Commons Sitting of 8 July 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ards Railways Bill (changed from "Ards and Bangor Railways Bill").—As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
King's Consent signified.—Bill read the third time, and passed.
Holderness Water Bill.—As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
King's Consent signified.—Bill read the third time, and passed.
Rochester Bridge Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Leith Burgh Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
Galashiels Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill.—Considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
Wye Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Garw and Ogmore Gas Bill; Swinton and Mexbrough Gas Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dispense with the attendance of jurors at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, and with the holding of Assizes and Quarter Sessions in certain cases, and to amend the Law relating to the dates at which Quarter Sessions are to be held." [Assizes and Quarter Sessions Bill [Lords.]

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Thornbury; and North Bradley; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Gunnersbury, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Ashford; Bryn Newydd and other places; Greenfield; Hetton Downs; Houghton le Spring; Liverpool; Newport (Mon.); Painscastle; Waterloo; and Willesden Green; to lie upon the Table.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Petition from Govan, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Wainfleet, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WHISKEY AND OTHER POTABLE SPIRITS (ROYAL COMMISSION.)
  Copy presented, of Interim Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into and report upon certain matters connected with the manufacture and sale of Whiskey and other Potable Spirits, with Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIONS (BENWELL AND WHITEHAVEN COLLIERIES).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, edited by R. A. S. Redmayne, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, on the Explosions which occurred at the Benwell Colliery on 19th March, 1907, and the Whitehaven Colliery on 26th November, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIONS (WASHINGTON "GLEBE" COLLIERY).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by J. B. Atkinson, esquire, M.Sc., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an Explosion which occurred at Washington "Glebe" Colliery, on 20th February, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Training of Teachers for Secondary
  1632
  Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Scheme for a new Teachers' Registration Council proposed to the Board of Education by the Representatives of certain Educational Associations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Report, of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4057 and 4058 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.
  Inquiries into Charities (County of London).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 218.]

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Police Convalescent Home at Brighton.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is necessary for a Metropolitan police constable to obtain the sanction of a police surgeon to enter the police convalescent home at Brighton as a non-paying patient; whether the inspector in charge of the sub-division has the authority to inform the surgeon that such a recommendation will not be entertained; and, if not, what is the constable's remedy.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Any constable, when on leave, may enter the convalescent home at Brighton and remain there at his own expense, but he can only go there as a sick man free of cost to himself on the recommendation of the divisional surgeon, ratified by chief surgeon. The sub-divisional inspector has not power to grant or withhold sick leave.

    Seating Accommodation in Motor Cabs.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the hinged seat behind the driver's seat in motor-cabs conforms with the regulations as to seating in four-wheeled cabs required by the Metropolitan Police; whether he has consented to a different width of seating in motor cabs from that required in four-wheeled cabs; and, if not, by whose authority has this regulation been altered.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The regulations do not lay down specific dimensions for seating accommodation in four-wheeled horse cabs. In those motor cabs which are licensed to carry two persons the hinged seat behind the driver is merely an emergency seat and does not conflict with any regulations as to construction.

    Franco-British Exhibition and the Cab Radius.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Franco-British Exhibition is outside the London four-mile cab radius; whether he is aware that the police refuse to allow hansom and four-wheeled cab-drivers to take up fares outside the exhibition unless they are showing a board stating they do not charge the 1s. mileage allowed by the Home Secretary's Order; whether he has issued any fresh order dealing with fares from this exhibition; and, if not, by whose authority has this regulation been forced upon the hansom and four-wheeled cabmen.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The exhibition is outside the four-mile radius. No order dealing with fares from this exhibition has been made, nor indeed, in view of the statutory provision as to the radius, could any such order be made for other than taximeter cabs. It is not the case that the police refuse to allow hansom and four-wheeled cabs to take up fares unless they exhibit such a notice as is mentioned in the Question.

    Irish Firms and Post Office Stores Contracts.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that his predecessors authorised separate contracts for uniforms, cloth-
    1634
    ing, caps, etc., for Ireland; and whether he will reconsider the matter of separate contracts for Irish requirements in such articles as waterproof clothing, bicycles, boots, tools, or cause a Departmental inquiry to be held into the whole subject.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Separate tailoring and head-dress contracts for Irish Post Office staff are arranged. The tailoring contracts go to Irish firms, the head-dress prices quoted by Irish firms are usually prohibitive. Separate boot contracts for Ireland were formerly placed, but the plan was discontinued because the prices quoted by the few Irish firms that competed were very high. Irish firms can compete for the general supply, and, if a reasonable tender were received, I should not object to delivery in Dublin. Irish tenders for waterproofs have been at prohibitive prices, I know of no tool-makers in Ireland, and of only one bicycle-making firm on any considerable scale. The latter does not reply to invitations to tender. This Department would of course be glad to hear of any competent firms in Ireland, and possibly something in this direction will result from the arrangement that has just been made with the Dublin Industrial Development Association.

    Isle of Lewis Farms.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the names of the various farms in the Island of Lewis, the acreage of each such farm, and the date on which in each case the lease expires; and, in view of the fact that the Congested Districts Board have created only thirty-two crofter holdings in the island since the Congested Districts Board Act of 1897 came into force, will the Board make efforts to induce the proprietor to break up some of these farms and assist in the creation of new holdings, especially bearing in mind that on 31st March last the Board had a balance of £40,000, a sum which will be augmented this year by £35,000.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am able, by the courtesy of the proprietor, to give my hon. friend the information he desires as follows—

    Farms in the Lewis paying above £30 rent.

    Farm.

    Rent.

    Extent.

    Lease.

    Stornoway Parish:

    £

    s.

    Acres

    Melbost

    90

    0

    215

    Martinmas, 1911.

    Holm

    132

    0

    200

    Whit-Sunday, 1910.

    Stoney field

    60

    0

    165

    No lease.

    Goathill

    95

    0

    144

    Whit-Sunday, 1915.

    Manor

    178

    0

    300

    No lease.

    Laxdale

    40

    0

    38

    Whit-Sunday, 1919.

    Tong

    38

    0

    360

    Whit-Sunday, 1917.

    Coll

    80

    0

    2,227

    Whit-Sunday, 1916.

    Gress farm and mill

    131

    0

    4,228

    No lease.

    North Tolsta

    60

    0

    2,353

    Whit-Sunday, 1916.

    Barvas Parish:

    South Galson

    235

    0

    6,175

    Whit-Sunday, 1923,

    Dell lands and mill

    68

    0

    160

    No lease.

    Dalbeg

    50

    0

    1,930

    No lease.

    Uig Parish:

    Mealista

    85

    0

    5,440

    No lease.

    Mangersta

    70

    0

    1,920

    No lease.

    Ardroil

    150

    0

    9,500

    Whit-Sunday, 1912.

    Timisgary

    45

    0

    5,096

    Whit-Sunday, 1912.

    Reef

    76

    10

    600

    Whit-Sunday, 1910.

    Garynahine Hotel lands and fishings

    90

    0

    1,000

    Martinmas, 1911.

    Croir

    40

    0

    520

    Whit-Sunday, 1919.

    Linshader

    50

    0

    10,800

    Martinmas, 1915.

    Lochs Parish:

    Arnish

    35

    0

    2,606

    Whit-Sunday, 1917.

    Crobeg

    110

    0

    4,908

    No lease.

    Valtos

    30

    0

    580

    No lease.

    The Congested Districts Board will be glad to co-operate with the proprietor in making new small holdings in suitable areas.

    Reformatory Returns.
    SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the records of person convicted of crime or committed to reformatories are kept in such a way as to enable a Return to be prepared showing in what class of school such persons received their education, if any,; whether such information is available for a period of years in any tabulated form; and, if not, whether he would cause such Return to be prepared.

    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The information which my hon. friend desires is not available, and I fear it would be impracticable to attempt to obtain it. I understand, however, that the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feebleminded will contain some information as to the after school life of "special school" children.

    Arrears of Tenant-Purchasers' Annuities.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-

    Acts.

    Total number of payers.

    Amount collectible.

    Number of payers and amount in arrear.

    On 31st March, 1908.

    Amount.

    On 1st July, 1908.

    Amount.

    £

    £

    £

    (1) 1885–8

    25,382

    369,190

    1,206

    10,945

    334

    2,900

    (2) 1891–6

    46,837

    517,943

    1,213

    10,350

    374

    3,920

    (3) 1903

    44,773

    561,858

    998

    9,176

    305

    2,312

    Totals

    116,992

    1,448,991

    3,417

    30,471

    1,013

    9,132

    Note.—No. (1) Of the £10,945 due 31st March, 1908, £1,173 was due by 120 payers who owed more than one instalment. No. (2) Of the £10,350 due 31st March, 1908, £2,813 was due by
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether the figures as to arrears of tenant-purchasers' annuities under the Purchase Act of 1903 and the previous purchase Acts cannot be procured without difficulty by the Estates Commissioners; is it a fact that the arrears under all the Acts are inconsiderable and that they are even less under the Act of 1903 than under the previous Acts; and whether, in view of the forthcoming measure to provide funds for the payment of the £40,000,000 worth of land now outstanding, he will publish these figures without delay, as the best proof that advances under this Act are not attended with any loss or danger to the Imperial taxpayer.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The following table shows the total number of payers and amount collectible for year ending 1st November, 1907 (gale days under Nos. 1 and 2), and 1st December, 1907 (gale day under No. 3), of land purchase annuitants to whom advances were made under: (1) Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts, 1885 to 1888; (2) Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts, 1891 to 1896; and (3) Irish Land Act, 1903, together with the number and amount in arrear on 31st March, 1908 and on 1st July, 1908—
    206 payers who owed more than one instalment. No. (3) Of the £9,176 due 31st March, 1908, £1,266 was due by 72 payers who owed more than one instalment.

    Disposal of Discarded Service Weapons.
    MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Brussels Conference will consider the possibility of an arrangement being arrived at between friendly Powers that service weapons which are discarded shall not be disposed of to the manifest detriment of any friendly Power.
    (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Conference now sitting at Brussels has for its object the framing of regulations more stringent than those provided for by the Brussels Act to restrict the import of arms into Africa. Such an arrangement as the hon. Member suggests would hardly come within the scope of the Conference.

    Loch Sween Oyster Fishery.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the area at Loch Sween in respect of which a monopoly of oyster and mussel fishery was created by the oyster and Mussel Fisheries (Loch Sween) Order Confirmation Act, 1891; what rent has been paid by the persons who obtained that monopoly; and what sums have been expended by them on laying down spat or young oysters, or otherwise improving the oyster and mussel beds, during the seventeen years that they have had that monopoly.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The area included in the Loch Sween Order represents 4,162 acres. The rent since 1901 has been £12 per annum. I am informed that the estimated total outlay by the lessees has exceeded £1,800, and so far they have received no return for this outlay.

    West Loch Tarbert Oyster Fishery.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITETo ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the area at West Loch Tarbert in respect of which a monopoly of oyster and mussel fishery was created by the Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert) Order Confirmation Act, 1888; what rent has been paid by the persons who obtained that monopoly; and what
    1640
    sums have been expended by them on laying down spat or young oysters, or otherwise improving the oyster and mussel beds, during the twenty years that they have had that monopoly.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The area granted by the West Loch Tarbert Order amounted to 498 imperial acres. The rent paid for the last ten years has amounted to £10, and the annual rent previously was £5. The total sum paid for laying down oysters, etc., during the whole period has been £2,300.

    Aberdour—Buccleugh Fisheries.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland with reference to both the Aberdour Fishery Order, 1870, and the Buccleugh Fishery Order, 1870, respectively, which were confirmed by the Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Confirmation Act, 1870, what is the approximate area over which the monopoly of mussel fishing is given to the undertakers; what rent they have paid; and what sums have been expended by them in laying down spat or young mussels or otherwise improving the mussel beds during the thirty-eight years that they have had that monopoly.
    (Answered, by Mr. Sinclair.) In reply to the question as regards the Buccleugh Fishery Order, 1870, the approximate area included under the Order was 5,403 acres. No rent was asked by the Crown and no outlay has been made. The intention of the Order was to protect the oyster beds, which were being depleted; but I am informed that it has not had the desired effect. So far I have not been able to obtain information with reference to the Aberdour Fishery Order; but I am making inquiries.

    Exclusive Oyster and Mussel Fishery Rights in Scottish Waters.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what Fishery Orders have been made under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, creating several and exclusive rights of oyster or mussel fishery in Scottish waters, and which of them are still in force.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Orders made are as follows:—* (1) Donibristle Oyster Fishery Order, 1869; * (2) Holy Loch Oyster and Mussel Order, 1869; (3) Aberdour (Fife) Mussel Order, 1870; (4) Buccleugh Mussel Order, 1870; * (5) Mid-Forth Oyster and Mussel Order, 1870; * (6) Edinburgh Oyster and Mussel Order, 1870; * (7) Greshernish Oyster and Mussel Order, 1872; (8) West Loch Tarbert Oyster and Mussel Order, 1887; (9) Loch Sween Oyster and Mussel Order, 1891; (10) Loch Creran Oyster and Mussel Order, 1891; * (11) Cockenzie Mussel Order, 1894.

    Scottish Farmers' Co-operative Societies.
    MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how much was spent in 1907 by the Government in Scotland in furthering the principle of co-operation among farmers, and how many farmers' co-operative societies now exist there.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. No grants have been made by the Government for the purpose to which my hon. friend refers. The Board have no information as to the number of agricultural co-operative societies in Scotland beyond that contained in the Report for 1907 of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, from which it appears that seventeen societies of that nature have been formed and affiliated to the central society.

    Result of Part II of Preliminary Examination for Teachers' Certificates.
    MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the cause of the delay in issuing of Part II. of the Preliminary examination for the teachers' certificate, 1908, and the approximate date at which the results in question will be made known.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The results have been forwarded to the candidates this evening. The delay has been due to the necessity of deciding certain questions arising in connection
    * Determined.
    1642
    with the new training college regulations before the lists are issued.

    Petitions from Chefs de Famille of Alderney.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a petition, forwarded to him with a covering letter dated 22nd May, from a meeting of the Chefs de Famille of the Island of Alderney, legally convened; and, if so, what were the contents of the petition; and if he will state the nature of the reply given to it.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has received a petition, forwarded to him with a covering letter dated 22nd May, from a meeting of the Chefs de Famille of the Island of Alderney, legally convened, and, if so, what were the contents of the petition; and if he will state the nature of the reply given to it.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has received a petition, forwarded to him with a covering letter dated 22nd May, from a meeting of the Chefs de Famille of the Island of Alderney, legally convened; and, if so, what were the contents of the petition; and if he will state the nature of the reply given to it.
    MR. BOWERMANTo ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a petition, forwarded to him with a covering letter dated 22nd May, from a meeting of the Chefs de Famille of the Island of Alderney, legally convened; and, if so, what were the contents of the petition; and if he will state the nature of the reply given to it.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a petition, forwarded to him with a covering letter dated 22nd May, from a meeting of the Chefs de Famille of the Island of Alderney, legally convened, and, if so, what were the contents of the petition; and if he will state the nature of the reply given to it.

    1643
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg leave to answer these, Questions. Petitions addressed to the heads of several Government Departments have been received through the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey. The petitioners, inhabitants and ratepayers of Alderney, were in favour of a syndicate being allowed to build an abattoir in the Island, and to import and kill cattle for the English market. This matter has been often considered, in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, and I regret that I cannot depart from the decision that the establishment of the proposed abattoir cannot be permitted.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a petition, forwarded to him with a covering letter dated 22nd May, from a meeting of the Chefs de Famille of the Island of Alderney, legally convened; and, if so, what were the contents of the petition; and if he will state the nature of the reply given to it.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have not received the petition referred to.

    Transfer of Licence Duties to County Council.
    MR. W. JOHNSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government, under Clause 6 of the Finance Bill, 1908, to fix 1st January next as the date of transfer to county councils of the power to levy the duties on local taxation licences, to which Clause 6 applies; and whether, after that date, 1st January, 1909, such licences will continue to be issued by the Inland Revenue and post offices, respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have appointed an inter-departmental committee to advise as to the most convenient date for the transfer. Under the arrangements contemplated, the issue of the licences in question would be confined to post offices.

    Rights of Kathiawar Chiefs.
    MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in 1904, on the death of the late Khachar Shri Ala Chela, Chief of the third-class State of Jasdan, in Kathiawar, the undisputed customary law of succession was set aside and the law of primogeniture substituted, whereby two of the late chief's sons and two of his grandsons were disinherited and deprived, unheard, of their patrimony, in spite of the agreements made by Colonel Walker in 1807–1808 with the Kathiawar chiefs and confirmed by the royal proclamation of 1858;; and, if so, what steps does he intend to take to restore to the disinherited chiefs their rights of inheritance.
    (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Queston suggests that a recognised law of succession was ignored in the settlement of the Jasdan succession, and that the settlement also was in conflict with the Queen's proclamation and the guarantee of internal sovereignty given by Colonel Walker. The real fact is that a strict adherence to the past custom in regard to Jasdan would, by dividing the small state into fragments, have defeated the liberal policy expressed in Lord Canning's Sanads as well as the guarantees given in 1807. There is a limit to the possible disintegration of internal sovereignty which would have been overpassed if, on the death of Khachar Shri Ala Chela, the sixty-two villages under his rule had been divided into four parts. To "perpetuate the Government of the chief and continue the representation and dignity of his house," in the words of Lord Canning, the Secretary of State's predecessors set aside the local custom of equal inheritance, thus maintaining an estate large enough to support internal sovereignty. The only other alternative was to allow the sub-division, and provide for the public administration under British control and the Thana system. Provision was of course made for the maintenance of the other sons and grandsons, of the late chief.

    Small Holding Schemes.
    MR. BENNETT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he would state how many acres have been provided severally in each scheme submitted to the Board; and what is

    Name of County.

    Locality.

    Area of Land comprised in each Scheme.

    a.

    r.

    p.

    Radnor

    Cwm Farm, Llanyre

    280

    0

    18

    Gloucester

    Mickleton

    9

    1

    34

    Gloucester

    Mickleton

    46

    1

    7

    Gloucester

    Petworth

    87

    0

    36

    Gloucester

    Coombe Hill

    145

    3

    25

    Gloucester

    Clifford Chambers

    63

    1

    3

    Gloucester

    Lower Ley Farm

    115

    1

    18

    Somerset

    Henstridge

    26

    2

    23

    Isle of Wight

    Northwood

    104

    2

    0

    Isle of Wight

    Whippingham

    38

    0

    15

    Southampton

    Amport

    15

    1

    20

    Norfolk

    Wick Farm, Watton

    285

    0

    0

    Norfolk

    School Farm, Brancaster

    72

    0

    0

    Norfolk

    Sedgeford

    39

    0

    0

    Norfolk

    Carleton Rode

    40

    0

    0

    Cambridge

    Guilden Morden

    16

    3

    14

    The total acreage of land applied for in the counties is as follows—

    Name of County.

    Extent of Land for which application has been made in the County.

    Acres.

    Radnor

    1,600

    Gloucester

    9,635

    Somerset

    23,724

    Isle of Wight

    1,837

    Southampton

    7,380

    Norfolk

    22,760

    Cambridge

    10,938

    The total acreage of land applied for in each of the counties which have submitted schemes.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The following Statement will show the acreage of land provided in the sixteen schemes already submitted for approval—

    Settlement of Purchase Negotiations on the Estate of Mr. D. C. O'Connell.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that proceedings have been instituted against the tenants on the estate of Mr. D. C. O'Connell, near Mastergeehy, County Kerry; and whether, in view of the fact that the tenants signed purchase agreements under misapprehension, and, on learning the exact character of the agreements, immediately repudiated

    1647
    them, the Estates Commissioners will use their influence to secure a settlement of the purchase negotiations.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they cannot trace any proceedings as having been instituted before them in respect of the estate mentioned in the Question, and that they have no knowledge of the matters referred to. If any application should be made to the Commissioners by either party they would, no doubt, consider whether they could usefully offer their services as conciliators under the regulations.

    Amalgamations of Irish Schools.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Commissioners of National Education sanction the amalgamation of infant and senior schools in close proximity; and if such schools were amalgamated, and the principal of the infant school retained as assistant, would such assistant be guaranteed increments and promotion, and receive residual capitation grants equal to what the average would entitle the assistant to as principal of the infant school.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have sent to the hon. Member a copy of the Commissioners' regulations dealing with the matter in question.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, where there are two adjoining schools, infant and senior, the principal of the senior school can admit children of the junior school where the parents so desire it and when there is a junior assistant to instruct them.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they cannot answer this Question unless they are furnished with particulars of the precise case referred to.

    Bureau of Commerce for Ireland.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attetion has been called to the Resolution passed at the recent Congress of the
    1648
    Irish Technical Instruction Association in favour of the establishment of a bureau of commerce and industry in Ireland; and whether he will consider the advisability of establishing such a bureau.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I gather from the Press Reports of the proceedings of the Irish Technical Instruction Congress that such a resolution was adopted; but it has not yet been officially communicated to the Department. The matter to which it relates has for some time past been engaging the attention of the Department.

    Political Rights of Irish National School Teachers.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any reason why the Irish National School teachers should not be permitted to enjoy the same political rights and privileges as the teachers in Great Britain; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of having these same rights and privileges extended to them.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the Question on this subject which was put by the hon. Member for East Kerry on 13th May, 1907. As I then indicated, the Commissioners of National Education declined, for the reasons stated, to modify their rules relating to the civil rights of teachers. The responsibility for this decision rests entirely upon the Commissioners.

    Decrease of Consumption in Ireland.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state whether there has been any appreciable decrease in the number of cases of consumption in Ireland consequent on the inauguration of a national campaign against the disease; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject generally so far as Ireland was concerned.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I do not think that I can at present conveniently

    1649
    add anything to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's similar Question on 26th May last. I hope, however, to be in a position to make a statement on the subject upon the Second Reading of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill.

    Application of James Kenny, of Clouncon.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners inquired into the case of James Kenny, of Clouncon, Ashford, in the County of Limerick; and, if so, what action do they intend to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received their inspector's Report upon the application of James Kenny, and will consider it, with others, as soon as possible.

    Provision of Boots for the Territorial Army.
    MR. HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether boots are provided as part of the kit of the Territorial Army; and, if not, whether, seeing that good boots are a most important part of a soldier's equipment, he will consider the advisability of including boots in the kit provided.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This point was carefully considered when the grants for clothing and equipments were fixed, and it was held that the provision set forth in Paragraph 612 of the Regulations for the Territorial Force was sufficient to compensate men for the extra wear due to military service.

    QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

      Helmsdale Harbour, Sutherland.
      MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any complaint, recommendation, or suggestion has been made by the officers of His Majesty's ships of war regarding the state of the bar at Helmsdale Harbour, Sutherland; and, if so, will he press the authority to see that the
      1650
      channel is improved by dredging or other wise?
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,: The Answer to my hon. friend's Question is in the negative.

      Fife Coastguard Service.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any further information as to contemplated changes in the coastguard service in Fife.
      MR. MCKENNA: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the late Parliamentary Secretary on 31st March last, namely, that no changes are contemplated at present at any stations on the Fife coast.

      Rosyth Harbour Works.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether orders have been given to proceed no further with the sinking of the steel caisson at Rosyth; whether it is over eighteen months since this work was begun; and why it is not being proceeded with with the utmost despatch.
      MR. MCKENNA: The sinking of the experimental cylinder has been stopped because the information it was desired to obtain has been got, and there is no object in sinking it further. The work of sinking this cylinder was begun over eighteen months ago.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it not an advantage to use the fine weather for these maritime operations?
      MR. MCKENNA: The sinking of the cylinder has been stopped.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: But if the fine weather is not made use of and you are hindered by the winter weather—which is very severe on the coast of Fife—will there not be a delay in the finishing of Rosyth?
      MR. MCKENNA: Whatever the weather we do not propose to sink the cylinder any further.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: What I want to get at is whether this will not cause a delay in the formation of Rosyth Dockyard.
      MR. MCKENNA: No, sir.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman, who says that Rosyth Dockyard will not be made for seven years, guarantee that we shall have peace for that time?
      MR. MCKENNA: All the information to be acquired by the sinking of the cylinder has been obtained, and therefore there is no need to sink it any further.

      H.M.S. "Defence."
      MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the new-armoured cruiser "Defence" is still detained at Pembroke; and, if so, to what cause is the detention due and when is she likely to get her crew and leave the dockyard.
      MR. MCKENNA: The ship has been detained at Pembroke on account of the non-delivery of some of the capstan gear by the firm who have the contract for its supply. This gear has now been delivered, and when it has been fitted, the ship will be ready to leave Pembroke Dockyard. The crew will be available when the ship is ready.

      Manning of the Navy.
      MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are three new armoured ships approaching completion for which there are no crews; and whether there are more than a dozen battleships lying at the Channel ports because it has not been found possible to form crews to man them for use in the pending manœuvres or to obtain the men for the purpose.
      MR. MCKENNA: Crews are ready for all armoured ships approaching completion. There are fourteen battleships in home waters not taking part in the manœuvres:—"Implacable," undergoing refit; thirteen older battleships of the "Royal Sovereign," "Renown," "Centurion," and "Trafalgar" classes, and on the special service list.
      1652
      These vessels are not required for the manœuvres. Should it be desirable to commission these ships, the necessary ratings for nucleus crews of active service men are available; the balance of the crews can be completed by calling out reserves.

      Dissensions in the Navy.
      MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will devote their consideration to alleviating the dissensions among senior naval officers; and, if so, whether the Government will impartially endeavour to arrive at a complete knowledge of the method of introduction and the value of the changes in administration and organisation which originated this antagonism.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the Question is answered I wish to ask whether the Prime Minister is not aware that so long as dissensions exist, and so long as these gentlemen are left in command, the life of every seaman in the Fleet is imperilled.
      CAPTAIN MURRAY: May I also ask whether, in the Prime Minister's opinion, the introduction by the Board of Admiralty of changes in administration and organisation, by whatever method, or however valuable or valueless these changes may be, can ever justify the display of antagonism on the part of the senior naval officers referred to in the Question?
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I very much deprecate these Questions. The Government have no knowledge, apart from unverified rumours, of the dissensions alleged. If they find reason to believe that a state of things exists which is in any way detrimental to the discipline or smooth working of the fleet they will not hesitate to take prompt and effective action. As regards the latter part of the Question, I must repudiate emphatically the suggestion which it appears to convey. The direction of the naval policy of the country lies with the Government of the day, and it is the business of naval officers on active

      1653
      service not to discuss or criticise that policy but to carry it out with loyalty to their superiors, in harmony with one another, and with a single eye to the efficiency of the great service to which they belong.
      MR. BELLAIRS: Without questioning anything the Prime Minister has said, I desire to ask whether he is aware that these dissensions extend to many senior naval officers, and that it is impossible for them to take service at the Board of Admiralty while these changes are in being without some inquiry into their justification?
      MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of anything of the kind.

      Welsh and Scottish Cloth.
      MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what grounds it has been stated on behalf of the War Office that better cloth is manufactured in Scotland than in Wales.
      MR. WEIR: Before the Question is answered, may I ask if the War Office authorities are aware that a kilt made from tartan manufactured in Scotland will last a lifetime, while other tartans might be in tatters in a couple of years?
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,: As there are no Welsh manufacturers on the War Office list for Highland tartan, it may fairly be inferred that this pre-eminently Scottish material is better made in Scotland than in Wales.
      MR. REES: But was not a statement made without qualification or reserve that better cloth was manufactured in Scotland than in Wales?
      MR. ACLAND: I made no reflection on Welsh cloth in general. If there are any Welsh firms able to meet our special requirements we shall be delighted if the hon. Member can bring us in touch with them.
      MR. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Welsh manufacturers look on it as a very serious matter that a doubt should be expressed with regard to the superiority of the Welsh cloth?
      MR. ACLAND: It is well known among cloth manufacturers that it is not a very difficult thing to get their names on the War Office list of contractors, and we are willing to give trial orders to any firm which likes to apply.

      Clothing Contracts for Welsh Regiments.
      MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an arrangement will be made for the manufacture of uniforms for Welsh regiments in Wales, similar to that which has been made in respect to the manufacture of tartans in Scotland for Scottish regiments.
      MR. ACLAND: There is no arrangement for the manufacture of Highland tartan in Scotland, but only Scottish firms appear to produce it. As I have already informed my hon. friend, should any Welsh manufacturers desire to tender for Army clothes, the War Office would be glad to receive applications.
      COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the uniforms for the Essex regiments are made in Essex?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Volunteer Quartermaster-Sergeants.
      MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether orderly-room clerks who had attained the rank of quartermaster-sergeant in the Volunteers are to be reduced in rank by reason of their having joined the Territorial Army; whether these non-commissioned officers, if they had declined to join the Territorial Army, could have retired with a higher rank than will now be the case; and whether, having regard to the desirability of encouraging enlistment in the Territorial Army, the position of these noncommissioned officers will be reconsidered
      MR. ACLAND: This question is now being considered.

      Scottish Tartans.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to have Scottish tartans for Highland regiments made in Wales or Scotland.
      MR. ACLAND: If any Welsh manufacturer could produce satisfactory Highland tartan there would not appear to be any reason why he should be debarred from tendering for its supply.

      Special Reserve and Jury Service.
      MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men and non-commissioned officers of the Special Reserve are exempt from jury service and whether the officers are exempt from jury service and from having to serve as High Sheriff.
      MR. ACLAND: Non-commissioned officers and men of the Special Reserve are exempt from jury service when they are subject to military law. Officers are exempt from jury service when on full pay. Officers are not exempt from serving as High Sheriff.

      South African Garrison.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether further reductions are contemplated amongst the troops in South Africa; and whether he can state what they will be and when they are to come into force.
      MR. ACLAND: Beyond those already stated—no, Sir.

      Scottish Regiments in India.
      MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India with reference to the use by Scottish regiments in India of Anglican churches, if he can state whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken to ascertain the feelings and wishes of the rank and file with regard to the recent order that these regiments shall only be quartered where Presbyterians places of worship exist; and if, in the case of its being ascertained that the wishes of a regiment are averse to this proposition, the order in such a case would be inoperative.
      THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): No special steps have been taken for ascertaining the feelings and wishes of the rank and file of Scottish regiments on the question referred to by my hon. friend.
      MR. C. E. PRICE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that full advantage can be taken of the Scottish regiments in India, when their disposition is regulated by religious conviction?
      MR. BUCHANAN: I think the disposition of the Scottish regiments in India is a matter within the discretion of the military authorities.

      The D' Angely Case.
      MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proprietors of the Daily Mail have yet communicated to the Home Office their intention of making good to the police officers concerned in the D'Angely case the cost of their defence before the Commission; and whether, if the proprietors make an offer of adequate financial reparation for the wrong done by them, he will be willing to accept it on behalf of the police officers concerned.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): As regards the first part of the Question, no expense was incurred by individual police officers in defending themselves before the Royal Commission. The second is a hypothetical question, which I cannot undertake to answer now.
      MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the recent Police Commission has cost the taxpayers; and what, if any, contribution has been or will be made by the Exchequer towards the expenses of police officers in defending themselves from the attacks of the Daily Mail and others held by the Commission to be untrue in fact.
      MR. GLADSTONE: All the expense incurred in connection with the Royal Commission have fallen upon the Exchequer, or upon the Police Fund. No portion of them has fallen upon individual police officers. I am unable at present to say what the total cost will be.
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proprietors of the Daily Mail sent 670 reply paid telegrams to Members of this House the other day and that scarcely any of them were used? Will he consider the advisability of making some allowance——
      MR. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the Question.

      Woolfardisworthy Postal Arrangements.
      MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in certain portions of the parish of Woolfardisworthy, in North Devon, there is a delivery of letters on three days a week only; whether he is aware that loss and inconvenience results to the inhabitants of these districts owing to the lack of a daily delivery; and whether he can see his way to establish a reasonably efficient postal service in this neighbourhood.
      THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have called for a report on this subject; and on its receipt I will send the hon. Member a reply.

      Aberdeen Postal Arrangements.
      MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the postal re-arrangements in Aberdeen, necessitated by the opening of the new post office, have now been some time in operation, he will cause inquiries to be made before the autumn session, and before the framing of next year's Estimates, with a view to securing for Woodside district an evening postal service as in other parts of the city, and also as to the desirability of complying with a petition sent praying for the establishment of a sub-post office near the Spital to supply a much needed and increasing demand.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The application for the establishment of a sub-post office near the Spital, Aberdeen, was duly considered, but as there is already a sub-post office less than 400 yards from the suggested site and a letter-box about 185 yards, the existing facilities appear to be adequate for the present requirements of the public in the locality. As regards Woodside, the amount of correspondence appears to be hardly sufficient to justify the establishment of an evening delivery in that district, but I will further inquire into the question.

      French Tariff.
      EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the proposed alterations in the French tariff include proposals for the decrease of the duty upon india-rubber thread, and for the increase of the duty upon articles manufactured from india-rubber thread, such as elastic cloth, garters, suspenders, etc.; and, if so, to what extent.
      THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,): The Board of Trade are endeavouring to obtain more precise information as to the nature of the proposals to which the noble Lord refers. I am at present unable to give a definite Answer.
      EARL OF RONALDSHAY: Do the Government propose to take any steps to obviate the injury which will be inflicted on British manufacturers by this change if it is carried into effect?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Welsh University Grant.
      SIR D. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has yet received the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire and report on the question of increased grants to the three constituent colleges of the University of Wales, and, if not, can he state when he expects that the Report will be presented.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): The Report has just been received, and is now under consideration.

      American Beef Firms and Income Tax.
      MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Income-Tax Commissioners in Liverpool have reported that an examination of the books of some of the firms comprised in what is known as the American Beef Trust disclosed no profits, the cattle and beef being invoiced to the branches of those firms in Great Britain at prices leaving no margin of profit liable to income-tax; whether any of the firms belonging to the Trust pay income-tax upon the trade done in this country; and, if not, whether any steps will be taken to prevent a continuance of such evasion of taxation.
      MR. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. friend has caused careful inquiry to be made into the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but is unable to obtain any confirmation of the suggestion made in the question. The Commissioners of Taxes at Liverpool bring into charge all American companies and firms trading there, and the liability to income-tax of these traders is ascertained as far as possible on the exact profits, i.e., the difference between the proved cost price in America and the sale price in this country, less cost of freight and distribution expenses.

      Margarine.
      EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether nut butters, manufactured entirely from nuts and not containing a particle of animal fat, have been allowed to be described by the authorities as margarine; and, if so, under what statutory provision this has been done.
      THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to refer him to my reply to a similar Question by my hon. friend the Member for West Bradford on 15th June.

      Balintore Harbour, Boss-shire.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the trustees of Balintore Harbour, Ross-shire, have no funds at their command with which to place the harbour in a state of repair, will the Fishery Board make a grant for this purpose.
      THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Board have no power to use the funds placed at their disposal for piers and harbours in meeting the cost of maintaining harbours.

      Sanitation in the Hebrides.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider the expediency of deputing instructors in sanitary science to visit the townships in the Islands of Lewis and the other islands in the Hebrides, in order that the people may have explained to them some of the primary sanitary principles such as may be conducive to an improvement in the sanitary conditions of the townships.
      MR. REES: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the peculiar fitness for this function of the medical officer for Colwyn Bay?
      MR. SINCLAIR: As my hon. friend knows, the local public health authority in the Lewis have at present no margin of funds upon which any further charge can be laid for this or indeed any other purpose.

      Rate Arrears in Lewis.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the amount of grants, in respect of rates in arrear, made by the Government to the landlord of the Island of Lewis and the tenants respectively.
      MR. SINCLAIR: No grants of the kind referred to by my hon. friend have been made.
      MR. WEIR: But the right hon. Gentleman said the other day he had authorised certain payments in advance of the grant-in-aid.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the amount of arrears of rates due by the landlord of the Island of Lewis on 31st March last, and the amount of arrears due from tenants paying over £30 and under £30 respectively.
      MR. SINCLAIR: I learn on inquiry that the parish council books are now with the auditors and it has consequently not been possible to obtain the information desired by my hon. friend.
      MR. WEIR: Can it be done in the course of a fortnight?
      MR. SINCLAIR: I will do my best.
      MR. WEIR: Very well. I will then put another Question down.

      Congestion in the Island of Lewis.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that the arrears of judicial rents due from crofters in the Island of Lewis are attributable to their having to bear the burden of 1,500 cotters and squatters located on their lands, and that the Scottish Office in February, 1904, expressed the opinion that the cottar difficulty might be met by a scheme of voluntary migration to the mainland, will he state whether there is any probability of some such scheme being promulgated during the present session of Parliament.
      MR. SINCLAIR: My hon. friend misapprehends somewhat the position of this matter. In 1904 the Secretary for Scotland, so far as I can ascertain, did not, as my hon. friend has repeatedly alleged in Questions upon the Paper of this House, indicate that the only way of dealing with the congestion of population in the Lewis was by a scheme of voluntary migration; what he wrote was: "The Congested Districts Board will endeavour effectually to deal with any applications they may receive for the voluntary migration from the Lewis of cottars and others now unable to find a decent livelihood in their present position." My hon. friend sent me a list of the names of 121 such persons lately lodged with the Landward Committee.
      1662
      Before the Board could take any action further information was necessary as to the skill and experience of applicants, and also as to their ability to rent stock and cultivate holdings. On 17th March the Landward Committee of the Parish Council of Stornaway was asked by the Congested Districts Board to furnish this information, and I understand that they are now endeavouring to obtain it. No further steps can be taken until it is forthcoming. I must remind my hon. friend that owing to its great difficulties no scheme of this kind has yet been found practicable. The Congested Districts Board have no land of their own upon which such migrants, even if qualified in all respects, can be settled; and they have not succeeded in obtaining any openings of this kind for such migrants upon the lands of other proprietors. Under these circumstances my hon. friend must judge for himself whether there is any probability of any such scheme being promulgated during the present session of Parliament.

      County of Sutherland Education Grant.
      MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can give the details of the grants that go to make up the sum of £2,400, said to be at present received by the county of Sutherland, which, under Clause 13 of the Education (Scotland) Bill, constitute the Education (Scotland) Fund.
      MR. SINCLAIR: It does not seem necessary to give the details of these grants in the case of every single district. If the hon. Member has any reason to suppose that the amount of grant at present received by the County of Sutherland as stated in the Return is inaccurate, the Department will give full consideration to any statement of particulars bearing upon the point which he way furnish.

      Highland Medical Officer of Health.
      MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state under what circumstances the appointment of medical officer of health has been conferred in four cases in the Highland crofting counties of officers who do not possess a diploma in sanitary science, as required

      1663
      under Section 54 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.
      MR. SINCLAIR: One medical man holds two of the four appointments referred to, so that in three cases the salaries were sanctioned on condition that the medical officer of health should take the diploma in terms of Section 54 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889. In regard to the fourth appointment it was given to the county medical officer of the district who was appointed before such a qualification was necessary. It is understood that in none of these cases were the services of a qualified practitioner available.

      Discussion of Scottish Estimates.
      MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consent to a Return showing the last dates on which the votes were passed, after discussion in this House, in the case of each of the following Scottish Votes: Lunacy Commission, Registrar General's Office, Register House, Prisons Commission, National Galleries Board, Crofters Commission, Congested Districts Boards, Law Charges and Courts of Law, Public Education, Scotland, and the number of days or parts of a day given to the actual discussion of Scottish Estimates during each of the last ten years, and the annual average number of Parliamentary hours during the last twenty years.
      MR. SINCLAIR: With regard to the information required in the first portion of my hon. friend's Question a Return does not appear necessary as that information is equally available to my hon. friend as it is to the Scottish Office. With regard to the information required in the second part of the Question, a Return is not possible as the authorities of this House are unable to furnish the full information required. The number of whole days occupied in discussion will be found in the Journals of the House and in Hansard.
      MR. PIRIE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that I want this, not for my personal information, but for the information of the public of Scotland?
      MR. SINCLAIR: And the information is perfectly accessible to the public of Scotland.
      MR. PIRIE: But the right hon. Gentleman has said there are no official sources available. Will he reconsider his decision, and give me this information for the people of Scotland. It is most important.
      MR. SINCLAIR: I shall be very glad to consider any further representations sent to me.
      MR. PIRIE: And I will repeat the Question until I get the information desired.

      Afforestation in Scotland.
      LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how much money has been spent during the present year upon afforestation at Inverliever; what staff is at present engaged there; what Department controls their work; and what is the total estimated outlay during 1908–1909.
      MR. HOBHOUSE: I understand that no money has been spent up to date on afforestation, as operations have not been commenced. A forester has been appointed and is resident on the estate. The necessary arrangements are now being made for housing a staff of some eight men so as to begin planting operations next autumn. The Commissioners of Woods, advised by their Chief Consulting Forest Officer, control the work. It is impossible at present to forecast the total outlay during 1908–1909, but it is hoped to plant up about 100 acres.
      LORD BALCARRES: What experience has the Woods and Forests Department of afforestation on the sea-board line of Scotland, where there is a rainfall of seventy inches.?
      MR. HOBHOUSE: I suppose as much experience as any other public department.
      LORD BALCARRES: Has the Scottish Office no control over this afforestation in Scotland?
      MR. HOBHOUSE: I speak with but a limited knowledge of the Woods and Forests Department. It is only indirectly under the Treasury. But they own this land, and they have very large experience of planting in England and some in Wales, where the rainfall is quite as heavy as in Scotland.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: And are only nine men to be employed?
      MR. HOBHOUSE: At present.

      New Fishery Cruiser.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is yet able to afford any information with regard to the new fishery cruiser.
      MR. SINCLAIR: I regret that I am not in a position to add to the replies I have already given to the hon. Member.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I will repeat the Question this day week.

      Gooseberry Mildew.
      MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what steps have been taken under the Order of 1908 against the American gooseberry mildew; what acreage of gooseberry bushes is affected by the pest; and in how many cases definite action has been taken.
      THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Department's horticultural experts (as well as the itinerant instructors in horticulture employed by the county committees of agriculture) have been instructed to carry out inspections of gardens throughout the country with a view to reporting on outbreaks of American gooseberry mildew. This work is being proceeded with at present, but the Department are not yet in a position to state definitely what areas are affected by the disease. In 125 cases in which the existence of the disease has been reported to the Department, notices requiring the destruction of the diseased bushes have been issued to the owners
      1666
      under Clause 4 (2) of the American Gooseberry Mildew (and Black Currant Mite (Ireland)) Order, 1908. Notices have also been served on fifty-eight persons owning gardens to which it was considered the disease was likely to spread owing to their proximity to affected gardens, requiring them as a preventive measure to spray their bushes (with an approved fungicide). Arrangements have been made for the inspection of gooseberries exposed for sale in fruit markets, and one consignment containing diseased berries was recently condemned in the Dublin market and the berries destroyed.

      Land Purchase Annuities Arrears.
      MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the figures as to arrears of tenant-purchasers' annuities under the Purchase Act of 1903 and the previous Purchase Acts cannot be procured without difficulty by the Estates Commissioners; is it a fact that the arrears under all the Acts are inconsiderable and that they are even less under the Act of 1903 than under the previous Acts; and whether, in view of the forthcoming measure to provide funds for the payment of the £40,000,000 worth of land now outstanding, he will publish these figures without delay, as the best proof that advances under this Act are not attended with any loss or danger to the Imperial taxpayer.
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The Land Commission have furnished me with the information asked for by the hon. Member, in advance of their annual Report, which will shortly be published. There are in all 116,992 payers of annuities under the three sets of Land Purchase Acts, and the total amount payable is £1,448,991. On 1st instant 1,013 payers were in arrear, to the amount of £9,132, in respect of annuities due up to the end of last year. I will circulate with to-night's Votes a tabular statement showing separately and in detail the arrears under the different sets of Land Purchase Acts. It s the fact, as suggested by the hon. Member, that the annuities under all

      1667
      the Acts have been very well paid, and that the arrears under the Act of 1903 are proportionately somewhat smaller than those under the earlier Acts.

      Irish Development Grant.
      MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reasons for the alterations contained in the revised Estimate for the Ireland Development Grant.
      MR. CHERRY: In the estimate for the Ireland Development Grant which was prepared early in December last the estimated balance to the credit of the account on 1st April, 1908, was shown to be £91,538. In May last, when the account for the year ending 31st March, 1908, was made up, it was found that the actual balance in hand was but £51,135. The difference arose mainly from the fact that in the last quarter of the financial year claims amounting to £37,031 were received from the Commissioners of National Education on account of training colleges under private management, and salaries of assistant teachers in national schools which had not been taken into account in estimating the balance in December. It therefore became necessary to prepare a revised Estimate for the current year, showing proposed expenditure at the reduced total of £236,477. The subheads of the Estimate in which a reduction has been made are as follows:—Subhead C. (National School Buildings)—£25,000, being an instalment of a grant of £70,000, reduced to £5,000, on the understanding that the balance of the £70,000 will be made available in future years, and that the unexpended balance of £35,455 on Vote 14, Class I. for 1907–8 will be available to meet expenditure on school buildings in the current year. Subhead H. (Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway).—It is doubtful whether the promoters of this railway will be in a posision to make good their claim to any portion of the promised grant. Provision is made for £2,318 instead of £23,950. Subhead K. (Arklow Harbour).—Grant reduced from £10,362 to £8,000, the latter sum being now considered sufficient to meet expenditure during the year. In the case
      1668
      of two of the subheads, the provision has been somewhat increased as compared with the first estimate, namely:—Subhead B. (Marlborough Street Training College).—Grant increased from £2,792 to £4,277, the latter being the actual balance unexpended of the total grant of £50,000. Subhead L. (Wicklow Harbour).—Grant increased from £1,536 to £3,822, the latter being the actual balance of the complete grant. The work is appoaching completion.

      Fuel for Irish Schools.
      MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total amounts expended by national school teachers in providing fuel, paying for repairs, etc., for their schools during the year ending 31st March, 1908; and if he will direct the National Board to insert in the quarterly Returns the amounts expended by teachers on fuel, upkeep, and repairs in national schools.
      MR. CHERRY: The Commissioners of National Education have no information as to the amounts which may have been expended by teachers upon fuel for, and repairs of their schools. It would not be appropriate to include particulars of the kind in the quarterly Return, which relates to the payment of salaries, but the Commissioners will consider whether the information could properly be included in the annual statistical return.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire what would be the total cost of supplying fuel to all the national schools in Ireland?
      MR. CHERRY: I should like notice of that Question.

      Galway Poor Rate Collector.
      MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Local Government Board has refused its consent to the resolution of the urban district council of Galway reducing the poundage fees of their poor rate collector; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the increase in the poor rate, occasioned by distress in the town, has

      1669
      raised the collector's salary to a point which it never previously reached; and whether the Board will reconsider their action in the interest of economy of administration.
      MR. CHERRY: The poor rate collector referred to was appointed in 1904, at a poundage fee of 10d., and in 1905, the urban district council, by a large majority, increased the poundage rate to 1s., with the sanction of the Local Government Board. The facts upon which the council based their proposal for the increase in 1905 do not appear to have altered in any respect, and the Local Government Board, therefore, see no reason for assenting to the proposed reduction of the poundage fees. The amount to be collected for the present year is £7,013, which is but very slightly in excess of the amounts for 1903–4 and for 1906–7. The amount varies from year to year. Last year it was considerably below the average, and this year it is somewhat above the average.
      MR. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898, the officials of the central authority have done all they could to increase the expenditure of the local authorities? Will he not allow the local authorities to exercise their own discretion in the practice of economy?
      MR. CHERRY: The increase in this case was made at the instance of a large majority of the members of the district council.

      Cattle-Driving in Ireland.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state why, having regard to the fact that the number of cases of cattle-driving for the six months ending 27th June was 413, as compared with 381 cases for the whole of 1907, no charges arising out of these proceedings have been presented for trial at the recent summer assizes.
      MR. CHERRY: The cases of cattle-driving which occurred in the six months referred to, though more in number were
      1670
      less serious in character than those in the corresponding period of last year. In every case in which the police have been able to obtain evidence of participation in cattle-driving against any individuals proceedings have been taken. The question whether the cases should be dealt with summarily or returned for trial is one to be determined according to the circumstances of each case, and the Government consider that proceedings of a summary nature are as a general rule more effectual in the preservation of peace and good order in the various counties than prosecutions at the assizes would be.
      MR. LONSDALE: But do not the facts show that "binding over" is no deterrent?
      MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked the right hon. Gentleman how he differentiated cattle-driving and made out that one kind was less serious than another.
      MR. CHERRYreplied that the circumstances of cases differed. It was a serious case when a large crowd assembled, intimidation was indulged in, and persons were injured, but when one or two men did no more than secretly at night open a gate to let the cattle out, it was not so serious.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the failure of the police to obtain evidence was not due to the fact that the unfortunate owners of cattle had come to the conclusion that the Government were unwilling any longer to protect them?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Crime in Clare.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Lord Chief Baron in opening the Clare Assizes on Thursday, that the state of the county was lamentable, that the number of cases specially reported as outrages since the last assizes in March were as many as ninety-nine, seventy-four of which were agrarian, that there were under constant

      1671
      police protection five persons, and as many as sixty-five were protected by patrol, and that there had been since the March Assizes forty-eight cattle-drives; and whether he can state why, having regard to these facts, so few cases were presented for trial at these assizes.
      MR. CHERRY: My right hon. friend's attention has been called to a newspaper report of the remarks attributed to the Lord Chief Baron as stated in the Question. It is true that the county of Clare is in an unsatisfactory condition. An additional force of fifty-seven police has been appointed to the county under proclamation, and all possible measures are being taken under the ordinary law for the preservation of the peace and the punishment of offenders. The comparative fewness of the cases for trial was due to the fact that evidence against offenders was not forthcoming, but in this respect the state of the county is neither better nor worse than it has been for many years.
      MR. JAMES CAMPBELLasked whether any of the cases referred to by the Lord Chief Baron were agrarian cases, and whether in any one of the seventy-four cases referred to in the Question any person was put on his trial.
      MR. CHERRYsaid he thought some were agrarian. In one case certainly a man was convicted and sent to penal servitude.
      MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman now admit that trial by jury has completely failed to get convictions?
      MR. CHERRY: No, Sir, certainly not.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND,as Member for the constituency, asked whether it was not the fact that a large number of the occurrences reported as outrages were of an extremely trivial character which in England would not be ranked or reported as outrages at all; and whether any unrest that existed in Clare was not entirely traceable to the fact that land
      1672
      purchase, for some cause or another, was not proceeding there as in other parts of Ireland.
      MR. CHERRYsaid that, so far as he knew, a number of the cases were trifling; but, on the other hand, there were undoubtedly some serious cases. Whether the condition of the county was due to land purchase not proceeding as rapidly there as in other parts, he did not know; but it was extremely probable.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether, in view of the undoubted fact that many of these occurrences were of a trivial character, some arrangement could not be made by the Government or others to analyse these occurences, so that the people of England might see they were by no means serious. Was it not a case of giving a dog a bad name?
      MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked what ground the right hon. Gentleman had for saying that a number of these occurrences were of a trifling nature. Had he any specific information from the county inspector or the Judge of assizes?
      MR. CHERRY: These cases regularly come before me, and I suppose I can judge for myself whether or not they are trivial. That is my opinion, but I do not know whether other people accept it.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: They ought to accept mine.

      Fermoy Council Meetings.
      MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why legal proceedings have been instituted by Mr. Anthony Carroll, Crown Solicitor, to compel the urban council of Fermoy to surrender their right to hold meetings in the court-house for the transaction of the ratepayers' business, which they have exercised and enjoyed for 100 years, seeing that the right in question was conferred upon the local authority by an Act passed in the year 1808.
      MR. CHERRY: No proceedings in this case have been instituted by Mr. Carroll as Crown Solicitor on behalf of

      1673
      the Government. The court-house is in the custody and control of the High Sheriff, who, I understand, has instructed his solicitor, Mr. Carroll, to apply for an injunction against the further use of the court-house by the urban district council, unless that body confines its use of the building to the proper business of the council. The Lord-Lieutenant has received from the urban district council a memorial on the subject which is now under consideration.
      MR. WILLIAM ABEAHAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1808 which gives the council an undoubted right?
      MR. CHERRY: Whatever right the council has in law can be asserted when proceedings are taken. It would not be proper for me to express any opinion while litigation is pending.
      CAPTAIN DONELAN: Seeing that this right has been exercised for 100 years, is it correct to say it is only enjoyed on sufferance as is done in the letter of the Crown Prosecutor for the county?
      MR. CHERRY: In this case the Crown Prosecutor is acting as private solicitor to the High Sheriff, and like other solicitors he may have slightly over-stated his client's case. But this is a matter to be determined by the Court.
      MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Who is paying the costs of the Crown Solicitor in this case?
      MR. CHERRY: I presume the High Sheriff.

      Crime in Leitrim.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Justice Kenny, at the Leitrim Assizes on Friday, that there had been an increase in the number of specially reported cases since the holding of the spring assizes, that seven persons in the county were under police protection, and fifteen were
      1674
      still boycotted; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
      MR. CHERRY: The total number of serious offences in County Leitrim for the period referred to was fifteen, as compared with twelve in the corresponding period of last year. The police authorities inform me that this appears to be an ordinary fluctuation. Of the seven persons under police protection, four are protected by occasional patrols only; and the fifteen cases of boycotting do not now include any serious case of boycotting. The police authorities consider that on the whole the state of the county has improved. No special action is called for.
      MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the statement of the Judge is not in accordance with fact?
      MR. CHERRY: I should not like to express any opinion.

      Crime in Longford.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Madden, at the Longford Assizes, was not furnished with the detailed information on the condition of the county which is usually furnished on these occasions; whether he can state the reason for the omission; whether he is aware that the learned Judge stated on the occasion that the crime of boycotting and the form of intimidation known as cattle-driving existed in the county to an extent which led to the conclusion that its condition was other than satisfactory, and, inasmuch as offenders were not made amenable to the law, he could not regard the light calendar as fairly representative of the general condition of the county with regard to crime; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter.
      MR. CHERRY: I am informed that the learned Judge was supplied with the full returns of crime for the county in the usual form, and that, in accordance with the established practice, the county inspector was present to afford any explanation of the returns which the

      1675
      learned Judge might require. It is the fact that some boycotting exists in County Longford. The police are affording all necessary protection to the persons affected. There have been comparatively few cases of cattle-driving in the county, and the returns of crime show some decrease. The police authorities are of opinion that the condition of the county has somewhat improved, and no special action appears to be called for.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIG: When the opinion of the Judge of Assize and that of the police conflict as to whether a county is in a peaceful condition, why does the right hon. Gentleman always take the opinion of the police?
      MR. CHERRY: I do not take the opinion of the police.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIG: But you have in this case.
      MR. KILBRIDE: Is it not a fact that some boycotting exists in the House of Commons? Is not the hon. Member for West Belfast boycotted in this House, and was not the noble Lord the late Member for West Down boycotted out of his constituency?
      CAPTAIN DONELAN: I have been the victim of boycotting myself. Does not Justice Madden speak of boycotting as a crime? Is that so termed in Irish police reports?
      MR. CHERRY: No doubt there are cases which cannot properly be classed as crimes.

      Feenagh Evicted Tenant.
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say on what grounds the Estates Commissioners refuse to entertain the case of James Murphy, of Croughteeri, near Feenagh, in the County of Limerick, who was evicted from his small holding by Deane Shelton, of Rossmore, for non-payment of rent.
      MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners, in the exercise of the discre-
      1676
      tion vested in them by Parliament, have declined, after due inquiry, to take any action upon the application in question, and they cannot undertake to state the reasons which actuate them in the exercise of such discretion.
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Was not this poor man evicted for non-payment of rent? Why is a distinction drawn in his case?
      MR. CHERRY: I really cannot say. There are a great many cases of people evicted for non-payment of rent and only a small proportion can be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners.
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not hold out some hope to this poor man that if he cannot be reinstated he shall be given another holding?
      MR. CHERRY: The hon. Member can lay his case before the Estates Commissioners.
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I have done so.
      MR. CHERRY: I should not like to interfere with their discretion.

      Irish Land Stock.
      MR. GEORGE D. FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total issue of Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Irish Land Stock, exclusive of the pending issue of £5,000,000, and how much of such stock is held by the National Debt Commissioners for the Savings Bank Fund; how much cash is now lent by the National Debt Commissioners, out of cash balances in their hands, to the Irish Land Purchase Fund, and will such advances be repaid out of the new issue of £5,000,000; what is the total amount now required to pay out landlords, the sale of whose estates has been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners; what is the total amount of the deficiency in respect of the issue at a discount of Irish Land Stock; and by what total amount has the income derived from tenants' purchase annuities failed to meet the dividend payable on the Land Stock and the

      1677
      interest on money borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners.
      MR. HOBHOUSE: The total amount of Guaranteed 2¾ per cent Stock issued prior to the recent issue of £5,000,000 was £28,201,444; of which the National Debt Commissioners hold on account of Savings Banks Funds, £7,912,893. The National Debt Commissioners have advanced to the Irish Land Purchase Fund in cash, £1,197,000, which amount will be repaid out of the proceeds of the new issue of Stock in accordance with Section 30 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary informs me as regards the third part of the Question, that the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned advances in the case of direct sales amounting to £1,013,851, of which £272,249 will be advanced to-morrow and the remainder as soon as outstanding questions have been disposed of. Under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, the Commissioners have agreed, to buy estates, the purchase money of which amounts to £675,766. Of this sum £8,230 is to be advanced to-morrow and the remainder as soon as vendors have shown title, and are in a position to allocate the purchase money. The £28,201,444 stock issued produced in cash £24,862,297, or a deficiency when compared with the nominal amount of stock of £3,339,147. Of this last sum £3,020,463 will be made good by an annuity of 3¼ per cent, chargeable on the Ireland Development Grant, and the balance of £318,684 by the annuity charged on the Votes in respect of the Land Purchase Aid Fund. Since 1st November, 1903, the interest received on the Irish Land Purchase Fund in respect of tenants' purchase annuities and temporary investments has fallen short of the interest paid on stock and temporary borrowings by £161,062, of which £101,521 was charged against the £200,000 grant to the Fund under Section 38 of the Act, and the balance of £59,541 has been received from the Guarantee Fund.

      Bank of Ireland,
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the
      1678
      grounds on which he has come to the conclusion that no change should be made in the relations of the Government with the Bank of Ireland, in which the Government accounts are kept and of which the late Treasury Remembrancer in Dublin Castle became a director while still holding that office, and which is given a preference in dealings by the Government to other banking institutions in Ireland, regard being had to the decision in the action of Alderman Corrigan against Mr. Edward R. Read, the Chairman of the late National Assurance Company of Ireland, which was heard in Dublin before Mr. Justice Andrews and a special jury, and to the fact that the National Assurance Company was accommodated by overdrafts up to £90,000 by the Bank of Ireland, by which the directors were enabled to conceal its true position and to postpone its winding-up, to the ruin of the shareholders; and if he will say whether he has considered the effect likely to be produced on public confidence in commercial probity by revelations of so grave a character making no alteration in the attitude of the Government to the Bank of Ireland, as a favoured institution for Government accounts or business.
      MR. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. friend has nothing to add to his previous answer on this question.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will repeat the Question to-morrow, when I may be face to face with the right hon. Gentleman.

      Telegraphic Address—"O'Connor, Foynes."
      MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a complaint made by Mr. Robert Gibson, butter merchant, of Limerick, that on Friday last he sent a telegram and prepaid for reply to the village of Foynes, County Limerick, addressed to O'Connor, Foynes, asking to have half a ton of ice forwarded on the same date, and that it was notified to Mr. Gibson some two hours later that the address was insufficient, and that, laving wired again, he was informed that it was then too late to have the ice forwarded on that day; and whether

      1679
      seeing that O'Connor is the only person who deals in ice in this small village, so that the address should have found him in the first instance, he will have the matter inquired into with a view of putting a stop to this annoyance and damage to traders.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The matter appears to be one which should be dealt with locally.
      MR. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is dealt with locally?
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No doubt now complaint has been made the postmaster will deal with it.
      MR. NIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar complaints have been made in various large centres throughout the country?
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is a general question. In this case the telegram was simply addressed "O'Connor, Foynes," and I have little doubt from my knowledge of Ireland that there is more than one O'Connor there.
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Foynes is only a small place, and that there is only one O'Connor there who sells ice? There would, therefore, have been no difficulty in finding him.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was afraid his knowledge was not sufficiently extensive to enable him to answer that Question.

      Electoral Reform.
      MR. REES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Bill dealing with electoral reform, to be introduced during the present Parliament, will include due provision for a second ballot; or whether the Government will give special facilities to private Bills dealing with this subject.
      MR. ASQUITH: I am not in a position to indicate the provision of the Bill to which my hon friend refers; but he may be assured that the Government
      1680
      will, so far as is practicable, take full account of the flaws and anomalies of our electoral system with a view to their rectification.

      The Beef Trust.
      LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the allegations made by responsible persons that the beef supply of this country is controlled by foreign capitalists, he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the whole Question.
      MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of the names of the responsible persons to whom the noble Lord refers. As at present advised, and without in any degree underrating the importance of the matter to which the noble Lord calls my attention, I am disposed to doubt whether an inquiry such as he suggests would be productive of useful results. I would suggest that in the first instance the noble Lord and others who may be in possession of information as to the control of our beef supply should communicate with the Departments concerned.
      LORD R. CECIL: Which Departments?
      MR. ASQUITH: The Board of Agriculture and the Board of Trade.

      Ancient Monuments in Wales.
      MR. REES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has under consideration the desirability of appointing an Archaeological Commission to report upon the preservation of the ancient monuments and buildings in Wales.
      MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir, and I have informed my hon. friend the Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs that His Majesty's Government propose to appoint such a Commission.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When will the Commission be appointed?
      MR. ASQUITH: That I cannot say.
      MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will it be this year?
      MR. ASQUITH: I hope so.

      Irish Supply.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can fix another day for the consideration of Irish Estimates in Committee of Supply; and whether he will put down as first Order for that day the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary.
      MR. ASQUITH: I regret that I cannot at present fix another day for the consideration of Irish Estimates.
      MR. LONSDALE: Why do the Government show such remarkable reluctance to discuss this Vote?
      MR. ASQUITH: We show no reluctance.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIG: In view of the fact that the condition of Ireland, as regards cattle-driving, is growing steadily worse——
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now completely contradicting the statement made by the Attorney-General.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I certainly do contradict it.

      Alleged Foreign Espionage.
      COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government Departments concerned are causing inquiry to be made as to the reports of foreign espionage in various counties in England; and, if, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for War has confessed his inability to deal with such a state of affairs, if proved to be true, by any existing law, he will consider the necessity of introducing the necessary legislation.
      MR. ASQUITH: The Government Departments concerned keep themselves as fully informed in regard to this matter as the nature of the case will allow. I am not, as at present advised, of opinion that any fresh legislation is either necessary or practicable.

      Army Votes.
      MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can yet say when Army Vote 12 will be taken.
      MR. ASQUITH: The Government hope to find another half day for the discussion of Army Votes; but I cannot yet say what particular Votes will be discussed.
      MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not forget we are anxious to discuss the Special Reserve.

      Appointment of Lords-Lieutenant.
      MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is to be the custom that Lords-Lieutenant shall be appointed solely for political reasons; and whether, seeing that by statute the Lords-Lieutenant of counties are the presidents of the Associations, it is under these circumstances possible that the formation of the Territorial Army can be conducted on non-party lines.
      MR. ASQUITH: It has been for a long time the custom that Lords-Lieutenant should as a rule be selected from among supporters of the Government of the day. The new duties cast upon Lords-Lieutenant in regard to the Territorial Army ought to be, and I have no doubt will be now, kept in view in any such appointments, but it must not be forgotten that Lords-Lieutenant have other and equally important functions to discharge.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was it absolutely for political purposes that the Duke of Devonshire, a Member of the late Government, was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Derbyshire? Is he to be considered a supporter of the present Government?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Daylight Saving Bill.
      MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will give facilities for the passing this session of the Daylight Saving Bill, now entitled the Local Time (Great Britain and Ireland) Bill; and, if so, whether the Government will propose amendments making clear that the adoption of the proposed modification of time is not compulsory, and substituting for the

      1683
      term local time some less ambiguous term.
      MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. The Government have no intention of giving facilities for the passing of the Daylight Saving Bill.

      IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
      Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
      Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 219.]
      Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 219.]
      Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, 16th July, and to be printed. [Bill 306.]

    SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £167,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Educational Services, which, will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
    MR. BARNESsaid he rose to move a Resolution in his name, or rather one of two in his name. He was told he could not move to reduce the salary of the First Lord on this Vote, but to reduce the Vote, which he now did. He hoped he would be able to show that the system of training which had been introduced into the Navy, and was covered by this Vote, was a system which was costly to the nation, and to the parents and guardians of the students, that it was undemocratic, and therefore inefficient. He had no desire to speak about naval ratings generally, or the changes which had been made in the Navy consequent upon the change from
    1684
    sail to steam, for they were outside the scope of this Motion. Neither did he want to go into the matter which had been alluded to as to troubles in high places in the Navy, although he believed this particular scheme had contributed somewhat to them. He did not suggest for a moment that anything of that kind could justify those troubles, and he cordially echoed the evident sense of the House as shown at Question-time that some steps might be taken or means found whereby that sense of discipline and loyalty which was so necessary in all grades, and most of all at the top, should be somehow reintroduced into the Navy. He regretted that matters of naval administration should be left so much to the experts. He agreed that the expert was a valuable man, and in his own particular sphere they ought to have great respect for his opinion, but this Vote covered a matter which he submitted was of infinitely greater importance; it covered the personnel of the Navy, and however important it might be to have good ships and good guns, and a well-equipped Navy, after all, the men of the Navy were the most important factor; and as to the conditions necessary for the training of a proper staff in the Navy, he submitted that the House was not only quite as competent to form a judgment as the export, but, having regard to the fact that hon. Members had come into contact with all phases of life more or less outside the Navy, they were even more competent to form a judgment than the expert. The scheme to which he took exception was a scheme for what was called the interchangeability of officers, a scheme which they were told had for its object the training of officers to be admirals and engineers, either or both, and also the training of a special class of men called mechanicians for the displacement of another class called artificers, who up to now had been obtained from the workshops of the country, and, so far as he knew, had satisfactorily performed their duties. The scheme covered five ratings in the Navy—the executive officers, the marine officers, the engineer officers, the artificers, and the stokers. They might put the marine and engineer officers together, and reduce the number to four. He wanted to show that the scheme affected all those grades, excepting the executive

    1685
    officers, in a prejudicial way. The scheme had jockeyed the engineer officer out of the service for all practical purposes; it had reduced the artificer to a mere engineering cobbler, and while leaving the great mass of the stoker class underpaid and scurvily treated, as they always had been, had attempted to bribe a small percentage of stokers to leave their fellows on the chance—the off-chance it was—of getting promotion. It set up immense and costly machinery, colleges, and ships, to train a class of men for the Navy who at present were obtainable from outside, and trained far better than the Navy, in his judgment, could train them. The scheme was first promulgated in December, 1902, at a time when Parliament was not sitting and when no effective criticism could be offered, but criticism was offered very soon afterwards. In March, 1903, on the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, a debate took place which was initiated by Mr. Gibson Bowles on a Motion for reconsideration, which was seconded by Sir John Gorst; and on that occasion two distinguished men took part in the debate. One was the late Secretary to the Admiralty, Mr. Edmund Robertson, now translated to another place, who said that the effect of the scheme would be—
    "The complete exclusion of all the unprivileged classes from the Navy, which all paid for and which belonged not to the Admiralty or to naval officers, but to the people of the country at large."
    The late Prime Minister, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, was no less emphatic in his hostility to the scheme, and said, as regarded positions which had up till then been open to brains and ability—
    "That those positions would be closed in respect of 80 or 90 per cent, of the population of the country."
    That was just the conclusion he himself had reached as the result of inquiries, and he wanted to submit to the House that the Government in 1903 were not committed to the scheme. The Douglas Committee three years ago reported that the Government were not committed to the scheme, which was only then in an experimental stage. The Secretary to the Admiralty two years ago adopted that report, and therefore up to then, and as far as he knew, right up to now, the Government were not committed to
    1686
    the scheme except in an experimental manner. He brought the matter forward not in any narrow spirit of trade interest, although he ought to say that those with whom he was associated in trade matters were affected in an adverse way by the scheme. He might also say that he had been led to inquire into the scheme because of that fact, but he had brought it forward not because his particular trade was affected, but as a matter of broad public policy. He hoped he had said enough to show that the scheme was not a thing of antiquity; it had not any deep roots in the social life or habits of thought of the people, but it was contrary to the habits or thought of the people, and up to now it had not been accepted by the Government as a settled policy. He had said that the scheme was costly, and he would like to state, in the first place, that the statement under the Vote was a gross underestimate of the real facts. He did not mean to say that it was wilfully misleading, but it was misleading nevertheless. It did not include all the items that were, as a matter of fact, items of expenditure in connection with the scheme. Nothing appeared in this Estimate or any other Estimate as to the cost of Osborne. He believed Osborne was taken over by the nation as a gift and in contravention of the will of the late Queen. And it had been taken over holus bolus for the purposes of this scheme without a halfpenny being charged for it. Then let them take Dartmouth College; there they had a splendidly equipped college, but he had never seen a halfpenny charged for it. It might be charged to the Public Accounts Fund, but it certainly did not appear in this Vote, or, so far as he knew, in any other Navy Estimates. Then there were three or four ships like the "Indus" at Portsmouth, the "Fisgeard," and the "Tinados," and there might be altogether ten ships at the very least for the purposes of this scheme. They had the cost of the equipment of all these ships, with scientific tools and apparatus, but so far as he knew, not a halfpenny had appeared in the Estimates. But worse still, there were many men engaged now in training—or torturing—stokers and endeavouring to make fitters and machine-men out of them, and a great many men for the purposes of this scheme were removed from their own

    1687
    duties in the Navy. The cost of them was spread all over the Estimates, from one end to the other—every-where but in the place where they ought to be. The men used for the purposes of this scheme on the "Indus" alone amounted to an annual cost of £3,210, and not a halfpenny of it appeared in the £167,000 they were now discussing. So far as the cost to the nation was concerned, it was almost impossible to say what that cost was, but he did not put that forward as the main consideration at all. He now came to the cost to the parents and guardians of the students, which brought him to the kernel of the system, and he found in the Estimates for last year an item called "Appropriations in Aid," amounting to £56,000. That was in respect to rather less than 800 students, he believed. It came out to about £75 per boy of twelve years of age, in order to equip him as an officer of the Navy. What was the effect of it upon the various classes in the community who desired to send their sons into the Navy? What was the effect of it upon Members of this House? He did not suppose that any of his colleagues of the Labour Party could afford to send their sons into the Navy. He did not know one who could pay £75 a year, plus cost of outfit, pocket-money, and incidental outlays. Every one of the Labour Members was therefore barred from sending his boys into the Navy in the hope of their becoming officers. He supposed the same might be said of the Irish Members, and probably of the bulk of hon. Members opposite. He maintained that beyond a sprinkling here and there, with perhaps those on the front benches, Members of the House were excluded from sending their boys into the Navy, except as fetchers and carriers to the powers that be. If it was the case with Members of the House, it was much more so with those outside. It was quite obvious that the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was quite within the mark when he said that this scheme excluded between 80 and 90 per cent, of the population of this country from sending their boys into the Navy. What was the effect of that? It narrowed the field of selection from which we could draw these men; and therefore, in so far as operative, it was to some extent
    1688
    the cause, or a contributing cause of the present trouble in the Navy. He knew that brains were not always found with money; nor did he say that brains and money did not sometimes go together. He did not for a moment say that a man might have money and no brains, or that a man might have brains and no money. There was not a great deal of difference in a lot of people gathered together. But there was a great deal of difference between them so far as bringing together all classes and giving everyone something of a fair show of equality of opportunity in reaching these places in the Navy. He suggested that the new system in the Navy went in the direction of taking from those who had little and giving to those who had a surfeit. What was the system that was displaced? He was speaking now of the officer class, and not of engineers and marines. The system, so far back as he could go, was that executive-officer rank was only gained in the Navy at an early age by nomination—by what might be called artificial selection. The boy only entered the Navy by way of place, power, and influence of some kind. He did not allege anything against the rich people or against the poor. The poor would do exactly the same. He meant to say that there had been a certain class in the community in a position of place and monopoly, and that position of place and monopoly had always been used in the interest of their class. It had always been so. Therefore, he pointed out that the system had been that executive-officer rank had only been thus gained in the Navy. On the other hand there had been a system by which officers of the lower deck and engineering officers entered when their education had been more or less completed, when they reached sixteen or seventeen years of age, and therefore when some sort of sensible test could be applied to them. A test could not be applied to a boy twelve years old, he could only be taken by some sort of favour. But a character test could be applied to a lad of sixteen, and that had been applied in the case of engineering officers in the Navy. Moreover, there had been an infusion of young men from the dockyard work shops and schools who had gone to Keyham and into the naval service as the result of scholarships. These young

    1689
    men had to pass through the dockyard workshop, and many of those who came out with distinction were the sons of men with moderate means, and some of the highest places in the Navy had been reached by sharp lads, sons of working-class parents who had passed out of the dockyard workshops. Some of the makers of our modern Navy had come from that class. The late Chief Constructor in the dockyards, Sir William White, the late Chief Engineer, and the present Director-General were dockyard boys. Now, what had taken place? While retaining the dockyard workshops and schools in the dockyards—for which there were, he believed, some four or five thousand pounds on the Estimates this year—from which good men were obtained, they were closing the avenue by which these could enter the Navy as engineer officers. Why had that been done? No suggestion had been made that the engineer officers had not been efficient so far. Nothing of the sort had been stated, but they had grown up under a system under which all the power had been reserved to the executive officers. He knew that they could not have two executive officers—one on the bridge and the other in the engine-room. But the engineers had grown up under a system not only under which executive power had been reserved to the bridge man, but under which the engineer officer had been made to feel a sense of inferiority, and had been treated—or thought he was treated—as of social as well as financial inferiority. Instead of bridging that over by making the executive rank open to the engineer officer or those of his class, the same barrier which had hitherto been placed against him gaining executive rank had now been raised against him, under the new system, of gaining engineering rank. Competition had been abolished, the entry of engineer boys of comparatively mature age had been abolished, and in place of that they had immaturity, patronage, and class interest, and all that these involved. What was the reason for that? He found that in the Memorandum of 1902 it was stated that the Admiralty wanted—
    "To bring back that homogeneity in the Navy which existed in the time of sails,"
    and that that was to be done by—
    "First, a common training, and common try, and common instruction to all who
    1690
    were to command the ship; and, second, by inuring the naval officer to the sea from the earliest possible moment."
    They might as well talk about bringing sails back to the Navy altogether as bringing back the conditions that prevailed under sails. Sails had entirely disappeared from the Navy, and almost completely from the mercantile marine. What had the engineer to do with the command of the ship? He did not want to command the ship, and he could not do it if he wanted. They were told that the new system involved interchangeability and standardisation. It seemed to him that those long words were mere cloaks for reactionary humbug, merely attempts to cover up educational nakedness by long-winded phrases. What had an engineer to do with sea character? As a matter of fact many of the engineers on all the great liners were men who came out of the locomotive departments of engineering works, and who in many cases never caught a glimpse of the sea till they had reached man's estate. The object of the new system was not to give the men a sea character but an Admiralty character, so that they could be relied upon to say "ditto" to anything that Admirals or hon. Gentlemen on the front benches might say. Let the House take this idea of interchangeability. A lad of twelve years of age was drafted from school into the Navy on the understanding that he might become an Admiral or an engineer, or both or neither. They stuffed his head with gunnery, navigation, international law, engineering in all its branches, hydraulics, electricity, and mechanical science generally, up to the age of twenty. At the age of twenty he began to specialise. One went to engineering, more or less by compulsion; he would not go by choice; and another went to the bridge. It seemed to him that it was impossible to get a trained engineer in that way. It was a crazy idea. They could standardise or interchange the different parts of a motor car; they could standardise a crank-pin; but they could not interchange a crank-pin with a piston rod. It was just as absurd to try to interchange a captain with an engineer as it would be to interchange a captain with a chaplain, or a powder-monkey with a printer. Let the House consider the changes constantly taking place in engineering and in naval science. Some

    1691
    of those lads specialised at the age of, twenty—one went as captain and the other as engineer, the idea being that in the event of need afterwards, a man might suddenly be converted from an engineer into a captain or from a commander into an engineer. If the captain got killed the engineer was to be called out of the stokehole to go on the bridge or vice versa. The whole thing was preposterous. Engineering was constantly getting more intricate and complicated, so that an engineer on shore only followed part of it. How could a man who had been at sea for ten years, even supposing he had specialised, be expected to make himself acquainted with all the developments of engineering science as well as naval science? A race of giants would be needed to carry out a scheme of that kind; and the methods by which these boys of twelve were selected and trained were not methods which would produce giants. Far from these boys being above the average ability they would be below it. They were taken away from other boys destined for other callings, separated from the life of the nation, and made a class apart, with all the slackness that such separation involved. They would have no idea as to what calling they would follow in life. They would be thrust into a calling, not from the free choice which a boy might make. He had up till now spoken of the scheme as it affected the top of the profession; he wanted now to come a little lower down in the scale to the engine-room artificers. The man at the top would be a jack of all trades and a master of none. Therefore one would have thought that provision would have been made for better men a little lower down so that it would be an engineer who would attend to the practical work that had to be done while the superior person was strutting about in gold lace and sword. They had not got a better man. The Navy had the best engineer operatives to draw from in the whole world. He had been to America and to various continental nations and on board their ships, and he found engineers out of the British workshops in positions of great responsibility and power not only as artificers but as engineer officers in the American Navy. These men were obtained by our Navy at no cost at all. These men had put in their time in the workshops and the technical colleges. Many of them were men of natural
    1692
    aptitude, and the men who came out of our workshops and technical colleges were the best operatives in the world. These men were got for nothing. They were invited to join, they came freely for the Service. Workpeople had struggled to give their lads this trade at a cost for each which he estimated at from £150 to £200, and they had been placed at the disposal of the country. They joined the Navy at twenty-two years of age and there were now in the Navy some 4,000 of them. He did not know what fault could be found with them. They had been the subject of commendation in high quarters for their ability and loyalty and discipline. The only reason he had heard for making a change was one which was incautiously disclosed by a Member above the gangway last year. "The object of the scheme," he said, "was to get free from the outside pressure of trade unions." Here was the same spirit as was manifested all through; instead of a disposition to rectify grievances, they found simply a bull-headed assertion of class rights and a determination to regard these men as mere dumb inarticulate fetchers and carriers to the powers that be or that this scheme would make them so. The artificers were to be superseded by two classes. The first of these was the boy artificers' class. The Admiralty was to train boys to take the places of the artificers, or some of them. Possibly a boy might be so trained if he were taken young enough, though the chances were against his being made as efficient as some one trained outside, because his experience would not be so wide. These young men who joined at twenty-two years of age bad got their varied experiences, and there was a spirit of comradeship among them that dispersed that experience. The Admiralty, however, had a perfect right to train a boy, but the money spent for this purpose was sheer waste, as the proper material could be had without any such expenditure. As to the new class to be trained as mechanicians, he observed that it was, generally speaking, impossible to make men without previous experience of engineering mechanicians at twenty-six or twenty-eight years of age. In the "Indus" last year 127 men were under training. As far as he could gather, cost, in one way and another, near

    1693
    £30,000 to train them. For 1,000 mechanicians and 1,000 boy artificers the cost of training would amount to nearly £1,000,000. This money was not only wasted, but involved the Navy in risks which ought not to be run. For efficiency as an engineer and mechanic, not only manual skill, but the intuitive faculties, which only came to development in the formative period of the mind, were required. A man in the mercantile marine before he could go to sea, and do full duty, must serve four years as a mechanic, and, before getting leave to compete in his first examination for competence to take charge of engines, must serve at least a year at sea; and if it was necessary for the mercantile marine, how much the more necessary should it be for the Navy. He was strengthened in his opinion by something that had recently arisen. In the "Irresistible" recently one of these men opened a certain valve-box which admitted water, in ignorance that another valve was open under the water-line, and the result was that the ship narrowly escaped foundering. It had been said that the mechanician class would give opportunities of advancement to the stoker. The statement he believed to be an afterthought. The scheme could not affect more than 10 percent, of the stokers. At the outside only 2,000 or 3,000 men in the stoker rating could be advanced, and this over a number of years. Not more than one-tenth of those could be advanced in any one year, and this was an infinitesimal fraction of 30,000, which was their total number. He was not against stokers' advancement. On the contrary, he was in favour of it, and, in conjunction with others, he had pointed out to the Admiralty positions to which they could be promoted and which did not involve technical knowledge or manual skill. But the stokers wanted more pay, and they were entitled to it, instead of which they were being foisted off with the mere dregs of this wretched class scheme. He was very glad to have had an opportunity of putting this matter before the House, and in conclusion he would express the view that the scheme was one which put place and power into the hands of people with money, and prevented people without money from obtaining those positions to which they had a perfect right if they were properly qualified to
    1694
    fill them. He believed this had been the cause of a good deal of friction already—friction which was a source of weakness and discredit to the Navy at the present moment. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would assist hon. Members on the Labour Benches by seeing to it that their public posts were not preserved as they had hitherto been, for people who belonged to the classes who had money and position, and who had the ear of those in authority. He hoped that hon. Members would assist them in seeing that so far as was humanly possible these positions not only in the Navy, but in all the public services, were left open to brain and ability, wherever brain and ability were to be found. He had merely touched the fringe of the subject, had merely peeped into a vast region which would yet have to be explored by those who wanted reform of our administrative departments. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would give attention to what might be said in this discussion. He could assure him that he himself meant business in this matter. He wanted an inquiry by some independent body of men, and not men in the Navy. He was not going to be palmed off by some report which the right hon. Gentleman had received from the Admiralty, or from any officer connected with the Navy. He wanted an independent inquiry into the actual working out of this scheme by men who had a practical knowledge of these matters. If he did not get that, he should certainly divide the House in order to see how many there were present who would place efficiency before anything else, and who would see to it, so far as it could be done, that everybody had fair play and no favour.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £166,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Burnes.)
    MR. BELLAIRSsaid he rose to support the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, who had attacked this scheme in a speech of conspicuous ability. The hon. Member and himself were in the same difficulty in appealing to the First Lord of the Admiralty and in

    1695
    attacking this principle of interchange-ability; for the House well knew the First Lord of the Admiralty himself was a conspicuous example of interchangeability, having accepted three most important posts in the Government in succession. But their very point was this, that they were not all geniuses; that they had to deal with the average officer. They all knew that the right hon. Gentleman had extensive political merits, and that he was equal to almost any task he undertook. In the scheme which the hon. Member had attacked, they had first of all to consider the motives with which it was introduced. They knew that, at the time it was brought forward, by a process of discreditable rigging, nearly every pressman who would write up the scheme was in full possession of all its details.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the inception of the scheme is rather ancient history. What we are dealing with is the scheme itself.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I understood we were to have a general discussion on the scheme.
    THE CHAIRMAN: But not the past history. The discussion is upon the scheme of education, as applicable to the Estimates of 1908–9.
    MR. BELLAIRSsaid he would confine himself to this year's Estimate, and pass on to the fact that into this scheme there had been no inquiry of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, was asked whether any of the admirals at sea had been consulted as to the scheme of education that was being discussed. The right hon. Gentleman's answer on that occasion was that there was no necessity to consult them, and that the Board of Admiralty, by their constitution, were perfectly competent to construct such a scheme without consulting any of the sea officers. It was perfectly true they had that right, because all those officers were gaining experience at sea, and sooner or later would have to administer the scheme on being recruited by the Board of Admiralty. The right
    1696
    hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had only a few months before stated that the Sea Lords of the Admiralty had no time to consider the matter; he had stated that in the House. If they had no time to consider it, surely it was the right thing to have an inquiry before a scheme of such importance was introduced. Lord Esher had stated that the facts had all been adumbrated by the First Sea Lord before even they arrived at the Board of Admiralty. Therefore, the scheme of the Board of Admiralty was the scheme of the First Sea Lord. This was the scheme which was flung at the head of the country, as his hon. friend had pointed out, on Christmas Day, 1902. They had to consider the state of affairs when the scheme was introduced. Was there at that time, anything wrong with the Navy? As the hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the engineers were the best possible engineers, and they had the knowledge that the Navy stood in need of reform. He himself was at that time writing articles in The Times, and in magazines, urging reform; and in reply to those articles, Lord Selborne gave his own impressions about the state of the Navy at that time, and said on the authority of the admirals, captains, and seamen, that they were unanimously of opinion that the training of the officers and men could hardly be improved, except in matters of detail. That was the opinion of the First Lord who had sanctioned these enormous and stupendous changes. In his Memorandum of April, 1902, Lord Selborne reaffirmed that opinion. The reforms which naval officers were advocating at that time were the improvement of gunnery and of seamanship by greater concentration upon those subjects; but he did not see how they were going to improve either gunnery or seamanship by taking away a number of officers to spend 30 per cent, of their time in the engine-room. A lad entered the training ship at thirteen years of age and the Navy at seventeen-and-three-quarter years of age. He spent a large amount of his time in learning engineering, and when he got afloat he had to spend 30 per cent, of his time down in the engine-room. He was thus taken away from gunnery, and he certainly would not be improved either in gunnery o seamanship in that way. The change

    1697
    were described by Sir John Fisher himself as "stupendous." They were described by Lord Selborne as amounting to a "revolution." They had since heard them described by Lord Tweed-mouth, the former First Lord of the Admiralty in the present Government, as "experimental." In those three words they got the description of these enormous changes—"stupendous," "revolutionary," "experimental." Yet, though the changes were thus described, they had been unable hitherto to get any inquiry. His hon. friend had said he intended to go to a division unless hope was held out that an inquiry of some description would be instituted. They did not wish to tie down the right hon. Gentleman in the least as to what was to be the form of the inquiry. He would be perfectly satisfied if the Government would state that the inquiry was to be an impartial one. He would be quite willing that it should be secret if they would guarantee that it was impartial; but he claimed that in order to avoid all these conceptions which were afloat amongst officers, all those criticisms which they were constantly having, and which spoiled discipline in the Navy, they ought to have an inquiry of some sort. In the service there were three great branches—the engineers, who dealt with the engines; the executive branch, who dealt with the ship; and the marines. Each branch was absolutely distinct and separate. The engineer was down below, and it took four or five minutes to descend to the place where he worked. His whole training was one of the ear, and the acuteness of his hearing was brought to such a pitch that he could at once tell whether anything was wrong with the machinery. The men on deck had external work—sometimes taking observations of the heavenly bodies among their other duties. He had always to use his eyes, while the engineer worked by the ear. In the marines, they had a body of men who had been described by Lord St. Vincent as the "sheet anchor" of England, and whose discipline was even finer than that of the blue-jackets. The upshot of the policy of the Admiralty, with these disputes in regard to the officers, must ultimately and inevitably result in the disbandment of the corps. That was
    1698
    certainly borne out by the evidence of many witnesses. There was not an Army officer in the House who would not bear him out in saying that, when they came to try the scheme and made the executive officers wear the uniform of the Navy, and go as temporary specialists in charge of the Marines, they would not be real officers of the corps, and the inevitable result would be that a fine body of about 17,000 men would be reduced by about 3,000, and ultimately disbanded altogether. The argument had been used that the same class of men formerly worked the motive power as worked the guns, but when they had men below deck the two classes were separate and distinct. The seamen were on deck and could control the guns as well as the masts and sails, which they had to work according as the wind varied, and in order to bring the guns to bear. Therefore, there was then every reason for an interchange between the guns' crews and the men working the motive power, but now there was no necessity for the slightest interchange. The men down in the engine room were not exposed to shot and shell at all. The whole history of modern warfare proved that they were completely protected by the protective deck. The only casuality that could come to them was if the ship sank, and then the question did not arise whether they wanted to reinforce the motive power. He passed to some of the arguments which were used last year, and the year before, by advocates of the scheme on the front benches, both of which he regretted to say were more or less responsible. The argument was used that the executive class of deck officer absorbed the navigation branch. They did. There was every reason for absorbing the navigation branch. They had to navigate and handle the ship in precisely the same way as the executive branch did their work on the bridge and on deck. They were subject to be shot in action, and they wanted other men to relieve them. The work was seamanship, and was exactly similar work to that which the executive officers were always performing, and they had sooner or later to absorb them. There was no parallel whatever between the executive deck officers absorbing the navigation branch and the deck officers

    1699
    absorbing the engineer branch and becoming engineers. Then it was also said that they had gunnery and torpedo specialists, and there was no reason why they should not have executive officers, not only for gunnery and torpedo work, but for engineering work, in the same way. But did his hon. friends who used that argument realise what gunnery and torpedo work was? To be a torpedo specialist was as a drop in the ocean, compared with being a first class engineer. The first class engineer had the training of a lifetime. All executive officers had to know gunnery and torpedo. The only difference was that gunnery and torpedo specialists went through a more advanced course. Not only that, but the gunnery and torpedo specialist remained a seaman, and did watch-keeping duties, so that the case of the engineer was totally different. They would not be able to bring the engineer on deck to take watch-keeping duties because he would be attending to his engine room duties. Then, finally, it was said to be extremely hard lines that under the old scheme an engineer commander could not command a ship. His hon. friend had dealt with that point pretty fully. The engineer was an engineer. The command of a ship was a totally distinct thing. He did not feel any grievance that he could not be King of England, and he did not think naval officers had felt it a grievance that their warlike training and their knowledge of armaments prevented them from becoming Archbishop of Canterbury. The profession of engineering and the profession of commanding a ship were as distinct as the profession of armaments and the duties of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The hon. Member for Fareham said last year that if an officer did not show an aptitude for commanding a ship at any time it was obvious that he would not get a command. But how were they going to find out? In answer to a Question the Admiralty stated that the temporary engineer specialist for the executive branch remained an engineer for about fourteen years and would then revert as commander, to command a ship if necessary. How were they going to find out whether such a man after fourteen years work in the engine room was fit to command a ship? Pre-
    1700
    sumably the hon. Member for Fareham would put him in charge of a "Dreadnought" and find out by experience, and if his boat was lost would put up to his memory a tablet with the inscription: "He was found unfit to command a ship at a cost of £4,000,000 to the taxpayer." The Secretary to the Admiralty in 1906 said the sole reason for the introduction of the scheme was that there was a want of unity between the three branches of the service. He absolutely denied that statement. He had never heard of want of unity between the marines and the executive branch, and as regarded the engineers it was enormously exaggerated. It had never interfered with the relations in the ward room mess or the gun room mess. They had grievances, but that was not a reason for doing away with them altogether, but for patiently inquiring into the grievances and remedying them. It was not a reason for revolutionising a great service by what had officially been described as a stupendous revolutionary experiment. As a matter of fact he knew it was the intention in connection with this scheme to dish the engineering agitation which was subscribed to by about sixty Members of Parliament. Many of the points which they contended for were legitimate grievances. There were the questions of pay and promotion, and these could have been met without any revolutionary experiment. He had heard that by this scheme they made 500 marine officers available for watch-keeping duties. But they did not do it by this scheme, though it was perfectly simple to do, and it was being done now. The Admiralty were wisely making much more use of marine officers and giving them executive duties to do in their spare time. In regard to artificers, they were making three classes. They would have the boy artificers, the skilled recruits, and the stoker mechanicians. These three classes were to do one job. Yet they had introduced a scheme for the sake of unity of the service by which they suppressed three totally distinct branches and had one class to do three distinct jobs, viz., handling the ships, handling the engines, and handling the troops. For these they created one class, and under the very same scheme they did away

    1701
    with the system of doing the engine-room watch-keeping duties by the artificer and introduced two other classes—stoker mechanics and boy artificers. Were they going to increase the unity of the service by that method? They dissatisfied the artificers who were satisfied before the scheme was introduced, and they introduced an inefficient class of stoker mechanicians who would before the scheme was very much older be responsible, he was confident, for many other disasters besides that of the "Irresistible." His hon. friend had referred to the system of entry, and, as he had pointed out, there was a system of nomination for the executive branch, but for the other classes, marines and engineers, they had open competition. All that open competition was swept away. The Navy was divorced from the schools of the country. Only those who educated boys under thirteen would now supply officers. They cut them off from the technological schools, the public schools, and the grammar schools of the country by this scheme. Then they gave an education in the colleges, which his hon. friend very much understated, because he merely gave them the fees for education. The amount which the parent had to pay was from £550 to £600 for four years, and he had to provide the uniform at the end of the four years. When the scheme was introduced The Times described it as a democratic scheme under which either the cook's son or the duke's son could present himself at the common avenue of entry. There were some millionaires in that House, but he did not believe they paid their cooks enough to enable them to put their sons into the Navy at that cost. They did not make the scheme democratic by giving a common avenue of entry. They had a common avenue of entry into Heaven, but St. Peter was at the gate exercising the power of selection. They had been told it was more difficult for a rich man to enter Heaven than to pass through the eye of a needle. It was harder now for a poor man to get his son into the Navy for any one of the three branches than for a "Dreadnought" to pass through the eye of a needle. St. Vincent, one of the greatest Admirals we had ever had, who was so poor that he had to mend is own boots, and the parson's son,
    1702
    Nelson, had to present themselves at the common avenue of entry, but they could not possibly get up this avenue. That was what was given to the country as a democratic scheme, but there was nothing democratic about it from beginning to end. Lord Tweedmouth, when First Lord of the Admiralty, said that what the Navy needed was a period of rest. That was so; but periods of rest were also periods of inquiry. They were not asking the right hon. Gentleman to change the scheme, but they were asking for an impartial inquiry into the scheme itself. It was not a scheme which affected the present, and they were asking the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the scope and effect of the scheme so that they might know the position some years hence. No nation had copied us in this matter, and the only other Navy which had such a scheme was the American, in which it had been a failure. The Minister responsible said the artificers would be the future engineers. The very Admiral who was responsible, Admiral Evans, had issued a Report commenting in the strongest terms on the inefficiency of this department of the Navy. ["No."] If any hon. Member questioned that he could give the actual quotation from Admiral Evans' Report. At the bottom of the scheme was the idea of early entry and early training in responsibility. To show how absolutely they had gone away from the ideas of Sir John Fisher and his colleagues he would read to the House what they said as to the merits of early training in responsibility. He had in his hand a document labelled "Private and Confidential," issued by the Admiralty, containing portions of articles on entry and training of officers, men and boys in the Navy, but there was nothing confidential in it. It stated—
    It is a known and conclusive fact that never in the history of the Navy were better officers produced than when the midshipman on entry into the service went straight to sea at twelve or thirteen years of age. They became men instead of remaining boys, as is the case at present when herded together as a mass of boys in a training-ship or college. When thus distributed throughout the Fleet on entry they received far more individual attention and training from their captains and officers, and from the moment they stepped on board they became officers habituated to command, and ceased to be schoolboys ordered about by inferiors.

    1703
    "Shore-going people cannot realise the immense advantage (permeating the whole afterlife) of the system of a lad of twelve or thirteen years of age being thrust at once into a position of command, and having to accept responsibility, and thus acquiring, almost with his mother's milk, the alertness and resource which gave us Nelson."
    The same document went on to say:—
    "The most frightful error ever committed was raising the age of entry of midshipmen, when, with all the teachings of history before us, and the magnificent traditions of hundreds of years of our great service, we aped continental systems of naval education and pandered to the headmasters of public schools by departing from the magnificent practical custom of our forefathers, which gave us our Nelsons and made boys of twelve and thirteen take the responsibilities of command, with the result of imbibing those habits of nerve, decision, and command which gave us our great sea victories."
    And what had they done? The Admiralty had adoped a scheme which sent a boy to sea after he was seventeen and a half years of age and gave him responsibility for the first time at that age. As a matter of fact they had travelled right away from where the Admiralty first intended to travel. They now entered the boys young, and in order to give them some sort of apology for mechanical knowledge as engineers they kept them in the training college up to the age of seventeen, and then they were given six months in a training ship, where no responsibility was incurred. In conclusion he appealed to hon. Members to support them in their very moderate demand for an inquiry into this scheme. It might take a thousand years to form a State, and only one hour might lay it in the dust, and what was true of a State was equally true of the Navy.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRRALITY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said the hon. Member for King's Lynn had stated the case against the present scheme with very considerable ability. But before he went into the details of the scheme he desired to deal with the charge of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division that only persons with money and able to reach the ear of those in authority could get their sons into the Navy. What was exactly the system under the new scheme? The son of any person, no matter what his rank or position in the world, had a
    1704
    right to be examined by the Interview Committee. There was no distinction of class among the candidates. He attended at an interview and heard the kind of questions put to the candidates, and he could say that these questions were entirely directed to discovering the boy's suitability for the Navy, his general intelligence, and how far he had assimilated his education at school. After the interview the committee divided the candidates into various classes, and laid their report before the First Lord of the Admiralty. He did not say it was binding upon the First Lord in every case to select only the boys who were in the top class, for there might be an exceptional boy, here and there, who ought to be taken out of the lower classes into which he was put as the result of the interview. But he did say that almost without exception the boys were taken in accordance with their position in the classes. There was no such thing as having the ear of persons in authority as a means of entering the Navy at the present moment. As a matter of fact entrance into the Navy was far easier and more-democratic—if he might use the word—than ever it had been before. He admitted that the parents of boys intended for the Navy must have some means. Perhaps he might say that the means should be fairly ample. It was the fact that the training at Osborne and Dartmouth cost £75 a year for four years, though the fees might be reduced to £40 a year for the sons of officers of the Army and Navy. But was the training of the naval officer ever free? Was its cost ever so low as it was at the Present moment?
    MR. BELLAIRSsaid the training was much longer now. Formerly it ranged from fifteen months to two years. Now it lasted for four years.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid his hon. friend must know that that did not cover the whole case, and the cost of the training of the boy under the old system was not the only expense to the parents. There was the preliminary two years private tuition the cost of which far exceeded £75 a year
    MR. BARNESsaid he had not referred to the training of the executive officer. His point was that the present system was more costly than the old in regard to the engineer officer.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid he felt bound to make it clear that poor parents could send their sons into the Navy more easily than ever before. With regard to the training for engineer officers, if the difference between the time at which the training began at Osborne and at Keyham were considered, it would be found that the financial burden was not such as to justify the charge that the door was now closed to whole classes of parents who wished to send their sons into the Navy. His hon. friend the Member for the Blackfriars division found himself in considerable difficulty in dealing with the question of engineer officers. The hon. Member had admitted that there was a grievance among engineer officers and said that the remedy which the Admiralty had adopted was to exclude all persons except those who would in the ordinary course become executive officers. His remedy was to open the rank of executive officer to the engineer.
    MR. BARNESindicated dissent.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid he understood the hon. Member to suggest that the engineers were to be trained and then admitted as executive officers.
    MR. BARNES: Not at all, I did not say so.
    MR. MCKENNA: I took down the words.
    MR. BARNES: Possibly I may have used wrong words and I wish to correct myself now. I meant simply this, that the executive rank should be open to the same class from which hitherto the engineer class have come.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid he understood the hon. Member to say that once a man had become an engineer the fact was to be taken as a mark that he was fit to take executive rank.
    MR. BARNES: He has never asked to do that so far as I am aware.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid he had had to make himself acquainted with the facts and he could state that the engineer did so at the present moment. He would be surprised if he did not hear something of that in the course of the present debate. The hon. Member went on to ask what the engineer had to do with the manning of a ship. If an engineer had I been exclusively trained from boyhood I as an engineer, it was difficult, though not so impossible as the hon. Member thought, to say that he should have to do with the manning of the ship. The hon. Member had made considerable fun of what he regarded as the preposterous idea that there could be interchange-ability between executive officers and engineers. The word was not used at the Admiralty. Common entry and common training with subsequent specialisation were by no means interchange-ability. But it did so happen that the I American system to which reference had been made in the course of the debate was a system to which the word "inter-changeability" might be better applied than to our system. The latest expert evidence as to the success of the American system showed that men who had been at one time engineers had been made captains, and executive officers had been made engineers. The evidence at the Admiralty led to an entirely different conclusion from that of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that the American system had been a disastrous failure. Captain Hood, our Naval Attaché at Washington, whose business it was to inquire into the working of this very system, had inquired, and this was what he said—
    "In the first instance, it must be definitely and distinctly stated that the amalgamation of line and engineer branches is now regarded as a great success by all classes in the United States Navy; minor criticisms are still directed to the method in which it was carried out, but no competent person can be found, who either considers the amalgamation a failure, or wishes it had not taken place. … Opinions have been asked of all classes of naval officers, of Heads of Bureaux and Admirals, of old engineer officers now amalgamated, of old line officers, and of the young and rising generation. All are united in the opinon that the scheme has been a success, that in general principle it was correct, and that any alteration of the general

    1707
    principle of amalgamation would be a regret-able and dangerous set-back. … The rules as originally laid down have been kept to and preserved with a strong hand; at first there was much criticism and much opposition, but this has all passed away. … It must, again, be positively stated that there is no difference of opinion about the fact that the new education has produced engineer officers able to take care of, manipulate and repair with perfect efficiency the engines of modern men-of-war; out of nineteen battleships in commission at the end of 1907, on board of eleven the senior engineer officer had not belonged to the old class of engineers; and it is now the opinion of the service, young and old, that these officers, for duty on board ship in charge of machinery are superior to the class of men that they are rapidly supplanting."
    That was the only positive evidence which the Committee could have in regard to what had happened in America in the actual working of the scheme, and what had happened there was a complete justification of the change which was introduced in 1903, as to the system of common entry in the Navy. The Committee would probably be interested to know that our own system had reached the stage at which the first batch of cadets had become midshipmen. These cadets went for their first cruise on the "Cumberland"; their final examination took place in April last, and the report of the examiners was generally extremely favourable. With regard to seamanship, for instance, the examiners said—
    "The opinion of the Board in general was that they were exceptionally well up in all the subjects in which they examined them. Two of the officers had had experience of cadets' examination, and they both expressed the opinion that the general knowledge shown this year is a decided improvement on last year. Personally, I was surprised at the practical knowledge they had gathered in so short a time as six months."
    The examiners in practical navigation reported—
    "Practical Navigation.—The paper was of the same standard as that set for acting sub-lieutenants, but somewhat shorter. There are three principal features that call for special comment in the worked papers sent in: (1) The consistency of the work done, there being not more than one paper which can be called poor; (2) the extraordinary accuracy with which each part of the paper was worked. There was hardly an instance of a course being wrongly corrected, or of a bearing being incorrectly plotted on the chart, or of corrections to declinations, etc., being applied the wrong way; (3) the commendable neatness and methodical arrangement of the work in almost every paper sent in. As far as is possible to
    1708
    judge, the methods employed appeared to be intelligently understood, and gave evidence of having been learnt from practical observations. I can only add that I consider the standard reached is higher than that of the average class of acting sub-lieutenants, in the same work, when passing for the rank of lieutenant."
    He thought he had given sufficient ground for support of the Government in refusing to admit an inquiry into the system. An inquiry could only mean a vote of want of confidence in the Board of Admiralty. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] He would tell them why. The Board of Admiralty consisted, in addition to the First Lord, of four Sea Lords, who were selected from admirals with great sea experience—the best men whom the Government of the day could choose for the work of giving scientific, expert advice on all questions connected with the Navy. The Sea Lords advised a certain course on a subject directly within their province. They were responsible for the education of the officers. Having given their advice, and Parliament having acted on their advice, it surely implied a vote of censure if their expert opinion was disregarded and an inquiry now asked for to go into the working of the system. The Board of Admiralty were making from day to day, close investigation into the whole of the system. The Board alone were the proper authority to inquire, so long as the House had confidence in the Board, and if there was not that confidence the right method to follow was not to inquire into the working of any particular point, but to overthrow the Board. So long as the present Board remained the Admiralty, they were not willing to accept inquiry into their work.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Are we never to have an inquiry?
    MR. MCKENNAsaid the Board of Admiralty were constantly instituting inquiries into the working of the system. Although the present proposal took a specious form, he hoped the Committee would understand that it meant an expression of want of confidence in the Board of Admiralty. [Cries of "No, no."] The present Board could not accept the proposal as being anything but an expression of want of confidence in

    1709
    them. As the late Prime Minister had been quoted as an authority in support of the Motion of the hon. Member, he would remind the Committee that the late Prime Minister, after experience, accepted the system, and when asked the specific question declined to grant an inquiry; therefore, his name could not be used as that of an authority in support of the Motion for inquiry. He passed from that specific point to the question of the engine-room artificers. It had been assumed that the reason for the introduction of mechanician rating was to get rid of the influence of trade unions, but he assured his hon. friend that there was no idea of the kind at the Admiralty.
    MR. BARNESsaid he had made no such imputation; he quoted an opinion expressed last year in the House by a Member who was now serving in His Majesty's Navy.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid he knew that his hon. friend quoted the dictum of a former Member, but he understood him in quoting to indicate that that was probably the case. If so, he could assure his hon. friend that there was no ground for such a suspicion. The introduction of boy artificers was to meet a difficulty found in enlisting fully-trained engine-room artificers, to secure a certainty of supply. A constant supply was an imperative necessity, there must be no risk of running short in time of need. This was the sole reason for training boy artificers as they did. Engine-room artificers were still enlisted from outside, because only two-thirds of the supply could be obtained by training the boys. Both his hon. friends had been led into serious misapprehension as to the new rating of mechanicians. The mechanician was not a mechanic, nor was he trained as a mechanic; it was not necessary he should be.
    MR. CROOKS: All name and no qualification.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid that no doubt his hon. friend was familiar with the subject. The engine-room artificer was enlisted primarily for repairs of the engines on the ship, and he had the artisan's qualification for the work, and when he got on
    1710
    board he began to learn a new trade, engine-driving and watching. What was now proposed was to confine the engine-room artificer to those duties for which he was engaged, to keep him to the duty of repairs for which he was trained and qualified. It was in pursuance of a policy of efficiency and economy the Admiralty conceived that they should get a greater portion of the repairs done at sea, but if the engine-room artificer was taken off to work at engine-driving and watch-keeping he was taken away from his proper work. So the new rating of mechanicians was started; it did not supplant the engine-room artificer, and when his hon. friend talked about three classes of artificers to do the same job he was using language without meaning. Boy artificers were trained on board ship to become engine-room artificers, and were taken from the same social class as engine-room artificers. The mechanician did not do the same work, he started his career as a stoker. There were 30,000 stokers in the service, and until the new system was introduced the stoker had no prospect of improvement. During previous debates on the subject there was shown a unanimity of opinion that something should be done for the stokers. [An HON. MEMBER on the LABOUR Benches: Increase their wages.] Whatever had been proposed, a reason had been found against it. What the Admiralty had done was this. They had taken the most promising stokers between the ages of twenty-eight and thirty-two—probably the ages ultimately would be between twenty-five and thirty—and had given them slight training—not that of a skilled artisan—in mechanical work to enable them to understand the general run of an engine they would be called upon to drive, also some additional education in the elements of general knowledge, in the hope that hereafter they would rise to the rank of warrant officers, a position in which it was desirable a man should have some smattering of general education. After two years' training, which would not cost the enormous sum suggested, but £27 a year, £54 in all, the mechanician or stoker selected to become mechanician, if he passed a qualifying examination, would act as a mechanician, and carry on engine-driving and watch-keeping. He would not supplant the

    1711
    engine-room artificer in any of the duties the latter was trained to perform, he would only undertake, duties the engine-room artificer himself learned only since he entered the Navy. The Admiralty were not bringing trained men at the public expense to supplant engine-room artificers specially qualified for the work for which they were enlisted; they were offering to stokers the opportunity for advancing to the rank of warrant officers. Every engine-room artificer in the Navy would continue to have exactly the same opportunity for advancement as heretofore, and 30,000 stokers would have the opportunity of rising and finding a remedy for their grievances. He had not the total number of mechanicians with him, but it would be between 5 per cent, and 10 per cent. It would not be more than 10 per cent. That had been the reason for this change, and he hoped the Committee would agree with him that much of the criticism that had been directed against it had been founded on a mistake as to what the system was found to be. Both his hon. friends had instanced the accident on board the "Irresistible" as an example of the calamities that would occur if men who had been trained as stokers, now in the new mechanician rating, were to be allowed to touch the engines. The Committee would be surprised to hear that that accident was not due to the mechanician. It was the officer in charge who was in fault. There had been an inquiry into the accident and the mechanician had been freed from all blame. It was not fair that whenever an accident occurred hon. Members should immediately turn all the evidence that arose out of the inquiry into an argument against a particular system when the system had nothing to do with the accident. He had now dealt with all the points that had been raised. His hon. friend the Financial Secretary would deal with any others that might arise later in the debate, but he thought it desirable to get up when he did in order to put right the serious misconception in the minds of the Committee as to the extent and purposes of this scheme. He hoped now the Committee would be prepared to endorse the policy of the Admiralty on the scheme.
    MR. C. DUNCAN (Barrow-in-Furness)pointed out that although it was quite true that the stokers desired advancement they did not ask for that kind of advancement which the Admiralty had given them. What the stokers asked for was more pay, and if the Admiralty would consider the matter as they should do, in the same way as an ordinary employer considered the grievances put before him by his employees, he thought the situation might be eased very considerably. It was with great delight that he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who was a most able man, but what had been evidenced to him in the discussion, and always was evidenced on these occasions when naval questions were being discussed in that Assembly, was that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in office knew very little about the business, and failed to notice the niceties of the question. Hon. and right hon. Members who took part in the discussion seemed to forget that there was such a thing as the mercantile marine. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt very skilfully with, the question of the promotion of the stokers and had told the Committee that the engine-room artificers were not to be interfered with at all. That statement only indicated that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the matter at all, because so soon as the stoker was promoted to mechanician rank and took over watch-keeping duty, directly he started out on his first watch he became the superior officer to the artificer engineer.
    MR. MCKENNA: No, we shall keep the proportion of officers. As many men will become officers under the new system as there were before.
    MR. C. DUNCANsaid that that did not get rid of the difficulty that as soon as the mechanician took up his first watch, so soon he became the superior officer of the watch. The artificers were properly qualified men, as was admitted on all sides, but if the stoker was keeping watch, if something went wrong with the engines, it was then the business of the stoker to direct the properly qualified artificer to go and do the repairs that might be

    1713
    necessary. If that was the position, what was done was to take a man from a lower rank, give him special training, and put him above a man who was himself specially trained in the business, and that seemed to him to be the wrong way to go about the matter. The fact that there was a mercantile marine had been forgotten. If it was reasonable to compare the position of those who drove the engines of the ships of the mercantile marine and those who drove the engines of the ships in the Navy, one would assume that in the Navy men with higher capacity and ability would be required because of the need of them there. But in the mercantile marine the men who drove the engines from those of the smallest to those of the largest ships were men who had to qualify at the Board of Trade to obtain their certificates as first, second, or third class engineers. Those men were all drawn from those who served their time in the engineering shops. They were exactly the same kind of men who went into the Navy as artificers. But to-day the man who joined the mercantile marine from the engineering ranks had an excellent opening given to him. There were thousands driving engines to-day, the engines of the largest vessels afloat, and if those men were qualified to take high positions with large powers of control over large bodies of men, why were the same class of men going to be degraded in the Navy? He had no objection to the stokers being advanced, but he certainly objected to the men turned out of the engineering shops of the country into the Navy being degraded. However clever the argument might be, there was no getting away from the fact that the same kind of men in the mercantile marine had splendid positions open to them, whilst in the Navy they were faced with the fact that as soon as the stoker was advanced to the rank of mechanician, he was the superior officer and took charge of the artificer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that for the accident on board the "Irresistible" the mechanician was not to blame, but his information was that the cause of the accident was that a mechanician was put in charge of some machinery; that he opened some valve under the water line, the water came in and flooded the ship, which had to be
    1714
    towed into dock. That was a magnificent start. For the first time they had been told there was a scarcity of men to take artificers' positions. That was certainly news to them. They knew, at any rate, that the test imposed on artificers joining the Navy was a very high and severe one considering the young age these men were required to join. Nothing like reasonable inducements were offered to these men. If there were, the Government would be able to command a larger number of men for the naval service than the mercantile marine commanded. But if all the advantages were with the mercantile marine, and all the disadvantages with the Navy, the Navy would not get the men. A good deal had been said as to the cost of training a mechanician; his information was to be taught for two years and that the average cost would be £140 per annum. One of the arguments used against them was that watch-keeping and the use of tools could not be performed concurrently. There was a very obvious answer, that they could not repair an engine while it was running. That the use of tools and the working of the engine-room could not be done concurrently was obvious; but the man who had been trained in the building of engines and who had varied experience of all classes of work, was surely the likeliest man to know, when the engine was working, whether anything was wrong. Not an engineer of experience, not a single individual who had followed the engineering trade, and had experience of the making, fitting, and driving of these engines, but was familiar not only with the outside of the engine but the inside as well. He was the man of all men who could tell at a glance what part of the engine was going wrong by the slightest indication, or by the slightest unusual sound. Therefore, the artificer engineers surely had a better claim to consideration than they seemed to be receiving under this scheme. It seemed to them that these men, instead of being degraded, should be given a chance of promotion. They had been told by a speaker last year—it was blurted out perhaps in an unconscious fashion—that the idea was to punish these men because they were in contact with trade unions. But that ought to be received as one of first evidences of some small degree of

    1715
    common sense. These men were engaged in a trade where at any time they might sustain injuries and be incapacitated for work, and it was some evidence of their judgment and common sense that they made provision for themselves by joining a trade union. At any rate, they had heard a good deal of talk in that House about the value of thrift. He hoped that the inquiry they were asking for would be granted. They had been told by the First Lord that it would be practically a vote of censure on those who had control of the Navy. They had no desire to censure anybody, whatever the position might be. But the Lords of the Admiralty were not almighty and infallible, and they should not be above advice when they realised that the whole of the new system complained of had been brought into existence after an inquiry in which only five persons were witnesses. He had read the whole of their evidence, and he had gone into the case carefully. One of the five who gave evidence was diametrically opposed to the scheme as it stood. Therefore, it seemed to him that the whole scheme was based on the flimsiest ground imaginable. It was against all engineering practice, and it was fair and reasonable to say that before the scheme was allowed to go any further, there was substantial ground for some inquiry being made into the subject with a view to minimising any difficulties that might exist. With regard to the stokers, they were not averse to helping them; indeed, they were desirous of helping them to the best of their ability. They had endeavoured to ascertain what the stokers wanted. They had been told that the stoker desired an increase of pay and a position which would in no way interfere with the work done by the engine-room artificers. Therefore, they asked that there should be an inquiry before this scheme was pressed forward to its ultimate conclusion, and before the engine-room artificers were wiped out of the Navy, because whatever civil answers in eloquent and pleasing language were given, there was no doubt among the engine-room artificers themselves that this scheme was brought in to displace them—he meant those men who had been trained in the workshop life of the country. Those
    1716
    who were conversant with engineering matters knew that all the inventions and improvements which had taken place were the result of civilian effort; and it seemed to him that to block out absolutely from the Navy the men who had workshop experience, and were familiar with various kinds of mechanical appliances and different descriptions of engines, was taking a step in the wrong direction. He submitted that there was at least a case for inquiry. There was no complaint against these men as to the way in which they discharged their duties, and it was very hard that, having under the system which came into operation in 1868, gained promotion step by step to higher positions, they were now to see the whole thing go by the board. It was unfair and unjust, and so far as he was concerned, if his hon. friend went to a division he should certainly go into the lobby with him.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that he could not, like the hon. Member who had just sat down, speak with an intimate knowledge of the engineering trade, but he thought the hon. Gentleman had rather too readily ruled the First Lord and civilians like himself out of court by saying that they were wholly unacquainted with the technicalities of that trade.
    MR. C. DUNCANsaid he had read the whole of the speeches on this question delivered in 1903, and that was the thing which had struck him more than anything.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was not disputing the hon. Member's view that he was personally better acquainted with his own trade. But, after all, there were other large spheres of operation with which people might be familiar, even though not engaged in the special industry such as the hon. Gentleman spoke of. Among them, he thought, was this great instrument of the Navy. He had had a great deal to do with it in his day. He had been in the stoke-hold of nearly every class of ship in the Navy; he had been in the engine-room; and he had been in communication with officers and men of every rank and class in the Navy for twenty-five years; and perhaps the hon

    1717
    Gentleman would do him the same courtesy as he had extended to him and would not say, when he spoke of the Navy, that he was ruled out because he had no acquaintance with, the Navy. He had made it his special study. He could not help feeling that there had been too much tendency in this very important discussion to treat the Navy as if it were an institution created and sustained merely for the purpose of giving employment to certain classes of persons. That was not so. The Navy, primarily and above all, was an instrument for conducting war effectively when this country was engaged in hostilities. He did not differ by one jot from what the hon. Member for Blackfriars had said about getting the sympathy and cooperation of every class in working that great instrument. He had done what he could to familiarise people with the idea, both in regard to the Army and the Navy, that we might draw on wider classes than we had done hitherto, in order to bring them into this fascinating circle of the services. He believed that that was for the good of the country, but it should not be carried too far. In order to give a particular application to that principle, they must not forget the purposes for which the Navy was intended, and that was a principle which the hon. Member who had just spoken had certainly forgotten. Might he point out that the Board of Admiralty of which he was a member was certainly responsible for a great deal that had been under discussion that night. He could assure the hon. Member who had criticised them, that these conclusions were not arrived at without very grave consideration. He had certainly watched with the greatest possible care, both afloat and on shore, the development of these changes, and his own opinion, if it was of any value at all, had been expressed by the First Lord of the Admiralty that night, namely, that these changes so far had been very beneficial to the Navy as a fighting machine. He believed that the First Lord of the Admiralty was absolutely correct in saying that they were now opening more widely the entrance to the Navy than they had ever done before. He did not believe that it was possible to realise he whole desire of the hon. Member for
    1718
    Blackfriars. There must be certain qualifications for officers either of the Army or Navy, and unless the candidates possessed those qualifications, the mere fact of their belonging to a particular class ought not to be cited in their favour. This very difficulty had occurred in the United States, a democratic country where the entrance of cadets into the Navy was made by senatorial nomination. Was it suggested as a really good democratic plan that the cadets of the Royal Navy should be nominated by Members of that House? He did not think so. He thought they would find a recurrence of evils which had long since vanished, and that they would do no good to the Navy. He did not say that it was not possible to modify the present system, but he thought it was working exceedingly well, and was generally admitted to be a great success. Let it not be supposed for one moment that the question of cost was one operating in the matter at all. He knew the estimated cost was a very great exaggeration to the extent of some 50 per cent. But if the House of Commons desired the whole question of the cost could be eliminated altogether. The payment that fell on the parent was an almost insignificant fraction of the whole cost to the State of the education, and he did not think the question of cost stood in the way at all. The education that was given was very different from that suggested by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He said they were depriving the country of the enormous advantage of getting boys from the public schools.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I merely said that under this scheme as regards the executive, engineers and marines you are divorcing the Navy altogether from the technological schools, the public schools and the grammar schools.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he accepted the alteration, but if they were doing that they were doing a great service, because he was certain the education these boys were getting was incomparably better and cheaper than anything they could get in the institutions of which the hon. Member had spoken. Then there was another misrepresentation. It had been said

    1719
    that there was to be Intelchangeability, but he did not think so. There was to be common entry, common training, and specialisation, but that was a very different thing from interchange. He was surprised when the hon. Member for Blackfriars told them that by introducing this system and effecting common entry they were inflicting injustice upon some section of the community whose spokesman he constituted himself, and he was more surprised when the hon. Member told them that there was no demand on the part of engineer officers for executive rank. That seemed to him to be very far from what was common knowledge. He remembered very well indeed the genesis of this change and the state of things with which they were then confronted. It was the fact that engineer officers could not enter into the fruition of their position of officers in the Navy, and that the privileges, and rewards, and distinction which ought to be open to every commissioned officer, were closed to the engineer officer, and it was quite easy to see how they were closed. There were some 400 ships in commission, in every one of which there was a captain or commander, lieutenants and engineer officers, and the engineer officers used to number five or six. As long as they remained in the rank of lieutenant, or even commander, promotion was comparatively proportionate to the number of entries, but the moment they reached the neck of the bottle, as it were, and got to the important position of post-captain, promotion was to all intents and purposes closed to the whole of the engineering branch of the Navy. As a proof of it they found there was only one single engineer officer holding the rank of rear admiral in the whole Navy. That was the grievance. What happened was that all over the country great engineering institutions were becoming the centre of attraction for these engineer officers. He blamed nobody. It was the natural outcome of the situation. But the claims of the engineer officers were being taken up by associations which were not part of the Navy, because their natural ambitions were closed to them, and they could not look to the Navy for their rewards. It was to change that situa-
    1720
    tion to give that avenue of promotion' and that legitimate outlet to a man's ambitions, that common entry, which he believed at that time was universally approved by the House of Commons, was introduced into the Navy. He believed it would be a positive misfortune if for any reason they were to go back on that arrangement now. The hon. Member for Blackfriars was mistaken if he supposed that the duty of the engineer officer was limited to engine-room watch-keeping. It was part of the new scheme, and a very important part, that the number of commissioned engineers borne on the ship should be reduced and their watch-keeping duties reduced at the same time. Let the Committee remember what the engineering officer had to do. On a ship like the "Dreadnought" there were fifty or sixty high-pressure steam-engines, there were electric engines, and compressed-air engines, besides all the mechanism of the ship, which had to be under the control of highly-trained engineers. That gave an enormous scope for men of the very highest qualifications, and unless they allowed the engineer officers to pass on to positions in which they could effectively control those services they were not only doing them an injustice, but injuring the welfare of the Navy and the safety of the ships. He sympathised a good deal with what had been said by the hon. Member for Blackfriars, but he was surprised at the hon. Member for Barrow, who had said they were degrading one class of men by making them serve under men of superior rank in another trade. That was an absolutely new theory to him. The carpenter, for instance, went into a training ship at twelve or fifteen, got promoted to the carpenter's crew, and when he got warrant rank no man thought of disputing his authority over those of less rank than himself. It was the same story with the gunner, and nobody asked him whether the profession of carpenter was superior in the social scale to that of gunner; they asked what was the warrant he held under the King in the Navy. That was one of the most flagrant claims for social privilege he had ever heard put forward.
    MR. C. DUNCANsaid that what he was trying to point out was that if they specially trained a stoker, they did not degrade the artificer engineer by putting this man over him, but they did degrade the artificer engineer, because he had no hope of promotion.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he accepted the explanation though he did not agree with it; but he must point out that the actual words of the hon. Member, however, were that the artificer would be degraded by receiving orders from a man drawn from the lowest ranks of life. The lower rank of life had nothing to do with it. The question was whether he was fit to do his duty on the ship. The hon. Member had said it was degrading the artificer because he was not receiving the promotion he would otherwise receive. That was a mistake. He had not had the time nor the opportunity of ascertaining what was going to happen. The First Lord had said more than once that there was no question of diminishing the proportion of warrants allotted to engine-room artificers. The hon. Member had said it would be a great injury to them because they were skilled in every kind of trade and had gone through the engineering shop. But that was not how things happened at all. These were young men of twenty-two and twenty-three many of whom had been gas engineers, bicycle engineers, and the like. They were not examined in engineering generally and applied science as was suggested, but only to see whether they were competent in their own trade. A man came from London who had been engaged in brazing bicycles. He was given a certain examination as to brazing, fitting, and working to gauge, and so on, and showed that he was in the opinion of the examiners competent in those trades. It did not necessarily follow that he was a competent engineer on board a complicated box of machines like a ship in the Royal Navy. From the day he went on board he was a learner—learning the whole trade of repairing and running marine engines and the immensely complicated machinery on board a ship of war. He could not help smiling at some of the statements
    1722
    to which the hon. Member, despite his engineering knowledge, had committed himself.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I smile at you just the same.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Member said they were not as wise as they ought to be, because they did not remember that they could not repair engines while they were running. He thought he was taking a little advantage of the Committee. The "Dreadnought" the other day came round from Plymouth to Portland running under the exhaust steam from her auxiliary engines only. There was plenty of work for these artificers when the main engines of the ship were not running at all, and there was always very important work to be done by the engine-room artificer whether the main engines were running or not. Let him say a word on behalf of a class whom the hon. Member treated rather cavalierly. He hoped the Committee really understood what the problem was about the stokers. They were a most admirably conducted class. They went in at an early age and went through a very onerous course of stoking. They were first trained on shore and then at sea. There were 32,000 in the Navy and the whole avenue of promotion was shut to them. The hon. Member for Barrow said they wanted more wages. He did not dispute that. He only wished that more hon. Members had seen the class of work which the stokers did, because it was very onerous indeed. Three or four years ago it was proposed to give a certain proportion of those men an opportunity of acquiring further knowledge which would enable them to take charge of engines at sea. The right hon. Gentleman had said that these men were going to be taken out of the stoke-hole and made artificers. It should not be overlooked that the qualified stoker mechanicians had to serve five years before they could attain warrant officer rank. He thought the man who had served first as stoker, then as mechanician, and, with the approval of all his superior officers, had qualified for warrant rank, was entitled to the full reward of his

    1723
    labours. He could not see what injustice that would be to any other person on board ship. He hoped the Committee would not allow themselves to be misled by what had been said by some hon. Members on this subject. He agreed with the First Lord of the Admiralty when he said that if they were going to upset the new system it was no use doing it in the way which had been suggested. They had a tremendous weapon in their hands which had served them well in the past, and those who were acquainted with the past history of the Board of the Admiralty knew what difficulties and dangers of this kind had brought to the country. He thought every hon. Member would admit that, if they wished to take any action in regard to the policy of the Board of the Admiralty, it was neither in the interests of the country or the Navy itself, nor was it consistent with the dignity of this House, that it should be done by what was in effect a vote of censure upon the Admiralty. The remedy was in their own hands. If they had not got the Board of the Admiralty that they ought to have, let them have one which would more accurately represent the opinions of hon. Members. But let not the House of Commons try to do the work of the Board of Admiralty, because so surely as Members of that House attempted to do that so surely would they fail, so surely would they exaggerate existing evils, so surely would they bring the House into contempt, and so surely would they injure the great service which stood between the country and disaster.
    MR. BEAUCHAMPsaid that nobody would gainsay the statement that the training of officers was one of the most important questions of naval administration. In time of war they would have to rely upon the personnel as well as the material. They might have the best ships which the ingenuity of the naval architect could produce. They might be armed with guns of the greatest power and precision, they might even be outrivalled by their enemy in these things, but there remained the human element which must always be one of the determining factors in war. A high state of efficiency in the personnel
    1724
    was of even greater importance than the perfection of the material. It was this consideration which led to the introduction of the new scheme. The change from sail to steam, from muzzle-loaders to breech-loaders and quick-firing guns, changes which had converted a modern warship into a huge engine room, full of complicated machinery and mechanical contrivances of all kinds, necessitated an improved and advanced education and for this the scheme provided. It was no hastily formed plan, but a matured scheme which recognised that every naval officer should have a complete knowledge of the motive powers of the ship he was called upon to handle in time of peace and would have to fight in time of war. The scheme was in its infancy and some years must elapse before they could judge whether it fulfilled all that was expected of it by its authors. Its essential principle was that all were to be taken from the same stock, and at the same age all to enter through the same door, and all to share the same training in the initial stages of their naval life. Lord Tweedmouth had said it was the intention of the present Board to give the new policy a fair trial and to wait and watch its operations and to make any changes therein that time and experience showed to be necessary. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had described the scheme in 1903 that so far from being a sudden revolution it was a gradual change which could be arrested, hastened, or altered at any point. What could a Committee of inquiry do? They would have no fresh data to go upon and they would lack the materials upon which to form a definite opinion on the merits or demerits of the scheme as a whole, and he was glad the First Lord had decided not to grant an inquiry.
    SIR IVOR HERBERTexpressed his extreme regret that the First Lord of the Admiralty had opposed an absolute non-possumus to the request for an inquiry into certain matters which had been very ably placed before the Committee. He was surprised at such an attitude from the right hon. Gentleman when he remembered the valuable service which he had rendered to the Army by calling for an inquiry at a time when he was not in a position of

    1725
    Ministerial responsibility. He could not believe that in so short a period he had altogether changed the views he then held. No one could have listened to the very able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon without realising that there were possibly points of misunderstanding which might by a little inquiry be very easily cleared up. He, therefore, hoped that before the debate terminated a wiser tone might be adopted than was to be found in the absolute refusal of inquiry with which his hon. friend's request had been met. His object in rising was to draw attention to the feeling of grievance and uneasiness which existed in a part of the Naval force of which he was able to speak from personal knowledge, having been associated with it on active service on two occasions and having had several years' association with it in time of peace—he alluded to the Royal Marines. They were seriously affected by the changes introduced into the Navy in recent years, and at the present moment they seemed to be threatened, if not with extinction, at least with that process of gradual elimination which caused very great uneasiness to all who admired efficiency. There had been many inquiries directed to the question of the way in which the Royal Marines had been affected by those changes. The hon. Member for King's Lynn last year pressed that the Minority Report of the Committee which had inquired into the working of the scheme should be laid before the House. Admiral Douglas' Committee consisted of eight Naval officers and one Marine officer. It might have been expected that the result of that Commission's inquiry would not be an unanimous Report. The Marine officer finding himself in a minority had to make a Report of his own. That Report had never been published. In his opinion and in that of persons of far greater experience than himself in regard to the Naval service it was desirable that the views of the Marine branch should be made known. When the Secretary to the Admiralty was asked a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Dulwich on 23rd May last year, the reply was that the Board had not decided whether the Minority Report
    1726
    should be published or not. He did not know whether the Committee would be informed by the present Secretary to the Admiralty that the condition of cogitation was still going on. It was highly desirable that a definite answer should be given as to whether the views of the Marine officer who sat on that important Committee would be made known or not. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division to the Memorandum published in November, 1905, which dealt at some length with the changes affecting the Royal Marines. He had read the Memorandum with great care, and could only characterise it as being of the most astounding and misleading nature he had ever read in any Bluebook. A precedent was sought for placing the Royal Marines under naval executive officers, and it was found in the eighteenth century in the appointment of two distinguished admirals to honorary positions in the corps. That could hardly form a precedent for that which was now being done. But if there was any doubt whether that precedent was a good one or not the records of the House would dispose of it, for it was in obedience to a Resolution of the House that the Lords-Commissioners of the Admiralty took into consideration a recommendation of the House of Commons in 1833 to appropriate to other purposes the sinecures which were given to the naval officers appointed to those honorary positions. It was a bad thing to quote a precedent which would not bear examination. They were told it might be necessary to make slight alterations in detail in order to adapt the naval lieutenant to the position of captain in the Royal Marines. It was considered that subaltern officers of Marines could be dispensed with, and that the duties of such officers might be carried out by warrant officers. Anybody who had had experience in military duty would deny that the duties which were legitimately placed on commissioned officers could be efficiently carried out by warrant officers. If it were otherwise, what would be the sense of promoting men from warrant rank to commission rank unless by giving that promotion they could get

    1727
    something from which the service could derive some benefit? They were informed that the naval officer qualified for military duties would be thoroughly able to undertake the duties of captain in the Royal Marines. It was not mere qualification in certain duties that was necessary in order to produce efficiency in a special arm. A high standard of efficiency depended upon the spirit and the tradition of a whole corps, and that could only exist where it was maintained by an efficient body of officers animated by the spirit and tradition. If they took away from the Royal Marines, or any other of His Majesty's armed forces, their own officers, it Would be found that there would be a sensible deterioration in the whole efficiency of the corps. They were told also that this distinguished corps, which for 200 years had been employed wherever the British flag had been seen, and which bore the most honourable record and the proudest motto in His Majesty's service, had in the past been divided up and had served in ships where there were no Marine officers. If it were Parliamentary to express his view on that statement he would like to do it, but he could not. He would only state that out of 8,500 Marines who were annually embarked on ships, one-third only were employed in ships without their own officers. Special and most stringent conditions were laid down as to the selection of these men. No man in the second class of character and conduct could be included, and if a man by some mischance fell into the second class of conduct while so employed he had to be immediately removed into a ship where there was a Marine officer. Could anything be more conclusive of the fact that the Admiralty had regarded it as one of the secrets of efficiency in the Marine Corps that there were those officers who could bring them up when the men, unfortunately, fell away from the high standard? They were told that no regimental system had existed in the Marines at all. He was proud to be able to contradict that from his own knowledge. For a whole year on active service he served side by side in the same corps with officers and men of the Royal Marines, and he had never known any corps which possessed such a
    1728
    thorough regimental system as the Royal Marines. The fact that there was uneasiness at present not only among the officers of this distinguished corps, but also in some part of the country which had for generations furnished recruits for the corps, was enough in his opinion to induce the First Lord of the Admiralty to modify the attitude which he had taken up in refusing all inquiry into this grievance. He would conclude by quoting the memorable words used by the greatest of all naval administrators, Lord St. Vincent, regarding this famous corps—
    "I never knew an appeal to them for honour, courage, or loyalty that they did not more than realise my highest expectation. If ever any hour of real danger should come to England, the Royal Marines will be found the country's sheet anchor."
    He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to some inquiry, at any rate, with regard to the effect of recent changes upon this important branch of His Majesty's Service.
    MR. CROYDON MARKSsaid that engineers who wished to enter His Majesty's Naval Service only desired that they should be allowed to continue to train themselves at their own expense, instead of being trained in the dockyards and on board men-of-war at the public expense. Engineers who had trained themselves to a high state of efficiency felt that they were being ignored and superseded ay others of less knowledge than themselves, who were placed in authority over them. He contended that an engineer joining the Royal Navy should not find that he had joined a branch of the Service which was regarded as inferior. Out of every eight officers in the British Navy three must be engineers. At Dartmouth not one in ten cadets desired to become an engineer. That being the case, it was absurd to attempt to make specialists by compulsion rather than by choice. They could not get men to do their duty properly and efficiently simply because it was the work of their life. Naturally, an engineer did not want to be anything but an engineer, and all he objected to was having another officer, of whom I knew nothing, placed over his men. Under the present entry men who had

    1729
    specialised at the age of twenty-one would be placed in charge of the engine room over men who had a highly finished training and great practical experience as engineers. Under the existing system engineers outside the Service felt that the door of entry to the Royal Navy was absolutely closed against them, that the expense of training was too great, and that the Admiralty drew their engineers from a different class of society than formerly for this important branch of the Service. It was all very well to speak of £75 a year as being a paltry sum; but that meant all the difference between comfort and discomfort in the homes from which the best engineers in the past had been drawn. Then, it must not be forgotten that engineering was not a stationary science. A few years ago there was nothing but the long cylinder boilers. These had given place to tubular boilers, and high pressure expansion engines had given place to turbines. He believed that the time was coming when gas would be the motive power, and the man who had specialised ten years before by compulsion would be out of it. They must have engineers who would appreciate the future as well as the past, and not those who would be continually looking forward to the time when they would get on deck for promotion. In regard to the mechanicians, he did not believe that the stokers desired to be drawn into that particular class. He knew that complaints were made from both branches of the Service in regard to that. Stokers up to twenty-six and a half years of age were put to work they knew nothing about, and after three months filing, drilling, and chipping they were supposed to have learned a trade, which otherwise would have required a training for a period of six and three-quarter years, in order that they might subsequently take charge of the engine-room in place of men who had come into the Service from the outside, and who had been trained at their own cost and not at the expense of the country. A man who had been taken out of the stoke-hole and put into the engine-room as a mechanician had not had the fundamental training which would give him an aptitude for engineering
    1730
    work. The best engineer in the merchant service was not the man who was alleged to be capable of repairing engines, but the man who would take care that repairs were not necessary. He knew what to do to avoid the trouble of repairs; and a similar class of men in the Royal Navy would save the country large sums of money. If any hon. Member desired that an inquiry should be made it ought not to be held that he wished to be a censor of the Board of Admiralty. He took it that the Board of Admiralty were the servants of the country. He spoke on this subject as knowing the opinion of the whole engineering profession; and they were absolutely opposed to what had been done. If he were to decline to ask for an inquiry lest it should be said that he was disloyal to the Government, then, he contended, he would rather be disloyal to the Government than to his convictions as an engineer. He hoped his hon. friend would press for an inquiry without any fear as to whether they were going to offend anyone in high position at the Admiralty. He hoped that the First Lord would see his way, through the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, to make some suggestion which would go some way towards a recognition that there was a great grievance at the present time in the engine-room. It must be remembered that the engine-room was the vital part of the ship and that there were 32,000 men in the stoke-holes of the Navy who were seeking promotion. They had been told that a good many had got it; but all that that amounted to was that 100 per annum were made into mechanicians. That was not the kind of promotion they desired, because there were other duties which they could well perform without being taught a new trade. He therefore suggested that the First Lord should give way or speak in a more conciliatory tone than he had adopted at the beginning of the debate.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. MACNAMARA,)said he must congratulate the mover and seconder of the reduction on the great good temper and moderation displayed in their speeches. Further, he was

    1731
    quite sure that the whole desire of the Committee in these discussions was to protect the great Service upon which, in the main, the safety and well-being of these realms depended. The problem of the entry and training of the naval officer had been a matter of the closest consideration for many years past, and it would not be fair to say that any change had been sudden, although it might in its nature be revolutionary. A Committee under Admiral Shadwell sat in 1870; another, of which Admiral Rice was Chairman, sat in 1875; a third, of which Mr. Gordon was Chairman, sat in 1877; and a fourth, under Admiral Luard, sat in 1886. Anyone who read the Reports of these Committees must be struck by the extent to which all these Committees had foreshadowed in general terms the scheme which was now, as the result of Lord Selborne's Committee's Report in 1902, the scheme in being. Admiral Luard's Committee raised the age of entry from between twelve and thirteen and a half years of age, to between thirteen and fourteen and a half. Then came the changes introduced by Lord Goschen in 1896–97. He made a very considerable change in the age of training, probably not from any scientific or academic reason, but Largely because of the shortage of the men on the lieutenants' list which war; inadequate for the necessities of the rapidly increasing fleet. Something had to be done to shorten up the time from entry as cadet to sub-lieutenant. The changes made were—the age of entry was raised to between fourteen and fifteen and a half; the "Britannia" course was shortened from two years to one year and four months; the period of service afloat as cadet was reduced from twelve months to eight months, and the period of service afloat as midshipman was reduced from three and a half years to three years. Then came Lord Selborne's great scheme which was launched in December, 1902. The genius of Lord Selborne's scheme was the principle of common early entry and common early training for all naval officers. Prior to that three classes of Executives, Engineers, and Marines had entered on totally different conditions and at different ages, and had been
    1732
    trained on wholly different lines. From 1903 onwards all were taken from the same stock, at the same age, and all entered through the same door and received the same training in the initial stages of their naval life. In his celebrated memorandum of December, 1902, Lord Selborne, said—
    "In the old days it sufficed if a naval officer was a seaman. Mow, he must be a seaman, a gunner, a soldier and a man of science as well. It is not only that machinery driven by electric, hydraulic, or steam power is every year becoming more complicated in character and multiplying in form, and that therefore a more extensive education in applied science is necessary for specialised officers, but in various ways the need of a more general scientific training has become apparent."
    The right hon. Gentleman the first Lord had told the Committee what happened. Entries took place three times a year, anybody could apply, the boys went before the Interview Committee armed with reports from school, and after passing a qualifying educational and medical examination the first Lord selected the number needed from a list of those who had been most successful. Perhaps he ought to add that thirteen nominations annually were placed at the disposal of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Interview Committee consisted of a flag officer, an experienced schoolmaster, a second naval officer either of flag rank or a post-captain with some experience of training work, and a representative of the first Lord. He would like to quote just two extracts from many eulogistic reports of civil members whose opinions would have weight with the Committee. There was boundless testimony from several members as to the adequacy of this system for getting at the natural capacity of the boy. Canon Lyttelton said—
    "I have no doubt that for estimating the all-round powers of a boy this informal conversation, coupled with the paper test after-wards and the time at Osborne, affords the best method of examination yet devised in England; it is greatly to be desired that the entrance to the Army should be regulated on similar lines."
    Mr. Arthur Acland, Vice-President of the Council of Education in 1892–95 said—
    "The plan that has been adopted at the Admiralty with regard to those boys who wob/ to become naval cadets appears to me, after having taken my share in interviewing boys, to be a complete success for the purposes that you have in view."

    1733
    He was a most profound believer in this system of selection. It killed the crammer and they got at the real native capacity of the boy by this system far better than by a month of written examinations. He saw the system at work on 15th June, and as an old schoolmaster with thirty years teaching experience behind him he was very greatly impressed. He most cordially endorsed this system of selecting the boys if it was desired to get at the truth of their real native capacity.
    MR. BELLAIRSasked how long these boys were before the Committee, was it about twenty minutes, and what was the percentage of the rejections. Was it about 60 per cent.?
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid that while he was there the boys were before the Interview Committee fifteen or twenty minutes. What the percentage of rejections was he did not know. The boys selected then went to Osborne for two years, and then they went down to Dartmouth for two years. During this time the weeding-out process was continued, so that only the very best were taken for the Navy. He might shortly say that 30 per cent. of the time was devoted to engineering, 50 per cent, to mathematics and general subjects, and 20 per cent, to executive seamanship. For the last eight months of that time they went on a training cruiser, where their education in applied science, engineering, navigation, and seamanship, was continued under conditions that made it more directly professional; they also learned something of gunnery and torpedo, and of the general duties of a Naval officer. The system was now in full working order, there were 900 cadets in two colleges, and two training cruisers, the "Cumberland" and the "Cornwall." At the end of the cruise a final passing out examination was held which determined the place of the cadet on the Navy list. They were then rated midshipmen and distributed to sea-going ships for three years sea service. The first batch of cadets trained in this way passed into the fleet in May of this year as midshipmen. It would be observed that he cadets passed into the Navy at seventeen and a half years of age. With regard
    1734
    to the cost to the parents, it would probably be of interest to hon. Members who had raised this question if he now compared the cost of the new system with that of the old. Under the new system a boy entered between the ages of twelve years and eight months and thirteen. He served four years at the college, two-thirds of a year in the training cruiser, and slightly over three years as a midshipman. The fees payable were £75 for the first four years and £50 for the remainder. If he added to the fees of the four years at the colleges £35 or £40 a year on account of railway expenses, outfit, holiday expenses, subscriptions to sports fund, payments for washing, etc., they would be fairly within the mark. Therefore, up to the close of the midshipman's career the parent would get oft with an aggregate of from £600 to £650. But the Admiralty reserved the power of selecting from the cadets seeking entry a limited number of boys who were admitted at £40 a year, they being the sons of officers of the Navy, Army, or Marines, or of civil officers under the Admiralty. But he had looked into that matter and he found that out of each entry of sixty-five to seventy boys the number who entered at £40 a year were only three or four. Under the old system, the old executive officer entered at the age of from fourteen and a half to fifteen and a half years. The training consisted of one year on the "Britannia" one-third of a year on the training cruiser, and three and one-third years as a midshipman, four years and eight months in all. The fees payable were £75 for the first year and one-third, and £50 a year for the remainder. If he made the same kind of calculation here as he made in the other case, he found that the parent got off, under the old system with a payment of about £300, but hon. Members would observe that he had to maintain the boy himself for something like two years, which would represent the period which he would now spend at Osborne, and he would pay a considerable fee for the boy to be crammed. So that after all, the present system was probably no dearer than the old, so far as that class of officer was concerned. With regard to the engineer officers under the old system, the engineer cadets entered

    1735
    between fourteen and a half and sixteen and a half years of a They spent five years at Keyham at an annual fee of £40 a year, that gave an aggregate fee of £200. If he applied the same method of calculation, and added £25 a year for other charges, the parent had to pay between £325 and £350; but here again he had to maintain the boy for two years, a time which he would now, under this system, spend at Osborne. Then there was the case of the Marine officer.
    MR. BARNES: You have forgotten the man who had gone in through the dockyard school.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had not forgotten, but he proposed to deal with that point a little later on. Coming next to the question of the Marine officers, the Royal Marine Artillery officer under the old system entered for that service between sixteen and eighteen years of age and spent two years at Greenwich, no fees being payable on his account. The Royal Marine Light Infantry officer came into the service at from seventeen to nineteen years of age, spending one year at Greenwich where no fees were payable. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Monmouthshire was under a misapprehension as to the Minority Report of the Admiral Douglas Committee's not being published. That Report was published three years ago. He was very keen that this fine force of which he and everybody else was very proud should not be abolished, and he certainly hoped that they would not with their fine record behind them, a record which included gallant services in the tribal wars, the Crimea, the Indian Mutiny, Graspan, and the Modder River. The total cost to the State, taking out the parents' contributions, and the pay and naval rating of those who were liable to mobilisation, was £126 for the boy at Osborne, and £115 per boy at Dartmouth. The total cost to the State was £95,000, to the parents, £56,000, and to naval rating and pay, £25,000, making a total of £175,000 or £225 per boy while they were at these colleges. He had seen the scheme at work at Osborne and at Dartmouth, and was enthusiastic admirer of it, but he
    1736
    did not deny that it had a weak place. It was weak in one point, and that was whether the area of selection was not restricted unnecessarily. But that was no new feature, it had always been characteristic of the system. Theoretically, anybody could apply; in practice the applications were severely restricted by the fairly heavy financial obligations. It was no new feature, so far as this scheme was concerned. The Navy had been called in the past the poor man's service. There was nothing in that service corresponding to the "crack" regiments in the Army, and he hoped there never would be. It was, no doubt, the fact that Lord Nelson was the son of a Norfolk parson, and was one of eleven children, so that in these days, and under this system, he probably could never have become a cadet at Osborne. It was a serious question for consideration whether or not the net might be cast wider, and it would ill become him, who had himself risen from the ranks, if he were not anxious to see something done in a matter of this sort. This splendid part of the service, however, was so well trained and so well equipped for the work it had to do that he did not mind admitting that, though he had the most pronounced democratic tendencies, he would not touch it except with the profoundest possible care, lest he might do something to injure it. At any rate, he thought it was a matter for consideration whether they might not be able to widen the entry by a reduction of fees, or by some scholarship scheme, or whether they might not sweep away the school fees altogether in order to put the thing on a broad and general basis. That was no doubt a matter for serious consideration. There was a feature of this scheme which he admitted could only be tested as the result of actual experience. It had been mentioned again that afternoon by several hon. Gentlemen. The question was whether a system of common training did not sacrifice high specialisation, particularly as far as the engineers were concerned, Some confusion of thought, he believed, lad arisen from the use of that blessed word "interchangeability." There was here no interchangeability of particular

    1737
    functions. There was a high specialisation with a faculty to assume executive control such as he thought we must have in these days of complicated machinery. He did not think his hon. friend the Member for Blackfriars was right when he said the Naval officer of the future would be a jack-of-all-trades and master of none. What he himself thought about the Naval officer of the future was that he would know something about everything and everything about something. But in any case, whatever might be the future of this great scheme, to which so much interest was attached, and which was watched with so much anxiety, the Admiralty on 1st May issued a general circular, in which they stated that—
    " The details of the scheme would be subject to revision as experience might show to be necessary."
    He need not deal with the subject of the boy mechanician or the boy artificer The First Lord had fully gone into them. There was one point with regard to the mechanicians, and that was the case put forward by the hon. Member for Barrow in regard to the unfortunate occurrence on board the "Irresistible." The hon. Gentleman's contention was that a mechanician had been put to open a valve which ought to have been opened by an engine-room artificer, with the result that the place was flooded. The hon. Member put the case as evidence of the Admiralty's desire to elbow out the engine-room artificer and put in the mechanician. The mechanician was specially trained to watch and to drive engines, and that set the artificer free for his highly-skilled tool work. In the particular case of the "Irresistible" it was not true to say that nobody but an engine-room artificer should have opened the valve. Anybody who had any association with that work, either a first or second class stoker, might have been put to do it, subject to proper supervision, and to its being seen that the other valves were properly closed. The difficulty arose, not because of the particular man put on to open the valve, but because they were slack in their organisation, and because there was not efficient care in regard to the operations, which required that other valves under the surface of the water should be kept
    1738
    closed. That was no evidence of the truth of the contention that the artificer was being supplanted by the mechanician. The report of the inquiry set forth that those responsible for the operations had shown carelessness, that there was not the right organisation, that there was slackness, and those responsible would be dealt with accordingly. He thought he had now made it quite clear that they were not putting the mechanician to do the engine-room artificer's work, as his hon. friend seemed to put it. That was not the case at all. He hoped that after these explanations, and having covered the points which had arisen since the First Lord had addressed the Committee, they would now proceed to give them Vote 5.
    MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that that was one of the occasions when the Members of both front benches were agreed, although the hon. Member for King's Lynn thought that that was necessarily a nefarious state of affairs. There was only one point in connection with what the hon. Member had said on which he would like to make an observation. He thought that the most serious criticism made at all that clay with reference to the scheme was that the area from which selection was made was somewhat narrow, and that the sons of the working classes were in many cases shut out. Therefore, he welcomed the hope which the hon. Gentleman had thrown out that by some system of reducing the expenses it might be possible for a limited number of entries to be made where the financial qualifications would not be a serious hindrance. He hoped that the First Lord might be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what was necessary in the matter, and if he did he was sure that he would get some support from that side of the House. In answer to the hon. Member who had moved the reduction, it had been stated that it could be told from the reports that this scheme was working admirably, and he did not think that it was too much to ask that they should not tear it up by the roots after it had been only five years in operation. He hoped that it was not intended o thrust the demand too far for an alteration of the scheme, which was

    1739
    approved of by almost every authority that he had consulted. If the hon. Gentleman forced this reduction to a division, he should feel it his duty to support the Government.
    MR. R. DUNCANsaid he desired to support the Motion for reduction, but not without some words of explanation of his reasons. Anyone who would weaken the system of discipline in the Navy, our first line of defence, would deserve the censure of that House, and of the whole nation, but in this matter he confessed to a prejudice in favour of his own trade. Once an engineer, always an engineer. Where he believed there was a real and legitimate root of discontent in regard to the present system of promotion, was the feeling of the engineers that the stokers, who were in fact a lower grade of their own profession, were being promoted over the heads of their superiors. The case did not at all resemble the promotion
    of members of another and a distinct skilled trade, such as the carpenters. All on that side of the House, and also the most respected occupants of the front Government bench, were working steadily for the decasualising of labour. That process, the organising of labour, necessarily involved a certain amount of discipline and recognition of ranks in the trades concerned. The naval authorities should not, without strong reasons, do anything to destroy that sense and system. For this reason he supported the hon. Member for Black-friars, but at the same time he must repeat the caution against any weakening of the absolutely necessary discipline of the Navy. There should, in his opinion, be an engineer member of the selecting or interviewing committee.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes, 205. (Division List No. 180.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Hodge, John

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hogan, Michael

    Richards, T F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

    Barnes, G. N.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ridsdale, E. A.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Jenkins, J.

    Rowlands, J.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Benn, Sir J Williams (Devonp'rt)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Seddon, J.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Joyce, Michael

    Shackleton, David James

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester

    Snowden, P.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.

    Stanier, Beville

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Summerbell, T.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Mac Veigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Kean, John

    Walters, John Tudor

    Crooks, William

    Marks, G Croydon (Launceston)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Dillon, John

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Williams, Col. R.(Dorset, W.)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Nannetti, Joseph P

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Fell, Arthur

    Napier, T. B.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nolan, Joseph

    Fullerton, Hugh

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLEKS TOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Gill, A. H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    George Roberts and Mr.

    Glover, Thomas

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Charles Duncan.

    Hall, Frederick

    O'Grady, J

    Halpin, J.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex F.

    Armitage, R.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Ainsworth John Stirling

    Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

    Banbury, Sir Frederick Geo

    Allen Charles P. (Stroud)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wig

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Helme, Norval Watson

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W)

    Radford, G. H.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

    Beale, W. P.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Robinson, S.

    Bell, Richard

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bennett, E. N.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Russell, T. W.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Brigg, John

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Brodie, H. C.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Scott, A. H(Ashton-under-Lyne

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Seely, Colonel

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

    Cameron, Robert

    Lamont, Norman

    Sheffield, Sir Berekley George D.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. M. H.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Lever. A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Stavelay-Hill, Henry(Staff'sh.)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lundon, W.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Macdonald, J M.((FalkirkBg'hs

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Maclean, Donald

    Strachey, Sir Edward

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

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

    M'Crae, Sir George

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Cotton. Sir H. J. S.

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cox, Harold

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

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Tomkinson, James

    Cremer, Sir William Randal

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Crossley, William J.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Toulmin, George

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Valentia, Viscount

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Massie, J.

    Vivian, Henry

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Meehan, Francis E (Leitrim, N.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Menzies, Walter

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Duckworth, James

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Waring, Walter

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

    Erskine, David C.

    Middlebrook, William

    Wason, Rt Hn. E (Clackmannan

    Essex, R. W.

    Molteno, Percy Allport

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Weir, James Galloway

    Ferens, T. R.

    Morse, L. L.

    Whitbread, Howard

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Myer, Horatio

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

    Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Norman, Sir Percy

    Williamson, A.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Gordon, J.

    Partington, Oswald

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Paulton, James Mellor

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

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Philipps, Col Ivor (S'thampton

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Gulland, John W.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Pirie, Duncan V

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

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

    Joseph Pease and Master of

    Harmsworth, R. L (Caithn' ss-sh

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk,. E)

    Elibank.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    2.£1,334,600, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.
    Mr. BRAMSDONsaid he wanted to raise question of the Greenwich age pensioners, but there were only about six minutes left and that

    1743
    was nothing like adequate for so important a subject in which so many Members were interested. He did not want to prevent the Vote being obtained, so he suggested that if his right hon. friend would receive a deputation of those Members who were interested in the subject they might have a fuller opportunity of discussing it, and he hoped they would be able to arrive at a conclusion which would be satisfactory to all parties interested.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid the Scottish Members had been promised half the evening, and he did not think it would be possible to do justice to this very important question. If hon. Members who were particularly interested would be good enough to make representations to him on a day suitable to themselves at the Admiralty he thought on the whole, on a technical subject, of this kind, they would get better results than by debating it now, and he hoped the Committee would agree to the suggestion.
    MR. BRAMSDONsaid that a great many persons throughout the country were interested in the subject, and it would be inadvisable, perhaps, to have a meeting with the First Lord unless they could do so in a public manner. Perhaps he would agree to reporters being present.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid that that also at first sight would appear to be reasonable. Perhaps his hon. friend, however, would not ask a pledge from him on that point.
    MR. JENKINSsaid that no reference whatever had been made to questions affecting petty officers, seamen or stokers. If the right hon. Gentleman would receive a deputation he would withhold his remarks.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. £ 868,800, Half-Pay and Retired Pay.
    4. £ 377,400, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
    Resolutions to be reported.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE PARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1908–9.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,998, 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, 1909, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
    SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD (Wick Burghs) moved a reduction of £100 and said that it seemed to him that the local question of fishing in the Moray Firth had drifted into being treated as an International one, but that was no reason why it should pass away from the consideration of a Scottish Committee, for the basis of international law and international comity was international Conventions, and these were as open to the observation of the Committee as they were to that of Dover House or the Foreign Office. What the fishermen of Caithness desired was to know how they stood in respect of their rights to claim the closing of the Firth; three unanimous decisions in their favour had been given by the highest Court in Scotland, the first on 19th July, 1905, and one decision against them, viz., by the, present Government, but whether that decision was unanimous or not, was unknown. The Conventions which affected the matter were but four, and even that number was reducible. First the Convention of August, 1839, between the Queen of England and the King of France, secondly; the Convention between Great Britain and Belgium in 1852; thirdly, the Convention between the Emperor of France and Great Britain in 1867; and, fourthly and lastly, the North Sea Convention between Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. The first of these four Conventions, namely, that of 1839, was merged in and abrogated by the Convention of 1867. That between Belgium and ourselves was limited to reciprocal concession of the most favoured nation clause to each country. The sole point in the Convention of 1867 was practically limited to an agreement in respect of a three miles limit between the two

    1745
    signatory parties, France and Great Britain, on all their shores save one angle of France. The North Sea Convention declared that it referred solely to policing the waters of the North Sea. It recognised as between the parties to the Convention a three miles limit in all waters and in all cases. It set out how the line was to be drawn in bays not exceeding ten miles in breadth, in the case of larger bays it was silent, and in one case and in one case only, in the neighbourhood of the Firth, it made a special delimitation, i.e., between Duncansbay Head and the Southern Point of South Ronaldshay. There was not in the Convention a word or a suggestion that as long as subjects and foreigners were treated alike a country did not retain the right to regulate the fisheries off its own coasts. There was not a word or a suggestion in the Convention that the Moray Firth was international waters. He wished to refer to how it was that the case came before the High Court of Appeal:—The Fisheries Board in 1890 by virtue of the powers conferred upon them by the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1889, and the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act in 1890, drew a line within which they ex-excluded from the Firth all trawlers from the Ord of Caithness to the Craghead in Banffshire, and again in 1892 under the same powers, drew a line from Duncansbay Head to Rattray Point, enclosing the entire Firth. Each signatory to the Convention received notice of that action of the Fishery Board, none demurred to it, all have tacitly respected it. On 18th March, 1907, the Secretary for Scotland said in that House—
    "For many years there have been no trawlers in the Moray Firth except the pseudo Norwegian Grimsby trawlers."
    And that statement was unquestionably correct. The reason why the Grimsby trawlers registered under the Norwegian flag was because it was known that under the flag of any one of the Signatories to the Convention they could, and would have been excluded, for they, the Signatories, had accepted the action of the Fishery Board. The Signatories to the Convention never claimed to enter the Firth after 'ts closure by the Fishery Board in 1892, but the Grimsby boats registered in Norway proceeded to do so, and in 1904 it was determined to take a test case to the
    1746
    High Court, which case he had had the honour of promoting. On 25th February, 1905, and he particularly directed the attention of the Committee to the date, the case of Peters v. Olsen came before the Sheriff-Substitute, in which case a Grimsby boat, registered at Stavanger in Norway, was found fishing four miles from shore in the Moray Firth. The Sheriff-Substitute acquitted the defendant and the case went before the High Court of Appeal and was adjudicated upon on 19th July, 1905, the Judges being unanimously in favour of a conviction and a justification of the Fishery Board. After this event he communicated with Lord Linlithgow, the late Secretary for Scotland, and before leaving office he (Lord Linlithgow) wrote to the Secretary of the Moray Firth Fisheries Association on 4th December, 1905, as follows—
    "That instructions have been issued with a view of the prosecution of persons guilty of illegal fishing as interpreted by the High Court."
    And thus it was left on the record of the late Government that they were determined to stand by the linesman of the North. When a change of Government came it was found that the new Government were continuing the policy of their predecessors and in August, 1906, the "Mortonsen" case was hoard with a similar result, and finally the Government having selected three test cases pressed them for final decision before the High Court of Appeal who delivered voluminous judgments thereon. Each of the twelve Judges of the High Court of Appeal had a copy of the Convention in his hand; he took care of that. The judgement of Lord Kyllachie was as follows—
    "There is certainly nothing in the Convention which in the least conflicts with the right of the several contracting nations to impose each of hem "within" its territorial limits (whatever these are) restrictions universally applicable against injurious practices or modes of fishing, such as are by this statute and bye-law imposed here."
    Thereupon ensued the Elgin prosecutions by the Government on 31st January, 907. Heavy sentences of fines and imprisonment were imposed, followed within three days by what might fairly be termed a bolt from the blue, in the form of a remission of the fines, release of the prisoners, and the restoration of he gear. But now the Answer of the

    1747
    Secretary for Scotland to his (Sir Arthur Bignold's) Question as to foreign trawling in the Moray Firth, though the Secretary did not in his reply name the Firth (26th March, 1908) was—
    "That the Government, for reasons of international comity, are not prepared to institute proceedings against foreign trawlers engaged in trawling outside the limit of territorial waters recognised by International Convention."
    The Moray Firth was not recognised in any Convention as international waters. He claimed the right of Great Britain over the Moray Firth on the same terms of argument as France established her rights over the Bay of Chaleur and the Granville Bay, the United States Chesapeake Bay, England the Bristol Channel, Norway at the Lofodens, and Newfoundland the Bay of Conception. There was no such thing as an international three-miles limit; the limit was an arrangement, at will, between nations. Spain and Portugal claimed a six-miles limit, Austria and Italy a five-miles limit, and between the Signatories to the Convention a three-miles limit was agreed to. No European Government in modern times had formally defined the absolute extent of the neighbouring sea it claimed as pertaining to it. Lord Salisbury, 6th May, 1895, had said—
    "Great care had been taken not to name three miles as the territorial limit."
    Lord Chancellor Herschell, whose surpassing ability would be remembered when they were dead and forgotten, said—
    "He was far from saying three miles was to be the limit of territorial waters."
    Lord Halsbury added—
    "They took care specially to avoid any measurements."
    A right to fish in the Moray Firth had never been claimed by the Signatories to the Convention, but now to the utter consternation and dismay of the dwellers on the shores of the Firth the Government professed to have discovered that the foreigner had a right to do what he, the foreigner, himself had considered beyond his international privileges. The position of the twelve Judges of the High Court was unassailable under any Convention in existence, or any precedent of international comity. All along the North Sea and on its bosom had arisen races of men to make their mark in the world.
    1748
    Was their industry to be starved and ruined by the catchwords "International Comity"? He would never believe it, but he did believe that, if Scotland were Scotland still, as she would be but for England's Ministers, the linesmen of the North would not now be left to perish.
    Motion made, and Question proposed," "That a sum, not exceeding £14,898, be granted for the said service."—(Sir Arthur Bignold.)
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid the House had listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Wick Boroughs. He had put before the House with great clearness the historical aspect of the question, but there were other grounds of a more or less local character which compelled those who represented constituencies in the north of Scotland to urge the Government to maintain the condition of exclusion in the Moray Firth, which had existed in regard to British trawlers and to use every effort and to take steps to close the Forth entirely to foreigners also. One of those grounds was the destruction which took place by this method of fishing by trawling in inshore waters. The Fishery Board for Scotland had made some experimental trawling in the Moray Firth and had found that over 70 per cent. of the fish taken were unmarketable. The destruction in certain months of the year, particularly in the inshore waters, was very great, and he therefore wanted to urge that these bays and shallow waters should be protected from the destructive power of the trawlers. Then again trawl fishing ought not to be pursued where it was destructive to the interests and livelihood of other fishermen, and in these narrow waters like the Moray Firth the destruction to lines and nets was greater than in the open sea. The complaints in regard to damage to nets and lines had markedly increased. In 1906 the complaints numbered twenty seven, but in 1907, there were no less than fifty-two, showing that the number had almost doubled in twelve months. Another indication of the destruction done by trawling was to be found in the number of prosecutions for offences committee in narrow waters. In 1906, there were

    1749
    thirty-eight prosecutions, while in 1907 there were 131, but it should be remembered that not half of the offenders were brought to trial. The third point which he wished to urge was that the Moray Firth had been selected by the Scottish Fishery Board, and their scientific advisers, for the conduct of certain scientific experiments. The results of those experiments had been very largely nullified by the presence in the Firth, not of British trawlers, but of a number of what might be described as poaching trawlers, owned in Grimsby, but masquerading under a foreign flag in order to catch fish by a method which in the prescribed water their own fellow-countrymen were precluded from adopting. There was much dissatisfaction among the fishermen on that account. A great deal had been said about the three mile limit. He believed that the owners of trawlers were very much afraid that if the Government made representations to the Governments of other nations in regard to the limit, the other nations might extend their territorial limits and so preclude British fishers from fishing round their coasts. He believed that that was largely why they feared Government action. There was a valid ground on which the Government could take action in this matter. In 1901 the British Government sent delegates to a convention at Christiania, at which Norway was represented. A resolution was passed unanimously declaring that when any Government undertook scientific investigations in the interest of fisheries in areas of sea such as the Moray Firth it was to be desired that methods should be adopted to remove such hindrances as might be caused to the carrying on of the investigations by the operations of trawlers. He thought, therefore, that apart from more debatable questions, such as extension of three mile limits we had ground for going to the Norwegian Government, and saying that the operations of trawling vessels flying their flag were a nuisance, and that they were interfering with the investigations which were taking place in the Moray Firth. The Secretary for Scotland had given the assurance that the foreign Governments concerned would be communicated with with the view of taking such action as was suggested. He was very much
    1750
    afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was hampered in his action by opposition from other quarters in London, which precluded him from getting something done which 95 to 99 per cent, of the people of Scotland desired should be done, but which was stopped by the attitude of another Government Department. There was another very important matter. The Government ought to take an interest in the policy of men as well as matter, They had been debating for some time in the House what should be done to restore people to the land on small holdings, not because it was necessarily the cheapest way of tilling the land, but because it was best for the people and the nation as a whole, that the people should be attached to the land. The same question arose in connection with the fishing industry. If the Government were going to follow the policy of preventing the line fishermen from earning their livelihood in the small towns which they had built up along the coast by their thrift and enterprise, they would drive them to big ports like Aberdeen and Grimsby, where they would become not independent owners but the paid servants on weekly wages of the capitalists and companies. They ought rather to strive in every way to maintain that sturdy race of fishermen who had improved their position so much during the last fifty years, and to encourage them to earn their livelihood where they were born and brought up. There was yet another matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of Scotland, and that was with regard to the very great increase of late years in the size of fishing boats in use. There had been a remarkable change from sailing craft to steam-fishing vessels, and, consequently, a want of accommodation for them. In 1900 the number of steam drifters and liners was seventy; in 1907, it was 508. And he would point out to the Grimsby trawlers that these boats were built by the money of the fishermen themselves, and not that of capitalits. This increase of these boats was apart from the increase of trawlers. The Moray Firth, with which he was connected, had added in 1907 no less than 101 steam-fishing vessels to her fleet, and the total now reached 250. When the

    1751
    boats were the old saifng-boats it was all very well for them when pursuing their calling to go to Aberdeen, Granton and English ports, but for two months of the year—December and January—the steam liners did not fish and the boats were laid up. However, as there was no suitable accommodation for them in their own small ports, such as Lossiemouth, a large number —he believed thirty-five—owned in that port, had to go to Inverness to be laid up. The owners of the boats had to do the repairs to them and to refit them at the cost of about £200 each, which amounted altogether to £7,000, all of which was spent in Inverness instead of at their own ports where they had built their homes. He thought they were entitled to a share of the grants which had been made for harbour improvement so that their own boats might be able to lie up in their own ports. He was afraid that a great deal of the £97,000 spent on harbour improvements by the Fishery Board had been spent upon ports that were unsuitable. There were many estuaries of rivers which could be dredged at little cost and made available for the safe laying up of these boats. He was sure the Scottish Members felt very keenly that they had not received with regard to the Moray Firth that strong line of support which as supporters of the Government and as representing the Scottish nation they were well entitled to expect.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHEK-GRAYsaid he cordially agreed to what had been said by the two previous speakers. Certainly he thought that the Moray Firth was in a most deplorable condition at present. Nobody knew whether the foreigners were legally there or not. The truth was the Government did not back up the Scottish law. The matter had been very carefully gone into. The late Lord Linlithgow, who was a personal friend of his own, and whose loss he would ever deplore, laid it down very distinctly as to whether these waters were to be preserved or not, and now since the present Government came in the whole question had been turned topsy-turvy and nobody knew where he was. It was a disgraceful anomaly that a British fisherman should
    1752
    be hauled out of a foreign trawler and prosecuted while the owner of the trawler went scot-free. Either the Moray Firth ought to be open to all or closed to all. The hon. Member for Wick had already quoted different waters which were preserved in France, Germany, Holland, and Denmark. These were broad waters without a three-mile limit, and there was no difficulty in carrying out the law there. As to the Grimsby trawlers flying a foreign flag, that was a controversial point, and had been bitterly resented by some of his English friends. However, he resented the use of a foreign flag by these trawlers. There was an excuse for it if they thought it was legal to go within the three-mile limit. What was wanted was a little backbone in the administration of Scotland. All this flabby work would not do. He did not think they should have a decision by the Judges of the High Court upset by a telegram from London. He wished that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been present, for he was sure that that right hon. Gentleman would have given the Scottish Members some sympathy and would have spurred on the Government to do something to solve this matter. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would yet do it, for in reply to a Question he put to the Foreign Secretary the other day the right hon. Gentleman said he hoped that within one year an arrangement with foreign nations would be satisfactorily concluded. If that were so, there would be an end to the difficulty, and nobody would welcome it more heartily than he. He was not there to annoy the Secretary for Scotland or hamper him in his work. Every Scottish Member, on whatever side he sat, was loyal to what he wanted, which was that Scotland should flourish. He hoped this anomaly would be speedily put an end to. He would leave the Moray Firth and the trawlers within the three-mile limit, and pass on to say something about the size of the nets used by the trawlers. He had been looking at the Report of the Fishery Board for this year, and found it stated there—
    "To those engaged in the fishing industry in Orkney and Shetland waters, the growing increase in the quantity of small haddocks landed is matter of concern. These haddocks are occasionally sold for manure."

    1753
    The same thing might be said of the upper reaches of the Firth of Forth, where the circle net was in use. Many tons of immature herrings had been thrown away or sold for manure. That could not commend itself to the Secretary for Scotland. He was glad the Fishery Board were taking steps to inquire into the matter. Their next inquiry should be into the size of the nets used by the trawlers. The mesh should be limited to one inch or more, and not to a quarter of an inch as it was in some cases. Nobody wanted to catch these immature fish or to destroy their prospects of a future harvest. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would take a note of this matter and look into it. In regard to the Fishery Board, he thought it came in for a great deal of unfair abuse. When an hon. Member had nothing better to do he abused the Fishery Board. He only knew one of the members of the Board personally, and that slightly, but his experience of the Board was that they took the greatest trouble and pains to keep things right. They were, however, sadly handicapped. They had only half the number of fishery cruisers which they ought to have, and their hands were tied by the limited means at their command. He hoped that in future there would be less abuse of this energetic body, and that they would get a little more sympathy from hon. Members. He trusted that something might be done to further and help the interests of the fishing industry, and improve the fishing harbours, of which there was no doubt the greatest need. The Anstruther harbour was the biggest harbour between Leith and Aberdeen, and its present condition was a disgrace, when with a little help from the Government it would be a credit to all concerned.
    MR. R. L. HARMSWORTHthought the fishermen in the Moray Firth suffered a peculiar hardship. At the present time the law was in their favour, but it was not exercised on their behalf for reasons of international comity. Meanwhile the livelihood of the line fishermen was being taken away from them. He joined those who had protested against the slow movement of the Scottish Office in this matter. He himself
    1754
    self would not hesitate to refer to Norway in this connection, and he did not think the attitude of Norway in regard to this matter was calculated to improve international comity. The trawlers who emerged from Grimsby and other harbours under a false flag were not allowed to fish in Norwegian territorial waters. He would not refer to the three-miles limit because the question of a limit ought not to come into the matter. The Moray Firth was the great breeding ground for fish, and on that ground alone it ought to be closed to trawlers altogether. He regretted the absence of the Foreign Secretary on this occasion, but asked the Secretary for Scotland for an assurance that he would evolve some solution for the mitigation of this grievance which was felt very much all round the Moray Firth.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONcould not help expressing his regret at the absence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during the speech of the hon. Member for Wick Burghs, whose remarks were full of historic details and interesting information. He entirely agreed that this was a question of great international importance. If we were going to insist on the closing of the Moray Firth to the trawlers of foreign countries it would result in the altering of all the Conventions that at present existed between us and those countries, and such a thing might lead to complications. It was extraordinary under the circumstances that the Scottish Secretary should have been left to answer these questions, which were questions of urgent international importance. He had at first intended to move to report progress, but, on consideration, he thought his purpose would be served by telling the Scottish Secretary frankly that he was not qualified to answer questions of international importance. He himself had taken great interest in the question of the Moray Firth and had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the British trawlers were to be given the same rights and privileges as were extended to foreigners. The answer he received was that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of Englishmen keeping the law. So was he, but in this case he contended the law was wrong. As the law now stood English

    1755
    trawlers were debarred from trawling in waters whilst foreign trawlers were allowed to go there with impunity. The same rights ought to be extended to all. Either the Moray Firth should be closed to all or opened to all. The Government were being pressed to prevent foreign trawlers selling their fish at English ports; they had already done this in Scotland, but the only result would be that they would deprive the English people of this important food supply. And what benefit would they get? None, because the foreigners would go and sell their fish at the nearest foreign port. Trawling in the Moray Firth was objected to because it was said to be the breeding ground for fish and great damage was done to the young fish. He did not think more damage was done there than was done by trawling in deep sea. It was an area of 200 miles of the best sea fishing on the coast, and to protect a few line fishermen the Government was asked to close it to trawlers. He felt in considerable difficulty as to the way in which he should vote on this occasion, because he disagreed both with the Government and with the hon. Gentlemen who advocated closing the Moray Firth.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCEthought the Government did not realise the very strong dissatisfaction which existed in Scotland in regard to this matter. It was especially strong because at the time of the general election a speech was made by a member of the Government which indicated that the Government were going to pursue with the utmost rigour the prevention of trawling in the Moray Firth. The only result had been to throw ridicule on the administration of the law, for, while verdicts were got in the Court of Session, those verdicts could not be executed because, it was said, their execution would interfere with international comity. He did not agree that because the foreigner could not be kept out, the Moray Firth should be thrown open to all. That would only lead to greater damage being done. The damage was not likely to be increased so long as the law remained as it was, because it was unlikely that more ships would engage in the trade than those already employed in it. He thought the Government might take measures to en-
    1756
    force the three-mile limit more strictly. By the removal of the coastguard, a very efficient method of protection had been abolished and the law weakened. The Government might at all events have a larger number of preventive boats. It would not cost very much money. There was a great number of small and handy boats which did not do very much, and boats which every now and then were being scrapped, and surely some of them might be put on to preventive service in the Moray Firth, round the coast of Ireland, in the Irish Channel, and various other parts where constant infractions of the three-mile limit were being committed. Whatever might be the decision of the Govern-regarding the enforcement of the law when it was in violation of international Conventions, he trusted they would prevent the infraction of the three-mile limit by the increase of the preventive service, and the prevention of the landing of illegally trawled fish in English ports. The hon. Member for Holderness had said that if the fish were not landed in English ports, they would be landed in Continental ports; well, let them be landed in Continental ports.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Why deprive Englishmen of the benefit of them?
    MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid that he presumed the fish were landed in English ports because they got a better market for them. If they were prevented from being landed in English ports, they would have to be taken to a worse market, with the result that illegal trawling would be discouraged.
    CAPTAIN WARINGsaid he did not desire to say more than a few words on this subject since, after the constantly reiterated assurances of the right hon. Gentleman that this question was being dealt with, they might safely anticipate a renewal of these assurances on that occasion. One point only he desired to emphasise, arid that was the enormous need for haste in this matter. The fishermen on the coast of the Moray Firth had waited patiently now for three years for a settlement of the trawling question. The right hon. Gentleman had raised their hopes repeatedly to the highest pitch by the statements he had made; for three years since the Liberal

    1757
    Government came into power they had borne their disappointments with patience and resignation. They had made no attempt to attract attention to themselves or to enlist the sympathy of the Law Officers by breaking the law. But he assured the Secretary for Scotland that they would brook no further disappointment or indeed unnecessary delay. For this reason he asked the right hon. Gentleman to hurry on the negotiations that were pending. It would be impossible for the fishermen on the Banffshire coast to stand another winter such as the last, when hardly a night passed but one or other of the boats had its nets destroyed by trawling vessels, cruising round without lights and giving no heed to the damage they did; and this apart altogether from the depletion of the beds by this method of fishing, a method which necessitated often two-thirds of a catch being thrown back into the sea as useless because it consisted of immature and undersized fish which could not be landed, and every fish thrown back from a trawl was invariably dead or dying, absolutely wasted. But more important than this, owing to the continued presence of trawlers in the Moray Firth and the extraordinary delay on the part of the Government to deal effectively with the question even after repeated promises, the fishermen, or some of the younger ones, at all events, were beginning to lose heart, and were leaving the fishing villages and migrating to the larger towns. Some had gone, many others were threatening to leave. If the Government failed to bring this question to a successful issue, it would not be long before every village on the coast was deserted and a heap of ruins—villages in which at present the children were reared in a healthy rustic atmosphere. It would be a case of rural depopulation worse than any yet heard of. And this was the Government for small men, for the small holder, the Government that had introduced in three years all sorts of land legislation. Every proposal for the various parts of the country had had his support, in order to help the landward population and bring the people out of the towns and back to the land. But here they had a rural population on the land and the Government had not made the slightest attempt to keep it there. A large population in country districts was a
    1758
    great thing for any nation, but surely to a maritime nation such as ours the coast inhabitants ware by far the most important, and by the inaction and delay on the part of the Government they were being driven away into the slums of the towns. If the Government drew back now or failed to carry out what it had promised to do in this respect it would incur a grave responsibility, for it would have wantonly and deliberately destroyed that type of rural population which he ventured to say had done much to make the Empire what it was to-day. He did not desire to quote statistics to prove the damage done by trawlers in enclosed waters and near the coast line. He had merely stated what was going on. The people were leaving. When was the Government going to take the necessary steps to keep them in their homes? They had waited long for the details of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. He trusted they would hear it that night, and he hoped, for the sake of the reputation and political career of the all powerful triumvirate that governed Scotland now, that their spokesman the Secretary for Scotland would satisfy that larger audience which was waiting so anxiously for his answer, the fishermen of the Scottish coast, who had such faith in the Liberal Party, whose principles they have consistently supported for the last seventy years.
    MR. POWERsaid he had no doubt the question was one of particular interest to Scotland and Scottish Members; but it also largely affected the fishing population in England, Ireland, and Wales, and was an international question. There used to be an idea that the supply of fish was inexhaustible, and in the time of the old beam trawler that was to a large extent true; but the steam trawlers had done an immense amount of harm, and there was no doubt that the quantity of fish caught in the North Sea was much less than it used to be. There were 1,000,000 cwts. less fish trawled in the North Sea in 1905 than in 1903, and 2,000,000 cwts. or 30 per cent. of the fish landed on the east coast in 1905 came from foreign waters. Unless something was done to prevent the wholesale destruction of immature fish in shallow waters, the fishing industry would go

    1759
    from bad to worse. The hon. Member for Inverness had alluded to the necessity for more efficiently protecting the fisheries of Scotland and Ireland. He could congratulate the Scottish Members and the Scottish Fishery Board upon having been very much more successful with the Admiralty than they in Ireland had been. He was reminded that they had had a new boat built to protect the Irish fishery, but the money for building it came from Irish sources, and they got no assistance what ever from the Admiralty. The Admiralty at present lent two boats to the Fishery Board for Scotland, but none to Ireland. He therefore thought the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture and Fisheries had an unanswerable case. He drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover to the matter when he was Chief Secretary, and he told him that he intended to press on the Admiralty the necessity of giving them similar assistance for the protection of their fisheries. He made no apology for taking part in this Scottish debate. It was not only a local, but an international question, and he hoped the Powers who signed some of these Conventions would see their way to adopt a bigger limit of territorial water than at present existed. Most of the destruction of immature fish took place in shallow waters, and it would be for the good not only of this country but of every country that that territorial area should be extended.
    MR. SUTHERLANDsaid he felt certain the hon. Member who had last spoken would find that in reference to the line fishermen of Ireland this question of trawling would become ever and ever more important. Might he give one or two reasons that appeared to him to be good reasons why the Foreign Office and the Scottish Office should do a great deal more than they were doing at present? When the hon. Member for the Holderness division told them that trawling did not deplete the fishing beds he spoke somewhat in ignorance. Let him take evidence which even the trawling industry would consider untainted. In 1890 the Fishery Board for Scotland received a letter, quite unsolicited, from the secretary to the
    1760
    National Sea Fisheries Protection As sociation—an association if not composed most of trawl owners, was largely in sympathy with trawl owners—to the effect that the Board ought to take into consideration the advisability of holding an inquiry with a view, if necessary, to closing the Moray Firth from Kinnaird Heard to Duncansbay Head against trawlers. In April of the same year a Conference of representative of the trawl fishing industry of the east cost resolved that having realised the enormous loss which the trade had sustained year by year through the wholesale capture and destruction of immature and inedible fish, a stop should be put to the growing evil, and as a preliminary to abstain during the coming summer fishing on the grounds where immature fish were generally caught in great abundance. The area alluded to exceeded 5,200 miles. Then again, in 1905, the association met in Aberdeen, when a motion to consider the advisability of re-stocking fishing grounds which might be wholly or partially exhausted, was carried unanimously. The mover of the resolution said—
    "Unless they did something as a counterpoise to the continual trawling which was going on they would find themselves powerless as regarded that important fishing ground, the North Sea. He did not believe the North Sea, if left to itself, would last for ever. He was one of those who thought it would not last very long."
    As he had stated, he quoted that evidence from an association biassed in favour of trawling. Then they had the opinion of the English Board of Fisheries and Agriculture. Certainly no one who knew the facts would deny that there was an antagonism of policy between that Board and the Fishery Board for Scotland. Neither would anyone assert that the Board of Agriculture was hostile to trawling. The latest Report which he had been able to see was that for 1905. It was only since 1903 that statistics were given distinguishing between fish, caught in the North Sea and elsewhere. The main features brought out by the figures of the Board of Agriculture were the growing importance of waters beyond the North Sea for maintaining the fish supply of the country, and the fact that it was from the North Sea alone that a decreased supply was shown. What was

    1761
    true of the North Sea told even more strongly, in his opinion, in regard to the Moray Firth. That Firth was a comparatively small area, in which immature fish existed in great abundance. Within its limits there were important spawning grounds where vast shoals of the food fishes congregated at the breeding season. It contained Smith's Bank, the most valuable and prolific spawning ground near the east coast, and which was a source of supply to waters outside the Firth. They had the high authority of Mr. W. Garstang for saying that from 1889 to 1898 the fish caught by a trawl-smack was reduced from sixty to thirty-two tons. If they compared the fish caught by trawlers in. the North Sea in 1903 and 1905 they found a reduction of 25 per cent. Or put in another way, 1,000 tons—some said 1,400 tons—less were caught weekly in the latter year than in the former. If they took the waters outside the North Sea where trawling had not been continuously conducted, it was remarkable that there was an increase of over 500 tons a week. All that went to show that trawling depleted the fisheries. The present trawling fleet was equal to over 12,000 of the old fishing smacks. In an interesting article which appeared in the "Scotsman" some time ago, the writer said that it was calculated that the spread of nets or the with of sea bottom covered extended at least to twenty-five miles, and that with a net towed at a speed of three miles per hour for twenty working hours per day, the area daily swept by them amounted to 1,500 square miles. The whole of the Moray Firth would thus be swept from shore to shore in a day and a half. The same fleet could trawl the North Sea from the Straits of Dover to the Shetlands several times a year. In view of the facts which he had stated he put it to the Committee, whether it was not wise on the part of the Scottish Fishery Board to prohibit trawling in the Moray Firth. The hon. Member for the Holder-ness division had said, that they in England would obey the law even if it were only a by-law of the Fishery Board. The sanction given to the Board or framing the by-laws was in an Act of Parliament, and therefore these by-laws had the authority of that House. He might repeat what he had stated on a
    1762
    former occasion, that the Sea Fisheries Association had met in Aberdeen in 1905, and that the hon. Member for Grimsby had practically justified Grimsby trawl owners in not merely evading, but in flouting the law of Scotland. The hon. Member had admitted that Grimsby trawl boats sailed under a foreign flag, although the shares were held by Englishmen.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that the hon. Gentleman denied it.
    MR. SUTHERLANDsaid that he based his statement on the official report of the association. There was no evidence, according to his information, that when English trawl vessels were transferred to the Norwegian flag, any money passed between the parties, or that share quotations appeared in the Norwegian newspapers. As bearing out what he had said, he might mention that in 1905 a gentleman who had resided at Grimsby went to Stavanger, and was now a registered owner of five trawl boats. A clerk who was employed by a Leith firm, and who he was informed received only from 15s. to 20s. a week, had, within a short time of his having gone to Norway, become the registered owner of several boats.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONasked whether the hon. Member thought we could congratulate ourselves on having by our policy driven these men out of England.
    MR. SUTHERLANDsaid he could not congratulate anyone who tried to evade the law in the way he had described. Hon. Members opposite were never tired of taunting Irishmen with framing conspiracies to violate the law of the land. The attempt on the part of Grimsby trawl owners to defeat the law was a cold-blooded, merciless, squalid conspiracy, a conspiracy intended not for purposes of patriotism, but in order to secure bigger dividends.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYsaid it was unjust that the whole of the Opposition should be branded as having taunted Ireland in the way suggested. He had never taunted Ireland with anything.
    MR. SUTHERLANDsaid the Committee would bear him out in saying that the Opposition as a whole denounced Irishmen for entering into conspiracies to defeat the law. What were they to do? The question was very urgent; feeling was acute along the shores of Moray Firth. In the case of Olsen, which was referred to by the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs, whom he congratulated on hi speech, Lord Kyllachy expressed the view that the Act of 1889 applied to foreigners as well as British subjects in respect to waters specified in Bye-law No. 2, and that such waters must be regarded as territorial in the light of Article 2 of the North Sea Convention. The High Court of Justiciary was unanimously of opinion that the bye-laws could be enforced against all foreigners, and in the whole area inside a line drawn from Duncansby Head to Rattray Point. As hon. Members were aware, proceedings had practically been stopped not only against the foreign trawlers but also against the Grimsby trawlers. In October, 1906, the Secretary for Scotland said, in answer to the hon. Member for Ross, that the whole question of prosecuting offending trawlers was under the consideration of the Government. They were thus confronted with the fact that the Government, which included the Foreign Secretary, and must have considered all possible complications, took three weeks to consider whether foreign trawlers were to be prosecuted, and shortly after deciding to prosecute, and after obtaining convictions, proceedings against foreign trawlers were stopped, and the attitude of the Government was not easy to understand. It appeared to him that there should not be so much difficulty in getting the Moray Firth clear of all trawlers. A year or two ago the Norwegian representative informed the Fishery Board of Scotland that if the North Sea Powers were called together to consider the question of closing the Firth, Norway would give the matter the most favourable and sympathetic consideration. What was the position in regard to foreign countries on this question? Since the year 1872 beam trawling had not been allowed in Denmark. In: France, Belgium, and Germany trawling was practically prohibited in territorial waters, and in Norway
    1764
    trawling was not allowed within a geographical mile from the furthest outlying island, which was fifty miles distant. When those considerations were taken into account the way seemed cleared for coming to an agreement with Norway. The Secretary for Scotland told the House, in answer to a Question, that it was the intention of the Government to prohibit the landing of trawl-caught fish in England as well as in Scotland, and Lord Fitzmaurice made a similar statement in the House of Lords. Nothing had been done in that direction. He remembered having a talk with their Ambassador to America who was for long one of the distinguished Members for Aberdeen. Mr. Bryce said in reference to this trawling question that practically the same speeches were made year after year. He did not know whether that was so or not, but he knew that, year after year, the same complaints were made, the same answer was given on behalf of the Government, and they seemed to get no "forrarder." He knew that when the Member for Grimsby made the statement to which he had alluded, the representative of the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries was on the platform and uttered not a syllable of protest. He must say that, Scottish Members were surfeited with the promises of the Secretary for Scotland. It was nonsense for the hon. Gentleman opposite to say that the fishermen of the Moray Firth were behind the times. No class of men were more up-to-date in their methods. In the old days the brown sails of their boats studded every sea along the coast. Those men were as brave and industrious a body of men as could be found anywhere. The question of what action was to be taken was a very urgent one. Feeling along the shores of the Moray Firth had grown intensely acute. Many of the fishermen there had only been prevented from taking the law into their own hands by the persuasion of others. The Fishery Board for Scotland had done its best, but had received very little backing. It was for the Secretary for Scotland to tell the House what stage the negotiations had reached. It was no good his saying month after month "everything is going right," if nothing was being

    1765
    done. From the month of March until now communications had been going on between the Board of Agriculture of England and the Scottish Office. Surely it was an easy thing in five months to come to an agreement which would enable the Foreign Office to open negotiations with the North Sea Powers. Was one Department being played off against another, and were their communications to each other to be continued for other five months with as little fruit? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say what prospect there was of this question being speedily settled. He appealed to the Foreign Secretary and to the Secretary for Scotland not to ignore the claims of those men who took their lives in their hands to earn a scanty livelihood, but to recognise the prime and pressing importance of the two questions, and to deal with it effectively.
    CAPTAIN ARTHUR MURRAYsaid he was glad to see the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the Treasury Bench, because it would appear that the Secretary for Scotland had shifted the whole responsibility for the trawling question to the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman. Various representations had been made in regard to the inaction of the Government during the last two or three years with regard to this particular question, but he would like to go back a little further. In 1892 when the question was first raised it was proposed to exclude trawlers from the Moray Firth, and various objections were brought forward by the trawlers' association, the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, and by meetings of the citizens of Aberdeen. The chief objection was that if bye-law No 10 was passed and confirmed it would not be possible to exclude foreign trawlers to whatever extent it might exclude British trawlers from the Moray Firth. Before bye-law No 10, was confirmed by the Secretary of Scotland, he understood that it was submitted to the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office replied that they had no objection to the confirmation of the bye-law provided that so far as extra territorial waters were concerned it only applied to British subjects. That was to say, in the year 1892, the Foreign Office accepted that
    1766
    situation, and they recognised the fact that under this bye-law it would be impossible to exclude foreign trawlers from carrying on operations in the Moray Firth. He would, therefore, like to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the Foreign Office had done during all those years, knowing at that time that this was a question which had come prominently forward and that it would eventually become a question which would cause serious injury to all the populations along the shores of the Moray Firth. He appealed to the Foreign Secretary, on whom the responsibility rested, gravely to consider the situation. It could be settled. If there was a will there was a way. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to revolve the wheels of inter-State communications a little more rapidly in order to bring to an end a situation which was irritating to British trawlers and line fishermen alike.
    MR. MORTONhoped the Scottish Members would insist on Scotland being governed in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Scottish Members of the House. There were two questions now before the Committee. One was the question of trawling in the Moray Firth, and the other the question of illegal trawling at other parts of the Scottish coast. They were told a few days ago by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs that nothing had been settled up to the present and that the Foreign Secretary was waiting to hear from some of the other departments of the Government in this country. The right hon. Gentleman did not say what the other departments were, but he presumed the Scottish Office was one. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee to-night who was the person who had been delaying the matter by keeping particulars from him and preventing him from completing the negotiations with Foreign Governments. Their complaint was not against foreign trawlers but against English trawlers whose ships were registered under foreign flags. He could understand the Norwegian Government taking a serious interest in this matter if Norwegian subjects were making money out of it, but nothing of the sort was happening. The trawling in the Moray Firth was carried on by Grimsby

    1767
    and Hull fishing companies, whose boats were registered in Norway in order that they might be able to break British law. He was bound to say that he did not think the Norwegian Government were doing what was right. He did not think they should allow their flag to be used for breaking the law in this country. He trusted the Foreign Secretary would point out to that Government the state of things which might arise if all Governments were to take the same course of allowing their flags to be used for the purpose of breaking the law.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONasked whether the hon. Member was aware that the trawlers referred to as registered in Norway were owned by companies who found the money there.
    MR. MORTONsaid that so far as he had been able to get at the facts they were English ships in everything except the cook and the registration. If the hon. Member could prove to him that the vessels belonged to Norwegians whose money was involved in the industry he might have another opinion of the matter. The Scottish Judges had given an opinion in 1906 as to the legality of trawling by foreign ships in the Moray Firth, and yet the Secretary for Scotland had done nothing in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be rather in favour of the trawlers because there was so much money invested in the industry. He stated in a speech some time ago at Wick that he wanted to protect the trawlers and-that he wanted fair play. All that he and his friends were asking for was fair play for their own country. Of course they could not ask fairly for more, but so far as he could understand from the Foreign Secretary's answer nothing had been done up to the present moment. The Secretary for Scotland ought to take upon himself the settlement of the preliminaries which would enable the Foreign Secretary to take some action. He wished to say a word about the illegal trawling round the coast of Sutherlandshire. There again he wanted fair play, and above all he wanted the law to be enforced. The people of Scotland were law-abiding, but the Secretary for Scotland was not; at least, he did not make others obey the law.
    1768
    He allowed the rich to go free. The policy pursued by the Secretary for Scotland would, if persisted in, drive from the country some 60,000 hardy fishermen, a class most useful in supplying recruits to the Navy. They had been told about the three mile limit, but there was some doubt as to whether it was a legal limit at all. What they asked was that the three mile limit, such as it was, should be respected, and trawlers, British or foreign, should be kept out of these waters. He had written many letters to the Secretary for Scotland and he had asked him Questions on this subject, but he had been unable to get any redress whatever for the grievance which was felt so strongly. They were told that in some cases the law was not strong enough. If that was so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman get the law strengthened? The right hon. Gentleman did not come to the House asking for further powers, but on the contrary he opposed every attempt made by private Members to get increased powers. The right hon. Gentleman blocked their Bills every night when they brought them up. His complaint was that the Secretary for Scotland not only would not look after this matter himself, but that he would not allow others to do so. [Laughter.] He was sorry that anybody should regard this as a laughing matter. It was an exceedingly serious matter. The policy of the Government was to drive the fishermen out of the country, though no better men could be got for the naval reserve. No effort had been made to secure the services of fast boats to catch the trawlers which were engaged in the illegal proceedings complained of. Let the right hon. Gentleman get the use of some of those fast torpedo-destroyers, which would be much better employed in detecting and capturing illegal trawlers than in running down each other. A case of illegal trawling was tried at Campel-town on 4th September, 1907, and the Sheriff, before pronouncing sentence against the offender, made the following pregnant remarks—
    "From a tolerable experience of convictions of those who have been guilty of transgressing the law as to otter trawling, I venture to think that until Parliament sees fit to permit the imposition of much more drastic punishment than the limit which at present the Courts have

    1769
    power to inflict, and the provision of more adequate means for the detection and capture of offenders, such as more and faster cruisers, little can be done effectively to prevent illegal trawling, and what at present, it must be confessed, appears likely to be the ultimate consequence—the ruin of the entire fishing industry. It is becoming notorious, amounting almost to a scandal, that the punishment which at present it is in the power of the Courts to inflict is wholly inadequate to prevent the infraction of the law, and that the number and the speed of the protective vessels at the disposal of the Fishery Board is wholly incommensurate with the necessities of the case."
    It might be said that hon. Members who represented constituencies in the North of Scotland where fishing was an important industry were politically interested, but the words he had quoted expressed the opinion of an independent Scottish Judge. He urged the Secretary for Scotland to see that the fisheries and the line fishermen were properly protected, and that the law was obeyed by everybody, rich and poor alike.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,)said he was sorry he was unable to be present to hear the speeches in the earlier stage of the debate, for he realised from what he had heard since that a good deal of attention had been directed to the position of the Foreign Office in relation to this matter, and that desire and expectations were shown for some statement from himself from the point of view of the Foreign Office. He would be sorry to disappoint the expectation, but he had no confidence that he would be able to gratify it. He could not, of course, speak in his personal capacity as Member for his own constituency, or else he might have a good deal to say on the general question of trawling in the Moray Firth; and when he spoke in his official capacity as representing the Foreign Office he might say that the Foreign Office was not very intimately concerned in the matter at all. Though he could speak on one point in which the Foreign Office was concerned, he must speak as a Member of the Government rather than as the head of a particular Department. The hon. Member for Elgin Burghs in a very forcible and eloquent speech had dwelt very strongly on the merits of the question with regard to the Moray Firth, his point being that in the interests of the preservation of the fish supply
    1770
    and breeding grounds it was essential that trawling should be prohibited in the Moray Firth. He had no desire to dispute any statement the hon. Member had made on the merits of the question. He had not the knowledge even if he had the desire. When he first became cognisant of the trawling question at all, trawling was allowed within the three-mile limit, and the demand was put forward, many years ago, that trawling should be prohibited within territorial waters. He came into Parliament pledged to that, and that had been imposed long ago. But the contention now was that the three-mile limit was not enough, and, especially in regard to the Moray Firth, that there ought to be special regulations going far beyond the three-mile limit. Parliament had recognised that with regard to the legislation it had passed. There was no doubt that the legislation passed was good law for all British subjects, and he would have no sympathy whatever with those who, being British subjects and knowing perfectly well what the opinion of Parliament was as regards the law for British subjects, took advantage and made use of a foreign flag in in order to evade the regulations of the Moray Firth, which it was obviously the desire of Parliament should be enforced. But when they came to the question of enforcing the law Parliament had passed upon foreign owners, they were placed in a very difficult position. The policy of this country hitherto—the national policy of this country—had been to uphold the three-mile limit, but to protest against and to resist by every means in our power the pretension of any foreign country to enforce its own jurisdiction on the sea beyond the three-mile limit. He was sure there must be more than one case in which we had gone to international arbitration and had attempted to contend before an international tribunal that the three-mile limit was the only one we could recognise as the limit of foreign jurisdiction over British vessels. What would happen if we applied in the Moray Firth to foreigners the law which we had made for our own fishermen who went beyond the three-mile limit?
    MR. C. E. PRICEasked if there were not considerable

    1771
    qualifications of the three-mile limit in the case of bays.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid it had generally been understood that such qualifications applied to bays ten miles wide, but the Moray Firth was far more than ten miles wide.
    AN HON. MEMBERsaid it was applied in the case of the Bristol Channel, which was thirty-seven miles wide.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid they must be very careful as to how far they pressed this doctrine of the width of the bay. The qualified application of the doctrine he thought applied to bays with a very narrow entrance. But they must be very careful before they laid down an international doctrine on any particular bay. They must think of what the application of it might be in other parts of the world. The important point was that they had generally contended for the three-mile limit as that beyond which they resented the jurisdiction of foreign Powers over British ships; and having taken that point of view in such cases as the Behring Sea arbitration case quite recently, suppose they themselves were to attempt to enforce a doctrine going far beyond the three-mile limit on foreign ships—and he supposed the House was as strongly attached to the principle of arbitration as to any other principle, and would not resist a demand for arbitration if it were disputed by a foreign Power— how would it be possible to contend with a good chance of success before an international tribunal in an arbitration case for a doctrine precisely the reverse of that for which they had used their strength on previous occasions? He would be the last person in the world to wish to underrate the capacity, the ability, or the energy of the Foreign Office; but it would be absolutely impossible for the Foreign Office one year to give instructions for the conduct of an arbitration case on the rule of international law with the three-mile limit as the extreme limit of the jurisdiction of any nation, and in the following year to fight an arbitration case on a precisely opposite doctrine. It was obvious that that would bring us into ridicule in the world at large. Our international doctrine hitherto had been that
    1772
    of the three-mile limit; it followed from that, that if there was to be a modification of the rules relating to trawling in the North Sea, it must be by agreement with foreign Powers. That clearly seemed to him the practical point on which the debate might turn. It had been rather assumed in the debate that the Foreign Office as such had some particular policy in the matter. The Foreign Office had no policy whatever in regard to the fishing industry. It had not the knowledge or the means for framing a policy. The business of the Foreign Office was to approach every case on whatever lines the Government of the day had decided to be those of the national interest. Once it was decided that it was to the national interest that we should get a certain agreement with foreign Powers, the Foreign Office would use every means in its power to induce other nations to take the same view and to enter into an agreement with us. It was absolutely impossible on an important question affecting not merely Scottish and not merely English and not merely Irish interests, but the interests of all the three countries combined—for they were all interested in the fishing industry, taking it as a whole—for the Foreign Office to approach other Powers with a view to reaching an agreement with them until it was quite clear that it was doing it in the interest of the policy which had been adopted and affirmed and declared by the Government of the day to be the policy which was in the general national interest of the United Kingdom. For that same reason he thought it was going too far when some one in the course of the debate spoke as if his right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland was open to reproach in the matter. It was not possible for him alone to declare what the national policy of the country was to be in the fishing industry. He would be perfectly prepared that they should approach foreign Powers, and it had always seemed to him, judging from the very great force with which the case had been presented in such regions as the Moray Firth, and the strong feeling that existed, which was not confined to the Moray Firth alone, that there was a case for grave consideration on the part of any Government as to whether any change and any new regulations were required in the interests

    1773
    of the preservation of the fishing industry in the North Sea at large. The Government could not sacrifice a legitimate industry unless they were going to do so in the national interest, and nobody disputed that trawling in itself was a perfectly legitimate industry. It was also a considerable industry, with large capital invested in it. Therefore, if the industry was to be restricted the restrictions must be upon the same grounds of really important national interests, which transcended what would otherwise be the legitimate interests of that particular industry. They had no right either for the sake of particular interests or particular places to sacrifice the general interests of the consumers of the country. They had no right, for instance, to adopt in the interests of particular localities any special restrictions upon the methods of catching fish with the result of diminishing the supply and raising the price of one of the most wholesome articles of food in a great industrial country. But having laid down those two principles, it was equally true that, if, on the other hand, it was the case that the supply of fish in the North Sea was being affected by want of further regulations, they were entitled to say that the interests of any particular industry must be subordinated to the general interests of the supply of fish in the North Sea, for, after all, in the long run, it was not merely the national interest, but the interest of the industry concerned. If it was the case that in areas like the Moray Firth, which were important breeding grounds, the supply of fish was being seriously interfered with by the prosecution of trawling in narrow waters, then it became a matter of national interest that they should as soon as possible come to some agreement with foreign Powers under which they would be able to make the arrangements which proved to be necessary in the national interest at large. He could only say that the subject was one which had been occupying the attention of the Government. In view of the arguments which had been brought forward and the strength of feeling which was known to exist on this important subject, it was quite clear that the Government must have time to come to a deliberate decision, and to investigate the case which had been presented, with
    1774
    the object of considering whether it should not approach other Powers in order to come to some arrangement which would enable breeding areas such as the Moray Firth to be secured from molestation by any methods of fishing which were likely to be injurious. He could only say that the subject had occupied the attention of the Government for a considerable time. The Government had, unfortunately, many things to occupy its attention. He was alive, as the Secretary for Scotland had been extremely alive, to the importance of the question, and though he was not in a position to tell the Committee what the decision of the Government might be when the investigation which was now proceeding by the departments concerned had been concluded, he thought those Members who represented the constituencies keenly interested in the question had a right to expect that the decision of the Government should not be indefinitely delayed, but that they should know in a reasonable time whether the Government thought they had a case for approaching other Powers, and if they thought so what were the grounds and what were the propositions which they should advance.
    MR. PIRIEhoped that the result of the debate would be to hasten the action of the Government, and that some active step would soon be taken to reach some agreement on this important point. But those who represented Scotland had a right to ask why the importance of the question had not been realised at an earlier period. As the matter stood, ridicule had been incurred both abroad and at home, and especially in the North of Scotland. They had also to complain of the kind of answers they had received from the Scottish Office on the matter, which were just the same as had been given to similar questions on the matter for many years. They recognised the difficulties of the situation and did not wish to press the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs unduly, and could only hope that a solution would soon be arrived at. They hoped that the strong protests made would bring home to the Government, if the Scottish Office had not succeeded in doing so, the importance of the question. He

    1775
    could not refrain from taking exception to the action of the hon. Members for Sutherland and Ross in introducing repressive legislation against trawlers. He alluded to the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill (No. 2), and to the Suspension of Trawler Masters' Certificates Bill. They were Bills he had blocked and intended to block in common with the Government. The repressive legislation only had the effect of frightening capital and harming a useful industry, and it was not the way to procure the strict keeping of the law. The action of those two Members was in marked contrast with that of other Members. He, as strongly as anyone, repudiated the action of the so-called British trawlers steaming under a foreign flag in order to evade the law, and he joined in the condemnation of British subjects who were guilty of such proceedings. He thought the debate might possibly do some good in bringing about a speedy conclusion, and if it did they might congratulate themselves upon having obtained three hours and made good use of them.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he was sorry the hon. Member had struck a discordant note by attacking the hon. Members for Ross and Sutherland. If he lived amongst or represented the people in those small bays, he would know that by the visit of these trawlers whole communities were ruined and devastated in the course of one night; and he would not have attacked his hon. friends as he had done. If they took the fishing away from these people, they left them practically nothing. The speech of the hon. Member was to be regretted. They did not find in his district that the owners of trawlers had much respect for the law. Their doctrine was "Catch fish, never mind how; never mind if you break the law or devastate a village, bring home fish; it does not matter if you go to gaol." And the poor captains had to go to gaol. They did not want to send the captain and the men to gaol; they wanted to send the owners there. He had told the hon. Member for Grimsby on the occasion of the great trawlers meeting at Aberdeen that it was the owners of the trawlers who should be sent to gaol. It was a serious and burning question
    1776
    in the extreme North. They regretted very much that the Fishery Board for Scotland had not been able to do everything that they wished it to do, and had not protected their fishing industry as well as it might have done; but the Fishery Board had not received much help from the people in the districts. They had formed associations from one end to the other, and they had encouraged the fishermen to try and catch the trawlers. This had done a considerable amount of good, and he guaranteed that owing to the liberality of his hon. friend opposite and important persons who had subscribed considerably to their funds, they had secured more convictions in Orkney and Shetland than in the whole of the rest of Scotland. He thought they might all do more in this way to support and encourage the Fishery Board. It would be absolutely impossible, even if the Secretary for Scotland had two or three more cruisers, to protect every little bay or creek in the territorial waters of Scotland. The area was enormous, and it would take more vessels and more men than he was ever likely to have at his disposal. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire as to the food supply of the people being in peril, he thought, if any Party in the House had any right to speak on that subject, it was the Party on that side of the House, and not the Party on the other side of the House, who had tried to attack the food of the people. The trawlers brought in a large quantity of immature fish and even destroyed them. They could not sell them in Scottish or continental waters; it was only in England where they were allowed to dispose of them. They complained of that more than anything else. Fish which was caught illegally was sold in English waters and could not be sold anywhere else, and it was here where they thought the Government might take very important action. He admitted the difficulties under which the Foreign Secretary laboured. Even supposing he was successful in his negotiations with the foreign Powers, it would still be open to persons who had no respect for the law to have Grimsby or Hull boats registered in some unknown land and to defy the British laws. He thought the

    1777
    Foreign Secretary might try and induce foreign Powers to be no longer a party to the absolute scandal of allowing their flag to be prostituted to enable British trawl owners to break British laws. If a person employing capital in such trades as gun running or slave owning, or drink selling, where such actions were prohibited, was liable to confiscation, it would be quite within the province of the Government to declare that where British capital was employed illegally under a foreign name there should be some means by which the capital should be impounded and confiscated. He saw no other way out of the difficulty. If that was done and the fish were prevented from being sold in British waters it would be a great stride towards protecting their industries. From all one could learn, trawling had increased so enormously that the fish supply in the Northern part of the country was rapidly being depleted, and where the supply in the future would come from was very hard to realise. He was not making any attack on the Secretary for Scotland. The same policy had been pursued for fifteen or twenty years in Scotland; but they might do a great deal more than they did to encourage fishermen to protect themselves and might do more than they did to try and make some alteration by which those persons who illegally and wrongfully sent poor people out to do wrong should be punished instead of their poor instruments.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid this question of trawling had been for a long time before Parliament and it was not now in a very satisfactory condition. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given the Committee as usual the common sense of the matter in regard to British relations with foreigners. Probably there would have to be some regulation of the North Sea fisheries. A great deal of investigation was still being carried on into that matter, and he doubted whether the moment for international agreement had arrived, but the sooner an understanding was reached the better it would be for the fisheries of all the countries concerned in the North Sea. The Foreign Secretary had admitted that in this island at any
    1778
    rate, the policy of Parliament ought to be supreme. The Moray Firth had been closed upon the ground that the fisheries there were being depleted and it would add to the fish supply if it were closed. An important part of the restriction upon fishing in the Moray Firth was that fish caught there could not be landed at any Scottish port; but what to him was the weak point in the policy they had pursued of late years, was that they could be landed at any English port. They could not be landed at a port in Berwickshire, but they could be landed at an inlet in the constituency of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. There might be admirable reasons for it, but they were not arguments that had ever appealed to his understanding and he was as yet unconvinced that the English ports ought to be free to the fish caught within a prohibited area. If they had no sympathy with the British owned trawlers who broke the law in the Moray Firth, he did not think their sympathy need be extended to the owners of the catches, and he held the strong view that if this policy of restricting the catch in the Moray Firth was to be persevered with the prohibition should be extended to all British ports, and if it could not be so extended it would be better to open the Moray Firth altogether. He thought on the whole the restricting policy was right, but they had never yet had any satisfactory explanation from any Government as to the reasons for prohibiting the catch from the Moray Firth being landed in Scotland and allowing it to be landed at English ports.
    MR. WEIRsaid he was somewhat disappointed with the statement made by the Foreign Secretary. Hs had heard similar speeches made by Foreign Secretaries for many years. He hoped he would see that something was done. The right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to approach the foreign Powers. Had he done nothing at present? He had believed matters were progressing. He could only hope they would be pushed forward. Surely to keep the line fishermen along our coast, one of the finest assets we had, was a matter of national importance. In the event of a great naval war, where would the country be without the line fishermen? It had been one of the

    1779
    most refreshing nights he had ever had in the House of Commons. There was dissatisfaction in the air. and it had been expressed by hon. Members who had recently come into the House. He had refrained specially from getting up and making observations until they had had their say, and he was very glad they had spoken their minds. It was a good, healthy sign, and there was some chance of Scotland waking up to the fact that she had been very badly treated indeed for many long years. The promises which had been given by the Liberal leaders that the grievances of the line fishermen would be attended to, were no doubt the means of catching a great many votes. Of course, he did not blame the leaders of either Party for making speeches which would catch votes, but if pledges were given, they were entitled to have them redeemed. Upon this subject the Government had entirely failed to fulfil their pledges. All round the coast this illegal trawling was going on and nothing was done to stop it. The grievances of the line fishermen remained unredressed, while the number of steam trawlers in Scottish waters had increased enormously. The fishery cruisers, however, remained at the old number, and he urged that more were wanted to catch the sea thieves and foreign pirates in the Moray Firth. The Secretary for Scotland and his colleagues in the Government were doing their best to drive the people into the slums of our cities. The fishing industry was being ruined, and he blamed the Secretary for Scotland for the indifference he had shown in the matter. Hon. Members representing Scotland had continually put questions to the Secretary for Scotland, but they always received the same answer. They wanted more cruisers, and if they could not get them from the Secretary for Scotland they ought to apply to the Board of Admiralty. He could not understand why so much consideration was given to Norway in regard to this subject. Some prompt action ought to be taken to stop the illegal trawling. These Norwegian ships owned by British shareholders were paying enormous dividends and ruining Scottish fishermen, who were being continually told that their case was being attended to. He had with him statistics
    1780
    appertaining to this subject, and he could talk easily for a couple of hours. [Cries of "Go on."] The line fishing industry was getting worse every day. He hoped the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be able to make some satisfactory arrangement with foreign Powers to put an end to this grievance.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said that as that was the only opportunity they would have this session of reviewing the position of Scottish fishermen he was glad to have that chance of saying a word in regard to the whole subject. One would gather from the closing remarks of the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish fisheries were in a depressed and decaying and ruinous condition. The fact was entirely the other way. There never was such a record year for the Scottish fisheries.
    MR. WEIRsaid that that was due to the trawlers.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid that if his hon. friend would allow him to proceed with the statement he was about to make, he would show that he had not been in-different to the interests of the fishermen. In years past he had shown and the Government had shown entire sympathy with the position of the line fishermen. With regard to the Moray Firth itself, there had been an increase in twelve months in the capital invested in Scottish fishing boats—not steam trawlers, but steam drifters and liners—of £600,000, and of that no less than £400,000 was attributable to the industry and enterprise of the Moray Firth fishermen. He really thought that deserved to be put on record. He agreed with much that had been said in regard to the desirability of securing adequate closure of the Moray Firth to trawlers, but it should not go forth from the House that the industry was otherwise than in a very prosperous condition. The hon. Gentleman had attributed to him the responsibility for the decay of the Scottish fisheries. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would look into the statistics and figures of which he had given only one example. The figures, at any rate, absolved him from the charge of having no sympathy for, or interest in, this most important industry.

    1781
    He would make one other observation. There was undoubtedly a disquieting symptom when they looked at the fishery statistics. It was undoubtedly the case that the fishermen had to go further for their fish, and that there were some symptoms which led good judges of the subject, like the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs and others who had spoken that night, to fear that there was a depletion of the North Sea, which was the main source of our fish supplies. That was the justification for the money spent by this country in scientific investigation and for the work of the International Commission for the research of the North Sea, to which this country was a party. This very depletion of the sources of supply was originally one of the reasons for the passing of Acts of Parliament which gave power to the Fishery Board to pass bye-laws for the closure of the Moray Firth, which bye-laws were subsequently passed. That being the case the House would readily perceive that the Government in their policy of endeavouring to secure agreement between the various Powers in the North Sea for the closure of this important area was in line with all that this Government and previous Governments had done in the matter. One word in defence of his own action. In March this year he announced the decision of the Government to endeavour to arrive at the point when they could approach foreign Powers. No time had been lost. Such an invitation to foreign Powers must be founded upon a scheme of scientific investigation, and such a scheme must take some time to prepare. The proposals must go from all departments of the Government. No time would be lost. Scottish Members might rest assured that the Scottish case had been presented and strongly urged, and would be strongly urged in the future. One or two questions of high policy had interested the House very much that evening, and, after discussing them, it was difficult to come down to the humdrum routine of fishery administration. He would only make one observation in reply to the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs, who had complained of the supineness of the Government in regard to enforcement of the regulations. It was the policy of the Government to
    1782
    enforce the regulations, and if the hon. Member would look at the record of convictions, he would find that the regulations had been faithfully and vigorously carried out by the Fishery Board. He must adhere to what he said on another occasion, that the Scottish Office and the Fishery Board, if they were to represent the fishing interests of Scotland as a whole, must not be assumed to be concerned solely with one class of fisheries. It was their duty to see that the interests of all were protected by such means as they had in their power, and it was only in that way that they could do their duty to the fisheries of Scotland as a whole. He trusted that the assurances which had been given by his right hon. friend and himself would tend to allay the charges of want of energy and activity on the part of the Scottish Office in this matter.
    And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    UNEMPLOYED AT GLASGOW.
    On the Motion for the adjournment of the House—
    MR. BARNESreminded the House that on two separate occasions the Prime Minister had held out the hope that part of the time that night would be available for the discussion of the question of the unemployed at Glasgow. That was a matter of considerable importance to the people of Scotland, and to the people of Glasgow especially. He thought he and his friends who represented that city had fair ground to complain that a portion of the time which had been given to the discussion of fisheries had not been given to the discussion of the question of the unemployed. The Secretary for Scotland did not get up to reply until twelve minutes to eleven, and he spoke up to eleven o'clock. He did not know what other opportunity would be given for the discussion of the question of the unemployed, but there were

    1783
    ways and means by which a reasonable amount of time might be found for the discussion of the subject. He suggested that the opportunity might be found on the Report stage of some Scottish Vote. He hoped the Patronage Secretary would put the matter before the Prime Minister, and that he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the request made by him in this matter had not been complied with.
    MR. CLELANDsupported the appeal made by his hon. friend. Glasgow was face to face at the present moment with an acute problem. As time had not been found for the discussion of the subject that night, he hoped the Government would afford another opportunity for its being brought before the House. It was a question which affected over 1,000,000 people in Scotland at present.
    MR. WATTsaid the promise given by the Prime Minister that there would be an opportunity for the discussion of the unemployed question that night had not been fulfilled on account of the action of the Secretary for Scotland in delaying so long his reply on the fisheries question. He hoped another opportunity for discussion would be found.
    MR. C. E. PRICE,while admitting the importance of the discussion which had taken place on the fisheries question, regretted that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland did not speak earlier, in order that time might have been available for the discussion of the question of the unemployed. He thought it was a very great pity that when the Scottish
    1784
    Estimates came before the House the debates should be confined to one or two questions, although there were others on which hon. Members desired to speak. He hoped that the Government next year would make arrangements to give two days for the discussion.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,)said he would be very glad to convey to the Prime Minister the representations which had been made to him. At the same time, perhaps he might be allowed to say that there was some difficulty in getting even the half-day which the Scottish Members wished at this stage of the session. The Government recognised the importance of the question which hon. Members desired to raise, and although the Prime Minister did not pledge himself that there would be an opportunity to discuss the question, they were anxious that an opportunity might be afforded for, at any rate, a short debate.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that if what had happened that night was the Government's idea of giving an opportunity for debate it appeared to him that they had acted with singular maladroitness. He hoped that the Government would respond to the appeal which had been made for another opportunity to discuss the question. This was only another instance of the way in which the business of the House was conducted, or rather mismanaged by the Government.
    Adjourned at eleven minutes after Eleven o'clock.