans hand over hand upon Bermuda. A Return had been issued by the Secretary to the Treasury showing that £609,000 had been spent upon works at Bermuda, £380,000 out of Naval Works Loans, and £229,000 out of money voted for works for the Navy. Until the present year they had been yearly increasing expenditure upon permanent works, and now there had been a sudden change of policy and the works were being stopped. How could the House of Commons and the public have any confidence in the foresight of the Admiralty when they pursued a policy of this kind? Whenever they saw a new departure on the part of a public Department from the practice of previous years, he urged hon. Members to immediately take notice of it, because the following year it might be quoted as a precedent. In previous years the Admiralty had always given them a summary of the cost of works both under the Votes and under the Loans Acts, and the had always taken good care to note the important ones. It was extraordinary that the appendix to the First Lord's Statement, in dealing with the expenditure under the Naval Works Act, omitted all

  1319
  mention of the works at Bermuda, Chatham, and Rosyth. Explanation had been asked for again and again, and had been refused. This was behaving discourteously to the House of Commons, and if there had been a change in the policy of the Admiralty all along the line why were they not told whether there had been any change in this respect. The Chatham extension and the Rosyth dockyard were put into the Loans Bill of 1903, but the Admiralty would not give them the figures. He agreed that it was a wise policy to curtail this expenditure from loans, but he thought they ought to be supplied with more information. The only item of expenditure for Rosyth which they were told about was £112 paid to the local authorities for supplying water to a community which, up to the present, had no actual existence. He hoped that fact would not escape the attention of hon. Members when they came to go more closely into these Estimates.
  But did the proposals now put before them mean a real reduction? He was bound to say that owing to the lack of proper information it was very difficult to form a conclusion. They had not yet got from the Government a complete statement of the naval expenditure for the year. Hon. Members were aware that besides the Navy Estimates there was a vast amount of expenditure under the Naval Loans Acts, and the House should insist upon getting from the Government a complete estimate of the amount of money they intended to spend out of loans for the current year. Was there any reason why the progressive increase of expenditure upon loans should not cease? Owing to the existence of these Loans Acts the Admiralty were tempted to transfer expenditure from works to loans. Under the Navy Appropriation Acts year after year the Comptroller and Auditor-General made a note of expenditure which was taken from the Votes and placed upon the Loans Fund. There was one instance of a charge for buying a church and parsonage house at Portsmouth for which money was asked for in 1903–4, and without the knowledge of the House that money had been taken oft the Votes and placed to the Loans Account to be paid for in thirty years. Was that right and
  1320
  fair? Did actions like that inspire them with confidence in the Estimates? In face of facts like these it was impossible for them to know whether this was a real reduction or not until they got fuller information. They had got very little information upon the question of repairs. The decrease was about £500,000, but £300,000 of that was due to the Admiralty method of doing the repairs in their own dockyards. He wished to know were they likely to have the repairs done more cheaply in the future over the whole Fleet generally when they would have to be done at Gibraltar and Malta? Would the repairs done at those places be cheaper than if they were done at the home ports? To his mind the evidence was all the other way. They would have to send out the men and stores there.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: But the labour will be cheaper.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that would constitute only a flea-bite in the expenditure. There was another fundamental question to which up to the present he had not been able to get an answer. A large number of ships were to be removed from the effective list, and at the present time they were in commission with full crews. Those vessels were to be removed and placed in charge of caretakers. What would become of those crews? If this scheme was to be consistent, ought they not also to have a real proposal for a reduction, of the men? Seeing that there was a large reduction in the number of ships, surely there ought to be, as a logical consequence, a reduction in the personnel under Vote A. There appeared to be no such reduction; and for that and other reasons he submitted that the scheme presented by the Admiralty was not a properly thought-out scheme to bring back naval expenditure to the reasonable figure of former years. He could not help thinking that the scheme put before them was merely a tentative one for this year only, and put together in view of an early dissolution of Parliament.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASthought the debate had proved useful in making clearer the case of the ships struck

  1321
  off the Navy List. He instanced the "Melpomene," which had been represented in a naval journal as a nineteen-knot cruiser. As a matter of fact, it was on record that on one voyage in 1899 with full bunkers she had only succeeded in doing seven knots. If this were her condition she had better be discarded. There was a further protest against the striking off of some ships which it now appeared had not been struck off. On the other hand, he instanced the "Arethusa" and the "Archer," and quoted from foreign navy lists cruisers of similar character still counted effective, and submitted the question as to whether we had not been premature and too comprehensive in our dismissal of ships. Referring to the First Lord's Statement, he pointed out that a reversal of policy in the matter of boilers was announced. Now Babcock and Yarrow boilers were in favour; but from the best information at his disposal, he was led to believe that the Belleville boiler was after all the best, the most economical in coal consumption, and possessing a great advantage in that it was capable of being mended at sea by refitting of tubes, whereas the others were likely to require repairing in a dockyard. He hoped that old prejudice's would not be allowed to affect the question. With regard to the difference in type of destroyers, he expressed misgivings. He knew not whether economy was the main object, as suggested by the hon. Member for Yarmouth; but it seemed not impossible that confusion and mischief might ensue. If an admiral were supplied or reinforced with the wrong type, a situation might be produced analogous to that arising out of the alleged message, "Infantry preferred," at the outbreak of war in South Africa. The Secretary to the Admiralty had briefly answered his inquiries as to the Naval Volunteers by saying that they were being trained to take their place in the Fleet upon the outbreak of war. Yes, but the Secretary of State for War
  1322
  was in his place, and he had announced that the Volunteer soldier was practically useless for purposes of modern warfare. Naval training was manifestly more technical and specialised than military training and they could only hope that they would not presently be told that the time and money spent on the Naval Volunteer service had been wasted and must be discontinued.
  *MR. PRETYMAN*MR. PRETYMAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL, who spoke seated and with his hat on, asked whether it was in order for a Minister to closure one of his own supporters before the hon. Member had finished his remarks.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The closure can be moved at any time.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONseated and with his hat on, asked whether the whole naval policy of the Government could be discussed on Vote I.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the practice had always been, after a discussion on Vote A, that if there was a general assent of the House to that course, a general discussion might, with the approval of the Chairman, be taken on Vote I.
  MR. LOUGHsaid about an hour and a quarter ago, in reply to a question, he was told that the subject he referred to would be fully opened on the next Vote, and no objection was taken, and it was under those conditions that the debate had been continued.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No such question was put to me, and I must be satisfied that there is a general assent of the House.
  MR. LOUGHsubmitted that when they received such a promise from a Minister it should settle the matter.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked if the general assent of the House had been obtained.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that under the circumstances, on Vote I., if no, objection was taken by hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House, he should rule that a general discussion was in order.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 44.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hoult, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Hunt, Rowland

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kerr, John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Keswick, William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Banner, John S. Harmood

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'B'ghs)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bigwood, James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bill, Charles

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bingham, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bond, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bull, William James

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. Were.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Chapman, Edward

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Maxwell. Rt Hon. Sir H. E. Wigt'n

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh're

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Greville, Hon, Ronald

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Moles worth, Sir Lewis

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants).

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Midd' x

  Moore, William

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N. W

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Myers, William Henry

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hope. J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Percy Earl

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tuff, Charles

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Turnour, Viscount

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Sandys, Lieut. Col. Thos. Myles

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E. H (Sheffield)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Scott, Sir S. (Marlyebone W.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Seton-Carr, Sir Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Randles, John S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Remmant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William, (Cork N. E

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Dowd, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hobhouse. C. E. H. (Bristol. E.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Benn, John Williams

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Jones, William (Garnarvonshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, John H. (Derbighs.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lamont, Norman

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Gornwall)

  Roche, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Gleveland

  Crean, Eugene

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Slack, John Bamford

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Kean, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mooney, John J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Trevelyar, Charles Philips

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ure, Alexander

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norman, Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, 'John (Kildare, N.)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  1326

  1327

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

  Buchanan and Mr. J. H.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N.Dorset

  Young, Samuel

  Whitley.

  Question put accordingly, "That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st
  day of March, 1906, including 20,211 Royal Marines."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 45.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Farcham

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Anson Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Leveson-Gower, Freder'k N.S.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Balfour, Rt Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Forster, Henry William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn

  M'Laren, Sir C. Benjamin

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Bigwood, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bill, Charles

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n)

  Bingham, Lord

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Bond, Edward

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gretton, John

  Moore, William

  Bowles, Lt.-Col H. F. (Middlesex

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard. B.

  Morpeth Viscount

  Caldwell, James

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Harris, F. Levorton (Tynem'th

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A(Wore.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Chapman, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hn. Wm R. Wellesley

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Percy, Earl

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hermon-Hodgo, Sir Robert T.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole

  Howard, John (Kent, Favershm

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Morton

  Purvis, Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kerr, John

  Pym, C. Guy

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Randles, John S,

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lambert, George

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Remnant, J Farquharson

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawson,Hn. H. L.W.(Mile End)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, NR

  Rose, Charles Day

  Doughty, Sir George

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Samuel Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuff, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H, (Renfrew)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Alexander Acland Hood

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Turnour, Viscount

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Boland, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roche, John

  Brigg, John

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodere C. (Radcliffe)

  Crean, Eugene

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Delany, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ure, Alexander

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galwy

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Young, Samuel

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Labouchere and Mr. Charles

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hobhouse.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reddy, M.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  And, it being alter Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported this day.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  ALIENS.
  Address for "Return showing the names of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued, and
  1330
  whose oaths of allegiance have, between the 1st day of January, 1904, and the 31st day of December, 1904, been registered at the Home Office, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised, and including information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 124. of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)

  PRIVILEGES.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Seven Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Blake, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. John Edward Ellis, and Mr. Halsey.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions Presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth the number of signatures to each Petition only in respect to those signatures to which addresses are affixed.—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it. And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Allsopp, Mr. Edward Barry, Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree, Mr. Brymer, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Colonel Legge, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir Henry Meysey-
  1332
  Thompson, Mr. Charles Morley, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Philipps, Mr. Tollemache, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

  SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire Wellington)announced that in consequence of a delay at the printers the first Order to-morrow (Tuesday) would be Vote I. of the Navy Estimates.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would understand that there was a strong feeling that at least at one stage of these Estimates there should be a general discussion, when a free hand should be given without the closure.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked if one of the reasons why the Government had altered their programme was that there was less danger of defeat upon the Navy Votes than upon the Supplementary Estimates.
  [No answer was returned.]
  Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before One o'clock.