Commons Sitting of 25 April 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—London County Council (Money) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL [LORDS] (STANDING ORDER 68 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 68 has not been complied with, viz.:—Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Rawtenstall Corporation Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
  West Riding Tramways Bill [Lords].— Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  London Port and Docks Bill (by order).—Order for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
  Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
  West Yorkshire Tram ways Bill [Lords]; Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [Lords]; Burnley Corporation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Brecon and Merthyr Tydvil Junction Railway Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bristol Corporation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the Court of Appeal." [Judicature Bill] [Lords.]
  Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, &c.) Bill and Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill.—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Lords, to join with a Committee of the Commons, pursuant to Message of this House, to consider the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, &c) Bill and the Metropolitan Water Board (VariousPowers) Bill, and propose that the said Joint Committee do meet in Committee

  229
  Room A on Thursday next, at Three o'clock.
  Lords' Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords' Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Petition from Chelsea, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition from Chelsea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Kilsyth; Lanark; Rothesay; and Stranraer; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberdeen (four); Bathgate; Bellshill; Berwick upon Tweed; Brechin; Campbeltown; Coat-bridge; Dalziel; Dumfries (two); Dumfries and Maxwelltown; Dundee; Edinburgh (three); Falkirk (two); Forfar; Glasgow (seven); Govan; G-rangemouth; Hilton; Lanark; Logcrait; Montrose; Nairn; Neilston; NorthBerwick; North British District Temperance Committee; Peebles; Perth; Prestonpans; Rothesay; Saltcoats; Strathpeffer; Tough; Troon; Whiteinch Cross (two); and Wick; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from London, against; to I lie upon the Table.
  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Bucklow, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from North Medway, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS, ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ended 29th September, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 128.]
  IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland of all his Proceedings under the Act, for the year ended 31st March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OCCUPIERS OF FARMS (SCOTLAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th December, 1906; Mr. Sinclair]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 127.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  St. George's School, Ramsgate.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the underground rooms at St. George's School, Ramsgate, which the Board have condemned, and which they notified the local education authority would not be recognised after 1st February, 1904, are still in use, and that the children of those parents who claim free education are obliged to attend school in these cellar rooms; whether he is aware that the temporary iron building, Ellington School, Ramsgate, which the Board have so strongly condemned, and which they notified the local education authority would not be recognised after 1st March, 1907, is still in use; and, whether he proposes to take steps to compel the local education authority to provide suitable buildings for the needs of the town.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I believe it is a fact that the rooms referred to are

  231
  still in use pending the provision of a new school. The Board are in communication with the local education authority as to the site upon which this school is to be built, and every effort will be made to expedite its completion.

  Lead Poisoning in Dockyards.
  MR. BRAMSDON:To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state how many cases of lead poisoning have been treated by the surgeons of Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, Sheerness, and Pembroke dockyards, respectively, during the year 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Number of cases of lead poisoning treated during the year 1906 at—

  Portsmouth

  7

  {

  Devonport

  3

  Keyham

  2

  Chatham

  2

  Sheerness

  Nil

  Pembroke

  2

  Estate of Mr. T. R. P. Phibbs Collooney, Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have decided to purchase the estate of Mr. T. R. P. Phibbs, Heathfield, Collooney, County Sligo; is he aware that there are on this estate a number of uneconomic holdings, and that the estate comprises a considerable area of untenanted land suitable for the enlargement of small holdings on the estate; has all the untenanted land been offered by the vendor for sale to the Estates Commissioners, and have steps been taken to secure an equitable distribution of it amongst the occupiers of uneconomic holdings; and will he instruct the Commissioners to give notice of the particulars of the proposed scheme of redistribution of the untenanted portions to all concerned before the sale is completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estate of Mr. T. R. P. Phibbs is being sold by the owner direct to the tenants under Section 1. The estate has been inspected and the matter has been before the Estates Commissioners for some time. There are several uneconomic holdings on the estate, and the Commissioners have been en-
  232
  deavouring to arrange for their enlargement, but up to the present have been unable to get the tenants to agree to the suggested arrangements. It is proposed that portion of the untenanted land on the estate should be used for the enlargement of holdings, and that portion should be resold to the owner. As the consent of the tenants to the proposed rearrangement is necessary they will be fully informed of the Commissioners' suggestions.

  Killeenan Post Office.
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the recent closing of the post office at Killeenan, county Tyrone, has caused inconvenience and dissatisfaction in the district; and whether he will take steps to have it restored.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The rule of the department is that the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress must be the tenant of the property in which, the Post Office work is conducted. It appeared that in this case this rule has not been observed. It was also thought that the sub-postmistress was too old to continue to perform the duties satisfactorily, while it was found that very little use was made by the public of the post office at Killeenan. It was, therefore, decided to close the office, an improvement being made at the same time in the deliveries of the district.

  Income-Tax.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates to receive into the Exchequer by the new regulations as to compulsory returns of income by individuals and employers.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No estimate can at present be formed of the effect on the Revenue of the proposed new regulations.

  Financial Reserve.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON:To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the present position and extent of the funds, gold, silver, gold bars, and silver ingots and securities, jointly designated as the gold currency

  233
  reserve; what was the total amount of that fund on 31st March, and what proportions thereof are held in India and Eng and, respectively; and if it is intended that this reserve should be allowed to increase indefinitely, or is some automatic limit contemplated as to period or total amount.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The composition of the gold standard reserve on the 31st March, 1907, was as follows:—

  In England.

  British Government secureties, worth at their then market values, about

  £

  11,983,000

  In India.

  600 lakhs of rupees

  4,000,000

  Gold to the value of about

  300,000

  Total, about

  £16,283,000

  It is not intended to add to the amount held in rupees. As regards the invested portion, indefinite increase is not contemplated, but it is not desirable that further accumulation should be stopped for the present, and no decision has yet been arrived at as to the limit that should be imposed.

  Gublaun Police.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the last occasion on which the police stationed at Gublaun, county Leitrim, were called on to exercise their official functions in the maintenance of peace in the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The last prosecution by the police at this station was for an offence committed on 14th November, 1906.

  Irish Grants-in-Aid—Deductions.
  MR. KILBRIDE:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain how the deductions of £8,464 12s. 9d. from Kildare County Council were apportioned between the Agricultural Grant, from which £5,507 4s. 6d. was withheld, and the Death Duty Grant, from which £2,957 8s. 3d. was with held; and how it arises that only four counties in Ireland
  234
  suffered by withdrawal of Agricultural Grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Death Duty Grant is the first portion and the Agricultural Grant the second portion of the Guarantee Fund from which deductions are made in respect of a county's liability for land purchase. The share of Kildare county in the instalment of the Death Duty Grant recently distributed amounted to £2,957 8s. 3d., and as this was not sufficient to discharge the county's liability the balance, namely, £5,507 4s. 6d., had to be taken from the Agricultural Grant. In four other counties the Death Duty Grant was likewise insufficient and the remainder had to be taken from the Agricultural Grant, but in all the remaining counties the Death Duty Grant was more than enough.

  Kilmallock Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. SHEEHAN.:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain difficulties have arisen in the Kilmallock rural district, and that disappointment has been caused to deserving labourers in connection with the administration of the Labourers Act of last year; is it alleged on behalf of the labourers that the financial resources of the district council are not being employed to their full extent for the provision of cottages and allotments, together with the additional half acre for cottages already built; has he received a resolution from Mr. John Hogan, honorary secretary, East Limerick Committee of the Land and Labour Association, requesting that he should receive a deputation representative of the labourers' organisation to discuss the defects in the Labourers' Acts in their particular relation to the Kilmallock rural districts; will he state what action he intends to take in the matter; and whether he proposes to receive the deputation referred to.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have received some complaints as to the rejection by the rural district council of representations made by labourers, and have informed the persons who complained that it is open to them to attend the local inquiry

  235
  and lay their case before the inspector. No complaints, however, have been made to the Board that any difficulties have arisen in the administration of the Act of last year, or that the financial resources of the district council are not being employed to their full extent. I received a letter from the local Irish Land and Labour Association, and replied that, before considering whether I could usefully receive a deputation, I should wish to be furnished with a written statement giving full particulars of the alleged defects to which they desire to call my attention. I have to-day received a statement on the subject, but have not yet had time to consider it.

  Ballinageeragh Disturbances.
  MR. ARKWRIGHT: To; ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 4th instant two patrols of police from Ballinageeragh were attacked by a crowd in the course of their duty of serving summonses in a case where a woman had been assaulted for serving the police with milk; whether the Constable Conboy is still detained in Macroom Hospital on account of injuries then received; whether the justices of the peace adjourned the case against the persons accused of this assault and released them on bail; and whether he has received the protests of the district inspector and the resident magistrate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated. The accused were brought before local magistrates, who remanded them on bail to petty sessions on 19th instant. They duly appeared at the sessions and were returned for trial at the next assizes. No protests have been made by the district inspector and resident magistrate.

  Suffolk Artillery Militia Training.
  MR. FELL:To ask the Secretary of State for War if the Prince of Wales' Own Norfolk Royal Garrison Artillery Militia, which is to train at Great Yarmouthfrom 20th May to 8th June, and the Suffolk Artillery Militia, which will train at Harwich from the 10th to the 29th June, will each receive the same amount of ammunition
  236
  for gun practice at their trainings as in former years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As gun practice has been dispensed with in the case of the Garrison Artillery Militia for the forthcoming training, no gun ammunition will be issued to those regiments.

  United States Pensions.
  MR. HAROLD COX:To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House what is the sum now paid for pensions by the Government of the United States; and what were the corresponding sums ten years ago, twenty years ago, and thirty years ago respectively.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) From the printed reports published by the United States Government, and therefore accessible to the hon. Member, it would appear that the sum paid for pensions during the financial year which ended on the 30th of June last was $141,034,561.77.
  The corresponding sums in the past were—

  1896

  $138,220,704.46

  1886

  $64,091,142.90

  1876

  $27,936,249.53

  Punishment of Youthful Offenders.
  MR. WEDGWOOD:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Return of youthful offenders sentenced during the last three months of 1906, whether he will state, in the case of each of the following boroughcourts, how the children who were convicted and sentenced to a fine or imprisonment, and whose numbers in each borough are given below after the name of each borough, were subsequently dealt with, that is to say, how many paid the fine, how many did not pay but were released without being imprisoned after sentence, and how many were actually imprisoned through default of paying the fines or costs: Metropolitan Police Courts, 226; Liverpool, 160;Newcastle-on-Tyne, 138; Sunder-land. 115; Bristol, 115: Birkenhead, 104; Sheffield, 91;South Shields, 85; Tyne-mouth, 73; Gateshead, 64; Nottingham,

  237
  54; Birmingham, 46; St. Helens, 46; Middlesbrough, 45; Warrington, 42; West Hartlepool, 38; Leeds, 37; Rotherham, 33;Cardiff, 33; Potteries, Stipendiary Court, 31; Newcastle-under-Lyme, 27; Longton, 26; and whether he will inquire of the borough courts of Manchester, 12; Bradford, 0; West Ham, 3; Hull, 9; Salford, 24; Leicester, 17;and

  1.Police Court.

  Number sentenced to fine or imprisonment.

  Disposal of persons fined.

  2

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7

  8.

  Total.

  Imprisonment without option of fine.

  To pay fines with or without costs.

  Fines paid.

  Imprisonment at once in default of payment.

  Allowed time to pay, but ultimately imprisoned.

  Other cases, including those outstanding.

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  227

  3

  224

  178

  46

  —

  —

  Liverpool City

  160

  2

  158

  137

  —

  —

  21

  Newcastle - upon-Tyne City

  138

  —

  138

  99

  14

  16

  9

  Sunderland Borough

  115

  —

  115

  114

  1

  —

  —

  Bristol City

  115

  —

  115

  108

  —

  —

  7

  Birkenhead Borough

  59

  —

  59

  53

  —

  6

  —

  Sheffield City

  91

  —

  91

  86

  1

  —

  4

  South Shields Borough

  85

  —

  85

  80

  —

  3

  2

  Tynemouth Borough

  73

  —

  73

  69

  —

  1

  3

  Gateshead Borough

  64

  —

  64

  49

  —

  —

  15

  Nottingham City

  49

  1

  48

  Not known

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham City

  46

  1

  45

  45

  —

  —

  —

  St. Helens Borough

  46

  —

  46

  46

  —

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough Borough

  45

  —

  45

  38

  —

  —

  7

  Warrington Borough

  42

  1

  41

  41

  —

  —

  —

  Bolton, 0, what special measures they have adopted to reduce the number of children convicted and fined so far below that of other towns.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The figures I have obtained in answer to the hon. Member's Question are as follows—

  1.Police Court.

  Number sentenced to tine or imprisonment

  Disposal of persons fined.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  8.

  Total.

  Imprisonment with out option of fine

  To pay fines with or without costs.

  Fines paid.

  Imprisonment at once in default of payment.

  Allowed time to pay, but ultimately imprisoned.

  Other cases, including those outstanding.

  West Hartlepool Borough

  37

  —

  37

  35

  2

  —

  —

  Leeds City

  37

  2

  35

  32

  —

  3

  —

  Rotherham Borough

  33

  —

  33

  30

  —

  —

  3

  Cardiff City

  32

  3

  29

  15

  —

  3

  11

  Staffordshire Potteries Stipendiary District

  31

  —

  31

  25

  —

  4

  1

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough

  25

  —

  25

  15

  —

  —

  10

  Longton Borough

  1

  1

  †

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1,551

  14

  1,537

  1,296

  64

  36

  93

  †In this instance the original return was incorrect, 25 of the 26 cases given in column 6 being dismissed on payment of costs.

  Great care must, however, be used in drawing any inferences from these figures. Those relating to imprisonment include cases where defendants are sentenced to imprisonment for one day and are kept in police cells only till the court rises, a practice which is, I believe, very common, especially at the Metropolitan police courts. Again, at some of the courts mentioned above, the number of children sentenced bears a much lower proportion to the total population served by the courts than is the case at some of the courts mentioned in the latter part of the Question. At one court (Leeds), I am told, the only juvenile sent to prison had been three times before the court within the previous six months. At another (Sunderland), the only one sent to prison had previously been seven
  240
  times before the court and has subsequently been sent to a reformatory school. At a third (Newcastle), all those sent to prison had been previously convicted several times. It would be impossible to give reasons why the number of juveniles convicted at some courts is so much lower than at others. This would depend, not only on the population and character of the district served by the court, but also on the action of the police in bringing juveniles before it, and on the views of the individual magistrates forming the court with regard to the best means of dealing with such cases.

  High Sheriffs' Expenses.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary

  241
  of State for the Home Department what allowances are made to the high sheriffs of counties and county boroughs for the expenses connected with elections and the entertainment of Judges and recorders.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) No allowances are made from public funds to the high sheriffs of counties and county boroughs for the expenses connected with elections or for the entertainment of Recorders. Allowances are made to them in respect of the expense incurred by them in providing lodgings for Judges of assizes. When Judges are engaged on the trial of election petitions, allowances are made to the sheriffs for the expense of their accommodation on the scale explained in a Paper of which I will give the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

  Fatility on H.M S. "Hyson."
  MR. STEADMAN:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the death of a man named Meakin on board the s.s. "Hyson" on 9th April last, by becoming entangled in the machinery of the ship's winch, owing to the place where the man was working being obscured by escaping steam from the cylinders of the winch, and the boy in charge of the winch being inexperienced; if so, if a breach of the dock regulations have been committed, what steps have been taken for such a breach; and what provision is being made to enforce the dock regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) This Question was put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, and I replied as follows:—I have received a Report with regard to this accident. No breach of Regulation 14, relating to exhaust steam, or of Regulation 16, fixing the age below which persons may be employed as winch drivers, appears to have been committed. The escape of steam that occurred in this case was due apparently to the blowing out of the packing glands. The immediate cause of the accident was the catching of the clothes of the deceased in the shaft of the winch. It has not been the custom, I understand to fence this part of the winch, which has not hitherto bean regarded as dangerous, and the; inspector states that no accident of the kind has occurred previously during the
  242
  eighteen months he has been in the district. I am, however, causing inquiry to be made as to whether it would be practicable to do so. I have already stated in reply to Questions in the House the steps which I have taken to strengthen the inspection of docks; in particular, the staff of the Liverpool district, where the accident occurred, has been increased by an additional inspector's assistant.

  Liverpool Dock Regulations.
  MR, C. DUNCAN:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to enforce the penalties for breaches of the dock regulations in Liverpool in the following cases: s.s. "Lewisham," North King's Dock, exhaust steam obscuring the ship's deck and quay on 26th March; s.s. "Andalusia," South King's Dock, no gangway, on 3rd April: s.s. "Ocean Prince," North King's Dock, exhaust steam, on 22nd April; s.s. "Fridtjof," South King's Dock, exhaust steam, on 22nd April; s.s. "Carmelina," South King's Dock, exhaust steam; which in all cases were so bad as entirely to obscure the decks and hatchways and quays where men were working, discharging and loading cargo; and what measures he intends to take to prevent a recurrence of such breaches of regulations in the future.
  (Answered by Mr Secretary Gladstone.) The hon. Member's Question appeared on the Paper for the first time this morning, so I have not yet had time to ascertain the facts of the cases to which he refers. When I have done so I will communicate with him further.

  Irish Land Purchase—Borrowing Powers.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH:To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the provisions of Section 54 of the Irish Land Act of 1903, placing restrictions on the borrowing of money by purchasers on the security of their land; is he aware that these provisions drive borrowers to money lenders at oppressive rates for loans on personal security, and that judgments are then obtained by the money lenders and registered against the lands; that the section does not prevent judgment for any amount being so registered; has his attention been directed to the fact

  243
  that the section prevents the prudent raising of money for improvement or stocking of the lands; and will he advise that the section should be repealed.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I must refer my hon. and learned friend to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to an almost identical Question put by him on the 27th of February last.† The section referred to was passed by Parliament with the general assent of all parties, and I do not think that there is any general demand for its repeal. I cannot, therefore, advise the Government to introduce a Bill for the purpose.

  Dublin Post Office.
  MR. DELANY:To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the proposed structural alterations in the Dublin post office have been temporarily abandoned, and that the present building is totally inadequate for the amount of business to be transacted; and, in view of the fact that every reform asked for by the staff for the past five years has been postponed until the office is rebuilt, can he definitely state when the re-building is to be commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is not the case that the proposed structural alterations in the General Post Office in Dublin have been temporarily abandoned. On the contrary a large extension of the building has recently been sanctioned; but some minor points have still to be settled. I hope that the Board of Public Works will shortly be in a position to proceed with the preliminary arrangements for carrying out the work.

  Eastern District Office—Casual Sorters.
  MR. STEADMAN:To ask the Postmaster-General if the full-time casual sorters are being retained in the Eastern District Office, notwithstanding the notice terminating their engagement expired on 1st April, and that duly qualified officers are waiting for appointments; and, if so, what is the reason for delay in making these appointments.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that
  †See (4) Debates, cIxx., 21.
  244
  notice was given to terminate the engagement on the 1st April of the full-time casual sorters in question. As I informed him, in reply to a Question on the same subject on the 5th ultimo,. their employment is temporary, and will cease so soon as the permanent revision now under consideration is sanctioned; but the arrangements in connection with the revision necessarily take time.

  Cootehill Postal Arrangements.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Postmaster-General at what hour each day is there a delivery at Dernakesh, Cootehill, national school; and whether it would be possible to have a morning delivery for the convenience of the school and district, the extra cost being so small.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and on its receipt I will send the hon. Member a reply.

  Luggage Insurance.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN:To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state, for the last five years, the amount paid by passengers by rail for the insurance of personal luggage; the amount of insurance paid on parcels forwarded by railways but not accompanying or belonging to passengers; the amount of claims made against railway companies having termini in London; the amount of compensation paid in settlement of claims, distinguishing those for insured and uninsured passenger luggage; and if he will include this information in the annual Report and Returns made by his Department to Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The; particulars asked for by my hon. friend are not in the possession of the Board of Trade. The question whether it is desirable to obtain this information or any part of it for inclusion in the annual Railway Returns (Capital and Traffic) shall be referred to the Departmental Committee which is now considering the subject of Railway Returns and Accounts.

  Trade Statistics—Imports and Exports.
  MR. PIKE PEASE:To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in reference to the tables on imports and exports at the prices of

  245
  1900 recently issued, and in continuation of a similar Paper of last year, any representations have been received by his Department upon the propriety of using the year 1900, when prices were considerably inflated, as a base year for his calculations; and whether the results would be appreciably affected if any other recent year had been chosen as a base year.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am not aware of any representations of the nature referred to. The year 1900 is that which was used as a base year for a large number of the calculations with regard to British and Foreign trade and industry contained in the two fiscal volumes and, therefore, seemed most convenient for the purposes of the Return to which the hon. Member alludes. I am advised that the choice of a base year does not appreciably affect the results, and the year 1900 has obvious advantages as a starting point for a new series of statistical data of this kind.

  Average Prices.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the relative average prices of imports and exports compared with the prices of 1900.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The relative average values of import and exports in 1906, as compared with 1900, can be calculated from the table on page 5 of the Return. The results are as follows—
  Average values in 1906 expressed as a percentage of the values in 1900:—

  Imports

  103·3

  Exports of British produce

  96·7

  Exports of Foreign and Colonial merchandise

  113·8

  Target Practice on the South Coast.
  MR. SCARISBRICK: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the amount of injury caused by target practice between Weymouth. and St. Alban's Head to the men engaged in the lobster fishery on that part of the South Coast; and whether he will take steps to amend the present conditions.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) A further inquiry is being held to determine the extent of the alleged injury to the lobster fishery in this neighbourhood; but so long as Portland retains its present importance as a naval station the unrestricted use of this area for firing practice is indispensable.

  The Landing and Slaughter of Animals in the Channel Islands.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL:To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, in view of the fact that a means of increasing and improving the fresh, and canned meat supply of the United Kingdom and checking the operations in this country of the Beef Trust of the United States, is prohibited by the action of the Board with regard to the scheme for establishing a foreign animals' wharf and abbatoirs in Alderney, whether he will state what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) I am unable to add anything to the Answer which I gave to my hon. friend the Member for the Cirencester Division on this subject on the 12th ultimo. †The establishment of a wharf at Alderney for the landing and slaughter of animals which are not allowed to be brought to Great Britain on account of the danger of the introduction of disease is open to grave objection, and we are not prepared in any way to countenance the proposal.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the scheme, and a Report drawn up as to the risks of infection of foot-and-mouth disease which have influenced the Board of Agriculture in their action, having regard to the actual dangers which already exist in the Channel Islands, of which the Board takes no notice.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) I see no reason for the institution of any
  † See (4) Debates, cIxx., 1432.

  247
  further inquiry into the proposals to which the hon. Member refers. We are under a statutory obligation to prohibit the landing of animals brought from countries in which foot-and-mouth disease exists, and we are not prepared to countenance in any way the reception of such animals in the Channel Islands for slaughter there. The measures taken for the prevention of the introduction of disease into those islands are in some respects even more stringent than our own, and, so long as this is the case, we should not be justified in prohibiting the importation of animals there from, subject of course to the safeguards set out in the listing Orders on the subject.

  Continental Agriculture.
  MR, DOLAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has any statistics showing the proportionate extent of land under crops in France, Germany, and

  Great Britain.

  Ireland.

  Belgium.

  France.

  Germany.

  1905.

  1905.

  1904.

  1892.

  1890.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Total area, acres

  56,787,590

  20,710,589

  7,277,000

  130,374,482

  133,585,000

  (2)

  Area under crops and grass (including rough grazings)

  45,049,931

  15,262,949

  4,322,505

  85,758,776

  86,586,831

  (4)

  Per cent

  79·3

  73·7

  59·4

  65·8

  64·8

  Customs Watchers Overtime Pay.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with regard to the rates of overtime pay of Customs watchers, he can say what is the rate of overtime paid to employees in the Post Office, His Majesty's Stationery Office, and other Government Departments in London, who are in receipt of 24s.per week; whether there are any other Government employees in London getting 24s. per week, except the Customs watchers, who are paid at the same rate per hour for overtime as they are paid for their ordinary daily attendance; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing the rate of 8d. per hour for
  Belgium, as compared with Great Britain and Ireland.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) I presume that by the expression "under crops" my hon. friend means cultivated or farmed land, including permanent pasture. The Returns for the countries named are not strictly comparable owing to differences of classification, and in the case of France and Germany the annual Returns are not complete, and the latest years for which full figures are available are 1892 and 1900, respectively. Moreover the Returns for France and Germany include holdings of all sizes, while those for Belgium exclude holdings of less than one hectare and those for Great Britain exclude holdings of 1 acre or less. Subject to these qualifications the following table gives the information asked for. The area under crops and grass include as far as possible all arable land and all grass land, whether yielding a hay crop or used for grazing stock.
  watchers who are employed at 24s. a week in London, so as to bring the overtime regulations in the Customs Department into line with that of other Government Departments in this respect.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I do not think any useful purpose would be served by a detailed comparison of overtime rates such as the hon. Member suggests. The duties of the watchers are not comparable with those of the other classes referred to. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on the 12th instant, the question has been considered, and the Board of Customs are unable to recommend an increase of the rate. The.

  249
  Treasury, having regard to other recent concessions to the watchers, concur in that view.

  Civil Service Estimates, Glass 3, Vote 14.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will supply details of the sum of £7,000 in the Civil Service Estimates, Class 3, Vote 14, Subhead F; and, if not, will he state why details are withheld.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I do not think it would be practicable to give more detail under this sub-head, as it is impossible to say beforehand in what

  Number of children chargeable to Poor Law Unions in London.

  Number of Children chargeable to Poor Law Unions outside London.

  Total.

  (a)Not including insane and idiots—

  (1) In workhouses, otherwise than in infirm wards

  1,046

  13,630

  14,676

  (2) In infirm wards or infirmaries

  2,045

  4,645

  6,690

  (b) Insane and idiots in workhouses †

  14

  302

  316

  3,105

  18,577

  21,682

  †There were also 132 children chargeable to London unions in district sick asylums, and 797 children in the imbecile asylums belonging to the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District.

  The number of children over three years of age chargeable to Poor Law unions in London in the workhouses on the 5th January last was 446, and in infirmaries, 1,004. Similar information with regard to the rest of England and Wales is not available.

  Imports of Plain Spirits.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was
  250
  class of cases fees to counsel will be required.

  Poor Law Children.
  MR. W. PRIESTLEY:To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of Poor Law children who, on 1st January last, were resident in the workhouses and workhouse infirmaries of London and the provinces respectively; and if he will state in both instances the number who were over three years of age
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) On the 1st January, 1907, the numbers of pauper children relieved in workhouses and workhouse infirmaries in England and Wales were as follows:—
  the amount of plain spirit imported during the last twenty years into the United Kingdom on which duty has been paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Statement of the quantities of plain spirits imported into the United Kingdom during the last twenty calendar years, and the quantities on which duty has been paid in each of those years:—

  Years.

  Imports.

  Quantities entered for Home Consumption.

  Not for Methylation.

  For Methylation and for Art or Manufacture on which the differential duty has been paid.

  Total.

  Proof Gallons

  Proof Gallons

  Proof Gallons.

  Proof Gallons

  1887

  2,340,078

  1,397,008

  526,456

  1,923,464

  1888

  2,956,759

  1,576,616

  908,717

  2,485,333

  1889

  3,199,470

  1,732,571

  1,023,157

  2,755,728

  1890

  2,929,096

  1,455,090

  1,305,801

  2,760,891

  1891

  1,639,895

  886,580

  656,059

  1,542,639

  1892

  1,591,123

  824,542

  520,227

  1,344,769

  1893

  1,727,786

  1,131,172

  422,693

  1,553,865

  1894

  2,028,070

  1,168,463

  617,704

  1,786,167

  1895

  1,517,278

  1,278,768

  95,402

  1,374,170

  1896

  1,329,500

  1,292,428

  35,879

  1,328,307

  1897

  1,367,960

  1,268,941

  6,514

  1,275,455

  1898

  1,015,793

  986,406

  1,376

  987,782

  1899

  1,258,368

  1,119,320

  8,573

  1,127,893

  1900

  1,429,910

  1,225,614

  61,708

  1,287,322

  1901

  2,001,994

  1,456,184

  380,555

  1,836,739

  1902

  3,184,729

  1,622,260

  1,422,809

  }

  3,045,297

  For Art or Manufacture

  —

  —

  228

  1903

  1,907,099

  1,476,712

  411,949

  }

  1,890,425

  For Art or Manufacture

  —

  —

  1,764

  1904

  465,713

  417,016

  15,145

  }

  434,962

  For Art or Manufacture

  —

  —

  2,801

  1905

  239,265

  203,176

  24

  }

  206,777

  For Art or Manufacture

  —

  —

  3,577

  1906

  451,108

  383,791

  —

  }

  387,224

  For Art or Manufacture

  —

  —

  3,433

  Longfield Estate, Ballyclough.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners instructed their inspector to visit and report upon the Longfield estate, at Ballyclough, and adjacent district, county Cork; are they aware that Inspector William Small neglected to give notice to or call upon the evicted tenant, Denis Lehane, whose application is before the Commissioners; and what explanation the inspector has to offer in regard to his neglect to visit Lehane's former holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inquired last year into the case of Denis Lehane, and were informed by the landlord that the evicted holding now forms part of his demesne, and that he does not propose to sell it. The Commissioners apprised Lehane accordingly, and informed him that his case will be inquired into when they are dealing with the sale of the estate. In the circumstances the Commissioners did not consider it necessary to instruct their inspector to visit the holding.

  Geevagh Disturbance.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a band belonging to the district of Geevagh, situate near Ballyfarnon, county Sligo, whilst out for practice on St. Patrick's day, was deliberately fired on by a man named Conlon;and that a policeman, who was present, seized the gun, but afterwards gave it up to Conlon, who fired a second shot at the crowd; and, if so, whether the authorities mean to prosecute this man.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed by the police authorities that on the occasion referred to a band and its followers passed near the house of a man named Conlon, hooting and groaning with the apparent object of intimidating him. Conlon's son rushed out with a gun, but did not fire. The gun was taken from him by a policeman. After the band had passed on the policeman returned the gun, and subsequently a shot was fired in the air from Conlon's house, apparently in bravado. The
  254
  band was a quarter of a mile away at the time. It is not intended to institute a prosecution in the case.

  Loughry Manor, Tyrone.
  MR. KETTLE:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when, and in what manner, the land and buildings known as Loughry Manor, situated near Cookstown, county Tyrone, were acquired by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; and what use, if any, has been made of them since they were acquired.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Department of Agriculture received possession of Loughry Manor in the summer of last year, having acquired it by purchase in the superior courts. The property was acquired for the purpose of establishing a school of rural domestic economy for girls in the North of Ireland. The work of adapting the house to the required purpose is now about to be carried out. It was not possible to undertake this work at an earlier date, but it is hoped that the school will be ready to receive pupils next winter.

  Belfast Police Inquiry
  MR. J. DEVLIN:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether at the police inquiry held in the city of Belfast in June 1906, to examine into the conditions of the local force, a Sergeant Kerrigan, an officer of over eighteen years meritorious and unblemished service, testified to the injustice done to Catholic members of the force by the promotion, over their heads, of Protestants whose records did not entitle them to such advancement; whether, in spite of such being the case, his evidence was over-ruled; whether since that time he has been debarred from all promotion by the action he then took, although sergeants several years his junior in rank and service have been promoted, with much less favourable records; and whether he will communicate with the Inspector-General as to the particulars of Kerrigan's case, with a view to a settlement of the claim he makes in regard to the treatment meted out to him because of his being a Catholic.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed by the police authorities that Sergeant Kerrigan's evidence contained a suggestion to the effect mentioned in the first part of the Question, but that the suggestion is quite without foundation. Since the date of the inquiry two sergeants only have been promoted to the rank of head constable in Belfast, and these were senior to Sergeant Kerrigan both as regards service in the force and service in the rank of sergeant. The Inspector-General informs me that neither Sergeant Kerrigan nor any other police witness has been injuriously affected by the evidence which he gave. The sergeant has made neither claim nor complaint to the effect suggested in the last paragraph, and the Inspector-General assures me that the suggestion is entirely unwarranted.

  Downpatrick Fairs.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Downpatrick Rural District Council, against Belfast dealers displaying goods for sale on fair days in that town on the pretence that it was done to avoid the spread of spotted fever; and whether, in view of the fact that the Downpatrick Council gave no evidence to support their contention, and the fact that dealers from Belfast have been injured in their business, he will call upon the council to justify their resolution or withdraw it.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Downpatrick Town Commissioners passed a resolution requesting the Downpatrick Rural District Council to take steps to prevent old clothes from being brought for sale into the town. The district council thereupon inquired from the Local Government Board whether they had power to comply with the request, and were informed in reply that the Board were not aware of any enactment giving such power except in the case of infected articles. I have no authority to do what the hon. Member suggests.

  Licensing Bill.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position
  256
  to state whether the measure of licensing reform, referred to in His Majesty's Speech, will be introduced during the present session; and, if so, is he yet in a position to state approximately when it is intended to introduce it.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I cannot yet say anything on this question

  Sheriff Court Procedure
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the desire in Scotland for a measure of reform in Sheriff Court procedure, he can now say when it is proposed to move the Second Reading of the Sheriff Court Civil Procedure Bill.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) As soon as possible after the Small Holders' Bill has been sent to the Scottish Committee.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The Coastguard.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the men who had been employed on the seventy coastguard stations, reported as having been done away with on 21st November, 1906, have been dismissed from the service; and, if so, what men are to fill their places as Reserve for the Royal Navy.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee):No men have been dismissed from the coastguard service in consequence of the abolition of the stations referred to.
    MR. ASHLEY: Then what has happened to the men?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: They are still in the service.

    German Battleships
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg, to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the latest official Return, presented to Parliament last May, described the German battleships ordered as having only eight 11-inch guns as compared with ten

    257
    12-inch in the "Dreadnought," and further described the German armoured cruiser as of 14,760 tons displacement, whether the Board have received any authentic information showing an increase in the programme as regards the armament and size of the ships of the German 1906 and 1907 programmes.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer is in the negative.

    The Mediterranean Fleet.
    MR. BELLAIRS:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that though the Mediterranean Fleet consists of only six battleships, the newly-appointed Commander-in-Chief, Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Drury, has been given the acting rank of Admiral with corresponding pay and emoluments, and his second-in-command, Rear-Admiral Prince Louis of Battenburg, has been given the acting rank of Vice-Admiral; whether he is aware that, in days when there was no third flag-officer to assist with the cruisers, and the number of battleships was as many as twelve to fourteen, or at least 100 per cent. more, with far greater responsibilities, no such acting rank was given; and whether the Board will explain what efficiency and economy is hoped for from the change.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The arrangements alluded to were approved by the Board on the 6th December, 1904, as part of the scheme by which the seagoing establishment of superior officers was settled for war purposes. The scheme is independent of changes in the allocation and distribution of the strength of the fleets and squadrons, and was in fact introduced concurrently with a reduction in the strength of the Mediterranean Fleet to accord with the political and strategical requirements of the time.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that under the scheme of 1904 the Rear-Admiral remained Rear-Admiral, whereas Prince Louis of Battenburg becomes Vice-Admiral?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I understand the arrangement was that this should become a Vice-Admiral's appointment.

    Indian Legislative Councils.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the pledge recently given by the Viceroy of India that no legislation in the direction of widening the powers and responsibilities of the Legislative Councils would be undertaken before the public in India and at home have had ample opportunity for an expression of opinion on the proposals, and in view also of the fact stated by the Viceroy that these proposals are fraught with great possibilities, he will give this House an opportunity of examining and discussing the proposals before any scheme of legislation is finally decided. upon.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): If legislation in the Imperial Parliament should prove to be necessary, the Government would follow the ordinary course and would submit their proposals in a Bill or Bills. We should not ask Parliament to accept our measures without full time being given to collect opinion at home and in India.

    Arbuthnot and Company's Bankruptcy
    MR. SMEATON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in connection with the insolvency of Messrs. Arbuthnot and Company, of Madras, a vigilance committee has been set on foot consisting of some of the most prominent citizens; that this vigilance committee have publicly stated in these words that there is an evident desire in high quarters in Madras to screen the offenders from the consequences of their criminal negligence and fraudulent practices; that an expert opinion, unconnected with Madras, has been obtained by the vigilance committee to the effect that the whole report of the auditor discloses an organised fraud from the start; and whether, in view of these facts and of the further fact that the disclosures have, in the words of the committee, rudely shaken the belief of the Indian people in British probity and honour, he will consent to a public inquiry by the Crown into the whole of the circumstances of the insolvency, independently of the proceedings of the local Insolvency Court.
    MR. MORLEY: The inquiry in the Insolvency Court, which is presided over by an Indian Judge of the High Court, will afford full opportunities for investigating the allegations referred to in the Question, and, as I have stated before, I see at present no reason to institute a separate inquiry.

    Bengal Educational Staff.
    MR. McCALLUM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of members of the Indian Educational Service in Bengal as it stood in 1900 and 1906, and the "proportion of Indians to Europeans in both cases.
    MR. MORLEY: The number of members of the Indian Educational Service in Bengal on 1st January, 1900, was twenty-six, of whom four were natives of India; on 1st January, 1906, the number was thirty-two, of whom four were natives of India.
    MR. McCALLUM:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India how many appointments have been made to the Indian Educational Service in Bengal during the last five years; how many of the gentlemen so appointed have been of Indian nationality; how many of them are now filling offices which, five years ago, were filled by Indian members of the Education Department; and how many are holding newly-created posts.
    MR. MORLEY: Since January, 1902, eight appointments (including one for temporary work) have been made to the Indian Educational Service in Bengal. None of the gentlemen appointed were natives of India. One post held by a native of India in 1902 has ceased to be so held owing to the retirement of the incumbent. The vacancy has been filled by the appointment of a European, who, however, is employed on different duties. Three of the officers enumerated hold posts created since 1902. I would remind the hon. Member of the very full, Answer that I gave him last Thursday,†to which I may add that three appointments to be held by Indians were created last year in the Provincial service in Bengal.
    † See (4) Debates, clxxii, 1125.

    Indian Railway Board.
    MR. C. E. PRICE:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to appoint any native of India to sit on the Committee of Inquiry into the system under which the Indian Railway Board now works, and other matters connected with the working of railways in India; and, if not, whether, in view of the interest of the people of India in the efficient and economic administration of the railways constructed in their country, he will reconsider his decision in this matter.
    MR. MORLEY: I fully recognise the interest of Indians in the economical and efficient administration of the railways which are of unique importance to all classes of the community. But the scope of the inquiry calls rather for expert and intimate knowledge of the direction of railway companies and the conditions and methods of the money market, and this is amply afforded by the gentlemen who have consented to serve. I have no doubt whatever that the Committee will take every opportunity of consulting representative Indian opinion.
    MR. REES: Is it not the fact that the capital with which these railways were built was sent out from England?
    MR. MORLEY: Some may have been.

    Calcutta Improvements.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the present position of the scheme for the improvement of Calcutta; whether the Committee which has been lately discussing the question in Calcutta was entirely composed of members of the Indian Civil Service and held its meetings in private; and, if so, whether, seeing that the bulk of the cost will have to be met by the residents of the city, it is intended to permit them to have an opportunity of expressing their views before the scheme is finally sanctioned.
    MR. MORLEY: I understand that the opinions of the Calcutta Corporation and other local bodies on the provisional improvement scheme are under the consideration of the Government of Bengal.

    261
    I have seen a statement in the Calcutta papers that in February last the Lieutenant-Governor convened an informal conference to consider the subject, in which the Government of India, the Bengal Government, the Corporation of Calcutta, and the mercantile community were represented. I have no knowledge of any other Committee. I cannot say at this stage what steps will be taken to consult the public on the conclusions which may be finally arrived at by the Government of Bengal, but public criticism of the provisional scheme was invited in 1905.

    Australia—Old Age Pensions and Expenditure on Defence.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the estimate by the recent Australian Royal Commission on Old Age Pensions that the annual cost to the Commonwealth of a general system of old age pensions would be £1,500,000; what is the sum now expended annually by the Commonwealth on military and naval defence; and what would that sum be if the inhabitants of Australia bore the same burden per head for their own defence, and for the defence of the Empire, as is borne by the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I have seen the estimate referred to. The expenditure in Australia on military and naval defence is rather over £1,000,000 a year, and would be about £6,000,000 if the payment per head of the population were the same as in this country.

    Colonial Conference and Preferential Trading.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue to the public the memoranda on preferential trading which are to be submitted to the Colonial Conference; and, if so, when.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. As has been stated already the question of publication of the proceedings of the; Colonial Conference and of the papers laid before it is one for consideration by
    262
    the Conference itself, and no final decision has yet been taken.
    MR. LYTTELTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whom I beg to congratulate on receiving his Privy Councillorship, whether it would be convenient that at the end of each week's proceedings the summary which the Conference has decided to publish should be issued to this House with the Votes?
    MR. CHURCHILL: A verbatim record is being kept of everything that passes at the Council, and it will be for the Conference itself to decide whether that record shall be published. It seems very probable that the Conference will decide that it shall be published. Meanwhile daily summaries are published in a shorter form. If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that these summaries should be issued weekly with the Votes in a compendious form instead of in the form in which they are issued to the newspapers, I should like to bring that desire to the notice of the Secretary of State, who, I have no doubt, will wish to give effect to it.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked if the decision concerning the publication of the summaries was come to by vote.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid the proposal was arrived at unanimously—without the necessity for a vote.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government object to the proceedings and debates in the present Colonial Conference on the question of Imperial preferential trade being freely reported day by day for the use of the Press, so that the people of the Empire may know as much about there as they do about the important questions which are debated in the House of Commons.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): My right hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies had, I thought, sufficiently answered this Question. As I informed the hon. Member on Monday, it is entirely for the Conference itself to

    263
    decide how far it will give publicity to its proceedings. This applies to the entire range of questions discussed, and therefore includes the question of preferential trade.
    MR. HUNT:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the Question: Does he or does he not object to having the debates fully reported?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I have already said it is entirely in the hand of the Conference.
    MR. HUNT: I press for an Answer. I have had no Answer yet.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:It would be indecent for me to say whether we objected or not, when it is in the hands of the Conference, and we wish to leave them free.

    Macedonia.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Reports have been received from the inspectors of the Macedonian Financial Commission upon the condition of the villages and towns in the interior; and, if so, whether he will include such Reports when papers are laid upon the subject.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): It is hoped to lay papers very soon dealing with the condition of the Macedonian Vilayets. These papers will include despatches from Mr. Harvey, the British Delegate on the Financial Commission, as well as from His Majesty's Consular Agents.

    Turkish Customs Duties.
    MR. LONSDALE:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to state what is the present position of the negotiations with respect to the proposed increase of the Turkish Customs duties.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Protocol by which the assent of the Powers to the 3 per cent. increase is to be conveyed was to have been signed on Monday last, but
    264
    the signature has been postponed in consequence of a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the execution of the new Customs regulations.

    The Bahr-el-Ghazal.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the date upon which the Congolese troops evacuated the Soudanese Bahr-el-Ghazal, in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-Belgian Convention.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Instructions were sent by the Congo Government to the Commandant at Lado on 8th April, to evacuate all Congolese posts in the Bahr-el-Ghazal. I am not aware whether these instructions have yet been fully carried out.
    MR. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the date on which the Convention was entered into, and the reason for the delay?
    SIR EDWARD GREY:I have given the date at least once, and have explained that the actual date of evacuation must depend to a great extent on the season of the year and climatic conditions.

    Canadian Tariffs.
    MR. PIKE PEASE:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of a treaty being concluded between Canada and a foreign country bringing into operation the Canadian intermediate tariff in regard to that country, it would be a contravention of such treaty to lower the preferential tariff in the absence of any stipulation providing for the freedom of action of Canada in respect of such tariff'.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: As I informed the hon. Member on the 18th instant, the grant of the intermediate tariff to any foreign country would not prevent the Canadian Government from altering the British preferential tariff in the future.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the proper channels for negotiations between Canada and Foreign Powers; and whether anyone is, at

    265
    present, entrusted with plenipotentiary or other powers to conduct, on behalf of Canada, direct negotiations with such foreign countries.
    SIREDWARD GREY: The proper channels for negotiations between Canada and Foreign Powers are His Majesty's Diplomatic Representatives abroad, instructed by His Majesty's Government, who may associate with them any agent selected by the Canadian Government, should that Government desire it. The answer to the second part of the question is that no special powers or instructions of the kind suggested have been issued, but His Majesty's Representative at Washington has for some time been engaged in the discussion of outstanding questions with the United States Government.

    Mesopotamia Oil Concession.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received any reply to the inquiry which he has. addressed to His Majesty's Embassy at Constantinople with reference to the concession of the oil deposits in Mesopotamia granted by the Turkish Government on the 4th–17th July, 1904, to Mr. K. Zander, as representing the German financial group interested in the proposed Baghdad Railway; and whether this concession is still in force.
    SIR EDWARD GREY:There is no information available to the effect that the contract to which the hon. Member refers is still in force.
    MR. BOWLES: Has any reply been received to the inquiry?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes. I have given the reply.

    Registered Companies in the United States.
    MR. VIVIAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the number of companies registered in the United States for the year 1906, and the amount of their nominal capital.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the subject, but I will scertain whether it is available.

    Persia and Germany.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information from the British Minister at Teheran showing that a close working arrangement has recently been established through the activity of the German Minister at Teheran between the German Orient Bank of Berlin and the National Bank of Persia in Teheran.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Reports as to German assistance in the establishment of a National Bank have reached His Majesty's Minister at Teheran, but they have so far not been confirmed.

    Egypt.
    MR. J.M. ROBERTSON:: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a number of officials have been dismissed, or invited to resign, from the service of the Egyptian Government for no reason of misconduct, but solely on account of their differing from the British Agency on points of administration; and whether he has sanctioned such proceedings.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware of any such circumstances.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries as to whether such cases had occurred.
    SIR EDWARD GREY:The Question of the hon. Gentleman seems to imply a general censure on appointments and dismissals in the Egyptian service. I have no reason to suppose that such a Question is justified, and there is no reason for me to make inquiries.

    The Soudan.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Christian missions in the southern portion of the Soudan are being, actively promoted by the Government there, notwithstanding that the population of the northern portion of that province is declared by Lord Cromer to be almost entirely Moslem, and that Christian propaganda is there expressly forbidden, excepting in Khartoum;

    267
    whether, in view of the danger of this artificial division of the Soudan into two contrasted portions, and in order to obviate the risks of sanguinary conflict amongst a people just emerging from barbarism, he will direct that the official promotion of Christian missions in the Southern Soudan shall cease.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information beyond that contained in Chapters 6, 43, and 56 of Lord Cromer's Annual Report for 1906, and in previous Reports which have been published. And I am not aware of any circumstances which require such intervention as the hon. Member suggests.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not directly answered the last paragraph of my Question.
    SIR EDWARD GREYreplied that the Government of the Soudan were perfectly aware of the danger which was referred to in Lord Cromer's Report and there was therefore no reason for further inquiry.

    Syrians in the Egyptian Civil Service.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total number of Syrians in the Civil Service of the Egyptian and the Soudan Governments respectively; and what proportion their average salary bears to the average salary of Egyptians employed by those Governments.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information as to the number of Syrians who may be employed in the Civil Services of Egypt and the Soudan, nor as to their salaries.

    Egyptian Civil Service—Board of Selection.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what are the names and qualifications of the members of the board, described by Lord Cromer in his Report for 1904, page 61, as making the selection of candidates for the Egyptian Civil Service; by whom they were nominated; for what period of time, and at what salary; how often, since its constitution, the board has met; what are the names of the candidates who have been selected by the board;
    268
    and what are the posts to which they have been appointed.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will inquire what the present composition of the board is, and I will ask for as much of the other information as is easily obtain-able.

    Great Britain and Russia and Persia.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present state of the negotiations between Great Britain and Russia with respect to their respective spheres of influence in Persia; and whether there is any prospect of an immediate agreement being arrived at.
    SIR EDWARD GEEY: I am not in a position to make any statement as to the nature of any negotiations respecting, Persia.

    Hague Conference—British Government.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able, in view of the interest in the subject and the perplexity caused by conflicting public statements, to indicate what will be the initial attitude of the Government at the forthcoming Hague Conference towards the proposed limitation of armaments.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The instructions to be given to the British Plenipotentiaries are at present under consideration. I am unable to make any statement on the subject, and in view of the fact that the wishes and intentions of other Governments have to be considered, it is possible that any further statement of the proposals of one Government would give rise to the perplexity which my hon. friend deprecates.

    Freedom of the Press in Egypt.
    MR. FELL:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the language used by certain of the newspapers in Egypt in their references to the authorities and the Government; and whether, having regard to the condition of affairs there, he will consider the advisability of modifying the freedom of the Press, to the advantage of Egypt and its Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to Chapter 4 of Lord Cromer's Annual Report for 1906, where he will find a much fuller statement than can be conveyed in an Answer to a Question. It is not proposed to alter the policy there advocated.

    Old Age Pensions.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the unanimous recommendation of the Australian Royal Commission upon Old Age Pensions, to the effect that a penalty should be imposed for supplying an old age pensioner with intoxicating drink; and whether His Majesty's Ministers have yet considered any plan for dealing with the danger indicated by this recommendation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): In dealing with the question of old age pensions no relevant consideration will be left out of account.
    MR. LEIF JONESasked if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of conferring local veto powers on the people so that zones of safety might be provided for the pensioners described in the Question.
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. LONSDALE:I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any calculations as to the number of persons of the industrial classes who would benefit under an old age pensions scheme which was started on a nucleus of £2,250,000.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have not thought it necessary to make any such calculations.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Australian Royal Commission on Old Age Pensions to the effect that in Victoria old age pensions have in no way diminished the expenditure upon the charitable relief of the poor, and that in New South Wales, according to the
    270
    evidence of the Controller of the Charities Department and other witnesses, there has been an actual increase in the number of applicants for charitable relief through the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act; and whether he will take steps to ascertain what has been the effect of the German system of old age pensions upon the cost of the Poor Law relief in the principal cities of the German Empire.
    MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the evidence in question; but I also note that in their Report the Commission stated that it was not to be expected that, so soon after the establishment of a system of old age pensions, any marked change in the expenditure on other forms of relief would be apparent. I have no figures relating to the comparative cost of Poor Law relief in Germany, nor do I think that, if obtained, any very useful lesson could be drawn from them, regard being had to the peculiar scope of the German insurance law and the practical exclusion from its operations of the majority of women.
    MR. R. DUNCAN:Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to the position of friendly societies in Germany and how they have been affected by old age pensions?
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir, I cannot.

    Income-Tax.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, on his rearrangement of the incidence of the income-tax, he will provide that limited companies shall be required to pay income-tax only on the dividends they actually pay to their shareholders, and not on an estimate of profits arbitrarily arrived at by the Commissioners, and which profits are rarely available for distribution among the shareholders.
    MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member's suggestion has often been considered, but neither my predecessors nor I myself have ever seen any sufficient reason for altering the law for the assessment of limited companies to income-tax upon their profits as determined by the rules of the Income-Tax Acts, in the same way as other taxpayers.
    MR. FELL: Is it not the fact that a considerable number of shareholders have to pay tax on an income they never receive?
    MR. ASQUTTH: I do not know that they do.

    Privileged Cabs.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his negotiations with the railway companies with respect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Cabs and Omnibuses, which sat last session, on the question of the privilege-cab system, have failed; and, if so, whether he will introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to those recommendations.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): As I said in a written Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Droitwich division of Worcestershire on the 18th instant, I am still in communication with the railway companies, and still have hopes of obtaining the desired result by friendly arrangement. Owing to the number and different characteristics of the different stations affected the Question is far from simple, but I am pressing forward my negotiations, and I have not relaxed in any way my declared intention of dealing with the matter.

    Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: On behalf of the hon. Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the statement of the Standing Committee on Trade that they were unable to discuss the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill for lack of information, he intends to recommit the Bill when the necessary information is obtained.
    MR. GLADSTONE:No, Sir. When the Committee over which my hon. friend the Member for Gloucester presides, have presented their Report, the Government intend to introduce a Bill of their own.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in
    272
    view of the fact that there is no precedent for the action of the Grand Committee on Trade in declining to consider a Bill remitted to it by this House, and that only thirty-four out of the eighty-three Members of the Committee were present, when, by a majority of four, the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill was thus summarily dealt with, and that it was on the recommendation of the Prime Minister that the Bill was referred upstairs, he will afford facilities for recommitting it to one of the Grand Committees.
    MR. GLADSTONE:I must refer my hon. friend to the speech of the Prime Minister on 12th April, to the effect that, having regard to the new Standing Order which he was asking the House to adopt, he did not see how an exception in the case of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill could be made to the general rule which was about to come into force. The Standing Committee having reported the Bill to the House without Amendment on the ground that the information at their disposal was inadequate to enable Amendments to be satisfactorily discussed, the Government cannot give facilities for its recommitment.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked if it was customary for Members co-opted to a Standing Committee to be informed on Saturday that they were expected to attend the meeting of the Committee on Monday. That happened to a number of Members on this occasion. He also asked if the Bill would be recommitted.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I have nothing to do with the summoning of Members, and I cannot, therefore, answer the Question.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Will Mr. Speaker inform me?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid he was equally unable to give the information, but he would inquire of the Chairman of the Committees of Selection as to the practice in giving notice.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: When the House refers a Bill to a Committee, is not that a mandatory instruction to the Committee to consider that Bill? Is it

    273
    competent for the Committee to return the Bill without considering it?
    MR. SPEAKER: T think it is a practice which ought to be carefully watched, because great difficulties, indeed abuses, may arise from a majority on a Committee treating a Bill in that particular way without reason for doing so. There are certain precedents for the manner in which the Standing Committee dealt with this particular Bill. Standing Committees are instructed by the Standing Orders to follow the procedure of Select Committees, and as these have so dealt with Bills, the Standing Committee is justified in the action taken; but it is a practice that ought to be very carefully watched.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: In view of what did happen, is it the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to reduce the hours of labour in mines—not to regulate but to reduce the hours—that it may become law this session?
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member ought to give notice of the Question.
    LORD R. CECILasked whether, under the Standing Order establishing the new Standing Committees, it would be open to anybody to make such a Motion?
    MR. SPEAKER: The new Committees are governed by the Standing Orders.
    MR. W. E. HARVEYasked whether want of due notice in summoning Members was not sufficient reason for recommiting the Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid he was not aware the ordinary course was not followed.
    MR. W. E. HARVEY: pressed for, something more direct, but no further Answer was given.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the action of the Home Secretary immediately on the commencement of business in the Standing Committee on Trade last Monday, 22nd April, in
    274
    moving to report the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, without Amendment, to the House, with a statement that the Committee had insufficient evidence on which to consider it, is to become a recognised Government precedent for postponing private Members' Bills.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; every case will be judged on its own merits.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Is it not the case that the Government in 1894 gave facilities for an Eight Hours Bill in Committee of the Whole House? Can the right hon. Gentleman state what information he was then seized of which he has not now?
    SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the ruling of Mr. Speaker that this procedure needs to be carefully watched?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:If I may venture to say so, I entirely share the view expressed by Mr. Speaker.

    The Edalji Inquiry.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say when the Report of the Edalji Commission will be concluded and presented.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir Arthur Wilson and his colleagues have just presented me with their Report, and I shall at once consider it.

    Schools of Agriculture.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education how many technical classes in agriculture and schools of agriculture are assisted by the Board of Education out of public funds; and how many of such schools and classes are inspected by the Board of Education.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): There are two main categories of schools to be considered— (a) those intended for the instruction of persons already in employment connected with agriculture or horticulture, and

    275
    unable to give more than a portion of their time to study; and (b) those intended for the instruction of persons who are still giving the whole of their time, or a large portion of it, to study, (a) Of the former category there are 275 separate schools recognised by the Board as eligible for grant, in which there are 368 classes in agriculture or subjects related thereto or to other rural industries, e.g. in horticulture, in land surveying, in dairying, in farm work, and so forth—forty-eight of these classes being classes dealing specifically with "agriculture." These numbers do not include classes in such subjects attended not only by those who take them with a view to their bearing upon agriculture, but by other students also, (b) In the second category there are nine schools providing courses in agriculture, horticulture, and dairying. All the schools I have referred to are under inspection by the Board of Education, and are in England and Wales, not Scotland, which is not under this Board. The figures from which the above totals have been compiled are not complete in the case of those counties which have taken advantage of the new scheme of inclusive grants introduced last year into the Board's Regulations with the object of meeting the special conditions of instruction in the subjects which are found most suitable for rural areas.

    Cost of School Maintenance in Glamorganshire.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the cost of school maintenance per child in Glamorganshire for the year ending 30th November last, based on the average attendance, was 16s. 9d., or 38 per cent. higher in the provided than in the non-provided schools; and whether this excess is due to unnecessary expenditure on the part of the local education authority or to a higher standard of efficiency being required by the Education Department in the case of provided schools.
    MR. McKENNA: My attention has not previously been called to the statistics given in the first part of my hon. friend's Question. It is not, I am glad to say, one of the duties of the Board of
    276
    Education to ascertain the reasons why the cost of maintenance of certain schools is greater than that of others.
    LORD R. CECILasked if it were not the practice of local education authorities in South Wales consistently to underpay their teachers?
    MR. McKENNAasked for notice of the Question.

    Glamorganshire Education Rate.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, in the estimate of receipts and expenditure during the financial year ending 31st March, 1908, for the administrative county of Glamorgan £69,000 is to be provided out of a rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound for the maintenance of provided schools, while nothing is proposed to be contributed out of rates for the maintenance of non-provided schools; whether this discrimination between the two classes of schools has received his sanction, and if the same standard of efficiency will be required by the Education Department in the case of each class.
    MR. McKENNA: So long as the local education authority perform their statutory duty of maintaining and keeping efficient the public elementary schools in their area, the expenditure incurred by the authority on individual schools is not subject to review by the Board of Education and does not require their sanction. The standard of efficiency requisite to earn the grant is the same for council schools and voluntary schools.

    British Mail Van Drivers.
    MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.): I beg to-ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the mail van drivers in Bristol work on an average fourteen and three-quarter hours per day for six days of the week and six to eleven hours on Sundays, and receive in wages only 21s. per week, with no pay for overtime; and whether, in view of the nature of the service, inquiries will be instituted with a view to giving the Bristol mail van drivers similar improvements in their terms of service to those granted to the metropolitan drivers.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I will make inquiry on this subject, and will aquaint the hon. Member with the result.

    Canadian Tariffs.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if ho can state what is the average rate of duty on British exports under the general, preferential, and intermediate tariffs respectively of Canada.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The British preferential rates are on the average about 30 per cent. lower and the intermediate rates about 10 per cent. lower than the general rates of duty under the Canadian tariff. The Board of Trade are not, however, in a position to give an exact figure showing what would be the average rate of duty on British exports if they were subjected to the general, preferential, and intermediate tariffs respectively.
    MR. PIKE PEASE:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average rate given to foreign countries is in the Blue Book?
    MR. KEARLEY: Yes, but the tariff has changed since then.

    Arbroath Disaster—Treating Railway Employees.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the comments of Major Pringle in his Report on the Arbroath railway accident, on the well-meant but ill-advised action of the general public in treating railway men with intoxicants; and whether he can see his way to put an end to this practice by inducing the railway companies to establish the rule that railway servants on duty shall not be served with intoxicants in railway refreshment rooms. (The hon. Member explained that the words "well-meant but ill-advised" were a quotation from Major Pringle's report and not his own.
    MR. KEARLEY: Yes, I know that. I understand that the railway companies generally have made a rule to the effect
    278
    suggested. It does not appear from Major Pringle's report that Gourlay was served with intoxicants in the railway refreshment room.
    MR. LEIF JONES:Then do I understand that there is such a rule in existence on many of our railways?
    MR. KEARLEY: Yes.
    MR. LEIF JONES: Then it is very much violated.
    MR. C. E. PRICE:Is there any law under which the public can be prosecuted for giving intoxicants in such cases?
    MR. KEARLEY:I should like notice of that Question.

    Brakes for Street Cars.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will use his influence with the Tramways and Light Railways Association and the Municipal Tramways Association to meet jointly, so as to be assisted by a representative of the Board of Trade, to inquire into the question of brake-power on street cars.
    MR. KEARLEY: I understand that the two Associations will in due course meet and compare the results arrived at by their respective committees, which are now carrying on independent investigations. The Board of Trade will be prepared to appoint a representative to assist them.

    Technical Classes in Agriculture.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the hon-Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a Departmental Committee of the Board of Agriculture has been appointed to report on the provision of technical classes in agriculture; whether any representative of the Board of Education has been appointed to that Committee; and, if not, why no such representative has been appointed.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): The Committee to which the hon. Member refers was appointed "to inquire as to the provision which has now been made for affording

    279
    scientific and technical instruction in agriculture in England and Wales and to report whether, in view of the practical results which have already been obtained, the existing facilities for the purpose are satisfactory and sufficient, and, if not, in what manner they may with advantage be modified or extended." It has quite been the hope of my noble friend that a representative or representatives of the Board of Education would be included in the Committee, but he has not hitherto been able to make arrangements for the purpose. He proposes, however, further to confer with my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education on the subject.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many technical classes in agriculture and schools of agriculture are assisted by the Board of Argiculture; and how many such schools and classes are inspected by the Board of Agriculture?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The number of institutions which received grants from the Board for the purposes of agricultural education in 1906–7 was twenty. All of them were inspected and reported upon in the course of the year. In addition our inspectors keep in close touch with the work of county councils in connection with agricultural education and visit and report upon the classes and lectures held under their auspices.

    National Physical Laboratory.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the event of the Committee appointed to inquire into the work now performed at the National Physical Laboratory asking for evidence from persons who either personally or as spokesmen of an institution object to giving evidence before the Committee on the ground that they distrust its impartiality, he will give such persons opportunity to lay their views before the Treasury before any action based on the report of Committee is taken by the Treasury.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is
    280
    competent under the present terms of reference for the Treasury Committee, appointed to consider the conduct of the National Physical Laboratory, to report in favour of a reconstitution of the executive committee of the National Physical Laboratory, in order that it may include representatives of bodies now unrepresented, such as the Institute of Chemistry, the Institution of Gas Engineers, and the Surveyors' Institute, and also representative independent-consultants; and that the professional bodies now represented, such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and the Iron and Steel Institute, shall have a larger representation than at present; and, in the event of it not being competent under the present terms of reference to recommend these alterations, whether he is prepared to amend the terms of reference so as to include them in the scope of the Committee's labours.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Evidence on such questions has, I understand, been already taken by the Committee; and any recommendations which they may see fit to make for changing representation so as to advance the work of the Laboratory will receive consideration by the Treasury.

    Saturday Half-Holidays for Government Employees.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a regular weekly Saturday half-holiday is granted in many large Government departments to the members of the clerical staffs; is this privilege granted at the discretion of the heads of these departments; whether it is within the discretion of the head of any Government department to extend this privilege to the members of his staff, provided that the state of public business permits; and, if so, will he take steps to have the heads of those departments in which the privilege is restricted to alternate Saturdays made aware of the extent of their discretion in the matter.
    MR. RUNCIMAN:No sanction has been given by the Treasury for a regular weekly half-holiday. But the circumstances of particular offices and of individual cases vary so much that I cannot make any general statement as to the conditions under which half-holidays are or may be granted.
    MR. G. A. HARDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in all offices of the Civil Service, clerks who are required to work overtime must, in order to obtain full payments, forego the usual Saturday half-holiday; whether there are any exceptions to this rule, and, if so, what are the grounds on which such exceptions are made.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: By the terms of the Orders in Council regulating the Civil Service a half-holiday on alternate Saturdays can only be granted if the state of public business permits. If the state of public business is such as to require the clerks to work overtime, it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.

    British Museum Reading Room.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the contract for redecorating the reading room of the British Museum was put out to public tender; and, if not, will he say why this course was not adopted.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Six firms were asked to compete. Public tendering would have been impossible in this case, as an unlimited number of people could not have been allowed access to the reading room when it was in use by the public to take the measurements and particulars necessary to enable them to frame a tender.
    MR. J. WARD: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if some of the officials of the British Museum could not have got out bills of quantities and supplied them to the contractors.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The officials of the Museumare not provided with a staff capable of doing such work.
    MR. LEA: Why could not the firms have sent their own employees to take out the specifications when the reading room was closed?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say.

    Law of Newspaper Libel.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether
    282
    his attention has been called to recent cases in which, in the course of judicial proceedings, charges have been made against absent persons not parties to such proceedings; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to amend the present law of libel, by annulling the plea of privilege at present protecting the authors and publishers of such charges.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): I see great, difficulty in limiting the privilege now existing which protects from actions, witnesses and others concerned in the conduct of judicial trials who make statements in court which cast reflection upon absent persons who are not parties to the cause. It would also be difficult to prevent the publication of these statements whenever they form part of a fair and accurate report of the proceedings, although I think that individuals often suffer seriously owing to charges against them being unnecessarily made and thoughtlessly repeated in the public press. The hon. Member has in particular good cause to complain of an incident of this kind to which he has drawn my attention.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will consider the desirability of representing to the proper Government Department the importance of advising coroners who hold inquests on suicides not to give publicity to letters written by demented persons before committing suicide, casting aspersions on living persons who have no opportunity of repudiating them?
    SIR JOHN WALTON:Coroners must be well aware of the desirability of exercising caution in that matter, and the Press who report these inquests must also be conscious of their duty in the matter.

    Dog Poisoning in Sutherlandshire.
    MR. MORTON:I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the poisoning of the crofters' dogs in the neighbourhood of Badininish, Skelbo, Sutherland; whether he is aware that a dog is absolutely necessary to the crofter; will he take steps to put an end to this persecution of crofters: and is he aware that putting poison about may be a

    283
    danger to human beings as well as animals.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,for Mr. SINCLAIR): My right hon. friend desires me to say that his attention has not been drawn to the matter referred to by the hon. Member. He will be glad to make inquiries.

    Scottish Electoral List.
    MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the proposals of the Liquor Traffic (Local Option) (Scotland) Bill, he can say what is the estimated proportionn of parish electors in an area to the total inhabitants of the area; and whether he can furnish any statistics showing the average proportion of those on the register who have in fact voted in local elections in Scotland to which this register applies.
    MR. JOHN BURNS (for Mr. SINCLAIR): The only return of parish electors available is for the year 1898, when for the whole of Scotland it was 787,629, or nearly a sixth of the population. My right hon. friend has no information as to the number voting.

    Irish University Scheme.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will communicate to the House a full list of the protests which he has received from Universities and colleges in the United Kingdom against proceeding with the Irish University scheme upon the lines laid down by the late Chief Secretary.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): I have received protests from the Senate of the University of Dublin, resident members of the University of Oxford, principals and professors of the Scottish Universities, of the University of Sheffield, the constituent colleges of the University of Wales, and of St. David's College, Lampeter, and from lecturers in the school of medicine of the Royal Colleges, Edinburgh. So far as English and Scottish University opinion was expressed in these protests, it was mainly
    284
    confined to that part of the proposal which related to a federated University.
    MR. KETTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a list of the Irish educational associations and elective bodies which have given cordial support to the scheme outlined by Mr. Bryce?
    MR. BIRRELL: It could be given, but I do not know of any advantage that accrues to one side or the other by the publication of these things.

    Keogh Estate, Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenantry on the Keogh estate, situate in Geevagh parish, county Sligo, have repeatedly appealed to the landlord, who resides in Dublin, to enter into an agreement with them for the purchase of their holdings, which appeals he has refused to entertain; and that many of these tenants or their predecessors have been evicted from holdings on the same estate, all of which have been consolidated into a grazing ranche which the landlord lets on the eleven months' system; and whether, as these tenants occupy uneconomic holdings which are rackrented, the Estates Commissioners will be instructed to negotiate with Mr. Keogh for the purchase of this estate.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot trace any proceedings in regard to this estate as having been instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. If the name and address of the owner should be communicated to them, they would make inquiries into the matter.

    Case of Thomas Gaffney of Gawran.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire into the reason of the manner in which Thomas Gaffney, of Gawran, county Kilkenny, was treated by the police on the night of the 3rd February last, when being arrested for alleged drunkenness and assault; whether he is aware that Gaffney was confined in the lock-up all night, and summarily dealt

    285
    with early next morning by two local magistrates, Messrs. White and Byrne, who refused his request for an adjournment to summon witnesses as to his sobriety and to obtain legal aid; whether he is aware that, prior to Gaffney being so dealt with, the senior magistrate of the district, Joseph Walsh, esquire, chairman county council, had stated his opinion that Gaffney's offence was too trivial for summary treatment, and had instructed the police to summon Gaffney to petty sessions; and what explanation the police Authorities have to offer for ignoring this instruction, and for having Gaffney tried summarily in the absence of his witnesses and solicitor.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that the man referred to, who is a tramp, was arrested at nine o'clock at night for drunkenness and disorderly conduct, and that after arrest he assaulted a sergeant by kicking and biting him, and also assaulted a constable. As the man had no fixed place of abode, it was not considered desirable to liberate him with the view of summoning him to petty sessions. He was detained in; custody that night, and was summarily dealt with by two local justices on the following morning. He admitted the offences, and made no request for adjournment and said nothing about witnesses or legal aid. Mr. Walsh was in no way concerned in the case, and gave no instructions whatever to the police.
    MR. MEAGHERasked whence the right hon. Gentleman got his information. Was he aware that this tramp was born in the district, and that the county of Kilkenny was more free from crime than any other county, and why was this man to be thus summarily treated for a trivial offence?
    MR. BIRRELLreplied that under the criminal law summary treatment was usually meted out for trivial offences. The man, wherever he was born, was a tramp.
    MR. MEAGHER: But did the right hon. Gentleman seek information from any person other than those directly concerned?
    MR. BIRRELL: It is difficult in asking about a tramp to get information from anyone except the police, but if the
    286
    hon. Member has anything more to tell me about this tramp I shall be willing to hear it.
    MR. ASHLEY: Is biting a police sergeant a trivial offence?
    MR. BIRRELL:I do not consider it so except in my capacity as a lawyer.

    Land Purchase in County Cork.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in December last the agents to the O'Donovan, Bird, and Browne estates, situate in the parish of Kilcrohane, county Cork, made otters of sale to the Congested Districts Board; will he say whether the Congested Districts Board have since made offers of purchase; and, if not, can he state the cause of the delay in their not doing so.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have purchased the Bird Estate and have agreed to purchase the O'Donovan Estate, but it has not yet been vested in them. Another estate belonging to Messrs. Bird and Harding, and one belonging to Miss Browne were offered for sale to the Board in January. The Inspector's Reports on these estates will be brought before the Board at their next meeting, when the question of purchase will be considered. There has been no delay in dealing with the matter.

    Belfast Factory Workers.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of women and young girls employed in the mills, factories, and workshops in Belfast, and also the number of such persons who are under the age of eighteen years or half-timers; and, if not, whether he will have a Return prepared giving this information.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have not the figures for which the hon. Member asks, but I may refer him to the Report on the conditions of work in flax and linen mills made in 1904 by Sir Hamilton Freer-Smith, superintending inspector of factories, on pages 18 and 19 of which he will find some tables of statistics of persons employed in flax factories. If these contain sufficient information for

    287
    his purpose he will perhaps not think it necessary to ask for a special Return, which would take considerable time and trouble to prepare.

    Irish. Factory Inspection.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the high death rate in Belfast from pulmonary consumption, and to the fact that the death rate is highest amongst mill and factory workers, the vast majority of whom are females; whether there is any female factory inspector in Belfast; and, if not, whether, in view of the number of women and young girls employed in mills and factories in Belfast, he will consider the advisability of appointing a female inspector for that city and the North of Ireland generally.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The figures given in the Report of the Registrar-General for Ireland for the year 1905 do not appear to mo to show any necessary connection between the death rate in Belfast from tubercular disease, and employment in the linen factories. I may point out, however, that the conditions obtaining in flax and linen mills have been made the subject of a special inquiry by Sir Hamilton Freer-Smith, to whose Report I have just alluded, and that, as the result, new regulations for the industry have just been established dealing with the removal of dust, humidity in the air, steam, wet, etc., which should do much to improve the health of the workers. I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy. With regard to the last part of the Question, one of the lady inspectors resides in Belfast for two-thirds of each year, devoting her time chiefly to inspection in that city. Others of the lady inspectors also visit Ireland occasionally.

    Political Pensions.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to his declaration last session that he was opposed to political pensions, he will now give facilities for the further progress of the Bill for their repeal, which has been read a second time without a division.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, the declaration was of a purely
    288
    personal kind, and I am opposed to the cancelling of existing pensions contemplated by this Bill.

    Empire Day.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that official recognition is now made of Empire Day in nearly every portion of the Empire except the United Kingdom, he will take steps to have the day officially recognised in the United Kingdom.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; as at present advised I doubt if sufficient interest is taken in this day to justify its official recognition.
    MR. FLAVIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of officially recognising Tariff Reform Day?
    MR. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to get Empire Day recognised all over the country?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Government Messengerships.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister how many appointments have been made to permanent messenger ships in Government offices since January, 1906, and what was the occupation of the different men prior to appointment.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I am afraid that the labour in compiling this information would be out of all proportion to the value of the result.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: How many appointments have been made?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: The labour involved could not be very great.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have given the information supplied me by the Department.

    Boards of Education and Agriculture.
    MR. ASHLEY:I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will take any steps

    289
    to co-ordinate the functions of the Boards of Education and of Agriculture in connection with the provision of technical education and agriculture.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the question of co-ordinating the functions of the Boards of Education and of Agriculture in connection with technical and agricultural education is under the consideration of the respective Presidents of the Boards; and I am not yet in a. position to state what steps they propose to take in the matter.

    Naval Policy.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the policy of His Majesty's Government with reference to the Navy is that if foreign countries extend their programmes we, in our turn, will also extend our programme in order to keep our relative position amongst naval Powers.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I would refer the hon. Member to the statements of naval policy made in both houses on Wednesday last week.

    Irish Members and the Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the Vote upon which the salary of the Secretary to the Treasury is borne upon an early date.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot yet say when the Treasury Vote will be taken.

    Irish University Education Bill.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when it is now proposed to introduce the Bill providing for the rearrangement of higher education in Ireland.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am unable to make any announcement at present. Due notice will be given.

    Irish Council Bills.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when it is now proposed to introduce the Bill providing for the formation of a central council in Ireland.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sorry to have to keep on giving such Answers one after another. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary has already given this information to the House. So far as we can see the Bill will be introduced on the 7th May.

    Scottish Committee of the Privy Council on Education.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the right of the public to know how the business of the Government is carried on is acknowledged by the regular publication of the dates of Cabinet meetings and the names of the Ministers who attend them, he will, in the case of the meetings of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education in Scotland, publish the names of the members of that Committee who attend these meetings; and whether, notwithstanding the absence of the precedent, he will now direct that the dates of meetings of the Committee, and the names of the members present should be regularly communicated to this House and the public.
    SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware that any injury has been done to the public interest by the fact of such meetings not being published, and I do not see the necessity of instituting a new practice.
    MR. SMEATONasked whether the advice which the Prime Minister gave the other day to "have done with these tomfooleries "should not be adopted in regard to this phantom Committee.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should be sorry to apply such a word as "tomfoolery" to an institution which has lasted so long as this one.
    MR. MORTON: Is it not the fact that the whole thing is a farce? The Committee never meets at all and is never summoned.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should never think of using such language as that.

BUSLNESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the business for next week.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that on Monday next it was proposed to take the Second Reading of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and the debate would be continued on Tuesday if necessary. Wednesday's business would include Report of the financial Resolutions and some minor Bills.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And Thursday?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I will state that next week. We have an idea in our minds as to it.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not to be devoted to Irish Supply?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:Yes, that is what is in our minds owing to certain circumstances which have transpired in this House.

SELECTION (SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection, That the following Members representing Scottish constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee:—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Robert Balfour, Mr. Barnes. Mr. Beale, Sir Arthur Bignold, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Caldwell, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Cleland, Sir Thomas Glen Coats, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Cross, Lord Dalmeny, Viscount Dalrymple, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Arthur Dewar, Mr. John Dewar, Mr.Robert Duncan, the Master of Elibank, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Findlay, Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. John Gulland, Mr. Secretary Haldane, Mr. Leicester Harms-worth, Mr. John Henderson, Mr. John Deans Hope, Sir John Jardine, Mr. Laid-law, Mr. Lamont, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. John M'Callum, Mr. M'Crae, Sir Lewis M'Iver, Major M'Micking, Mr. Menzies, Mr. Molteno, Mr. Secretary Morley, Mr. James Murray, Mr. Morton, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Charles Price, Sir RobertPullar, Dr. Rainy, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Halley Stewart, Mr. Solicitor-General for
292
Scotland, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, Sir Andrew Torrance, Sir John Batty Tuke, Captain Waring, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Watt, Mr. Weir, Mr. Dundas White, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Williamson, Mr. M'Kinnon Wood, and Mr. Younger.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. William Abraham (Cork), the Lord Advocate, Mr. Adkins, Mr. Harmood-Banner, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Barran, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Billson, Mr. Boland, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brace, Mr. Bright, Viscount Castlereagh, Mr. Cave, Mr. Chance, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Cobbold, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Herbert Craig, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. Evans, Mr. George Faber (York), Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Flynn, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Gwynn, Mr. William Harvey, Mr. Harwood, Mr. James Haslam, Mr. Healy, Colonel Herbert, Mr. Higham, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Bateman Hope, Sir John Jardine, Mr. Vincent Kennedy, Mr. Lambton, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. Lehmann, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Massie, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Napier, Mr. Nussey, Mr. Pickersgill, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Rees, Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Soares, Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Thornton, Sir Howard Vincent. Mr. Waldron, Mr. Walker, Mr. Joseph Walton, and Mr. Whitehead.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following fifteen Members in respect of the Advertisements Regulation Bill:—Lord Balcarres, Mr. Hart-Davies, Mr. Wyndham, Sir Charles Schwann, Mr. Butcher, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Beale, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Bell, Mr. Beauchamp, Mr. Bertram Straus, Dr. Shipman, Mr. King, Mr. Rendall, and Mr. Morrell.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B, in respect of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill:—Mr. Burns, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Solicitor-General; and had added the following eighteen Members in respect of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill:—Mr. Birrell, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Fetherstonhaugh, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Clancy, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Hayden, Mr. M'Hugh, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. Devlin, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill:— Sir Edward Strachey; and had added the following Sixteen Members (in respect; of the Patents and Designs Bill):—Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Collings, Mr. Meysey-Thompson, Viscount, Turnour, Mr. Maclaren, Mr. Dundas White, Mr. Branch, Mr. Croydon Marks, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Astbury, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Agnew, and Sir Francis Charming.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GOURDON further reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A:— Mr. Rothschild; and had appointed in substitution Mr. lames Francis Mason.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with Amendments.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 129.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 129.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
"To amend The Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884," presented by Mr. Cleland; supported by Mr. M'Crae, Mr. Barnes, Major Coates, Mr. Younger, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Adkins, and Mr. M'Kinnon Wood; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]
NAVAL LANDS (VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
"To extend the Military Lands Acts to Naval and Marine Volunteers," presented by Mr. Edmund Robertson; to be road a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT, Oldham, in the chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
1. Motion made, and Question pro-proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,758,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908."
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,)said the policy of the present Board of Admiralty had been that of continuity. That principle had been followed in regard to shipbuilding, the distribution of the Fleet, the training of officers, and other matters of purely technical concern, but there was a sharp break in financial methods. If the precedent of the last ten years had been followed he would during that session have had to move another Loan Bill to carry out the works sanctioned under the Loan Act of 1905. But he thought all fair-minded Members would agree that borrowing in the last ten years had been unduly and unwisely extended. The present Government had not only decided that no new works

295
should be provided for under Loan Bills, but they were determined to finish the old loan works out of revenue. The temptation to do otherwise had been strong, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had successfully resisted it. As a consequence the naval Votes this year would have to bear £900,000 in addition to the ordinary naval expenditure voted by the House. Borrowing powers had been taken to the amount of £27,593,000 during the last ten years whereas the Loan Act of 1905 sanctioned a total expenditure of £32,200,000. The Government had very carefully revised the several loan items. They had cut out everything not essential and taken into account the redistribution of the Fleet. Of course, there must also be considered the difficulty of forecasting, when the Loan Act of 1905 was brought in, what would be the actual necessities of the Fleet in 1907 –8. This careful revision had enabled the Government to reduce the total loan expenditure from £32,206,000 to £29,840,000. They had to deduct from that £29,840,000 borrowing powers to the amount of £27,593,000. The naval Votes, therefore, in this year, next year, and the year afterwards would have to bear a total of £2,246,000. As to repayment of annuity, that would have to be borne over a good many years altogether. The policy of the present Government in transferring expenditure on the works to revenue would result in a saving of £117,000 a year for the next thirty years. The reduction effected in the items of the Loan Bill would mean another saving of £123,000 a year, making a total of £240,000 saved on this annuity for the next thirty years. The annuity would reach its maximum in 1910–11, when it would be £1,350,000 a year. It would remain stationary about fifteen years and then be gradually reduced. The last payment under the Loan Act of 1905 would be made in 1938–9. If posterity had done nothing for us, we certainly had done something for posterity, and he could only hope that in those happy days they would be able to commiserate us on having lived in a more brutal age. If peace and good will did not then prevail the people who lived in 1938–9 would have to pay for their own and for some of our works as well. He would sketch the result of the works that had been sanctioned and were in process of completion under the various Loan Acts that had been passed during
296
the ten years. At Gibraltar somewhat over £5,000,000 had been spent upon a harbour, commercial mole, extension of the dockyard, and magazines. It would be very interesting indeed to know the total of the enormous expenditure on the fortifications of Gibraltar. Over £2,000,000 would have been spent at Malta by the time the breakwaters, extension, magazines, coal and oil-fuel storage had been completed in 1910. At Hong Kong, on the extension of the dockyard and coaling facilities nearly £2,000,000 had been spent. At Simon's Bay the expenditure on the new dockyard would have amounted to over £2,000,000 by 1909. At Keyham,. Devonport, nearly £6,000,000 had been. devoted to an extension of the dockyard, barracks and minor items. At Chatham nearly £2,000,000 had gone in the dock, barracks, and hospital. At Dover, to enclose a harbour of 610 acres in such an exposed position—a work which it was hoped would be finished in 1910—would cost £3,500,000. At Portland, the expenditure amounted to nearly £1,000,000. At Bermuda, dockyard extension accounted for £600,000; the expenditure at Portsmouth amounted to £2,000,000; and miscellaneous services were answerable for £2,500,000 more. Out of this last sum five churches had been added to the naval strength of the country.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: What about Rosyth?
MR. LAMBERTsaid he would come to that in due course. He proposed to-give a few figures as to the docking accommodation for large vessels. They had at home five Government docks capable of taking the "Dreadnought"; abroad three. All these belonged to the Government.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: Where are those at home?
MR. LAMBERTsaid that of the docks at home four were at Keyham and one at Portsmouth. Of docks belonging to the Government capable of taking the "Invincible'' type there were eight at home and three abroad. In British territory there were twenty-seven docks capable of taking the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible." The

297
"Invincible" being longer than the "Dreadnought," some docks would accommodate her that would not accommodate the "Dreadnought," and there were others which would take the latter but not the "Invincible." Having sketched as briefly as he could these various items, he might now come to the question of new works. In the first place there had been a considerable amount of alarm expressed at the alleged unhealthy conditions which prevailed at Osborne among the cadets. He could dispel this alarm by saying that they had taken the utmost pains to inquire into the causes of epidemics that had unhappily raged at Osborne; and he thought he could not do better than read to the House the extract from the Report of the visit of the Medical Director-General, accompanied by several other medical men. That was on 21st November last, and their Report said—
"There appears to us to be a special reason why epidemics should, in spite of every care on the part of the officials, be prone to occur among the cadets. It is because a large number of boys at, a susceptible age are passed through the college in a time much shorter than obtains in public schools, and there is a continual supply of susceptible subjects."
Of course, Osborne differed from any other educational establishment. They had there something like 400 boys of from thirteen to fifteen years of age, and they were told that this was the most susceptible age for catching diseases such as chicken-pox, measles and the like. It was proposed to build a new infectious hospital at Osborne to hold sixty beds, at a cost of £20,000. There had been an expression of opinion that the material of which Osborne was built might be a cause of the sickness; but a distinguished surgeon had reported as follows—
"I have had a chemical examination made of a sample of this material. There is no free acid of any kind in this material, and in my opinion it is quite free from any irritant properties."
He hoped that those opinions of eminent medical men would allay any alarm that might have been caused. He could assure the Committee that they would do all in their power to prevent disease at Osborne, and it was with that view that they had sanctioned the proposal to build a hospital with sixty beds for infectious cases. At Shotley, also, they proposed to increase the hospital accommodation from sixty-two beds to 114 beds.
298
Another subject was that of the Portsmouth lock. Last year his right hon. friend made a statement about it, and they included a sum of £900,000 to execute the work. They had been met by many difficulties. Various schemes had been proposed to the Admiralty, and he was sorry to say that great exception had been taken to each by officials at the Admiralty and at the Portsmouth dockyard. It was a very serious thing indeed so to pull about the old dockyard as to construct a lock of the length required at Portsmouth. The proposal to spend something like £750,000 or £1,000,000 upon the building of a lock in the dockyards might paralyse, and certainly would demoralise, the work there for a considerable time. One proposal was to widen the existing lock, but it was thought that the lock would not be strongenough to stand the strain. Another proposal was to cut through the coaling point, but that was open to the obvious objection that they would have to find another place for coal. The Board of Admiralty, having carefully considered everything, consulted anoutside firm of engineers, though not from any lack of confidence in the officials of the Works Department of the Admiralty. They acted on the principle of a person who might be ill, that it was no disparagement of the ordinary medical adviser if an outside specialist were called in. He wanted to get rid of the idea that there was the smallest shadow of disparagement of the present officers of the Admiralty. During the sixteen months he had been there he was perfectly certain that no Department of the Government, nor any outside Department, was served with more fidelity or more ability than was the Admiralty in the Works Department. But this matter was so important that they took the advice of an eminent firm of outside engineers, and they hoped soon to have their Report which had been unavoidably delayed. That was all he could state about the Portsmouth lock at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman had asked him about Rosyth. There was a sum of £10,000 in the Estimates for the Rosyth works, the history of which hid been a somewhat chequered one. In March, 1900, a Committee was appointed to consider the accommodation of ships. They reported early in 1902 that there was a serious deficiency of

299
accommodation for long battleships and cruisers at some stations. They added that the expansion of our present naval ports would be very difficult, and they recommended another naval establishment as the best solution of the difficulty. At the end of March, 1902, there were bought 1,144 acres at the cost of £144,000. In 1903 sketch plans were prepared to provide berthing accommodation for one fourth of the War Fleet in 1908 –9. Those designs were completed in 1904. The designs and estimates were for a complete naval base to cost £10,000,000. Before these designs were fully finished, a great departure took place in Admiralty policy. Old ships were scrapped, and at the beginning of 1905 there was no need for this berthing accommodation. Various plans had been proposed since, not for berthing accommodation, but for a dock and basin, and other matters. There was a definite scheme decided upon in August 1905 to cost £2,300,000. That was a considerable reduction on the £10,000,000. That scheme was proposed just as the present Government came into office; but when the skilled advisers to the Admiralty had to pronounce upon it very grave objections to it were found. It was therefore determined to get the fullest information as to the sub-soil, and a series of investigations were carried out by the superintending engineer. They had sunk a cylinder, and the results of all the experiments were now before the Admiralty. They would be carefully considered by the Board, and further than that he could not go at present.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: You cannot tell whether they are satisfactory?
MR LAMBERT: said he could not; they had not been considered by the Board of Admiralty yet. There was a new work which possibly might be of interest to Irish Members. He had stated just now that we had at home five Government docks. It was proposed to build another. Haulbow line dock was completed in 1890, but it was only 411 feet long, and was therefore inadequate, though wide enough, to take a ship of the "Dreadnought" type. They proposed to extend it to 600 feet, and it would then
300
be big enough for any existing or projected warships. The reason for lengthening the dock was that Berehaven was one of the principal headquarters of the seagoing fleet. Berehaven was ninety miles from Haulbowline, where, if a ship was damaged, she could put in, when the dock was completed. Berehaven was 250 miles from Devonport; therefore, if a ship was injured at Berehaven, she would have to steam 250miles through a rough sea to reach Devonport, a circumstance which the Admiralty could not view without concern. The total Vote was £2,758,400, which was an apparent increase of £803,900. In reality there was a decrease, because they had had to provide on the Vote £870,825 for work which would have been paid for by loan, if they had not adopted the new policy. There was also an increase of £120,000, on the loan-repayment annuity, and they had therefore had to provide for extra expenditure outside the ordinary Vote to the extent of £991,000. There was, in reality, a real decrease in the Vote of £187,000. He was sure the House of Commons would approve of the policy of paying their way. It was useless to pay off debt with one hand and to borrow money for Naval works with the other. The Admiralty hoped in this Vote and in others to give the country value for their money. All non-essentials had been eliminated, but there had been no undue cheeseparing. The sum asked for was only what, in their opinion, was necessary for the efficiency of this branch of Naval defence.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thought that by combining brevity of speech with paucity of information he would thereby assist the passage of the Vote, but personally he rather doubted it, and ho was really amazed at the perfunctory manner in which he had touched upon some very grave questions affecting not only the efficiency but the actual safety of some of the most valuable ships in His Majesty's Navy. He would deal with those points in detail, and commence with a review of the financial aspect of the Vote. It was perfectly clear that the Vote was of unusual importance this year, owing to the fact that a number of very important works had been transferred from the

301
Naval Works Loan to the Vote, and the hon. Gentleman talked of that as if it were an entirely new policy. It was nothing of the kind. He would be the last person to object to the principle which hon. Gentlemen had advocated, of paying their way out of Votes in view of the fact that he himself, when he was in the hon. Gentleman's position, advocated publicly in the House again and again this particular change, and had actually initiated it. On the 3rd of March, 1904, in the House he said—
"It was the hope of the Admiralty that they would be in a position to discontinue the system of borrowing for works, and to construct them out of the Estimates. It was obvious, however, that there must be a transition period, and they were now putting such works as they could on Vote 10. That accounted for some of the large items to be found on the Vote."
And again, speaking as Civil Lord, on 28th July, 1905, he said—
"He had never concealed his own desire that they (i.e. the Loans) should be brought to an end as soon as that could conveniently be done, but it had not been practicable before now. This Bill marked a great step in that direction. The transference, however, of certain of this expenditure to the Votes would, he warned the House, involve an increase of £340,000 to £350,000 in next year's Naval Estimates."
Moreover, in pursuance of that policy, before they left office the late Government did transfer one of the largest items of all, that of Rosyth, from the Works loan to Vote 10. The present Government, however, when they came into office, cut out that item from the Vote, and put it back on the Loan, which amounted to a reversal of the policy of transference from Loan to Vote which in that way had been initiated. He could not admit that the Government deserved any special credit for this particular reform, except in so far as it continued a policy already initiated by the late Government. But, after all, it was not professions or statements of principle which were important in this matter; it was the application of the principle. And here he came to what was apparently a conflict of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. On 5th March, in explaining the policy of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman said that their unexhausted borrowing powers would be used as far as they would go;
302
and the right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that there was practically £2,000,000 more to borrow. In other words, the Government, while it was going to stop this "vicious principle" of borrowing, at the same time was going to borrow every single penny that the law allowed, to the tune of this £2,000,000. He thought, therefore, that the principle of paying their way out of Votes was still very much in its infancy. There was another point on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke last March, which also required a little explanation on the financial side. He suggested that it was contemplated to transfer the interest payments, under the previous Works Loans Act, from Vote 10, under which it now appeared, to the National Debt. [Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No.] Well, here were the right hon. Gentleman's words—
"The Navy Estimates will have to bear a dead weight of over £1,250,000 annually, on account of past expenditure unless these payments are transferred to the National Debt. It is immaterial to the country how the money is paid."
Was that the course that the right hon. Gentleman wished to pursue? He sincerely hoped that it was not, because the present system of payment provided for both interest and sinking fund, and for the extinction of the debt in the present generation. He could not endorse the hon. Gentleman's optimistic idea that by 1938–9 the world would have so advanced that there would be no necessity for Navies or Naval works. But surely it was not immaterial to the country that the present system might possibly be abandoned, and that this debt should be transferred to the National Debt of the country. He had no doubt that it would have the effect of making the Naval Estimates look slimmer at the time, and that possibly it might be used as another card for the Hague Conference, but it was certainly unsound finance. He had said just now that he did not object to the principle of transfer from Loan to Vote; but there were serious abuses which might result from its operation and there was one danger which he thought must have been foreseen by everybody who had studied the subject. If it was the case that the old system of constructing works under Loan occasionally led to extravagance, it was equally clear that the new system, at any rate under a

303
Liberal Government, must almost inevitably lead to a dangerous starving of necessary and even of essential naval works. This was an old story; it had been the history of these naval works in the past; in fact it was the sole and direct cause of the necessity of introducing the long series of Loan Bills which was now drawing to a close. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had made some very wise remarks on this subject. In a debate some three years ago, on 3rd March, 1904, he said these words—
"The Works Vote in former days was not the handmaid, but it was the Cinderella of the Navy Vote, and it was snubbed and robbed. That was in the days before Civil Lords were efficient Ministers. It was no doubt starved and plundered, and in the days before the Naval Works Acts it had reached dangerously small figures He admitted that the figures were too low before the Naval Works Acts were passed, and it was because they were too low that those Acts were introduced."
That was undoubtedly the origin of this loan expenditure, and he was afraid that it was too clearly evident that there was a tendency in Vote 10 to repeat the state of affairs which led to the introduction of the loan expenditure. There were two methods by which the starving of necessary works might be carried out. One was that they might abandon altogether, or postpone, works that were absolutely essential, thereby inflicting a grave injury on the Navy, and leading to panic expenditure later on. Another method was the even more pernicious process of starving works which had been actually sanctioned and begun, through the granting of insignificant yearly doles. Either of these systems was grossly unfair to any succeeding Government, because they would be compelled later on to grapple with the accumulated arrears by embarking on a vast capital expenditure. He protested, therefore, against the action of the Government in respect of two important items at least in the Vote. These were Rosyth and the new lock at Portsmouth. The hon. Gentleman had given them a history, though not an altogether impartial history, of the Rosyth works. He had told them correctly that the original idea was approved by the Board of Admiralty in 1902, that the site was purchased and examined and that the plans worked up in 1903–4. But the hon. Gentleman was not quite fair in
304
the matter of what subsequently took place. He said that a scheme was elaborated for establishing a first-class dockyard at a cost of £10,000,000, and that the scheme which was afterwards produced showed that the Admiralty had changed its mind.
MR. LAMBERT: I said the conditions were altered.
MR. LEE: Quite so, and that had of course influenced the decision of the Amiralty. He had explained at considerable length on introducing the Naval Works Loans Bill in 1905 that the late Government ordered plans to be drawn up for the fullest utilisation of the site purchased, in case it should become necessary to use it in years to come, because it had teen only too evident in past instances that by planning a dockyard on too small a small scale, not thinking of the future, and then attempting to extend it, they found themselves obliged to clear away works already made and generally they had no coherent and natural scheme of expansion upon which to proceed. There-fore on these sole grounds the late Government laid down, on paper only, the plans of this large dockyard, but they did not intend to construct it then, and at the period when the scheme was laid before the House of Commons in August, 1905, it provided for a small self-contained naval base which could be expanded if necessary, and on which the total expenditure was to be under £2,500,000. That item was then transferred from the Loan Account to Vote 10. They handed over the Vote in that condition to the present Government, who for reasons best known to themselves, cut the item out of the Vote. It reappeared this year with no total estimate and with nothing but a miserable instalment of £10,000 in respect of works which were to cost over £2,000,000. Last year, however, they used language which was exceedingly emphatic as to the vital necessity of constructing this base at Rosyth. Reading from a document the right hon. Gentleman said the Admiralty had no intention of departing from the scheme, because it was an imperative necessity that this base should be provided on the east coast, but that was the position of this project to-day after four years of

305
consideration? In proportion to the total cost of the works the sum of £10,000 to be spent this year was ridiculous. It was not sufficient to enable the Government to let the main contract even if it was passed by the House. Really, after all this expenditure of time, he felt that the Government were trifling with the Committee and the country about this question of Rosyth. It was a most lamentable example of the system of starving works by indefinite postponement. They had brought forward no valid excuse for further delay. The preliminary works were admittedly completed, together with the railway connections, water supply, borings, and other matters which had to be attended to in the first place. The Civil Lord had referred to the sinking of the cylinder as a matter which was still under consideration, but he knew perfectly well that that had been done most successfully. The results showed that the site was peculiarly advantageous from an engineering point of view. There was, therefore, no reason whatever, except the financial reason, for not going on with the work. There had been various incidents connected with the business at Rosyth. They were informed in December last that the superintending engineer was to be withdrawn and sent to Portsmouth because there was no work for him to do, and then later ho was ordered to remain, but he was given a staff ridiculously inadequate for the purpose of going on with the work at all. In answer to a Question asked yesterday the hon. Gentleman stated the total engineering staff now at Rosyth consisted of six persons, who had also to look after the whole of the coastguard services in Scotland. He thought they were justified in saying that the Government did not mean business in this question of Rosyth. It was not necessary to emphasise again the urgency of this work, which the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted so forcibly last year. Even under the most favourable circumstances and with unlimited funds, it would take seven or eight years to complete the work. Who could foresee what would be our international relationships in seven years time? The work ought to be pressed on with all possible despatch. The necessity for it had been more than ever emphasised by the establishment of the new Home Fleet, sometimes called the North Sea Fleet. They were told that it was to be based on
306
ports immediately in the vicinity of the North Sea. In the meantime they were told that it was based on Sheerness. He felt bound to investigate a little more closely the alleged claim that this Fleet was already provided with a base. Sheerness was practically an open roadstead. It was an absolutely impracticable and unsafe base in time of war. It was exposed to torpedo attack at any time, and as a matter of fact first-class battleships could only cross the bar and get into the roadstead eight hours out of the twenty-four, and wounded ships could only cross the bar at high water, and yet this was supposed to be a base for the Home Fleet. Chatham was quite useless as a base, the access to it being so precarious. He remembered that a calculation was made that access to it could only be obtained 150 days in the whole year. There was no dock whatever there capable of taking in the "Dreadnought" or the "Invincible." The next nearest port was Portsmouth. There again it was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that there was only one dock which was even theoretically capable of taking in the "Dreadnought." The docks at Portsmouth were so situated that they could only be entered by the largest vessels six hours out of the twenty-four, and in the case of the "Dreadnought," they could only be entered through an emergency entrance which could not be used in certain directions of the wind and tide, and which in any case was most unsafe. The nearest available base, therefore, was Devon-port, and in the absence of Rosyth wounded ships would have to traverse 275 miles, after passing the Straits of Dover, of narrow waters probably infested with torpedo craft before they could reach a place of safety and be docked. Speaking of the necessity for a new dock at Haulbowline, the right hon. Gentleman said that vessels at Berehaven in order to get to Devonport "would have to traverse 250 miles of water, which was acontingency the Admiralty could not contemplate without apprehension." Surely that was a strong reinforcement of his argument. It was absurd to suppose that these ships could be provided with an adequate base at Devonport if they had to traverse 275 miles of narrow waters, exposed to attack all the way. As to the entrance to Portsmouth, the Civil Lord, speaking last year in very forcible

307
language in regard to the urgent necessity for a new dock entrance, said—
"The Board of Admiralty, with a due sense of responsibility in the matter, thought it essential that this new look should be constructed. It was impossible for large ships such as the "Dreadnought" to enter the existing locks. All those who had knowledge of naval matters would know that to take a ship into a basin with both caissons open, would be lather a serious matter should an accident occur, and the ships in the basin would run the risk of considerable damage. Therefore it was proposed by this new work to construct a lock 850 feet long, 110 feet wide, and 33 feet at low-water level."
But what was the Government doing to carry out this urgent work which was to cost nearly a million sterling? They put in the Estimates of last year a sum of £10,000 of which only £250 had been spent, no doubt, mainly in correspondence. This year they put down another £10,000, though apparently nothing whatever had been done. The hon. gentleman's excuse was that there were a number of rival schemes, and that the Admiralty could not make up its mind which was the proper one.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee)was understood to say that they were asking outside advice.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid they were calling in outside advice, but it was perfectly absurd to suppose that the professional advisers of the Admiralty could not make up their minds on a comparatively simple matter of this kind in eighteen months. At any rate, from his own knowledge of the Works Department of the Admiralty, which the hon. Gentleman so justly eulogised, and which had carried out the greatest engineering works of this kind all over the world, he absolutely refused to believe that those splendid engineers were so incompetent as to be unable in eighteen months to work out a scheme for a new lock entrance at Portsmouth. The delay was obviously a financial one. It was very convenient, when the Government wanted delay, to point out that experts differed. He supposed that had been a common device of all Governments at different times. The fact appeared to be that the Government did not wish to provide the necessary money on the Naval Estimates lest they
308
should appear too large. That was a dangerous policy, and he would almost say that it was scandalous, in view of the accidents which had recently happened at Portsmouth in connection with the docking of vessels. He thought the fact ought to be clearly recognised by the Committee and the public that within the last few months they had very nearly had a most serious accident to the "Dreadnought," which, as he had said, could only be got into the basin at all through an emergency entrance, which was not safe in certain states of the weather. The "Dreadnought," on the occasion to which he referred, stuck in the entrance of No. 15 dock, and considerably; damaged both the dock and herself. That was a very serious matter indeed, for if it had not been for a remarkable stroke of luck, the "Dreadnought "would have broken her back. Again, there was the case of the "Britannia,"' a first-class battleship, which was entering the "Deep" or tidal dock, and owing to the insufficient margin she stuck in the entrance, just as the tide was turning, and it was only by a miracle, and by the use of several dockyard tugs, that she was hauled clear just in time to save her from breaking her back. It was common rumour in Portsmouth that the Admiral in command of the station had notified the Admiralty that he refused to take those ships of the largest class into dock under those conditions. He thought it was extremely probable that that rumour was true. In spite of all this the Government were trifling with the matter. They were putting down a ridiculously small sum on the Estimates, and they had not informed the House of the serious facts to which he had just alluded. He would not at this stage make any comments upon less important items in the Vote; but he asserted that they on the Opposition side of the House were justified in entering a most vigorous protest against a return to the system of starving works which prevailed a generation ago, and which, if persisted in, would impose once again on the successors of the existing Government a burdensome and unfair obligation to meet the accumulation of arrears by vast capital expenditure and perhaps a fresh series of Loans Bills.
MR. JENKINSsaid he trusted the country would not be scared

309
after reading the speech of the hon. Member for Fareham; and he hoped that the right hon. Member for Dundee would give to him a very pertinent reply. He could not accept all that the hon. Gentleman had said as to the naval bases of the country. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman had had experience at the Board of Admiralty in the last Government, although, in order to build up a case for Portsmouth, he had discounted the existence of other naval bases such as Plymouth, Devonport, and Chatham. He (Mr. Jenkins) was not opposed to the policy of the Admiralty in so far as this Vote was concerned; he would certainly support it. What he would suggest was that the Admiralty had not gone far enough. They had heard from the hon. Gentleman that there were at the present time five dry-docks that would accommodate the "Dreadnought"; and these were at Keyham, Devonport, and Portsmouth. His contention was that it was of the greatest importance that there should be a dry-dock at every naval base in the country sufficiently large to accommodate our largest ships. There were eight dry docks that could accommodate an "Invincible." The "Dreadnought" was not very much larger than the ships of the "Invincible" class, although she might have a little more beam. Why not increase those docks in length and breadth? It could easily be done; and in that event there would be a dry dock at every station at which a fleet was stationed. They were told that there were ten private docks in the country which could accommodate ships of the "Dreadnought" class; but these were built as a private speculation and for the accommodation of the huge merchant vessels now being launched. The argument put forth at times in favour of work being given by the Admiralty to private contractors for the construction of warships was that in time of war we should undoubtedly stand in need of assistance from those private firms. What he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty was whether the Government could commandeer those private docks at any time the Admiralty might require them? He ventured to say that it was impossible to do so; and, therefore, he submitted that in the national dockyards in the United Kingdom there should be at least one dry-dock sufficient to admit not only
310
vessels of the "Dreadnought "class, but vessels of an even larger size. It would be only wise on the part of the Admiralty to look ahead and consider whether it might not be necessary to build in the future larger ships than the "Dreadnought." The Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that they had spent £2,000,000 at Chatham in the construction of docks. Was he to understand that that was for a dry or a wet dock?
MR. LAMBERT: It was for a dock, barracks and other works.
MR. JENKINSsaid he understood that nearly £1,000,000 had been paid by the country for a ship way which was sufficiently large to build a ship almost as large again as the "Dreadnought," but it was only used for building small barges. He saw that a sum of £2,800 was set aside for the lengthening of No. 2 dock at Chatham. Did that apply to a dry dock or a wet dock? If it applied to the lengthening of a drydock, he asked whether that dock would be sufficiently large to take in the "Dreadnought?" He entirely agreed with the policy of the Admiralty in making a dry dock at Haulbowline, but if they were to have dry docks at every naval base it would put the country in a more secure position. He formally moved the reduction of Item B by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B be reduced by £100."— (Mr. Jenkins.)
SIR F. BANBURY:said the policy of the Government to reduce expenditure on naval works at any possible cost must load to the most disastrous results. He was a great disciple of the principles of economy, and was always pleased when expenditure was diminished, but true economy did not merely mean not spending a certain amount of money, but spending what was absolutely necessary to provide for the safety of the country. The way to secure efficiency was to spend money at the proper time and the present was a suitable moment, as the finances of the country were in as flourishing a condition as they were likely to be for some time to come. The Admiralty and the Government as a whole had taken great credit for

311
not using money by way of loan, covering it by a sinking fund spread over a number of years in order to construct these very necessary works. He thought they were yielding to a temptation not to spend money which was necessary, which they were unable to resist unless they were spurred on by hon. Members. The result of not defraying the necessary expenditure could only end in one way, and that was that they would have to resort again to the system of loans which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite disliked so much. He made these remarks in no Party spirit, but from the point of view of real and efficient administration, and he was inclined to think that his view was the true one, that the chief object of the Admiralty and the Government was to save money regardless of the fact that the safety of the Empire must be endangered thereby. It was no use having magnificent ships, if in time of war we had not the docks into which they could be placed for purposes of repair. These great vessels cost £1,000,000 or even £2,000,000, and it seemed to him to be false economy to save £400,000 or £500,000, and in consequence lose a ship which cost £2,000,000. He urged the Government to reconsider this question. There was a sum of £940,000 for a new lock at Portsmouth. The amount already voted was £10,000, and the sum expended till the 31st March was £250, while that to be voted for 1907–8 was £20,000. That left unvoted £919,750, which was necessary to complete the work, and this was done by a Government which arrogated to itself the position of being the most business-like and most efficient Government of modern days. He did not think, however, that that could be regarded as an efficient and economical way of doing business. He made no attack upon any Government, but while the Unionist Government took up this question from his point of view fourteen or fifteen years ago, the idea of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to be to put off the evil day, and to postpone payments upon anything which was not showy, and did not give to occupants of office any great credit. He asked why, when the Admiralty had engineers of their own, they should pay £2,000 salary to an outside firm of engineers.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Baronet appeared to be wandering over the whole of the Vote, but a reduction had been moved and he must confine himself to the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had forgotten the Motion for reduction.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked as a point of order whether it was not competent in Committee of Supply, although an Amendment had been moved, still to refer to anything which was contained in the main Question. If the closure were moved, the whole Vote might be done with.
THE CHAIRMANsaid there was no question as to his ruling being correct under the Resolution of the House of the 9th of February, 1858.
SIR F. BANBURY,proceeding, complained that the Estimates for Simons Bay dockyard extension should have been reduced from £2,460,000 to£2,060,000, a reduction of £400,000 or one fifth of the total estimate. He would be glad to have some explanation.
MR. MONDwas sorry that he could not agree with the hon. Baronet, although his knowledge of business matters was so vast, when he criticised the Government for only spending a small amount on a new lock at Portsmouth. He did not suppose he wanted the Government to spend a large sum of money before they had got out their plans. No business man would rush into an expenditure of £900,000 before he had prepared himself with information, especially if the matter was not urgent.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that as the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when he was speaking he might interrupt him for a moment to say that he himself had detailed two cases where two of the best ships in the British Navy were very nearly lost owing to the neglect of the Admiralty to provide accommodation for remedying their defects.
MR. MONDsaid he regretted that he was not present when the hon. Gentleman spoke. But at the same time he could not imagine that the Board of

313
Admiralty were so careless of the best ships of the Navy that they would neglect any work necessary for their maintenance. He did not rise, however, to continue that particular discussion. He wanted to hear something from the Government upon the whole question of naval works. He was horrified to see the enormous sums that were spent on naval works. Millions of pounds had been expended on bricks and mortar for which he could not see that there had been any adequate return. Had it not been for the lucky accident of the Russo-Japanese war we should no doubt have spent millions of pounds on Wei-hai-wei in turning it into a naval base. It was only the South African War that induced the late Government to cease spending money recklessly on naval works in all parts of the world. No doubt if we had an endless purse it would be useful to have dry docks everywhere, but the experience of the Russo-Japanese war had shown that the Navy could make use of temporary places when carrying on a war. He would like to see more money spent on ships and men and less on docks and harbours. He was very doubtful, for instance, of the utility, of the Dover works. The testimony of cross-Channel captains was that Dover Harbour was more dangerous to enter now in bad weather than before, and was a greater danger to navigation. On one occasion in bad weather a steamer could not get into the harbour at all and her passengers were landed on the outside of the pier. That, of course, might be due to the works not being finished. He asked how long it would be before they were, and also what useful purpose these works, costing millions of money, would serve when finished. A case for a dry dock could be established in an infinite number of places. Further he could not see that all these works should be paid for out of current revenue. Works of this kind, which were of a permanent character, were much more a capital charge than a charge on revenue. He hoped there would be some declaration by the Government that they had set their face against naval harbours and bases where they were not required. If there was a commercial dry dock in a particular place, there was surely no necessity to duplicate that because at some time they might have a war ship which they might require to put into it.
CAPTAIN HERVEYsaid he did not wish to follow the hon. Member who had just sat down. What he thought they ought to do was to criticise the new works which were required, and get those works carried out as quickly, economically and efficiently as possible. He could conceive no place where new works were more necessary now than at Portsmouth itself, though there were a great many other places where they were required. Last year the question of docking accommodation was taken up as it was now, and they were then told that the Admiralty were considering it. That was a year ago, and they were no further forward now, so far as getting what was required was concerned. What was wanted was proper accommodation for docking our new big battleships. When the Admiralty scheme of 1889 was brought in, workshops, docks, ships and men were included in it. But when it was found that that scheme was very expensive the men were chopped off it, and the scheme was spoilt, and in consequence the Navy was very badly off for men for some time, the Admiralty had started building big ships, and ships would be bigger in the future, and unless they built, at the same time, docks to accommodate those ships, they would in the future find themselves just as inefficient in this regard as they had been handicapped in the past for lack of men. At Portsmouth there was a dock capable of taking the "Dreadnought." That dock was inside a basin, and to get to it the ship had to go from tidal waters into that basin. There were two entrances to the basin which could only be entered at high tide. The "Dreadnought" tried to get in at one of them, but owing to its position what with wind and tide it was found to be too narrow; in the case of the other entrance, that was through a double lock which was too short. The necessity of at once increasing the size of at least one of those entrances would be apparent to the Committee, for, as his hon. friend had told them, when the "Britannia" was being taken into the lock on a nearly high but falling tide she only got half way when she stuck, and it was only by a great stroke of good luck that the country did not lose £2,000,000 through her breaking her back. The Civil Lord had told the Committee that there were ten private docks available for ships

315
of the "Dreadnought" class, but he had omitted to state that on the east coast there was not a single Government dock between Portsmouth and the north of Scotland which would accommodate the "Dreadnought." There might be one private dock that might be useful for a man of-war in case of emergency, but there was no certainty that such a dock would be empty when required. If when it was wanted there happened to be a mercantile ship in it with her bottom out it would be a difficult thing to get her out and the warship in. He had a personal experience in the Mediterranean in peace times with a dock at Malta. Torpedo practice was taking place and a torpedo with a dummy head struck the "Nile" and made a hole in her through which the water came in hard, and it was only by the exercise of the utmost promptness that she was got into dock without unnecessary damage. They did not want unnecessary risks to be run in time of war. He did not care where the Government made the dock. He did not tie them down to Rosyth or anywhere else, but he thought a dock should be built on the east coast capable of taking a "Dreadnought." For that reason he should support the reduction, although he did not like to vote against naval supplies. He supported it because he thought the Government had not been doing the best they could to keep up all the needs of a modern Navy. The big ships they were building at this time should be built concurrently with the building of big docks to keep the big ships efficient.
MR. C, E. PRICEsaid that he looked upon the Rosyth transaction as a scandal and a disgrace to the Party which carried it through. The Government paid for the site £122,000, which, invested at 3 per cent., would produce £3,765 per annum, and that was the price paid for land which before was only producing £1,622. He understood that the site at Rosyth was chosen during what was called the German scare. Had the Admiralty yet come to a conclusion regarding it? What was this £10,000 going to be spent on? It was put down in a rather loose way and no statement accompanied it, and he asked for a clear statement whether they were to look upon the Rosyth base as one which would
316
be developed in the future or as one which was going to be abandoned.
MR. ASHLEYsaid that one or two of the observations made by the hon. Member for Chester required some comment. He had said that the naval harbour at Dover was a waste of money because the captains of Channel steamers had found that it was not so easy to get in as had been anticipated. Surely the harbour which the Channel steamers used and the new naval harbour were totally different things. The experience of the cross Channel steamers, however disagreeable, had nothing at all to do with the new naval harbour at Dover. He would like the Civil Lord to give them some information with regard to the recent grounding of the "Duke of Edinburgh." It had been said that there was considerable danger in entering the new naval harbour, and if the hon. Member would tell the Committee the nature of the Reports which the Admiralty had received with respect to the accident to the "Duke of Edinburgh" and the general capabilities of the new harbour at Dover, it would tend to quiet the minds of many hon. Members. It had been said that the extension of the dock at Simon's Bay was a waste of money. Supposing they went to war and the Suez Canal was closed, if they had to send their ships round by the Cape they would find a naval dockyard in Simon's Bay most necessary in the event of a naval action taking place off the coast of Africa. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that the present Government were observing continuity of policy in naval matters and practically carrying out the broad lines of the policy laid down by the late Administration. In some ways he might congratulate them upon doing so, but surely they could not lay claim to any continuity of policy at Rosyth, or in regard to the new lock at Portsmouth. As far us Rosyth was concerned, it was practically decided by the late Board of Admiralty that £2,500,000 should be spent at Rosyth and they found now that £10,000 was put down. It was practically agreed by the late Board that £940,000 was going to be spent on the new lock at Portmouth, and the present Government had only spent £250, and they proposed to spend £20,000 during the next financial year. If the money was

317
spent at that rate it would take fifty years to finish the new lock at Portsmouth. The Civil Lord had stated that there were four large docks at Keyham which would take the "Dreadnought "or the "Invincible" class of battleship, but he would remind the hon. Member that Keyham was not Devonport. The new Portsmouth dockyard was an instance of the Government taking credit both ways. They were taking credit for reducing the Estimates and also for reducing the National Debt. He believed he was right in saying that if a sum of money was put down last year at £10,000 for a new dock and that money was not spent it went automatically to the reduction of the National Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking great credit for reducing the Debt, but how had he done it? Simply by starving the naval services, and not doing what the late Government considered necessary.
MR. BELLAIRSsaid that in reply to the hon. Member for Fareham he wished to point out that although it was true that the late Government decided to abandon the Works Bill, it was one thing saying they were going to do a thing, and another thing to do it. He thought the present Government were to be congratulated upon having abandoned that policy.
MR. ARTHUK LEEsaid that what he told the Committee was that the late Government made a serious beginning by transferring the whole item of £2,500,000 for Rosyth from Loans to the Vote. They approved the Vote in that way, but the present Government cut it out and put it on Loan.;
MR. BELLAIRS: said the scheme was never commenced. It remained in the air, and he hoped it would always remain in that state. He congratulated the Government upon the foresight they had shown in regard to that matter. When the late Board of Admiralty framed the estimate he did not believe they had the slightest knowledge of the foundations at Rosyth. The only intimation they had was that the Forth Bridge had to be sunk eighty-six feet deep before they reached the solid foundation. As regarded the Works Bill they found that by putting the money on the Estimate, and therefore forcing a
318
closer scrutiny of the expenditure, they, had effected an economy of £2,366,000. The abolition of the Works Bill had resulted in a saving upon the Malta breakwater of £325,000, and of £400,000 at Simon's Bay. With regard to what had been spent upon coaling facilities, many great naval authorities were against the expenditure. He agreed that it was generally unnecessary to provide such facilities, because they could get a. more efficient service by using colliers, For then they would get the coal fresh without any depreciation, and it was quite possible to organise a collier service to meet the wants of the Fleet. He agreed with the hon. Member for Fareham in regard to the system of placing the money on the Estimates and spreading the expenditure over a great number of years. In that way they did not get the benefit of the expenditure until many years had elapsed. A good instance of that had been given in regard to the lock at Portsmouth which was put down to cost £940,000, and for which £10,000 was provided last year and never spent, and £20,000 this year. He found about a dozen items in which they were only proposing to spend about 10 per cent. of the total cost, and if that sort of thing went on it meant that they would spread the expenditure over a great number of years and thus reproduce all those evils which accompanied slow shipbuilding. The-Civil Lord was very strong in his views about the lock at Portsmouth and he deserved great credit for his prophetic forecast. He had pictured the case of a vessel endangering all the other vessels in the basin by an accident, and some time afterwards, in addition to the accidents mentioned by the hon. Member for the Fareham Division, the "Terrible" ran into and sank a caisson in the basin. He would remind him, however, that it was no use knowing the Derby winner if he was not going to back it. In this case they had an instance where the Civil Lord possessed all the foresight, necessary in regard to the lock at Portsmouth, and yet he was doing very little, in the way of providing it. He wished for a few moments to draw attention to the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts for the year 1906. They had not had an opportunity of discussing those accounts, but that Committee found very serious fault with the Board of Admiralty in regard to the accounts

319
for the year 1904, and they reported on Vote 10—
"First on the plea of urgency, Parliament is committed to an expenditure of £35,000 for which no provision was made in the Estimates for the year; secondly, on the same plea of urgency, a departure was permitted from the general rule that tenders shall be invited for carrying out works. This expenditure was necessitated, as in many other cases, by a change of policy. The scrutiny of expenditure by subordinate officers, the criticism of errors of estimates, and in short the works of your Committee will be to a large extent useless if by the excuse of a change of policy my department can shake itself clear of Parliamentary control."
It would be seen that the Public Accounts Committee censured the Board of Admiralty for changing its policy and declared that the Admiralty was trying to shake itself clear of Parliamentary control. There was a striking instance in regard to Osborne College, where the Government came to Parliament with a total Estimate, saying that it was going to cost £40,000. That expenditure was increased by Treasury sanction to £160,000, and now the Civil Lord was asking for another £20,000 for the hospital. Similar changes of policy had occurred in connection with works at Chatham. As pointed out by a memorial of the corporation, large expenditure was incurred in regard to plans for a basin and dock area of 65 acres, after which the Admiralty decided to abandon all the works on the ground that they were going to have a base at Rosyth. He would much prefer an old dockyard developed than a new dockyard, because the latter always meant great expense upon a number of items which did not occur in the case of an old dockyard. They had to provide a new base and then equipments. Then there was personnel, and finally the Admiralty generally urged the War Office to incur large expenditure on fortifications and guns. In recent years they had seen four dockyards abandoned, viz., Trincomalee, Jamaica, Halifax, and Esquimault, and in the case of three of them at any rate expenditure had been incurred up to the very last moment, and that expenditure was hastened in order to finish the contract, although they were going to be abandoned. Coaling stations had been abandoned, viz., St. Lucia, Ascension and Wei-hai-wei, and now we were undergoing disillusionment in regard to the huge expenditure at Dover. With regard to the accident
320
to the "Duke of Edinburgh," the entrance to Dover he understood was 600 feet wide in one case and 800 feet in the other, and he could not see why the fact of another ship coming out at the same time should have driven the "Duke of Edinburgh" on to the shore, as stated in the official Answer on 25th March, when it was alleged that the "Duke of Edinburgh" had to anchor to avoid collision and the vessel drifted on shore owing to the bad holding ground. He understood that all the moorings at Dover had to be relaid, and that would take two years. If the Admiralty wanted to try a very simple test at this new naval base he would advise them to send the Channel Fleet and the Home Fleet to anchor at Dover. He was confident they would not respond to this challenge. He thought the multiplication of dockyards was a great evil, and he was of opinion that everything necessary outside the Royal dockyards could easily be provided by subsidising private enterprise. At Colombo they had obtained a magnificent dock, kept in constant practice by private work, for a lump sum of only £159,000. They might have pursued that policy by subsidising the Cape Town dock, and in that way they would have saved the expenditure at Simon's Bay. Lord Spencer, one of the best First Lords this country had ever had, said on August 10th, 1903, referring to Rosyth—
"I do think it is a very serious matter indeed to start a new base, for my experience of having new centres is this, that directly you get a new centre, and an independent centre, you increase enormously the expenditure which has to be found. So far as I can see I should very much prefer to see almost double the amount which is supposed to be going to be spent on this new Scotch base spent on the old dockyards and the old naval bases, rather than on a new one, for the reason I have given, namely, that the moment you get a new establishment you increase the expenditure enormously."
That was his case against Rosyth and against multiplying these new dockyards. Notwithstanding the expenditure upon the dockyard at Malta it was frequently found necessary to bring war vessels from Malta to this country to be repaired. When the "Hood" lost her rudder in 1902 she was brought under convoy all the way from Malta to Plymouth. In his opinion Portsmouth, Plymouth or Chatham could deal with such matters much better than they could be dealt with

321
at the small dockyard at Malta. There was the case of the "Dominion" which was sent to Bermuda to be repaired, and it was afterwards found necessary to send her to England to have her repairs attended to. The same thing happened in regard to the "Commonwealth"; she was patched at Gibraltar and then brought to England. He thought they could get all the patchwork done very conveniently by private enterprise. If they had encouraged private enterprise at Gibraltar they would have had the use of splendid docks there, which would have been available not only for the vessels belonging to the Navy but also for the mercantile marine, and would have cost country a few hundred thousand pounds subsidy instead of many millions. The Civil Lord had referred to Berehaven being a base for the Atlantic Fleet, and therefore necessitating the development of a handy dockyard like Haulbowline. He distrusted the argument of having dockyards handy in the neighbourhood of possible battles. He would remind the Civil Lord that if they went to war with any nation they would have to fight one fleet and not several. In the case of the Americans or the Germans or in the case of France, they found each navy in one fleet. In his opinion it was quite possible for any of our disabled ships to sail home for repairs at a speed of from ten to twelve knots without possibility of interference from the enemy's fleet with which it had fought as they would be too much occupied with their own damaged ships. In these days of wireless telegraphy the dockyard could be easily informed, and vessels which were damaged could be towed home at twelve knots. Where the battle of Camper down was fought was twenty hours sail from Chatham and forty-four hours from Plymouth. St. Vincent was seventeen hours from the patching station at Gibraltar and seventy one hours from Plymouth. Trafalgar was five hours from Gibraltar and eighty-three hours from Plymouth. In the case of Wilhelms-haven Rosyth was thirty-seven and a half hours off, Sheerness twenty-two and a half hours, and Portsmouth thirty-six and a half. He did not see any reason why the Chatham dockyard should not be developed as was contemplated in the original scheme of the last Government. Most people were under the impression that
322
Rosyth was just opposite the German coast. But as matter of fact it was one hour further away from that coast than Portsmouth. He did not see any reason why a patching dock should not be made at Hull in addition to the Hepburn dock on the Tyne, of course by private enterprise. He thought the strongest; argument against the late Government's Rosyth scheme was that though it purported to be an exhaustive inquiry it took for granted the crowded state of the dockyards, and on those grounds advocated the provision of a new dockyard at Rosyth. During that inquiry it was found that at a certain date in1900 there was a congestion of ships at the dockyards. The reason for that not being necessary now was that they had altered their policy, they had got better administration of the dockyards, and under the new policy they did not build so much in the Royal dockyards, which were thus rendered more available for the carrying out of repairs. Lord Selborne said that Rosyth was required simply because otherwise there would be no place at which to stow His Majesty's ships. That forecast had been completely falsified, because there was ample room room in the Royal dockyards, and since Lord Selborne delivered that speech they had discharged no less than 8,000 men for want of work. He did not intend to move the reduction of the Vote of which he had given notice. The Government were still staying their hands, and they would no doubt bring forward tangible proposals next year, either abandoning the scheme or making definite proposals in regard to Rosyth. The £10,000 could not be required for any known purpose, because the Government had £37,000 in hand last year to carry out all their surveys. It seemed to him that Rosyth had for the Admiralty the fatal fascination of a new toy. It was like a child who desired to have the moon. He hoped the Admiralty would not get Rosyth any more than the child would get the moon. They came forward with something at the back of their minds in regard to a project which on the face of it might appear a small one of a few millions, but which he was certain would extend to forty millions, in view of the great depth of mud they had to deal with, and the mile and a half of breakwater

323
to be constructed. There was behind the project an immense amount of concealed expenditure of which the House had no knowledge, and therefore he hoped the Government would exercise the greatest amount of caution before embarking upon it.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he desired to say a word about dockyard accommodation. He regretted that any Party element should be brought in on either side, because there was from the Party point of view a great deal to be said both ways, and if they dealt with such matters they would not get any "forrarder." On that occasion they should consider what the dockyard policy should be in regard to the future, and on that they might express certain definite and general opinions without committing themselves to details in regard to matters on which they could not possibly form competent opinions. They were not competent to say whether Rosyth was or was not the best place for a new base, nor could they say whether it would be possible to deal with the situation by an extension of Chatham as against a new dockyard in the north But they could not afford to rely so much on the establishments west of Dover. The whole situation had lately changed. The question of the basing of our fleets, and the spots at which in future they were likely to be stationed, had so greatly changed in recent years that it was impossible to believe that we had sufficient establishment southeast of Dover. We had Portsmouth and Southampton, where we were spending money now on naval works; we had Portland and Devonport, and all the establishments west of Dover. He could not think that the number of docks we had now ready to accommodate our big ships were in the right places. It was necessary to look forward to the establishment of a base somewhere east of Dover and within easier reach of the North Sea, Dover being admittedly a difficult place to enter because the currents might be troublesome. He did not know that his hon. and gallant friend was justified in believing that the Board of Admiralty attached great importance to the Rosyth scheme. He had said that it exercised a fascination over the Board of Admiralty. It was impossible to allude to private conversations one had had
324
from time to time, but he might say that he very much doubted whether the Board of Admiralty had ever seen their way very clearly as to the Rosyth scheme. The question was as to the possibility of building docks at Rosyth as against providing floating docks. That question might have been settled by recent investigations, the results of which had not been communicated to them. It was possible that the foundations were better than at one time they were supposed to be. He believed indeed that it was so, but it was not possible in the House to give a solid opinion as between the Rosyth scheme or a dock at some other spot on the east coast and the extension of Chatham. It was possible for them to indicate their views, and he thought it would be a mistake to continue to spend so much money at Portsmouth or further west instead of at some new establishment or some extension of old establishments on the east coast. His hon. and gallant friend was undoubtedly right in what he told the Committee as to the original ground for selecting Rosyth. The Cawdor Memorandum, issued by the late Government before they left office, contained the announcement of the abandonment of the Rosyth policy in connection with dockyard extension. The Cawdor Memorandum stated—
"The saving here has been about £,5,000,000 sterling.''
By the documents named in a recent debate as issued on behalf of the present Board of Admiralty it was again claimed almost in the same words as those in the Cawdor Memorandum that there had been an enormous saving owing to the scrapping policy in regard to the number of our ships. The original ground given for Rosyth at the time of the purchase had been abandoned. The Party issue of the question and the high price at which the land was bought wore discussed over and over again in the last Parliament. All those questions should be put aside and they should consider what was best, with the guidance they could obtain, for the future accommodation of the fleet and especially the big cruisers which were to be built. To contemplate the docking of ships only at Keyham and Portsmouth seemed to him to be a dangerous policy, especially when they considered what the state of of the Channel would be in time of war.

325
Whether the Hague Conference prohibited the use of floating mines or not, they certainly would be used; and, that being so, they must contemplate either the extension of Chatham or the creation of an establishment at a different part of the east coast.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Committee will allow me to say one word on this subject, which I think is of the greatest importance in connection with our general naval policy. The right hon. Baronet rightly deprecated any Party recrimination on this matter, and I certainly, in anything I have to say, will carry out in the letter and the spirit the advice he gave us; but I may be permitted to say in regard to one class of argument used by the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn that I think the Committee should receive it with the greatest caution—caution amounting to suspicion. The class of argument to which I refer was this. He talked of the survey carried out and of all that had been done by Boards of Admiralty for many years past, and he pointed out, and in my opinion pointed out with perfect truth, that a great deal of money that had been spent in the last thirty years—if he had liked, he might have said sixty years or 160 years—had been money which, owing to subsequent developments of naval policy and changes in strategical problems, might with advantage have been otherwise spent. That is quite true, and it will always be quite true, if we try, as I hope we will, to do our duty to the best of our ability and keep up the naval strategic position of this country at the level at which it ought to be kept. You cannot expect greater wisdom or foresight on the part of the Board of Admiralty than you have from the ablest managers of great business and manufacturing firms. What manufacturing firm dealing with matters in which there is great development and invention, great change of markets, and great alterations in the condition of markets, has not got to "scrap" much of its plant? It is no answer to say that if they could have foreseen what would take place they would have adopted a different policy. It is not the fault of this Board of Admiralty, or of its predecessor, or again of its predecessor; it is the fault of poor human nature which is gifted with
326
imperfect powers of foresight whether they are exercised on the great national problems of defence or on the smaller, but still important, questions of manufacturing and commercial enterprise. We have to accept these facts as we find them. It was relatively easy to deal with the situation in earlier generations in which the development of the old wooden battleships and old guns was so slow that it really hardly existed. I imagine that the change between the ships with which Hawke won his victory and Nelson won his was relatively insignificant. But we live in different times and different circumstances. Invention is rapid; changes in the type of ship and armament are speedy and are constantly going on; and the very fact that we live in these times makes it inevitable that we should undertake costly operations from which our forefathers were spared, and in regard to which it is impossible to say what shall be the ultimate course of events. It may be that the money we spend could be better spent if we had knowledge which we do not now possess, but which in ten or twelve years we shall possess. Therefore, I hope the Committee will try to consider each problem as it comes up on its merits, without expending useless regrets for mistakes which have been honestly made by the most competent people at the time, and which, I suppose, their equally competent successors will honestly make in the future. May I do my best to reinforce what has been said by the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down? Owing to the great changes and reforms which enabled us to dispense with a very large number of ships, the difficulties of the problem have, relatively speaking, disappeared. It is quite true that in 1902 stress was chiefly laid upon the necessity of providing berthing accommodation at Rosyth; but it must not be supposed that strategy was then absent from the mind either of the Admiralty or of the Cabinet. I remember, when I was in a more responsible position than now, discussing at great length with experts the condition in which they might anticipate the narrow seas to be in case of a first-class war. They urged that, owing to the manifold weapons of destruction which science has perfected, such as floating mines, torpedoes, torpedo destroyers, etc., the most powerful and costly of our ships might become the prey

327
in those confined waters of a cheap and relatively insignificant opponent; and they even contemplated the necessity of diverting the whole commercial traffic of this country from the Port of London round by the north of Scotland in the case of war. It would, in these circunstances, be an impossible state of things if a ship of ours damaged in the North Sea, or on the east coast, had to pass through the Straits of Dover to Portsmouth for shelter. I do not know what the views of the present experts are in regard to Sheerness and Chatham, but undoubtedly at the time of which I speak the experts were of opinion that Rosyth would be far easier and safer of approach for a wounded vessel than was Sheerness, where there are difficulties in connection with the character of the tides and the channel. If the Admiralty and the experts have changed their views about Rosyth, it is not for me to comment upon their action. But I should like to know what they have substituted for Rosyth. If the trifling sum of £10,000 for Rosyth which appears on the Estimates is to be taken as evidence that the Government have departed from the policy of their predecessors and have abandoned Rosyth, I hope there will be forthcoming a satisfactory assurance that the Admiralty have found another place on the East coast where our great ships can be docked in case of war. In these circumstances I hope we may receive some assurance from the hon. Gentleman that this trifling and inconsiderable sum of £10,000 on the Estimates this year for Rosyth does not indicate that the Government have abandoned the policy of their predecessors in regard to Rosyth, and that if they have abandoned Rosyth they have found a substitute for it. I hope—and this is the only touch of Party criticism that anyone can find in my remarks—that the postponement in providing the new naval base at Rosyth is not due to the difficulty of finding each year the money that is required. The greatest evil that can occur is that, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at a given time he could not find the money, a work needed in the interest of the country must be postponed; and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurances in regard to that great national interest.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that he was not there to say that Rosyth had been abandoned. The position which the Admiralty took up last year with regard to Rosyth was substantially the position of the Leader of the Opposition himself. They recognised that a naval station, of a somewhat more moderate kind than was at first proposed, was needed on the East coast. That was the main thing. In his opinion, all the indications still pointed to Rosyth as being the best place for that station. The exact position of the Admiralty in regard to Rosyth might. be described in a very few words. They had put down £10,000 practically for plans as well as to enable the House to discuss the question. A sketch plan based on the scheme of the late Government had been drawn out, and was now in circulation among the members of the Board. When the final detailed plans were approved by the Government, and the cost ascertained, they would proceed in the ordinary way. It would be a long job, for, according to the best naval experts, it was a work that must be carried out with a good deal of caution.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that last year a similar statememt was made by the right hon. Gentleman. Twelve months had passed, and absolutely nothing was added either to the declaration or to the actual operations at Rosyth. Plans of an exhaustive character were drawn up three years ago. The right hon. Member might fairly say that those plans were not the plans that were going to be adopted, but that that did not involve the abandonment of Rosyth. The information in regard to the rock at the entrance to that dock, and as to buildings for establishment and for the workmen, had all been collected long ago. As the Leader of the Opposition had said, it was of enormous importance to secure some base on the East coast on which we could fall back in the event of the Channel being closed. In these circumstances the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was not very satisfactory. That, after all, was what some of them had ventured to prophecy would happen. If the Government were frightened to put on the annual Vote what was necessary for these great works they gained.

329
nothing whatever from the point of view of economy. The work was estimated to cost £3,000,000, including all the docks and the dredging; but whatever the cost might be, they would not save any money at all by carrying on the work over a series of years. Any business man would agree that economy would not result from carrying on work with a short purse, and he earnestly hoped that the temptation to make small Estimates would not be allowed to prevent this work from being carried on on what they knew were the only economical terms possible. These Estimates came up year after year, and everyone who had seen the efforts made by other Powers and knew the foresight they had displayed to provide this accommodation for themselves, must feel that we were taking a tremendous risk in allowing the matter to hang on year after year, not because there was the slightest doubt about the naval need—as the right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee the advisers of the Admiralty were clear about that three or four years ago—but because of the fear of extending the Estimates. He hoped that what they had seen this year might be replaced next year by some more active policy.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid they must all be obliged to the Secretary to the Admiralty for his statement as far as it went, but he thought that if the statement of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had been more clear and comprehensive the debate would not have been so prolonged. The Civil Lord had informed the Committee that they were unable to proceed with the construction of the new docks at Portsmouth because they had not yet decided upon the design. Lord Tweedmouth, however, speaking in another place upon the policy of the Government said they had decided on the work which was to be done at Portsmouth. The noble Lord went on to state that the scheme was being considered and the work would probably be commenced during the present year. That statement did not agree with the statement made by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. He would like the Civil Lord to explain, also, why it was, if they had not decided upon the design of the dockyard, that they were able to place upon the Estimates the exact sum to be spent upon it, viz., £940,000? It seemed to him that the Government
330
were simply postponing proceedings in order to meet the demand for economy which had been made from certain quarters of the House. They knew perfectly well how much had been said by hon. Members opposite about the extravagance of the previous Government in matters of construction. Almost every Government was fearful of the charge of extravagance being levelled against them, and the strict revision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer every year had a tendency to check extravagance in any single Department. It was, however, a very easy thing for a Government which had decided on a policy of cutting down all round to say to its Departments—
"What we want this year, next year, and the year after, is that you spend less on your Department."
In conclusion he again pressed for a clearer statement from the Civil Lord. The works at Portsmouth had been taken in hand because they were placed on the Estimates, but it was singular that there was no increase in the cost of maintenance. It showed, of course, a policy of economy, but it also showed that the Government were letting their estate run down.
MR. E. H. LAMBsaid he had listened with intense disappointment to the statement which had been made on behalf of the Admiralty, and he was only sorry he was prevented by the action of a previous speaker from moving the reduction of the Vote by £10,000. That sum was to be used for the preparation of plans in regard to Rosyth, and in this way the House was being quietly committed to a scheme which involved an expenditure of from three to five millions. As a Party committed to a policy of economy, he thought they ought to consider for a long time before they voted this £10,000 for plans for a new naval base. He also urged that Chatham Dockyard, upon which so much money had been spent, should be improved, as well as the Medway dredged, instead of the House being committed to the large scheme at Rosyth launched by the late Government. In the case of Rosyth they knew perfectly well that an enemy could destroy it in a few hours; whereas, in the case of Chatham, as was well known, it was immune from attacks from the open sea. Surely if the Medway was efficiently

331
dredged, we could, with very little expenditure, turn that into one of the best naval bases in the world, instead of committing the country to a vast expenditure at Rosyth when it was generally admitted that so long as we had a safe naval base on the East Coast that was as much as the Admiralty would ask for. He submitted that a case had been made out for Chatham. If the right hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Admiralty had stated that it was intended to commit the country to this great scheme at Rosyth the debate that afternoon would have been of a very different character; but instead of that the matter had been introduced in an insidious way which, unless it were watched, committed the country to a vast expenditure before they well knew what they were doing. He much regretted that by the action of his hon. friend the Member for Chatham he was prevented from moving to reduce the Vote by the total amount, because he felt that a strong protest should be made against this vast expenditure at Rosyth when a perfect naval base could be provided at Chatham at a ranch smaller expenditure.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHEE-GRAY: said he disagreed with every word the hon. Member had uttered so far as Rosyth was concerned. The hon. Member had pointed out that Chatham was near London; that was true, but it must also be remembered that Rosyth was not very far from Edinburgh, and if Scotland was to lose her cavalry the least the Government could do was to build her a dockyard. The hon. Member for Rochester appeared to think that Chatham was invulnerable, but he reminded the Committee that in the reign of Charles II. the Dutch took Chatham and burnt it. They had not yet got to Edinburgh. The truth was that in these piping times of peace we were rather apt to go to sleep. The argument that we should only have one fleet against us at any time was futile because there was no reason why there should not be a coalition and two or three fleets brought against us. We had to accept the possibility of disaster in this matter, to look at things at their worst, and believe that the worst might happen, and then and only then should we overcome the difficulties.
332
He did not believe that in the whole of Scotland a better place could have been found for a dock than Rosyth, where at the present time he believed there were nine men at work. He did not know how many hundreds of years it would take those men to complete it, but he hoped the Government would provide them with old age pensions at the finish. He thought it would be a world of pities if the Government, having abandoned Trincomali, Halifax, Jamaica, Esquimault and other places, were also to abandon. Rosyth.
MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)desired to raise the question of the granite used in the dockyards. Some three or four years ago the House of Commons passed the Fair Wages Resolution, and last year he put some Questions to the Government as to the granite used in the building of docks and harbours, and it was not then denied that the Government contractor for the Navy obtained a considerable amount of granite for use at Keyham Harbour from Norway. The Government contractor said he got his granite from Norway because it was much cheaper, owing to the Norwegian working for half the wages laid down by the British trade union. It was only a very short time ago that the district of Penrhyn, Cornwall, petitioned the Government to employ only British stone for the erection of British harbours, because 75 per cent of the population there were out of work owing to foreign competition. He desired to know whether the Government intended to continue obtaining granite from abroad, or whether they would in future obtain it from this country. It was a question that closely affected his constituency, and he would very much like to know what was to be the future policy of the Admiralty with regard to
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD:said there were two questions upon which information was required. With regard to Portsmouth they had succeeded in obtaining a dock sufficiently commodious to take in the "Dreadnought" or the "Invincible." That dock had two entrances, one of which was too narrow for the "Dreadnought" and the other too short. It was obvious, therefore,

333
that something must be done to enlarge those entrances, and the soone it was done the better. He noticed from the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that plans had been secured, and that work was to be proceeded with this year, but the Civil Lord in his speech that afternoon had stated that two sets of plans were before the Admiralty, and that there was considerable difference of opinion as to which should be adopted, with a consequence that the work was being postponed. From the east coast there was no dock capable of taking the "Dreadnought" nearer than Devonport, save the dock at Portsmouth, and the neglect to enlarge those entrances in order to make the dock available for that class of ship was a matter which called for very serious comment. The Committee were entitled to urge the Admiralty to make that dock available at the earliest possible moment. The other point requiring attention related to Rosyth, and he did not think the Government could blame the Committee for the difficulty they found in understanding the Government plans. They found in the Estimates that £l0,000 was the amount to be devoted in the current year to this purpose, but there were no details as to how that money was to be expended. They were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, who, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, informed the Committee that the Government were alive to the fact that it was necessary to have an important establishment on the East Coast, because, as he pointed out, the Narrow Seas might be rendered impassable in times of war by mines or other means, and in order that the fleet might be available it might have to sail right round the North of Scotland. Referring to page 139 on the same Vote, he found that £1,892 was being spent in paying the salaries of one superintendent, one superintendent engineer, one assistant surveyor, one assistant civil engineer, two draftsmen, one accountant and one foreman. An hon. Member had said that he believed eight or nine men were working at Rosyth. If that were so they had these eight eminent gentleman to superintend nine men who were carrying on the work. He found from the footnote on page 139 that the leader of these men was to receive extra pay.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the reduction was on item B, and item A could not be referred to.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was simply endeavouring to show the nature of the work that was being done at Rosyth by referring to the people who were being employed there. There was nothing definite as to what was being done there, and he found from the official1 memorandum of the progress of the work that £200,000 had already been voted and had been reduced to £165,000. That £165,000 had been laid out on land, etc. Arrangements had been made with county councils, at an expense of £10,000, to supply Rosyth with water. Then arrangements had been made with the North British Railway Company to supply railway accommodation. Therefore it was neither upon land nor upon railways that this money was to be spent. Again, £10,000 was to be spent upon borings and putting down a cylinder to find out the nature of the foundations, and it was for that purpose that this army of skilled gentlemen on extra pay were being kept. Then they were told in the official paper that the work was complete; but if, as they were told, the work was in progress, it could not be complete. What he submitted was that a little reasonable information as to the money they were going to spend and the purposes on which they were going to spend it would have saved a large amount of the debate. He hoped that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty would deal with the application of the £10,000 and also let them know what was going to be done with regard to the lock at Portsmouth, so that they might have some assurance as to when the work would be begun.
MR. J. WARDasked, in regard to the works at Portsmouth, whether the fair-wage clause was to be inserted in the contract, or whether it would be clearly indicated to the contractors that they would be expected to pay a similar wage to that which was received by workmen in the locality. When the last new dock was made at Portsmouth the men were paid 1½d. per hour less than the local rates, in spite of the fact that the contractor had signed

335
the fair-wage clause. Digging a dock was entirely different from digging a place for a gasometer or anything of that description. Dock making was not a common thing, and therefore he hoped that the contractors would not be allowed to be under any mistake when they were tendering with regard to the fair-wage clause. With regard to Rosyth, he would like to know whether the Admiralty had any idea at the time the Estimates were made that it would be necessary to sink about 200 feet in order to find firm foundations, and what was now their opinion, in view of the tests and examination made by experts, of the site. Were the Estimates made on the part of the Admiralty the same now as they were prior to the soundings and the examination of the site which had taken place.
MR. LEAasked what was going to be done with regard to the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour. He had been down there once or twice, and he had seen a dredger at work in Haslar Creek. Was that work being done to widen the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour so as to avoid the danger which existed at the present time in certain states of the wind?
SIR F. BANBURYasked for some explanation of the item in regard to the factory at Portsmouth, the total estimate for which was £120,000. On looking at the Estimate he found that the cost was reduced from £188,000 to £125,000, increased to £127,000, and was now reduced to £120,000. It seemed a curious way of arriving at an estimate, and it would be more satisfactory if the Civil Lord gave some explanation.
MR. YOUNGERsaid the plans for Rosyth were prepared under the previous Government, and they were of an elaborate character involving a large expenditure. Were those plans to be entirely abandoned, and did the present Admiralty treat the subject from an entirely different point of view? Was it not a fact that they had come under some grave obligations to the county councils with regard to water schemes? Generally speaking, people who had incurred expense in connection with these works would like to know how far what was originally intended was
336
to be carried out, or what plans were to be adopted.
MR. LAMBERTsaid that the total estimate for the steam factory at Portsmouth was £120,000. The sum of £116,700 had been expended, and this year another £3,300 was being provided, and that brought the amount up to £120,000. In all engineering works it was quite impossible to know two or three years before the works were commenced exactly what they were going to cost. In reply to the hon. Member for Stoke he might say that the fair wages clause would be inserted in all contracts.
MR. J. WARDasked whether "fair wages" meant the rate of wages paid in the district for a similar class of work.
MR. LAMBERTsaid fair wages meant the wages current in the district. It whilst the work was proceeding, the hon. Member would bring to his attention any attempted evasion of the fair wages clause, the Admiralty would at once remedy it. His right hon. friend had already dealt with the question of Rosyth, and he did not propose to say another word about that. As to Portsmouth lock, the late Civil Lord had taunted the Government with being responsible for great delay. The word used by the hon. Member was "scandalous." He did not complain of his epithets. In these matters he wished to impress upon the Committee the absolute necessity of circumspection and ample consideration. They were going to spend a large sum of money. The hon. Member for Gravesend had asked why they had put in the total estimate. They had put in the same total of £940,000 as was in the Vote last year. In reality, he did not think that was a very businesslike proceeding, but they were forced to put in the total estimate because if they did not they could not accept a contract. Now they could let a contract up to £940,000, but unless they put in the total it could not be done. He agreed that was not business-like, because it showed the contractor what their estimate for the work was, but those were the rules of the House of Commons. The Government had called in an outside firm of engineers. He did not suppose there was any person in the House

337
who had to spend upwards of a million of money, but would give to the subject the utmost consideration and obtain the best possible advice. If illustrations of the importance of circumspection were needed, they were to be seen in what had happened during the last ten years under the Loan Act. At Gibraltar, for instance, two docks had been built under loans which would not be paid off for thirty years, and one of them would not dock the "Invincible"; and at Malta two docks had been built under similar loans with the same result. The Bermuda dock would not take the "Invincible," and the same remark applied to the permanent dock at Hong Kong. Then there was the case of the dock at Chatham. That dock was built at a cost of £450,000, and it actually would not take the "Dreadnought."
MR. JENKINS: There must have been a blunder somewhere.
MR. LAMBERTsaid they could not be blamed for that. They were expecting a report from an eminent firm of engineers expressing their opinion upon Portsmouth dock. The hon. Member for Blackpool had asked some questions about the accident to the "Duke of Edinburgh." That vessel came into Dover harbour perfectly right, but unfortunately her anchors did not hold, and there was accordingly a slight mishap. The accident had nothing to do with the entrance to the harbour. The Admiralty had gone very carefully into the question of width. It has been decided to make the western entrance 740 feet wide, which it was hoped would be sufficient for any battleship. The hon. Member for Chatham had asked a Question about the £3,000 for a dry dock at Chatham.
MR. JENKINS: Would that be able to take the "Dreadnought?"
MR. LAMBERTsaid it would not. The estimated expenditure at Simon's Bay had been reduced from £3,500,000 to £3,100,000. The estimate was made
a long time ago, and it was not always possible to foresee exactly what the expenditure would be. The Government hoped to reduce somewhat the expenditure at Simon's Bay as the result of the redistribution of the Fleet. The new scheme concentrated the vast preponderance of our naval strength around our own shores, and the South African Squadron had been largely reduced. It was also hoped to reduce the scale of equipment contemplated for the dock, though the basin itself would remain unaltered. He appealed to the Committee to allow the Vote to pass in order that they might get on with those works.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the Opposition would support the Amendment as a protest against the delay of the Government in proceeding with Rosyth. The reduction of the hon. Member for Chatham was moved for the whole of the new works, but it might be supported from different motives. The motive which would animate him, and he hoped his friends, would be in regard to Rosyth. When this Amendment was out of the way he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be in a position to answer a number of Questions with regard to other items on the Vote.
MR. JENKINSasked the hon. Gentleman to state the policy of the Admiralty with regard to the provision of dry dock accommodation. Ho had moved his Amendment solely on the ground that in his opinion there should be dry dock accommodation sufficiently large at every base throughout the country.
MR. BELLAIRSsaid it would be most unfortunate if, as the result of the criticisms repeatedly made, the impression should go forth that there was no dock accommodation on the east coast for such vessels as the "Dreadnought." That was not correct.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 271. (Division List No. 143).

AYES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

Balcarres, Lord

Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Balfour,RtHn.A.J. (City Lond)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Ashley, W. W.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Aubrey-Fleteher,Rt.Hon.SirH.

Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS Edm'ds

Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

Cave, George

Kennaway,Rt. Hon.Sir John H.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cavendish.Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Lee,ArthurH (Hants.,Fareham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Lockwood,Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.

Thomson. W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Craik, Sir Henry

Macpherson, J. T.

Turnour, Viscount

Du Cros, Harvey

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Valentia, Viscount

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

Magnus, Sir Philip

Walker,Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Forster, Henry William

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Younger George

Hamilton, Marquess of

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Thorne.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Cremer, William Randal

Haworth. Arthur A.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crombie, John William

Hayden. John Patrick

Agnew, George William

Crooks, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Alden, Percy

Crosfield, A. H.

Hazleton. Richard

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Crossley, William J.

Hedges, A. Paget

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dalmeny, Lord

Helme, Norval Watson

Astbury, John Meir

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Hemmerde, Edward George

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Delany, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Devlin, Joseph

Hobart, Sir Robert

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dickinson,W.H. (St.Pancras,N.

Hogan, Michael

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Beauchamp, E.

Dillon, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bell, Richard

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Horniman, Emslie John

Bellairs, Carlyon

Donelan, Captain A.

Horridge. Thomas Gardner

Benn,SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt

Duckworth, James

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Duffy, William J.

Hudson, Walter

Bennett, E. N.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Bertram, Julius

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hyde, Clarendon

Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jackson, R. S.

Billson, Alfred

Essex, R. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Boland, John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Farrell, James Patrick

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Brigg, John

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Brodie, H. C.

Ferens, T. R.

Joyce, Michael

Brooke, Stopford

Findlay, Alexander

Kelley, George D.

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes., Leigh)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire

Flynn, James Christopher

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Burke, E. Haviland-

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Kilbride, Denis

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fuller, John Michael F.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Laidlaw, Robert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gilhooly, James

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Buxton,Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

Gill, A. H.

Lambert, George

Byles, William Pollard

Ginnell, L.

Lamont, Norman

Cameron, Robert

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert.John

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Glendinning, R. G.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Glover, Thomas

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.

Channing. Sir Francis Allston

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lehmann, R. C.

Clark, George Smith(Belfast,N.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Gulland, John W.

Lough, Thomas

Cleland, J. W.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Lundon, W.

Clough, William

Hall, Frederick

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hart-Davies, T.

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Cotton. Sir H. J. S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Cowan. W. H.

Harvey,W.E. (Derbyshire,N.E.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cox, Harold

Harwood, George

MacVeagh. Jeremiah (Down. S.

Clean, Eugene

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

340

341

M'Callum, John M.

Radford, G. H.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

M'Crae, George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

M'Kean, John

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thomasson, Franklin

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset, E

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Reddy, M.

Tillett, Louis John

M'Micking, Major G.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Maddison, Frederick

Redmond, William (Clare)

Toulmin, George

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Rees, J. D.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Massie, J.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Verney, F. W.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Vivian, Henry

Meagher, Michael

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walsh, Stephen

Menzies, Walter

Robertson.Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Mond, A.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Mooney, J. J.

Robinson, S.

Wardle, George J.

Morrell, Philip

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Waring, Walter

Murnaghan, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Myer, Horatio

Rowlands, J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Runciman, Walter

Watt, Henry A.

Nicholls, George

Russell, T. W.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, George (Norfolk)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Nuttall, Harry

Schwann, SirC. E.(Manchester)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Seely, Major J. B.

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Shackleton, David James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

O'Connon, T. P. (Liverpool)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Ha wick, B.)

Wiles, Thomas

O'Hare, Patrick

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Kelly,James (Roscommon.N.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Williams, Lewelyn(Carmarth'n

O'Malley, William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wills, Arthur Walters

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

O'Shee, James John

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Partington, Oswald

Stanger. H. Y.

Winfrey, R.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Steadman, W. C.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Young, Samuel

Perks, Robert William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Summerbell, T.

Price, RobertJohn (Norfolk, E.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Question put, and agreed to.

Original question again proposed.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to ask his hon. friend a Question in regard to the Item O, regarding the sale of stores and land in connection with the abolition of submarine mining. It was difficult to see why the Admiralty should abolish submarine mining in commercial ports. He understood that the submarine mining plant had been sold and the proceeds had been credited to the Naval Estimates; and it was rumoured that the Admiralty had attempted to sell the land on which the Brennan torpedo installations stood. He asked whether the Appropriations-in-Aid of the present year contained the price of any land sold which was connected with torpedo work?
MR. ASHLEYasked if any provision had been made at foreign Naval stations for the repairs of turbine machinery, with which, he understood, all the new warships were being fitted. The machinery
for the repair of ordinary engines was absolutely useless for the repair of turbine engines.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the Vote for the new steam factory at Portsmouth had been reduced from £188,000 to £120,000 and it was explained that that was on account of engineering difficulties. But that was a very unsatisfactory reply. They all knew perfectly well that there was no branch of work which was more difficult to estimate than engineering work. This, however, was not an engineering work, but a steam factory. How could the hon. Gentleman say that the building of a steam factory was an engineering work? The only conclusion that he could arrive at was that the hon. Gentleman gave the first answer that came into his head. Then there was the question of the expenditure of £20,000 on a new lock at Portsmouth. The hon. Gentleman had said that they must proceed cautiously because it would take

343
thirty years from now before the cost of the works could be covered. But it was no answer to the criticisms which had been offered to say that the people who were responsible for the original estimates were wrong; that they were badly prepared; and that they would not achieve what was desired. The hon. Gentleman ought to be in a position to say that he would look into the matter and see that the original policy was carried out. They were not now discussing as to how the money was to be obtained for these new works; but whether it was necessary to have proper docks in different parts of the world able to take the largest vessels in the Navy. The science of shipbuilding was progressing rapidly, and there must be a wastage of capital in regard to dock-building, but that would have to be faced. The docks already built were not sufficiently large to admit the newest ships. As to the question of loans, why should this generation bear all the burdens of posterity? What they were doing now was for the good of posterity and posterity should bear some part of the burden. Then there was a large decrease for the works at Simon's Bay, which also to the hon. Gentleman attributed the difficulty of making proper engineering estimates. The hon. Gentleman had said that there was a reduction of facilities. His contention was that there should not be a reduction of facilities and that the preparation of stations for the Navy was the most vital of all questions. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would be guided solely by the necessity of providing proper and efficient naval bases in all parts of the world. Without that, all the money spent on the Navy was wasted. It was absolutely essential that we should have proper bases at at home and abroad. As he understood the contention of the hon. Gentleman below the gangway, it was that they could not get ships of the class of the "Dreadnought" into Chatham dockyard in consequence of the condition of the River Medway, and one of the great items of expenditure in regard to docks of that class was dredging, not because of the actual cost of the operation but because the river was constantly silting up and the work had to be done over and over again. Therefore he thought that the dredging of a river was not a satisfactory solution, because it was
344
not a permanent one. The arguments advanced against the desire of the Opposition to see proper accommodation provided were most unsatisfactory, and disclosed no reason whatever for the policy of the Government. He hoped that before the Report stage the right hon. Gentlemen would reconsider his policy, and would assure the House that he really was anxious to provide proper facilities for the repair of these vessels, and that he would do so irrespective of any errors that might have been made in the past and of the amount of money it might cost. In saying that he hoped he would not be misunderstood. An hon. Member had said it would be very easy to wander over the face of the globe and place a station here and a station there. That was not what he advocated. All he wanted was that the plans in regard to stations already adopted should be completed in the best possible manner and as soon as possible.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he could assure hon. Members that all proper facilities would be given for further discussion and appealed to the Committee to allow the Government now to obtain this Vote. The hon. Gentleman opposite knew perfectly well that there were special reasons why Vote 10 should be taken early. If they obtained that Vote others to which exception might be taken could be postponed.
MR. ARTHUR LEEagreed that Vote 10 must be got through early, although there were some very important questions which he was anxious to raise upon it, and he would not get another opportunity of doing so this session. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to get the Vote before a quarter past eight, and he did not want to prevent that by any undue discussion. He would like to know, however, why an item of £10,000 for a groyne at Hooness, near Chatham, had been struck out of the Vote this year. He considered that that work was absolutely essential to prevent the lock entrances to Chatham dockyard from being silted up, which would prevent any vessel entering except one drawing a very moderate amount of water. He noticed also that the sum for repairs and maintenance had not been increased, although a large amount of extra new works had been lately handed over to the naval authorities. He would have

345
thought that that being the case the amount for repairs and maintenance would have been proportionately increased. It had been the custom, moreover, to place at the disposal of Admirals and Admiral Superintendents at the ports a sum of money to enable them to carry out small works without special Parliamentary sanction. It had been always found that that was a most economical method, and that the Admirals had put the money to the best use. He hoped that the reduction in the Vote, under that head, did not mean that the fund which was handed to the Admirals was to be in any way reduced.
MR. LAMBERTsaid that their advisors had asked for the amounts which were now being voted. Next year there would have to be an increase of the Vote for maintenance. There was no intention of departing from the system of allowances to Admirals.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: There is a large reduction in the sub-head of the Vote.

2. £837,900, Half-pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.

Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,302,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of Naval and Marino Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

3. £370,900, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL (BY ORDER).
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

CHANNEL TUNNEL RAILWAY BILL. (BY ORDER.)
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND (Yorkshire, W.R., Rotherham)said on behalf of the
346
promoters that the prospects of the measure were so seriously impaired by the hostile attitude of the Government that under the circumstances the conclusion they had come to was that it was better not to proceed further at present. He was, however, authorised to say that the promoters regretted they had been denied the opportunity of laying their case fully before a competent Parliamentary Committee in order to demonstrate the enormous advantage that would accrue from their proposal, and also its absolute freedom from risk. The promoters were convinced that if this measure had been sent to a Committee they would have been able to show the most sceptical that substantial trade advantages would have inevitably ensued from the more rapid transit of goods and the diminished amount of handling required. It was very long since that important question had been gone into. Much had transpired in the interval, and in the opinion of the promoters the time was ripe for further consideration of the subject. A quarter of a century had elapsed since it cams up before a Parliamentary Committee, when it was rejected by a majority of one. But the world had moved on since then. Engineering science had made great, strides. The requirements of a growing population had increased. And happily the walls of jealousy between the two nations had been lowered. But they had to deal with facts as they found them. And he, for one, must admit that he hardly remembered a Bill which had aroused such keen susceptibilities as this. Feelings of that kind, however, when honestly entertained, were entitled to careful and respectful consideration. Under the circumstances it would have been folly for the promoters to have attempted to force; the Bill through the House at the present time. They must wait until the public mind was less sensitive on the subject. They quite recognised that there was a large body of opinion which was jealous lest a finger should be lifted to weaken the defences of this country, and with that body of opinion he himself was in the most hearty agreement and sympathy. There was absolutely no difference of opinion whatever between the pro-

347
moters of the Bill and its opponents as to the question of national safety. That was a question of paramount importance. The promoters firmly believed that if the Bill had been sent to a Committee upstairs the national safety would have been proved to be absolutely safeguarded down to the minutest details. What the promoters wanted was that, the question should have been calmly and dispassionately considered, on its merits—neither rushing it through hurriedly on the one hand, nor rejecting it unceremoniously on the other—and if it was found that the good outweighed the evil the Bill should be allowed to pass. If, on the other hand, it was found that the evil outweighed the good then its promoters would have joined hands with the opponents of the measure and refused to go forward mother step. He begged to move that the order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn."
MR. PERKSsaid he thought no other course was open to the promoters. Many years ago it was his fortune to be closely associated with this very important international project. More than thirty years ago he was engaged by the Channel Tunnel Company of those days to endeavour to help to pass the Bill through Parliament, and it was then only rejected by a majority of five to four in the Select Committee of the House. He would remind the promoters of the Bill that the necessity for this great work was not so great to-day as it was thirty years ago. One reason was that there had been an enormous growth in the cross-Channel traffic, owing to the large size of the steamers and the more rapid handling of passengers. He thought the Government had been very well advised in indicating at a very early stage their views on the project. It was a remarkable thing that the cost of the project to-day was estimated to be just twice as much as it was twenty five years ago. It was now £16,000,000 as against £8,000,000 at that time. The project was certainly of a prodigious
348
nature, and he very greatly doubted whether the cross-Channel traffic justified it. When the Bill was before the House previously it was thrown out for precisely the same reasons as those advanced at present. It had been said that the construction of the tunnel would promote still more friendly relations between the French and ourselves, but it did not always follow that the friendship of people or of nations was always promoted by too close contact. He had been a shareholder in the company for twenty-five years, but since the country was strongly against the enterprise, and since it would have the effect of involving us in possibly vast military expenditure, he did not think the commercial advantages it would afford would justify it. He therefore thought the promoters had been well advised in withdrawing the Bill.
MR. LUPTONsaid he was in favour of the tunnel, which would have promoted the trade of this country, and afforded an easy means of getting into the delightful country of France. He could not but remember the words of John Blight, that this country undertook to rule half the world, to dominate in the east and in the west, and yet it could not defend a rat-hole in its own territory. For his part he paid not the slightest attention, to the alarmist Jingoes, who would spend all the money they could get, tunnel or no tunnel. When this Bill was brought forward nearly thirty years ago it was very nearly carried. We had increased since then, and had become immensely more powerful in every respect, yet the Bill did not get a look in. Judging by that experience, thirty years hence, when no doubt we should be still more powerful, nobody would ever dare to promote a Bill, because presumably we should be more nervous than we were now. That was international cowardice. Why should they give way to the Jingoes? Did they think that the Germans were going to smash our Fleet, and that the French were going to rush through the tunnel? Why, if the Germans smashed our Fleet the French would come to our aid through the tunnel. Opponents of the Bill would prevent that being done by hindering the construction of the tunnel. It was matter of great

349
regret that His Majesty's Government, whom he entirely respected in every way, had not been a little courageous and assisted the Bill. It would have been a great honour and credit to them if they had helped this country to shake hands with France.
Bill withdrawn.

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. (BY ORDER.)
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [19th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'no Bill can be satisfactory to this House which confers increased powers on a railway company created by Act of Parliament which has subscribed out of its corporate funds to a Party organisation.'"—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said he desired to say one word on this question, though he could speak only by leave of the House. On the last occasion when the matter was discussed, the debate was adjourned rather in order to afford an opportunity for the representatives of the railway companies to make some statement which would reassure the House as to the future policy of these great statutory corporations. He was sorry to say that no assurance of that kind had been forthcoming. He was afraid that there was not sufficient unity amongst them with regard to the course which they proposed to follow. He very much regretted that the clear and emphatic statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Epping Division and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mouth Dublin had not been adopted by other railway directors; but unfortunately they had not been able to agree, and there was now no satisfactory declaration on behalf of the railway companies. The only information they had when they
350
debated the matter on the previous occasion was that one railway company —namely, the London and North-Western Company—had subscribed to the funds of a political organisation. Since then three or four other companies had owned up; and there was good reason to believe that they were only samples out of many. In fact, from information received, he was justified in believing that it had been almost a general practice. That made it really very serious, and the Government had come to the conclusion that they must deal with the matter as a whole. It was perfectly clear that they could not discuss questions of this kind on the merits of each individual private Bill, because that was unfair not merely to the Bill, but to the railway companies and to the general public, as most of the Bills were for the purpose of increasing the travelling facilities of the public. In regard to this particular Bill it was in part promoted, as the result of pressure brought by the Board of Trade, to increase the facilities for workmen to travel at cheap rates. It seemed hard that because the company had done something which, in the judgment of hon. Members, corporations with statutory powers ought not to do, therefore these workmen should be punished by the curtailing of their facilities for travelling. He had, therefore, found it necessary, in order really to help railway companies to get good Bills through the House, to face the general question. He proposed, on behalf of the Government, in so far as they had powers—and they had very considerable powers in the Board of Trade in this respect—so to alter the schedules of the accounts furnished by railway and statutory companies to the Board of Trade as to force them to disclose, at any rate, subscriptions of this kind. He did not suppose the railway companies would object to that. It was fair that the shareholders should know, because they were not all of one mind. He did not think they were all Moderates. No doubt there were some who held fair and intelligent views. He had no doubt that a very fair proportion of the shareholders would object to such contributions; at any rate they ought to be given an opportunity of objecting. Such subscriptions ought not

351
to be included in "general sundries" or "miscellaneous services;" the shareholders ought to know of them. That was as far as they could go with their present powers. But it would be open to the railway companies to say, "Yes, we have subscribed to these associations, but we stand by those subscriptions and defend them." It would then be for the House to deal with that situation. In the United States of America last year they passed a very drastic Bill to deal with circumstances of a similar character. That Bill forbade statutory corporations to make any money contribution towards political objects in connection with any election to any political office. It covered the whole ground as regarded statutory companies, and prohibited the interference of limited liability companies in any kind of political contest. He did not think they ought to legislate in advance of proved grievances, and for the present he did not think that any kind of case was made out against limited liability companies. What the Government now proposed was this. They proposed to introduce a Bill for the purpose of forbidding statutory corporations to make contributions out of their funds towards political contests. Of course, he could give no pledge with regard to the time when it would be introduced. They had a few things to deal with this year already, and he was afraid the deliberations upon them were likely to be rather prolonged. He trusted his hon. friends would consider that to be satisfactory. [Cries of "No."] He thought it would be a very serious thing if they did not, and he asked his hon. friends on that side of the House to pause, He did not think it was fair that they should prevent a Bill going through which would have the effect of increasing railway facilities for a good many districts— facilities demanded by the general public, and which the railway companies were seeking to give as a result of the demand of the general public. He would go further, and say it was not to the interest —he would not say of the general public, but he would put it on Party ground and say it was not in the interest of the Liberal Party—to put obstacles in the way of legitimate expenditure to develop the resources of the country. He earnestly trusted that his hon. friend would
352
see his way to withdraw the Amendment, and in any event he himself would support the Second Reading of the Bill.
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he desired to make a personal statement on a subject that affected his personal credit in the House. He recalled that when this Bill was under the consideration of the House on the last occasion he stated that the London and North-Western Railway Company had never subscribed a shilling to any political fund, and that the hon. Member for Denbigh District, challenging that statement, alleged that the directors had subscribed to the funds of the Free Labour Association for the purpose of securing contracting-out of the Employers' Liability Bill of 1883. In contradicting the statement he then made he did not think for a moment that the hon. Member would say that he was purposely deceiving the House.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Hear, hear.
COLONELLOCKWOODsaid he took it at the time that the hon. Member thought he had made a statement which was unsupported by evidence. Since then the officials of the company had at his request made the most thorough and searching examination of the whole-of the company's payments from 1883 to 1903 inclusive, and that investigation had failed to disclose any such payment, either direct or indirect, as that alleged by the hon. Member for Denbigh District. He was not satisfied even with that, and a further search was made for all the payments of £25 and twenty-five guineas to make sure that no such payment had been made in any indirect manner, but the result was the same. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that there was not a shadow of foundation for the suggestion made in a newspaper, which, he hoped, was the only foundation for the hon. Member's statement, that the directors of the London and North-Western had ever subscribed, directly or indirectly, to the funds of the association in question. He hoped the hon. Member might now see his way to withdraw a remark made, he had no doubt, under a misapprehension.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid that whatever he stated in the House on a previous occasion was not in the least degree intended to reflect upon the credibility of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It often happened that Members were called upon in the House to make statements concerning facts which were not within their own personal knowledge. He took that to be the position with regard to the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. That was the position in which he himself was placed, and when he was given certain information he thought it his duty to make the most careful and exhaustive inquiry into the evidence upon which his statement was based. He made such an inquiry in this case and a great mass of evidence was placed before him. As the result of those inquiries he came to the conclusion that the evidence as to the accuracy of his statement was overwhelming. He had instituted inquiries with the view of tracing the whereabouts of the man who was secretary of the Free Labour Association at the time when this contribution was alleged to have been made, and he had a sworn statement dated 6th April, 1907, from that person, John Sennett, stevedore, which he proposed to read to the House. The statement was as follows—
"I, John Sennett, 78, Cathay Street, Union Road, Rotherhithe, stevedore, make oath and say as follows:—

"1. On or about June 22nd, 1892, at the instigation of Mr. G. A. Laws of the Shipping Federation I formed the Free Labour Association with offices in Myrdle Street, Commercial Road, E. The said Mr. Laws gave me £40 to float the association. I at once issued in the name of the Free Labour Association a manifesto throughout London denouncing trade unionism and the Liberal Party, and urging the London workmen to support the Conservative Party. The Association at this time, consisted of seven Committee men, a chairman, and myself as secretary and treasurer.

"2. My colleagues and myself at once proceeded to collect subscriptions from anti-trade union employers, Conservative candidates and the Conservative headquarters. The Conservative headquarters paid me £50 before, and £100 immediately after the 1892 election. The £50 was paid me by Mr. Rowbotham and the £100 by Captain Middleton.

"3. When the Liberal Government introduced; their Employers Liability Bill the Free Labour Association at once started an agitation in favour of 'contracting out.' The London and North Western Railway Company, it will be
354
remembered, took a leading part in the agitation for 'contracting out' so as to preserve their insurance society. We called a conference on the subject, at which Mr. W. Ellis, an official of; the London and North Western Railway 'Company attended as representing the London and North Western Railway Insurance Society.

''4. Towards the expenses of this conference and agitation the London and North Western Railway Company contributed the sum of £25 to our funds. The sum was paid through Mr. Ellis, the said official of the London and North Western Railway Company, who almost immediately afterwards became an official of the said Free Labour Association. I myself had part of the said £25 in part payment of my expenses for advocating that the London and North Western Railway Company should be allowed to contract their men out of the Employers Liability Act if it became law, so as to preserve their insurance society.

"5. A number of the "contracting out employers contributed to our funds at the same time, and it was upon this money that we ran the agitation in favour of contracting out.'

"6. If the London and North Western Railway Company had not so contributed we should not have allowed their official to attend our conference, nor should we have run the agitation in favour of their insurance society as in fact we did by letters, manifestoes, meetings and resolutions.

"Sworn at No. 10, Bell Yard, Fleet Street, in the City of London this 6th day of April, 1907.— Before me.
(Signed) J. H. HOPE.
A Commissioner for Oaths.
(Signed) JOHN SENNETT.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD:I adhere to every word I have said, and I would ask the hon. Member, if he does not see fit to withdraw the allegation in the House, to repeat the allegation outside the House.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he wished to say a few words in answer to the appeal which had been made to him to withdraw his Motion. The House would recollect that the two main reasons he gave in its support, and which appeared to meet with the approval of the House, were, first, that the company ought to give back the money it had subscribed out of the funds belonging to the shareholders and repay it into the funds of the company; secondly, that he would not withdraw his Motion unless he felt that there was some security against any repetition of this conduct by the company in question. The House would recollect the speech in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epping stated

355
that the company had given back the subscription and considered that they had made a mistake in giving it. He did not think that the majority of the House were satisfied that that was sufficient security against a repetition of the conduct. To-night a statement had been made by the President of the Board of Trade, who had stated that the Government, with the powers they already possessed, would insist upon publicity being given to all subscriptions of this kind by all railway companies. The right hon. Gentleman had also promised that the Government would introduce legislation in order to make it absolutely illegal that such subscriptions should be given. It might be objected that the right hon. Gentleman had not promised to introduce legislation on the question this year. He was satisfied, however, with the promise, because there were no elections imminent. That being so, he thought they might safely anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman would carry out his intention next year of passing what would necessarily be a very short Bill. Under these circumstances he believed that in the right hon. Gentleman's promise they had got security against a repetition of any such conduct by the railway companies as that on which the House felt so strongly, and as far as he was concerned, he would be ready to withdraw the Amendment which stood in his name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
MR. LEAsaid that there were a large number of London and North-Western employees in his constituency; and in competing for their votes the Conservative and Moderate candidates at the general election and County Council election respectively had several privileges given to them. He would like to recall to the House what had been the policy of this railway company for many years. A few weeks ago, when this question was brought before the House, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division stated that the company was unaware that the Municipal Reform League was a political organisation.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I said we had reason to believe it was not.
MR. LEAsaid that one of the directors of the company was a Moderate candidate for Haggerston, and facts had subsequently come out to show that he knew what the objects of the Municipal Reform League were. This was not an isolated case. At every Parliamentary and County Council election in East St. Pancras the Conservative and Moderate candidates had been favoured by the company. In the first place the men had been summoned to Euston to hear addresses from these candidates, while similar opportunities had been denied to the candidates on the other side. Some official, too, supplied the favoured candidates with the names and addresses of all the railway servants in the constituency, so that the men were made the recipients of letters and circulars pointing out the serious effect of increased rates on wages and employment. The following circular, signed by Messrs. Barnes & Organ, and addressed from the offices of the East St. Pancras Conservative Association, was sent out during the recent County Council election—
RATES AND WAGES OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.
Private and Confidential.
18, Camden Street. N.W. 13 th February, 1907.
"DEAR SIR,—May we venture to call your attention to the importance of the coming London County Council Election to you as a railway employee. It is of the utmost consequence to you that the present rate in London should be reduced.
"The rates and taxes paid by the railway companies in various parts of the Kingdom amounted, in 1905, to nearly £5,000,000, and represented an increase during the past nine years of nearly £2,000,000.
"The last official Returns show that the largest increase in the cost per train-mile in the year 1905 is in respect of rates and taxes.
The effect of such increase in rates on the railway companies is to retard an advance in wages and not merely this, but to seriously impede, railway development throughout the country, thus tending to reduce the employment which the railway companies would otherwise be providing.
"Lloyd's Weekly recently called attention to the persistent rumour that the Great Eastern Railway contemplate moving their locomotive works to Ipswich, owing to the burden of the rates. The railway companies in London are equally experiencing the baneful effect of Progressive rates, which, if not reduced, must

357
ultimately re-act to the detriment of all railway servants living in and around London.
"The Municipal Reform Party is pledged to a policy of economy with efficiency, and to actively advancing the social welfare of the industrial working classes.
"For this, and for other reasons, we trust we may be favoured with your support at the coming London County Council Elections.
We are, dear Sir, Yours faithfully, EDMUND BARNES. T. A. ORGAN."
When this question was last before the House he had no opportunity of stating these facts, and he spoke to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division outside. He felt perfectly convinced after what the House had heard from the righ hon. and gallant Member, that action of the kind described would not continue in future if he could prevent it. But what he himself and his constituents had to think of was what was going to happen when the right hon. and gallant Member was no longer in the London and North-Western Railway Board. They had suffered for the last twenty years in this matter. He was not committing any breach of secrecy when he said that one of the Members who formerly sat for his constituency told him how it was done. Indeed it was done in his own case at the last general election. Sir Thomas Wrightson had the privilege of addressing the railway employees at Euston. When he applied for a like privilege it was denied to him. The result, so far as he was concerned, was a most happy one. He would like to know from the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposed to adopt to prevent subscriptions of this kind being given in future, He was in formed that the names of shareholders and debenture holders in railway companies were not filed at Somerset House as in the case of limited liability companies. If there was a register of names available for public inspection, one would be able to see whether on account of the political views of the shareholders there was any hanky-panky business going on. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give an assurance, apart from money contributions, that measures would be taken to make railway companies remain absolutely impartial in all political and municipal contests.
MR. HAROLD COXthanked the President of the Board of Trade for putting the matter in a clear light. He was quite sure that everybody would agree with the proposition the right hon. Gentleman had laid down with respect to the payment of such subcriptions, but whether he would find it so easy to introduce a Bill as he had sketched out he felt a little doubtful. While they were all agreed that it was extremely undesirable that great companies should spend money on political objects, yet when they came to deal with it in detail they would find that the principle applied not only to statutory companies, but to all companies and even to wealthy individuals. He could not see how the right hon. Gentleman was going to draw the line nor how he was going to deal with the greater evil of political pressure brought to bear by railway companies upon their servants. He entirely agreed with what had been said as to the intolerable situation that would arise if the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Elland Division were carried. It was a monstrous proposal. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] It amounted to this, that because a railway company came to Parliament with a scheme which no one denied was one of public interest, therefore the House of Commons, having the company by the throat, should force it to do something which they had no legal right to ask it to do. There had been in the past many landlords with tenants who had honourably discharged all their obligations, but the landlords still were not satisfied. They went to those tenants and said, "Although you have done all we require you to do, yet because we have you by the throat we shall require you to vote the way we want you to." That was analagous to the position taken up by the hon. Member for the Elland Division. The matter should be dealt with by legislation, and not in the way proposed by the hon. Member. The mere fact that this company came to the House for fresh powers did not give the House the right to force upon them what his hon. friend proposed. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes, it does.] Let him look at the matter a little more deeply. What happened when they granted powers to a railway company? They gave a monopoly on

359
certain conditions. The company had to give certain services, and agree not to charge beyond certain maximum fares. That was a bargain. Parliament had a right to insist on that bargain. That was their "pound of flesh." They had no right to go beyond that and introduce irrelevant matters. He would remind the House that hon. Members who were appointed to Private Bill Committees had to make a declaration that they had no personal interest in the Bill. But that did not apply when the Bill was before the Whole House. He knew that his hon. friend was only acting in what he thought the public interest; but surely there was a danger of corruption if Members took advantage of their position in the House to extort concessions from railway companies. The procedure in the House, as in Private Bill Committees, should be a judicial procedure. A very important point had been raised by this discussion, and that was that railway companies and other corporations had at present no representation whatever upon local bodies. Only that morning he had received a letter from a constituent who pointed out that the company with which he was concerned, and which had been built up by his father, was very heavily rated, and yet had no representation whatever on the local authority. It was a public scandal and absolutely unjust that these great concerns should be heavily taxed and that they should have no sort of representation on the taxing body. He would remind the House that the liberties of the country and the very existence of the House of Commons depended on the principle that representation should accompany taxation, and they were virtually repudiating that principle when these great companies were taxed and denied all form of representation. He had no scheme of representation to propose. That was a difficult question; but the consideration of it was germane to the present discussion. If great corporations were taxed, he maintained that they must have some method of representation, or they would take other means of defending themselves, and it might be that they would defend themselves corruptly. It might be accepted as certain that when-
360
ever people suffered injustice they would resent and resist it
MR.MICKLEMsaid he was not prepared to agree with the hon. Member for Preston that the railway interests were not represented in the House. He confessed that to him that was an entirely new idea. He quite agreed that the railway interests and other corporations were not directly represented in the House and also on local bodies, but they were indirectly very largely represented both in the House and on local bodies. He did not want in a measure of this kind to follow out in detail the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras; he wished to confine himself to the Resolution before the House. He thought the hon. Member for St. Pancras was under a misapprehension. There was no evidence whatever that the directors or officials of the London and North Western Railway had used unfairly their influence in order to obtain votes for certain candidates either for Parliament or local bodies.
MR. LEAsaid that he had been told so by a man who had sat in the House for many years.
MR. MICKLEMsaid that the hon.. Member had mentioned the names of two men who had sent out the circular to the employees of the London and North Western Railway Company; but he did not connect these men with the directors of that company.
MR. LEAsaid that the directors of the London and North Western Railway Company had contributed to the funds of the body which sent out the circulars.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he saw no evidence of that whatever.
MR. LEAsaid the circular could not have been issued to the employees of the London and North Western Railway Company unless the names and addresses of all the railway servants in the different constituencies had been supplied by the company's officials.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he imagined that no Member of the House would have the least difficulty in ascertaining the names and addresses of all the shareholders in the London and North Western Railway Company, and even of their employees. He would give his own experience. He represented a constituency in which the influence of the London and North Western Railway Company was as strong as anywhere else in England. There were large railway works in Watford, and it was becoming a most important centre for railway men near London. At his election the London and North Western Railway Company had, from first to last, put not the slightest pressure upon any man in their employment to influence his vote in the Watford Division, though there was no division near London in which the contest was more severe. He was glad to bear testimony to that fact, and he asserted that if his hon. friend would submit his document to any unprejudiced lawyer— —he meant a man who could form a fair and just estimate of evidence—he would find that the conclusion he had arrived at was not fairly justified by the evidence. Probably some men had been using the name of the London and North Western Railway Company without authority. He could quite understand the general attitude of the hon. Gentleman, but he could only express to the House his experience which justified him in coming to a conclusion. He wanted to say one word about this particular Bill. It was of the utmost importance, and he might say that he himself had a very grave interest in it. He was not, however, a man of wealth, did not own any shares In the London and North Western Railway and was never likely to be a director of that or any other company.
MR. FLAVIN: You never can tell. There may be a good time coming. I will share the spoils with you.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman was a true prophet, but his interest was this. He represented a constituency which would benefit if this railway was made. Watford itself
362
was exceedingly needy, and this was a railway which the people there had been proposing for many years in order further to develop the town. The London and North Western Railway Company had developed Watford so that it had become one of the suburbs of London, and they had there, not only very large railway but very large industrial works, and more industrial works were coming to the town every day. It was therefore essential in the interests of the community of Watford, which was becoming a great industrial centre and which was also a great residential centre, that this Bill should pass. What was the objection to the measure? He confessed that if it were a case in which the London and North Western Railway were deliberately saying "We insist upon our right to subscribe to funds which shall be devoted to political purposes and shall be used in Parliamentary or local affairs to forward the interests of one side"— although he believed this Bill was wanted for the neighbourhood, he would think that the great public interest which such a position raised would justify him in opposing the Bill, because the railway company would be adopting a line which no public body ought to take. But what had happened? Could anything have been fairer, franker, or fuller than the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who, rising in his place and speaking on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, made a statement. An HON. MEMBER: It did not happen whilst he was there. He recognised and he thought the House must recognise that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking not only for himself but for those he represented—the other directors. What did he say? He said in the fullest and frankest manner that this action was indefensible and that immediately the directors understood what they had done and had ascertained that this body was a Party association, they themselves refunded the money they had sent to it and authorised him to apologise to the House. The directors admitted that they had acted under a mistake, but they did their best to withdraw their action. He was not an old Member of the House, but his short experience

363
led him to believe that whatever it was the House was not vindictive. When a man made a mistake and frankly withdrew the House forgave him at once, and when a body outside the House made a mistake and sent down a right hon. and gallant Member to assure them that it had made a mistake and apologised for its conduct, the House ought not to say that the act was deliberately done, but ought to accept the withdrawal and apology, especially if they were satisfied that this particular company was not going to repeat its action and also that the Bill in question was a good Bill which should, apart from the action of the railway company in another matter, be sent upstairs to a Committee. The House not being vindictive ought, he thought, to accept the withdrawal of the railway company and allow the Bill to proceed. He ventured therefore to appeal to the House, not on personal grounds in the least, to allow that course to be taken. He held that the London and North Western Railway Company had acted fairly and honourably by the House. [Cries of, "No."] Well that was his opinion, and he again asserted that nothing could have been fuller and franker than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's apology. Having regard to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the House was absolutely safeguarded from any repetition of the conduct complained of. In these circumstances he hoped the House would agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. BRIGHTthought he ought to offer some observations to the House before they came to a decision. He was one of the directors of the London and North Western Railway Company, and he was entirely out of sympathy with the association to which this subscription had been unfortunately given. It had, indeed, been rather a trial to him to have to pay out of his own pocket a portion of the subscription which had been given to the last association in the world that he should have subscribed to. He had done his share in making what amends he could, though he admitted that he had not been sufficiently wide awake when the subscription was given. If he had been he would have objected, but he had done his
364
best to make reparation, and he felt a little hurt at some of the observations made by hon. Members. He thought they were a little ungracious. It was, he was certain, untrue that the company took any part in the election at Watford, although of course there might be ardent Conservatives as well as ardent Liberals amongst their employees who took an active part in the contest. To say, however, that the company did so was, he was convinced, absolutely untrue. He joined in the appeal of the last speaker that the House should allow the Bill to pass and he pointed out that if it did not pass it would do no harm to the directors, although it might do harm to the proprietors of the railway, who were absolutely guiltless in the matter. The rejection of the Bill would, moreover, do great injury to the districts through which the railway passed. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned Watford. It was impossible for the railway company to deal properly with the traffic of that place in the present congested condition of their line. They proposed to spend £2,000,000 on this line, and it would lead to a great stoppage of employment if it were not passed. After all the talk about the evils of unemployment he thought it would be a very serious thing for the House to reject this Bill. Then, again, there was Coventry, where an enormous trade was being done in bicycles and motor cars; that place also would be served by the new line. In addition there was the North Wales traffic which in the holiday season was very great, and the present conditions of the line made it very difficult to widen it. All these three projects would be knocked over if this Bill did not pass, and he thought that it would be a most strange and foolish thing if in consequence of a mistake of the directors the Bill was thrown out.
MR. HEMMERDEdesired to say a few words in the same sense as the last two speakers. He could not see why the House should throw out this Bill after the explanation given by the right hon. and gallant Member, which he most unreservedly accepted. He could not believe that the House would take the responsibility of throwing out the Bill because the London and North

365
Western Railway Company had done a certain thing acting under a misapprehension. It was open to question whether they had done anything illegal. An hon. Member the other night said with some confidence that the course which they had taken was a legal action. He rather doubted whether it was a legal action, but at any rate they had the explicit assurance that it was not done deliberately. He could not believe that the House would not accept that assurance. Undoubtedly the matter was a very serious one, but he did not believe that the evil of the influence of money in politics could be dealt with, either by the remedy suggested by the President of the Board of Trade, or by throwing out this Bill. They could not seriously deal with the matter by confining their attention merely to statutory companies. The President of the Board of Trade had said that they could not go in advance of public opinion, but he thought the better view was that of a great jurist, that all legislation should be antic capatory of public opinion and antecedent to expectation. If they were to deal properly with this I question, they must, in addition to dealing with statutory companies, also make provisions in regard to all companies and all wealthy individuals who used their wealth for influencing legislation. That was really the question that they were face to face with to-day. The only way to meet that question was ruthlessly to cut down election expenses. Great companies were able to give subscriptions which never appeared in the account of the election expenses of the candidates, and that could only be prevented by legislation to the effect that they should not give these subscriptions unless they were returned in the account of the expenses of the candidates in whom they were interested. They could only do that by putting the strictest and narrowest limits on the power of candidates to spend money in their constituencies. That end would not be attained by losing temper with the London and North-Western Company. After the assurance given by the company, he asked the House to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport):said the
366
object which had to be decided by the vote upon this Bill was the expenditure of £2,000,000 on a particular class of development. Whatever one's views were on the particular transaction complained of no one would gainsay that the-speech of the right hon. Member for Epping was a most frank avowal, and a guarantee that no such thing should recur. If it had not been for the intervention of one Member on that occasion the House would have been then prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading. His right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade was prepared to recommend that course, but owing to the intervention of the hon. and learned Gentleman it was thought desirable to carry over the discussion. The House had heard his right hon. friend say that in future there should be no reason to complain of any recurrence of the evil. Evidence had come to hand, however, which showed that similar transactions had taken place with dock and railway companies, and his right hon. friend held the view that unless steps were taken at once to check the development of the course which seemed to have been entered upon it would grow into a very great evil. It was under those circumstances that his right hon. friend had come down to the House and promised, first that the Board of Trade rules as to railway accounts should be so changed as to provide that the accounts submitted by the companies should disclose all these transactions; and, secondly, that he would bring in a Bill to deal with the whole matter. There could be, therefore, no complaint of the way in which the Government had met the question. The hon. Member for the Elland Division had withdrawn his Amendment, and he (Mr. Kearley) did not propose to go into the fresh issues that had been raised. He, however, thought it would be desirable if the railway companies could give an assurance either that they would permit neither political Party to have access to their premises, or that they would afford the privilege to both. He could not agree with the exception which had been taken to raising this matter on the Second Reading of a private Bill, and the mere fact of the Government having promised legislation showed how they viewed this evil. He hoped, therefore, the House would now be satisfied with the ample debate which had taken place

367
and allow the Bill to have its Second Reading.
MR. HERBERT: said the questions raised were of considerable importance. He thought the hon. Member for Elland had perfomed a public service by calling attention to the facts. He strongly deprecated the introduction of any Party feeling into the matter, and he believed hon. Members in all parts of the House would agree with him if they almly considered the matter. There was a very large majority of Liberals in the House, and this subscription was made to the Moderate cause of the County Council, and a very large majority of Moderates were returned. It might be that if hostile action was taken on this Bill it might derogate from the character of the House. It might be represented as a reprisal for that subscription, and he did not believe any hon. Member would desire any such thing as that. He asked every Member, therefore, before he gave his vote upon the Bill to reflect what interpretation might be placed upon his giving an adverse vote. That state of affairs was a pure accident of the present case; it might well be that upon the Free Trade issue, Railway Companies would consider it to their interest to support the side of Free Trade, and it was therefore a matter which affected all Parties alike and all shareholders alike, and it was a matter which the House ought to attempt to deal with in a calm and judicial spirit. He did not agree with the hon. Baronet that the House was exceeding its rights in dealing with this matter; in his opinion it not only had the right, but it was its bounden duty to take up the matter and deal with it—as it was its duty when any evil arose—as effectively as possible. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade proposed to confine his remedies to statutory companies and not to apply them to all limited companies? They heard the other night that the managers of the dock companies had been advised that they were entitled to make such subscriptions, and that meant that individual shareholders who objected to the subscriptions being made would have to fight a statutory company possibly right up to the House of Lords, and the statutory
368
company would be fighting those individual shareholders with their own money. He thought the same considerations applied to the shareholders of limited companies as to the shareholders of railway companies, and he trusted the President of the Board of Trade would consider whether it would not be wise to extend his proposed Bill to limited companies. There might be a provision expressly providing that the memorandum of association must make mention of the right of the directors to make these contributions if they were intended to have such a right. He hoped that the House would give the Bill a Second Reading. The railway company had acknowledged their error, and hon. Members therefore should give the Bill a Second Reading.
MR. STRAUSasked whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epping could answer this Question: it was rumoured that one of the directors of the company, who was a successful candidate for the County Council, when this matter came before the Board, said if that there was any question about the contribution which had been authorised, he would pay it out of his own pocket.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD,in reply to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras, said he had made very careful inquiries into the subject, and he could find no justification for the statement that facilities had been given to Moderate candidates to hold meetings on the company's premises. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he quite understood his feelings, but the London and North Western Railway Company considered themselves as carriers of persons and goods, and the last thing they thought of was to interfere in political matters. He could not say anything of his own personal knowledge as to the question of candidature, but he was perfectly certain that both Parties would be treated alike, though speaking for himself he would not care to address a meeting in Euston station for fear of the windows. Their great idea was to keep absolutely clear of politics. He had made careful inquiry and he could not find that the statement of the hon. Member opposite was justified. He attended the Board meetings, and no such statement was

369
made before him at any rate, and he thought the hon. Member was mistaken. But he would be very glad to receive further information from him, and to go into the question with him.
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he happened to represent the division in which Euston Station was situated. He had fought five County Council elections and two Parliamentary elections in the constituency, and he had been informed that the attitude taken up by the London and North-Western Railway Company when applied to for the use of their station premises was uniformly that they would not favour or allow facilities to either Party. Therefore it was with profound regret that he heard that that principle of neutrality had been departed from in the case of the recent County Council election. He thanked the hon. Member for the Elland Division for bringing the subject to the notice of the House, but he quite accepted the very honourable manner in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had endeavoured
so far as possible to make up for the breach of principle which occurred on that occasion. Having accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and having heard the assurance on behalf of the Government as to future legislation, he desired to offer no further opposition to the Bill now before the House.
MR. VERNEYsaid that in the town of Wolverton there were thousands of employees of the London and North-Western Railway Company, and he desired to say that it was absolutely untrue, as far as that town was concerned, that the railway company had brought the slightest political influence to bear on their servants; moreover he believed that any attempt of the kind would be keenly resented by the men themselves.
Main Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 62. (Division List No. 144.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,RtHnSir Alex.F.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Evans, Samuel T.

Agnew, George William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Everett, R. Lacey

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Byles, William Pollard

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Ferens, T. R.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Findlay, Alexander

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Causton,RtHnRichard Knight

Forster, Henry William

Astbury, John Meir

Cave, George

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Chance, Frederick William

Glendinning, R. G.

Balcarres, Lord

Clark,George Smith(Belfast,N.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Baring, Godfrey(Isle ofWight)

Clough, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Hart-Davies, T.

Barnard, E. B.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Collins,SirWm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Harwood, George

Beach,Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Corbett,A.Cameron (Glasgow)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Beale, W. P.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex.E.Grints'd

Hayden, John Patrick

Beauchamp, E.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hedges, A. Paget

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Bell, Richard

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cowan, W. H.

Henderson,J.M.(Abe deen, W.)

Benn,SirJ. Williams(Devonp'rt)

Cox, Harold

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

Bennett, E. N.

Crean, Eugene

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bertram, Julius

Crosfield, A. H.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Bethell,SirJH (Essex.Romford

Crossley, William J.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dalmeny, Lord

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hyde, Clarendon

Billson, Alfred

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bowles, G. Stewart.

Dillon, John

Jardine, Sir J.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Duckworth, James

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Brigg, John

Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Brooke, Stopford

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes.,Leigh)

Emmott, Alfred

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brunner,RtHnSirJT (Cheshire)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Seaverns, J. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Nuttall, Harry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Lambert, George

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Lamont, Norman

O'Malley, William

Simon, John Allsebrook

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Perks, Robert William

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Lehmann, R. C.

Pollard, Dr.

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton;

Lewis, John Herbert

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stanger, H. Y.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

Stanley,Hn.A Lyulph(Chesh.)

Lundon, W.

Radford, G. H.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lupton, Arnold

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Strachey, Sir Edward

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Raphael, Herbert H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

M'Callum, John M.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

M'Crae, George

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thomasson, Franklin

M'Kean, John

Rees, J. D.

Toulmin, George

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rickett, J. Compton

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Verney, F. W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Vivian, Henry

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Waring, Walter

Magnus, Sir Philip

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

White, George (Norfolk)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robinson, S.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Marks, G.Croydon (Launceston)

Rose, Charles Day

Whitehead, Rowland

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

Mond, A.

Rowlands, J.

Wiles, Thomas

Morrell, Philip

Runciman, Walter

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Murnaghan, George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Young, Samuel

Murray, James

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Younger, George

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Nicholls, George

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Nicholson,Charles NT.(Doncast'r

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Nolan, Joseph

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Hall, Frederick

O'Shee, James John

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Halpin, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.

Reddy, M.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Boland, John

Hazleton, Richard

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bowerman, C W.

Hogan, Michael

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hudson, Walter

Summerbell, T.

Cooper, G. J.

Jackson, R. S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cremer, William Randal

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Walsh, Stephen

Delany, William

Joyce, Michael

Ward,John(Stoke upon Trent)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kelley, George D.

Watt, Henry A.

Donelan, Captain A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duffy, William J.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Wilkie, Alexander

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in (Furness

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Essex, R. W.

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Farrell, James Patrick

Meagher, Michael

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras,S.)

Fenwick, Charles

Murphy, John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fullerton. Hugh

O'Hare, Patrick

Mr. H. C. Lea and Mr. Thorne.

Gill A. H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question, "That
372
this House do now adjourn," — (Mr. Whiteley,)—put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes after Ten o'clock.