Commons Sitting of 31 July 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [Lords];Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation Bill.—Considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].—Ordered, That in case of the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords], Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
Ordered, That the Committee on Group K of Private Bills have leave to sit on Saturday next, notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petitions for protection of the Native Races; From Kingston upon Hull; and Nelson; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION SCOTLAND BILL.
  Petition from Shettlestone, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Castle Douglas, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ross and Cromarty, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  Petition from Cardiff, against Lords, Amendments to Clause 2 (f); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 29th July] to be printed. [No. 280.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3878 to 3883 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Miscellaneous Series, No. 663 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th May; Mr. Goddard]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
Public Trustee Rules, 1907 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 282.]
MANUFACTURED GOODS, EXPORTED AND IMPORTED (UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY), 1882–1906.
Return ordered, "showing the value of the Exports, Imports, and excess of Exports of Manufactured Goods (according to the classification adopted in each of the two Countries) in the cases of the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively, in each of the years since 1882, with averages for each quinquennial period; showing also the estimated value of the Exports, Imports, and excess of Imports of Manufactured Goods in the case of Germany, in each of the last five years, based on the classification adopted in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Home Office Contracts.
  MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any alterations have been made in the conditions inserted in notices and contracts by the Home Office since the Return given in Parliamentary Paper, No. 277, of Session 1906, pages 128–129, Appendix No. 1 CD.; and, if so, what the alterations are.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As regards Return C (Prison Department), no alteration has up to the present time been made. As regards Return D (Metropolitan Police), the following alterations have been made, viz.: No. 1.— Building contract. The contractors are now required to exhibit at their workshops, etc., a copy of an extract from the Resolution of the House of Commons of 13th February, 1891, with regard to workmen's wages. The wages are not now specified in building contracts, but it is stipulated that current wages are to be paid. No. 2.—The repairs contract stipulates that the above notice be exhibited, and a minimum table of wages has to be quoted. No. 5.—The boot contract no longer exists, a money allowance having been sanctioned in lieu of boots as from

  935
  October, 1897. No. 8.—The new clothing contract stipulates for the exhibition of the above-quoted notice, also that the current wages for competent workers be paid. The receiver has power, instead of imposing penalty, to determine the contract if work is not done in the contractors own factory, and if the current scale of wages is not paid. The penalty in the helmet contract has been reduced to £50, but the clause for determination of contract has been added, and a stipulation inserted that the copy of the Resolution above referred to be exhibited. No. 14. Clocks; No. 15. Candles and soap; No. 16. Forage; No. 20. Coals and coke; No. 21. Sale of old clothing.—Power is now reserved to the receiver of determining the contract if the contractor shall fail to pay such wages as are generally accepted as current for competent work people. I may add that it has been decided to insert in the prison clothing contract a clause prohibiting home work, as in the police clothing contract.

  Payment of Wiremen in Birmingham Telegraph Office.
  Mr. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether be is aware that two men, employed as wiremen at the Birmingham Post Office, are, or were, engaged making frames, doors, and screens, and that they were being paid from 2s. 3d. to 2s. 6d. per day less than the current rate of wages paid in this district for doing this class of work; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to this system of doing work in connection with his Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I find that a local official, acting without instructions and contrary to rules, employed two wiremen to fit up a rough frame door and screen for the advantage of the men employed behind the switch sections in the trunk telephone exchange at the Birmingham Post Office. I have taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the irregularity.

  Revenue from Licences for Dealing in Manufactured Silver.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what was the average amount of revenue acquired from the licences imposed on dealers in manufactured silver during the past five financial years.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The average amount of revenue derived from licences to deal in gold and silver plate for the five years to 31st March, 1907, was £65,391. Licences to "deal in manufactured silver" are not distinguished from general plate licences.

  Annuity to Heirs of Lord Rodney, Duke of Schomberg and Earl Nelson.
  MR LEA: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the Acts 23 Geo. 3, c. 86, and 33 Geo. 3, c. 77, whereby an annuity of £2,000 has been conferred on all and every the heirs to whom the title of Lord Rodney shall descend; whether he is aware that to date the nation has paid seven holders of this title £248,000; and whether he can promise that the Government will bring in a Bill to end this annuity.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) In 1890 terms wore agreed between the Treasury and Lord Rodney for the commutation of this pension. The sum proposed to be paid was approximately twenty-seven years purchase, that being the high test rate which the Treasury felt justified in allowing, in view of the opinion expressed by a Select Committee of this House in 1887. The agreement was duly submitted to the Court of Chancery, but the Court refused its consent on the ground that the arrangement was not sufficiently beneficial to the persons interested in the remainder. The commutation could not, therefore, be effected. The public faith has been pledged by Parliament to the payment of this pension, and I do not think that Parliament would be likely to entertain proposals for its termination otherwise than on equitable terms.
  MR. LEA: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the letters patent dated 22nd December, 8 Will. 3, to the letters patent dated 29th June, 1715, and Acts 1 Geo. 1, No. 78, and 19 and 20 Vic, c. 59, whereby a pension of £2,880 net was conferred on the heirs of the Duke of Schomberg; whether he is aware that this pension has been reduced by commutations in 1855, 1876, 1877, and 1883, until at the present time £720 still continues to be paid to the heirs of this individual; will he state the

  937
  amount to date that has been paid by the public to the heirs under these letters patent and Acts, including the capital amounts paid under the commutations dated above, and the names of those heirs to-day to whom the £720 is paid, specifying the amounts paid to each; and whether he will give this House an assurance that he will introduce a short Bill next session to end this annuity.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) The sums paid for commutation of the portions of this pension which have been redeemed were—

  £

  s.

  d.

  In 1855

  19,399

  8

  0

  In 1877

  29,100

  12

  0

  In 1877

  2,586

  14

  4

  In 1883

  7,113

  8

  8

  Total

  58,200

  3

  0

  To calculate the total sum that has been paid in respect of this pension during the last 200 years would require a great deal of research, even if complete records are in existence, which is more than doubtful. Of the annual sum of £720 which remains payable, one moiety is paid to the trustees of the will of the late H. P. Powys and the other moiety to Mr. R. Gosling. Those recipients have never been willing to accept commutation on such terms as the Treasury has been able to offer, namely a sum approximately equal to twenty-seven years purchase. I cannot undertake to introduce a Bill next session to make acceptance compulsory.
  MR. LEA: To ask the first Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the Act 46 Geo. 3, c. 146, whereby an annuity of £5,000 has been conferred on such persons to whom the title of Earl Nelson shall descend; that this annuity was in addition to a sum of £120,000 as a further provision for the family of the said Earl Nelson; whether he is aware that under this Act the nation has paid the Nelson family £625,000 to date; and whether he can give an assurance that next year this Government will bring in a short Bill to end this annuity.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner- man.) The particulars of this pension (and of the others referred to in the two
  938
  previous questions) are shown at page 45 of the published Finance Accounts. The sums paid under the Act of 46 Geo. 3, in addition to the pension, amounted, I understand, to £110,000. The circumstances in regard to the possibility of determining this pension are the same as in the case of Lord Rodney.

  Lighting of the Natural History Museum.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the desirability of introducing electric light, or some other form of lighting, into the Natural History Museum, South Kensington, seeing that it is maintained at the expense of the nation, and that at present the valuable collection contained there is closed to the public on the numerous dark days incidental to the climatic conditions of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) This work is being gradually proceeded with, and an instalment of the provision is taken in this year's Estimates (Class 1, page 24)

  Irish Junior Assistant Mistresses.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, when a junior assistant mistress with little literary qualification is appointed to a national school, and is the only help the principal teacher has, he can say how the notes to teachers are to be carried out which state that the junior classes should be taught by an experienced teacher; and what the work of such a junior assistant is to be.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that no general answer can be given to a hypothetical question such as this. If the circumstances of any particular case should be submitted to the Commissioners they will give the matter careful consideration.

  Refusal of Increment to Head Teacher of Shrove National School.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the assistant teacher of Shrove National School, Roll No. 3,470,. was granted an increment dating from April, 1906, he

  939
  can state why the principal of the same school was refused an increment.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the principal teacher referred to is in receipt of a salary in excess of the maximum salary of his grade. He is therefore ineligible to receive a further increment in that grade. His claim to promotion to the second grade is at present under consideration, and if it should be granted he will receive an increase of salary as from 1st April last.

  Charge against Constable Thomas M'Govern.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and if so, what steps have been taken against Constable Thomas M'Govern, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, now stationed at Athenry, county Galway, who on examination at Clonmel Assizes on 8th instant, in a case of alleged embezzlement against Sergeant Kearney, committed perjury in swearing that he knew and identified two women who were alleged to have paid Kearney certain sums of money, the amounts of fishery fines, while Constable M'Govern previously swore at Carrick-on-Suir Petty Sessions, on 28th March last, that he did not know and could not identify the two women, although he saw them in court and heard them giving evidence.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General informs me that there was a slight discrepancy between the evidence given by Constable M'Govern at petty sessions and that subsequently given by him at assizes, but there is no sufficient ground for suggesting that he was guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. Upon cross-examination at assizes the constable fully explained the reasons for the variation in his evidence. It is not intended to take any action against the constable.

  Application for Reinstatement of Thomas Bullman.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have received any application for reinstatement in the farm of Ballyo-
  940
  dock, on the estate of Mrs. Sarah Hyde, Ballindangan, county Cork, from which farm Thomas Bullman was evicted about fourteen years ago; and, if an application has been made, who is the person claiming to represent the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement in a farm comprising about eighty-three acres, situate at Ballinacaragh on the estate referred to, from William Bullman, who claims to have been the tenant at the date of the eviction.

  Pay of Examiners in the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the new examiners in the Exchequer and Audit Department are allowed £120 per annum when they become established after two years' service; and, if so, will he explain why ex-Second Division clerks, doing precisely the same kind of work and who are now acting examiners, receive only £115 per annum after eight years' service, when they become similarly established as examiner.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Officers newly appointed to the Exchequer and Audit Department and to similar posts under the Admiralty and War Office receive £100 a year and £120 after two years' probation. Second Division clerks on promotion to the new establishment, after eight years' service, enter the scale at the rate of pay which they have reached as Second Division clerks, viz., £115, with annual increments of £10, making their salary £135 after two years as examiners.

  Transfer of Irish Audit Work from London to Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, shortly before the present Government came into office, it was contemplated by the late Government to transfer the Irish audit work from London to Dublin; and, if so, will he explain why such transfer is not now carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am not aware that any such step was contemplated.

  Irish Audit Office.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the late Comptroller and Auditor-General was in favour of having the Irish audit work transferred and done in Dublin instead of in London, as at present; whether such transfer has been opposed by the present Assistant Comptroller and Auditor, who refused to receive a report favourable to it from a principal clerk who was sent to Dublin and instructed to investigate its feasibility; and will he say how long this Assistant Comptroller has been in the Audit Office, and what were his qualifications for the post he now holds.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The reply is in the negative.

  Burwell Crown Farm.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any sum, and, if so, what amount, was paid to the outgoing tenant of the Crown farm at Burwell for unexhausted improvements or compensation for disturbance.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Crown Farm at Burwell had been in hand for two years before it was let for small holdings, and there was in consequence no outgoing tenant to compensate, The amount of the valuation due from the incoming tenant was £2,205 6s. 7d., and this sum has been apportioned among the sub-tenants of my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket, with the exception of £175 9s. representing the valuation for certain fixtures on which my hon. friend is paying interest.

  Mile End Guardians Bread Contracts.
  MR. HEDGES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to Mr. Elvey Robb's public statement that the Mile End guardians paid for bread in the course of the years 1904, 1905, and 1906 £1,465 17s. 6d. in excess of the lowest tenders; and whether, in view of this and the other facts elicited, he will extend the inquiry to all the contracts of the guardians during the period which is now under review in regard to the coal contracts.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the statement referred to. I understand that either to-day or to-morrow the inquiry will be adjourned for some weeks, during which the work charged for in respect of the scattered homes and the infirmary will be measured. Before the inquiry is resumed I will consider the suggestion that it should be extended to other contracts besides those now under investigation.

  Manchester Public Carters and the Railway Companies.
  SIR MAURICE LEVY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that, as one of the results of the recent combination of interests between the various railway companies, the Midland Railway Company and other companies serving Manchester have given instructions that as from the 1st October, 1907, the allowance made to the chief firms of public carters in Manchester in respect of the collection and forwarding of shipping traffic from Manchester are to be materially reduced; whether he is aware that such action on the part of the railway companies will deprive the public of the benefits of competition and enable the companies to obtain for themselves the uncontrolled monopoly of services outside their terminal stations; and whether the Board of Trade will take steps to prevent the railway companies from adopting this course.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I understand that the regulation of the allowances made to cartage and other agents is one of the objects of the arrangements between the railway companies referred to in the correspondence recently presented to Parliament (Cd. 3420). I shall be glad to consider any particulars of the reductions in the allowances at Manchester which my hon. friend is in a position to supply, but until I have examined them I cannot say whether the Board of Trade could take any useful steps in the matter,

  Channel Islands Shipping Laws.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a conference has taken place between the representatives of

  943
  Guernsey and Jersey and the Board of Trade in regard to the Board's memorandum dealing with the proposed assimilation of the shipping laws of the Channel Islands to those of this country; and, if So, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Yes, Sir; a conference which it is hoped will have useful results has been held, and there was a general agreement amongst the members present that uniformity in the law relating to merchant shipping was desirable on various points. It is hoped that in course of time this agreement may lead to legislation.

  Holme Lacy, Hereford, Charity.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware that in 1839 a sum of £100 per year was left by the Hon. Mrs. Scudamore, of Holme Lacy, Hereford, for the benefit of ten poor decayed men; whether he is aware that one recipient of this charity is a farmer who farms more than 340 acres of land and holds several public positions, such as district councillor, parish councillor, school manager, and Poor Law guardian; whether this gentleman has received more than £90 from this charity and became a recipient before he was fifty years of age; whether he was a late employee of the trustee who acted in the disbursement of this charity without the aid of other trustees; can he say whether an inquiry has been held; if so, with what result; will he place a full Report of such inquiry upon the Table of the House; and what steps have the Commissioners taken to compel the return of all moneys received by persons who cannot be described as decayed and who have received this charity in a very doubtful manner.
  (Answered by Mr. Trevelyan.) The Hon. Mrs. Scudamore's charity was settled by the Court of Chancery in 1704, under the will dated 29th August, 1699, of Mrs. Jane Scudamore, for ten poor decayed men, to be appointed by Viscount Scudamore and his heirs. An inquiry was held into this charity on 4th July. In the course of the inquiry the farmer referred to in the Question resigned his claim to the funds of the charity. The person acting in the administration of the trust, who has hitherto exercised
  944
  the sole patronage of the charity under the will, has now applied for a scheme for the appointment of trustees who will share in the distribution of the charity. A report on the case has not yet been made to the Commissioners by the Assistant Commissioner who held the inquiry. Such reports are confidential. A full report of what took place at the inquiry was published in the local newspapers. The matter is now under the consideration of the Commissioners, and there is no reason to anticipate that the error complained of in the Question will be possible in the future under the new scheme.

  Carnarvon Estate Duties.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what number of estates of persons residing at death in the county of Carnarvon estate duty has been paid during the years 1901–6; what was the average net value of such estates; and what number of the estates which came under review were sworn under £100, £300, £500, £1,000, and £10,000 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) This information cannot be given, as the records of estates are not kept under a classification with reference to place of death.

  Indian Income-tax.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the improved condition of the finances in India since the income-tax was introduced, he will consider the advisability of raising the minimum of taxable income from the present low level of 500 rupees, or £33 per annum, to a figure more closely approximating to that fixed in the much richer community of the United Kingdom, viz., £160, or Rs. 2,400; and whether, in any case, the principle of relief to earned small incomes will be introduced and applied in India as in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The minimum of taxable income was raised in March, 1903, from Rs.500 (£33) to Rs.1,000 (£66) a year. The maximum rate of tax is much lower than in the United Kingdom, viz., 6d. in the pound, incomes between Rs.1,000 and Rs.2,000 (£66 and £133) are taxed at 5d. in the

  945
  pound, and incomes derived from agriculture are exempt. There is no intention of introducing further differentiation.

  Indian Police Service.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING.To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Police Commission, in paragraph 87 of their Report, strongly recommended that the period of compulsory service for pension should be reduced, on the ground that the period of thirty years is too long, and stated that the Government should have power to compel the retirement of any officer after twenty-five years service, and an officer should be entitled to retire after twenty-five years service on full pension, if he desires to do so, basing the recommendation on the nature of police work in India; and whether, seeing that the refusal of the Secretary of State to adopt this recommendation has caused discontent among the members of the service, the whole question will be reconsidered and more favourable terms be granted, having regard to the necessity, in existing circumstances, of maintaining the police service in a high state of efficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The recommendation of the Police Commission to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not accepted by the Government of India. They have informed me that, after a full consideration of the matter, they have decided to propose no alteration in the existing rules. As at present advised I am not inclined to suggest a reconsideration of this question.

  Tetanus in the Punjab.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he proposes to institute any further inquiry into certain deaths from tetanus in the Punjab consequent on the employment of Dr.Haffkine's prophylactic against plague, or whether he accepts the conclusions of the Jenkins' Commission and of the Lister Institute as final; what action he proposes to take in regard to the further use of Dr. Haffkine's prophylactic, and, if it is to be employed in the future, to which standard will it be required to conform; and whether Dr. Haffkine is to be reinstated or not.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) After giving the case my careful attention
  946
  I am not prepared to institute another inquiry into a question which has been exhaustively examined by two impartial and independent bodies, and respecting which no conclusion can be arrived at with absolute certainty. The prophylactic continues to be manufactured at the Bombay plague laboratory. As is stated in the Government of India Press Notice, dated 13th December, 1904, the "Standard method "of preparing the fluid has been reverted to, the fluid being sterilised by methods approved by the Indian Plague Commission, and containing the requisite proportion of carbolic acid. The latest report of the laboratory states that inoculation is now extensively employed without any untoward results, and I do not propose to take any action with regard to it. Mr. Haffkine's position was explained in the Answer which I gave to the Question asked by the hon. Member on the 19th March, 1907. †If he elects to return to India he will be employed on research work at a salary equal to that of which he was in receipt when he left India.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Portsmouth Review.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty for how long the gunnery and other training establishments will be closed while the Home Fleet is mobilised for the review at Portsmouth.
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson, Dundee): According to custom, the gunnery and other training establishments will be closed for a month for the annual refit of material and leave for the instructional staff.

  Sea Lords and the Press.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the nature of the obligation and the rule or rules, if any, which regulate the communication to the public or the Press by the Sea Lords and their subordinates of information regarding the Navy, or of the views of all or any of them upon naval matters.
  †See (4) Debates, clxxi., 644.
  Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There are no regulations affecting the members of the Board. The conduct of subordinate naval officers is governed by the King's Regulations. There are, of course, the usual obligations of official secrecy.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Have these customary obligations been observed in the case of the First Sea Lord?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is an invidious Question which I decline to answer.

  The Home Fleet.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why, in view of the official statement that the Home Fleet could be made ready for sea in a few hours, it has been found necessary to inform the dockyards far in advance of the date of the mobilisation.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: His Majesty the King having intimated his gracious intention to inspect the Home Fleet, orders were given as soon as His Majesty's commands were received. This in no way conflicts with the fact that the Home Fleet could be made ready for sea in a few hours.
  MR. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that an Answer to the Question on the Paper?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  ''Dreadnought" Armaments.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to give the armament of the Japanese battleships "Satsuma" and "Aki," of 19,350 tons and 19,800 tons respectively, which are now building; and whether these battleships, which are the outcome of Japanese experience in the late war, carry armaments which support the departure from accepted practice which we have made in building the "Dreadnought," the distinctive feature of which is an armament exclusively of one type of heavy gun.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am not yet in a position to give any information respecting the armament of these battleships.

  Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that men are now being discharged from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, under what is called revision and not reduction, and the men are informed that they are not entitled to the bonus given to men who have served seven years or more on reduction; and will he consider what method can be adopted to enable men discharged on revision to obtain their bonus.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane, Haddington): I am glad that my hon. friend has called attention to this matter. A certain number of men who were taken on on temporary engagement during the pressure of the late war have been gradually discharged. But as the result of consultation with the Quartermaster. General I am glad to say that we think that no further discharges need take place in the Ordnance Department.
  MR. CROOKS: But these men are being discharged under what is called a revision instead of a reduction, and therefore get no bonus.
  MR. HALDANE: They were men temporarily taken on. I hope there will be no further discharges.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How far, approximately, would the £50,000 voted to Lord Cromer go in the direction of supplying a bonus to every one of these men?

  Duke of York's Military School.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any changes in the organisation of the Duke of York's Royal Military School are in contemplation; whether it is proposed to make any change in the method of conducting the examinations; whether the Army Council has decided that examinations are in future to be conducted by the teachers themselves, or whether external examiners will be employed either in association with the teachers or as independent examiners.
  MR. HALDANE: The Army Council, in the matter of examinations, as well as in the general system of instruction in the Duke of York's Royal Military School, are following, as far as practicable, the system in force in the civil schools of this country. In carrying out these changes, officials of the Board of Education have been consulted and have freely given the Council the benefit of their experience and assistance. But I agree with my hon. friend that it would be well to adopt the suggestion that external examiners should be associated with the teachers.

  Indian Salt Tax.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of recommending taxation of the luxuries of the rich in India with a view to the abolition of the salt tax, seeing that salt is a necessary of life in that country.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. Charles HobHouse, Bristol, E.): As stated by the Secretary of State a day or two ago the subject of the salt tax will continue to receive his closest attention.
  MR. HUNT: Was a workman punished for trying to extract a little salt out of the sea?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE:asked for notice.

  India and the Sugar Convention.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when it is expected that the representations sent to the Indian Government with regard to the Brussels Convention will be circulated among Members.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: They have been placed in the Library, as promised by the Secretary of State. I think this will meet the requirements of Members desirous of consulting the Papers.
  MR. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Can they not be circulated in the same way as the Colonial Office Papers were?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I should imagine there will be no difficulty.

  Panama Canal Labour.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies under what conditions labourers from Trinidad are engaged in the construction of the Panama Canal; whether provision has been made for the repatriation of the labourers at the expiration of their contracts at the expense of the importer; whether the labourers are accompanied by their wives and families; and what system of inspection is in force to see that the terms of engagement are fulfilled.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill, Manchester, N. W.): I can only refer the hon. Member to the Paper which has been laid and to the Answer which I have already given on this subject on Tuesday last. †

  Labour Inspection in the New Hebrides
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when His Majesty's Government expect to receive the Report of the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific on the character of the system of inspection and the number of inspectors required for the inspection of labourers employed by British subjects in the New Hebrides; and whether the Report will be issued to Members.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government doubt whether the High Commissioner's Report can reasonably be expected for some little time yet, as he will no doubt wish to consult the Resident Commissioner for the New Hebrides, between which islands and Fiji communication is slow. The question of publishing the Report will be considered when it is received.

  Orange River Colony Revaluation.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether this Government has received, either through the Governor of the Orange River Colony, or through an official of the Settlers' Union of the Orange River Colony, a Petition or Resolution in favour of the revaluation of farms; and, if so, what reply has been made.
  †See page762.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Various requests for revaluation were received last year from individuals, but nothing of the kind has reached the Secretary of State since the draft legislation for improving the position of settlers to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member of 23rd July was published. †

  Natal's War Contribution.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Natal has asked the Imperial authorities to refund Natal's contribution of £700,000 to the expenses of the late war; whether the Government has waived its claim to the Transvaal's promised war contribution of £30,000,000; and whether Natal has asked for the payment of the sum of £520,000 for rents and harbour dues incurred by the Imperial Government during the war, which were remitted by Natal, although similar charges were paid in neighbouring Colonies.
  MR. CHURCHLL: No such request has been received from the Natal Government.

  St. Helena Water Tax.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government can see its way to remove the water tax existing in St. Helena, which has a tendency to prevent ships from entering the port for water; will he also state how much revenue was derived during 1906 from this tax.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The charge for supplying water to ships at St. Helena has recently been reduced from 5s. to 2s. per ton of water supplied, and it is not considered possible to make any further reduction. The revenue derived from this source for the year 1906 amounted to £44 5s.

  Repatriation of Orange River Colony Burghers.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any portion, and, if so, how much, of the guarantee loan of £5,000,000 to the Orange River Colony is to be applied to the repatriation of
  †See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 1350.
  952
  the burghers and to compensation to burghers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member's Question is not understood in the form in which he has placed it on the Paper. No question has arisen of guaranteeing a loan of £5,000,000 to the Orange River Colony.

  Mauritius Council.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the protest made by the elected members of the Mauritius Council against the further retention in office of Mr. Cameron, the acting Colonial secretary, by reason of his reflections on the members of the Mauritius Civil Service; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what action in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: At the request of the Secretary of State, the Governor is sending home a full report in this matter, and Lord Elgin must await its receipt before determining on any action.

  Abolition of Slavery on the Zanzibar Coast Strip.
  SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how the amount of £40,000, which it is estimated will be required as compensation to owners of slaves in the Zanzibar Coast strip for loss occasioned by their emancipation during 1907–8 is arrived at; and what precautions will be taken to safeguard the Exchequer against fraudulent claims.
  MR. CHURCHILL: From a rough census made in 1901 it would appear that there were 15,039 slaves in the province of Seyidie and Tanaland at that time. The sum of £40,000 has been arrived at by assuming that the number of slaves has been reduced by enfranchisement or death to 10,000, and that the average cost of a slave is £4. The amount paid by Zanzibar for compensation—namely, £30,000—has also been taken as some guide by the local authorities. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, it is proposed to follow as closely as possible the procedure adopted in 1897 in Zanzibar and to enact an Ordinance

  953
  embodying mutatis mutandis the principles contained in Sultan Hamud's decree. The draft of the Ordinance is now under consideration.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Is not the amount proposed to be paid for each individual slave larger than has ever been paid before?
  MR. CHURCHILL'Sreply was inaudible.

  Kaid Sir Harry Maclean.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state the terms demanded by Raisuli for releasing Kaid Sir H. Maclean.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. Runciman, Dewsbury; for Sir Edward Grey): My right hon. friend is not in a position to make any addition to his reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for Blackpool on the 25th instant. †

  University College Grants.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury have now considered the Report of the permanent advisory committee on University college grants; and when the awards to the various colleges concerned will be made public.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. Asquith): The Answer is in the affirmative. The Report of the Committee and the Treasury Minute thereon have been laid on the Table, and will be distributed in the course of a few days.

  Beer Hawking in London.
  MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the practice of hawking beer from door to door in many districts in London and elsewhere; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of including in his forthcoming licensing legislation drastic provisions to put an end to this practice.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. Asquith): The practice of delivering beer at private houses from traders' vans in execution
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 131.
  954
  of orders previously received is widespread. Provided, however, orders for it have previously been given there is nothing illegal in the practice. It is of course probable that cases of genuine hawking occur, i.e., the delivery of beer to persons who have not previously ordered it. But the law is sufficiently strong to deal with such cases when detections can be made.

  Motor Bus Accidents.
  MR. T. DAVIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the accident to a motor omnibus on Sunday last, when many people were seriously and some dangerously injured; is he aware that lives are daily sacrificed owing to careless driving and imperfect mechanism of the motor omnibuses which run in the London streets; and whether he proposes to take measures to put a stop to this unnecessary sacrifice of human life and limb.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.):Inquiry is being made into the cause of this accident; but I may say that the omnibus in question is reported to have been well constructed and the driver has the reputation of being skilled and careful. The number of fatal accidents from motor-omnibuses is not so great as the hon. Member suggests. In the last three months (April to June) seven such accidents occurred. Everything that is possible is being done by the companies to devise means of preventing skidding.
  MR. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister if he was aware that when the Motor Act was brought in the Minister in charge stated that it was only a temporary measure. Was it proposed to introduce further legislation?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Canadian and Australian Customs.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the customs duties collected in Canada on imports from the United Kingdom amounted in the year 1905–6 to more

  955
  than £2,500,000, and that the customs duties collected in the Australian Commonwealth on imports from the United Kingdom amounted in 1906 to about £3,750,000, if he can say approximately what were the amounts of the duties collected in the United Kingdom on imports from Canada and the Australian Commonwealth respectively during the last financial year; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of obtaining such statistics as will show approximately the amount of the duties which are levied this year and in future years in the United Kingdom on goods imported from the various self-governing Colonies and from India.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, CARNARVON BOROUGHS): I must refer my hon. friend to the reply I gave to a Question put by him on the 30th April.† I am advised by the Commissioners of Customs that the results to be obtained from a compilation of the statistics to which he refers would not warrant the expenditure which would be involved. I hope, however, that the matter will be considered in the course of the autumn by the Committee for the revision of the Trade Accounts.

  Traders' Appeals to the Railway Commission.
  MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the frequency of cases in which traders have grievances against railway companies, but are unable to obtain redress owing to the great expense attending proceedings in the Court of the Railway and Canal Commission; and whether he has considered, or will consider, the propriety of appointing traffic inspectors, with powers to inquire and report in matters of rates, accommodation, and facilities, similar to the powers at present possessed by the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade in reference to engineering matters and public safety.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: As I have already stated in this House, I am fully aware of the desirability of securing as cheap and expeditious a means of dealing with traders' complaints as the circumstances of the case permit, and the whole
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiii., 674.
  956
  subject is engaging my earnest attention. I cannot, however, at present make any announcement as to the precise steps to be taken with this object, which would probably necessitate legislation.

  Unemployed Grant.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the £200,000 proposed as a grant for the unemployed will be expended this winter on the same objects and on the same general plan which was followed last year.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. John-Burns): It is proposed that generally the grant should be expended for the same purposes as last winter; but my right hon. friend is not at present in a position to say anything as to the details of the arrangements which will be made.

  Afforestation.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if any arrangements are being made for the continuance and extension of the work of afforestation commenced last year to find useful work for the unemployed.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. John Burns): Any proposals as to temporary work to be provided under the Unemployed Workmen Act are matters for the local bodies under that Act. My right hon. friend has no information at present as to how far schemes relating to afforestation may be contemplated by those bodies, but any such schemes, if submitted to him, will receive his sympathetic consideration.

  Sugar Beet Cultivation.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will apply a portion of the unemployed fund this year towards the encouragement of the culture of sugar beet and the erection of sugar mills in Lincolnshire and Suffolk, as that industry gives the maximum amount of employment during the growing period and also during the winter when the sugar is manufactured.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. John Burns): My right hon. friend does not think he can add anything to the Answer he gave to a similar Question by the hon.

  957
  Member on 7th March last.† As he then stated, it rests with the local bodies under the Unemployed Workmen Act to propose schemes of temporary work for the unemployed; but he added that he would not regard with favour a proposal that a factory for the manufacture of sugar should be established out of the grant.

  Hyde Postmen's Duties.
  MR. DUNCAN SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he received, in April last, a memorial from the postmen of the Hyde borough postal district asking for the withdrawal of rotating postal morning deliveries of letters in the said district; if so, whether a favourable answer can be given; and whether he is aware that public inconvenience has been caused owing to the uncertainty in the time of the delivery of letters consequent upon the changes in making the deliveries.
  CAPTAIN NORTONfor Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): The memorial from the Hyde postmen to which the hon. Member refers has received my right hon. friend's careful consideration, and the memorialists have been informed that he is unable to find any reasonable ground for objection to the system of rotation recently introduced at Hyde. The rotation admits of a more equal division of inconvenient duties, and he regards it as being fairer to the staff as a whole, and as lending itself to more efficient working. He is not aware that public inconvenience has been caused by the alteration.

  Training College Regulations.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under the training college Regulations, it will be allowable to interview the candidates for admission to a college; and, if so, what kind of questions, if any, may be put to a candidate at such interview.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (MR. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The new Regulations for training colleges do not prohibit an interview as distinguished from an examination. But if appeal were made to the Board by a candidate who had been
  †See (4) Debates, clxx., 977.
  958
  refused admission to a college, and if it should appear that the candidate had been questioned at an interview as to his religious belief, or as to any other matter which would come within those grounds which under the Regulations will not be deemed "reasonable," the Board would regard this as strong evidence that the refusal of admission had in such a case been made on improper grounds.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared on behalf of the Board of Education to distinguish between the oral examination and questions at an interview.
  MR. McKENNA: If by oral examination the noble Lord means an examination on the educational qualifications of the candidate I think it would be easy to make the distinction.

  Denominational Schools and the Grant.
  MR. FELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Wokingham Division of Berks, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether a denominational school now in course of construction (under a scheme formed by the Board of Education, and sealed on 21st December, 1905), with the assistance of a building grant from the local education authority, can when completed receive the higher grant without surrendering its denominational character if is declared necessary to the area under Article 43 of the Regulations.
  MR. McKENNA: Taking the Question in the very general form in which it is put to me and in the natural sense of the words, the answer is in the negative. But if the Question relates to the Ranelagh Foundation, Whitfield, the reply is that Article 43 only refers to secondary schools that have been on the grant list for the year 1906–7, which is not the case in that instance. As regards there being or not being anything in the scheme which would make it impossible for the school to comply with the regulations to be fulfilled for receiving the higher grant, I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on Thursday last. ‡
  ‡See (4) Debates, clxxix., 142.

  Merionethshire Voluntary School Teachers' Salaries.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Merionethshire local education authority in withholding from the teachers in the voluntary schools their salaries till after the holidays, though the teachers in the council schools are paid before the holidays; and what steps he proposes to take in order to bring to an end a state of things which, by destroying harmony of administration, necessarily militates against the efficiency of the non-provided schools.
  MR. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the noble Lord himself has been good enough to call my attention to this matter. I deeply regret that any teachers should be subjected to hardship owing to the anomalous conditions imposed by the Act of 1902, and I am communicating with the local education authority on the subject.
  LORD R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the teachers in the voluntary schools in the county have not received their salaries for the quarter ended 30th June; that the schools are now closed for the holidays, and the teachers are not able to take advantage of the holidays owing to their salaries not having been paid; and whether this is part of what is known as the Welsh revolt, a policy of petty persecution, inaugurated by the President of the Board of Trade?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The last Question of the noble Lord would not, I think, have passed the examiners at the Table.
  MR. YOXALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the local authority to pay the salaries at the earliest possible date?
  MR. McKENNA: The Act of 1902 is somewhat obscure as to the powers of the Board of Education and the local education authority in relation to certain matters, and I am not quite certain what the powers are in this respect. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord, I have nothing further to add.
  LORD R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the
  960
  duty of the local education authority to secure the due efficiency of the schools, and whether it is possible that the due efficiency of schools can be secured so long as teachers are treated in this way?
  MR. McKENNA: Yes, Sir It is part of the duty of the local education authority to maintain the efficiency of a school; but what is efficiency and how far the interpretation of that word by my predecessor affects the present state of things I cannot say.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Are we to understand that these voluntary school teachers were not paid their salaries due on 30th June, that in consequence many were not able to take their holidays, and that the Board of Education declares its inability to find any remedy for such a state of things?
  MR. McKENNA: No, Sir, I have not said that. The right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, unaware that the teachers are primarily the servants of the managers, and are at perfect liberty to recover their salaries from the managers and can sue the managers for their salaries. There is no doubt that the managers could recover the amount they would have to pay from the local education authority. There is the remedy, and that remedy can be taken by the teachers themselves.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman says that the Board of Education has no duty in the matter, and that the teachers are to be left in the impossible situation of suing the managers?
  MR. McKENNA: I have already stated that the Act of 1902 contains many anomalous provisions. Amongst these is the extraordinary one that the local education authority is to pay the teachers, but not to appoint them. The responsibility for the payment of the teachers rests upon the managers. The local education authority has ultimately to pay, but the teachers have to look immediately, not to the local education authority, but to the managers.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman admits that under the Act the local education authority has the obligation to pay the teachers. It is admitted

  961
  also that there is default in these payments. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he is powerless to enforce that payment?
  MR. McKENNA: I do not say that. Ultimately the local managers can enforce payment; but it. is not quite clear at what stage they can do so. The teacher is primarily the servant of the managers,
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Board of Education will do their utmost to get these salaries paid at once?
  MR. McKENNA: I have already replied to the Question on the Paper, and I will repeat it if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I deeply regret that any teacher should be subjected to any hardship owing to the anomalous conditions imposed by the Act of 1902, and I am communicating with the local education authority on the subject.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say Yes or No to the Question whether the Board will do their best to get these salaries paid at once?
  MR. McKENNA: I have already said that I have replied fully to the Question on the Paper.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I must press the right hon. Gentleman. He has said he is communicating with the local education authority. Does that communication contain an intimation from him that they should pay these teachers at once?
  MR. McKENNA: When the correspondence between myself and the local education authority is complete I shall be happy to make any communication on the subject.
  LORD R. CECIL: I will call attention to the matter again on Monday.

  Patent Appeals.
  MR. LIDDELLI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General how many patent appeals are at present awaiting a hearing; what is the date of the notice of appeal in the longest outstanding case;
  962
  and what are the reasons for the delay in these cases.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir John Walton, Leeds, S.)said that there were 15 patent appeals awaiting hearing; that the date of the longest outstanding appeal was 11th December, 1906, but that some entered since had been already heard, and that he could not give details as to the reasons.

  Dog Poisoning in Sutherlandshire.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the procurator fiscal intends to take any action to discover and prosecute the dog poisoners in the neighbourhood of Skelbo, Sutherlandshire; and whether he is aware that this dog poisoning in the Highlands of Scotland is carried on entirely in the interest of game preserving.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair, Forfarshire): The matter is in the hands of the criminal authorities. I have no information on the latter portion of my hon. friend's Question.
  MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have done my best to inform myself.
  MR. MORTON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if the statement in my Question is correct?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have obtained no evidence so far.

  Crofters and Ground Game.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the crofters in the crofting districts under The Crofters Act, 1886, have the use and benefit of The Ground Game Act, 1881.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW, Hawick Burghs): The Ground Game Act, 1880, applies to "every occupier of land" and therefore to a crofter. There is no Ground Game Act, 1881.

  Stornoway and Carloway Road.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Congested Districts Board

  963
  can see their way to provide the funds requisite for the completion of the road between Stornoway and Carloway, Island of Lewis.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Congested Districts Board are not at present prepared to provide the very large sum required to complete this road.

  Shader (Lewis) Landing-place.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the plans for the proposed works at the landing-place at Shader, Island of Lewis, which were forwarded to him by the Ross-shire County Council in February last, have yet been approved by the Board of Trade; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Board of Trade have intimated that they have decided to proceed with this application and are in communication with the county council.

  Dog-Poisoning in Boss-shire.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the procurator fiscal has yet seen his way to take action with a view to bring to justice the person or persons responsible for the numerous cases of dog poisoning in the Kilmuir and Logie districts of Ross-shire.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The procurator fiscal at Tain reports that he has given this matter attention, that the police are still actively pursuing their investigations, but so far no evidence sufficient to warrant proceedings against any person has been obtained.
  MR. WEIR: I am sorry to hear it.

  Balinakill Burial Ground.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether a new site for a burial ground at Balinakill, in the parish of Uig, Island of Lewis, has yet been prepared for interments; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am informed that a new site has been selected and is ready for interments.

  River Deel—Askeaton Weir.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Vice-President
  964
  of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he can say whether he will institute an inquiry into the necessity for a queen's gap in the weir in the River Deel at Askeaton, in the county of Limerick, so that the salmon may have easy access to the upper reaches of the river; and, if so, whether those interested in fishing may give evidence at it.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.): The Department fail to see the utility of such an inquiry, as they have no power to compel any alteration to be made in the weir referred to; but if those interested in the fisheries of this river can make arrangements with the present occupier—such as by compensating her for the deterioration of her fishery which would most probably result from carrying out the desired alterations—the Department will give any assistance they can in the matter.
  MR. JOYCE: Cannot the hon. Gentleman see his way to holding the inquiry into the fishery of the Shannon promised by the late Chief Secretary?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked for notice of the Question.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this weir being perpendicular, fish cannot get to the upper regions of the river? What steps will be taken to remove the complaints in regard to this?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department have no legal power in the matter.
  MR. JOYCE: Cannot it order an inquiry?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes, but no result could possibly follow.
  MR. JOYCE: We will look to Parliament for that.

  Police Protection at Newmarket.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case of Mr. Owen Daly. Meelin, Newmarket, and the establishment of a police hut,

  965
  whether he is aware that Mr. Daly wrote on the 6th May last to District Inspector O'Neil asking that the police escort should not accompany him on private or public business; and, in regard to the extra police in this peaceable district, are the constabulary authorities entitled to quarter extra police, involving extra cost to the ratepayers, on a district on their own motion without reference to public opinion and in opposition to the resolutions of the local district councils.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. BIRRELL, BRISTOL, N.): It is the fact that Mr. Daly wrote to the district inspector asking that the police should not accompany him to fairs and markets. The danger, however, lies nearer home, and the police authorities, who are responsible for the peace of the district, were of opinion that the police who are employed in protecting Daly at home could not safely be withdrawn. The inspector-general informs me that the subject is again receiving his attention, and he will have the police removed at the earliest possible moment consistent with the man's safety.

  Viceregal Commission on the Poor Law.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board propose to take any steps to carry out such recommendations of the Viceregal Commission on the Poor Law as do not require legislation; and, in particular, whether it is intended to build any sanatoria for the treatment of consumption, or to adapt for the purpose any existing buildings.
  MR. BIRRELL: If the local authorities concerned should desire that effect may be given to any particular recommmendations of the Viceregal Commission which can be carried out under the existing law, the Local Government Board will give prompt and favourable consideration to the matter. Sanatoriums for consumption can be provided under the existing law with the assent of the district councils. I may add that the Government are anxious that such administrative changes as can be now made should be undertaken without delay, and are considering what steps may be taken with that object.

  Maryborough Assault Case—Mr. Thomas L. Hodgins, J.P.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the Maryborough, Queen's County, Petty Sessions on Tuesday, 2nd instant, when a man named Thomas L. Hodgins, who is the occupier of an evicted farm at Cullinagh, Queen's County, was convicted for assaulting and wounding a man with a whip on the public road; whether this Thomas L. Hodgins is a magistrate for King's County; and will his conduct be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. BIRRELL: At the petty sessions referred to Mr. Hodgins, J.P., and Michael Bowe each prosecuted the other. Mr. Hodgins charged Bowe with using abusive language to him, and Bowe charged Mr. Hodgins with striking him with a whip as he drove past. Mr. Hodgins was fined 2s. 6d., and the charge against Bowe was dismissed. Mr. Hodgins has held an evicted farm for the past twenty-five years, and Bowe lives near the farm. It has not been considered necessary to bring the matter to the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

  Police and Cattle Driving.
  MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware if it is part of the duty of the police in Ireland to herd the cattle on the lands occupied by planters and eleven-months men; can he say in what parts of Queen's County this duty has been imposed on the police; how many police are engaged on this work in the sub-district of Ballinakill; and will the services of the police be given generally to the farmers whose cattle may break fence and stray from their owner's land.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is not the duty of the police to act as herdsmen, and the police authorities inform me that the police have not been so employed in Queen's County or elsewhere. In the sub-district of Ballinakill police patrols have from time to time visited a farm from which the cattle had been driven. In so doing the police were performing

  967
  their ordinary duty of giving protection I where it is needed.
  MR. DELANYasked if he could have the assistance of a few Royal Irish Constabulary to look after his cattle?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid not.

  Abbleyleix Outrage Report.
  MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of an outrage at Abbeyleix, Queen's County, in which it was stated that a two-year old filly was disembowelled and left to die in agony; whether a claim for malicious injury was made by the owner of the animal; and, if the claim was investigated by the County Court Judge on the 20th June last, can he say what was the result of the investigation.
  MR. BIRRELL: The alleged malicious injury referred to in the Question was investigated by the local police, who formed the opinion that the injury had probably resulted from an accident. The owner made a claim for compensation for malicious injury, but the County Court Judge disallowed it, as he too came to the conclusion that the horse was accidently killed.
  MR. DELANYasked if this alleged outrage had not been published in the Press and could not the right hon. Gentleman get the denial as widely circulated.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he hoped the papers would give equal publicity to his reply.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Send it to Lord Ashtown's libel agency.

  Commissioners of National Education.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government have the power to call for the resignation of any or all of the Commissioners of National Education on the grounds of old age or other unfitness to perform the duties of the office.
  MR. BIRRELL: Under the terms of the Supplemental Charter of 1861 each of the Commissioners of National Education
  968
  in Ireland holds office during the pleasure of the Lord-Lieutenant.
  MR. MURPHYwas understood to inquire if some of these Commissioners ought not to be called on to retire on account of age.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that that was a most delicate question. He was not aware that any of them were incapable by reason of old age of discharging their duties.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: They could not be a worse body than they are.

  Protestant Boys at Roman Catholic Schools at Belfast.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the results of the inquiries made by him in consequence of the information given him by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down with reference to two Protestant boys, William James Welsh and Samuel Welsh, who are at present detained, against the wishes of their father, in a Roman Catholic institution; and is he now prepared to have the boys restored to their father.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have ascertained that each of these boys was immediately after birth baptised in the religion then professed by their father William Welsh, namely, that of Roman Catholic. At a later date each of the boys appears to have been baptised according to the rites of the Protestant Church. Upon hearing from the hon. Member for East Down that the father was residing at Ballydonnell, I directed that inquiries should be made from the man himself as regards the application which purported to have been made on his behalf. In the meantime Welsh had left Ballydonnell. I have since received from William Welsh's mother a letter, dated Belfast, 28th July, stating that her son, the father of the boys, was staying with her, and that he did not wish the boys to be removed from the industrial school, as he had changed his mind, and further that he had written to that effect to the hon. Member who puts the present Question and also to the solicitor who made the application for the boys' discharge. Welsh appears to be of somewhat uncertain mind as regards his religious belief,

  969
  and I do not propose to do anything in the matter until I have succeeded in having inquiries made from him personally.

  Cattle Driving near Killarney.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether information has reached him of a case of cattle driving at Coolcuslough Mountain, near Killarney, on Sunday evening 21st July, when the farmer, in his efforts to protect his stock, was set upon by about twenty members of the United Irish League armed with sticks, knocked down, and otherwise assaulted; whether adequate police protection is being afforded to farmers in that neighbourhood; and, if not, will he take steps to arm famers in like circumstances for protection from such assaults.
  MR. BIRRELL: It has been reported to the police that nine head of cattle were driven off the mountain referred to on the 21st instant, and that two of the owners of the cattle were assaulted. The police are informed that, with the exception of one of the owners, none of the persons concerned are members of the United Irish League. The case had no connection with the agitation against the grazing system. Up to the present there has been no necessity for giving police protection to farmers in this district, but if occasion should arise full protection will be afforded.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: If the outrage was not due to the grazing agitation, what was the motive for it?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have information which I do not think I am justified in giving, but the police are satisfied there are other causes. Generally speaking the district is of a peaceable character.

  Benmore (Galway) Outrage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the night of the 21st instant, Thomas Corcoran, of Benmore, near Bullaun, county Galway, while returning from his fathers house to his own, was fired at by at least two persons, who were concealed on either side of the road; that Corcoran was seriously wounded in the back, legs, and arm, and now lies in a serious condition in his father's house; and
  970
  whether, seeing that Corcoran was boycotted for retaining a farm which he had obtained from the Estates Commissioners and which the local branch of the United Irish League had ordered him to surrender, he will say whether this is considered by the police to be the motive for the attack, and what steps have been taken by the police.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that Thomas Corcoran was fired at and severely wounded, but I am glad to learn that he is making a good recovery. Three persons have been arrested for the offence, and while the proceedings are pending it would be irregular to make any statement as to the details of the case.

  Borrisokane Cattle Driving Prosecution.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether a force of 400 police are to be drafted into the town of Borrisokane, in the county of Tipperary, on the 7th August next, the day on which a number of persons will be tried at petty session there for driving cattle off the untenanted and grazing land in the district; and, if so, whether, seeing that the fact of such a force of police being there will only tend to exasperate the people instead of keeping the peace, he will take steps, under these circumstances, to keep the extra force of police away from the town on that day.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of policemen to be employed on the occasion in question has not yet been determined, but the police authorities will send a sufficient force to preserve the peace and keep order in the Court and its vicinity. The responsibility for preserving the peace rests with the police authorities, and I do not propose to interfere with their discretion in the matter. The hon. Member may rest assured that the police will not interfere with the people unless interference should be absolutely necessary.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act-Advances under Clause 19.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any labourers holding cottages and allotments of land from rural district councils have obtained advances for the purchase of

  971
  parcels of land, under Clause 19 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906; will he explain how, in case such labourers maybe declared eligible for advances from the Estates Commissioners, they are to be provided with residences and suitable farm buildings; have the Estates Commissioners the necessary power to expend money for these purposes; and, if not, will he state how Clause 19 of the Labourers Act is to be made workable.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. Applications have been received from labourers for parcels of land on estates which have not yet been sold, and these will be duly considered by the Estates Commissioners when distributing the untenanted land on such estates. The Commissioners would appear to have power, under Section 12 of the Act of 1903, to make grants for building purposes in such cases, but having regard to the limited amount of money in the Reserve Fund, and to other claims upon that fund, it does not seem probable that in the exercise of their discretion the Commissioners will be able to make grants to labourers who may receive parcels of land.

  Sir Percy FitzPatrick.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask whether the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has seen the report of the attack made upon him in the Transvaal Parliament by Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, and whether, in view of the great weight which attaches to Sir Percy's words, he will give it the answer which it deserves.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, I think my bust answer would be silence.

  Irish Teachers and the Workmen's Compensation Act
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education will be put in funds to undertake the payment of teachers' premiums under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to add to my Answer of the 17th instant, †
  †See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 673.
  MR. SLOAN: Am I to understand that the managers of the schools are held responsible?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, they are legally liable.

  Irish. Labourers Acts Loans.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say when the Local Loans Bill will be taken; and whether it is his intention to insert a clause in it allowing the rural district councils in Ireland to repay the outstanding loans in connection with the Labourers (Ireland) Acts at 3¼ per cent., principal and interest, in the period of 68½ years.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot fix the precise date, and thinks it would be premature to make any announcement as to the details of the proposals for dealing with the loans referred to, until the Bill is introduced.

  Irish Trade Statistics.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can explain the reason of the delay in circulating the list of Irish imports and exports for 1905, seeing that they were laid upon the Table of the House on the 22nd instant.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: This Paper will be circulated, I understand, on Friday next.

  Emigration from Ireland.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that posters and other advertisements are exhibited in Irish post offices, encouraging persons to emigrate from Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that two costly Government Departments, namely, the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture, have been brought into existence mainly for the purpose of checking emigration by the establishment of sound economic conditions, he will take stops to prevent his Department from being employed as an agency in the opposite direction.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. Sydney Buxton): Notices giving information to intending emigrants have been exhibited

  973
  at the request of the Colonial Office at all Post Offices in the United Kingdom for many years, and my right hon. friend sees no sufficient reason for discontinuing the practice.

  Ireland and the Special Reports on Educational Subjects.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to state the result of the representations made to the writer of Volume 17 of the Special Reports on Educational Subjects as to the unwarrantable reflection on Irish educational efforts made on page 118 of that volume; and whether the writer of the Report has taken any steps to acquaint himself with the work of the Gaelic League in proceeding on lines similar to those adopted by Bishop Grundtvig in instituting the Danish people's high schools, of which this writer approves so highly.
  MR. McKENNA: Copies of the Questions and Answers relating to this matter were sent to, the writer of the Report referred to who has duly acknowledged them. I have no information as to the second paragraph of the Question.
  MR. BOLAND: Has the writer denied the accuracy of my statement or otherwise?
  MR. McKENNA: I gather that in acknowledging the receipt of the Questions and Answers, he said he did not agree with the views of the hon. Gentleman, but he has made no representation to ma on the subject.

  Conferment of Honours.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will advise His Majesty that, in all creations of peerages and baronetcies, the public services for which such honours are conferred shall be set out it the patents, as is done in the case of warrants for the order of the Victoria Cross.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): There are particular reasons why this course should be taken in the case of the Victoria Cross, which is always conferred
  974
  for some specified act of bravery, but it would be impossible to extend this practice to all cases of the conferment of honours.
  MR. MARKHAM: Would there be any difficulty whatever in taking this course when men like Lord Kelvin receive their patents?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It would be difficult to express it fully.
  MR. LEA:Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in all cases the purchase price should be engrossed?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Second Ballots.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce legislation dealing with the question of second ballots, so that a clear majority of the electors voting in any constituency can return to this House the candidate they desire to elect; and whether he is aware that the Member for Jarrow recently received less than a third of the total votes polled and the Member for the Colne Valley 35 per cent. of the total votes polled.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have nothing to add to the statement I made in answer to a similar Question on 11th July. †

  Civil Servants' Grievances.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he would consider the propriety of inquiring into the possibility of instituting a tribunal to which civil servants could refer their grievances, due regard being given to the necessary discipline which must be maintained throughout the service.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member's suggestion is, I am sure, put forward with the best intentions, but I am disposed to think that the tribunal which he has in his mind would fail to secure the very objects that he desires. I conceive that it would give rise to grave departmental and interdepartmental friction, that it would tend
  †See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 63–4.

  975
  to hamper the action or impair the responsibility of Ministers, and that it would add a further element of confusion to the whole question. I am afraid, therefore, that I am unable to hold out any hope to the hon. Member of his suggestion being adopted.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make any proposal next year for an improvement on the present state of things?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:"Next year" is a very wide term.

  Pensions for Public Services.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the Acts 23 Geo. 3, c. 86, and 33 Geo. 3, c. 77, whereby an annuity of £2,000 has been conferred on all and every the heirs to whom the title of Lord Rodney shall descend; whether he is aware that to date the nation has paid seven holders of this title £248,000; and whether he can promise that the Government will bring in a Bill to end this annuity.
  I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the letters patent dated 22nd December, 8 Will. 3, to the letters patent dated 29th June, 1715, and Acts 1 Geo. 1, No. 78, and 19 and 20 Vic, c. 59, whereby a pension of £2,880 net was conferred on the heirs of the Duke of Schomberg; whether he is aware that this pension has been reduced by commutations in 1855, 1876, 1877, and 1883, until at the present time £720 still continues to be paid to the heirs of this individual; will he state the amount to date that has been paid by the public to the heirs under these letters patent and Acts, including the capital amounts paid under the commutations dated above and the names of those heirs to-day to whom the £720 is paid, specifying the amounts paid to each; and whether he will give this House an assurance that he will introduce a short Bill next session to end this annuity.
  I beg further to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the Act, 46 Geo. III., c. 146, whereby an annuity of £5,000 has been conferred on such persons to whom the title of Earl Nelson shall
  976
  descend; that this annuity was in addition to a sum of £120,000 as a further provision for the family of the said Earl Nelson; whether he is aware that under this Act the nation has paid the Nelson family £625,000 to date; and whether he can give an assurance that next year this Government will bring in a short Bill to end this annuity.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:As these three questions involve a considerable number of figures I propose to circulate the reply with the Votes. †
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the family of the Duke of Schomberg have never resided in this country, and that they have even refused a sixpence towards the monument to their great ancestor in St. Patrick's Cathedral?
  MR. LEA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that next year he will introduce a Bill to put an end to these feudal anomalies?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is well known that there have been attempts, successful attempts in some instances, to deal with these annual charges in past years, and the financial authorities of the country are always ready to take that course whenever opportunity offers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although Nelson was given immense sums of money his daughter was left to die in poverty and destitution?
  [No Answer was returned.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked as to the business for Friday and Monday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that the first Order on Friday would be the Third Reading of the Evicted Tenants Bill. Afterwards other Bills would be taken if time permitted. He must ask the right hon. Gentleman to restrain his inquisitiveness as to Monday until the next day.
†See page 937.

THE GRANT TO LORD CROMER.
*MR. MARKHAMasked the Speaker whether a breach of privilege was not committed on the previous day, when the House of Lords expressed concurrence in a money grant to Lord Cromer before the matter had been discussed in the House of Commons. Must not all Money Bills originate in the House of Commons?
*MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that any Money Bill has been introduced or even contemplated in the House of Lords. I have no authority or control over the proceedings of the other House. I notice in the journal of the proceedings of the House of Lords that the House passed an Address expressing thanks to His Majesty and concurrence. I do not see that that gives me any locus standi or this House any cause of complaint.
MR. MARKHAM: The House of Lords concurred in a Resolution which had not been passed by this House.
*MR. SPEAKER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The House of Lords' Journal says, "His Majesty's most gracious message of Wednesday last considered, according to order, a humble Address of thanks and concurrence ordered nemine contradicente to be presented to his Majesty thereupon." I do not see that is any breach of our privileges.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The Resolution passed was one savouring of a money transaction, and I submit with great respect it was a breach of privilege. Every money grant has been initiated by this House since 1678, but in this case the Resolution was passed first in the House of Lords. The Peers surely cannot con cur in a Resolution which has not been passed.
MR. SPEAKER: I am quite clear that no breach of privilege has been committed, and if we were to attempt to insist on a non-existent right we should only make ourselves ridiculous.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As the Lords have done.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill):—Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Barrie, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Charles Craig, Sir Samuel Scott, Mr. Nield, Mr. Staveley-Hill, Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Hills, Mr. Thomas Frederick Richards, Mr. John Ward, Sir Randal Cremer, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. M'Killop, and Mr. Trevelyan.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the capacity of Women to be elected and act as Members of County or Town Councils in Scotland." [Qualification of Women (County and Town Councils) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Motion made, and Question put, "That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 352.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Boland, John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bowerman, C. W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Branch, James

Cleland, J. W.

Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Brigg, John

Clough, William

Beauchamp, E.

Bright, J. A.

Clynes, J. R.

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Benn,SirJ.Williams (Devonp't)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Byles, William Pollard

Cooper, G. J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cox, Harold

Jordan, Jeremiah

Reddy, M.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jowett, F. W.

Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

Crombie, John William

Joyce, Michael

Rendall, Athelstan

Crooks, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

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

Crossley, William J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Richardson, A.

Curran, Peter Francis

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Ridsdale, E. A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Delany, William

Lambert, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dewar,Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.

Robertson, Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside)

Donelan, Captain A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, S.

Duffy, William J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lough, Thomas

Runciman. Walter

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lupton, Arnold

Russell, T. W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Erskine, David C.

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shackleton, David James

Everett, R. Lacey

Maclean, Donald

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Fenwick, Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sheehy, David

Ferens, T. R.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sherwell, Arthur James

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Macpherson, J. T.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

French, Peter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.

Stanger, H. Y.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Crae, George

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Gill, A. H.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Steadman, W. C.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

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

Summerbell, T.

Glover, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Gooch, George Peabody

Maddison, Frederick

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Gulland, John W.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thorne, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marnham, F. J.

Tillett, Louis John

Hazleton, Richard

Menzies, Walter

Tomkinson, James

Helme, Norval Watson

Molteno. Percy Alport

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Ure, Alexander

Henry, Charles S.

Mooney, J. J.

Walsh, Stephen

Higham, John Sharp

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Hodge, John

Murnaghan, George

Wason,Rt Hn.E(Clackmannan

Hogan, Michael

Murphy, John

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Holt, Richard Durning

Myer, Horatio

Waterlow, D. S.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Napier, T. B.

Weir, James Galloway

Hudson, Walter

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Whitbread, Howard

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Idris, T. H. W.

Nolan, Joseph

Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Jenkins, J.

Radford. G. H.

Mr. Whiteley and Captain

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Raphael, Herbert H.

'Norton.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craik, Sir Henry

Remnant, James Farquharson

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Staveley-Hill,Henry (Staff'sh.)

Balcarres, Lord

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Stone, Mr Benjamin

Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hunt, Rowland

Thornton, Percy M.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Liddell, Henry

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Parkes, Ebenezer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A. (Wor.

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Viscount Valentia.

Courthone, G. Loyd

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim.S.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

SUPPLY [19TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,549,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908."
*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee)said it might be convenient to make a short statement on this Vote. The House was familiar with the dangers that had been discovered lurking in the composition of cordite, and the serious prospect which that fact opened up both for the Army and the Navy. The development of knowledge was comparatively recent as to the law which governed the composition of cordite. Since the Estimates were framed, however, that law had been more fully ascertained, and in his ignorance he would only state that if the condition of cordite did not vary according to the temperature at which it was stored, at least it depended on the temperature. After the Estimates were framed the Admiralty had to deal with the matter on their own responsibility. They had decided to apply cooling apparatus to the magazines in which cordite was stored in all the ships of the Navy. They proposed to deal first with the ships on hot stations or those about to proceed to hot stations. In the second place, they would apply the new system to all ships under construction or undergoing large refits; and, lastly, they would deal with the remaining ships in the Navy as opportunity occurred. Shortly after the decision of the Admiralty a Committee of scientific experts was appointed to report on the whole subject, under the presidency of Lord Rayleigh, and that Committee unanimously approved of the course which the Admiralty had adopted. It, had been decided to test all cordite on the most extensive scale possible. It
982
had also been decided that the oldest cordite in our possession should be the first to be used, and. finally, all cordite that had been long at hot stations, or on which suspicion was cast, would be destroyed. The same thing would have to be done with magazines on shore in certain places, but not, of course, at Gibraltar or Malta, where additional refrigerating apparatus was not required. The designs and plans for dealing with the shore stations were not yet in a forward condition, and nothing could be done in regard to them which would require to be paid for in the present financial year. It was estimated that the total cost of supplying cooling apparatus to magazines on ships was £500,000, and the estimated expenditure in the current financial year for this purpose would be £200,000.
The second topic on which he desired to say a few words was the programme relating to destroyers, on account of observations made both in and outside the House. The first thing he had to say was that it was the opinion of the Board of Admiralty that the two-Power standard was not applicable to the destroyer section of the British Navy—whether the two-Power standard or any other did not matter. The number of destroyers wanted depended on the use that was to be made of them, and not on the. number which might be in possession of other Powers. Historically the destroyer was intended mainly as a weapon of attack against torpedo boats. In explaining the policy which had led to the adoption of the ocean-going destroyer fit for service at sea, he said that our requirements were determined on strategical grounds by the naval advisers of the Board of Admiralty. It was said that the provision this year was adequate. No hard and fast age limit was recognised, but the 27-knot destroyers were wearing out. There was also a steady annual output, the supply being five ocean-going destroyers and twelve coastal destroyers, or as they were now called turbine torpedo boats. He had obtained from the experts at the Admiralty a comparative statement as to the strength of destroyers here and abroad. Counting the coastal destroyers, he found that' France had sixty-five torpedo boat destroyers, built, building, or projected, Germany eighty-three, and Great Britain

983
191. He was advised that, on the whole, the British flotilla of destroyers was superior in essential qualities to those of foreign Powers. The next point upon which he was going to say a word or two would be of more interest than the last and had reference to the cruiser policy of the Board of Admiralty. It had been said that their programme showed that they were in default in regard to cruisers, and he wanted the House to know what the position was. They were in no default. The total provision made for new construction was £8,100,000, and he had had a careful calculation made which showed that there was a cash provision going to cruiser construction amounting to £2,800,000 or more than a third of the whole sum. The vessels building included three "Invincibles," and each of them would cost nearly £1,730.000, nearly double what they cost in the old days. Then came the three cruisers of the "Minotaur" class, each costing £1,400,000. Next came four cruisers of the "Warrior" class, and the "Achilles," "Natal," "Cochrane," and "Warrior" had now passed into the Navy and had taken their position in the northern division of the Home Fleet. Each of these cruisers cost £1,200,000. The only remaining cruiser was the new departure sanctioned last year, the "Boadicea." She was to cost £350,000. It would be seen from this statement that the cruiser policy of the Board which preceded the present Board and of the present Board itself had been to build large armoured cruisers. That was the outstanding feature of the programme. The object having been attained in establishing our required lead and superiority in this type of vessel, the Board were now free to turn, and were turning, their attention to other cruiser types—one type an improvement on the "Scout" class, the other a type necessary for replacing the "Edgar" class. The "Boadicea" type of about 3,500 tons displacement might be designated as a third-class cruiser largely superior in coal endurance and armament to the "Scout" class and with high speed. The other type under consideration was required to take the place of the "Edgar" class, which were becoming worn out and were held no longer to satisfy later requirements as to speed, armament, and coal endurance. These types would be carefully studied with a view to their
984
inclusion in next year's programme. The only other topic with which he wished to deal had bulked largely in public discussion outside the House, and that was the topic of repairs. It had been alleged that the repairs of the Fleet had been neglected, especially in the Home Fleet and in the special service vessels. In the second place it was said that this was due to the advent of a cheeseparing Liberal Government. In the third place, it was said that this policy had culminated in excessive discharges from the dockyards. He proposed to deal with those allegations in the order that they affected him most. All these charges affected him personally as Secretary to the Admiralty, because in matters of naval policy he was on the side of the repairers, and would rather keep the Fleet in repair than buy new vessels. As to the charge of parsimony, the figures he would give were not meant to institute invidious comparisons, but to repel them. In 1905–6, the last year before the present Government came into office, the provision for the repairs of the Fleet amounted to £2,019,515; but the actual expenditure fell short of that amount by £437,355. In the year 1906–7, when the present Government took over lock, stock, and barrel the Naval Estimates of the outgoing Government, which were found in a complete form, the provision made for repairs was £1,628,100; but the new Board spent £282,900 more than that amount. That was the cheeseparing. In the present financial year the provision was raised to £1,800,198, or £172,000 more than in the previous year, and up-to-date the Admiralty had overspent themselves to the extent of £44,250. The expenditure now proposed for repairs was, in this instance, larger than that which was proposed by the responsible professional officers, because he was determined to be on the safe side in respect to repairs, and at his suggestion the sum was considerably increased. He was not blaming the expenditure of former years, but merely vindicating the present Board when he repelled the injurious comparisons that had been made. With respect to the Home Fleet, early this year a special circular order was addressed to the Commander-in-Chief directing him to report once a quarter the state of his fleet

985
in regard to repairs. That circular order would in due course be extended to the other fleets. He had a synopsis of the reports made under this circular order with regard to the Home Fleet, Of battleships ready there were six at the Nore, three at Portsmouth, and two at Devon-port. The only battleships not ready were the "Glory" (refitting at Portsmouth) and the "Cæsar" (refitting at Devonport). Of the armoured cruisers there were reported "ready, no defects," six at the Nore, three at Portsmouth, and three at Devonport. The one not ready was the "Cumberland," which was being prepared as a cadets' seagoing cruiser. Of the first-class cruisers there were ready, with no defects, three at Portsmouth and three at Devonport. The "Argonaut" and the "Terrible," at Portsmouth, were not ready, and the "Europa" was refitting at Devonport. Of the second-class cruisers all were ready, three at the Nore, three at Portsmouth, and two at Devonport. The special service vessels, which had been the object of special attacks, consisted of eleven battleships and ten cruisers laid up with skeleton crews. All the battleships were reported ready at five days notice; of the five first-class cruisers, all were ready at five days notice, except the "Hawk," which was refitting; of the four second-class cruisers one only, which was being refitted as a mine layer, was not ready. That was a satisfactory statement, and he would complete it by reading the result of the answers given to certain questions by the officers responsible for the repairs of the Navy. They amounted to this. The fleets in commission fully manned were in excellent condition. A few vessels in the Home Fleet were becoming due for refit in ordinary course, and it was much more economical to keep these vessels in commission with nucleus crews than it was to put them in the old Dockyard Reserve, as was done before the present organisation was adopted. The special service vessels were all in good condition and ready for service, except those actually in dockyard hands (two in number). Provision had been made in the Naval Estimates for this year for thoroughly re-fitting all vessels which required it when the Estimates were framed, and this work would be taken
986
in hand during the year. The normal progress had in a few cases been slightly impeded by unexpected defects and accidents in important vessels, which were taken in hand and made good in preference to those in vessels of less importance. With this exception, the programme of repairs was progressing quite satisfactorily, and the money voted for repairs was being most economically applied, and with better results than before. The alterations and improvements, including fire-control, in details of comfort and fighting efficiency, were more extensive than at any previous period, and were being carried out without delay.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the same information could be given with regard to destroyers as with regard to cruisers.
*MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that it could not be given in the same detail. The last point in this indictment was that, in order to bring about this nefarious cheeseparing policy, the present Board of Admiralty had had to sacrifice the working man and to make discharges from the dockyards. He did not wish in this matter to make any reflections on the late Board of Admiralty. No man knew better than he how difficult was this question of the dockyards. In the nine months preceding December, 1905, and before the present Government came into office, the number of discharges from all causes, including deaths and natural wastage, was 6,733. In the period since they came into office, about eighteen months, there had been no discharges, but actually a small addition to the number of men employed in the dockyards, the number of additions being 171. A number of false and irresponsible statements had been made about this subject, and he was anxious to make the position clear. He was not making any charge against the late Government for having reduced the number of men by 6,733, as there might have been good reason for the discharges; it had made the work of the present Government easier, and removed the necessity for further discharges. He, however, strongly protested against the misstatements that the Navy had been allowed to go to rot and

987
ruin because this "cheeseparing Government" would not provide the money and men necessary. He hoped the House would not think that he had spoken with undue heat. He was merely apologising for any temper he had shown in his statement on account of the provocation which he had received, out of the House at all events. He had never thought that he would live to see the day when he would be grateful, as he was grateful, for the existence of the National Navy League. He had not hitherto agreed with their policy, but he was on the other side now. Within the Navy League there was a "Navier" league, if he might use the expression, which, he was afraid, had been the source of a good deal of the controversy and irritation that had arisen. He would observe, however, that he had no personal feeling in the matter, and, in concluding this statement, which had already lasted too long, he hoped that he had not imported into it undue heat or personal feeling.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had omitted, in dealing with the Building Vote, to refer to the battleship programme. He had not told the Committee what the Government proposed with regard to that programme, which the right hon. Gentleman had previously stated was contingent upon certain things happening at The Hague Conference.
*MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he could make no statement different from that which he had made last year in introducing Votes.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he thought, perhaps, the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was the most important to the Committee. In the course of those remarks, which did not seem in the least too long, the right hon. Gentleman had begun with what he might call the small end of the wedge; he began with the question relating to cordite, then proceeded to the small vessels, the destroyers, then to cruisers, and lastly to repairs, and he would have passed away from the Vote altogether without reference to the most important class of ships that could be laid down, namely the
988
battleships, but for the question which he had put with regard to them. The battleship programme this year was in a unique position owing to the undertaking which the Government had entered into last year, and which the right hon. Gentle -man had detailed to the House in introducing this Vote last summer. His undertaking on that occasion was repeated by the First Lord of the Admiralty in March of this year, that the —
"new construction for the year in the matter of battleships would include two, or, unless an understanding were arrived at with the naval Powers at The Hague Conference, three large armoured vessels of the 'Dreadnought' type."
The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government adhered to that position. But could they not now say definitely whether they were going to lay down this third battleship or not? This was the last occasion on which the matter could be discussed during the present year, and surely there could be no longer in the minds of the Government any illusion as, to what possibly could take place at The Hague Conference in reference to this question. They were aware, of course, that the Government were bringing forward, or were laying before The Hague Conference, a resolution on the subject of the limitation of armaments; but that resolution, as published in the Press—he presumed it was authentic—was of such a meek and belated character that he did not think it could really be supposed that it would in any way affect the British shipbuilding programme of this year, because even if it were passed—of course he had no means of knowing whether it would be accepted by the Conference or not—all it suggested was that this question of the limitation of armaments was more than ever urgent, and that it was desired that the Governments should resume the study of the question. But even if they resumed the study of the question, that surely would not be an undertaking between the naval Powers, such as was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman last year. It would be fairer to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would state definitely whether they were to have this third battleship or not. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no other statement to make than that which he made last year, and from what he then said they must assume that the

989
Government were going to proceed with it. No other construction could reasonably be put on the speech of last year or on the fight hon. Gentleman's language just now. Between this question of the shipbuilding programme and the Hague Conference a peculiar connection had been established, and it was impossible to pass away from the subject of this Vote without making some reference to the undertaking into which the Government had entered. As regarded a resumption of the study of the question of limitation of armaments, speaking as an economist and a lover of peace, he regarded that invitation with some considerable apprehension, when viewed in the light of past experience. Previously, a study of the question had only led to a closer examination and more vivid appreciation by each Power of the armed strength of its rivals, followed in due course by an increased expenditure on its own defence. The right hon. Gentleman himself had used very significant language on that subject in introducing the Navy Estimates last year; he said—
"The previous Conference had expired with the pious expression on its lips that great service would be rendered to humanity by agreeing to carry out a reduction of armaments. What happened? In the succeeding five years the expenditure on shipbuilding had risen from £68,500,000 to £101,000,000; in other words, since the Hague Conference made the suggestion, there had been an addition of 50 per cent. to the naval burdens of the world."
Those were undoubted facts, and as long as human nature remained the same, which would probably be for a good many centuries yet to come, he was afraid that a closer study of the question of armaments would be likely to lead to increased expenditure in the future as in the past. But they must assume, of course, after what had passed, that this third battleship in this year's programme had been at last removed from the bargain counter. He thought it was unfortunate that the net result of the Government's angling and manœuvring with it had been that this country would be forced into the invidious position of being the first definitely to increase its shipbuilding programme as a direct result of the deliberations at the Hague. If the exceedingly modest battleship programme which the Government had brought forward had not been tampered with in
990
this way, it could have been gone on without exciting any comment whatsoever in foreign countries; and even if a miracle had occurred at the Hague, and foreign countries agreed to take any steps in the direction of a reduction of armaments, we should have been able to head the movement by striking off this battleship, which had been selected as the visible pledge of our pacific intentions. But, as it was, all through the past twelve months this ship had been alternately appearing and disappearing on the horizon, and he would suggest, when the vessel was really laid down, that it should be called "The Flying Dutchman," a name which would be indicative of its phantom career in the past, and an appropriate compliment to the place of its birth, the Hague. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question of building or of dropping this one battle ship was not the only inducement that the Government had held out at the Hague Conference. They had also offered to postpone the commencement of even their reduced programme to an abnormally late period of the year. The right hon. Gentleman, in explaining why they did this, said it was to emphasise to the Hague Conference the good faith of the British Government and their desire to bring about reduced armaments. He in no way questioned the good faith of the Government; he was perfectly certain that they were entirely sincere in putting forward that programme, even if they were innocently optimistic in the matter. But they had to face the facts and the consequences of that undertaking; and what was the effect, after all, of this second inducement held out to the Powers at the Hague, and which had met with no response whatever, as far as they could judge? It meant practically that the battleship programme of 1907–8 had been postponed until 1908–9, and consequently much valuable time had been lost. The only practical way to remedy this was to expedite the commencement of next year's building programme by laying down the new ships unusually early. This would not make up for all the lost time, but it would mitigate the delay which had occurred, and prove the good faith of the Government, not merely to foreign nations at the Hague,

991
but, what was far more important, to the people of this country. The Prime Minister, speaking to a deputation in regard to the Hague Conference, was very apologetic for the meagre results obtained, and he expressed the hope that "the flag would be kept flying." The question was which flag? The only flag which was of vital importance to the British race was the White Ensign flying over His Majesty's ships, and the lowering of that, even by a hand's-breadth, for the beaux yeux of any so-called Peace Conference, would be doing an irreparable injury to the whole British Empire. "Would the Government undertake, in pursuance of the assurance they gave last year and which was repeated in the First Lord's statement last March, to expedite the commencement and prosecution of next year's shipbuilding programme. Before considering their needs in the matter of new ships it was essential first of all that they should know how many ships of full fighting efficiency they already possessed, and that was just the information which was so exceedingly difficult to obtain. There were tabulated statements, official and unofficial, in great variety, but no two of them agreed, and perhaps the greatest sinner from the point of view of inaccuracy and almost misrepresentation was the official Return which was annually furnished to the House and known as the Dilke Return. He did not, of course, accuse the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean of any complicity in the sins of that Return, and he under- stood that the right hon. Baronet was himself dissatisfied with it. That Return ought to be impeccable, because it was the one which went out to the world as the official statement of the fighting strength of the British Navy as com-pared with other navies. The right hon. Gentleman ha d said he was desirous that the Return should give "an accurate, complete and faithful picture as to the strength of the Navy." In view of the criticism which had been passed upon the Return he hoped the Admiralty would, do what it could to make it a more. faithful record and comparison of the great fleets of the world. The Admiralty admitted that the Return was not what it should be, and the First Lord had issued
992
a revised statement of the naval strength of this country, in which the figures given were entirely different, and were based upon the somewhat curious assumption that battleships of twenty-five years of age and armoured cruisers built twenty years ago were efficient ships. Upon what basis of argument did he lay down those standards? According to the statement they had only thirty- nine effective battleships at the present time. All ships of previous date to the "Majestic" class were described as "obsolescent." He thought they might very well have been put down as obsolete. But this being so, what was the use of dragging in ships of twenty-five years old, which could not be considered effective in any sense of the word, and could only have been put in to decorate a paper return of strength? Those old ships did not add to the fighting strength of the Navy, and judging by the lessons to be drawn from the war between Russia and Japan, the presence of those old and obsolescent ships in the fighting squadrons only resulted in disaster. It was the presence of this class of ship which made the destruction of the Russian fleet so inevitable and overwhelming at the battle of Tsu-shima. Upon a previous occasion they were furnished with some details of the shipbuilding programmes of other Powers, and the right hon. Gentleman told them that there were no battleships of the "Dreadnought" class which had been actually laid down by any other country with the exception of Japan, and he distinctly said none had been laid down in Germany. Was the Secretary to the Admiralty now prepared to tell them the state of affairs in that respect? Did he still maintain that there were no "Dreadnoughts" being laid down in Germany? If he was right in his study of the German Naval Estimates, two "Dreadnought" battleships and one of the "Invincible" type of cruisers had been laid down by Germany, and the second instalment of money for those ships had already been voted. He did not think it was likely that the second instalment would have been provided in the case of those ships if they had not actually been laid down. In regard to cruisers, what did the First Lord mean by saying that armoured cruisers of twenty years of age were

993
considered efficient? As far as he could gather from the official Returns provided, there were no such ships on the effective strength of any Navy in the world. He had examined the Returns, and he found that the oldest armoured cruisers shown in the lists of any Power were from six to ten years old, and in one instance twelve years, and even this included a large number of ships which were obsolescent. The right hon. Gentleman had given some interesting information in regard to the Government proposals on the question of cruisers. He welcomed the announcement which had been made that something would be done to remedy the great deficiency that existed in regard to cruisers. The right hon. Gentleman was quite justified in furnishing no details because they would belong to next year's programme. He hoped that in drawing up that programme the Board of Admiralty would take into consideration this fact in regard to the present deficiency in cruisers. They had been told that they possessed thirty-two armoured cruisers, but that total included ten of the earlier "County" class, which had been described by many competent naval officers who had served in them as being fit for very little else except to run away. They had great speed, it was true, but their armament was ridiculously small and consisted of only 6-inch guns, and they were lamentably inferior in that respect to the armoured cruisers of the same date belonging to Germany, the United States, Russia, and Japan. Then there was the newer class of "County" cruisers, of which there were six. It was true that the armament in this case was a little better and they possessed four 7½inch guns. These, however, were also much inferior to most of the foreign vessels of the same date. Altogether he was afraid that these sixteen ships which cost the enormous sum of £12,000,000 were a very small addition to the fighting strength of the fleet. He was aware that the responsibility did not lie with the present Government, but the Government of the day had to take these matters into consideration when considering the question of cruisers. He hoped they would take into account what he had said about the "County" class of cruisers, which constituted no less than 30 per cent, of our
994
whole strength of armoured cruisers-The Admiralty ought to take into consideration immediately the necessity of replacing those cruisers at a very much earlier date than appeared to be justified by their age. They had been given some information about destroyers. The right hon. Gentleman told them that in the opinion of the Admiralty the two-Power standard did not apply to the question of destroyers, but he did not say why. He thought that was a rather startling statement. He was himself prepared to admit that the two-Power standard should not apply to destroyers, and that it really ought to be a three or four-Power standard. But what was the standard that the Admiralty considered necessary? It would have been a great assistance to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman had developed his argument further, and stated why this new theory was put forward by the Admiralty. It seemed to him strangely coincident with the fact that a large proportion of our destroyers were becoming obsolete. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some idea of what was necessary. He told the Committee that Great Britain had 191 destroyers at the present time.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Including coastal destroyers.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that was limping two classes together. Was a coastal destroyer to be classed as a destroyer or a torpedo boat? They had been told that it was to be classed as a torpedo boat. This new system of classification made it impossible for the public to know what they had really got, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he adhered to the old line of demarcation, otherwise he was afraid the figures would have the effect of fogging any investigator who wished to know what the real strength was. From what the right hon. Gentleman had stated in his recent interjection he took it that the Government in applying the two-Power standard to destroyers had in mind a larger standard of destroyers, and that they would in the programme next year, or in the following year, use their best efforts to remedy the sudden blow which was about to fall on our destroyer

995
strength, not only by the disappearance of the obsolescent ships, but of those which were quite obsolete, numbering between forty or fifty of our existing destroyers. On that point the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat obscure in his remarks, and it would be for the convenience of the Committee if he would give more information on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken at some length on the question of repairs. That was assuredly one of the most important questions that could possibly come up in connection with the fighting strength of the Navy. Of course, the fleet, however strong numerically, could not be considered useful for the purposes of war unless it was kept in a perfect state of repair. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there had been exceedingly disquieting remarks made lately with regard to the state of repairs in the Fleet. He was glad indeed that in the statement he had made to-day the right hon. Gentleman had given categorical replies from officers in high command and in actual contact with the vessels concerned. He accepted without question the statement of the Board of Admiralty on this most important subject. He hoped that the facts which the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee to-day would be fully and thoroughly reported so that they would be seen by the public and that they would do something to allay the genuine anxiety which had existed on this subject for several months. In dealing with the question of repairs he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite fair to the late Government in his desire to prove how good the present Government had been in avoiding cheeseparing in this important question. He gave the Committee to understand that the late Government had only spent in their last year about £1,500,000 on repairing the Fleet, whereas since the present Government came into office they had spent a larger sum, the amount for the present year being £2,000,000. The figure of £1,500,000 must not be taken as in any way a fair example of what the late Government had done. In the previous year 1904–5 the amount spent on repairs by the late Government was £2,886,000 and in the year before that the amount was £3,156,000, and the reason why such a small sum was re-
996
quired in the year before the late Government went out of office was that the repairs had been completed and broughs up to a point never before equalled in the history of the British Navy. It was curious that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted this method of comparison, because it was a parallel to what the First Lord said in his statement last March to glorify the nucleus crews, and to show the remarkable results which were produced by the adoption of that system. Lord Tweedmouth had compared January, 1907, with January, 1904, but he left out of account, surely by accident, that 1904 was the year in which the late Government set itself to spend the almost unheard of amount of £3,000,000 on repairs. By the end of that year the whole of the repairs of the Fleet had been completed, and it was at this point, when it had been brought up to an unexampled state of perfection, that the nucleus crews came into existence for the first time. The present Government took over the Fleet absolutely in the pink of condition, and if it had been maintained in that condition since it would be a tribute to the nucleus crews and a remarkable proof of the success of that policy. But statements had been made by authorities who must be regarded as responsible, amongst them being Sir William White, to the effect that it was beyond the power of nucleus crews to maintain their ships in a proper state of repair, and that the amount of money provided was in any case insufficient for the purpose. What the right hon. Gentleman said to-day was undoubtedly an answer to that, but he thought it would have been fairer if the right hon. Gentleman and the First Lord had not attempted to take credit to the present Government for this extra expenditure on repairs, considering that the Fleet was taken over from the late Government in a state of repair which had never before been equalled. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what was the difference between an "annual" refit and an "extensive" refit. Was an annual refit limited in point of time to the forty days which was laid down in the Admiralty Memorandum of December, 1904, as being the maximum period for which any battleship might be absent from the Fleet, in dockyard hands, during the year? He had asked the right hon.

997
Gentleman certain definite questions, and he hoped that he might be successful in getting equally definite replies. He did not press these questions in any captious or Party spirit. He should be the last to wish in any way to add to the difficulties of the many-sided task which must confront any Board of Admiralty, but the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there had been a widespread amount of anxiety about certain recent developments of Admiralty policy. No one regretted more than he did that the old reputation of the Admiralty for a kind of infallibility had apparently suffered during the last two or three years. He thought it was only proper that the right hon. Gentleman should do all he could to allay the anxiety which existed. Secrecy was, of course, essential in certain cases, and it might be very important where the designs of new ships were concerned. The House of Commons and the Press in the past had shown a patriotic readiness to abstain from pressing for information of that kind. He hoped the Admiralty would reciprocate that confidence, and would not refuse to give to the House and the taxpayers of the country information which was perfectly legitimate, and which they had a perfect right to receive before granting to the Government the vast sums of money asked for in this Vote.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if he differed from his hon. friend who had just sat down it was not for any Party reason, but because he held other views as to the best method of keeping up the British Fleet at the proper standard. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman on having recovered from a very serious illness and on the vigour of his speech. The hon. Gentleman began his speech with several remarks on the battleship programme and the need of docks for these battleships. He himself attached to the latter greater proportional importance. The hon. Member had, he thought, handled the Government a little roughly in regard to the battleship programme when they remembered the admissions which the late Government had made. Now, what was proposed on this occasion was very similar to what happened on two occasions when Mr. Goschen was First Lord of the
998
Admiralty. Mr. Goschen then pointed out that we were in a position in advance of foreign Powers and that we could afford to regulate our shipbuilding programme to some extent according to what was being done by those foreign Powers— that we could hold out to foreign Powers that we should have to build certain ships or should not build certain ships according to what they did. What was done this year in anticipation of the action of the Government at the Hague was only an extension of that principle. It was not a unique action on the part of the Government as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. On this occasion, as on the last, when the programme of the Navy was debated, there had been a gratifying absence from the discussion in the House of any of that undue alarm or panic which had been shown —or rather which had been attempted to be got up in certain portions of the Press, and which, he was glad to say, had failed. He for one should not regret that that determined attempt had been made, for he thought it would tend in the future to check the efforts of hon. Members who wished to keep the Navy up to the standard. If a panic was got up when there was no ground for it, the next time when there might be some cause for it it might be discounted from the failure of this attempt. He was glad to see that Captain Pretyman, who had been a former Secretary to the Admiralty, in his first speech as a candidate for a seat in the House was reported in the previous day's paper to have said that he had no objection whatever to offer to the shipbuilding programme of the year. And that was the position which the Opposition officially took up in the House, even more frankly than in the speech of the hon. Member for Fareham. There might be on the very next occasion when they discussed the Admiralty Votes a necessity to press the Government for additional expenditure on docks and bases. He meant that they could not build big ships and alter the distribution of the Fleet without having docks and bases to meet the requirements of those big ships and the new distribution of the Fleet. Undoubtedly under the present as under the late Administration there had been an attempt to show on the part of the Board of Admiralty that a very large

999
saving had been made in that quarter. But it was not a real saving; it was an expenditure which could not be permanently avoided. One reason why he was very anxious that we should not be extravagant now, and why he should not press the Admiralty for a too large shipbuilding programme, was because we should want money to spend upon docks and bases which this programme would require. The amount of alarm which had been displayed and would be displayed was, of course, connected with the Hague proposals and with the failure of certain Hague proposals. This Government proposed at the Hague to abolish the use of floating mines, but that proposal had been negatived by the action of Germany. That, of course, bore closely on that branch of the subject. As regarded the programme, an attack had been made on the Vote. Returns had been laid before the House this session. He had always thought it was misleading to introduce, as Mr. Goschen had done, a classification of first, second, and third class battleships into the list. That had been abandoned, and they had reverted to the first form of Return in that respect. There was another point on which the form of the Return might be improved. He had objected to the practice of putting down for all the Powers a certain number of battleships, as if thirty-two battleships were equal to twice sixteen battleships, and giving the figures at the bottom of the list independent of all other factors. They could not compare numbers with numbers; they could only go through the list and compare each with each with a certain amount of adequate knowledge. A similar objection to the new return was made which was deserving a word of remark. The hon. Member for Fareham spoke of it as a Return laid before Parliament by the Government. When Lord Tweedmouth was pressed on the subject by Lord Cawdor he replied by giving some other shorter figures. That latter Return was based on the German Return. He called particular attention to this because the German Return only took such battleships as were twenty-five years of age and under, and such cruisers as were twenty years of age and under. That Return was a Return made to the House of Lords; it was not made by the present
1000
Government; it was moved for by Lord Cawdor.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that what the right hon. Gentleman had just told the Committee was entirely new to him and it did not appear in Lord Tweed-mouth's speech.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I heard the speech.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that in the report of Lord Tweedmouth's speech it was stated that the Return referred to the full strength of the fleets of the five great naval Powers. There was no mention of a German standard.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that Lord Cawdor in moving for the figures said he wished to have a Return in the form suggested by the speech of the First Lord, which was the German form. At all events that was the principle on which the figures were shown in the Return referred to. It was not a Government Return in its inception. None of those Returns would stand criticism. The different fleets should be compared ship by ship. It was useless to compare so many ships. They must look to the age, strength of armaments, speed, and the condition of the ships. To come to destroyers, France, for instance, at one time had an intermediate class which were not called destroyers, but high-sea torpedo boats. They would get into hopeless confusion if they counted numbers. Mere numbers were really unworthy of the consideration of the House. It was numbers which had been used by those newspapers which had attempted to create a panic. In regard to the battleship programme, he understood that some of his friends on the Ministerial side of the House were going to move a reduction of the battleship programme. He quite admitted that, as things stood at the present moment, we had an unusual superiority, to some extent due to the political accidents of the last few years, and to another extent to the policy of the Board of Admiralty in commencing the construction of "Dreadnoughts" before the other Powers had adopted either the "all-big" or the turbine principle. He should however, resist the

1001
Amendment, and support the Board of Admiralty as he had always done for many years, except once, because of the importance of having a continuity of shipbuilding policy. They could not in the case of the Navy afford to fluctuate from year to year. They had to look four or five years ahead in their policy, and they could not decrease battleship building below the standard which the Admiralty with the consent of the Government had fixed. He could not say whether in the case of destroyers and submarines, and even cruisers, there was ground for making the special effort which the Admiralty were contemplating for thefuture—far beyond this year. He would give the reasons for the faith that was in him on that subject. The hon. Member for Fareham said that there had been great delay in the programme, and that the only way in which the Government could make up for that delay was either by the immediate commencement of the whole of the ships in the programme——
MR. ARTHUR. LEEsaid that what he had stated was that the Government had deliberately caused the delay and held out the hope of building fewer battleships according to the decision of the Hague Conference.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that it appeared to him that our predominance had increased as compared with what could be expected a year ago; and our position in respect to battleships was excellent even as compared with the time of the issue of Lord Cawdor's Memorandum. The policy which was now being followed was proclaimed by the late Government, and our relative position was better now and would be better in the future than it had been in the past. They should look ahead for the next two or three years, but he did not think there would be any falling off. He had heard with regret what the hon. Member for Fareham had said in regard to panic, although his own words were conspicuously free from panic. The hon. Member had said that we should look to the programme of Germany which was our principal rival and was the second naval Power in the world. Germany
1002
had no claim to be regarded as the second naval Power in the world. The United States was the second naval Power in the world. The hon. Gentleman smiled, but surely there could be no doubt that no comparison could be made between the fleet of Germany and the fleet of the United States. He had read all the literature on the subject as to the naval strength of all the Powers. He saw the hon. Member for Fareham smile, but by every fair test he could apply, and he was a reader of the literature of all the countries on this subject, he made the German fleet virtually unimportant, a doubtful third or fourth, but infinitely behind the second fleet of the world, which was easily that of the United States. If there was any present danger from Germany to this country, it was not the danger of invasion or from the fleet, but it was her growing superiority in the scientific equipment of her people. As regarded the cruisers and destroyers and the other classes of ships proposed in the programme he was much more doubtful. The controversy about destroyers was one with which they never would come to an agreement. The hon. Member opposite stated that there was a clear line of demarcation between torpedo-boats and destroyers, but he confessed he had been able to find no line of that kind. The use of destroyers by various Powers differed infinitely, and the sizes had always been so difficult of classification that he favoured the policy of the present Admiralty that they could not bind themselves to the use they would make of their destroyers. All the Powers were experimenting on the subject, and it was notorious that there was, at the present time, a very powerful party on the Board of Admiralty and on the Defence Committee of the Cabinet that did not believe that we were wise in spending so large an amount of our resources and in placing so large a number of our most highly-trained men in submarines and torpedo-boats in proportion to battleships as we were doing now. He viewed with suspicion the amount of energy we were throwing into submarine work, in which we were not likely to shine as compared with a certain other Power, and which was not so suitable to our particular needs. The tendency in all countries now was

1003
towards attaching more and more importance, year by year, to the battleship fleet and to concentrate attention on the fleet which would fight the battles and which, by conquering the fleet of the enemy, would clear the seas for all purposes whatever. On cruisers he was a heretic, but a heretic in good company, as one or two of our admirals were doubtful as to the need for the construction of cruisers for commerce protection. The German cruisers were, of course, the cause of the change which had been announced; but if this policy was forced upon us by the yearly building of these two fast third-class cruisers by Germany, then it seemed to him it ought to be pursued next year, if it was to be pursued at all, and not in the following year, as was suggested last night in another place by the First Lord of the Admiralty. But he doubted himself the necessity of trying to compete with these German cruisers, and when commerce destruction against us was really a thing of the past, we should be rather throwing away our money if we embarked on a large policy of commerce protection cruisers which, he feared, had been forced on the Admiralty, probably rather against their will, by outside opinion. He continued a heretic in this matter, and. while he was not prepared to resist the authority on which the Admiralty might act, he would not be one to urge them to a fresh expenditure on cruisers. As to the subject of repairs, he saw no reason for supposing there was ground for alarm, but he was glad that attention should be called to it, because it was a point which needed vigilance, and on which opinion might easily be misdirected. The reserve of guns was a matter which still more needed vigilance, because, though he was not insinuating anything, there might be a tendency to save money on the things that were not seen, and as to which secrecy was necessary in the House and the country. There had been a recent increase, but that might not be sufficient, As one who was most anxious to maintain the naval position of this country, and who greatly regretted the Army Bill of this session because it would tend to the taking of money from the Navy to be spent on the Army, he supported the programme of the Govern-
1004
ment; and he would urge his hon. friends who desired a reduction in Army and Navy expenditure to turn their attention rather to the Army. No economist could doubt that in this country waste was greater in the Army, and that as far as the Fleet was concerned, as compared with other countries, we got the most, for the money we spent. That being so, he would ask his hon. friends to try to make their chief demands in regard to the Army. Bearing in mind the enormous importance in naval matters of a steady policy, he should resist any reduction that might be moved.
*CAPTAIN HERVEYcalled attention to the strength of our Fleet and the strength of the fleets of foreign nations, as set forth in the Return which had been supplied on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. He said that the Secretary to the Admiralty promised in. last November that the Return should give an accurate, complete, and faithful picture of the strength of the Navy. Perhaps it might do so to an expert, but he questioned whether it did so to the. ordinary Member of Parliament. They ought to be able to see at a glance, not only that the two-Power standard was being maintained now, but that there was every reasonable prospect of its being maintained in the future, and that it was so to be maintained with the full knowledge and concurrence of the Board of Admiralty. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said that numbers alone could not show anything accurately as to the relative strength of our fleet, but numbers were the only things that could be compared by non-expert Members of Parliament. Taking the two fleets of France and Germany as against our own, according to the Return we had sixty battleships, while France and Germany showed sixty-three. Was the difference there shown being redressed? We were shown as having five battleships building, while France and Germany had eighteen. Battleships were, no doubt, of different value, but the First Lord of the Admiralty had pointed out that a good way of getting at their comparative value was

1005
by taking ships fifteen years old and less. Of such ships we had forty actually built, and France and Germany thirty; but taking the battleships building also into account, we had forty-five, against the forty-eight of the other two Powers. He did not see how that was keeping up the two-Power standard, or how it absolved the Government from carrying out the programme laid down a few years ago of a minimum of four armoured ships per annum. He would have been glad if the Admiralty, in making out the Return, had seen their way to show which battleships were, in the opinion of their expert advisers, fit to be put in the line of battle. He could hardly believe that the Admiralty would say that some of the ships in their list, such as those of the "Admiral" class, the "Edinburgh," "Colossus," "Nile," and "Trafalgar," could be put in the line of battle against modern ships. He would no doubt be told that in comparing strength in battleships he ought really to bring in the armoured cruisers. Some of the latest armoured cruisers were to all intents and purposes battleships, and were fit to go into the line of battle. We had thirty-eight armoured cruisers less than fifteen years old, as against the thirty-one of France and Germany, and taking the total armoured units, both battleships and cruisers, we had at present a predominance over France and Germany of four armoured units less than fifteen years old. He agreed that that gave us the two-Power standard, but it gave nothing beyond, and he had great doubts whether that standard would be kept up by only putting three big armoured ships in the year's programme. If foreign nations reduced their building programmes in the future we could trust ourselves to build so as to keep our numbers on the same relative level as theirs, but he did not think we should be able to go below what was laid down three or four years ago as a minimum. He would now leave the question of the armoured ships and turn to the lists of protected cruisers. As regarded these it would be seen that we really had a large preponderance at the present moment of other than armoured cruisers as against the next two foreign Powers. But there was a very curious if not ominous fact emerging
1006
from these lists, and that was the fact that the only foreign European country which was building cruisers of this type was Germany. She was building three or four cruisers of 3,500 tons with 4-inch guns yearly. We must consider what should be done in the way of fighting such cruisers as other nations might put on the sea. It had always been our policy in the past to have cruisers slightly larger and more heavily armed than the cruisers they would be likely to meet. He agreed with that policy, for if we were to be certain of success in any naval action we must send out at least one cruiser which was better than the cruiser she was expected to meet, or two cruisers of equal strength in order to wipe the foreign cruiser off the sea. We could not send one and a quarter, or one and a half cruisers, and therefore we must either send out two, or one which was better than the foreign cruiser. In one speech which had been made, it was said, he thought, that the policy foreshadowed by the Secretary to the Admiralty would be an answer to Germany with her cruisers of 3,500 tons. We were to build cruisers of 3,000 tons. Were they to be the answer to Germany?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman said that the tonnage was 3,500 tons.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes; 3,500 tons.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: Exactly the same as Germany.
* CAPTAIN HERVEYsaid it did not make very much difference if the tonnage was exactly the same, because to obtain a preponderance they must have two of them for the other's one. The naval view on this question of cruisers was gradually crystallising. He believed there was no room for a fighting ship between the big armoured cruiser and the big ocean-going torpedo destroyer, but these small cruisers now proposed would be useful for the purpose of showing the flag at distant foreign stations. We should have to build ships to carry out that work from time to time.

1007
We had ships which could do it now, but as far as he could look into the future, he thought it would be found that these vessels were gradually becoming obsolete. He should like to know what our real policy was going to be. He did not press the right hon. Gentleman to answer, however, as to our policy in regard to cruisers until we saw which way the cat jumped in foreign shipbuilding. He did not want useless cruisers to be laid down, but it might be necessary to build a certain number of cruisers which would be able to show the flag abroad. They could not forget what happened in Jamaica when a foreign admiral rushed to the rescue of one of our distressed Colonies and landed patrols in the chief town of the Colony. They knew how correspondence had passed which most people would have hoped to keep private; but a foreign correspondent had got to work throwing about ink, and the fat was in the fire. If there had been one of these British cruisers on the spot she would have been most useful. It was not necessarily for fighting purposes that we wanted these ships; they could be used in protecting our interests, as in the case of the Jamaica occurrence, for instance. If a British cruiser had been there no admiral or captain of a foreign ship would have thought of landing his men unless he first went on board the English man-of-war, where he would have ascertained pretty smartly that the wish of the Governor was that no foreign seamen should be landed for the purpose of patrolling, which could be perfectly well carried out, if necessary, by the British cruiser. It was for these reasons that he thought we should have sufficient ships continually being built in order to send them to different parts of the world to show the flag. It might also be necessary to have cruisers built for the special purpose of not only going about the different Colonies, but for scouting duty in time of war, because it was obvious that we could not always send an armoured cruiser to watch the enemy's coast with the risk of losing an expensive vessel, it would be much better to send one of these smaller cruisers for the purpose of going along
1008
the coast to see what was going on. Therefore, there would be some use for these cruisers in time of war, but they could not be looked upon as adding to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. Turning to the question of torpedo boat destroyers, the conclusion had been arrived at that we should have torpedo destroyers of the modern type of about 800 tons, in order to accompany the Fleets and do their work wherever the enemy might be. The original destroyers, of which we had no less than seventy-three, were of less than 300 tons, most of them being about 270 tons. The Secretary to the Admiralty had told them that destroyers were efficient as long as they were efficient, but he thought that these seventy-three destroyers were rapidly becoming obsolete, if they were not already obsolete. We had, therefore, to make up a programme which would in about twelve years give us practically the same number of destroyers as we had at the present time. The whole of the seventy-three small type destroyers were built in four years, and therefore we would have to build rather more than the ordinary average per year to keep the Fleet going, as the number at the present time was 143. He was glad to hear the Secretary for the Admiralty state that he proposed to adopt a continuous building policy in regard to destroyers, and he thought they would require twelve at least. That at any rate would keep them up to the proper number this year, although it would leave them still lagging behind.
*MR. BELLAIRSsaid the Secretary to the Admiralty concluded his speech with a reference to the Navy League. He was not a member of that League, but perhaps he might venture to express complete concurrence with the view the right hon. Gentleman had expressed about that body. With regard to the high testimony he gave the League he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have read the resolutions submitted by both sections of the Navy League, because both condemned the Admiralty on the specific point of the Channel Fleet. The Navy League had

1009
done him the honour of consulting him in regard to their resolution refusing to agitate about the standard of naval strength, and he had given them his advice. The reason he thought they were right in not agitating about the naval strength was that the declarations of the Admiralty in the House of Lords and of the right hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty on the Front Bench were quite satisfactory on that point. The Secretary to the Admiralty said—
"It is the determination of the Government to maintain our naval supremacy as it is."
That statement gave them all they required. Nobody had contended either in that House or outside that our naval strength up to the present was not satisfactory. All they had contended was that a time was close at hand when we should once more have to indulge in big programmes, and it was not economical to have a small programme one year and a big one the next year as had happened under the last Liberal administration. He understood that a Resolution was going to be moved on this question by a section of the House which was an extremely Radical wing of the Liberal Party, although he did not know the name it was known by. He did not know whether they had yet given themselves a name, bat they met upstairs and they embraced the leading members of the Cobden Club. He thought the proper time for dealing with the question of battleships was when the Resolution to which he referred was moved. With regard to the Dilke Return and the Return issued by Lord Tweedmouth, the criticism was that they were simply Returns of our naval strength at the present moment. Any Return on which they made up their minds as to the adequacy of the shipbuilding programme would have to include the ships in building and those projected. Taking Lord Tweedmouth's classification of efficient ships he gave them thirty-nine as against thirty-one for the next two Powers. As the Secretary of the Admiralty had told them it was the determination of the Government to maintain the present strength of the Navy, they would now have that thirty-nine to thirty-one
1010
standard in order to test whether the Government were maintaining a proper naval strength. There were three projected ships this year and that made forty-seven for Great Britain as against forty-eight for the next two Powers. It was contended that in comparison with certain Powers this country was able to build much faster, but taking that proportion of thirty-nine to thirty-one of the next two Powers some day they would find that there were forty-eight in building and projected by the next two Powers, with the result that Great Britain would have to build sixty battleships in order to maintain the same proportion, and that would leave them a very large number to build. Supposing we did not count the projected ships which the United States were laying down next year and the year after, and did not count any battleships that France intended to lay down during the same period, they would be obliged to adopt programmes including six battleships each year before they could arrive at that standard of sixty to forty-eight to which he had alluded. The Secretary to the Admiralty divided his speech into four compartments, viz., refrigerating machinery, destroyers, cruisers, and repairs. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was right in dealing with refrigerating machinery first, because it was an important question and a new one. He thought the matter had been put rather too favourably by the Admiralty in regard to their lack of foresight in not introducing refrigerating machinery before. They had to remember the explosion which might have proved very disastrous which occurred on the "Fox" last. October, and it was not until May of this year that the Admiralty took any action in regard to ordering refrigerating machinery. Not one penny piece for any such provision appeared in the Estimates. Then there was another consideration. For two years past the Admiralty had been in receipt of reports from ships in regard to the question of cordite. They had received report after report that whenever the temperature of magazines was high the effect on the cordite was to make shooting very erratic. That consideration ought to have warned the

1011
Admiralty that in the interests of the efficiency of the service, apart from the danger of explosion through heat, they ought long ago to have introduced refrigerating machinery on their ships. Notwithstanding this, not a single penny had been put down for this purpose in regard to the "Dreadnought" or the "Superb" or any of the ships laid down this year. The right hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee that this machinery would cost £500,000 to fit the ships in the Navy. They had to fit up with this refrigerating machinery 160 ships afloat and eleven big ships building. He understood that the expenditure of this £500,000 was going to be spread over a period of two to three years. As it was agreed that this expenditure was urgent and necessary, he submitted that the ships ought to be fitted as soon as possible. The time at which the Admiralty had given the first order for this machinery was rather significant, for it was not given until they had had the disastrous explosions at Woolwich and at Toulon. If the efficiency of the Navy was the first consideration, the Admiralty ought long before to have given orders for supplying refrigerating machinery. This was not a new question. The Dutch Government had had refrigerating machinery for the magazines in their ships for twelve years past. The German Navy, which generally took the right course and made few mistakes, had had refrigerating machinery in their magazines and ships for six years past, and the Italian Navy introduced it two years ago. So that all those foreign navies long ago foresaw that for the sake of the efficiency of the service and avoiding dangerous explosions on board ship refrigerating machinery was necessary, and consequently they adopted it. He thought that the cost of such machinery ought to have been met by introducing a Supplementary Estimate which could have been tacked on to the Shipbuilding Vote. With regard to the question of destroyers, the Secretary to the Admiralty admitted some time back that in Germany the life of a destroyer was twelve years, and they made all their calculations upon that assumption. Germany was now building twelve destroyers a year as compared with our two for last year and five for this year. In justify-
1012
ing the building of so few destroyers the right hon. Gentleman said that the number to be built depended upon the use to be made of them from time to time. As it took eighteen months to build a destroyer, it was obvious that the Admiralty could not quite foresee what particular use they would be putting destroyers to eighteen months hence, and the only course to take was to follow the old plan of having a sufficiency of them in building. In all their shipbuilding in the past they had shown extraordinary instability of policy. He found that seventy-nine destroyers were laid down in the three years 1894 to 1896. In the last three years, from 1905 to 1907, they had only provided eleven, or less than one-seventh of the number provided in the period he had mentioned, and at the time those eleven were being built seventy-nine were falling obsolete. It was the same with all classes of shipbuilding, and in our programme there was nothing like the consistency shown in the German programme. In regard to armoured vessels, they built fourteen in 1899 and three this year. He thought that next year hon. Members would find that the number would shoot up again. That was the reason why he objected to a small building programme now. In 1889 and 1890 they laid down thirty six unarmoured cruisers, as compared with none for 1905 and 1906. Of course it was monstrous to lay down thirty-six cruisers in two years. It simply meant that in fifteen years these cruisers would have shaken themselves to pieces and would no longer be fit for repair. They would be obsolete altogether. This year they were going to lay down one. From Answers given to Questions in the House it appeared that by next year we should have seventy-one destroyers, including building and projected, less than twelve years old, and which would be reckoned by the Germans as efficient destroyers. During the same period the Germans would have seventy-three efficient destroyers, or two more than we should have. The Germans were going to lay down twelve more next year, and that would make eighty-five, so that our next year's programme would require to have fourteen destroyers in order to attain equality with the Germans. But there were obvious reasons why we

1013
should have a great superiority over any two nations in destroyers, whereas he had merely compared our strength with one nation. In time of war we should require to have at least one-third of the destroyers away from the Fleet refitting. We should be compelled to carry out the policy which Japan pursued in blockading the enemy's coasts, and we must have a superiority of one-third over the enemy whose coasts were blockaded. We had had forty-seven destroyers stationed abroad in 1905. The reason for that was that destroyers could not be sent out conveniently after a war had broken out; the stations abroad had to be provided beforehand in time of peace with the destroyers which might be required. The Secretary to the Admiralty had next dealt with cruisers. Lord Tweed-mouth's Return, which had been referred to, adding in the ships building, gave the strength of our fleet in efficient armed cruisers at thirty-eight, and that of the next two Powers at thirty-seven, being a superiority of one. That was nothing like the superiority of two to one which had often existed in the past. There was one significant omission from Lord Tweedmouth's Return. He omitted all other types of cruisers. When the Admiralty were asked for evidence to be placed before the Royal Commission on Food Supplies they sent a letter dated 2nd July, 1904, in which they stated that if the enemy's cruisers escaped—
"We could always spare a superior number of vessels to follow them."
If there was an insufficient number of cruisers to protect our commerce in time of war, there would be a public demand in this country, and especially on the part of business men in London, to detach armoured cruisers from the fleets in order to pursue the little German cruisers which could go twenty-four knots an hour. It would be a tremendous waste of power to detach a 17,000 ton cruiser to go after a little 3,000 ton German cruiser. The admirals in charge of the fleets would resist that demand. They would not part with their armoured cruisers if they could possibly help it. There was the best evidence of that in the policy of the Japanese commanders in the battle of Tsushima. Incidentally he might mention that both nations in that war
1014
sacrificed their commerce. This we could not possibly do. In order to have the armoured cruisers in the battle the Japanese used small cruisers for scouting purposes. Their tactics were absolutely justified by the fact that the battle was determined within an hour of the beginning of the fight. If the armoured cruisers had been sent away to protect commerce or to scout they could not have returned to Tsushima. During the last seven years the wastage of protected cruisers in our Fleet had been at the rate of six a year, while we had only built one a year. There was inconsistency about the Admiralty policy in the fact that though they said that the best of the protected cruisers would die out in a few years, and this was said in "A Statement of Admiralty Policy" issued two years ago, seven were to have £241,000 spent upon them for repairs this year. He did not find fault with this; he only called attention to the tact when it was alleged that the responsible advisers of the Admiralty never made mistakes. He found also in the Return of fleets that there was a total of eighty-two protected cruisers given. But an analysis showed that twelve of them were on the sale list, and from other causes, such as the ships j being in special reserve as a preliminary to passing to the sale list, the total was finally reduced to fifty-seven. Against any two Powers that number gave us no superiority whatever in protected cruisers, whereas it had always been contended that in this respect we should have a great superiority. Sixteen of our protected cruisers were over twenty knots at their trials, and they were older than those of the Germans. The Germans, on the other hand, had built, or were building, twenty-eight of over twenty knots. The Admiralty account of the naval manoeuvres last year claimed that our superiority in armoured cruisers for the protection of commerce was greater than we really possessed against any two Powers. In armoured cruisers they gave the English force sixteen to eight of the enemy. He maintained that we did not possess that superiority. The proportions in big unarmoured cruisers were eleven to one, small cruisers were twenty-two to eight, and destroyers were thirty-

1015
eight to thirty-one. We had in all fifty-one cruisers and scouts to seventeen, or three to one. He had shown that we possessed nothing like that superiority, and yet the Admiralty had the audacity, when they issued their Report, to state that in these manœuvres they were trying the risks to British shipping under the most unfavourable conditions conceivable when in addition to giving the English fleet an overwhelming preponderance they confined the manœuvres to a narrow belt of 900 miles stretching to Gibraltar so that the English ships knew exactly when to look for the enemy. The right hon. Gentleman had given far too favourable a view of the position in regard to cruisers being built on the financial side. If the figures in the Navy Estimates which gave the number of cruisers on the stocks for any one year were looked at they would find that in 1903–4 there were thirty-nine cruisers and scouts on the stocks; in 1904–5, thirty-eight; in 1905–6 twenty—eight; in 1906–7 seven, excluding three "Incincibles;" and in 1907–8 there were only four again, excluding the three "Invincibles" which ought to be regarded as battleships. There would come a time when there would be only one cruiser on the stocks at all unless the Admiralty carried out their intention to lay down more cruisers. The next point with which his right hon. friend dealt was repairs. He had given the Committee a very rosy picture of those repairs, and he was perfectly correct in saying that it was not a question of one Party or another. If anything, he believed that the present Government were devoting more attention to repairs than the last Government did in 1905. In 1905–6 a great fault was found with the way in which the repair work was being done. In the First Lord's Memorandum it was stated that in the third week of January, 1904, out of sixty battleships, thirty-eight were unavailable, owing to the need of repairs, or 63 per cent. of the whole, and that on January 21st, 1907, out of fifty-one battleships only eight, or 16 per cent., were unavailable. It was very easy to upset these statements by statistics. The Admiralty said that these battleships were "unavailable owing to the need of repairs"; but in a letter to him from Lord Tweed-mouth it was explained that the Admiralty
1016
took the official Returns from the number of the vessels actually under repair in the dockyards; so that, if no vessels had been taken in hand at all. it would have been possible to say that none were unavailable owing to need of repairs. That was the way in which the Admiralty used statistics to hoax the House of Commons. There was another fault to be found with statistics. In the first place they were told that in 1904 there were sixty battleships, but all obsolete vessels were included. In 1906 the Dilke Return gave us sixty-one battleships, but in this Return of the same date only fifty-one battleships were mentioned. For strength statistics they included ten obsolete battleships, but for repair statistics they excluded them as their inclusion would mar their figures. It was not quite an honest way of dealing with the question, and tended to destroy all trust in Admiralty statistics. Then in the list of battleships needing repairs in 1904 the "Monarch," which was a depot ship and not a fighting ship at all, and the "Hotspur," which never was a battleship but an obsolete coast defence vessel, were included so as to swell the number of battleships needing repairs. He could vouch for these facts, as the list was furnished to him from the First Lord himself, and if it were necessary to pursue his criticisms he could point to a number of other circumstances with which the Admiralty were perfectly familiar which made the comparison grossly unfair. It was a little bit dishonest to present statistics of this kind, and he thought that someone should be censured for handing such statistics to the Admiralty. To prove his point, a Return which excluded from the ships needing repairs the "Goliath" and the "Canopus," on which £48,000 and £25,000 were now to be spent, was not quite a scrupulous and straightforward statement.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERthought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would admit that he was one of those who had never wished by speech or vote to make a case against the Admiralty. He sincerely desired that no case would ever be made against them. He had learned to feel the greatest possible confidence in the distinguished officers

1017
who were charged with maintaining the preparedness of the Navy for war; and he would wish that from all which the right hon. Gentleman had said that afternoon, it could be wholly maintained that there was no weak joint in the armour of the Admiralty. His only wish was to ascertain what were the facts. There were points which urgently required attention which had not been discussed that afternoon, and on which the policy of the Admiralty would have to be challenged. In the question of bases, for instance, the policy of the Admiralty was not dictated by naval considerations. In regard to this Vote, the right hon. Gentleman had made a most interesting and to a large extent a re-assuring statement. It was very difficult even for those who, like himself, had made a very close and constant study of the details of our naval work, to take issue, if they desired it, with the representatives of the Admiralty in regard to this question of repairs. The question of the building programme was in a different position. He felt that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had made a speech which was of real value, and without committing himself to all that the hon. Gentleman had said it was evident that if the Admiralty did not take steps which had not yet been foreshadowed, a very serious state of things would arise. He understood from the Secretary to the Admiralty that they felt that the time had come when the question of somewhat enlarging the building programme should be considered, and they had the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that next year would see a revival of the building of the cruiser class. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken, not in heat, but with a perfect calm which was greatly appreciated by the House. He had complained of the very many Questions which had been addressed to him, and said that it was not quite fair to be thus taken to task; but on this point the late and the present Admiralty might cry quits. Although the Questions addressed to the right hon. Gentleman had been somewhat unpalatable, if too much information had been asked for, a great deal too little had been given. Great as was his real and genuine confidence in the administration
1018
of the Admiralty at the present time, he believed that there was a danger in that. He himself had held his hand absolutely during the past two years in regard to all Admiralty matters; but in the course of the last few months he had heard many men, who like himself were favourably disposed to the Admiralty, express their concern and suspicion with regard to the policy of the Board. He did not desire to say that in all cases these men had convinced him that the grounds of their anxiety were fully justified by the facts; but he must say that, apart from any sensational speaking or writing—and too much had been made of it—there was a growing feeling of anxiety. There had been not only an unfortunate reticence in the answering of Questions, but a continuance of that unfortunate policy of surreptitious communiqués to the Press. He was altogether opposed to the plan of making what had been put into the mouths of private persons by the Admiralty appear as if it were an independent expression of public opinion, and he thought that that policy was full of mischief, that it should cease, and that any communication the Admiralty had to make should be made through its representatives in Parliament. He also thought that the greatest care should be taken that the information given to Parliament in regard to naval affairs was strictly accurate. In order that the alarm which was entertained that the repairs of the Fleet had fallen off might be set at rest a Question on the subject was asked in another place; and, in reply, the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the repairs for the year for which he was responsible compared favourably with the repairs of any previous year. But he happened to know that it would be just as reasonable to include the old float at Chatham docks as some of the ships that were included in that comparison as undergoing repairs. The British people would believe almost anything it was told in regard to naval and military matters; and special care ought to be taken that this touching confidence was not abused. He undertook to say that four years ago enormous sums wore spent on repairs, with the result that the Navy was then in a better state of repair than it had been for many a long year. He regretted there had been a

1019
reversal of policy in this respect. When he was at the Admiralty it was decided, on the recommendation of a strong committee of experts, of which he was a member, to send the ships to the great contract yards to be repaired under commercial conditions. That admirable plan had been discontinued on the ground of expense, and the ships were now to be repaired in the dockyards; but when he saw that the workmen employed in the dockyards were being diminished by thousands he asked how it was possible to carry on the repairs of the Navy in the dockyards as they ought to be carried on. He was not personally acquainted with the facts, but he was told by a very large number of persons, whom he believed to be impartial and knew to be well-informed, that repairing work had fallen greatly into arrears, and that there were many ships which, if ordered to go on a long cruise, and certainly to undertake the arduous duties of a campaign, would be found to be insufficient in their repairs. He thought when they were told, in defence of the stoppage in the building of small cruisers, that these vessels could now serve no good purpose in war, a large demand was being made on their credulity. They could not believe that the great naval Power which was building a large number of these vessels was absolutely wrong in its policy; and in his view if we relied on large cruisers to be detached to pursue and capture these smaller vessels we were allowing a danger to exist against which we had no adequate protection. With regard to the £200,000 which it was proposed to spend this year on the refrigerating apparatus for cordite, he desired to know how the money was exactly to be provided for out of the existing Votes. They would criticise very closely next year the absence of a Supplementary Estimate. He hoped that the House would be asked for one, and if it were for £500,000 they would take a very generous view of an expenditure of this character for the preservation of the magazines and the safety of the lives of the sailors on our ships.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton):said the reason why the sum for refrigerating apparatus in the
1020
magazines was not placed in the Estimates was that the Estimates were framed before the Admiralty had made up their mind what they could do in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked why had not more than £200,000 been spent this year; the reason was that they could not spend economically and efficiently more than that sum. A considerable amount of apparatus had to be ordered. They were proceeding as rapidly as was desirable. The right hon. Gentleman had made a statement which was somewhat new to him, that the repair of ships by contract was an economical method of procedure.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not say that; he said it was reported to be abandoned now because it was believed to be expensive.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he had more than once made very careful inquiries into this matter, and be understood that the experiment of repairing ships by contract was not economical. The right hon. Gentleman said that a considerable amount of unrest existed in the public mind with regard to repairs. He did not think, however, that the Admiralty could possibly be more explicit than his right hon. friend had been that afternoon. The hon. Member for Fareham had said that in 1903–4 some £3,169,000 was spent on repairs. That was true; but that was during the time when these repairs were done by contract, an expensive method, which had not commended itself to the Admiralty. He found it very difficult to say anything about these repairs, because the Estimates of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the repairs did not err on the side of parsimony. In 1905–6 they estimated £2,000,000 and spent £1,500,000. The Estimates the Government took over last January twelvemonth they did not alter in the slightest degree. Those estimates provided for £1,628,100 to be spent on repairs, and, as his right hon. friend stated, they were not satisfied with that and spent £282,000 more. Surely that must satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, at any rate, that they were keeping up the repairs of the fleet so far as spending money was concerned. The most

1021
extraordinary statements had appeared in the Press in some quarters. He would have thought more care would have been taken to obtain accurate statements. There appeared in a London paper yesterday morning a list of the ships in repair, and a more inaccurate list never found its way into a public print. It contained the following among other allegations in regard to the Home Fleet:—
"Out of thirteen battleships five are unavailable for active service."
There were only two in repair, not five.
"Out of thirty cruisers nineteen are unavailable."
The number was four, not nineteen.
"Out of 120 destroyers forty-seven are unavailable."
The figure should be nineteen, not forty-seven. It was too ridiculous. This paper purported to give the repairs of the various ships belonging to the Home Fleet. He would take the cruisers. The "Amphitrite" was said to be "defective owing to continued neglect." Here was the official report—
"A thorough refit at Chatham has just been completed, and the ship is now efficient in all respects."
This was the statement in the Press as to the "Ariadne"—
"Repairs have accumulated, and it is doubtful if she could make 15 knots."
The official report said—
"Has just completed a thorough refit at Portsmouth, and is in all respects in efficient condition. On her recent trials she steamed 20·8 knots for eight hours, trials being in all respects satisfactory."
No wonder the public mind—if it took any notice of these things—was a little discomposed.
MR. MARKHAM: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the name of the paper?
MR. LAMBERTsaid the "Diadem" was stated to be "defective owing to continued neglect." The official report was—
"In serviceable condition. Steams well. She is in the Chatham programme for general refit this financial year. Preparatory work is in progress at Chatham."
Of the "Donegal" it was said—
"Grounded badly in 1906 manœuvres it is doubtful if she is sound."
1022
The defects were due to grounding in the Red Sea, not in the manœuvres, and they had been thoroughly dealt with at Chatham. There was no doubt she was quite sound and perfectly efficient in all respects Of the "Doris," it was stated in the Press, "leaks badly." The official report was—
"Thoroughly sound and does not leak."
[Cries of "What paper?"] He did not care to advertise it. He had a long list.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is very important.
MR. LAMBERTsaid the "Niobe" was reported to be "defective owing to continual neglect." The official report was—
"Is in serviceable condition; will be thoroughly examined later in the year to ascertain when she will require to be refitted."
Of the "Warrior" it was said, "New cruiser, Nore division, unfinished. "She was complete; anything remaining to be done was of minor importance. He could go through the destroyers in the same way. The Admiralty had nothing to conceal in the matter,
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, as far as he knew, the whole disquiet of the public mind related to repairs, and did not relate to what he might call the fundamentals of the shipbuilding programme. It was because they had not yet had the precise statements upon these repairs that disquiet continued. He was convinced it would be brought to an end if the Admiralty would on their authority state with regard to each ship criticised whether the criticism was accurate or not. The hon. Gentleman would not weary the House.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he would go right through the list if desired, but it was a very long one. [Cries of "Print it."]
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would consider the question of printing it.
MR. LAMBERT,referring to the "Canopus," said that in the 1906 manœuvres her air pumps gave trouble; she was sent to Portsmouth, and the

1023
defect made good. She was now with the Home Fleet and was in full serviceable condition. She was thoroughly refitted in 1904, and would be taken in hand again in November next for general refit, to be ready by the end of March. This ship was referred to in the paper in question as "quite unfit for continuous service." Of course ships needed repair now and again, and the policy of the late and the present Board of Admiralty had been that the whole of the ships should not come in at once. The policy, as he understood it, was that the commanders-in-chief of the fleets should send in, six months before a ship required refit, a statement of the general state of the vessel in order that preparations might be made for taking her in hand. He could state that on the authority of the Admiralty itself. He did not like to single out individual officers of the Admiralty, but one of them, almost in despair on the previous day said to him, "It seems no good what we say; they will not believe us." Therefore, on the question of repairs, that was as far as he could go, at present at any rate. He had been asked what was the difference between an extended refit and an annual refit. The annual refit was limited to about forty days; an extended refit took from three to nine months, depending on the condition of the vessel. If a ship had been injured the refit might take longer than the period he had named. Then he had been asked how many ''Dreadnoughts" had been laid down by Germany. Up to May last, none.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: But how many since May?
MR. LAMBERT: I am giving the information at the Admiralty up to the end of May.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Have you no later information?
MR. LAMBERTreplied that he had no later information with him; that was all the information furnished. As to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the House might depend upon it that the official advisers of the Admiralty were
1024
well aware of foreign shipbuilding programmes, and they were well aware of our necessities, and they could be relied upon to advise the Government as to the best methods of spending money on the various classes of ships to be built. They had the number of destroyers, but, of course, these figures must be considered according to the individual judgment of each person. In the Return issued on the Motion of his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean the list of ships was given. Of course, the Admiralty did not profess to estimate what was the relative value of the ships; they gave the list, and it was for individuals to form their own conclusions; but he must say that in this matter the First Lord of the Admiralty had endeavoured to give the very fullest information as regarded the relative strength of the battle fleets of the world.
MR. ARTHUR LEEasked what steps the Admiralty proposed to take with regard to the second inducement held out to the Hague Conference, and which had caused the shipbuilding programme of this year to be introduced at an abnormally late date.
MR. LAMBERT: The policy of the Admiralty with regard to laying down two armoured ships and reserving the third until the result of the Hague Conference becomes known is not changed. I think that was made explicit and clear by the First Lord of the Admiralty's statement, issued at the beginning of the session, and there has been no change at all in that programme.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. I am not referring to the question of laying down or not laying down a third ship. The Secretary to the Admiralty last year, in referring to the amount to be taken for new vessels in 1907–8, said the shipbuilding programme was introduced at a late period in order to emphasise the good faith of the British Government in desiring to bring about a reduction of armaments.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONwas understood to deny that he had used words of that character.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: Here are your own words about holding out an inducement to the other Powers.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not remember them.
*MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he desired to move the reduction of the Vote by £100 in order to say a few words in regard to the specific grievance of a large section employed in the right hon. Gentleman's department. Though the question might seem to be somewhat small compared with that they had been discussing, yet to the Iron and Steel Shipbuilders and Boilermakers Society it was one of extreme importance. Last year in discussing some of the Estimates, the Government were good enough in regard to a large section of the men employed in the dockyards to give their claims careful consideration, with the result that something like £60,000 had been paid this year in increased wages, a fact on which he complimented them. He only hoped that what was done last year would not be used as an argument against doing something for the men for whom he was now speaking. The principal point of contention was this. The Government at the present time trained men and called them skilled labourers; but these men were doing skilled work, and therefore they ought to receive skilled men's pay. They were paid the wage between a labourer's and a skilled workman's, and the result was that to-day skilled work was being done in the dockyards at a rate which was considerably less than was paid in private yards, though the work in each instance was the same. The men in the dockyards compared with the men in the private yards were not fairly treated. In the principal shipyards up and down the country there were wages boards, upon which the men were equally represented with the employers, and all the points were dealt with, and the men were at full liberty to discuss the different issues. But in the dockyards the men had no say whatever in regard to any arrangement so far as wages were concerned, and the result was that at the present time wages in the dockyards for these men to whom he referred
1026
were 40 per cent. less than were being paid in the principal shipbuilding centres of the country. In private yards at the present time, a man who had finished his apprenticeship immediately received pay which was 25 per cent. higher than was paid in the dockyards. If they took the Tyne, the Clyde, the Mersey, the Thames, and the Barrow they would find that the platers' wages averaged 38s. 3d. per week; riveters, 34s. 9d.; and holders-up, 28s. 3d. a week. When they came to the Government dockyards they found that the maximum pay of the platers was 28s.; holders-up, 25s.; riveters, 28s.; the difference as regarded platers' wages was 10s. 3d., riveters, 6s. 9d.; and holders-up, 3s. 3d. per week. It would be asked by the Government whether these men were sufficiently skilled to do this work. If, as the Government argued, these trained men were sufficiently skilled to do the work—and they did do the work equally with skilled men—then it was unfair on the part of the Government to pay them a less wage than was paid to others working in private yards and who were doing precisely the same kind of work. Was it to be supposed that the employers outside would continue to pay difference in wages of 10s., 6s., and 5s. every week when the Government were paying these lower wages for the same kind of work in the dockyards? He was afraid they would not continue to do it long if the Government still retained the existing rate of wages. There had been a conference between representatives of the men and the Government Departments, but no satisfactory solution had been arrived at. Workers under the Government were supposed to have pensions, yet it was admitted by the Admiralty that less than 25 per cent. of the men were on the permanent list, and the other 75 per cent. were not entitled to pensions. Those who were entitled to pension had deducted from their wages every week 6d. for every 10s. they earned, and if they died before they reached the pension age the widows and families did not receive any recompense. In regard to the 75 per cent. not entitled to pension there was considerable room for improvement. The fact that pensions were given to Government employés was often urged as a reason for not giving the

1027
same rate of wages as was paid outside, but when they found that 75 per cent. were not entitled to pension, and that those who were entitled, if they did not reach the pensionable age, left behind them widows and families who got nothing, then the argument which was urged about pensions lost a great deal of its force. What he urged was that the Government should pay the same rate of wages as was paid outside by private employers for the same class of work, for the Government ought not to pay less, because that was a bad example, and they ought to set a good example as employers of labour. To-day they were setting a very bad one, at all events as regarded the class of men to whom he referred. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give some promise in reference to the matter; if he did not he was afraid that they would have to go to a division. He hoped that the Secretary to the Admiralty would give an opportunity to the representatives of the Iron and. Steel Shipbuilders and Boilermakers Society to meet representatives of the Government to discuss these matters, with a view to changes being made which would prove satisfactory to both sides. He was only asking for that which was fair in asking the Government to do that.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,549,800, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Summerbell.)
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that last year the Admiralty began a new system of dealing with the dockyards which he thought had worked successfully. The Board of Admiralty visited the various yards once a year, and every considerable section of the men was allowed to send two representatives to state their grievances, in the absence of their local superiors, before the Lords of the Admiralty. Moreover, the men had been permitted to send as one of their representatives a man who was not a member of their own grade, and they were, therefore, able to be represented by men of the class the hon. Member desired to come before the Board. Three hon. Members below the gangway opposite had represented the men on these occa-
1028
sions, and in one case they were represented by a lawyer. The Board had no reason to regret the change, and they hoped this plan would remove questions of labour from the arena of the House of Commons. The Admiralty had also established an informal board for the consideration of trade questions, and especially of disputes between one trade and another. The petitions this year were all in, and they were under consideration, and he could assure the hon. Member that what he had said would not be lost sight of.
MR. JENKINScalled attention to the fact that in 1906 when introducing the Navy Estimates the right hon. Gentleman accepted a Resolution in favour of allowing an accredited representative of the men to accompany the representative of the trade in the dockyard when petitions were presented, and of granting the recognised trade union rate of wages as paid in the district where similar work was done. So far as the first part of the promise was concerned, it had been faithfully carried out, and he wished to thank the Admiralty for the kindness and courtesy shown to their deputations. He wished to know what had been done in reference to the other part of the promise. It was perfectly true that last year the Admiralty issued a statement after the petitions had been presented, and a concession of about £60,000 per annum was made to the workmen. That showed plainly that for a great many years the workmen in the dockyards had been labouring under a great disadvantage. That £60,000 meant about 1s. per week to the whole of the workmen and a certain amount to the officials. But even with this additional payment the rate of wages paid was not the same as was paid in other parts of the country where similar work was done. That was just the grievance they complained of, and they had laid it before the Admiralty when the representatives of the dockyard men presented their petitions. He had spoken upon this question to the workmen employed in every dockyard in the country, and the difficulty was to find out the average rate of wages paid. He wished the Secretary to the Admiralty to realise that the Resolution confined itself

1029
strictly to the wages paid in the district where the Government work was done. He had gone carefully through the whole of the Estimates, and he found that ten armoured cruisers were being built or Hearing completion outside the Royal dockyards. One was being built at Chatham, one on the Tyne, four on the Clyde, one at Barrow-in-Furness, and one at Sunderland. The men were quite prepared to strike an average wage for all those ports, but what did the Admiralty do? They referred them to the Board of Trade Return, in which as far as his own trade was concerned they took into consideration ninety-four ports. He wished to point out that five-sixths of those ports never did Government work at all. As far as his society was concerned they did present to the Admiralty a Return in which they took nine ports in 1906.. namely the Thames, the Mersey, the Tyne, the Clyde, Barrow, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, and Belfast, and they included the hours worked in both summer and winter, and the wages paid on new and old work. The average hours for those ports were fifty-three per week in the winter and forty-nine and a half in the summer, making an average all the year round of fifty-one and a half hours, and the average wage worked out at £1 19s. 10d. per week. He agreed that when they compared the number of hours worked in the Government dockyards with those outside there was a difference. The hours worked in the Government dockyards were forty-eight per week. On that occasion the Government took credit for being model employers, and for shortening the hours of labour from fifty-one and a half to forty-eight. They did not increase wages. He would place before the Committee the average weekly hours for the nine ports when the working hours were fifty-one and a half. The average weekly wage was £1 19s. 10d., whereas in the nine ports when forty-eight hours were worked the average week's wage was £1 17s. In the dockyards, the men in his trade, because of the shipping advance given last year, got £1 15s. 6d. for forty-eight hours work, and that notwithstanding the fact that the Admiralty had added £60,000 a year to the amount paid in wages. That difference of 1s. 6d. was manifestly unfair. What applied to his own trade
1030
applied also to others. He wished to say a word or two on behalf of the ordinary labourers in the dockyards. It was true that they received an advance of wages of 1s., but he was addressing a House which only a few hours ago voted £50,000 to one individual. The labourers in the dockyards for forty- eight hours per week received £1 1s. He knew that there were economists in the House, and if he were pleading for the building of a new ship he might be met with arguments on the score of economy, but he was appealing on behalf of men who were in receipt of 21s. a week. He and his friends would not be satisfied till the minimum wage for those men was not less than 24s., and he hoped the day would soon come when it would be recognised that that was not too much for a living wage to those people. As to skilled work, the Government must recognise that they were committed by the acceptance of the Resolution of last year to pay the same rate in the dockyards as was paid by private firms. What did riveters and caulkers get in the dockyards? Only 5 per cent. of the men realised the maximum of 28s. per week, 10 per cent. got 27s., 15 per cent. 26s., 20 per cent. 25s., fifteen per cent. 24s., 10 per cent. 23s., and 5 per cent. 22s. The average pay for the skilled worker was only 25s. per week. He asked the Admiralty whether they were prepared to pay to riveters and caulkers the same wages as men received in outside establishments? He trusted the Admiralty would be generous enough to consider this matter. There were 25,000 men in the Royal dockyards, thoroughly equipped and fit to do great service for the country, for they were the constructors of the first line of defence. While he thanked the Admiralty for the concessions already made, he had to state that unless a pledge was given that the men in the dockyards would receive trade union rates he and his friends would go to a division.
SIR JOHN BENNsaid he was a little afraid, after the speech of his hon. friend, that the Admiralty might form the impression that those who represented dockyard constituencies were not sufficiently appreciative of what had been done. He would endeavour

1031
to state the views of those interested in this matter as to the admirable way in which the new system had worked. There was now ample opportunity for the valuable speeches which had been addressed to the Committee by Labour Members being repeated by the hon. Gentlemen themselves in presence of the Lords of the Admiralty. A tribunal had at last been established which gave full opportunity for the men to state their claims. Eighteen months ago the only opportunity the men had for stating their grievances was by the old-fashioned method of sending in petitions, and occasionally they had the opportunity of seeing the authorities. Under the new system a round table conference had been set up, and the Lords of the Admiralty, at great inconvenience to themselves, had gone from dockyard to dockyard, and had invited the men to meet them. They had given the men the opportunity of being represented by trade union leaders. He thought that was a satisfactory state of things. Up to the present time a great deal had been done in the direction desired, and 300 representatives of the workmen had been received by the Lords of the Admiralty. Shorthand notes were taken of the evidence of those who could speak with authority on these matters. Up to the present time £60,000 a year had been added to the wages of those employed in the dockyards. He regarded that fact with great satisfaction, because hitherto the position of a dockyard Member had been looked upon with suspicion. They had been compelled to state in the House that the men were underpaid, and it had been said by some that it was for political reasons they pleaded for better wages for the men. To-day they were able to say that the claims which had been brought forward year after year had been amply justified by the inquiries held by the Lords of the Admiralty. They were extremely glad that a tribunal now existed by which something had been done in the direction they wished. The work was not finished, but an excellent beginning had been made. An attitude of criticism at this juncture was the best to adopt. He knew that the Government intended to fulfil the pledge, which they gave without hesitation, that the workers in the dockyards
1032
should enjoy wages comparable with trade union wages paid outside. When further representations were made in regard to these matters he was confident that they would receive sympathetic consideration, and that by another year they would see a further levelling up. Lord Tweedmouth in his Memorandum stated that it was not the intention of the Admiralty to allow overtime to be worked in the dockyards. He regarded that statement with satisfaction, because it was better that more hands should be employed than that overtime should be paid to a smaller number. On the question of discharges, he had reason to be grateful to the Government. Since the Government came into office 171 more men were employed in the dockyards, and that was a matter for congratulation. It was of great importance that in the matter of work the claims of the dockyards should receive first attention. He was not against private yards getting Government work, but he felt that unless the Government had national workshops fully equipped such work as was desired could not be produced. The public dockyards were not able to compete with the private dockyards, and, if in times of peace a dockyard was starved out, those who were engaged in it would have no opportunity of getting work in other directions. The First Lord of the Admiralty in his Memorandum said that under the change in the dockyard system the business was working smoothly and well, and he thought the nation might be satisfied that its dockyard work was going on satisfactorily. He had the fullest sympathy with the position taken up by his hon. friends on the other side of the House.
MR. BARNESsaid that he wished to say a word or two in reply to what the Secretary to the Admiralty had said as to their competence to bring forward and discuss this question on the floor of the House. He thought they should reserve their rights to come there as to a Court of Appeal. A particular class of men had had an opportunity of meeting the Board of Admiralty, and they now asked that the representatives of the Board should give them some assurance that the particular case which they

1033
had mentioned would not be taken as one among a multitude of questions which would form the subject of investigation by those who were experts in these matters. They would like to meet not the Lords of the Admiralty but men who had special and detailed knowledge. It was perfectly true that there had been an increase of wages in the dockyards at home, but he was sorry to say that did not apply to our dockyards abroad, and he thought the concessions which had been made at home should be extended abroad, where the men worked for longer hours and under climatic conditions which did not prevail here. He thought the Government ought to give them some assurance on that point.
MR. VIVIANsaid he had heard the case powerfully put for the Royal dockyards, but he rose to put the case for the private dockyards. He was not in favour of encouraging the extension of the Royal dockyards, because an immense amount of capital expenditure in regard to machinery and plant was made when war was threatened or took place, but when the war was over or the threatened war passed over, the machinery and the officialdom went on. Labour felt the blow at once, while the more prosperous employees did not. In private yards, however, the labour was more easily utilised for other work, and when war was over he had known cases in which ninety per cent. of the staff were suddenly engaged in producing things which were useful in time of peace. He would rather see an increase of private dockyards than of Royal dockyards. It was impossible to fulfil those conditions by utilising private yards except on a very reasonable scale and under proper regulations. The endeavour of the Admiralty should be to organise the resources of the country for the purpose of producing ships and other things required in war, so that in times of excitement and national danger the means of production should expand with the greatest rapidity and least waste. This could not be done by utilising the Royal yards on a very large scale, but by utilising the private yards their equipment would be encouraged, and the purposes of the Admiralty would be served without the waste that followed the fluctuations in the employment of labour
1034
in the Royal dockyards. There was one other defence of the private yards which he wished to point out. He was pleased to learn from his hon. friends below the gangway that they were now endeavouring, and he hoped they would succeed, to bring the wages of those engaged in State employment up to the standard which had been paid in private yards for many years. In that endeavour he would do everything in his power to help them. One hon. Member had said that there was a difference of twenty-five per cent. in the wages paid in the Royal dockyards and those paid in private yards. If that were so, he did not know why the men should be so enthusiastic in favour of employment in State yards.
MR. NAPIERsaid he doubted whether the Members for the dockyard constituencies shared the opinion of hon. Members who were in favour of an unlimited expansion of the public dockyards. What was wanted was not violent expansion at one moment to be followed by depression at another. As a dockyard Member himself what he asked for was that the Government work should be so arranged that, as far as possible, the employment in the State dockyards should be constant, and that the number of men always the same year after year. Such a policy had not been so fairly carried out as it might have been in recent years. The Admiralty deserved thanks for the opportunity they had given to the men to make their grievances known directly, but he agreed that that did not relieve Members who represented dockyard constituencies of their right and duty to press in the House upon the Ministry the fair claims of their constituents. He thought the Motion made to day was amply justified, at all events from a constitutional point of view. He, however, would ask the hon. Member for Sunderland not to press his Amendment. He thought it would be acknowledged that no Government had shown itself more sensible to or sympathetic with the claims of labour than the present Government. A great advance in the treatment of the men employed in the dockyards had been made, and they were assured that the representations and complaints lodged with the Board of Admiralty at the beginning of the year were receiving serious and sympathetic consideration. If

1035
that were so, he doubted whether it would be altogether grateful or graceful to press the consideration of particular items further at the present time. There were some men in whom he was interested to whom he desired to refer. He meant the caulkers, of whom he believed that they were only eighty in England.
MR. MADDISON: Nonsense; there are hundreds of them.
MR. NAPIERsaid he was told that those men had had only 1s. advance in their wages during the last thirty-four years. If that were so, it required serious consideration. He hoped that his right hon. friend would make a note of the word ''caulkers," and that when he returned to his office he would inquire into their case. He would suggest that the Motion had served a useful purpose in drawing the attention of the House to the condition of the men and their wages, and he hoped that his hon. friend would not press it to a division, but leave the matter open for another year for the consideration of Ministers, when he was sure it would be found that the grievance complained of would be remedied.
MR. BRAMSDONsaid he wished to express great regret that the hon. Member for Birkenhead should have raised on that occasion the question of private versus Royal dockyards. It was not suggested in any way by the dockyard Members, but as the hon. Member had raised the point he wanted to put one fact before the Committee which would speak volumes in answer to the allegations that had been made. In the earlier part of the debate they were informed that during the nine months prior to 1st January, 1906, something like 6,733 men were discharged from the Royal dockyards. The House would easily understand the great trouble and tribulation that arose in the dockyard towns, which were different from other towns, and the loss to their commercial life that resulted on account of these numerous discharges. They were prevented from having commercial docks in these places, and were consequently practically without commerce, and the result was a state of things that did not occur in towns where private and commercial yards existed. He therefore hought the suggestion made by the hon.
1036
Member was a very unfortunate one, and personally he regretted it very much. His object in rising, however, was to say that he cordially agreed with all that the hon. Member for Devonport had said with respect to the Admiralty, and on behalf of Portsmouth, the senior naval port, he wanted to thank that Department most cordially for the grant of an extra £60,000 which they had given towards the wages of the men. It was appreciated very much in his own dockyard. Of course they were not satisfied, and he hoped to be able to appeal on behalf of his constituents for a reconsideration of the matter so that the wages might be still further increased. They could not get everything done at once. The Admiralty had done a splendid thing in allowing the men to interview their Lordships, who received them with the greatest courtesy and consideration, and paid the utmost attention to their arguments and grievances. He asked that hon. Members should be reasonable and not hope to get more than they could fairly expect. Personally, he had the greatest confidence that the Admiralty would grant them more money as time went on, and he would go on agitating until the men got more substantial wages than they at present received. They were not paid as they ought to be and as the men were paid in other yards, and it was right and proper that this fact should be pointed out from time to time. If they had many friends like the hon. Member for Birkenhead, they would have a very difficult uphill fight before them. Royal dockyards were established for a particular purpose, namely, for the building, repair, and protection of ships in the Navy, and they were dockyards that could not be done away with, even if it were wished. If any crisis or a war occurred necessitating repairs or protection of ships, the Royal dockyards were the right places for it. He hoped his friends on the Labour benches would not press the matter to a division, although at the same time he was cordially with them as regards the principle on which they had brought the matter forward.
MR J. WARDexplained that he intervened in the debate because the Labour representatives did not consider that the statement with regard to wages which had been made by

1037
the Secretary to the Admiralty was very satisfactory. As far as he was concerned as a Member of Parliament the personal element was absent. They only made pots in Stoke-on-Trent. But, generally speaking, it was obvious that when demands were made upon our national resources in times of national excitement due to war the national dock yards were unable to cope with them, and we had to ask for help from private enterprises. From this arrangement followed the corrupt contract system and scandals that disgraced almost every military expedition sent away from our shores. All this resulted from trying to cripple the resources of the national dockyards in time of peace. We ought more and more to rely upon the national dockyards. No doubt it was quite as bad for workmen employed by private firms to be out of work as for those engaged by the Government, but there was this difference in the nature of the employment. In the Government dockyards Government work simply was done, but private yards could cater for other kinds of work if one particular kind became depressed. He had no wish to advocate an increase of expenditure, but when the House decided to spend a certain amount of money on the two branches of the Service, the Government should at least pay special attention to their own work men, for the very reason that private yards could undertake other work. Attention had been drawn to the fact that wages were 25 per cent, lower in Government yards than in private yards. A reason for it was to be found in the fact that the Government were diposed to consider to a large extent the employee's pension in the recompense they paid him. This naturally suggested to those who represented organised Labour the necessity of noting such facts and placing their views before the Government.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he did not know that he could add very much to the statement made by his right hon. friend on this question. After all that was said and done, the Government had only been in office for eighteen months, and during that short period they had had consider able difficulty in obtaining from the keepers of the public purse, the Treasury, assent to an increase of something like,£60,000 a year distributed among the various employees in the dockyard. This
1038
year precisely the same course of procedure had been followed. The First Lord of the Admiralty had gone to Chatham and Portsmouth, and the Secretary to the Admiralty had inter viewed the responsible officials of the other dockyards; and at the present moment the matters which had been brought before them were under the serious consideration of the Department. The Government could not, however, make any further statement just now He might say that they had not the smallest wish to pay the dockyard hands less than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. It must be remembered that they were the representatives of the taxpayers of the country, and had a right to demand that a fair day's work should be given for a fair day's wage. The point had been laid before the country, and he would be somewhat sorry to see a division on the subject, for that must have some effect on the ultimate decision. He thought that hon. Members in their own interests should not go to a division, because he did not suppose that they expected to carry the reduction, and the Admiralty would have to pay regard to the decision of the House of Commons. As regards foreign yards, though he could not make a statement, they were actively engaged in considering the matter. The whole Board had been to Gibraltar and to Malta, and they had heard many of the grievances of the men. While he could not make a statement, he could assure the House that the general principle as to the treatment which they had laid down with regard to Government employees would be carried out in, he would not say a generous, but a just spirit that would be extended to men in foreign yards. He hoped the hon. Gentlemen would see their way to with draw the Amendment; he had laid his reasons before them and it was they who had to decide, but he hoped they would seriously consider the course which he had suggested.
*MR W. T. WILSONsaid he wished to say a word or two on behalf of a trade that had not participated in the £00,000 increased wages paid on the decision of the Admiralty last year—he referred to the joiners. He wished particularly to call the attention of the Secretary to the

1039
Admiralty to the fact that both joiners and labourers in the Director of Works Department were paid considerably less than similar classes of employees in other sections of the dockyards. In the Director of Works Department they were paid a maximum of 32s. a week and a minimum of 30s. a week; but in connection with that department there were classifications, which system did not prevail in other departments. He found that sometimes a man had to wait ten years before he got an increase of Is. on his wages; and unless he had influence behind him he got no increase until he was practically qualified for the old-age pension. He hoped that the joiners employed in the Director of Works Department would be placed on exactly the same footing as those employed in other departments connected with the dockyards. He was informed that the labourers in the dock-yard received £1 Is. a week, while the labourers in the department to which he referred were paid only £1 a week. He thought he was justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman at any rate to put the lowest paid class of labourers under his control on the same level as those who were engaged in other departments. He would like also to point out that while the principle was recognised in the Royal dock yards of paying a certain class of workman the same wage as was paid in private yards, in the Director of Works Department they were paid considerably less than was paid in private yards; and, seeing that the joiners for whom he spoke did not participate in the increase of wages last year, he hoped that the Admiralty would give special recognition to this trade. A system of bonuses prevailed in the dock-yards; he believed that if a man served seven years he got a bonus, but if he was discharged at the end of six years and eleven months he got nothing. Either the bonus ought to be abolished altogether or the man who was discharged through no fault of his own should receive bonus proportionate to that part of the seven years which he had worked. He hoped that the Secretary to the Admiralty would do his utmost to bring all the joiners of the dockyards to the same level so far as wages were concerned. Often these men had to travel some distance to their jobs and had to pay their own fares, and they were also liable to be laid off if the
1040
weather was bad. Ho thought that taking everything into consideration it would be right to abolish the classification in the Director of Works Department, and also that these workmen should be placed on the same level as the joiners in other departments of the dockyards.
*MR. LUPTONsaid in reference to the guarantee of wages it must be remembered that they were dealing with a fixed sum of money voted by Parliament, and if the wages were increased by 25 per cent, the number of men would have to be reduced by 20 per cent. But the point to which he desired to call attention was that many of these men had another grievance not connected with the amount of their wages, but because they were liable to be vaccinated. A joiner was set on at Portsmouth a short time ago, and when he refused to be vaccinated he was dismissed. This vaccination was not by statute; it was entirely by regulation of the Lords of the Admiralty, and it was a matter wholly within the management and control of the Secretary to the Admiralty and his colleagues, and if he chose he could omit the regulation It was well known to anyone who knew anything about the question that the people who advocated vaccination held that it was of no use unless it was repeated continually—that unless a person was vaccinated three or four times it was absolutely useless. If a man was vaccinated once at the beginning of his term of office and that was all, it was a useless proceeding. Why then inflict this penalty which sometimes killed a man and often injured him, perhaps seriously?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid it would be better before the hon. Gentleman proceeded further that they should dispose of the question which they had been discussing.
*MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that he would give careful consideration to the various points which had been raised. What the hon. Member for Chat ham had said on another occasion in reference to the matter on which he had spoken that evening had been fully reported, together with the speeches of the hon. Gentleman's friends, and these would be laid before the Board of Admiralty in due time and fully

1041
considered. In regard to the joiners in the Director of Works Department being put on the same level as other joiners in the dockyards that was a point which would be fully considered. His hon. friend had asked when the Report would be issued. When it was ready it would be laid before the responsible officials, and when it had been dealt with, and summarised and tabulated, it would then be laid before the Board. He did not think that it would be long delayed. After to-night he would be free to devote more time to these matters. He appealed to the House either to let the Vote pass or be with drawn, it was immaterial which, because there was another Vote in the hands of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies down for discussion.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid that after the interesting discussion which they had he desired to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. MURRAY MACDONALDsaid he had no intention of opposing the withdrawal of this Vote. He had intended to move a reduction of the Vote, because he believed that the provision made in the Estimate for battle-ships was far in excess of our requirements, but it was obvious that at that, time of night they could have no proper discussion of these provisions. Never the less, if a division were taken, he and some, at least, of his friends, would show their dissatisfaction by abstaining from voting.
MR. MADDISON:regretted than when it was understood that a reduction of this Vote was about to be moved, raising a great question of policy with regard to large battle ships they should I have no opportunity whatever for discussion. They had been occupied discussing parochial matters which might have been settled by conference with the right hon. Gentleman, with the result that a really important discussion had been prevented from taking place. That was another reflection upon the un business like proceedings of this House.
*MR. REESsaid there were many hon. Members
1042
sitting on the Ministerial side of the House who by no means shared the regret which had just been expressed and who, like him, were pleased that the Motion for the reduction of the Fleet was not going to be moved and that no opportunity offered for opposing the policy of the Government in this behalf. The Government avowedly maintained the traditional policy of this country in regard to its first line of defence, and its chief arm of attack.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid that apparently the hon. Member for Burnley had misunderstood the situation. The previous discussion had been on the general question. The points he had alluded to had only occupied about two hours and it was un fair to say that they were merely parochial questions.
MR. MADDISONsaid he was not referring to that subject alone. He still thought that hon. Members would have been better advised if they had allowed this Motion for a reduction to come on.
*SIR RANDAL CREMERprotested against the course that was being pursued. Several Members had been waiting for months for an opportunity of moving a reduction in the cost of naval armaments. And now they were told that in a few minutes time the debate would be brought to a close and that the discussion on this very important question could not take place. He did not know whether those representing the Admiralty were aware of the strong feeling which existed out of doors upon this subject. Many people regarded the subject as one of supreme importance. He wished hon. Members who talked so much about the desirability of old-age pensions would devote themselves seriously to considering where the money was to come from to provide them. [AN HON MEMBER: Lord Cromer £50,000.] He believed it possible to get the necessary funds by reductions on Army and Navy expenditure. [AN HON MEMBER: Move your Amendment.] There were some hon. Members who talked about economy and said it was an excellent thing, but not in Chatham, Woolwich or Devonport. [" Oh ! "and AN HON MEMBER: Speak for yourself.]
MR. JENKINS: I have never said any such thing.
MR. JOHN BENN: And I never said any such thing.
MR. RANDAL CREMER:said the hon. Member for Chatham was too astute to use the exact words, but that was the result of the policy he pursued in the House of Commons. It was impossible for hon. Members to realise what they professed so much anxiety about so long as the shameful expenditure on the Army and Navy went on.
MR.LYNCH: Is the hon. Member in order in alluding to expenditure on the Navy as shameful?
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot say that the expression "shameful expenditure" in the sense used is an unparliamentary expression.
*RANDAL CREMERsaid he would withdraw "shameful" and use the word "extravagant," which equally well ex pressed his meaning. The Committee would form their own opinion as to the reasons which had prompted the Front Bench to closure them on the present occasion. He resented it and protested against it. [Cries of "Move, move."] It was not his Amendment, and he had no intention of moving it, because it was quite clear that the course which had been adopted was intended to close their mouths and prevent them from discussing this useless wasteful expenditure of the nation's resources. Having made that protest he would resume his seat.
MR.GEORGE WHITELEYassured his hon. friend that what he said was not the fact. No one wished to burke discussion, and the real reason why the Government wanted to withdraw the Vote was that the Under-Secretary desired to make a statement on a matter of vital importance —namely, the abolition of slavery in Zanzibar.
*MR. REESsaid he desired to point out that both the hon. Members who de sired that this Motion should be moved had themselves stated that they were not going to vote for it, so robust was their belief in their own creed.
MR. MURRAY MACDONALD,without comment, moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000, in order to allow the sense of the Committee to be taken at once upon the question which he had raised.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,548,900,; be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Murray Macdonald.)
MR. LUPTONsaid he heartily agreed with this Amendment. All they required Naval expenditure for was to defend the Empire, and the present expenditure was a great deal too much for that purpose. The Navy Estimates might with safety be reduced by at least £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year.
MR. BOWLESsaid that during the last few minutes it had been abundantly demonstrated how very improper it would have been to accede to the request of the Front Ministerial Bench opposite to let this enormously important Vote go by with less consideration than one full Parliamentary day. The point he wished to draw attention to was one of the most supreme importance and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to give him an answer. The point he alluded to was the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to cordite. Whatever view might be taken on the subject, it was certainly one which ought to receive the serious consideration of the House. Some few months ago it was ascertained that a considerable proportion of the cordite on board His Majesty's ships had been so manufactured as to be at this moment entirely untested, and in such a condition that no human being could say with any certainty that it was not in a highly dangerous state. That was admitted and could not be denied. What he complained of was the way in which the Admiralty were dealing with the situation, because they ware putting into absolute and real danger, if not all, certainly a large proportion of the ships of the Navy. What did the right hon. Gentleman propose? They had in a large number of magazines cordite which had never been tested and all the Secretary to the Admiralty told them was that it was going to be tested.

1045
He wished to know how and when that cordite was going to be tested. What test was lie going to apply? The only possible test, as far as he knew, was the heat test, and he did not believe that could be applied in this particular case. Then it was said that the old cordite was to be used up first, but he did not believe that there were any available means of finding out what were the old and what were the new cartridges in a ship's magazine. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that "suspicious" cordite was to be destroyed. [Cries of "Divide."] He could assure the Committee that he was not engaged in any attempt to waste time. This seemed to him to be a matter of the greatest importance. A large amount of highly explosive material was on board our ships in all parts of the world. Was there anybody who could tell whether it was safe or not? If it was dangerous, it might produce destruction which would hare an enormous effect on the shipbuilding Vote. The steps which the right hon. Gentleman said he had taken to test the cordite were found, on examination, to be perfectly illusory. So far as he knew, the cordite in question could not be tested without being brought home and submitted to a difficult and complicated test. It was perfectly impossible to test it on a man of war. He did not think it was extravagant to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state some reason for supposing that the steps he had taken to deal with the danger were not illusory.
*MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the best assurance he could give the hon. Gentleman was that tests to be applied had been recommended by the experts of the Admiralty. He did not understand these things himself, and, all he could do was to rely on the information given to him as to the nature of the test. The only test to be applied was one which had recently been in use. If the hon. Gentle man opposite desired to pursue the inquiry further, he would place all the information he could at his disposal.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid a similar question as to condition of cordite arose in regard to the Army supplies, and the Secretary of State for War said he could give a
1046
pledge that the cordite at present in store was absolutely safe. It was desirable that there should be no uncertainty among our sailors as to the safety of the cordite on board ship. He asked an assurance from the Admiralty that the cordite in the magazines at present was. free from risk to our seamen.
MR. JENKINScomplained of the large amount of constructional work given to private dockyards. He called attention to items on page 88 of the Estimates under the heading of "Coal, &c, for the Fleet." A sum of £1,832,000 for coal was included as a dockyard charge, and he thought it was debited in the wrong place. The figure for the dock yards instead of being £5,000,000 should only be a little over £3,000,000.
MR. GRETTONsaid that unless it appeared from the shipbuilding programme next year that the Admiralty had considerably advanced as to the necessity for battleships he and his friends would be obliged to use all the force they could in criticising the programme. As to the torpedo flotilla there had been a great deal of anxiety created in the public mind. A large proportion of the boats were constructed before 1898, at which date Germany commenced the construction of a torpedo flotilla, and now had a flotilla of 146. while we had a flotilla of 143. All the German vessels had been constructed since 1898, but seventy-seven of our vessels were constructed previous to that year. It was important that we should have up-to-date vessels for the proper training of our officers and seamen. This was a subject which caused great anxiety in the minds of every competent critic in the country, and he rose for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentle men if he could give the same assurance with regard to this that he had given in respect to the repairs of the cruisers. Would he consider whether he could furnish a printed statement in respect of the torpedo flotilla showing the repairs needed? He had no wish to prolong the debate, but he pressed the right hon. Gentleman to allay the public anxiety which had been created by want of in formation upon this subject.
*M OWEN PHILIPPSsaid he wished to take

1047
this opportunity of expressing his thanks to the Secretary to the Admirality for the sympathetic way in which the Admiralty during the last eighteen months had met the various grievances that the men had laid before them. There were still grievances to be dealt with, and he hoped that they would be arranged in the coming year. He hoped sincerely that next year the Government would not overlook the necessity of providing additional graving docks. It was useless discussing whether we should have a large or small shipbuilding programme, whether we should build few "Dreadnoughts" or many, unless the Government dealt in a practical way with the question of providing graving docks in which these enormous vessels could be repaired quickly in case of accident or damage in time of war. The statement that had been made by a member of the Government upon the question shewed a state of things far from satisfactory. At the present time in the British Empire there were only about thirteen graving docks in which the vessels we were now building could be repaired. He submitted that it was of the greatest importance that there should be a large number of graving docks built throughout the Empire.
*MR. REESsaid he rose for the purpose of putting two points before the right hon. Gentleman, whose brief and lucid statements always gave him the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to conceal behind a cloud of verbiage. He asked whether it was desirable that there should be no battleship on the China station. The fact that we were in alliance with a great naval power in the East made it even the more necessary that our flag should not disappear from one of these great stations where it has been accustomed to be flown, and that it should not be flown upon a less powerful warship than in former years. The Americans, the French, and the Germans all had battleships in these waters, and
he certainly thought that we also should have at least one such vessel. If we had not enough ships to allow one to be sent to the China station he would suggest that the Government should build one, but he thought that it might be done by a more rearrangement of the fleets. He also urged that something bigger than a gunboat should control the Persian Gulf, which, politically speaking, was one of the storm centres of the world. This gulf had been cleared of pirates and slaves at the expense of the British taxpayer; it had been opened to the commerce of the world at the expense of the same individual, and his rights and influence in these waters should be jealously maintained at a time when other great Powers were pursuing a policy of more or less peaceful penetration towards the gulf.
* MR SHERWELLsaid since that complaint had been made that the Amendment had been moved without any statement being made in support of it, he wished to explain, on behalf of his hon. friend who moved it and those who supported him in the Amendment, that he had deliberately abstained from saying anything in support of it out of deference to the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to have time to make a statement on the question of slavery in Zanzibar. Personally, he greatly regretted that he and his hon. friends had not been given the opportunity of stating the case for the Amend ment, which had been moved in no narrow spirit, but solely because they realised the great social and national importance of keeping naval and military expenditure within reasonable limits. Their view was that the Vote for new construction was not justified by the facts before the Committee.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 353.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Barnes, G. N.

Clough, William

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Bowerman, C. W.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Edwards. Enoch (Hanley)

Brace, William

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

Everett, K. Lacey

Bright, J. A.

Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E,Gr'st'd

Fenwick. Charles

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Ffrench, Peter

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Fullerton, Hugh

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lehmann, R. C.

Richardson, A.

Gilhooly, James

Lundon, W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Gill. A.H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Glover, Thomas

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Goddard. Daniel Lord

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Callum, John M.

Shackleton, David James

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maddison, Frederick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Gurdon,Rt Hn.SirW.Grampton

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Summerbell, T.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Menzies, Walter

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

Halpin, J.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Vivian, Henry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murnaghan, George

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hazleton, Richard

Murphy, John

Walsh, Stephen

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nolan, Joseph

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

Hodge, John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wardle, George J.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Hudson, Walter

Parker, James (Halifax)

Williams,Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pirie, Duncan V.

Jowett, F. W.

Pollard, Dr.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Joyce, Michael

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

Mr.Murray Macdonald and Mr. Sherwell.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rendall, Athelstan

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cave, George

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir Alex.F

Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Agnew, George William

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Findlay, Alexander

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fletcher, J. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Forster, Henry William

Anson. Sir William Reynell

Chance, Frederick William

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fuller, John Michael F.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cheethara, John Frederick

Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

Ashley, W. W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Gretton, John

Astbury. John Meir

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham,

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir H.

Cleland, J. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Coates, E.Feetham(Lewisham)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Balcarres, Lord

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Harwood, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hedges, A. Paget

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cowan, W. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

Cox, Harold

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

Beauchamp, E.

Craig,CharlesCurtis (Antrim, S.

Henry, Charles S.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craik, Sir Henry

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bell, Richard

Crean, Eugene

Hervey,F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

Bellairs, Carlyon

Crooks, William

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Crossley, William J.

Hills, J. W.

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

Dalziel, James Henry

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies,David (Montgomery Co.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Bertram, Julius

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Bowles, G. Stewart

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Houston, Robert Paterson

Boyle, Sir Edward

Doughty, Sir George

Hunt, Rowland

Bramsdon, T. A.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hyde, Clarendon

Branch. James

Du Cros, Harvey

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Brigg, John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Brocklehurst. W. B.

Dunne,Major E.Martin (Wals'll

Jardine, Sir J.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jenkins, J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Elibank, Master of

Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

Buckmaster, Stanley O,

Erskine, David C.

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Bull, Sir William James

Essex, R. W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kekewich, Sir George

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Evans, Samuel T.

Kilbride, Denis

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Laidlaw, Robert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fell, Arthur

Lambert, George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Ferens, T. R.

Lamont, Norman

1050

1051

Lever, A.Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearson,Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Steadman, W. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Philipps.Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lough, Thomas

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Radford, G. H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lynch, H. B.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Taylor, TheodoreC. (Radcliffe)

Maclean, Donald

Raphael, Herbert H.

Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury)

M'Crae, George

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Torrance, Sir A. M.

M'Micking, Major G.

Rees, J. D.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mallet, Charles E.

Rickett, J. Compton

Ure, Alexander

Mansfield,H.Rendall (Lincoln)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Valentia, Viscount

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Verney, F. W.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Vincent,Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Massie, J.

Robertson,SirRt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

Wason,JohnCatheart (Orkney)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

Waterlow, D. S.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Robinson, S.

Watt, Henry A.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Roe, Sir Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Montagu, E. S.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whit bread, Howard

Montgomery, H. G.

Runciman, Walter

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Mooney, J. J.

Russell, T.W.

Whitehead. Rowland

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Whitley,John Henry(Halifax)

Morpeth, Viscount

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wiles, Thomas

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Schwann.SirC.E.(Manchester)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Murray, James

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Napier, T. B.

Seely, Major J. B.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Nicholson, Wm.G. (Petersfield)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Nield, Herbert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Norman, Sir Henry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Younger, George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Yoxall, James Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Mr.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Partington, Oswald

Stanger, H. Y.

Pease.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,549,900 be granted for the said Service," put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
And, it being after Ten of the clock, the CHARMAN proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
The CHARMAN then proceeded to put severally the Questions, "That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each Class of the Civil Services Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army (including Ordnance Factories) and the Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services denned in those Classes and Estimates:—

CLASS I.
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £312,432, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1908, for Expenditure on the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

4

Houses of Parliament Buildings (Supplementary).

5,700

10

Surveys of the United Kingdom.

118,905

11

Harbours under the Board of Trade

16,740

12

Peterhead Harbour

21,988

14

Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

122,829

15

Railways, Ireland

26,270

312,432."

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 300; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 351.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, W. Howell,(Bristol,S.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Agnew, George William

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

Jordan, Jeremiah

Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jowett, F. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Joyce, Michael

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall

Kekewich, Sir George

Astbury, John Meir

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kilbride, Denis

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Erskine, David C.

Laidlaw, Robert

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Essex, R. W.

Lambert, George

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lamont, Norman

Barnes, G. N.

Evans, Samuel T.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras.E.)

Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone.N.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lehmann, R. C.

Beauchamp, K.

Fenwick. Charles

Lever,A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Bell, Richard

Ferens, T. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bellairs, Carlyon

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lewis, John Herbert

Benn,Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Findlay, Alexander

Lough, Thomas

Berridge, T. H. D.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lundon, W.

Bertram, Julius

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lupton, Arnold

Bethell.Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Fuller, John Michael F.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

Fullerton, Hugh

Lyell, Charles Henry

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lynch, H. B.

Bowerman, C. W.

Gilhooly, James

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Brace, William

Gill, A. H.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn

Maclean, Donald

Branch, James

Glover, Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Brigg, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Bright, J. A.

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Crae, George

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Gurdon,Rt Hn.SirW.Brampton

M'Micking, Major G.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Maddison, Frederick

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mallet, Charles E.

Byles, William Pollard

Halpin, j.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mansfield,H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Harmsworth. Cecil B.(Worc'r)

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marnham, F. J.

Chance, Frederick William

Harwood, George

Massie, J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Haworth, Arthur A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Meagher, Michael

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hazleton, Richard

Menzies, Walter

Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S.

Hedges, A. Paget

Micklem, Nathaniel

Clarke. C. Goddard (Peckham)

Helme, Norval Watson

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cleland, J. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Clough. William

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

Montagu, E. S.

Cobbold, Felix; Thornley

Henry, Charles S.

Montgomery, H. G.]

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Mooney, J. J.

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cooper, G. J.

Hodge, John

Morrell, Philip

Corbett,CH(Sussex, E.Grinst'd)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morse, L. L.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holland. Sir William Henry

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Holt, Richard Durning

Murnaghan, George

Cowan, W. H.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Murphy, John

Cox, Harold

Horniman, Emslie John

Murray, James

Crean, Eugene

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Myer, Horatio

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Hudson, Walter

Napier, T. B.

Crooks, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Crosfield, A. H.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Crossley, William J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norman, Sir Henry

Dalziel, James Henry

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

Jardine, Sir J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jenkins, J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones,Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Verney, P. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Runciman, Walter

Vivian, Henry

Partington, Oswald

Russell, T. W.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Paulton, James Mellor

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walsh, Stephen

Pearce, Robert (Staffs,.Leek)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Schwann,Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton)

Philipps,Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wardle, George J.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Seddon, J.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Seely, Major J. B.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shackleton, David James

Waterlow, D. S.

Pollard, Dr.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Watt, Henry A.

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

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Weir, James Galloway

Radford, G. H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whitbread, Howard

Rainy, A. Rolland

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, George (Norfolk)

Rapheal, Herbert H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Stanger, H. Y.

Whitehead, Rowland

Rees, J. D.

Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rendall, Athelstan

Steadman, W. C.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wiles, Thomas

Richards.T.F.(Wolverh'mpton)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

Richardson, A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Rickett, J. Compton

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Summerbell, T.

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Yoxall, James Henry

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf rd

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Tomkinson, James

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

Robinson, S.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ure, Alexander

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn.SirAlex.F.

Doughty, Sir George

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Anstruther-Gray. Major

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Du Cros, Harvey

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH.

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gretton, John

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hervey.F.W.F. (BuryS.Edm'd

Stanley,Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement (.Shrewsbury)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Starff'sh.)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hills, J. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson. W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

Keswick, William

Thornton. Percy M.

Cavendish, Rt.Hon. VictorC. W.

Lavy, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Morpeth, Viscount

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Sir. William Bull and Mr. Stanley Wilson.

Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.)

Nield, Herbert

Craik, Sir Henry

O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens

CLASS II.
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,182,699, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in
1056
course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

1.

House of Lords Offices.

17,543

2.

House of Commons Offices

22,800

3.

Treasury and Subordinate Offices

60,919

4.

Home Office

128,735

5.

Foreign Office

40,698

6.

Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £2,200)

37,900

7.

Privy Council Office

6,120

9.

Mercantile Marino Services.

72,816

10.

Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

1,508

12.

Charity Commission

15,892

13.

Civil Service Commission

23,750

15.

Friendly Societies Registry.

5,624

16.

Local Government Board

147,782

17.

Lunacy Commission, England

10,905

20.

Public Record Office

14,190

21.

Public Works Loan Commission

1,500

22.

Registrar-General's Office, England.

25,994

23.

Stationery and Printing

418,053

24.

Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, &c, Office

£ 13,398

25.

Works and Public Buildings Office.

52,596

20.

Secret Service

10,000

Scotland.

29.

Lunacy Commission

3,799

30.

Registrar-General's Office

2,978

Ireland.

32.

Household of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland

2,632

33.

Chief Secretary for Ireland

17,756

35.

Charitable Donations and Bequests Office.

1,051

37.

Public Record Office

3,580

39.

Registrar-General's Office

7,332

40.

Valuation and Boundary Survey

14,848

£1,182,699"

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 306; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 355.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

Acland. Francis Dyke

Buckmaster. Stanley O.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Anew, George William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Alien, A.Acland (Christchurch)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Alien, Charles P. (Stroud)

Byles, William Pollard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Astbury, John Meir

Causton, Rt.HnRichardKnight

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Chance, Frederick William

Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Barnes, G. N

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Elibank, Master of

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Erskine, David C.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Essex, R. W.

Beauchamp, E.

Cleland, J. W.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Bell, Richard

Clough, William

Evans, Samuel T.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clynes, J. R.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Benn, SirJ-Williams(Devonp'rt

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Everett, R. Lacey

Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fen wick, Charles

Berridge, T. H. D.

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

Ferens, T. R.

Bertram. Julius

Cooper, G. J.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

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

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Findlay, Alexander

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bowerman, C. W.

Cowan, W. H.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Brace, William

Cox, Harold

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cream, Eugene,

Fullerton, Hugh

Branch, James

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Brigg, John

Crooks, William

Gilhooly, James

Bright, J. A.

Crosfield, A. H.

Gill, A. H.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crossley, William J.

Gladstone, Rt.HnHerbertJohn

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

Dalziel, James Henry

Glover, Thomas

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Laren, H. D. (Staftord, W.

Runciman, Walter

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Micking, Major G.

Russell, T. W.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Maddison, Frederick

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Mallet, Charles t. E

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Halpin, J.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln;

Schwann. SirC.E.(Manchester)

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-und.-Lyne

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

Seaverns, J. H.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Marnham, F. J.

Seddon, J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Massie, J.

Seely, Major J. B.

Harwood, George

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shackleton, David James

Haworth, Arthur A.

Meagher, Michael

Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Menzies, Walter

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hazleton, Richard

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Helme, Norval Watson

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Snowden, P.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu, E. S.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W

Montgomery, H. G.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Henry, Charles S.

Mooney, J. J.

Stanger, H. Y.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Morrell, Philip

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morse, L. L.

Steadman, W. C.

Hodge, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murnaghan, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murphy, John

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Holt, Richard Durning

Murray, James

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Myer, Horatio

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Horniman, Emslie John

Napier, T. B.

Summerbell, T.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Sutherland. J. E.

Hudson, Walter

Nolan, Joseph

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hyde, Clarendon

Norman, Sir Henry

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Tomkinson. James

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Torrance. Sir A. M.

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Trevelyan. Charles Philips

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Ure, Alexander

Jones, SirD.Brynmor(Swansea)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Verney, F. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Partington, Oswald

Vivian, Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Paulton, James Mellor

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Walsh, Stephen

Jowett,, J. W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Joyce, Michael

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Kekewich, Sir George

Philipps, Col.Ivor (S'thampton

Wardle, George J.

Kilbride, Denis

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Waring, Walter

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Laidlaw, Robert

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Lambert, George

Pollard. Dr.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamont, Norman

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Watt, Henry A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras,E.

Radford, G. H.

Weir, James Galloway

Lehmann, R. C.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Whitbread, Howard

Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, George (Norfolk)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rea, WalterRussell(Scarboro'

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rees, J. D.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rendall, Athelstan

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lough, Thomas

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Lundon, W.

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpton

Wiles, Thomas

Lupton, Arnold

Richardson, A.

William, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rickett, J. Compton

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ridsdale, E. A.

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

Lynch, H. B.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, J.W. (Worcester'sh.N.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Macdonald, J.M(Falkirk B'ghs

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson, Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

Yoxall, James Henry

Maclean, Donald

Robertson, SirGScott(Bradf'rd

Macpherson, J. T.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

M'Callum, John

Robinson, S.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

M'Crae, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Pease.

1060

1061

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn.SirAlexF.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Du Cros, Harvey

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber, George Denison (York)

Ratcliff, Major R.F.

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirH.

Featherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Eeelesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hervey,F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm's

Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Houston, Robert Paterson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Keswick, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

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

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cavendish,Rt,Hn. Victor C. W.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nield, Herbert

Major Anstruther-Gray and

Craig, Charles Curtis(AntrimS.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Mr. Lonsdale.

Craik, Sir Henry

Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Doughty, Sir George

Parkes, Ebenezer

CLASS III.
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,569,601, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

1.

Law Charges

42,774

2.

Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

21,944

3.

Supreme Court of Judicature

177,556

4.

Land Registry

22,813

5.

County Courts

3

6.

Police, England and Wales Scotland.

25,036

10.

Law Charges and Courts of Law

50,706

11.

Register House, Edinburgh

27,700

£

12.

Crofters' Commission

2,545

13.

Prison

53,650

Ireland

14.

Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

37,872

15.

Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

59,086

16.

Irish Land Commission.

139,050

17.

County Court Officers, etc.

66,298

19.

Royal Irish Constabulary

721,499

20.

Prison

62,556

21.

Reformatory and Industrial Schools

55,251

22.

Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

3,262

£1,569,601"

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 304; Noes, 80. (Division List No. 356.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Astbury, John Meir

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Beauchamp, E.

Agnew, George William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bell, Richard

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Benn,SirJWilliams (Devonp'rt)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barnes, G. N.

Benn,W(TowerHamlets,S. Geo.

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bertram, Julius

Bethell,SirJH (Essex,Romf'rd)

Glover, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Maddison, Frederick

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gooch, George Peabody

Mallet, Charles E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Brace, William

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gurdon,RtHnSir W.Brampton

Markham, Arthur Basil

Branch, James

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

Brigg, John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Bright, J. A.

Halpin, J.

Massie, J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Masterman. C. F. G.

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Meagher, Michael

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Menzies, Walter

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Micklem,.Nathaniel

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harwood, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ha worth, Arthur A.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Byles, William Pollard

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montagu, E. S.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hazleton, Richard

Montgomery. H. G.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Mooney, J. J.

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Chance, Frederick William

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

Morrell, Philip

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Henry, Charles S.

Morse, L. L.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Herbert. T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murnaghan. George

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hodge, John

Murphy, John

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murray. James

Cleland, J. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Myer, Horatio

Clough, William

Holt, Richard Durning

Napier, T. B.

Clynes. J. R.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Horniman, Emslie John

Nolan, Joseph

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norman, Sir Henry

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

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cooper, G. J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Illingworth. Percy H.

O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Donnell. C J. (Walworth)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Grady. J.

Cowan, W. H.

Jardine, Sir J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Crean, Eugene

Jenkins, J.

Partington, Oswald

Cremer. Sir William Randal

Jones,SirD. Brynmor (Swansea)

Paulton. James Mellor

Crooks. William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Crossley, William J.

Jordon, Jeremiah

Pearson.SirW.D.(Colchester)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Pearson, W. H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

Joyce, Michael

Philipps,Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Davies,Ellis William (Eifion)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kekewich. Sir George

Pickersgill. Edward Hare

Davies, W. Howell)Bristol, S.)

Kilbride, Denis

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Pollard, Dr.

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

Lambert, George

Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lamont, Norman

Priestley. Arthur (Grantham)

Duncan, C)Barrow-in-Furness)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Priestley. W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lea, HughCecil(St.Pancras.E.)

Radford. G. H.

Dunne,MajorEMartin (Walsall)

Lehmann, R. C.

Rainy. A. Rolland

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lever, A.Levy)Essex, Harwich)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rea,WalterRussell (Scarboro'

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Rees, J. D.

Erskine, David C.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rendall, Athelstan

Essex, R. W.

Lough, Thomas

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lundon, W.

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

Evans, Samuel T.

Lupton, Arnold

Richardson, A.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rickett, J. Compton

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ridsdale. E. A.

Fenwick, Charles

Lynch. H. B.

Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, G H. (Norwich)

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson. Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maclean, Donald

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macpherson, J. T.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Callum, John M.

Robinson, S.

Gibb, James (Harrow) !

M'Crae,George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Gilhooly, James '

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gill, A.H.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Rogers. F. E. Newman

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

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

Rose, Charles Day

1064

1065

Runciman, Walter

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Waterlow, D. S.

Russell, T. W.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Watt, Henry A.

Samuel, Herbert!,.(Cleveland)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Summerbell. T.

Weir, James Galloway

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Sutherland, J. E.

White, George (Norfolk)

Schwann,SirC.E. (Manchester)

Taylor,TheodoreC.(Radcliffe)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury)

Whitehead, Rowland

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Seddon, J.

Tomkinson, James

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Seely, Major J. B.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wiles, Thomas

Shackleton. David James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Shaw, Rt, Hon. T.(Hawick B.)

Ure, Alexander

Wills, Arthur Walters

Sherwell, Arthur James

Verney, F. W.

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Vivian, Henry

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

Snowdon, P.

Walsh, Stephen

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Winfrey, R.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Yoxall, James Henry

Stanger, H. Y.

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Stanley, Hn. A. Lynlph (Chesh.)

Wardle, George J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

Steadman, W.C.

Waring, Walter

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wason.Rt.Hn.E. (Clackmannan

Pease.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason,JohnCatheart)Orkney)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Craik, Sir Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend;

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Doughty, Sir George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease, Herbert Pike)Darlington;

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Du Cros, Harvey

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH.

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel

Balcarres, Lord

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gretton, John

Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton;

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Stanley, Hon. Arthur) Ormskirk'

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hills, J. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark]

Castlcreagh, Viscount

Keswick, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Cavendish.Rt. Hon. VictorC. W.

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

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Coates,E. Feetham (Lewisham

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Morpeth. Viscount

Younger, George

Corbett,A.Cameron (Glasgow)

Muntz, Sir Philip) A.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson. Wm.G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Sir

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nield, Herbert

William Bull and Mr.Lonsdale.

Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

CLASS IV.
5. "That a sum. not exceeding £8,928,337, be granted to His. Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

1.

Board of Education (including a Supplementary Sum of £200,000)

6,793,646

2

British Museum

111,041

£

3.

National Gallery.

7,233

4.

National Portrait Gallery

2,897

5.

Wallace Collection

3,454

6.

Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom

30,479

7.

Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

141,400

8.

Public Education, Scotland (including a Supplementary Sum of £11,000).

1,183,554

£

9.

National Galleries, Scotland Ireland.

2,416

Ireland

10.

Public Education

648,360

11.

Endowed Schools Commissioners

510

12.

National Gallery

1,147

£

13.

Queen's Colleges.

2,200

£8,928,337 "

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 308; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 357.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cox, Harold

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crean, Eugene

Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen, W.

Agnew, George William

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Henry, Charles S.

Allen,A. Acland(Christchurch)

Crooks, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crossley, William J.

Hodge, John

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Cumin, Peter Francis

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Astbury, John Meir

Dalziel, James Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Holt, Richard Durning

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West;

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barnes, G. N.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Hyde, Clarendon

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Illingworth, Percy H.

Beauchamp, E.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bell, Richard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

Jardine, Sir J.

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jenkins, J.

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

Bertram, Julius

Elibank, Master of

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Erskine, David C.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Essex, R. W.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jowett, F. W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Evans, Samuel T.

Joyce, Michael

Brace, William

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Kekewich, Sir George

Branch. James

Fenwick, Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Brigg, John

Ferens, T. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bright, J. A.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Laidlaw, Robert

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Findlay, Alexander

Lambert, George

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lamont, Norman

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fullerton, Hugh

Lehmann, R. C.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich

Byles, William Pollard

Gilhooly, James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gill, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Glover, Thomas '

Lough, Thomas

Cawley, Sir Crederick

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lundon, W.

Chance, Frederick William

Gooch, George Peabody

Lupton, Arnold

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Cheetham, John Frederick

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton

Lynch, H. B.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Macdonald.J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs.

Cleland, J. W.

Halpin, J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Clough, William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Maclean, Donald

Clynes, J. R.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macpherson, J. T.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Callum, John M.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Crae, George

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

Harwood, George

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cooper, G. J.

Haworth, Arthur A.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Corbett,CH (Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hazleton, Richard

M'Micking, Major G.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hedges, A. Paget

Maddison. Frederick

Cowan, W. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Mallet, Charles E.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Radford, G. H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Summerbell, J.

Marnham, F. J,

Rees, J. D.

Sutherland, J. E.

Massie, J.

Rendall, Athelstan

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Meagher, Michael

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

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

Menzies, Walter

Richardson, A.

Tomkinson, James

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rickett, J. Compton

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Ridsdale, E. A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ure, Alexander

Montagu, E. S.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Verney, F. W.

Montgomery, H. G.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Vivian, Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Morrell, Philip

Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

Walsh, Stephen

Morse, L. L.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Robinson, S.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Murnaghan, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Murphy, John

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wardle, George J.

Murray, James

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Waring, Walter

Myer, Horatio

Rose, Charles Day

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Napier, T. B.

Rowlands, J.

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Runciman, Walter

Waterlow, D. S.

Nolan, Joseph

Russell, T. W.

Watt, Henry A.

Norman, Sir Henry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Weir, James Galloway

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whitbread, Howard

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Schwann,SirC. E. (Manchester)

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O'Grady, J.

Seaverns, J. H.

Whitehead, Rowland

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sedon, J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Partington, Oswald

Seely, Major J. B.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Paulton, James Mellor

Shackleton, David James

Wiles, Thomas

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wills, Arthur Walters

Pearson,Sir W.D. (Colchester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Snowden, P.

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

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Spicer, Sir Albert

Winfrey, R.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanger H. Y.

Yoxall, James Henry

Pollard, Dr.

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

Steadman, W. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Pease.

Priestley,W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

NOES.

Acland-Hood.Rt HnSir Alex.F.

Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.AR.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Ashley, W. W.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt,Hn.Sir H.

Craig,Charles Curtis)Antrim,S.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Balcarres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge

Doughty, Sir George

Morpeth, Viscount

Banner, John S. Harmood -

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Du Cros, Harvey

Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nield, Herbert

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fell, Arthur

O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Parkes, Ebenezer

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Bull, Sir William James

Forster, Henry William

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Peel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cave, George

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.

Hills, J. W.

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanley,Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

1070

1071

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Thomson, W.Mitchell-)Lanark)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Mr. Samuel Roberts and

Thornton, Percy M.

Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B.Stuart

Sir John Randles.

Valentia, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Younger, George

CLASS V.
6. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,407,405, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending o n the 31st day of March, 1908, for Expenditure on the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

1.

Diplomatic and Consular

£

Services

319,340

2

Colonial Services (including a Supplementary Sum of £132,690)

910,289

£

2A.

Colonial Services(Jamaica Earthquake Belief, Grant in Aid).

150,000

3.

Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

26,776

4.

Cyprus (Grant in Aid).

1,000

£1,407,405"

Question put.
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 306; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 358.)

CLASS VI.
7. "That a sum, not exceeding £146,079, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—
The Committee divided:— Ayes, 308; Noes, 78. (Division List No, 339.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Agnew, George William

Cleland, J. W.

Fullerton. Hugh

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Clough, William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Clynes, J. R.

Gilhooly. James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gill, A.H.

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Astbury, John Meir

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

Glover, Thomas

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cooper, G. J.

Goddard. Daniel Ford

Balfour, Robert. (Lanark)

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Gooch, George Peabody

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Barnes. G. N.

Cowan, W.H.

Gurdon, Rt HnSir W. Brampton

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cox, Harold

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Crean, Eugene

Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Beauchamp, E.

Cramer, Sir William Randal

Halpin, J.

Bell, Richard

Crooks, William

Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Crosfield, A. H.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Benn,SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt

Crossley, William J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Benn,W(TowerHamlets,S. Geo

Curran, Peter Francis

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Bertram, Julius

Dalziel, James Henry

Harwood. George

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

Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.

Ha worth. Arthur A.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hazleton, Richard

Bowerman. C. W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Brace. William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S)

Helme, Norval Watson

Bramsdon. T. A.

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Branch, James

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Henry, Charles S.

Brigg, John

Duncan, C. (Burrow-iii-Furness

Herbert, T.Arnold (Wycombe)

Bright, J. A.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hobhouse. Charles E.H.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dunne,MajorEMartin (Walsall)

Hodge, John

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

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Holden. E. Hopkinson

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Holland. Sir William Henry

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Elibank, Master of

Holt, Richard Durning

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Erskine. David C.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Essex, R. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Byles, William Pollard

Esslemont, George Birnie

Howard. Hon. Geoffrey

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Evans, Samuel T.

Hudson. Walter

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Hyde, Clarendon

Causton,Rt.Hn. RichardKnight

Everett, R. Lacey

Illingworth, Percy H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Fenwick, Charles

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Chance, Frederick William

Ferens, T. R.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Ferguson, R. C Munro

Jardine. Sir J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Findlay, Alexander

Jenkins. J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Myer, Horatio

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Napier, T. B.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Jordan, Jeremiah

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Jowett, F. W.

Nolan, Joseph

Snowden, P.

Joyce, Michael

Norman, Sir Henry

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Kearley, Hudson E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Spicer, Sir Albert

Kekewich, Sir George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stanger, H. Y.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Steadman, W. C.

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Grady, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lambert, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lamont, Norman

Partington, Oswald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon)

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.

Pearce. Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lehmann, R. C.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Summerbell, T.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Sutherland, J. E.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lewis, John Herbert

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

Lough, Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Tomkinson, James

Lupton, Arnold

Pirie, Duncan V.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Luttrell. Hugh Fownes

Pollard, Dr.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lyell, Charles Henry-

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

Ure, Alexander

Lynch, H. B.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Verney, F. W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Priestley. W.E.B.)Bradford, E.

Vivian, Henry

Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Radford, G. H.

Walker, H. De E. (Leicester)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Walsh, Stephen

Maclean, Donald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rees, J. D

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

M'Callum. John M.

Rendall, Athelstan

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n

M'Crae, George

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Wardle, George J.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Waring, Walter

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Richardson, A.

Wason,Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan

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

Rickett, J. Compton

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

M'Micking. Major G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Waterlow. D. S.

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Watt, Henry A.

Mallet, Charles E.

Roberts. G. H. (Norwich)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Weir, James Galloway

Mansfield. H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Robertson,Rt,Hn.E.(Dundee)

Whitehead, Howard

Markham. Arthur Basil

Robertson,SirG. Scott)Bradf'rd

White, George (Norfolk)

Marks,G.Coydon (Launceston)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Marnham, F. J.

Robinson, S.

Whitehead, Rowland

Massie, J.

Robson,Sir William Snowdon

Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Menzies, Walter

Rogers. F. E. Newman

Wiles, Thomas

Micklem. Nathaniel

Rose, Charles Day

Williams,Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Molteno. Percy Alport

Rowlands, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Runciman, Walter

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

Montagu. E. S.

Russell, T. W.

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

Montgomery, H. G.

Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Mooney. J. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Winfrey, R.

Mrcgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Yoxall, James Henry

Morrell, Philip

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Morse. L. L.

Seaverns, J. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Seely, Major J. B.

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

Murnaghan, George

Shackleton, David James

Murphy, John

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Murray, James

Sherwell, Arthur James

NOES

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cavendish,Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bowles. G. Stewart

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Artstruther-Gray. Major

Bowle, Sir Edward

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Coates. E. Feetham (Lewisham

Ashley, W. W.

Brotherton, Kdward Allen

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

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.

Bull, Sir William James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Balcarres, Lord

Butcher, Samuel Henry.

Corbett, T.L. (Down, North)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Carlile, E. Hildred :

Courthope, G. Loyd

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Castlereagh, Viscount

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim.S

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Cave, George

Craik, Sir Henry

1074

1075

Doughty, Sir George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

Du Cros, Harvey

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Pell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Thornton, Percy M.

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Valentia, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Gretton, John

O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hervey,F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm'd

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hills, J. W.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Younger, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Mr.

Keswick, William

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Staveley-Hill and Sir FrancisLowe.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dewar,Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Agnew, George William

Byles, William Pollard

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

Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Duncan. C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Causton,Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Asquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Astbury, John Heir

Chance, Frederick William

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Elibank, Master of

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

Erskine, David C.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S.

Essex, R. W.

Barnes, G. N.

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cleland, J. W.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Barry,RedmondJ.(Tyrone,N.)

Clough, William

Everett, R. Lacey

Beauchamp, E.

Clynes, J. R,

Fenwick, Charles

Bell, Richard

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Bellairs, Carlyon

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt

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

Findlay, Alexander

Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Cooper, G. J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Berridge, T. H. D.

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Bertram, Julius

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Fullerton, Hugh

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cowan, W. H.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Birrell, Rt. Hon.Augustine

Cox, Harold

Gilhooly, James

Bowerman, C. W.

Crean, Eugene

Gill, A. H.

Brace, William

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Gladstone, Rt, Hn. Herbert John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Crooks, William

Glover, Thomas

Branch, James

Crosfield, A. H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Brigg, John

Crossley, William J.

Gooch, George Peabody

Bright, J. A.

Curran, Peter Francis

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dalziel, James Henry

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.

Gurdon, Rt Hn.SirW. Brampton

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

Halpin, J.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Russell, T. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marks.G.Croydon (Launceston)

Samuel,HerbertL.(Cleveland)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Massie, J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Harwood, George

Masterman, C. P. G.

Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)

Ha worth, Arthur A.

Menzies, Walter

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seaverns, J. H.

Hazleton, Richard

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seddon,J.

Hedges, A. Paget

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Seely, Major J. B.

Helme, Norval Watson

Montagu, E. S.

Shackleton, David James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montgomery, H. G.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)

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

Mooney, J. J.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hodge, John

Morse, L L.

Snowden, P.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Soames. Arthur Wellesley

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murnaghan, George

Spicer, Sir Albert

Holt, Richard Durning

Murphy, John

Stanger, H. Y.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Murray, James

Stanley,Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Myer, Horatio

Steadman, W. C.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Napier, T. B.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hudson, Walter

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hyde, Clarendon

Nolan, Joseph

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norman, Sir Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stuart, James (Sunderland

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Summerbell, T.

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Jenkins, J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea)

O'Grady, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Jones, William)Carnarvonshire)

Partington, Oswald

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

Jordan, Jeremiah

Paulton, James Mellor

Tomkinson, James

Jowett, F. W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Ure, Alexander

Joyce, Michael

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Verney, F. W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearson, Sir VV. D. (Colchester

Vivian, Henry

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearson,W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Kilbride, Denis

Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

Walsh, Stephen

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ward,John(Stoke upon Trent)

Lambert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

Lamont, Norman

Pollard, Dr.

Wardle, George J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central

Waring, Walter

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras.E.)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wason,Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Lehmann, R. C.

Priestley,W. E. B., Bradford, E.

Wason, JohnCatheart(Orkney).

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

Radford, G. H.

Waterlow, D. S

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rainy, A. Rolland

Watt, Henry A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rea,WalterRussell(Scarboro'

Weir, James Galloway

Lough, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Whitbread, Howard

Lupton, Arnold

Rendall, Athelstan

White, George (Norfolk)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richards,T.F.(Wolverh'mptn)

Whitehead, Rowland

Lynch, H. B.

Richardson, A.

Whitley, JohnHenry(Halifax)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rickett, J. Compton

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wiles, Thomas

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

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

M'Crae, George

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

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

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

Winfrey, R.

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Yoxall, James Henry

M'Micking, Major G.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Rogers, F. E. Newman

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

Mallet, Charles E.

Rose, Charles Day

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Manfield, Harry (Northants

Rowlands, J.

Pease.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Runciman, Walter

1078

1079

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Craik, Sir Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Doughty, Sir George

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Du Cros, Harvey

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Roberts,S.(Sheffield. Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Gretton, John

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George Hill,

Stanley,Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Bowles, G. Stewart

Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hills, J. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bull, Sir William James

Keswick, William

Valentia, Viscount

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

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

Cave, George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Viscount Castiereagh and

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Captain Hervey.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nield, Herbert

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

£

3.

Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

139

4.

Savings Banks' and Friendly Societies' Deficiencies

145,940

£146,079"

Question put.

CLASS VII.
8. "That a sum, not exceeding £386,191, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which, will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of-March," 1908, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:—

£

1.

Temporary Commissions

36,000

2

Miscellaneous Expenses.

46,151

3.

Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

4,601

4.

Ireland Development

£

Grant

85,000

5.

Expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

200,000

6.

Repayments to Civil Contingencies Fund.

14,439

£386,191 "

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 360.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bethell.Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cheetham. John Frederick

Agnew, George William

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Allen.A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bowerman. C. W.

Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S

Allen, Charies P. (Stroud)

Brace, William

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bramsdon, T. A.

Clough, William

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Branch, James

Clynes, J. R.

Astbury, John Meir

Brigg, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bright, J. A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

Cooper, G. J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E.Gr'st'd

Barnes, G. N.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone.N.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cowan, W. H.

Beauchamp, E.

Byles, William Pollard

Cox, Harold

Bell, Richard

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Crean, Eugene

Bellairs, Carlyon

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Benn, Sir J. Williams(D'v'np'rt

Causton, R t. H n. RichardKnight

Crooks, William

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Crosfield, A. H.

Bertram, Julius

Chance, Frederick William

Crossley, William J.

Curran, Peter Francis

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Davies, David)MontgomeryCo.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pearson.SirW.D.(Colchester)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jowett, F. W.

Pearson,W. H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Joyce, Michael

Philipps,Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Kilbride, Denis

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pollard, Dr.

Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lambert, George

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Dunne,Major E. Mart in)Walsall

Lamont, Norman

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford,E.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Radford, G. H.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Eli bank, Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Erskine, David C.

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Essex, R. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rees, J. D.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, John Herbert

Rendall, Athelstan

Evans, Samuel T.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lough, Thomas

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

Everett, It. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Richardson, A.

Fenwick. Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rickett, J, Compton

Ferens, T. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ridsdale, E. A.

Ferguson, R. C Munro

Lynch, H. B.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Findlay. Alexander

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkBg'hs)

Roberts,John H. (Denbighs.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maclean, Donald

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robinson, S.

Fullerton, Hugh

Macpherson, J. T.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Callum, John M.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gilhooly, James

M'Crae, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Gill, A. H.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rose, Charles Day

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Rowlands, J.

Glover, Thomas

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

Runciman, Walter

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Micking, Major G.

Russell, T. W.

Gooch, George Peabody

Maddison, Frederick

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mallet, Charles E.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Gurdon,Rt.Hn.SirW.Brampton

Mansfield,H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Schwann,Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marks, G. Croydon)Launceston)

Seaverns, J. H.

Halpin, J.

Marnham, F. J.

Seddon, J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Massie, J.

Seely, Major J. B.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G..

Shackleton, David James

Harmsworth. Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Menzies, Walter

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sherwell, Arthur James

Harwood, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montagu, E. S.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hazleton. Richard

Montgomery, H. G.

Snowden, P.

Hedges, A. Paget

Mooney, J. J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Stanger, H. Y.

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

Morrell. Philip

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Henry, Charles S.

Morse, L. L.

Steadman, W. C.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murnaghan, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hodge, John

Murphy, John

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murray, James

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Myer, Horatio

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Holt, Richard Durning

Napier, T. B.

Summerbell, T,

Hope,John Deans (Fife, West)

Newnes, F. (.Volts, Bassetlaw)

Sutherland, J. E.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nolan, Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Howard. Hon. Geoffrey

Norman, Sir Henry

Taylor, TheodoreC.(Radcliffe)

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Tomkinson, James

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Ure, Alexander

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Grady, J.

Verney, F. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Vivian, Henry

Jenkins, J.

Partington, Oswald

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Paulton, James Mellor

Walsh, Stephen

1082

1083

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Weir, James Galloway

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

Ward,John(Stoke upon Trent)

White, George (Norfolk)

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

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Wardle, George J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Winfrey, R.

Waring, Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Yoxall, James Henry

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Wason,JohnCatheart)Orkney)

Wiles, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

Waterlow, D. S.

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Watt, Henry A.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Pease.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, George Denison (York)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Rawlinson,JohnFrederickPeel

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Beach,Hn.MichaelHughHicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith.F.E. (Liverpool,Walton;

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Stanley,Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson. W.Mitchell-)Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Thornton. Percy M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Younger, George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson,Wm.G. (Petersfield)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR NOES —Mr.

Craig,CharlesCurtis)Antrim, S.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Brotherton and Mr. Du

Craik, Sir Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cros.

Doughty, Sir George

Pease,HerbertPike)Darlington

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
9. "That a sum, not exceeding £16,036,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for Expenditure on the Navy Services, viz.:—

3.

Medical Establishments

£

and Services

268,700

4.

Martial Law.

14,200

5.

Educational Services

172,500

6.

Scientific Services.

65,100

7.

Royal Naval Reserves.

418,300

8.

Section 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Materiel.

3,035,200

8.

Section 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Contract Work.

7,646,000

9.

Naval Armaments.

2,348,700

11.

Miscellaneous Effective
Services

401,000

12.

Admiralty Office.

364,600

14.

£

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

1,302,000

16,036,300"

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
10. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,758,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for expenditure on the Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), viz.:—

£

2.

Medical Establishment, Pay, etc..

460,000

3.

Militia, Pay, Bounty, etc.

840,000

4.

Imperial Yeomanry, Pay and Allowances.

410,000

£

5

Volunteer Corps, Pay and Allowances.

1,152,000

6

Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

1,909,000

8

Ordnance Department, Establishments and Genera] Stores.

620,000

11

Establishments for Military Education.

137,000

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

67,000

13

War Office and Army Accounts Department

567,000

14

Half Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers

1,714,000

15

Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, and others

1,709,000

16

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Com passionate Allowances, and Gratuities.

173,000

The commitee divided: —Ayes, 304; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 361.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Byles, William Pollard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dunne,MajorE. Mart in (Walsall

Agnew, George William

Carr-Gomm, H.W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Elibank, Master of

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Chance, Frederick William

Erskine, David C.

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Essex, R. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Cheetham, John Frederick

Esslemont, George Birnie

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

Evans, Samuel T.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Clough, William

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Clynes, J. R.

Everett, R. Lacey

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cobbold, Felix; Thornley

Fenwick, Charles

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ferens, T. R.

Barnes, G. N.

Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Barren, Rowland Hirst

Cooper, G. J.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E.Gr'st'd

Findlay, Alexander

Beauchamp, E.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bell, Richard

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cox, Harold

Fuller, John Michael F.

Benn,Sir J.Williams (D'v'np'rt

Cowan, W. H.

Fullerton, Hugh

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Bertram, Julius

Crean, Eugene

Gilhooly, James

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Gill, A.H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Crooks, William

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Brace, William

Crosfield, A. H.

Glover, Thomas

Bramsdon, T. A.

Crossley, William J.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Branch, James

Curran, Peter Francis

Gooch, George Peabody

Brigs, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bright, J. A.

Davies,David (.Montgomery Co.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Davies. Ellis William (Eifion)

Gurdon,Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B,

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Halpin, J:

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duncan,C. (Burrow-in-Furness)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Marks.G.Croydon (Launceston)

Russell, T. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Harwood, George

Massie, J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Menzies, Walter

Schwann,Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Hazleton, Richard

Micklem, Nathaniel

Scott,A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seaverns, J. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Seddon, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu, E. S.

Seely, Major J. B.

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

Montgomery, H. G.

Shackleton, David James

Henry, Charles S.

Mooney, J. J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hodge, John

Morrell, Philip

Simon, John Allsebrook

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morse, L. L.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Holt, Richard Durning

Murnaghan, George

Snowden, P.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Murphy, John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Horniman, Emslie John

Murray, James

Spicer, Sir Albert

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Myer, Horatio

Stanger, H. Y.

Hudson, Walter

Napier, T. B.

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Hyde, Clarendon

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Steadman, W. C.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nicholls, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nolan, Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Norman, Sir Henry

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jardine, Sir J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jenkins, J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Summerbell. T.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sutherland, J. E.

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

O'Grady, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Parker, James (Halifax)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jowett, F. W.

Partington, Oswald

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Joyce, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Tomkinson. James

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Ure, Alexander

Kilbride, Denis

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Verney, F. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk,Eye

Vivian, Henry

Laidlaw, Robert

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lambert, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walsh, Stephen

Lamont, Norman

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras.E.

Pollard, Dr.

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n

Lehmann, R. C.

Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Waring, Walter

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wason,Rt Hn.E.(Clackmannan)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Priestley,W.E.B. (Bradford, E.

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney

Lewis, John Herbert

Radford, G. H.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lough, Thomas

Rainy, A. Rolland

Watt, Henry A.

Lupton, Arnold

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wedgwood. Josiah C.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Weir, James Galloway

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rees, J. D.

White, George (Norfolk)

Lynch, H. B.

Rendall, Athelstan

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Whitehead, Rowland

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

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Richardson, A.

Whittaker. Sir Thomas Palmer

Maclean, Donald

Rickett,.J Compton

Wiles, Thomas

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williams,Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wills, Arthur Walters

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

M'Crae, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Br'df'rd

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

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Robinson, S.

Winfrey, R.

M'Micking, Major G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Yoxall, James Henry

Maddison, Frederick

Roe, Sir Thomas

Mallet, Charles E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rose, Charles Day

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Pease.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Rowlands, J.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Runciman, Walter

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir Alex.F

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Ashley, W. W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balcarres, Lord

1088

1089

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Fell, Arthur

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gretton, John

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Ed'mds

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Smith.F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

Stanley,Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh,)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cave, George

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.

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

Thomson. W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

Vincent. Col. Sir C, E. Howard

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wilson, A. Stanley (York.E.R

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Younger, George

Doughty. Sir George

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Mr.

Du Cros, Harvey

Pease, HerbertPike)Darlington

Fletcher and Mr. Nield.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Question put, and agreed to.

£

Ordnance Factories

100

£9,758,100"

MR.CROOKSprotested against this Vote being taken without an opportunity being given of discussing the discharges of men from the Woolwich Arsenal.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES,1907–8.
11. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,117,751, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs."
Question put.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question put, "That, towards making good the Supply
granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1908, the sum of £72,563,714 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 276; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 362.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Elibank, Master of

Acland. Francis Dyke

Chance, Frederick William

Erskine, David C.

Allen. A.Acland (Christchurch)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Essex, R. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Esslemont, George Birnie

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Evans, Samuel T.

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Astbury, John Meir

Clough, William

Everett, R. Lacey

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Clynes, J. R.

Fenwick. Charles

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ferens, T. R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Barnes, G. N.

Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cooper, G. J.

Findlay, Alexander

Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex, E.Grinst'

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Beauchamp, E.

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Fuller, John Michael F,

Benn,Sir J.Williams(D'v'np'rt)

Cowan, W. H.

Fullerton, Hugh

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Crean, Eugene

Gilhooly, James

Bertram, Julius

Cremer. Sir William Randal

Gill, A. H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Crooks, William

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Bowerman, C. W.

Crosfield, A. H.

Glover, Thomas

Brace, William

Crossley, William J.

Goddard. Daniel Ford

Bramsdon, T. A.

Curran, Peter Francis

Gooch, George Peabody

Branch, James

Davies,David (Montgomery Co,

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Brigg, John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward

Bright, J. A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gurdon,Rt.Hn.SirW.Brampton

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard

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

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Byles, William Pollard

Dunne,Major E.Martin (Wals'll

Harwood, George

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Percy Alport

Schwann, SirC.E. (Manchester)

Helme, Norval Watson

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Scott,A.H.)Ashton underLyne)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu, E. S.

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Montgomery, H. G.

Seely, Major J. B.

Henry, Charles

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shackleton. David James

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Shaw, Rt, Hon. T (Hawick B.)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell. Philip

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hodge, John

Morse, L. L.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Simon, John Allsebrook

Holt, Richard Durning

Murnaghan, George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Horniman, Emslie.John

Murray, James

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Myer. Horatio

Snowden, P.

Hudson, Walton

Napier, T. B.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hyde, Clarendon

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nicholls, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norman, Sir Henry

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Steadman, W. C.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Grady, J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Partington, Oswald

Summerbell, T.

Kekewich, Sir George

Paulton, James Mellor

Sutherland. J. E.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Laidlaw, Robert

Philipps,Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lambert, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Lamont,Norman

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pirie. Duncan V.

Tomkinson. James

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St,Pancras,E.)

Pollard. Dr.

Ure. Alexander

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Verney, F. W.

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Priestley,W.E. B. (Bradford,E.)

Walsh, Stephen

Lewis, John Herbert

Radford, G. H.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Lough, Thomas

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Lupton, Arnold

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Waring. Walter

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wason,Rt.Hn.E. (Clackmannan

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rees, J. D.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Lynch, H. B.

Rendall, Athelstan

Waterlow,D. S.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Watt, Henry A.

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Richardson, A.

Weir, James Galloway

Maclean, Donald

Rickett, J. Compton

White, George (Norfolk)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whitehead, Rowland

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Crae, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wiles, Thomas

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

William s, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wills, Arthur Walters

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

Robinson, S.

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Maddison, Frederick

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Mallet, Charles E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rose, Charles Day

Winfrey, R.

Mansfield, H. Kendall (Lincoln)

Rowlands, J.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Runciman, Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Russell, T. W.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Massie, J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Boyle, Sir Edward

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Ashley, W. W.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Balcarres, Lord

Carlile, E. Hildred

Courthope. G Loyd

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Castlereagh, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cave, George

Doughty. Sir George

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Du Cros, Harvey

Keswick, William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Faber. George Denison (York)

Kilbride, Denis

Seddon, J.

Fell, Arthur

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

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, Est)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lowe, xir Francis William

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool.Walton)

Fletcher, J. S.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Gretton, John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Halpin, J.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Thomson,W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murphy, John

Thornton. Percy M.

Hazleton, Richard

Nicholson,'Wm. G. (Peterskeld

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

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

Nield, Herbert

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Nolan, Joseph

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hills, J. W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Younger, George

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Houston, Robert Paterson

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR NOES, Sir

Hunt, Rowland

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

William Bull and Mr. Stanley

Joyce, Michael

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Wilson.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report this Resolution to the House."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 245; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 363.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crean, Eugene

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Crooks, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hodge, John

Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

Crossley, William J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Astbury, John Heir

Curran, Peter Francis

Holt, Richard Durning

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies,Dakid (Montgomery C

Horniman, Emslie John

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Howard. Hon. Geoffrey

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Da..ies, T mothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hyde, Flarendon

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Beauchamp, K.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jardine, Sir J.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones Leif (Appleby)

Benn,SirJ.Williams(Deponp'rt

Dunne, Major E.Martin (Walsa

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jowett, F. W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Elibank, Master of

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bertram, Julius

Erskine, David C.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford]

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Essex, R. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Bowerman, C. W.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, George

Brace, William

Evans, Samuel T.

Lamont, Norman

Bramsdon, T. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lea. Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.

Branch, John

Fenwick, Charles

Lehmann, R. C.

Brigg, John

Ferens, T. R.

Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich

Bright. J. A.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Levy, Sir Maurice

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Findlay, Alexander

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fuller,John Michael Fl

Lough, Thomas

Byles, William Pollard

Fullerton, Hugu

Lupton, Arnold

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knig

Gilhooly, James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Chance, Frederick William

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Glover, Thomas

Maclean, wonald

Cheetham, John Frederick

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R R.

Gooch, George Peabody

Macpherson, J. T.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Callum, John M.

Clough, William

Gurdon, Rt.HnSir W.Brampton

M'Crae, George

Clynes, J. R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Regniald

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicetsr)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardy, George; A. (Suffolk)

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

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Micking, Major G.

Cooper, G. J.

Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

Maddison, Frederick

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex,R.Grinst'

Harwood, George

Mallet. Charles E.

Cornwall, Sir Enwin A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Manfield, H. Rendal (Lincoln)

Cowan, W. H.

Hedges, A. Paget

Markham, Arthur Basil

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Helme, Norval Watson

Mark s, G,Croydon(Launceston

Marnham, F. J,

Richards,Thomas (W. Monm'th

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Massie, J.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Micklem, Nathaniel!

Richardson, A.

Summerbell. T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rickett, J. Compton

Sutherland, J. E.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Ridsdale, E. A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Montague, E. S.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Montgomery, H. G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Mooney, J. J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Tomkinson, James

Morrell, Philip

Robinson,S.

Ure, Alexander

Morse, L. L.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Verney.F. W.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Murray, John

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walsh, Stephen

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Rose,Charles Day

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

Nicholls, George

Rowlands, J.

Ward, W.Dudley(Southampton

Norman, Sir Henry

Runciman, Walter

Waring, Waiter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Russell, T. W.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Watt, Henry A.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Grady, J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Weir, James Galloway

Parker, James (Halifax)

Schwann,SirC.E. (Manchester)

White, George (Norfolk)

Partingdon, Oswald

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Seaverns, J. H.

Whitehead, Rowland

Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Seely, Major J. B.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shackleton, David James

Wiles, Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wills, Arthur Walters

Pollard, Dr.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson. Wi T. (Westhoughton)

Radford, G. H.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Winfrey, R.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Spicer, Sir Albert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stanger, H. Y.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Steadman, W. C.

Rees. J. D.

Steadman, W. C.

Rendall, Athelstan

Strachey, Sir Edward

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers-

Murphy, John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Du Cros, Harvey

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nield. Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur'

Nolan. Joseph

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey-

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Beach,Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fletcher, J. S.

Ratcliff, Major R.F.

Bowles, (I. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Boyle, Sir Edward

Grayson, Albert Victor

Roberts, S.(Sheffield. Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gretton, John

Seddon. J.

Brotherton. Edward Allen

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bull, Sir William James

Halpin, J.

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hazleton, Richard

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Castlereagh. Viscount

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cave, George

Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thomson. W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon.VictorC.W.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Thornton. Percy M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Valentia. Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hunt, Rowland

Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Joyce, Michael

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

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

Keswick, William

Wortley Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kilbride, Denis

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Younger, George.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Meysey-Thomson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Craik, Sir Henry

Morpeth, Viscount

Ashley, and Mr. Hills.

Doughty, Sir George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolution to be report this day.

EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (MR. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.)said that this Bill contained a number of small administrative provisions every one of which, he thought, was discussed in last year's Education Bill, and all of which had also been discussed in the other House. The Bill had no general principle running through it, and therefore could only be considered in detail as regarded the effect of each separate clause. The first clause proposed that the local education authority should have power to acquire land for the purposes of secondary schools. It also proposed that land held by the local education authority for elementary purposes might be appropriated by them to secondary purposes, and vice versa. Of course, it was quite obvious that a clause of that sort could not raise any very highly contentious matter, and he did not imagine it would do so on the present occasion. The other clauses assimilated the law between borough and county councils. With regard to the levy of a rate for secondary schools, at the present time the limit in, county areas was 2d., but in the case of borough areas it was unlimited. The Bill proposed to remove the limit of 2d. in the ease of county areas. Again, with regard to the period for the repayment of loans, in the case of boroughs the period of repayment was sixty years, in the case of county councils it was thirty years. The bill proposed once again to put the two councils on the same footing and to extend the period for repayment, of loans for school buildings from thirty years to sixty years. Of course, within that limit the consent of the Local Government Board would still be required for such a period as they might sanction. The next important clauses in the Bill related to medical inspection and the provision of vacation schools. [Cries of "Clause 8."] Clause 8 was as follows —
"(1.) If any question arises —(a) whether any purpose for which a council wish to exercise their powers under the Education Acts, is within their powers under those Acts; or (b) whether any purpose for which a council wish to exercise any powers under the Education Acts is a. purpose of Part II. of the
1098
Education Act, 1902, or of Part III. of that Act; or (c) whether any school, college, or hostel is a school, college, or hostel provided by a council, or a school, college, or hostel aided but not provided by a council; that question shall be referred to and determined by the Board of Education, and their decision shall be conclusive on the matter."
He was rather surprised that that clause should be treated as a remarkable clause. In the administration of the present law questions were constantly arising whether education in some of its special forms was to be considered as elementary or higher, and local education authorities were constantly put to very great trouble to determine on which account the cost of a particular kind of education should be charged. At present the only final determination of the question was the audit with all the subsequent difficulties of overcharge, and he was sure no hon. Member who was familiar with the details of administration of education would not agree that it was most desirable that these purely technical points, which did not raise a single controversial question, should be settled at once by some competent authority. For that reason it was proposed now that the Board of Education should decide beforehand to which account all these particular expenses should be charged instead of leaving the question to be determined afterwards on the audit of accounts. Subsection 2 of Clause 8 provided —
"(2) For the purposes of the Education Acts, the providing, or aiding the provision of, any training or instruction of any kind whatever, and any like purpose which the Board of Education determine to be an educational purpose, shall be deemed to be educational purposes; and the expression ' education' in those Acts shall be construed accordingly."
What was intended by this clause was to bring apprenticeship in as one of the educational purposes to which endowments were devoted. It was very necessary that apprenticeship should be regarded as an educational purpose, and it was proposed under this subsection to give the Board of Education power to regard apprenticeship as an educational purpose. If hon. Gentlemen were able in that to discover some deep controversial matter he would be glad to hear from them wherein it lay, and, so far as he could, meet their views. He thought it was advisable to say here that this Bill was introduced as a non-contentious. measure and was intended to be so. If in

1099
Committee any proposal in the Bill was objected to by the Party opposite and was officially opposed by them he would certainly not press it. He had had considerable help with the Bill from time to time from the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, and he would certainly not, against his advice or wish, endeavour to press any of the provisions upon the House, but it must be understood that every one of its provisions was purely educational.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: What about its finance?
MR. McKENNAsaid if the finance was objected to it was not objected to in the late Bill. This Bill was introduced as a non-contentious Bill and it should retain that character. He could not say that irresponsible opposition by individuals would be accepted by him as a ground for dropping this or that clause; but responsible objection to any of the clauses would be treated by the Government as rendering the clause contentious, and he certainly would not put the House to the trouble of discussing such clauses. He hoped after that explanation it would be understood that the Bill contains many clauses which were of real value for educational purposes, and it would be a serious loss to the children of the country if it were treated as a contentious measure. With regard to Clause 10, which provided for medical inspection, he need only say that this was the same clause which was introduced as a separate Bill by his hon. friend the Member for Scarborough, and which had already received the complete approval of this House, and had reached the last stage before Third Reading. As the Bill now before the House contained the original clause, and as he had now an opportunity of pressing this Bill forward, he proposed to keep the clause in question in the Bill. But as the clause had already been discussed at length in this House he did not think it was necessary for him to enlarge upon it now. The only remaining clauses were Clause 11, which said distance from school was to be no excuse for non-attendance when a conveyance was provided, and Clause 12, which dealt with the registration of the teaching profession. He thought from the short explanation he had given it would be quite manifest that this was a Bill which ought to be sent to
1100
a Committee, where he was sure it would receive adequate consideration.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought the right hon. Gentleman had overrated the amount of help he was kind enough to say he had received from him, and had somewhat underrated the importance of some of the provisions of the Bill. The help he gave the right hon. gentleman did not go further than to say that some of the clauses be regarded as entirely non-controversial, but that to the clauses dealing with vacation schools and medical inspection he attached the greatest importance. There were other clauses which required explanation and discussion, such as Clause 8 which had never been discussed at all in the Bill of last year, and this and some others must be regarded as matters of controversy. The three seriously contentious matters in the Bill were the extension of the borrowing and purchasing powers of local authorities, the extension of rating power, and the introduction of Clause 8 from Part II. of the Education Bill of last year. Whatever might have been his views as to the policy of this Bill at the commencement of the session, they had been largely altered by the policy which the right hon. Gentlemen had formulated. The increase of the extension of the borrowing powers of the local authority and of the term of repayment from thirty to sixty years might, in any circumstance, be regarded as a dangerous concession to authorities, whose indebtedness was already a cause of national anxiety; they had further to regard it in connection with the settled policy of the Board of Education, as at present constituted, to crush out denominational schemes whenever the opportunity offered. He would give two instances of this matter —the case of the Low Valley school, discussed the other night, and the Halifax school—a case in which a serious act of oppression was condoned by the Board of Education, despite the remonstrations addressed to it. These two instances showed that the Board of Education would not stand in the way of a local authority which desired to efface a voluntary school from its educational system. To encourage a local authority to do this by diminishing the immediate cost to the ratepayers seemed to

1101
him to introduce an argument against this extension of borrowing powers which was not present in their minds when the session began. But the action of the Board of Education in the ease of Halifax showed that the Board could not be trusted —as he had hoped a Government Department could be trusted —to support a minority against unjust pressure, and that made them very careful in regarding any extension of the powers of the local authorities which would make it easier for them to do what the Board of Education was only too willing to allow them to do.
Mr. McKENNAsaid the Local Government Board settled the terms. The Board of Education had nothing to do with it, and as a matter of fact the limit was now sixty years.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Local Government Board might determine the period, but the Bill was the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, and it was the Board of Education which was introducing this measure, which would approach the Local Government Board to extend the period of repayment. Again, the 2d. rate which at present could only be exceeded in county boroughs was now to be exceeded with the permission of the Local Government Board in all counties. He would have said that there might be some reason for some extension of the powers of the great county councils having regard to his own recollection of some of the irksome restrictions, as he thought, imposed in certain cases by the Local Government Board, but here again they had to bear in mind and to read this in the light of the secondary schools and training college regulations. Hither to the county councils had been very willing to accept the assistance of the denominational training colleges; they had not set up rival training institutions; they had in certain cases been anxious to build hostels, and economise their own resource, and that was now forbidden by the right hon. Gentleman in his last regulations. He was not quite sure that after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation anyone fully understood what the entire purport of these regulations might be. But there could be no doubt that the policy of the Board of Education was to drive these denominational secondary schools and training colleges
1102
out of existence, and that the extension of the rating power of the county councils would make it easier for them to fall in with the policy of the Board of Education, if indeed they were, not compelled to do so under the extremely irksome regulations of the right hon. Gentleman. That extension of the rating powers beyond the two penny rate appeared to him to put a very different complexion on the provision from what it bore when introduce into the Bill of last year, or when it was introduced into the Bill at the commencement of the session. Again, the defining powers of the Board of Education, which were never discussed under the Bill of last year, might be regarded in two different ways. Ho agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that where there was a question whether the local education authority were properly spending money on objects of education it was the Hoard of Education and not the auditor of the Local Government Board who could more properly determine whether the objects were educational or not. But they must read this clause in the light of Part II. of the Bill of last year. That section gave to the Board of Education enormous power in dealing with trusts of every description, and then there followed this defining power for the Board of Education to say what was educational or not. Under the powers given in that clause the Board of Education might have taken any trust, of whatever character, whether denominational or not, and have treated it as educational, and put upon it another character. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this when the Bill was first printed. He could not regard this clause without grave suspicion, and it was no good to say that, as the Bill ran, these defining powers might not do any harm. They would put a weapon in the hands of the Board of Education which might be extremely formidable if, as was possible, Part II of the Bill of last year was revised. It was useless to say that under these circumstances a limitation would be imposed. There could, he thought, however, be no doubt that the Bill contained useful provisions, and on both sides of the House there was a desire to pass the clauses for medical inspection in schools, and they would have been passed before now but for the action of the right hon. Gentleman. At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member

1103
for Scarborough did not proceed with the Third Reading of his Bill, and the question of medical inspection now stood in a state of suspended animation until next year, unless that Bill was taken up by the Government or the clause was carried in this Bill.
MR. McKENNAsaid the hon. Gentleman ought to state the whole facts.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONreplied that the hon. Member for Scarborough had stated that he would not take a Third Reading, because he was so desired by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McKENNA: I asked my hon. Friend not to take a Third Reading, but I also stated the reason why I asked it, and I think the hon. Baronet should state it to the House.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he wished to say no more than this, that the Bill would have been law by this time if the right hon. Gentleman had not interposed. He hoped he would repeat correctly what the right hon. Gentleman told him, viz., that he was sitting at a meeting of the Cabinet when the Bill was under discussion in the House, and that he thought Amendments might be introduced which he would be obliged not to accept, and therefore he did not wish the Third Heading of the Bill to take place until he had considered it.
MR. McKENNAexplained that there were certain Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member who sat below the gangway, and he did not know what Amendments had been accepted or not. If the Bill had gone through the Third Reading the clause in his own Bill would have been dropped out, and the opportunity of passing his clause would have been lost.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON:said it did not become law because the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt for a good reason, interposed, and did not allow it to go to a Third Reading. He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal with this Bill in, as he described it, a non-contentious spirit. The points which he (Sir William Anson) had dealt with, however, were extremely contentious, and they would not be able to
1104
be embodied in the Bill without prolonged and serious discussion. But though there were other parts of the Bill which they hoped would become law, in addition to the provision for medical inspection, it must not be considered in any case that the Bill was a non-contentious one. The whole policy of the-Board of Education, and the way in which the discussion on that policy had been burked and frustrated by the refusal to grant the Opposition more time to consider that policy, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from invariable custom in not giving them an explanation of what his policy was in this case, had very much altered the frame of mind in which they would approach the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. MACNAMARA, Camberwell, N.)said he wished to make a few remarks on the question of extension of the period of loans. Section 57 of the Education Act of 1870, as amended by Section 10 of the Education Act of 1873, gave power to the Board of Education, which had been exercised by successive Tory and Liberal Presidents ever since, down to 1902, to give a period of repayment of 50 years. That was modified by the Local Government Act of 1888, which restricted the period for the repayment of money borrowed by a county council to 30 years. The Education Act of 1902, not their Act, but that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, altered the position, and made the period of repayment, so far as it affected urban areas, 60 years, and he was astonished to find a grievance was found in the fact that it was now proposed to universalise what the right hon. Gentleman in 1902 gave to the urban areas. All the Board of Education proposed to do now was to universalise the 60 years, both for adminstrative counties and for urban areas. He ventured from a purely educational point of view to hope that the House would give a Second Reading to the Bill. It contained some most valuable provisions. The proposal to enable a local authority to acquire land for higher education and to divert land acquired for elementary education purposes to the needs of higher education was most-valuable. The medical inspection provided in the Bill had been universally

1105
acclaimed, and by no man more cordially than the Leader of the Opposition last year, as one of the most valuable enactments placed before the House in recent years. Again, Section 12, dealing with the teachers' register, was an extremely important proposal. What the Government now proposed, after consultation with eminent teachers of all grades, was that there should be laid on the profession itself an obligation to set up a teachers' register. This was bound to be of the greatest value to teachers and to education generally. He hoped for these reasons that this Bill would be passed into law.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that first of all the Bill proposed to extend very largely the administrative powers of the Board of Education. With regard to that, the extension of its administrative powers might certainly raise some criticisms for those who had not perhaps that full confidence j in the administrative action of the right hon. Gentleman which his own supporters had. Some hon. Members had reason to and fault with some of the right hon. Gentleman's administrative actions. He had withdrawn from the power of Parliament altogether some very important matters. This Bill proposed largely to increase the powers of the right hon. Gentleman —and in a very extraordinary way. He sought the power of entirely demolishing the distinctions setup between Parts II. and III. of the Act of 1902, respecting the expenditure and the administration of elementary and secondary education. Was not this a singular power to entrust, not to Parliament, but into the hands of a central department? But there was something more which the light hon. Gentleman sought for his department. He might declare that what had hitherto been considered to be current expenditure was hereafter to be considered as capital expenditure. Was not that a rather dangerous power to seek to add to the prerogative of the central department? He did not object to the extension of the period of repaying loans, if this was generally considered proper; but there was a very much more serious principle in the Bill to which no attention had been paid. He referred to Clause 7, under which the power of borrowing was to be extended from public authorities to managers of private institutions. Could
1106
the right hon. Gentleman point to any precedent for that?
Mr. McKENNA: Clause 7 will be altered.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKclaimed that at any rate he had pointed out this unprecedented provision.
MR. McKENNA: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? I said that any of these clauses which were objected to by right hon. Gentlemen opposite I would withdraw. I have offered to withdraw Clause 8
SIR HENRY CRAIK: Clause 7?
MR. McKENNA: I will amend Clause 7. If the hon. Gentleman objects to it will withdraw it.
*SIR HENRY CRAIK: I contend that the right hon. Gentleman would not have withdrawn it if I had not pointed it out.
MR. McKENNA: I said in opening that I would withdraw any clause to which the hon. Baronet opposite objected.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that this was a clause which was not drawn attention to by the hon. Baronet. But there was something more—Clause 8. Was that one of the clauses to be dropped? It was a very difficult thing to discuss a Bill which was to be whittled away in this fashion. The Bill would give to the Board of Education the power of saying what should not be considered education, but something else, and the right to say that what had not been considered education at all was in future to be education, if the President of the Board desired. But if this Bill was to be whittled away as one objection after another was raised all he. could say was that criticism became difficult, and an urgent reason was supplied for ample debate. As to Clause 10, they had been told that it was a matter of common agreement. They were told that they passed the Bill of the hon. Member for Scarborough, but he would ask the President of the Board of Education to remember that they passed that as the Bill of a private Member subject to the restrictions to which a Bill of a private

1107
member was always subject. A private Member could not propose expenditure from public funds; but the present proposal was a great change in the whole administration of England, a change which was one of the most far-reaching that could be made, and if it was to be taken up by the Government it must be put forward in a somewhat different shape from that which they had been prepared to accept in the Bill of the hon. Member for Scarborough. The present Bill placed on a local authority the burden —not only gave it the power, but placed upon it the duty —of the medical inspection of every child who entered the school. He entirely admitted that this was a duty which should be undertaken, but if it was enforced in the Bill system and assistance must be supplied from the Central Department. Government must not place on local authorities a duty which it would be impossible for them to carry out. If this was enforced the local authorities would find themselves in serious difficulties. If this was to be the Government scheme it ought to be made much more complete, much more perfect, much more scientific, much more on the level of that which existed in every country except our own. The other day they were told that the present Government was a Government of water-tight compartments. He did not think there could be a better illustration of the truth of this than that the House had before it at that moment two Bills, one for England, one for Scotland —which, with regard to medical inspection, proceeded on entirely different lines. The Government did not lay the duty of inspection universally on the school boards for Scotland, but they did lay it universally on the school-boards for England. The Secretary for Scotland had proposed a Bill reasonable in this respect which contemplated joint action between the Scottish Education Department and the local education authority. Was it possible that two members of the Cabinet —the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary for Scotland —could propose these absolutely diverse measures without laying their heads together? Was it not possible to concoct a scheme which would bring about a real, practical, and feasible state of things? Then there was another clause as to vacation schools. He took leave, with all respect to the President of the Board of Education, to say that this
1108
was a mere shop-window dressing. There was absolutely nothing in the Acts as they existed at present which prevented any educational authority from having a vacation school to-morrow. The Bill did not give to authorities a penny of grant. What was wanted was to give encouragement to them and to inform them that assistance would be held out to them in this work. If the Government refrained from doing so they would only be repeating the tentative proposals of a private Member. Was this the way to act —to tell school boards to appoint vacation schools, which they all knew could be done to-morrow if they liked, without any special permission? The President of the Board of Education, he noticed, shook his head.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the charge could not be imposed upon the elementary school rate.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that the right hon. Gentleman took the power of saying what was secondary education and what was elementary education, and indeed what was education at all. There was another distinction between the two hills proposed by members of the same Cabinet. The Secretary for Scotland wished some additional power; he desired to be able to define education, and he had a clause in his Bill giving himself that power. If the proposal of the President of the Board of Education had been the same as that of the Secretary for Scotland he would not have objected. The Secretary for Scotland proposed to do it by a Code or Minute laid before this House, so that the House itself should be the ultimate authority. They knew that the President of the Board of Education had withdrawn from the House subjects which had hitherto always been the subject of Minutes open to discussion. Unlike his colleague, the Secretary for Scotland, he was not prepared to say that his definition of education was to be laid down in a Minute. The House might well pause when they saw two Ministers proposing entirely different courses in matters of precisely the same kind, and let him assure the House that, there was no difference between the circumstances or administration of Scotland which distinguished it from England in this respect. For these

1109
reasons he must say for himself, although he had no wish to divide the House on the point, that there were the most serious difficulties with regard to the Bill. The main benefits it conferred were those of medical inspection. He believed it did it in a specious way that would prove ineffectual, and he strongly objected to the wide extension of administrative power given to the right hon. Gentleman who had by his action quite recently shown so much desire to withdraw the policy of his Department from the criticism of this House.
MR. ACLANDsaid he did not wish to say anything controversial, but one thing was clear, and that was that whatever might have been the fact as to the Government being a Government of water-tight compartments, this debate had already shown that the Opposition on this subject at all events was an Opposition of water-tight compartments, because anything more directly contrary in spirit than the speeches of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University and the hon. Member for Glasgow University he had seldom heard. The hon. Member for Oxford University had. he thought, very rightly dealt with the Bill in the spirit in which he believed the Bill had been conceived and introduced, namely, that it should be an agreed Bill and that it should contain only matters which were educational and non-controversial. He was sure the hon. Baronet wished to continue to treat the Bill in that way and not to make controversial matters in the Bill which were of educational benefit and did not raise religious or other acute questions. But the Member for Glasgow University had from the beginning to the end of his speech said nothing in favour of any part of the Bill.
SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg pardon, I did say that with many clauses, especially those dealt with by the Secretary to the Local Government Board, I entirely agreed.
MR. ACLAND:said the best adjective the hon. Gentleman had been able to find for the provision as to medical inspection was that it was specious. He thought that it would be most lamentable if the attitude of the hon. Member for Glasgow University, as contrasted with that of the hon.
1110
Baronet the Member for Oxford University, was to be the general attitude of the Opposition to the Bill. He still hoped the Bill might be treated in the spirit in which it was prepared and brought forward, and be confined, as he thought it was, to non-contentious matters of education. In that hope he ventured to mention other matters which had hitherto been treated entirely as non-controversial, and which he thought it might be possible for the Minister for Education to accept in Committee. The first was an Amendment which he moved last year, and which was accepted by hon. Members opposite, with regard to the practising schools attached to training colleges. His opinion was that these practising schools were not in the nature of public elementary schools. His Amendment, which was accepted by both sides, was to make it possible for the Board of Education to make special regulations governing them. He hoped if the Amendment were moved, and it was found to be, as it was last year, entirely non-controversial, it might be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman and added to the Bill. The second matter was this. There was in Part II. of last year's Bill, in a great mass of matter which no doubt was very controversial, a clause which was, he thought, not controversial, namely, that which would have enabled the governors of a great many endowed schools to make alterations in their schemes and rules without getting the permission of the original governors, who in many cases had been dead for hundreds of years. There had been a set of schools which had earnestly desired to alter their rules and regulations, but had been unable to do it except by consent of a dead person. Unless that difficulty were got over by administrative action, as he believed it might be, everyone would consent that these schools should be allowed to alter their schemes by the adoption of the very simple clause which was contained in the Bill of last year. He only made these two practical suggestions on matters which he believed might be regarded as non-controversial; but he hoped if the example of the hon. Member who spoke last was going to be followed by the Opposition in general, that the Minister for Education would abandon his attitude, which was as friendly as that of the hon. Member for Oxford University, and

1111
insist, even if fought, upon forcing through such clauses as those relating to health inspection, and holiday vacation schools, and that if necessary, he would keep the House sitting a few days longer in order to get these things through.
*MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire had made a speech which showed, he thought, that hon. Members did not quite appreciate the position in which they found themselves to-night. The hon. Member had made two practical suggestions which might very well be entertained if they were discussing a Bill which dealt only with practical questions on the educational system of the country. Those suggestions came at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The beginning of his speech consisted in drawing a distinction not apparent to him or, he thought to any other Member on the Opposition Benches, between the speech made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and that made by the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow. He listened to both speeches, and they were identical in their purport. Both hon. Members, speaking with authority on these matters, stated that there were in the Bill some practical proposals, but that the finance of the Bill was controversial, and they both stated that to give greater financial powers and latitude to local bodies was a matter which must be reviewed in the light of the educational policy of the present President of the Board of Education. There was not a pin's point between the two speeches. Both of his hon. friends said that the Bill contained certain practical proposals of value, but that the Bill demanded close investigation, discussion, and perhaps opposition upon those two cardinal features of policy, namely, finance and the religious element in education. Could there be two more controversial subjects? The hon. Member who had just spoken apparently thought he was straining the point. He was not. The Minister in charge of the Bill had said that it was brought in in a non-controversial manner, and so it was: it was brought in without a word of explanation. He fully recognised that the right hon. Gentleman had done all in his power tonight to make it a non-controversial Bill. If it could be made so, well and good;
1112
but it could not be made a non-controversial Bill so long as it contained at least five, and he thought seven, clauses touching the whole financial question, which was the most contentious at the present moment. All these financial clauses gave greater latitude and greater power to local educational bodies which had been used, and which they believed would be used, in a sense which they considered highly controversial. That was the whole question before them. The Bill was brought in in February without a word of explanation, and was fished up again at the end of July, and though he admitted it was now brought forward in a most conciliatory manner, it still contained at least five clauses fundamentally affecting the financial question, and giving a latitude in a direction to which the Opposition took great exception. Was that a non-controversial Bill?
MR McKENNA: I have offered to withdraw any Clause in the Bill to which the hon. Baronet objects. If that does not make a Bill non-controversial, I do not know what does.
*MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if he had not fully recognised the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman made that statement he had failed to express his meaning. But he was entitled to ask that if he meant what he said —and he knew he did —what was the sense of bringing this Bill up again on the 31st of July if it contained provisions which might be justly characterised as he had described them? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the fact that some of these clauses were highly controversial, but he might tell him that the Opposition as a whole were not prepared to be lectured on the previous day for having piled up the debt of the country and increased its annual expenditure during their period of office and then to be asked, at one o'clock in the morning, to pass as non-controversial a Bill which stimulated the borrowing of money throughout the whole of the country, and which stimulated it in connection with that particular Department which showed as great an increase in expenditure as the Army and the Navy put together.
MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to dissent from this remark.
*MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was a fact that in the ten years during which the Unionists were in power the increase upon Army and Navy Estimates added together was the same as the increase during the same period on the educational expenses, viz., 60 per cent. in each case. They did not grudge the money spent on this, but they should not be taunted with extravagance. Was it right that they should be asked at that hour to pass a Bill which would add to our expenditure, and dip deeper into the money market by increasing the borrowing powers of local bodies? He repeated the statement that a large proportion of the increase in the annual expenditure of the country was due to education, and the main difficulty they had to face in the financial situation was, as stated on the previous evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the depreciation of securities due to great borrowing. Here was a Bill which authorised greater borrowing in many of its clauses, and it increased the expenditure because of this. That was a point which could not be ignored and passed over as a mere non-controversial adjunct to certain practical proposals to benefit education. There was another aspect of the financial clause which must be considered. He gathered from the attitude of the hon. Member below the gangway that they had only got to put in the Bill that the period of borrowing might be extended to sixty years in order to ensure that people might be able to borrow on those terms. He thought the finance of the Bill required most careful consideration. He had read the Bill with some care, and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had decided, through pressure, to allow the public bodies to borrow from the Public Loans Commissioners without sanction, even if it was spread over sixty years. He remembered that only two years ago a Bill was passed through that House —a Housing Bill —giving local bodies the power to spread the period of repayment over eighty years. When the Bill became an Act every body was d lighted; but afterwards they found that they could only borrow from the outside market for eighty years, and that when they came to the Public Loans Commissioners they could only borrow for twenty years. What was the financial basis of this Bill? Were the Public Loans Commissioners going to spread
1114
the period of repayment for loans borrowed from them over sixty years? If not they would decide the term of repayment as they decided it now, under existing Acts, and that enabled them to put it at twenty years, which was the period they generally fixed. The objection he took to the Bill was that by extending the period of repayment and passing the clause, it stimulated public bodies to take up loans which lowered their credit. In doing this they were doing their best to depress the credit of the country and at the same time they created a vast debt. They would lower the price of Consols and they would not get their schools built. That was a matter which could not be called non-controversial. There were in the Bill, as everyone recognised, and as he recognised fully, certain practical Amendments in our educational system which ought to be adopted, and which he hoped would be adopted; but the Bill raised financial questions which affected a most burning controversy at the present moment. Because it raised these questions it also touched and affected the only other great burning question between the two sides, namely, the controversy over religious education. To describe a Bill which brought in these two burning subjects of controversy as non controversial was a misuse of language. The right hon. Gentleman said he would withdraw clauses of a controversial nature. If he were sincere and withdrew every clause which touched finance —and most of these clauses touched local finance, and gave local authorities greater powers against religious views largely held by Members of the Opposition —then they would not have much left in the Bill.
*MR. GEORGE WHITE: said he thought the House was engaged in a very futile business. They were told on one side that the Bill would not be pressed if it was controversial and they were told on the other side that practically the whole of the Bill was to be considered as controversial. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down picked out five or six clauses out of a very short Bill which he deemed controversial, and he (the speaker) thought therefore it would be better for the House to understand what the position of the Minister of Education was in regard to it. If, at the bidding of hon. Members opposite, he was prepared to withdraw one clause after

1115
another, then it seemed to him it would be better not to introduce the Bill at all. He did not say it was at the request of hon. Members opposite, but it was at the request of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, and with his approval, that most of the clauses were introduced. The hon. Baronet had taken strong opposition to some of the main clauses of the Bill. He thought it was well to recognise that the hon. Members for Oxford University and Glasgow University began and ended their speeches by practically stating that they could not receive this Bill from the President of the Board of Education. It was quite evident that his action in regard to other matters had raised a spirit of opposition in the minds of those hon. Gentlemen, and their conduct would make it extremely difficult for the Bill to pass through the House. The President of the Board of Education had expected and he thought he had a right to expect that a Bill drawn in this way would receive practically the assent, with probably some small Amendments in Committee, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were told very often that they could not discuss the question of education without the religious difficulty being brought in. Now here was a Bill in which, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he did not think any previous speaker had actually discovered any religious difficulty; but the right hon. Gentleman had discovered not only a financial but a religious difficulty. There fore, they had these two great elements of opposition brought into a Bill which was only intended to do, and which would, he believed, do thoroughly, good educational work, and would have been received in that spirit if it had come from any other hands than those of the right hon. Gentleman who at that moment occupied the position of President of the Board of Education. A great deal had been said in regard to the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, but it would not be in order for him to go into the details of the opposition to it; ho would say, however, that if hon. Members opposite could not be the favourites of the Department they posed as martyrs. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman was attempting to administer the Education Act fairly, and was receiving the same spiteful opposition that had once before been prominent. In these circum-
1116
stances he felt it impossible to deal at length with the matters which were concerned in the Bill. Even the two clauses which had been incorporated from the Bill of the hon. Member for Scarborough had undergone the most scathing attack from the Member for Glasgow University. Yet the hon. Member, he believed, was among the Members who supported that Bill; but, now that it became a Government measure in the hands of the President of the Board of Education, he used the most scathing criticism upon that very clause, which, certainly, whatever might be said about other parts of the Bill, was of the most humanitarian kind and one which it would be thought every lover of education would like to see in an Act of Parliament. It was quite idle to suppose that the Bill could be treated in a non-controversial spirit after what had been said by hon. Members opposite. The President of the Board of Education had said in deference to so superior an authority as the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, that he would withdraw one clause after another, but they must remember that the right hon. Gentleman himself had not been a free agent in the controversy. He had sufficient belief in the right hon. Gentleman's interest in education to fancy that if he were a free agent he would give a different handling to the Bill before them. He made these observations because he thought they were wasting time unless they came to a decision as to the way in which the Government was to be treated. If the right hon. Gentleman went on with the Bill he would give it the best support in his power, as he believed, although a great deal had been said against it of a specious character, that it defended the great interests of education without touching at all those great controversial matters which unfortunately were mixed up with education.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the tone and the spirit which had actuated him during the discussion. He most sincerely hoped that in years to come when he occupied a high position that tone and temper would continue and would be manifested in action. But there must be a great change before that happy condition of things arrived. He personally had been closely connected

1117
with a school in Halifaxand he remembered that in the school, which was now being rebuilt from voluntary funds, almost the whole of the school children's parents — something like eighty-one out of eighty-five —were enthusiastic in their opposition to what they regarded as the oppression, the hardship, almost the tyranny, of the action of the right hon. Gentleman. With reference to the powers given under this Bill he wished to say that this year for the first time enormous proposals had been made with reference to training colleges and secondary schools. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had acted towards the House and Members with perfect good faith; but he could not forget, and he would not omit to remind the House, that the right hon. Gentleman had given to him, no doubt in good faith, the clearest and most distinct promise that there was to be a discussion in the course of this year on the new regulations with regard to training colleges, secondary schools, and the Code. Not withstanding this promise, made, he repeated, in perfect good faith, the fact remained, and it would not be forgotten throughout the history of education, that these changes had been imposed on the House without any opportunity for a useful discussion. He would refer to one or two clauses which he hoped would disappear from the Bill. The first request he had to make was to omit Subsection (4) of Clause 1. It concerned the power given to alienate land or buildings acquired for the purpose of education under Part II. of the Education Act, and the power to dispose of the proceeds. This seemed to him a power which under no circumstances whatever ought to be given to any Administration. The properties which the clause referred to were held to a very large extent under trusts, and had a great influence on the cause of education. They were doing work which ho believed, in most cases, was of an admirable character. He was altogether opposed to the proposal to permit anyone to step in and alienate, property as was proposed by the Bill. No property ought to be alienated except under a scheme carefully devised, largely discussed, and not adopted except after the most mature consideration, Clause 8, he understood, had practically gone. Such a clause he felt sure could not stand the test of discussion. He would say a word about Clause 10, which
1118
dealt with the vacation schools and the medical inspection of children. He hoped that this clause would become law this year. He had previously supported these proposals. Partly as an educationalist and partly as one who had given much time to sanitary reform he welcomed with all his heart the proposal which made it a duty incumbent on the authority to examine every child before or at the time of admission to school. This was a change which would produce in a course of a few years a revolution in the sanitary condition and the health of the working classes of the country. He was well aware how difficult the task was. It had already been attempted in the city of Manchester, and was being carried out there. Two medical gentlemen —one of them a near relative of his own —were engaged in the task. He hoped that it would never go forth that a clause like that one had ever been objected to in the House of Commons. He hoped that this clause would also receive the unanimous support of the House of Lords, and would be placed on the Statute-book before Parliament rose. There was a comic side in connection with the clause. The clause as introduced by the hon. Member for Scarborough was a copy of the clause in the Bill before thorn. The Secretary for the Department proposed an Amendment which the House on Report unanimously accepted. He should have pleasure at some later stage in asking the Government to amend the clause in conformity with the Amendment which had been carried. Ho would for once endeavour to serve the Government in serving himself. There were two more clauses to which he wished to refer. One was the question of extending the time for loans He himself was in favour of that extension. First of all, he thought in these matters they ought not to take too narrow a view; and secondly, when they approached the question more closely and more in detail, they could not be otherwise than struck by the most substantial character of the new buildings. They had in them as regards durability far more than thirty years wear, and, as regarded utility for the purposes of education, the designs were now so complete, and the provisions so perfect, that, as regarded their becoming antiquated, there was little danger of that in a period of thirty, forty, fifty, or even sixty years

1119
There was one other point he would refer to, and that was the register. He could not go into detail, the whole question was so highly technical, but he thought they ought to have some further explanation as to the manner in which the new register was to be framed. He would in the most friendly way invite the Government to examine this clause more fully and to amplify it by regulations, either in the nature of an Order in Council or some other form, which would enable the House to deal more carefully with this most important question, which affected every teacher, and as such, ought to affect every child in our schools. There were some provisions which he would not go back upon at this moment as to Orders in Council. He hoped that all these Orders in Council would be placed on the Table and would not obtain validity until they had laid there for a reasonable time and before full publicity had been given to them. There was very little service in placing a Paper on the Table when no notice was taken of it and no reference made to it. 'If they would refer to the records of the House it would be found that the number of Papers laid on the Table was almost bewildering. He hoped that in the matter of Orders in Council under this Bill every', care would be taken that there should be full publicity and every opportunity for discussion in the House. There were some parts of the Bill, notably that relating to vacation schools and the health of the children, which he most earnestly desired to see passed. He had ventured to criticise some points, and he trusted the words he had spoken had not been spoken in vain.
*MR. HELMEsaid that when the Education Act of 1902 was before the House many of them differed with regard to its proposals, but when it became law and they tried to make the best of it, and when they sat as members of the Education Committees throughout the country to carry it out they, found that it had not anticipated important points in some of its administrative provisions. He only wished to make an appeal, whether this Bill did not allow an opportunity for the friendly co-operation of educationalists on both sides of the House to try to minimise the points of difference and centre o n those points by which they could release the deadlock which at present held in some departments of educational
1120
work. In regard to his own constituency he would point out that at the present moment a school for higher education could not be built, although the plans had beer passed, unless they consented in this House to pass into law the last heading of Clause 1., sub-section 2, by which a site that already belonged to the corporation of Morecambe might be applied for the purpose of a technical and art school. Another point was that the Local Government Board had discovered that certain building powers they had granted to them as an education committee in Lancashire could not be continued. The law officers of the Department, he presumed, said they could not continue to do that which had been done, and at the present moment the borough of Accrington desired to extend is technical school, but the moneys provided under the Technical Education Act had been exhausted and they had not got the power to go beyond the penny rate, which was exhausted. Therefore, he made an appeal on these two points that they had the opportunity in the one case by adopting a section now in the Bill, and in the second place by adopting a clause which he would move in Committee which would give the Local Government Board the power they desired. If the Bill were considered in the calmer atmosphere of the Committee they could eliminate any controversial points and as educationalists provide a way out of the deadlock. In Lancashire the building of secondary schools was at a standstill. As the President of the Board of Education had promised to approach the consideration of the clauses in a non-controversial manner he hoped the hon. Baronet opposite would exercise his influence over his colleagues and allow the Bill to group stairs where they might endeavour to remove difficulties. He was afraid his right hon. friend went rather too far in laying himself open to the charge that he-would withdraw anything to which the Opposition objected. He thought his right hon. friend ought to make it understood that he would only withdraw those clauses which after the careful consideration of the responsible leaders of the Opposition were held to be out of sympathy with the views to which the hon. Baronet had already committed himself. At any rate, if they got into Committee the public

1121
would know through the Press who were the Members who were prepared to prostitute for Party purposes or religious animosities the great educational interests desired to be secured by the passing of this Bill.
MR. ASHLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman's conduct on this Bill had been extraordinary. The Bill was brought in at the end of February; since then for five months it had remained on some musty shelf at the Education Office, and now it was brought out after midnight in the last month of the session, although it was a most important Bill, containing some very excellent clauses and some most pernicious ones. Yet they were asked calmly to pass the Bill without any adequate or proper discussion. He thought the person who was really to be sympathised with now was the hon. Member for Scarborough, who got as far as the Report stage, a Bill which had the support of the overwhelming majority of the Members of the House. He moved one or two Amendments to it which were defeated, but on its broad principle he most cordially agreed with it. Why was not the hon. Member for Scarborough allowed to have his Bill starred?
MR. McKENNA: It was blocked by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London.
MR. ASHLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that if it had been starred as a Government Bill there would have been no difficulty. Owing to the difficulty which had arisen there was very great danger of its excellent provisions not being passed into law because of other provisions in this Bill. He really thought the conduct of this measure by the Government was one to be greatly deprecated by all who supported the Bill of the hon. Member for Scarborough. He did not know what the views of the hon. Member for Oxford University were with reference to Clause 4 (removal of the 2d. rate), but he had very strong objections to the removal of the 2d. rate. In this he was supported by numerous memorials which ho had received from his constituents, and, therefore, he hoped if he objected to that clause the right hon. Gentlemen would give his constituents the same
1122
consideration that he was prepared to give to the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University. Far more important, however, than anything else was Clause 8, as to which he really wanted to know how they stood.
MR. McKENNA: It is dropped.
MR. ASHLEYsaid it was a very good thing too, because under Clause 8 he could not help thinking the right hon. Gentleman had absolute powers to alter the law at his own sweet will. He hoped the Bill would be given a Second Reading, although he thought they were discussing the subject under very unfavourable circumstances, and he hoped upstairs the objectionable provisions would be eliminated.
*MR. LUPTONthought the Member for Wigan had thrown oil on the troubled waters by his speech. Some of the difficulties raised by Members opposite against the Bill arose out of the working of the Act of 1902, for which the President of the Board of Education was not responsible. He thought there were a great many clauses in the present Bill which were admirable, but there was one clause which he looked on with considerable doubt, and he would like to have an assurance from the Government that in Committee they would add words to it which would be calculated to remove those doubts. Let them consider the history of the Education Acts for a moment. The Government first of all started the schools and then went a step further and made attendance compulsory. Then they went another step and provided food for the children attending. Now they went a step further still and provided medical attendance for these children. So they went step by step in the supersession of parents. His chief objection to the Bill was that it was a step in the direction of interfering with and superseding parents. However excellent and admirable the Educational Authorities might be he still believed in fathers and mothers and that; with them should rest the management of the family. Many people with whom he had discussed this question thought that a great deal might be done to prevent the spread of infectious disease by the

1123
examination of children who were driven to school by the attendance officer. They were driven to school even if they were ill, and parents hesitated to withhold their children even if they were ill because of the prosecution which would follow. When the child was ill perhaps he suffered from an infectious disease to which children were liable. What was the remedy for that? It was to stop the compulsory attendance and leave it to the parents to decide. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed at anything like liberty. His constituents objected to compulsory attendance, and nothing would be more popular with the people of this country than its abolition. They knew what was good for them and they knew what was bad for them. Those who wanted education could get it, and those who did not want education in the schools ought to be allowed to stop away. There was another kind of education which could be got away from school. The question of medical attendance would be quite unnecessary if parents were allowed a little liberty to keep children away from school. It was the compulsion that made the difficulty. If he were a member of the Opposition he would only have to get the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Oxford University to take the matter up and then he would be sure that the clause would be removed from the Bill, or would be slightly modified to suit him. At the present time his only hope was in the hon. Member for Glasgow University, who had expressed some objection to the clause. He hoped he would be able to bring pressure on the only man whom the President of the Board of Education had said he would listen to, and then the matter might be remedied. Sub-section (b) of Clause 10 of the Bill said there should be a duty on the local authority to provide medical inspection. Here they we: e superseding the local authority, which was not to decide whether or not it wanted to have medical inspection. Hon. Members were in favour of compulsion, not liberty. Here they were dealing with the sacred local authority which hon. Members supported, but still they were not to have liberty. All. through the Bill of last year they were defending the liberty of the local authority, now they were taking it away. If the word "duty" were altered to the word "right" or "power" it would be less compulsory and he would not object to that part of the clause. The duty of the local author-
1124
ity was to provide for medical inspection of children. What did it mean? Some people would say that providing for medical inspection of children meant that children should be medically inspected, but he was told that that was not the meaning of the clause. It meant that the local authority should provide for the medical inspection of children, and that there should be a medical inspector, but that there was no power in the clause to compel the child to be medically inspected. Subject to the Board of Education, local authorities would have power to make any arrangement they liked for attending to the health and physical condition of the children. He would tell them what a medical man would be likely to say when he came to inspect the child. He would say "There has been a case of smallpox in the neighbouring village and I think that all the children in this school should be at once vaccinated."
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now introducing irrelevant matter.
*MR. LUPTON,continuing, said that in a school of 500 children the medical man might get £100 by vaccinating all of them, and this would be at the expense of the rates. He asked for an assurance from the President of the Board of Education that it was not intended to compel a child to be subject to any medical inspection or to any medical or surgical treatment without the consent of the parent or guardian of the child. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He knew that Members did not want to hear him speak, but this was a Bill which would cause a great deal of anxiety to many people, and he knew its provisions would be very strongly criticised in the country. He had no doubt about this, and he thought the House should pause before it passed such a drastic clause. He asked that the right hon. Gentleman, who was very free with assurances that he did not intend to push certain clauses through, to give him an assurance that in Committee he would slightly modify this clause.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that Clause 3 as it stood at present was an absolute delusion and a sham. He said this advisedly because of the experiences gained in the past year

1125
by deputations to the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Education. The deputation's views were received, as regarded the giving of this extended period, with favour, and with more than a half promise that their proposals should be considered, but when the Local Government Board was reached, that Department said "No, you shall only have the period of 30 years." It was perfectly clear that the Local Government Board had not the necessary confidence of the Board of Education, otherwise that Department would have said "What you recommend we will accept." He was quite sure that many hon. Members present had received from municipal reformers a request to take this matter up, that Clause 3 should be so amended that the opposition of the Local Government Board should prevail. He could say a great deal more on the matter, but he was sorry to see that the President of the Local Government Board was not present to take the matter up. He hoped that this point would be dealt with and that the clause would be modelled so that it should be a real benefit to municipalities and to counties, and not the delusion and sham that it was at present.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that one section of the community would be vitally affected by the Bill —the unfortunate ratepayers. If the Bill remained in its existing form the ratepayers would suffer to a very considerable extent. Clause 4 was a repudiation of a clause put into the Education Bill of the Government last year. That clause was never discussed in the House of Commons at all. He would only re-echo the protest of the hon. Member for Blackpool in urging that the clause should be deleted from this Bill, which was supposed to be a non-contentious measure. Ho hoped that the hon. Baronet below him would press for the deletion of the clause. Respecting Clause 10 he thought the general principle of the clause was agreed upon by both sides of the House, but he could not agree to its being imposed without some assistance being given from the general finances of the country. He could not conceive anything more likely to put the people of the country against education than continued appeals to pay for it out of the rates. The taxpayer at large approved of
1126
education, and did not object to further the cause of education by drinking a cup of tea or smoking a cigar, but the ratepayers did object to seeing the education rate continually on the increase. He uttered a protest against continual duties being imposed on educational authorities without some help from the Exchequer.
LORD BALCARRESexpressed regret that the Government had not starred the Bill of the hon. Member for Scarborough.

EVIDENCE (COLONIAL STATUTES) BILL.
Not amended (by the Standing Committee) considered:
Amendments proposed: —
"In page 1, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'other instruments having statutory force passed, issued, or made,' and to insert the words 'statutes passed.'"
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words' or under the authority of.'"
"In page 1, line 8, after the word ' possession,' to insert the words 'and of orders, regulations, and other instruments issued or made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under the authority of any such Act, ordinance, or statute.' " —(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. BOWLES:moved an Amendment to add in line 8, after the word "desertion," the words "and an authentic copy of which shall have been transferred by the Governor to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State." These words, he said, had been copied from an Act of 1842, relating to New South Wales. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill —
"In page 1., line 8, after the word 'desertion' to insert the words 'and an authentic copy of which shall have been transferred by the Governor to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.' "—(Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill Manchester, N.W.)said that, following to some extent the principle adopted by the Foreign Office in respect of the statutes of foreign countries, he was anxious to take a similar responsibility for the Colonial Office for the simplification of the acceptance of statutes, but he was informed that it would lead to a number of complications. If there were no other way of obtaining the end they had in view it would be necessary to adopt the course; but by the measures proposed in the Bill it was hoped to obtain all the facilities desired without involving the Colonial Office in an unlimited amount of trouble.
MR. BOWLESasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed to the Bill —
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'possession,' to insert the words 'and of orders, regulations, and other instruments issued or made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under the authority of any such Act, ordinance, or statute.'"
"In line 12, after the word 'copy,' to insert the words 'or pretended copy.' "
"In line 12, after the word 'ordinance,' to insert the words 'statute, order, regulation.'"
"In lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words ' copy of any such Act, ordinance, or instrument,' and insert the words ' such copy or pretended copy.'"
"In line 17, to leave out the words 'be guilty of felony and.' "
"In line 18, to leave out the words 'penal servitude for a period not exceeding five years' and insert the words 'imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding twelve months.' "—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. BOWLES:moved to leave out the words "purporting to be the printer." He said the object of this Bill was to remove doubt concerning the validity of Colonial Statutes which it might be desired to use as evidence in British Courts of law. The Bill proposed that any copy of a Colonial Statute produced in Court here should be accepted
1128
at once as evidence if it purported to be printed by the Government printer. Therefore the question as to who was the Government printer was at the bottom of the whole Bill. Was the Government printer under the Bill the printer who was authorised by the Government of the Colony to print it? Not at all —that would be simple. The Government printer for the purpose of this Act was the printer who purported to be the printer authorised. It was quite evident that there might be very serious conflict. Unless the words were to be read entirely out of the ordinary sense they made utter nonsense so far as the practical effect of the Bill was concerned. Under subsection 2 of Clause 1 a penalty was imposed upon a man who printed a copy of the Act which falsely purported to have been, printed by a printer who purported, whether falsely or not, to be the printer authorised by the Government of the Colony to print the Statute. It was a fantastic offence and he really thought the words must have been put in by some oversight, as they were plainly ridiculous.
MR. ASHLEYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill —
"In page 1, lines 21 and 22. to leave out the words ' purporting to be the printer.'" (Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the hon. Member, like himself, was not a lawyer, and therefore he was sure the hon. Member would not be surprised if he said he fully sympathised with the anxiety which the phrasing of the provision had caused him. It undoubtedly did appear to be very involved, complicated, and ineffective phrasing. He would, however, hesitate to say anything that appeared in the slightest degree to be disrespectful to the sober

1129
language of the Law Courts, for the definition was taken textually mutatis mutandis from the definition in the Documentary Evidence Act. The point was not so obscure as it might at first appear. The purpose of this Bill was to provide a smooth, easy, method of proving Colonial Statutes as evidence in British Courts. If they were to say that the printer should be the printer authorised to print the Act, it would be open to an ingenious counsel to argue that it was necessary to prove who was the Government printer, and then the whole trouble which this Bill sought to avoid would be retained. Once the word "purporting" appeared it did. not matter whether the printer was authorised to print or not; all that was necessary was that he was the printer purporting to be the printer authorised. In every respect this measure conformed entirely to the regulations, and although he admitted the words had not great literary sparkle he trusted the hon. Gentleman would accept them.
MR. BOWLESsaid he did not desire to interfere with the passage of the Bill, and would therefore ask leave to with draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AUSTRALIAN STATES CONSTITUTION BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee.
Clause 1: —
MR. ASHLEYopposed the clause, for the purpose of asking what sort: of Bills would be reserved. Would a
1130
Bill, for example, passed by one of the States for excluding Japanese from entering be one to be reserved?
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the necessity for this measure arose from the fact that under various Acts dating from the early part of the late reign certain classes of legislation had been reserved, and had to be referred home. One of the principal "classes was in cases affecting constitutional changes, which should be a matter always reserved for the sanction of His Majesty's Government. The Committee would see that, as time went on, changes of a kind which were not really fundamental to the constitution of the Colonies were made in the ordinary expansion of their electoral position There was a Bill affecting the alteration of the franchise, and the system of election, and these purely local measures had come to be withheld as if they were affecting the constitution of the State. This caused a great deal of inconvenience and difficulty. This Bill dealt with the whole principle of reserving Bills from the Australian Colonies and it agreed exactly with the views that the Colonies now held. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think he was disrespectful if he said it was absolutely necessary for the Bill that he should obtain it in the form in which it now stood, because it was in that form that it had been agreed to after an immense amount of time and trouble by the whole of the self-governing States of Australia. There would still be certain fundamental Bills which would necessarily be referred home, such as Bills altering the constitution of the legislature in either House, or affecting the salary of the Governor, or a Bill which was, under any act of legislature of the State, prescribed to be reserved. These might

1131
appear to be very considerable reservations for them to make upon the legislation of the self-governing Colonies. He did not say anything in defence of it except that the Bill had been agreed to after very long consideration by the Colonies concerned.
MR. FORSTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made an exceedingly interesting reply, but he had not answered the question whether or not under the Bill the question of legislation affecting the landing of Japanese or other coloured labour would be reserved. He rather gathered that that would not come within the limit of the Bills necessarily reserved, but would probably come under those Bills which would, under the direction of the Government at home to the Colonial Governor, be reserved.
MR. CHURCHILLreplied that under instructions the Colonial Governor might refer such Bills home, but as to any particular Bill he could not say without inquiry, because instructions varied.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2: —
MR. FORSTERasked for information as to a reference in the clause regarding certain Colonial Bills which were required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament in England.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the clause was intended to be a wide net to validate illegalities in Bills passed by the Australian Colonies. This particular
1132
clause referred, he believed, to Tasmania, Western Australia, and Queensland, the reserved Bills from which had to lie on the Table of both Houses for thirty days before they obtained the force of law. The clause was put in in order that any Bills which had not conformed to this rule should not be invalidated.
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Read a third time, and passed.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1905–6.
Resolutions reported: —
1. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1906, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows viz.: —

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

455,264

18

4

Total Deficits

217,505

19

2

Net Surplus

£237,758

19

2

And whereas it is expedient that the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services be sanctioned.
1. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned.''

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1905–6. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

—

163,909

1

8

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

18,072

14

10

—

3

Medical Establishments and Services

12,042

10

4

—

4

Martial Law

720

19

6

—

5

Educational Services

10,824

8

0

—

6

Scientific Services

—

3,782

10

4

7

Royal Naval. Reserves

35,539

13

0

—

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

I. Personnel

63,015

9

2

—

II. Matériel

11,824

16

1

—

III. Contract Work-

46,417

6

4

—.

9

Naval Armaments

127,868

17

7

—

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

106,664

13

1

—

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

17,471

4

2

—

12

Admiralty Office

—

5,800

14

1

13

Half Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

—

31,897

17

8

14

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

4,802

6

3

—

15

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

—

9,550

10

4

—

Amount written off as irrecoverable

—

2,565

5

1

Total

455,264

18

4

217,505

19

2

Net Surplus

£237,758 19 2

MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he ventured respectfully to protest against this very important Resolution being taken at this hour in the morning. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having taken what hә believed was a perfectly constitutional step in asking the Public Accounts Committee to consider in a new and revised form, not only the Appropriation Account but also the form in which the Account was placed before the House. But at that hour it was impossible that the House could discuss the matter properly. He hoped next year the Government would arrange matters in a way which would afford opportunity for criticising the Resolution. He did not know what arrangements had been come to, but perhaps this Resolution could be taken tomorrow.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the resolution was taken by agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Somerset, and he saw no need to depart from that agreement.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the right hon. Gentlemen himself was responsible for exactly the same procedure when Secretary to the Treasury in 1905. He found, by reference to Hansard, that the Resolution was taken after midnight on that occasion.
MR. LEIF JONESpressed on the Government that a day and not a night should be given to the Public Accounts Committee Report.
II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ending 31st March, 1906, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz: —

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Army Services, 1905–6. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &c, of Army

256,166

18

10

—

2

Medical Establishment: Pay, &c.

25,504

11

11

—

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, &c.

66,162

14

8

—

4

Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

40,604

8

11

—

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

—

613

19

1

6

Quarterings, Transport, and Remounts

187,279

4

7

—

7

Supplies and Clothing

415,222

14

10

—

8

Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

122,089

1

7

—

9

Armaments and Engineer Stores

100,865

18

11

—

10

Works and Buildings

155,563

4

9

—

11

Establishments for Military Education

7,038

12

2

—

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

7,910

10

0

—

13

War Office and Army Accounts Department

—

3,936

14

1

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, &.

11,597

0

8

—

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, &.

—

41,452

12

3

16

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, &Gratuities

—

6,428

3

9

—

Balances irrecoverable

—

9,436

14

10

Total

1,396,005

1

10

61,868

4

0

Net Surplus

£1,334,136 17 10

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

1,396,005

1

10

Total Deficits

61,868

4

0

Net Surplus

£1,334,136

17

10

And whereas it is expedient that the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services- be sanctioned.
2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at six minutes before Three o'clock, a.m.