Commons Sitting of 1 July 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PROTESTANT SUCCESSION.— PETITION.
Mr. CATHCART WASON presented a petition from residents in the State of Victoria, Commonwealth of Australia, urging "That the attempt now being made to tamper with the Statutory Declaration required by the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to be made by the Sovereign of the realm, is dangerous to the Protesant succession and the stability of the Throne, and your petitioners humbly pray your honourable House to oppose any alteration as being mischievous and unconstitutional and fraught with great danger to the civil, political, and religious liberties of the people."

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill,
York Town and Blackwater Gas (Electric Lighting, etc.) Bill,
Lord's Amendments; considered and agreed to.
Bungay Water Bill [Lords],
Amendment made; Bill read the third time and passed.
Durham (County) Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],
Read the third time; and passed with Amendments.
Malvern Hills Bill [Lords], (King's Consent signified),
Read the third time; and passed with Amendments.
Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Wakefield Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London and North-Western Railway Bill [By Order],
Read the third time; and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Importation of Frozen Pigs (Chinese Ports).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY(for Mr. Thomas O'Donnell) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether frozen pigs are shipped from Chinese ports for consumption in these countries; if so, what quantity has been landed during the past twelve months; whether there has been any inspection either in Chinese ports or at the landing ports in this country to safeguard the future consumers of this meat; and whether full inquiries will be made in China regarding the feeding, killing, curing, and packing of these pigs before they are allowed to be landed in this country?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. No frozen carcases of pigs from Chinese ports have been imported into this country during the last twelve months. A packing-house and freezing establishment has, however, lately been constructed at Hankow, and a consignment from it of frozen pig carcases is expected to arrive here at the end of the present month. I have caused inquiry to be made into the matter, and have obtained information from the importing firm as to the feeding, killing, curing, and packing of the pigs. On arriving in this country the consignment will become subject to the Public Health (Foreign Meat) Regulations, which I issued last year, and I have caused communication to be made to the Medical Officer of Health of the port at which the consignment is expected to arrive with a view to securing that a strict examination is made of the carcases in question.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is he satisfied with the result of his inquiries into the matter? He said he had instituted inquiry.
  Mr. BURNS: No carcases of pigs have yet arrived. We anticipate their arrival by taking precautions, and I can assure the hon. Member that when such consignment does arrive it will be inspected generally in the most rigorous way, and my medical officers will do their best to subject this, the first consignment, to microscopic examination.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Can he say whether this firm, which is established at Hankow, and which is making the arrangements for this importation, is English or American?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not know and I do not care. They will all have to toe the line as far as inspection is concerned.

  Irish National Board of Education (Return).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Return called for by this House from the National Board of Education in Ireland on 1st December, 1908, and again on 13th May, 1909, will be presented?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND Mr. Birrell): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Return is now approaching completion and will be furnished within the next few days.

  Mullingar Lunatic Asylum.
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state why a lately appointed official in the office of inspectors, Lunatic Asylums Board, Ireland, ordered the joint committee of the Mullin-gar Lunatic Asylum to go back upon the plans of the verandah about to be erected and already sanctioned by the inspectors of the Lunatic Asylums Board, thereby causing an extra expense of over £70 to the joint committee of Mullingar; will this official be made liable by the auditor for this unnecessary expenditure; and will he devise means to prevent such action on the part of officials in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. I am informed by the inspectors of lunatics that the facts are as follows: In May, 1908, plans and specifications for a verandah for consumptives were approved. In April last the Asylum committee's engineer wrote that the timber specified for the work was not obtainable, and that it would cost an additional £150 to substitute equally good timber of another kind. The inspectors referred the matter to their architectural adviser, and, after consultation with the committee's engineer, an arrangement was arrived at by which the additional expense was reduced to £70. The inspectors' architectural adviser did not, order any departure from the original plans, and his intervention resulted in a saving to the Committee.

  Evicted Tenants (Mearscourt Estate, County Westmeath).
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked what is the cause of the delay in reinstating the evicted tenants on the Mearscourt estate, near Moyvare, county Westmeath, the Estates Commissioners having long ago approved of their claims and given public notice of the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of reinstating them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Proceedings have been instituted by the Estates Commissioners for the acquisition of 272 acres on this estate under the Evicted Tenants Act. The Commissioners expect to be in a position to acquire possession at an early date.

  Trinity College, Dublin (Statutory Payments).
  Mr. FLYNNasked what is the total amount to date in the hands of the public trustee of the yearly statutory payments of £5,000 to Trinity College, Dublin, with interest thereon, under section 39 of the Irish Land Act, 1903; what amount of land, if any, has been sold by the College authorities under that Act; what amount of redemption money have they received; and whether, in view of the heavy demands upon the Ireland Development Grant, it is proposed to continue these statutory payments indefinitely?
  Mr. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask if it is a fact that at the present moment negotiations are pending between Trinity College and a great many tenants which will result in the near future in extensive sales?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that is so, I am sure it is so, but I have not myself had any communication in regard to it. I am informed by the public trustee that the amount now in his hands, including interest received, after making payments under the section referred to, is £36,605. The amount of land sold by the College under the Irish Land Act, 1903, is altogether 5,478 acres. The amount of redemption money which has been paid for superior interests owned by the College and referred to in sub-section 2 of section 39 of the Act of 1903, which has been paid, is £81,390. No alteration could be made in these payments except by legislation, and it is not proposed to introduce such legislation.

  Guarantee Fund (Ireland Development Grant).
  Mr. FLYNNasked what is the entire amount paid over to the Guarantee Fund for the year ending 31st March, 1909, out of the Ireland Development Grant, and what is the estimated amount which has become payable to the same fund for the half-year ending 1st June, 1909?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member will find, on reference to the report of the proceedings under the Ireland Development Grant Act, 1903, for the year ended 31st March, 1909, which has been presented to Parliament, that the total amount paid over to the Guarantee Fund in that year from the Ireland Development Grant was £104,545 2s. 8d. The actual amount claimed and paid for the half-year ended 1st June last was £01,152 6s. 11d.

  Compensation for Malicious Injury (Kanturk Sessions).
  Mr FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the recent proceedings at the Kanturk Quarter Sessions in the case of a criminal injury application of a farmer named Eugene Daly, of Rowls; is he aware that the Recorder of Cork commented upon the fact that there was evidence that the people in no way sympathised or approved of the malicious burning in question, and yet a heavy fine by way of compensation was levied upon these ratepayers; and whether the Irish Government will consider the propriety of introducing such legislation as will provide that the guilty parties and not the ratepayers shall be punished?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the proceedings in question. According to the newspaper report which I have seen, the Recorder emphasised the fact that such crimes are really against the innocent ratepayer, and should be put down. The guilty parties are also liable under the existing law both to criminal and civil proceedings, if they can be discovered.
  Mr. FLYNN: If the Irish Government will not introduce legislation to redress this wrong, will it insist on the statutory authorities taking all possible precautions to punish the real offenders and not inoffensive ratepayers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No One wants innocent ratepayers punished, and I am quite sure
  584
  the police are taking every possible step they can to bring to justice the criminals who are guilty of the acts.
  Mr. FLYNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman been furnished with a copy of the Recorder's comments, and did he observe in the report of the proceedings that previous cases had occurred in connection with these holdings, and that the police have a very strong idea who were the guilty parties, and no one is brought to justice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police share my own anxiety to bring everyone in Ireland to justice who is acting against the law.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Is not the real difficulty in this case the reluctance of the people in the neighbourhood to give evidence to assist the police?
  Mr. FLYNN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's reading of the Recorder's comments show exactly the reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman alleges?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I read the Recorder's speech without gathering exactly what his frame of mind was, except that he shared my opinion that; it is very hard lines on the neighbourhood, which shows no sympathy with the crimes, that it should have to bear the punishment, but that is the proceeding of the Act of Parliament, which throws the obligation on the neighbourhood for crimes of this kind.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see in the facts of this case good reason for introducing legislation to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of Great Britain in respect of compensation for malicious injuries?
  Mr. H. BELLOC: And the rest of the civilised world?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not agree with that view. It is true that since Anglo-Saxon times it has not been the law of this country, but I am not prepared to hold up the law of England as an example to all nations.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Was not the law of England as it at present stands the law of Ireland when Ireland had a Parliament of her own?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I think that is not so; but I cannot discuss history with the hon. Member.

  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Mr. W. MOORE (for Mr. Lonsdale)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will obtain from the Intermediate Education Board and furnish the following particulars, namely, the number of boys who passed senior grade in 1908 who had already passed senior grade in 1907, the number of boys who passed senior grade with honours in 1908 who merely passed senior grade in 1907, the number of boys who passed senior grade with honours in 1908 who passed senior grade with honours in 1907, and the total number of schools represented by the above; and the same particulars with regard to girls?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The number of boys who passed the examination in exactly the same way in 1907 and 1908 was 25, and the number of girls seven. The number of boys who passed in 1907 and took honours in 1908 was 10, and the number of girls two. The number who took honours in both years was 32–31 boys and one girl. These students came from 36 schools.

  Cattle Driving (Toureen, County Galway).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, 20th June, at Toureen, near Gort, county Galway, 16 cattle, the property of J. Roche Kelly, Esq., were driven off his land for about four miles, and a gate pulled down, and not since recovered; whether he is aware that the land from which the cattle were driven is Mr. Kelly's own property, and that he has no tenants in the same parish; whether he can state if the police can assign any reason for the outrage; if any arrests have been made, and, if so, what sentences were passed upon the perpetrators of the outrage; and what steps the police propose to take to protect Mr. Kelly's property from occurrences of a similar nature in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Sixteen cattle were driven off the farm in question, which is Mr. Kelly's own property, on the date mentioned, and were recovered about two miles away. A gate was also removed, and has not yet been found. Mr. Kelly has no tenants in the parish. The police have not yet been able to discover the guilty parties, and it would be contrary to the established practice to express any opinion as to their motive. The police are taking every precaution to protect Mr. Kelly's property.

  Eviction (Cordal, County Kerry).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked whether the bailiff in charge of the farm from which Mr. Walsh has been evicted at Cordal, Castleisland, county Kerry, has been given food and sleeping accommodation at the Cordal police barrack; and by whose authority has this been allowed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that the bailiff has been allowed to spend the night in the day-room of the barrack until the farmhouse is ready for him. He procures his own food. The police have done no more than the support of the law requires.
  Mr. MURPHY: Am I to understand that the police are to be at the disposal of the landlords of the county of Kerry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think even an Irish bailiff is beyond the purview of ordinary humanity.
  Mr. MURPHY: There are several houses in the locality, and he has been taken special charge of by the police officers. Will the right hon. Gentleman permit that to continue?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think he can sleep better than where he is doing.

  Evicted Tenant (Marblehill Estate).
  Mr. KILBRIDE(for Mr. John Roche) asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the settlement of Mr. Lawrence Egan's claim as an evicted tenant formed part of the agreement to purchase between Sir Henry Burke and his tenants on the Marblehill estate; and, as the agreement was entered into two years ago, can he state has any effort been since made by the Estates Commissioners to settle this case; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners propose to provide this man with a holding on lands, which they hope to acquire at an early date. The former holding is in the occupation of another tenant.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Are they going to provide him with land in the immediate vicinity which the Estates Commissioners have already?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They will provide him with land as near as possible to his own home.

  Revising Barristers (Ireland).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether it has been the practice in Ireland to exclude from the list of revising barristers any person who has acted as a party agent or a Parliamentary candidate; whether that practice was departed from last year in the case of the revising barrister sent down to the constituency at present represented by the Solicitor-General for Ireland; and whether it is proposed to renew that appointment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware of the existence of any such practice. The assignment to particular Divisions of a county does not rest with the Government, but with the county court judge.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us a single case within the last 20 years where a barrister who has been a Parliamentary candidate or a political agent has ever been appointed a revising barrister?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it usual to exclude from office those lawyers who have been Parliamentary candidates?
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county court judge of the adjoining county of Donegal was appointed by a Unionist Government as county court judge after he had contested one of the Divisions of the county, and whether he has heard that not only lawyer candidates but also lawyer Members of Parliament sometimes look for jobs and get them?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. BIRRELL: This gentleman against whom these questions are aimed was, I understand, 20 years ago a candidate for some other seat in Tyrone. His ambition was not gratified. He never sat in this House, and I believe for 20 years he has never sought the honour of a seat in the House.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice, which I say exists in Ireland, without doubt exists in this country?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, dear me, no.

  Marsham Estate, Ballingahera, County Leitrim.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  588
  Ireland whether he is aware that the majority of the tenants on the Marsham estate, Ballinaghera, county Leitrim, were about to be evicted in March, 1908, for non-payment of exorbitant rents when a settlement was arrived at and the estate sold to the tenants, subject to the approval of the Estates Commissioners; whether the agent on behalf of the landlord has since refused to comply with the terms of the sale as agreed upon and instituted legal proceedings against the tenants; and whether there would be an inquiry into the facts of this case before police are drafted into the district to assist in evicting these tenants and collecting rents at the expense of the ratepayers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no official information as to the settlement referred to, but they understand that it was agreed that they should be allowed to inspect the property with a view to making an offer which it would be open to the tenants and the owner to accept or refuse. The agent communicated with the Commissioners, who expressed their readiness to make the inspection if furnished with the necessary maps and schedules. These have not been furnished, nor have proceedings been instituted for sale to the Commissioners. The owner is, however selling three separate estates direct to the tenants, and he has a fourth estate in the county in respect of which he has not yet arranged terms of sale. Any tenants who have not signed purchase agreements are still liable for rent, and the Commissioners have no power to interfere with any legal proceedings which the owner may take for its collection.

  Queen's University, Belfast (Music).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received any communications from students of the late Royal University (Ireland), who were studying music, complaining that no facilities are given in the arts course of the new Queen's University, Belfast, for carrying through the musical part of the course to its finish; whether he is aware that he promised definitely when the Bill was introduced that no students of the Royal University would suffer by any change under his proposed scheme; whether he is aware that it will be necessary for students who have passed their first examination in music in the Royal University, and who are midway in their course, to seek the

  589
  completion of the degree in some other university; and what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received one communication of the kind, and have referred it to the Commissioners, in whom the power of making statutes is at present vested. As regards the second paragraph of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to section 13 (3) of the Irish Universities Act, 1908, which was designed to protect the interests of students of the Royal University. It is enacted by that section that the governing body of the new University shall, so far as practicable, provide that students of the Royal University who elect to enter the new University may obtain degrees on conditions not more onerous than those under which they could obtain corresponding degrees in the Royal University.
  Captain CRAIG: If the facts be as stated, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to see that that is carried out?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is a matter for the governing body of the University to see that they carry out the obligations imposed upon them by the Act of Parliament.

  Queen's University, Belfast.
  Captain CRAIGasked if it is obligatory on each professor in the Queen's University to make a statutory declaration binding him to respect the religious susceptibilities of his class; if this obligation applies in general to lecturers and readers; if it will in particular apply to the lecturer or reader about to be appointed in scholastic philosophy; and, if not, what precautions will be taken in the case of this appointment to secure a similar object?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Apparently the statutes make no special provision to extend this obligation to lecturers and readers who might fairly enough be required to make a similar declaration. No lecturer in scholastic philosophy has yet been appointed, and the question raised by the hon. Member will be referred to the Commissioners, in whom the appointment is vested.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether these Commissioners are appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners are certainly nominees of the Government.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether there will be an appeal to the University Committee of the Privy Council, and whether the Members of that Committee will also be nominated by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot answer that.
  Mr. W. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this precaution of requiring each professor to make a statutory declaration is not enforced by someone, it may open the door to what is denounced as denominational teaching?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have expressed the opinion that although the statutes make no special provision for it, I think a lecturer or reader might fairly come within the requirement imposed by the Act. I will call attention to the matter.

  Flogging in India.
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case of conviction and sentence to 12 stripes for the theft of a flower plucked in the Alfred Park at Allahabad; whether he is aware that the sentence has been stayed pending a reference to the High Court; that it was passed by a young magistrate of only 18 months' service in India; and whether, in view of the facts of the ease, the Government will reconsider the advisability of vesting officers of so little experience with powers under the Whipping Act?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (the Master of Elibank): The Secretary of State has seen newspaper comments on the case referred to; he has seen no report of the case, but he will inquire. By law, sentences of whipping can be passed only by a magistrate of the first class; and first-class powers are not conferred upon a magistrate until he has passed all his departmental examinations and has been reported fit to exercise such powers by his superior officers. The Secretary of State does not think it necessary to propose any alteration of the law on this subject.
  Sir HENRY COTTON: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable that a magistrate with only eighteen months' service should have the power of passing such a sentence?
  Mr. J. D. REES: May I ask whether the practice which the hon. Member for East Nottingham has condemned is one that has obtained for many decades in India in the service of which he spent his life?
  Mr. REESalso asked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to a recent case in Calcutta in which a Bengali offender, when sentenced, was offered a choice of imprisonment or whipping, and chose the latter; and whether, in view of recent restrictions placed by recent legislation in India upon resort to this punishment, he will consider the advisability of making representations to the Governor-General in Council on the subject?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State is not aware of the case referred to in the question. He does not propose to make any representations to the Governor-General in Council on the subject.

  Taxi-cabs for Bombay and Madras.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether an agreement has been concluded between the Government of Bombay and a French company for the placing of 100 first-class and 50 second-class taxi-cabs on the streets of Bombay, and whether a similar agreement has been concluded with the Government of Madras; and whether he can state why preference has been given to a French company?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: There has been no agreement between the Government of Bombay and a French company for the purpose described in the question. But the International Sleeping Car Company, which is a French company, applied for permission to establish a service of taxi-cabs in Bombay, and permission has been granted. Their cabs will be licensed by the police on the usual conditions. The company has preferred a similar request to the Government of Madras, which is under consideration. The permission given in Bombay does not confer any monopoly on the company.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether any other offers have been received from any other companies?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can explain
  592
  why France, a protected country, can supply taxi-cabs to India on more favourable terms than manufacturers in this country?

  Sanitary Work at Bombay.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether it is now known at the India Office who has been appointed to carry on Captain McKendrick's sanitary work at Bombay; and what are the qualifications of the new officer?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Government of Bombay have appointed Dr. Charles Albert Bentley to the post vacated by Captain McKendrick. Dr. Bentley is a M.B. of Edinburgh University, and holds the Cambridge diplomas of public health and of tropical medicine. He has had experience in malarial diseases as medical officer on the estates of an important tea company, and has been engaged in research work of a bacteriological kind, the results of which have been published in the "British Medical Journal."

  "Boadicea" (Speed Trials).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was necessary to use liquid fuel during the trials of the cruiser "Boadicea" in order to get the required horse-power; if so, whether any record was taken of the maximum speed obtained with the use of coal alone, and what was that speed; and whether any arrangements have been made for the storage and use of oil fuel in the ship?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The trials are not arranged to ascertain the maximum powers or speeds which can be reached, but to develop specified powers under given conditions. The full power trial of the "Boadicea" was carried out using liquid fuel and coal as laid down in the contract.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Am I to understand that no maximum speed trials require to take place?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. The purpose of a speed trial is to see whether the conditions of the contract have been complied with.

  Two-Power Standard (Relative Value of Battleships).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now say what, in the opinion of the Admiralty, are the relative values, for the

  593
  purpose of computing the two-Power standard, of battleships of identical fighting power at Kiel, Toulon, Pola, Nagasaki, San Francisco and New York?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to add to the reply given to this question on the 16th June.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I take it that in the opinion of the Admiralty the effective strength of a battleship of identical fighting power at San Francisco is equal to that of a battleship at Kiel?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not wish to commit myself to a statement so broad as that.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this standard of comparison was instituted by the Government a few weeks ago?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think that was made perfectly clear in the course of the Debate.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave on 16th June capable of any other interpretation than that which I have given?

  Ocean-Going Destroyers ("Swift" Class).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to lay down any more vessels of the "Swift" class of ocean-going destroyers?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no such present intention.

  Destroyers (Reserve).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that after the destroyer "Panther" has been relieved by the "Saracen," or "Afridi, "the first destroyer flotilla will consist entirely of vessels of the "Tribe" and "River "classes, none of which was completed before 1904; and if he will state how many destroyers of these classes are in reserve?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Gentleman on 24th May, namely, that the general principle is that, subject to a few exceptions, the latest destroyers are placed in the fully-manned flotillas.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: This would be one of the exceptions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, It would be in accordance with the general principle.

  Docking and Repairing Warships (Facilities East of Malta).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what facilities for the repair and docking of His Majesty's ships of various classes exist to the east of Malta and to the West of Haulbowline?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question is of too comprehensive a character to permit of an answer being given, involving as it does an analysis of the contents of all British and foreign dockyards abroad. In view of the great labour involved, I must beg to be excused from making a reply.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the Admiralty does not know what repairing facilities there are in this part of the world?
  Mr. McKENNA: That does not arise out of my answer.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I asked what facilities exist in that part of the world?
  Mr. McKENNA: That would cover all the dockyards, private as well as public.

  Engine Room Artificers (Appointments).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say whether in the drafting arrangements of engine-room artificers due regard can be given to appointment on ships for home and foreign stations alternately?
  Mr. McKENNA: The drafting of engine-room artificers is governed by the Drafting Regulations, which apply to naval ratings generally, and provide that care shall be taken that all men receive a fair proportion of home and sea service respectively, so far as the requirements of the service admit.

  Wages at Elswick Works (Complaint by Engineers).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the district committee of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, have lodged a complaint against the firm of Messrs. Armstrong, Whit worth, and Com-

  595
  pany, Elswick, as to this firm's non-observance of the fair wages clause of this House; and can he say what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: A complaint of this nature has been received. The Admiralty are in communication with Messrs. Armstrong, Whit worth, and Company on the subject.

  Two-Power Standard (Speed of Foreign Navies).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the distance from New York to Brest is about 2,900 knots and from Libau to Tsushima approximately 13,000 knots; and whether, in view of the fact that a Russian fleet was able to undertake the latter voyage with the object of carrying out offensive operations, and that a United States navy would thus be able to carry out similar operations on the eastern shores of the Atlantic Ocean, he will take the latter navy into his consideration in providing for the two-Power standard?
  Mr. McKENNA: With reference to the first part of the question the facts stated are approximately correct. With regard to the second part, it is undesirable to moot hypotheses for which there is no basis.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I do not understand the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that the United States Navy was excluded from the computation in estimating the two-Power standard. Is that so?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have stated that I think it would be undesirable to moot hypotheses for which there is no basis.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say if it is now the view of the Admiralty that the two-Power standard must be taken to be the total effective strength of the British Navy for defence as against the combined effective strength of any other two fleets for attack; and whether, in computing the strength of the latter, regard must be had to the geographical position of the bases from which the fleets will operate?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty view of the two-Power standard has been very fully stated in Debate, and the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is impossible
  596
  to continue the Debate by means of interrogatory in the very limited time devoted to questions.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Am I to understand that regard must be had to the geographical position of the bases of a possible hostile fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find a phrase almost on those words in the course of the Debate to which I have referred.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the answer to my former question?

  Return of Deported Alien.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the man Pole, a Russian subject, who was deported after conviction in this country in 1906, convicted at the Central Criminal Court on the 23rd June, 1909, and again sentenced to be deported; whether inquiries have been made as to the manner of this man's return to this country; and whether steps will be taken to prevent his further reappearance?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. Gladstone): I am aware of this case. I have not been able to obtain trustworthy information as to the manner of the alien's return to the United Kingdom. Every effort is made at the immigration ports to detect such persons; but failing that, the utmost that can be done is to prosecute and punish them for contravention of the Order when they are discovered here, and to send them again out of the country.

  Penal Servitude Sentence (Taylor).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the case of a young man called Taylor convicted in December, 1906, for feloniously stealing a few farthings and metal spoons, and sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude; and whether he will now consider all the circumstances of the case and the fact that it was the young man's first offence, with a view to mitigating the sentence?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: This case—a very serious case of burglary—has been repeatedly brought to my notice, and I have care-

  597
  fully considered all the circumstances, but I do not feel able at present to recommend any interference with the sentence.
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that stealing a few spoons constitutes a serious burglary?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have taken into consideration all the circumstances of the case which are not mentioned in the question.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is not it the case that it was the young man's first offence?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I cannot say that it was his first offence. It is his first conviction.

  Experiments on Living Animals.
  Mr. SMEATONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the inspector of experiments on living animals in the Return for 1908 to the effect that one licensee performed (so-called) feeding experiments on seven puppies, one kitten, and two rodents without obtaining the necessary certificate, and that another licensee exceeded the terms of his certificate by bleeding certain animals to an excessive amount; how many experiments of the kind referred to were made; of what nature wore they; and what are the names of the persons who performed them?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: In the first of the cases referred to in the question the number of experiments was ten, and their nature was the feeding of animals with food containing cultures of micro-organisms. The licensee had a certificate which allowed inoculations, but he failed to observe that its terms did not cover the alternative method of feeding. The nature of the experiments in the second case is fully stated in the Return; the licensee held a certificate authorising the abstraction of small quantities of blood; this was done by pricking a vein in the ear, and he bled some of the animals to a considerable amount. The number of cases was about a dozen, but there is difficulty in drawing the line between the small quantities mentioned in the certificate and the larger quantities which were in some cases abstracted.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is there any reason to suppose that there was any unnecessary cruelty involved with these experiments?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have no reason to think so.
  Mr. SMEATON: The right hon. Gentleman has not given the names.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Is there any real reason why the names of these gentlemen who inadvertently or otherwise transgressed the law should be concealed from the public?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I do not think there is any particular reason, or any particular reason for giving them.
  Mr. G. GREENWOOD: Do the particular experiments in respect of which the Home Secretary directed the licences to be abolished appear in table form or in any other part of the returns?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I understand they are mentioned in the returns.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: In table form?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I will inquire.
  Mr. BYLES: This is also a first offence?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: So far as I know.

  Suffragette Disturbances at Westminster (Cost of Police).
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Home Secretary whether he can state the number of police engaged at Westminster on 29th June in coping with the disorder created by the suffragettes; and whether the city of Westminster will have to pay the cost of the same, as is the practice in Ireland when extra police are brought into a district to discharge special duty?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: It has not been usual to give the numbers of police specially employed on these occasions, and I do not think it would be desirable to do-so. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Am I to understand that when outside police are called in in this country in case of disturbance to assist the local police in preserving the peace the practice is that it is not the local authority that pays for these outside police, but it is the outside authority that pays for them?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No outside police were called in.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the total expenditure in connection with the police employed on Tuesday?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. I can get the information if the hon. Member wishes.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Who pays for the bringing in of extra police?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: They are Metropolitan Police. The hon. Gentlemen knows very well how they are paid.

  Village Halls in Ireland.
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how long the Department Scheme No. 16 has been in force; how many village halls have been erected under the scheme, and the names of the villages; what are the conditions and terms of the loans with regard to repayment; why should the Department demand the whole control of these halls when the grant is not a free one; and whether he will consider the desirability of giving the promoters in the establishment of these village halls the same facilities in regard to repayment of loans as the Board of Works give to farmers for the erection of hay-barns, namely, 23 years, paying principal and interest in that term?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): Scheme No. 16 was published late in the year 1906. Village halls were erected at the following places with the assistance of loans from the Department:—Seirkieran, near Birr; Garrison, on the borders of county Cavan and Leitrim; Rilleshandra, county Cavan; Gurteen. county Sligo; Glenamaddy, county Galway. The loans in the first two cases were granted prior to the issue of the scheme. Repayment of loans in ten half-yearly instalments, with interest at the nominal rate of 2½, per cent. on the outstanding balance, is secured by a bond signed by the trustees in whom the hall is vested. The sole management of these halls is in the hands of the local trustees, hut the County Committee or the Department, on payment of certain agreed-upon fees, have prior claim to the use of the hall in connection with county schemes. The primary object of this scheme is to grant a limited number of loans for the erection of new, or for the repair of old, buildings in districts in which difficulty has been experienced in getting suitable accommodation for classes under county schemes. The amount allocated for the purpose of these loans by the Department, with the concurrence of the Agricultural Board, is very limited, and it is not intended to modify the conditions of the scheme as published.

  Retirement of Ship Inspector.
  Mr. M. HOGAN(for Mr. Nannetti) asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that an order has been made by the Treasury that ship inspectors who are not pensionable officers should retire on reaching the age of 60 years, which is a hardship on men of good character; and, seeing that other officials of a similar character are allowed to serve until 65, whether he can see his way to recommend that the ship inspectors be allowed the privilege of remaining in their situation until the 65 years' age is reached, provided they are able and fit for service; and if not, whether any compensation can be granted to those men who are compelled to retire?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Department's ship inspectors, who are for the most part police pensioners, retire on attaining 60 years of age, the limit fixed by the Treasury several years ago after inquiry into the duties, conditions of service, and pay of these officers. This rule has been applied in a number of cases; and the Department are not prepared to reopen the question with the Treasury. The ship inspectors' employment is on a temporary basis, and no compensation is payable on ceasing to hold office.

  Railway Companies' Docks and Harbours.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the railway companies in Great Britain and Ireland who are the owners of docks and harbours; where each is situated; the amount of the dock dues charged, if any; and whether the accounts of such companies are so kept as to be able to distinguish as between dock and railway revenue, showing the profit and loss under each head; and, as to the latter, if not, is he prepared to take action in regard to all future railway and dock Bills having for its object the compelling of such companies to so arrange their balance sheets as to place under separate headings the revenue from the railway and the docks?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): Information as to the docks and harbours owned by railway companies is not published in any very convenient form, but I will send the hon. Member a list of such docks and harbours and the owning companies, prepared by the Board of Trade from the Return of Harbour Authorities,

  601
  presented to Parliament in 1903 [No. 3250 of 1903], and from other information in their possession. The revenue and expenditure from docks is not shown separately in railway companies' accounts as now rendered; but the Departmental Committee, which has recently reported on Railway Companies' Accounts and Statistics, recommended a form of account which would give this information. The Committee's recommendations are now being very carefully considered.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Do I understand that it is impossible to tell this income and expenditure under separate headings of the railways and harbours of railway companies?
  Mr. TENNANT: No; I did not state that. I only stated that they were not published in a convenient form. I think I shall be able to furnish my hon. Friend with the information desired.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Do I understand that the accounts of the railways and harbours are published in convenient form understandable by the public, showing the amount received from the railways and the amount received from the harbours and docks?
  Mr. TENNANT: No; I do not think they are. My hon. Friend will understand I only state that they do happen to be arranged in this manner. I dare say amendment will be made.
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Might we have a list of the harbours and docks specified in this question sent with the Papers?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I think I shall be able to do that.

  Metropolitan District Railway.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL(for Mr. Hudson) asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the change made by the Metropolitan District Railway Company in placing the side exit doors of their electric trains out of control of the guards and conductors who work the trains; whether the company have taken steps to secure the safety of passengers travelling by such trains; and, if so, whether these steps have received the sanction of his Department?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am aware of the alteration to which the hon. Member refers. The particular arrangement adopted does
  602
  not require the sanction of the Board of Trade, but I have been in communication with the company, who have informed me that a sufficient platform staff is employed, and detailed instructions have been issued for ensuring, so far as possible, that all carriage doors are closed before a train leaves the station. The company also state that they are providing an improved apparatus for the easier working of the doors.

  Small Holding's (Roxburgh).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what number of small holdings have been created in the county of Rox-burgh under the Small Holdings Act of 1892, and what is the area thereof; and whether any progress has been made as to number and area since last century?
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: None, Sir.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked with regard to the circular of February, 1907, issued on the Report of the Departmental Committee on Small Holdings, whether any inquiry has been made by the county council of Roxburgh as to the identification of land available for small holdings; when, and with what result; and whether any farm servants were associated to conduct any such inquiry?
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: None, Sir.

  School Attendance in Scotland.
  Sir W. MENZIESasked what is the number of scholars in average attendance in primary and secondary schools in Scotland respectively; and in what estimated proportion will the balance (£421,000) of the Scottish Education Fund be divided between them?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The average attendance in higher class schools for the year 1908 was 17,489. There were in addition 19,932 scholars receiving secondary education in the higher grade departments of primary schools. The average attendance of pupils in primary departments was 692,144. As regards the second part of the question of the hon. Member, the Act directs the balance referred to to be distributed to local authorities for the various purposes enumerated in section 17 of the Act, and it is impossible to discriminate between these purposes so as to say what proportion of the expenditure should be attributed to

  603
  secondary and what to primary scholars. In any case, till the proposals of the district committees for the expenditure of the sums allotted to them have been received it is not possible to give even approximately the estimate asked for.

  School Accommodation (Sidley, Bexhill).
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a petition from ratepayers and parents of Sidley, Bexhill, respecting school accommodation; and what steps he proposes taking in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Board have received the petition referred to, and are in communication with the local authority and the managers thereon.

  Naval Inquiry (Committee's Report).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to any decision as to the publication of a Report on the proceedings of the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of the Navy?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
  Earl WINTERTON: May I respectfully ask whether in these circumstances he will see that no communique of any kind whatever is made to the Press?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No communication of any kind has been made by the Committee.

  Finance Bill.

    LAND AND SPIRIT TAXES.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total quantity of spirits, beer, and porter consumed in Ireland during the year ended March, 1908, and the gross duty paid for these commodities during the same period; what was the total duty paid for all alcoholic drink consumed in Ireland during the same period; and what was the total amount paid into the Irish Local Taxation Account in respect of these taxes in this period?
    The HON. MEMBERfurther asked (1) what is the gross income derived from land fixed under schedule B (profits derived from occupation) in each of the three countries, England, Scotland, and Ireland, in
    604
    the years 1900, 1905, and 1908 respectively, as well as the actual amount of tax received from each of the three countries?
    (2) What is the gross assessment of the capital value of land, as well as the gross annual income taxed in England, Scotland, and Ireland under schedule A, for the purposes of Income Tax in the years 1900, 1905, and 1908 respectively, also the deductions made in the three countries respectively, on account of repairs, agricultural depression, etc., for income derived from land taxed under this schedule?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I am causing to be printed with the Votes statements containing the information asked for by the hon. Member in this and the two subsequent questions.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. JAMES C. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give separate headings for beer, spirits, and so forth; not the totals alone, but so as to differentiate between them?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It appears to me that the figures come under the separate headings, but I will see whether that can be done.

    LAND TAXES (FLATS, OFFICES AND CHAMBERS).
    Sir HENRY KIMBERasked what is to be considered within the intention of the Finance Bill, as the site of offices, flats, or chambers above the ground floor of buildings, and are they to be considered an interest in the land; if so, how are they to be valued; and are the Increment Duty and the Reversion Duty to attach to leases of such premises, either against the freeholder or the long leaseholder, or both?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not proposed to treat offices, flats, or chambers above the ground floor of buildings as an interest in land.

    OFF BEER LICENCES.
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked whether the holder of an existing off beer licence who, under the Finance Bill, will be compelled to take out the new off beer licence referred to in Schedule 1, scale 6, of the Finance Bill, will be regarded as applying for a renewal of his licence or will he be compelled to go through the formalities requisite for an application for a new licence?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The holder of an existing off beer Excise licence, upon

    605
    taking out the new licence upon payment of the duty to be charged under the Finance Bill, will be regarded as applying for a renewal of his licence.

    SPIRIT DUTY (HOSIPITALS AND INFIRMARIES).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the burden of taxation that will fall upon public hospitals, infirmaries, and dispensaries established and mainly supported by voluntary contributions for the relief of the poor and indigent, by the additional duty on spirits, which are largely employed in the preparation of drugs, and on brandy prescribed for the use of patients; and whether he can see his way to allow a return of such additional duty, under proper regulations, to those institutions?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West on 16th June in answer to a similar question.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (DEFINITION).
    Sir ROBERT HOBARTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state the full effect of the difference between the definition of agricultural land as defined in the Agricultural Rating Act and the definition of agricultural land given in Clause 27 of the Finance Bill; and what is the reason for this differentiation and its intention for the purposes of taxation?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer is long and complicated, and I propose to circulate it with the Votes.—[See, Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked on what basis the undeveloped supply of mineral waters will be estimated for the duty on undeveloped minerals under the Finance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 28th ult., in reply to a similar question in regard to natural gas.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask what sentence in the Finance Bill covers the difficulty?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where it has a value it will be dealt with.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: The question is how the value is to be arrived at. Does not
    606
    Clause 15 say: "The total value of minerals means the amount which the fee simple of the minerals, if sold in the open market by a willing seller in their then condition, might be expected to realise?"
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has supplied the answer himself.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: How is the amount arrived at? That is a question which has not yet been answered
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it has got a market value it will be arrived at in the same way as the Death Duties are ascertained.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask how the value of an undeveloped supply of natural gas or mineral water is to be arrived at, seeing that its conditions are totally different from the ordinary conditions of other minerals, the value of which can be arrived at by geological survey and investigation?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid the hon. Member knows very well that there is a good deal of natural gas that has no market value at all. It depends on the condition of the market, and sometimes there is little demand and an infinite supply.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I am not dealing with bottled natural gas on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman, but the supply of natural gas in the earth, which will have to be valued for the purposes of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it has a value of course it will have to be discovered in the ordinary way.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: In regard to the alternative system of a tax on royalties, would a tax be put on natural gas or mineral water?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If an alternative charge occurred on royalties the duty would be on the actual amount.
    Mr. FLYNN: Is there any tax on the natural gas of this morning's proceedings?

  Shropshire Yeomanry (Forage Supply).
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the officer commanding the Shropshire Yeomanry complained to the General Officer commanding Western Com-

  607
  mand and to everyone in authority whom he could find, and that the principal veterinary surgeon, as well as the brigadier, also complained that the oats supplied were foreign, dirty, and of very bad quality, without any result, he will take steps to insure the supply of good oats and hay in future years; and is he aware that the same complaints have come from the Warwickshire Yeomanry, with the addition that the men were supplied with bad foreign meat?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): As I have already informed the hon. Member, no complaint from the Shropshire Yeomanry regarding their forage supply has been received from the general officer commanding the western command. All forage issued to the Yeomanry on Salisbury Plain was inspected and passed daily by a Board of Officers, and any rejected as inferior was replaced by forage of satisfactory quality. The meat supply to the Yeomanry was under the same conditions as the supply to the regular troops, and no complaints have been received by the War Office.
  Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any complaints about the supply of forage to Yeomanry regiments, and will he receive on this question a deputation of hon. Members of this House who are interested in the Yeomanry force?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not think I can do so at present. The system prevails in connection with the troops. There are obvious reasons why, in changing from an old system to a new one, there should be complaints, but after a little time the change, which has been made will be better appreciated.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general officer of the Western Command received personally from the officer commanding the Shropshire Yeomanry a general complaint that the oats and forage were distinctly bad? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any notice of the complaints?
  Mr. HALDANE: The general officer commanding the Western Command is one of the most experienced officers dealing with these questions, and no doubt had excellent reasons for the course he took in regard to the complaints.
  Mr. W. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that all these complaints
  608
  about the oats are merely due to the fact that there is a change of system?
  Mr. HALDANE: I did not say all.
  Mr. B. STANIER: Could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to provide samples for the officers?
  Mr. HALDANE: As I have stated in the reply, "all forage issued to the Yeomanry on Salisbury Plain was inspected daily by a Board of Officers." Having looked very carefully into their reports the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief sees no reason to take further action.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Can he tell the House at the time these supplies were served out to the Yeomanry what the price of homegrown oats was and the price of foreign oats?
  Mr. HUNT: Had the General Officer Commanding the oats weighed, as the chief complaint was they were so light?
  Mr. HALDANE: The forage was inspected daily.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that the man who contracted to supply the oats for the Shropshire Yeomanry rents Government farms on Salisbury Plain, and not only supplied very bad foreign oats, but when the oats were condemned and sent back he merely had them screened and sent the same oats back again; and whether he proposes to take any action in the case of this contractor?
  Mr. HALDANE: The contractor in question does not rent Government farms on Salisbury Plain. Any oats supplied by him that were condemned were replaced by good oats in accordance with the conditions of contract. There do not appear to be sufficient reasons for taking any further action in this case.
  Mr. HUNT: Is he aware that the officer commanding himself stated that the same oats were sent back after they had been condemned?
  Mr. HALDANE: My information is that any oats supplied by this contractor and which were condemned were afterwards replaced by good oats.
  Several HON. MEMBERSrose to put further questions.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be more convenient if hon. Members would put their questions down.

  Income Tax Rebates.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax is charged on the £40 per annum paid by a man to his father, aged 75, which sum precludes the further receiving an old age pension; and, if so, can he see his way to grant a rebate?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: A voluntary money allowance is not an admissible deduction in computing the Income Tax liability of the person by whom such allowance is made. I regret that I do not see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. WALTER LONG: May I ask the Prime Minister what is to be the order of business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday it is proposed to continue the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.
On Thursday Scotch Estimates, Class 2, Vote 27, Office of Secretary for Scotland.
On Friday we hope to take the Irish Land Bill in Committee and a Money Resolution.
Mr. W. LONG: May I ask whether, if the Land Bill is commenced on Friday, the right hon. Gentleman has decided when he proposes to resume the consideration of it?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
Mr. W. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the event of subsequently deciding to take the Land Bill on the following Monday, he will take into consideration the fact that public engagements will make it impossible for Ulster Unionist Members to attend on that day? It has been customary to make a concession, and the Prime Minister may probably be aware that it is the twelfth of July.
Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that all the Irish Members will be in daily attendance at that time?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will try and balance all those considerations.

SUFFRAGIST DISTURBANCES AT WESTMINSTER (SESSIONAL ORDER).
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to ask your ruling on a matter arising out of yesterday's
610
proceedings. I raised the question as to who was responsible for the exclusion of the deputation which desired to interview the Prime Minister on the previous evening. You quoted the Sessional Order under which the police acted. I desire now to call your attention to an Act of Charles II. that has a direct bearing upon the position, and to ask your ruling upon the point I shall submit to you. The Act, as you of course know, was intended to prohibit tumultuous assemblages and riotous proceedings in connection with the presentation of Petitions to Members. Certain penalties were imposed upon those guilty of that offence. Clause 3 of the Act which, with your permission I shall read, safeguards the right of petition not only to His Majesty the King, but also to Members of the House—and that is the point I wish to ask your ruling upon. Clause 3 stipulates: "Provided always that this Act or anything therein contained shall not be considered to extend to debar or hinder any person or persons, not exceeding the number of ten aforesaid, to present any public or private grievance or complaint to any Member or Members of Parliament after his election and during the continuance of Parliament." That recognises the right of citizens not merely to present petitions to the King, but also to approach Members of this House. The point I desire your ruling on is whether the Sessional Order under which this deputation was prevented from approaching a Member of this House is not ultra vires, and whether any Order can override a right which exists in common law, and which has been expressly confirmed by Act of Parliament?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the question raised by the hon. Member is really a point of law, and not one for me but for the Courts to decide. Indeed, I believe it is the subject of investigation and consideration in the Courts at present, and it would be an improper thing for me to give an opinion upon it. I could not either undertake to hold that a Sessional Order, which has now been passed every Session exactly in its present form for nearly seventy years, was out of order. It would be a great reflection on all former Parliaments if I enunciated any such view, or laid down any such ruling. I understand an Order, though not exactly in the same terms, but of a similar character, has been passed, I might almost say, for centuries, but at all events for a century. It would seem almost impossible to con-

611
ceive that all our predecessors in this Chamber have been acting ultra vires in this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER moved: "That the Proceedings on the business of
Supply, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15."
Question put. The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 54.

Division No. 224.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

O'Deherty, Philip

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Goddard, Sir Daniel

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Alden, Percy

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Griffith, Ellis J

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gulland, John W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Barker, Sir John

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

Pointer, J.

Barnard, E. B.

Hart-Davies, T.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Beck, A. Cecil

Hedges, A. Paget

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

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Pullar, Sir Robert

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

Radford, G. H.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Herbart, T. Arnou. (Wycombe)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Bertram, Julius

Higham, John Sharp

Redmond, William (Clare)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rees, J. D.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hogan, Michael

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brigg, John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Bright, J. A.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Jardine, Sir J.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Brodie, H. C.

Jenkins, J.

Rowlands, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter

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

Jowett, F. W.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Bryce, J. Annan

Joyce, Michael

Sears, J. E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Byles, William Pollard

Laidlaw. Robert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Cameron, Robert

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Soares, Ernest J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lambert, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Lamont, Norman

Stanley, Hon A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Chance, Frederick William

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cheetham, John Frederick

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Summerbell, T.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Sutherland, J. E.

Cleland, J. W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lundon, T.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lynch, H. B.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cowan, W. H.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

Cox, Harold

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Creig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Tomkinson, James

Crooks, William

M'Callum, John M.

Toulmin, George

Crossley, William J.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

Waring, Walter

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Maddison, Frederick

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Mallet, Charles E.

Watt, Henry A.

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

Massie, J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Meagher, Michael

Whitbread, S. Howard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Menzies, Sir Walter

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Elibank, Master of

Molteno, Percy Alport

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Wiles, Thomas

Everett, R. Lacey

Morrell, Philip

Wills, Arthur Walters

Falconer, J.

Morse, L. L.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Norton, Captain Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Ginnell, L.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

NOES.

Actand-Hood, Pt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Nicholson, Wm G. (Petersfield)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Ashley, W. W.

Halpin, J.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Hill, Sir Clement

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hills, J. W.

Snowden, P.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Joynson-Hicks, William

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bull, Sir William James

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Kerry, Earl of

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Castlereagh, Viscount

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Winterton, Earl

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Long, Rt. Hon. Waiter (Dublin, S.)

Younger, George

Cross, Alexander

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Peel.

Doughty, Sir George

Moore, William

Second Resolution agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Ordered, Mr. Haworth be a member of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]

SUPPLY.— [12th Allotted Day.] NAVAL WORKS.
Order read for further consideration of Sixth Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,916,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of site, grants in aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910."
Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): On March 22nd the Committee passed this Vote without any discussion, thus enabling the authorities to proceed with some of these naval works. The total of the vote is £2,916,300, an increase on last year's estimate of £609,000. It includes the annuity amounting to £1,330,000—an increase of £65,000 for the repayment of loans and interest. The last of the borrowings under the Government Loan Acts has been exercised. The first of these was passed in 1895. The last was passed in 1905. The present Government decided not to meet any further expenditure out of revenue. The total sum spent on this great works programme was £29,616,000; of this £27,352,000 were borrowed. There was provided before the year 1895, £241,000, and there has been provided by
614
the present Government £2,023,000. Had it not been for this action on the part of the Government the amount of the annuity for 29 years would have been increased by £105,000. I have had a forecast of the annuity prepared, and I find that it rises to its maximum next year, when it will amount to £1,344,000. It will remain at that figure for 14 years, till 1924–5, and will then gradually decrease to the year 1938–9, when the last repayment will be made of £13,644. I hope those who have to pay that £13,000 will believe that they have received £13,000 of value for it. A few words upon this loan expenditure. I hope it will never be re-enacted, save in some grave national emergency. That emergency is not now. Happily this country can pay for its present prospective expenditure. I will not say that these loans lead to extravagance, but they do lead to financial elasticity. In the case of annual expenditure it is scrutinised by the Department, and has to pass under the vigilance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and a good many economies can be effected during construction. The structure may not be so massive or elaborate, but it is not quite necessary to hare a palace hewn out of a rock for a powder magazine. These loans may be considered to be good servants but bad masters. In 1905, the year when hon. Members opposite were responsible for the last Loan Act a sum of £1,750,000 was included for electric lighting and power and for the sake of completeness everything was drawn in, even the glass shades included for electric lighting and power, will agree, I think, that these glass shades are scarcely a proper subject to be paid for in 1908–9.
Docks, one would imagine, would be permanent, but the brooding brain of the naval architect is the despair of other

615
people as well as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we have to rival in size the ships of other nations—which, of course, we shall do—a considerable portion of the docks which have been built cut of the loan expenditure will have to be rebuilt some 20 years before the last of the interest is paid. I do not make a complaint of that. I am only stating the fact. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) does not want those controversies over again—those all night sittings, I hope they are gone for ever! There is a good deal of wisdom in the statement that few naval buildings nowadays can be constructed with a life of more than 15 years. On 29th March the Foreign Secretary said that we should have to rebuild our fleet. We shall have to rebuild many of our docks. If those who were responsible some 15 years ago had foreseen the future I have not the smallest doubt that a very large amount of the loan expenditure which has been spent would not have been spent; for we in this country have only one really good Government docking establishment—Devonport. This question has given the Admiralty very serious thought indeed, but I think the statement I am about to make will allay all genuine apprehension. Of course, the politically panic-stricken are people I cannot expect to deal with, but we are making rapid progress in the matter of docks. As to Rosyth, the details have been published. There have been many complaints from Members opposite as to the Government's delay in this matter. The present Government examined the scheme very carefully. They took stock of foreign dockyards, and all the while that was proceeding exploration work was never stopped. We have now an accurate knowledge of the site on which the Rosyth Dock is to be constructed, and if any Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to know the value of the land for site or mineral value purposes we could give it to him, even though it is 40 feet under the water. The contract particulars are definite, specific, and complete. They provide that the contract shall be finished in seven years from 1st March, 1909. In order to stimulate the contractor, a bonus of £800 per week has been offered to him for earlier completion. That is a large sum, but I hope he will earn a year's bonus. The same rate of £800 per week will apply as a fine for delay. I could gave further information about the contract if required, but may I
616
say a word about the land for the site? A new road has been constructed by the Admiralty on the north side, which leaves about 300 acres outside. Applications have been received from all sorts of people to buy this land. The Admiralty are in no hurry to realise, but they are willing to consider proposals for the development of the property, as a whole, with the view to securing the well-being of the future population. With regard to Portsmouth Lock, it was a matter of some apprehension to the Works Department whether the walls would stand the strain of pumping out that great quantity of water. That has been completed. Here, again, we offer the contractor £400 a week for an earlier completion. The contract is due to be completed within four years, and there will also be a fine if there is delay beyond the contract time. We cannot do more to stimulate the contractors for the early completion of this work.
I come to another question, that of floating docks. They have been raised in this House more than once. There was in this country considerable scepticism as to their feasibility, but we have made very searching inquiry, and I am glad to say that that inquiry has proved satisfactory. Floating docks have been in successful use abroad, and there are much larger ones in existence than we require. In America and Germany they have large floating docks admirably fulfilling their purposes. The United States floating dock in the Philippines has weathered at least one typhoon with but little movement. Floating docks have a mobility which cannot be possessed by the ordinary graving dock. They can, therefore, be fixed where they are strategically necessary. Another advantage, and a very valuable one, is that they can be completed within one and a half years. More than that, they are cheaper than the ordinary graving dock. Ships can be docked in a floating dock without passing into the basin, and that, I am sure the hon. Member for Fareham would bear me out in saying, is very valuable, especially in these times, when ships of the "Dreadnought" type cannot get into a dock at Portsmouth without passing through an emergency entrance which is barely large enough for such a ship. There are, of course, some disadvantages, because the floating dock has only a limited life of 40 years. It requires periodical repairs, but against this the overwhelming reason for floating docks in our present position is the

617
rapidity with which they can be constructed. The "Dreadnought" design of vessels, for good or ill, has rendered many existing docks inadequate for their accommodation. Hon. Members will be glad to know that we propose to build two floating docks for the largest battleships, and this will materially add to our dock accommodation.
Haulbowline new dock will be completed by April, 1910. Then we have had a considerable amount of negotiation about the dock at Immingham, on the Humber. I am sorry to say the negotiations have fallen through. The cost was prohibitive. We could have really made two, if not three, floating docks for the money which was required to construct the graving dock at Immingham suitable for Admiralty purposes. As to the Tyne, from which we had a deputation, again I may say that the Admiralty are quite willing to give their co-operation, but in this matter we feel that the first steps should be taken by the great firms who live upon the Tyne. I should have thought it would have been worth their while to construct a great dock which would hold the largest ships, considering that round about there is such a large, important, and busy shipbuilding community. The conclusion I arrive at is that we are pushing forward this dock question with rapidity, and I hope the House will be satisfied that nothing has been neglected to have proper docking provision for these great ships that the Government are building. There are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer. The House is aware, of course, that all, or a very large portion, of the Fleet is now concentrated in Home waters. That necessitates many changes, not striking to the imagination, but of the first importance. Ammunition is brought home from abroad or ceases to be sent there, and the increasing size in the guns makes it imperative to provide further magazine accommodation. The shells of the 6-inch guns weighed 100 lb., those of the 12-inch guns weigh 850 lb.; therefore hon. Members can realise it takes a good deal more room to store 12-inch gun shells than it took to store 6-inch gun shells. At Bedenham, in Portsmouth Harbour, we are constructing a new cordite store at a cost of £89,000, and at Crombie, four miles from Rosyth, which is a very carefully selected site, land has been bought, and there we propose to construct another big magazine, which will afford accommodation for ammunition there. It
618
is, of course, a necessary adjunct to a Naval base such as Rosyth, and it will have the additional advantage that our magazines will be more evenly distributed over the country, because the nearest magazine on the East Coast—the only magazine—is Chatham.
Then I turn to the question of torpedoes. As battleships have increased in their destructive efficiency similar ingenuity has been exercised and devised for weapons for destroying the ships. The torpedo, which two or three years ago had a range of 3,000 yards, or about two miles, has now largely exceeded that range. We are arranging for a new factory at Greenock; the contract was let last year, and will be finished next year, and the manufacture of torpedoes which has gone on at Woolwich will be transferred to Greenock. I am very sorry indeed that the men have to be transferred. It will mean a good deal of inconvenience to them, but a Committee has been appointed, and we hope to turn these men of Woolwich into canny Scots with as little inconvenience as possible to themselves. The range for testing these torpedoes will be close by. It is a testing range of four miles, and will be completed in the middle of next year.
We had to make land purchase at Greenock, which I notice has been animadverted upon rather severely. Well, the land for Greenock factory is 14¾ acres; 10 acres of dry land 4¾ wet land, or foreshore. The price of that was £27,225. The ten acres of dry land cost £2,000 per acre, the 4¾ acres of wet land cost £l,000 per acre, and these sums, with 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase, gives the total of £27,225. It is very difficult for the Admiralty to buy land. Arbitrators, especially Scotch arbitrators, are very estimable men, but they seem to be always "agin" the Government. I could give the House some illustrations showing that the Admiralty and other Government Departments have suffered very severely by going to arbitration in buying land for building purposes.
Then I turn to the question of Osborne, where we have completed, in that institution for the training of future naval officers, an isolation hospital. It seems that boys of 13 years—the age at which they enter Osborne—are peculiarly susceptible to all kinds of diseases—chicken-pox, measles, etc.; and there had been no proper accommodation, but the isolation hospital is now completed. I now corns to the

619
question of the Gibraltar Water Supply. It is interesting and very important. The rock is honeycombed with tunnels. The rainfall is all collected for domestic and other purposes. The backyards are even cemented to be used as catchment areas. The domestic requirements of the Admiralty employés are very considerable. There are three great tanks hewn out of solid rock completed in 1907, with the capacity of five million gallons, and in order to fill these great tanks about 20 acres of rock on the eastern side has been roofed with galvanised iron in order to provide a catchment area for the filling of these tanks. It is hoped that there will be some economy. Personally, I am always rather dubious about prophesying economy in Government Departments. I have had some experience; we always make economic arrangements, but still apparently the cost goes up.
Then I turn to the question of Sheffield. This is a new idea. We have put up a small building there in order that the materials for gun-mounting and guns may be tested at Sheffield instead of being taken to Woolwich as heretofore. That seems an eminently businesslike arrangement which should conduce to economy. I must now refer to a question that excited considerable interest some time ago; it is the great granite question. There seemed to be a kind of semi-scare created because the Admiralty proposed to accept a tender for granite from Norway at a cost of £100,000, whereas the cost of British granite would have been £130,000, or 30 per cent. more. I wish in the first place to dispose of one delusion. There is not the smallest doubt we can obtain, and do obtain, granite of unimpeachable quality from Norway. If any hon. Members wish to see it let them go down to the South breakwater at Dover, and there they will find granite from Norway that has stood the full force of the Channel. I have often noticed that it is the privilege of the Members of the Opposition to suffer from convenient lapses of memory. I have not the smallest doubt that many of our indignant critics denounce the Government up hill and down dale for employing the foreigner while leaving our own workmen stranded in the streets. I would like to refresh their memory on their own record during the past ten years, when these great works were going on.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: We were a Free Trade party then.
Mr. LAMBERT: Are you not now? But may I be allowed just to quote to the House what the late Government did when they were Free Traders? At Keyham £165,000 worth of foreign granite was used; at Dover £100,000 worth, at a saving of £1,270; at Gibraltar £14,900 worth of foreign granite was used at a saving of only £800; at. Chatham, in 1900, £76,500 of foreign granite was used at no saving at all; in the Cape of Good Hope £76,700 worth of foreign granite was used at a saving of £5,400. At Malta, Aberdeen granite was specified for, but, as a matter of fact, £180,000 worth of Italian granite was used, and upon that £180,000 worth of foreign granite the saving was the magnificent sum of £l,200. But the case that illustrates this best is that of Portsmouth No. 12 Dock. It was a small sum—the work was Departmental work. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had it under their control absolutely—the cost of the granite was £l,064, but they preferred to use foreign granite at a saving of £85. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham says, "We were a Free Trade party then." I will now read a quotation from his Leader, and I shall be glad to know whether his Leader has changed his mind. The hon. Gentleman says they are going to turn over a new leaf—that they are penitent in this matter of granite. Well, the hon. Gentleman will have to convert his own Leader, because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in April, 1902, said:—
"I cannot accede to the principle that we should deliberately buy in the more expensive market at the cost of the general taxpayer when elsewhere at a cheaper rate we can get such goods as we require."
I should like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition has changed his opinion?
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Better ask him.
Mr. LAMBERT: I assume that the hon. Gentleman opposite now is responsible, and possibly he may give me the answer. All I have to say is in this matter that if hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to turn over a new fiscal leaf, and are penitent because of these breaches of principles by their Government, I hope they will not forget other interests. I represent an agricultural constituency. I hope they will not forget the farmers, because the farmers are equally entitled to consideration with the granite producers, and if hon. Gentlemen put the same principles into force with regard to the farmers they will have to put the l½d. on the 4-lb. loaf, that is an increase of 30 per cent., and 4d.

621
a pound upon butter. Therefore) I say, I hope the hon. Gentlemen will be logical and go right through with their ideas. As far as I am concerned, I hope we in this House will always do to the general taxpayer what the general taxpayer would do by himself—that is, buy the most effective material in the cheapest market. Whatever may have been the cause, there may have been mistakes, but they were honestly made. There has been no corruption in our great different State Departments. I hope there never will be. But if we have this picking and choosing I think there will be very grave danger of that corruption creeping in. I have to ask the House to accept this Vote. It is a large Vote; the commitments are still larger, but, as we believe, they are necessary. It would be far more satisfactory to me personally, and to my colleagues, if these docks should be designed for commercial rather than for war purposes, but as security is the first essential to progress, and as we believe that sea supremacy is essential to attain that security, we ask the House to sanction this Resolution.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I do not propose to follow the Civil Lord in his discussion of that very interesting subject, Tariff Reform, about which a great deal might be said, because it is scarcely relevant to the particular Vote under discussion. I will only say with regard to his closing remarks that I think it is a little uncalled for that he should have introduced a suggestion that, if there happens to be a change in our fiscal system, it would lead to corruption in our public Departments. I have a higher opinion of the great public servants employed at the Admiralty and the Works Department and elsewhere than to think that there is any justification for that statement. With regard to what the Civil Lord said about Rosyth, when I listened to his speech I seemed to hear echoes of all the speeches on this subject delivered by him, and even by myself, for some years past. There was the adumbrating of a great scheme for a dockyard at Rosyth, and I begun to wonder whether it was really possible that four or five years had passed since those suggestions and adumbrations were first laid before the House of Commons. The Civil Lord then said he understood there had been complaints with regard to the delay. Certainly, in this matter of Rosyth, there has been very serious complaints, and whatever he may tell me about the plans which are now to be carried out, I can tell
622
him that those plans are in all essentials precisely the same as the plans which were approved before the late Government went out of office. I know the plans were all prepared in June, 1006, for letting the contract, and, therefore, the delay has been entirely due to the present Government. I do not say that they may not have financial reasons sufficient to justify them not embarking upon that expenditure, but the delay was caused entirely by financial considerations, and not by any material considerations affecting Rosyth.
The Civil Lord said the Government had been taking stock of foreign dockyards. I may say that the late Government sent their superintendent engineer to Rosyth and other places with this object in view, and he made a very interesting report. We are told that the Admiralty have been making borings ever since, and one thing in which they have succeeded is in discovering what undeveloped minerals there are in Rosyth. That is quite possible, but I hope it is not a foretaste of the sort of proceedings they will have to adopt under the Finance Act in regard to every portion of the surface of the earth in the United Kingdom. If so, it will take the Government some time to collect the tax. The Civil Lord went on to speak upon the interesting subject of floating docks, and he said some scepticism had been shown by Members of this House with regard to the practicability or usefulness of floating docks. The chief scepticism I remember was shown in a speech made by the Civil Lord himself last Session when he pooh-poohed the idea of floating docks. I have his words here, but I do not wish to read them, but on that occasion, acting no doubt under instructions, he pooh-poohed the possibility of introducing floating docks, and repudiated suggestions made to him by an hon. Friend of his below the Gangway. As long as we get docks I do not care whether the Government has changed its mind or not. The hon. Member stated that the imperative reason which had forced the Government to change its mind upon this question is the rapidity with which these floating docks can be constructed as compared with graving docks. The reason why that rapidity has become necessary is on account of the procrastination of the Government during the last three years in regard to making provision for this essential to the efficiency of the fleet. I must remind the First Lord

623
of the Admiralty that when he introduced the Navy Estimates on 16th March last he told us it had been suggested that floating docks should be built, and he said:—
"The difficulty we have to face is that there is nothing in the Estimates for this service."
I challenged the right hon. Gentleman at the time on this point, and he said:—
"Yes, but those were small docks, and he was referring to docks to take the largest size of ships."
He repudiated the suggestion that those two docks were to be made capable of taking the larger size of ships. Now we learn that they are to take the large ships, and in that respect there has been a change of policy since last March.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I will explain the point later on.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The Civil Lord spoke about complaints from this side of the House, and said he could understand them from a certain point, but not coming from the politically panic-stricken. I am one of those who feel that the Government have not done their duty with regard to the provision of docks for the future needs of the fleet. Even now I believe what is proposed is an inadequate provision, and it is more particularly inadequate in view of the localities at which those docks are likely to be needed. I think there is great reason for public anxiety with regard to this point, and that anxiety is bound to grow as the fleet grows without the growth of the dock accommodation, and more particularly as the fleet continues to be more and more concentrated in the North Sea, where we are very short of this essential for the fleet. Accepting the Government's own statement, they tell us that at the beginning of 1912 we shall have either 16 or 20"Dreadnoughts."We know the Admiralty are more and more concentrating the pick of the Fleet in the North Sea. I wish to ask how many docks will they have available for that number of "Dreadnoughts" in the North Sea at the period when the ships are ready? I have studied the replies given by the First Lord of the Admiralty and other sources of information, and I find that at the present moment there is only one dock on the East Coast which is capable of taking a "Dreadnought," and even that is doubtful. Therefore, we have only one dock of this character on the East Coast. Recognising the vital importance of this question, the Government are going to construct two other floating docks in the most rapid way
624
possible. I suppose it is possible that they may be completed by 1912. Rosyth obviously cannot be ready by that date, and, therefore, the maximum of docking accommodation we can have on the East Coast at the beginning of 1912, according to the Government's own figures, that we shall have then 16 or 20"Dreadnoughts"in those waters, will be two docks and one of the doubtful class. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will admit that that will be a totally inadequate provision in case of war. There seems to be some little difference of opinion, or at any rate something that remains to be explained, with regard to the provision of docks on the East Coast, in view of the reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty on 28th June last, in replying to a question about docking accommodation on the East Coast. He was asked, after having given a list of the dry docks in the United Kingdom, "Are any of these dry docks on the East Coast?" He replied, "Yes, some of them are on the East Coast." I then asked him "Which?" And his reply was, "I think it is undesirable I should say where these docks are."
Mr. McKENNA: I included under "docks" those building and to be built. I included those to which money had been allocated, and for which the plans were made, as well as the two floating docks.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: But that is not what the right hon. Gentleman was asked.
Mr. McKENNA: I explained what I meant by "under construction," and I interpreted "docks" as meaning those for which money had been taken, and for which the plans were made.
Mr ARTHUR LEE: May I assume that these two floating docks are to be placed on the East Coast?
Mr. McKENNA: That will depend upon the circumstances of the moment, but they might be placed there.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question was, "Some of them are on the East Coast."
Mr. McKENNA: The question related to dry docks, and not necessarily graving docks, and I said some of them would be on the East Coast.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to conceal from us. Is the location of these two docks regarded as a confidential matter?
Mr. McKENNA: It is very undesirable to give the location for a floating dock which will not be built for 18 months, and it is undesirable to pledge the Admiralty to place a floating dock at any particular spot at this moment.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I understand that these docks can be towed about to any place that is necessary. I think the right hon. Gentleman rather strains the privilege which is always gladly accorded to a responsible Minister of not giving any information which he thinks is not desirable in the interests of the public service. The right hon. Gentleman seems to adopt that course in regard to any question which the Admiralty consider is an awkward one. I agree that that reply is applicable to secret matters which would be of advantage to a foreign Power which they had no other means of ascertaining except from his reply, but really, the right hon. Gentleman, during the last few months particularly, has refused to answer perfectly plain questions of this kind again and again, without any substantial reason being given, simply on the ground that it is undesirable. I think this answer with regard to docks is a very glaring instance.
Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in saying that. With regard to these docks anybody in the House will agree that it is undesirable to say at the present moment that it is our intention to place one of these docks at any particular place, where expectations might be raised which could not be realised. It might be desirable to have one of these docks at Grimsby or on the Med-way, but it is most undesirable now to state where those docks will be placed.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The Admiralty evidently have not made up their minds on this point, but that does not apply to the question of graving docks, which were included in my question, the position of which the right hon. Gentleman said it was undesirable to disclose.
Mr. McKENNA: I was then referring to dry docks, and I included the floating docks.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to speak, will explain that point, because he most distinctly gave the impression to the House that he was unwilling to disclose the position of the dry docks, by which I mean docks constructed of granite as distinct from floating docks. If that is not
626
the case, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer my question later on, and I will put it down in the form which I intended it to cover when it was put on the Paper last time. I still do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because he offered to show me privately on that occasion the positions of these docks. They must, therefore, have been settled.
Mr. McKENNA: I offered to show the hon. Gentleman where the existing graving docks in the country were situated.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I do not want any information given to me privately. This is information which the House of Commons and the taxpayers of the country are entitled to have. I shall put a question down again. Perhaps the First Lord will let us know whether he can answer it or not. It is really absurd to suppose you can conceal the position of docks of either kind. You might as well try and refuse to disclose the position of lighthouses. A floating dock is as prominent an object as a gasometer. It is absurd to suppose it will not be known to everyone who desires to know except the British taxpayer. The Civil Lord touched upon the question of subsidising private docks, and, to my disappointment, he informed us—negotiations with regard to the Immingharn Dock had broken down. I do not propose to deal with that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Sir George Doughty), who is familiar with the whole circumstances, will have something to say on it in the course of the Debate. I should like to touch on a broader question, and that is whether the whole system of subsidising private docks has broken down, or whether the Admiralty are still considering the question, and are still engaged in negotiations. It seems to some of us that if a private dock of suitable size can be adapted to Admiralty requirements for an additional cost of something like £50,000, and the owners are willing to do it, and give the Admiralty preference on payment of an annual subsidy, here is an opportunity of financial saving which should be particularly grateful to the economic instincts of the present Government. I do not mean that it would be sufficient to have merely a system of subsidised docks, but, in view of the fact that a sufficient number are not being provided by the Government itself, I do think it is a question which ought to be further considered. I hope the breaking down of the Immingharn negotiations is only one case,

627
and does not mean the breaking down of the whole system. The Civil Lord men-tioned another great work, and that was the dock at Portsmouth. My remarks with regard to that are the same as apply to Rosyth. Here is a great work on which a very large sum of money is to be expended, and the instalment provided in this year's Vote is extremely small. Of course, if the Civil Lord can assure us that it is a physical impossibility for the contractor to spend any more money than is provided in the course of the 12 months, I have nothing more to say. In the first year, when the contractor has to get his plant on the spot, it is impossible to have any large expenditure on the works, but it is difficult to believe that in the case of Rosyth no more than £120,000 out of an estimate of £3,250,000 can be spent.
Mr. LAMBERT: No contractor earns much the first year. He has to get his plant there and everything in readiness for working. The Admiralty only pay for results. We have made the best calculation we can, and we have no desire to stint the contractor. We should be very glad indeed if the contractor could earn more.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: If the contractor finds it possible to earn more, will the Admiralty supply the necessary funds? The Civil Lord went out of his way, I think to reopen the controversy with regard to expenditure under loan as compared with expenditure under estimate. He said he did not wish to reopen the controversy, and then he did, in a somewhat acute form. I do not want to follow him very far into it. The Foreign Secretary said we should have to rebuild our fleet, and the Civil Lord amplified that and said we should have to rebuild our docks also. That shows we have a serious programme of works expenditure before us, and I find it difficult to believe that the necessary works will be provided for without a further resort to expenditure under loan. We have seen in the last three years that the necessary works of the Navy have been starved for want of money. We have had the need admitted on all hands, and we have had the commencement of the work put off again and again, and an almost ridiculously small amount provided in the Estimates. Without going into the merits for the moment of the loan system, I feel certain this starving of works has resulted from the abandonment of the loan system. There is a great deal to be said for the change in the system if it had
628
merely meant a transfer from loan to estimate, but in many cases since this Government came in the change has meant the abandonment of works altogether. I do not profess to be a financial purist, and I am really not able to understand why it should be perfectly right and proper in the eyes of this Government to borrow money in order to build the headquarters of a Territorial force, for example, or erect buildings for a department such as the Local Government Board, and why they should be perfectly prepared to sanction loans to provide for public buildings, even cab shelters in some cases, and furniture for elementary schools—why all that should be proper on which to spend borrowed money, while it should be grossly improper, and lead to extravagance to provide the necessary docks and works for the efficiency of the fleet. I must confess, not being a financial expert, that that is an insoluble mystery to me. It seems to me that in the present case the Government have allowed their financial purity to run mad, and they are driving this policy to an extreme, merely in order to justify the somewhat foolish speeches which I think they made in Opposition on this question of loan expenditure. I hope, if the First Lord speaks in the course of the afternoon, that he will give us a little more complete and definite assurance that the Admiralty are taking steps to provide docking accommodation on the East Coast for the great fleet they are now concentrating in the North Sea.
Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: I have never been able to see any difference between one Government and the other with regard to the question of secrecy to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur Lee), who has just sat down, has referred. The most laughable case, I think, which I ever came across was in the time of the First Lord, I most admired, Mr. Goschen. He asked me to withdraw a question in the public interest, it was so serious, and I pointed out to him that the information concerned was all officially published by the Admiralty every year. Whether it ought to have been or not I do not know. I will not mention what it was. With regard to the much more important question, perhaps, of loan expenditure for naval and military works, it is not, of course, a party matter. I have always thought that at the time it was invented by a Liberal Government the argument in favour of loan expenditure

629
was absolutely sound, but it is the experience of the working of it which has broken it down. There is absolutely an overwhelming case for loan expenditure if you can be sure you keep the loan for the right thing, but when you see what it leads to in practice any reasonable man must give it up. The thing was thoroughly fought out in India, and what is conclusive is the waste which has occurred. The hon. Gentleman has said that some works have been stopped altogether, because we no longer meet them out of the loan, but out of Votes. I am not blaming them, but the most startling cases were under the late Government. The whole of the mixed naval and military expenditure incurred for the Government occurred in consequence of the change in the concentration of the Fleet in the North Sea. We expend more and lose more where you pay out of loan. All sorts of stations all over the world were abandoned by the policy recently adopted and universally accepted by this House. Bits of them are still there, and have never been finished at all. We went on patching the station at St. Lucia till the last moment, and there we put a roof on after it was decided to abandon it, because it might be useful some day. A speech made yesterday by Lord Charles Beresford suggests that we are going to reverse that policy again, and that we are again going to set up all these establishments for the Fleet in different parts of the world from which we have withdrawn them. That will not be done if it is to be done out of Votes, but if you get a loan for something it might be put in. The argument is overwhelming on the practical facts, but the theoretical argument is in favour of the original proposal. Let us come to the actual things definitely before us in this Vote. I desire to express my regret that the promise made by the Government to put down Item E. Treasury Vote for the Committee of National Defence has not been kept. Such a promise was given and concurred in by both Front Benches, and both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, at that time, agreed it was most important that the House should have an early opportunity of discussing these strategic questions, which are the very basis of this Vote. I am sorry that promise has not been kept. On the first day of the Navy Estimates, I think, it was admitted it would be wise that the discussion upon Item E, which was the subhead for National Defence, should be
630
taken in alternate years, but that promise has been gradually receded from; we were promised it should be taken before Whitsuntide this year, but that promise has now vanished into space, and, from private inquiries I have made, there is no definite time fixed for it.
The creation of a base at Rosyth, the spending of money at Portsmouth, and the triumph with which we regarded the establishment of the base at Devonport— one, by the way, in a wrong situation— show that this Works Vote depends upon considerations which are really strategical. The decision to establish a completely equipped naval base at Rosyth was taken originally on an argument we had in this House, namely, that our principal establishments were in the wrong place, and that the Channel was too dangerous to trust to in time of war—a doctrine which impressed the German mind much more than ours, seeing that the one great standing difference between ourselves and Germany is the primary impression of Germany that nobody could use the Channel in time of war. The argument about the inability to use the Channel is one of degree. I have always expressed the view that the Channel will be sealed for use, and Rosyth was universally accepted by those who favoured the view of the concentration of the Fleet in the North Sea. The price of the site, the scale of the establishment and the situation, were details. The idea of the new naval dock on the North-East Coast was universally accepted by both sides which took part in the discussion. It was not because Rosyth was nearer to Germany than the Thames, for the Thames is just as much on the East Coast as Rosyth, but there were other considerations which made the North-East Coast different to the East for the purposes of repair in the North Sea. But the policy of the concentration of bases properly equipped for repair in war, and the number of bases being cut down, because everybody knows the most useful bases in war for ordinary purposes are flying bases at sea — that policy was adopted a very long time ago, and I am amazed at the manner in which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lee) has spoken, as if it concerned the present Government or the First Lord of the Admiralty. There has been enormous delay. The present First Sea Lord, or the late Government, take credit for having reversed the whole policy. They reversed the policy of having docks at Rosyth——
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: My statement was that the late Government—I myself being in charge of the Department—had made arrangements for the actual letting of the contract in June, 1906.
Sir C. W. DILKE: But I am talking of 1902.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The scheme was not initiated then.
Sir C. W. DILKE: Yes, there was a scheme at that time, and on 31st January, 1902, it was officially placed before this House, but it was initiated long before that. We bought the land.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The Berthing Committee's Report was issued in 1902, the preparation of plans was immediately proceeded with, and as soon as the plans were prepared they decided to go on with the work.
Sir C. W. DILKE: That is what the House thought, but it is not the fact. It was the official decision. The' fact was notorious at the time that everybody said it was stopped. I could not prove it now without going into personal or private communications. But I am going to attack the present Government for the delay. The complaint is that they themselves in the Appropriation Accounts two years ago pointed out there was a letter to the Treasury in which they used the very arguments that some of them were using in this House. The letter to the Treasury was dated 26th July, 1906, and in it a wish was expressed to meet the large savings of the current year by more rapid progress on all sides, and these words were used:—
"My Lords, having specially in view the desirability of relieving the Navy Estimates for 11)08–09, which must reach an abnormal figure in that year (as a result of Works expenditure)."
That was two years before the present Government foresaw the large expenditure which ought to be taking place at the present time. Now I come to the case which the hon. Member has forced me to make with regard to the original delay of these works. Of course, we cannot on this Vote properly discuss the situation and the reasons for that situation; but, taking them as they stand, we have the revelation of the articles in "The Times" called "The Case against the Admiralty." It is pretty well known who wrote them, or, at any rate, one set of them. I am very sorry that the terms, the Fisher policy and the Beresford policy, were applied to them. Those terms ought never to have been used. I have always expressed, and
632
have held, the strongest possible view that it is a bad thing that great sailors should engage in warfare against one another, or at any rate should inspire their friends to do so. At any rate, "The Times" had a very long series of articles, and they sandwiched the "Attack" and the "Reply." In the second of these articles against the Admiralty there was a curious mixing together of two different documents. One was the Cawdor Memorandum, which was privately published, if I may say so, on the day the last Cabinet was held of the outgoing Government. It was not made public. It was not laid before this House, but I think it was communicated to the newspapers and circulated a few days later. The Cawdor Memorandum is a document which professes to recount the achievements of the administration of the late Government. It explains the policy and considerations which led to the scrapping of ships, it describes, the saving of money on works, and the general reduction of expenditure on the Fleet. It claims a very large economy. But in the second of "The Times" articles against the Admiralty there is an allusion to another Memorandum which is not the Cawdor Memorandum. It is a Memorandum which many Members of this House have received. A hasty reader would think the allusion to be the Cawdor Memorandum, but, as a matter of fact, it is to a mysterious Memorandum. In the Memorandum, which is not a Parliamentary Paper, there are the details of the savings by the late Government on works—these details are given in that mysterious Memorandum. The Memorandum is quoted in "The Times" article as though it were the Cawdor Memorandum, but it is not. "The Times" article is headed "Recent Naval Reforms: A Year's Work," the year being from the end of October to the end of October, and the Cawdor Memorandum is dated November, and was first published in December. But any casual reader would think that Lord Cawdor wrote that, and it gives the saving of seven millions on Rosyth and six millions on work approved and in hand. These are items which appear as saved in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition about that time—"the courageous stroke of the pen" speech. In that series of articles, "The Case Against the Admiralty," in "The Times," signed "By a Critic," the fourth article appeared on 3rd May of the present year, and a reply is made to the present Prime Minister, who made a speech in which he alluded to these

633
articles, and in that reply they said: "The document circulated to the Press… to which allusion was made in my second article." That is the name given to that which I have described as the mysterious Memorandum. The article then goes on to allude to the other series of articles in favour of the Admiralty, and says, the apologist states that he has not seen this Paper, and asserts that it "must have been confidential." That, the writer says, is not true. "It contains no suggestion or mark indicating that it was to be regarded as confidential, and was not so treated by its recipients." Then he goes on to say that he had received a copy of it himself, and he supposes that copies of the Memorandum were circulated to the Press.
I do not think it was unnecessary to mention this matter to the House, and I have not done so from the point of view of party benefit on one side or the other in regard to the matter of delay, although it helps to prove the case in regard to delay in the case of Rosyth, which I regret, but it does throw some light upon Admiralty methods which have not prevailed for some years now, but which prevailed very actively indeed at the time to which I make allusion. I shall not make any allusion, I should not be in order if I did, to the controversy which has gone on in regard to other memoranda, which were marked "secret and confidential," but this document was not marked either "secret" or "confidential," or "private," although it belongs to the same series, and is of the same date. "The Times," in using it, said it would quote this Memorandum as an example of a method of procedure previously unknown in the Admiralty, and I am happy to say it has since been unknown in the Admiralty. The portion of that Memorandum which is in order on this Vote is in these words, which are not quite the same words which were used on a previous occasion: "There has been a saving of 19 millions effected on Estimates 1904–6 (two years); six millions in Estimates (because including one million automatic increment); six millions in work approved and in hand; seven millions on Rosyth—nineteen millions. Do not spur a willing horse." A saving of 19 millions was claimed for the office to which I have referred. In my opinion, I repeat, Rosyth, when it was admitted to be necessary, ought to have been proceeded with at an infinitely earlier date, and while that is a heavy charge against the late Government it is also a charge against the present
634
Government, so far as one year's delay is concerned. I think the arguments of the Admiralty themselves in their letter to the Treasury more than two years ago, is an overwhelming proof that it was our duty to have relieved the Naval Estimates at the present time to incur this expenditure, which was admittedly certain then, and when possibly it was urgent.
With regard to the matter of urgency, I am not alarmed, although scareable people are scared. We have had lists in the newspapers of a dozen or twenty, or a greater number, of docks which are said to be finished in Germany, but they do not exist; they have not been compared with the number of our docks, and there is nothing to be scared about. It is perfectly clear from the engineering reports that the progress which has been made in Germany is far less than that which has been suggested, and the number of available docks in the North Sea in the next three years is not a matter to be frightened at at all. But on the other hand I do think there is a case in regard to the delay which has occurred, and when once it was admitted the expenditure was necessary, the Estimates ought not to have been relieved. The Government to some extent, possibly under the pressure of public opinion, accept the plea of urgency, because the spending of £800 a week means there is urgency. It is a natural precaution, and it is natural that they should yield to public opinion, where probably there would not be much additional cost due to more rapid construction on the whole. Personally I feel it my duty to point out the difficulties which I feel, and the drawbacks in the support I give to the policy of the Board of Admiralty, because I have been an enthusiastic supporter of it, except on two points—a matter which is not in order and this particular matter on which I feel some doubt. I think, however, it is my duty to show, on the other side, what one feels against the Department, which, on the whole, one warmly supports.
The delay has been enormously grave. No one can read the final words of the Berthing Committee without knowing that. It is alleged by the author of a book called "The Admiralty in the Atlantic" that the Report embodying the decision to acquire the site at Rosyth dates from 1900, but I do not think that is so, and that that is a mistake. The Committee was appointed in 1900, and in that way the mistake has arisen. I myself was present at a meeting in the winter of 1900 at which the present Secretary of State for War was in

635
the chair, and that meeting advocated the creation of a dock at Rosyth. At all events, the matter engaged the attention of the Berthing Committee, and a future Secretary to the Treasury and a future Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), was a member of the Berthing Committee, and it sat in 1900 or 1901, and this present scheme was !he necessary and natural result of the strategic disposition upon which we have been proceeding since that date. But after we had taken the decision to concentrate in the North Sea, and even before that, and even before the decision was given at that time, the present Secretary of State for War and the present Leader of the Opposition, at all events, and several men taking a clear view of Imperial strategy, were using the argument which I have used to-day of the necessity of having a base for the fleet in connection with this concentration in the North Sea or in a Scottish direction, and the earliest mention of that was earlier than the date I named. Now as to this delay, the Report was presented to Parliament on the 31st January, 1902, and it contains the whole scheme as it stands now. The land was bought early in 1903 by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman), I think.
Mr. PRETYMAN: When you say the scheme you mean the proposal for the dock?
Sir C. W. DILKE: No; he proceeded to buy the land on the basis of the present scheme.
Mr. PRETYMAN: There was no plan or anything of the kind.
Sir C. W. DILKE: The plan—it does not take all these years to make a plan, and, of course, it is notorious that when the matter was first brought to him the plans were all prepared, and the borings and the geological examination made. Two years at the outside was to be taken up by these investigations, and they were absolutely stopped, absolutely suspended for a long time. I know myself that that occurred.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Where?
Sir C. W. DILKE: In the document which formed the basis of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is not the right hon. gentleman aware that the document to which he is alluding is not an official document? It is no more an official document than the other documents of which we have heard so much lately.
Sir C. W. DILKE: But in the Cawdor Memorandum credit is claimed for an enormous saving by the Admiralty, and the detailed Memorandum issued at the same time and issued by the same people gives the items of these savings.
Mr. PRETYMAN: We have heard a great deal of this Memorandum. It is impossible to regret the issue of that Memorandum more than I do; but here is one which happened not to be marked "secret" and "confidential" like the twenty-two others, and this one which was not mentioned to be secret is the one on which an article in "The Times" is based.
Sir C. W. DILKE: May I say this, I know as a fact that the alternative scheme which is now being raked up by the Government, of fleet docks to be placed in the Tyne and in the Wear, was an alternative scheme to the Rosyth scheme? The Rosyth scheme was stopped for a long time. I am sorry to find I am contradicted, but I am speaking of things I know. I regret the delay on both sides, but the Report giving the essentials of the present scheme was laid before Parliament, whenever it was written, on 31st January, 1902; the land was bought in 1903.
The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In 1904.
Sir C. W. DILKE: The land was purchased in 1903. The purchase agreement, which constitutes a sale, was made in 1903, and the land was therefore bought in 1903. When one finds credit taken for stopping it in the Memorandum, and the same figure as the amount of saving which was made, with the words about the scrapping policy, and the very same terms used as were used all through the speeches of the Government speakers, I cannot help thinking it is a notorious fact that the thing had been stopped and looked upon as a saving.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is very undesirable to carry on a discussion in this way. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford will have an opportunity of making a reply later.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I did not speak.
Mr. SPEAKER: I heard the hon. Member several times.
Sir C. W. DILKE: The contract was made on 1st March of the present year, and although I think a year's delay is to be attributed to the present Government which ought not to have occurred, I attribute the main delay to the late Government under the circumstances which I have described. I hope we shall not have too much made of the argument of the delay having been caused by the need to explore the geological foundation, because it was a joke in this House. We know who were the great persons concerned in the struggle on the two sides, and, of course, when we were told each time we asked that the geological explorations would take a still longer time it became such a joke that everyone used to smile at the explanation. There was an enormous delay, and I think it is most regrettable. Now I come to the end of my story. As regards the further docking accommodation on the East Coast, subject to what I have said about the Thames being the East Coast for this purpose, and not being North-East for the purpose of the passage round these islands, a very different natter, I am glad to hear that one of these floating docks, which also admit the urgency of Rosyth, because to some extent they are a substitute, is to be placed in the Medway. If anything can be said as to the general nature of the arrangements which are proposed, say, at Newcastle, or whatever places are being negotiated with, we shall be glad to go into them, but we cannot press for it. But in the statement of the First Lord on the Navy Estimates this year I think the case is very fairly argued on the two sides, and so is the case against the Admiralty in the matter of delay, because it is admitted on the first page that the heavy charge on the present Vote is due to Portsmouth and Rosyth, which are the very items mentioned as those on which savings had originally taken place. Then the argument on page 5 shows the difficulty about the floating docks, and shows their weakness and their strength and on page 6 we have an account of the matter which has been named in the Government's speech to-day, and which is closely connected with Rosyth in one respect. The great powder magazine which is to be established behind Rosyth further up the inlet is, of course, subject to the same considerations of defence as the works at Rosyth itself. There are three things at which an adventurous
638
foreign officer in war might be inclined to strike. I am not an alarmist, as the Admiralty well knows, but if there is anything which is vulnerable we have always taken the Tyne and the Forth as being vulnerable points, and in putting the great gunpowder works there you only impress the more upon us the necessity of being very careful about how you are going to keep the enemy out. The three things are the Forth Bridge, which cuts communication to a very serious degree, and will disorganise all your mobilisation and local defence arrangements, the docks, and now the powder magazine. Of course since defence by mine fields has been abandoned the control and the manning of the quick firing guns which anyone can see from the train in the three batteries is a matter of some anxiety, because of the extreme difficulty which has been shown in the very interesting series of articles in the "United Service Magazine" of providing rapidly under any system for the men sleeping at the guns at night. I only suggest that the anxiety, which was already considerable on account of the occurrence at the same spot, is still further perhaps increased by the existence of a new powder magazine.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present——
Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I will tell the House candidly what my recollection is, and I have as accurate and as close a personal knowledge of the transactions regarding Rosyth as it is possible for any human being to have. I was Chairman of the Berthing Committee, I was Civil Lord at the time, and responsible for all the details of the purchase, and was, further, responsible for the original examination of the site as to its suitability for the great naval dock. Speaking with a pretty vivid recollection of all the facts, I say that in the first instance there was never, to my knowledge, any intention whatever on our part of either abandoning or of delaying the construction of Rosyth.
Sir C. W. DILKE: "Our" being the Government as a whole or the Admiralty?
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Admiralty. It was not treated as a specially urgent matter —that I am entirely prepared to admit; but, there was absolutely, to my knowledge, no intention of ever abandoning it. On the other hand, in the Naval Works Bill of, I think, 1903, there were

639
two great proposals—one for Chatham and one for Rosyth, and Chatham was abandoned for reasons mainly connected with the difficulty of keeping the approaches open up the Medway, and the whole East Coast necessities were to be concentrated at Rosyth.
Sir C. W. DILKE: It might clear the £'7,000,000 and the £5,000,000 in the document of which I spoke, which was the basis of the articles in the Press, if we could be told what was the apparent saving under this head, because that seems to involve both Chatham and Portsmouth. Rosyth is mentioned here by name.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It was on these two items. The expenditure at Chatham was gigantic, and what was felt by the Admiralty was that it was unjustifiable. It was a very difficult point, because we have been committed, and are committed, to a big naval base at Chatham, where there is a very large population and enormous existing facilities of incalculable value to the country and the Navy, and it is more advantageous to improve an existing basis than to start a new one. But the river approaches were so difficult that it was felt it was better to make the best use possible of Chatham, and to make any small extensions which were possible with the approaches as they existed, or as they might be slightly improved, and for the further accommodation of very large ships to concentrate on Rosyth, and so far from going to abandon Rosyth it was due to the concentration on Rosyth that the saving was due. I will not charge my memory with this detail, but there were to my certain recollection, two plans for Rosyth, and the second plan was less costly than the first.
Mr. McKENNA: Seven millions.
Mr. PRETYMAN: No, there is a misapprehension in the country and in the House in regard to that matter which I should like to clear up. When we originally proposed to buy the land I said that we proposed to lay out everything on the supposition that there would some day be a really great naval base there on the scale of Portsmouth or Devonport or Chatham, and that the cost might amount to a very large sum in the end, and the First Lord of the Admiralty the other day congratulated me on being instrumental in looking well ahead and buying a large area of land in order that the State might obtain any increment value which would accrue. We
640
were not aware then that the State would seek for its own by other methods. At that time it was supposed that the land belonged to people who held what people called the sheepskin, and it was thought desirable that the State should hold the sheepskins of 1,500 acres round Rosyth for the purpose of obtaining increment value -and, secondly, for the purpose of laying out any immediate works which were required in such a manner and at such distances apart as would permit the interpolation and the addition of any future works of whatever character might be required for a great naval base without disorganisation and without the removal of existing buildings, at a minimum cost. There was confusion in the public mind. It was a new idea which had never been previously adopted, and I suppose it was not appreciated at the time. There was an idea went round the country that it was intended then and there to commence construction in the sense that the country was committed to an expenditure on a naval base amounting to £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. That was never our intention. The intention was at first to lay out the land with the view that it might be found desirable in the interests of the country to provide for its requirements there at a later date. The Estimates of that year proposed to provide for the construction of a basin, naval barracks ashore, and one or two other details. It was practically the same scheme as the present one. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) said that this question of borings was a joke.
Sir C. DILKE: I said there were two distinct surveys made. There was a preliminary survey, and then there was a second one. What I suggested was that these surveys might all have been got through inside of two years.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I went there two or three times myself, and I can state that the work in connection with these borings was a matter of very great difficulty. We have a large area of foreshore to consider. That foreshore had to be examined. There were two layers of clay. The upper layer consisted of soft, soapy clay, unsuitable for a foundation. The stratum of clay below that was of a harder nature, and underneath, and coming through it at places, was rock bottom. The depth of the two clays amounted to 200ft. or 300ft. in some places. It was clearly necessary that the monoliths carrying the quay wall must go down through the full depth of the upper

641
clay, which could carry nothing. The question then was whether the underlying clay was of sufficient hardness to carry the monoliths into. The points where the rock crop up through the clay, and where the clay and rock meet, and the depths of these two clays, had to be ascertained, and it was necessary to carry out borings to prove through the whole length of the frontage the various depths of clay and rock. The first set of borings was really a tentative thing to decide whether the place was suitable at all at any point for a foundation. These borings were carried out by the engineer, who is still in charge of the work, and there is no more competent officer anywhere. He satisfied himself after the first series of borings that there was a prima facie case in favour of a foundation being practicable. It was decided that there probably could be found a suitable foundation before the contract was let or the plans were prepared. The hon. Baronet will see the exact situation depends on the borings, the trace, and the basement. The borings at that expose;] situation had to be carried out over a distance of a mile and a half in order to ascertain the depth to which the foundation would have to go.
I think the right hon. Baronet will agree with me that I have made my case good, that there was no delay whatever after the borings were carried out. I do not say that this was treated as an urgent matter. I have never claimed that it was, but I claim that there was no undue or intentional delay, and I further state in regard to what may perhaps have been considered a cause of delay, namely, that we had two sets of plans prepared, that it was considered by the Board of Admiralty that the plans might be improved upon, and that there might be some economies effected. I cannot remember the exact details, but there was a certain amount of delay due to the preparation of the second set of plans, but that there was ever any intention to my knowledge of abandonment, or of seriously delaying the work, I entirely deny. I do not think that the First Lord of the Admiralty will suggest it. It is within my recollection that an Item was included in the Estimates for 1906 in connection with Rosyth. I was instrumental in preparing the Estimates for 1906, and I think I am correct in saying so. The Item was enough to enable the contract to be let. Very little money is required in the first year of letting a contract. It was intended to let the contract in the summer of 1906. When the Estimates
642
appeared in the House that Item was not there, and there has since been very considerable delay. I do not wish to impute blame to the present Government for all the delay. I think everyone realises that it would have been very much better for us if Rosyth had been proceeded with at a much earlier date. I think events have proved that. I do not want to take it further than that. At the time we left office there was no apparent great urgency about Rosyth, but I say that every minute that has passed since has increased the urgency. Obviously every minute that has passed has accentuated the fact that it is on the East Coast that the greatest Naval activity and expenditure are required. Rosyth being obviously one point on which our energies in regard to these works should have been expended, I do think that the Government may certainly be blamed for not having realised sooner how very far behind they were getting in dock accommodation on the East Coast. We are now very much behind. There is no doubt about that, and it is a burden which the Government have inherited. We are changing front to a certain extent. For centuries we faced south. Now we are facing east, and that is the position we have to deal with. I think we are entitled to criticise the Government and say that they ought to have anticipated those events of which they must have knowledge long before the public. It is not for the Admiralty to wait until they are urged by public opinion to provide for the necessities due to that change of front. They ought surely to proceed with the plans, and especially in this case where the plans were laid out for them. I consider it is a piece of good fortune for the country and the Navy to have had it suggested that Rosyth should become a naval base. It happens that the recommendation was there ready made when for a totally different reason it became necessary to have a naval base there. I think we are entitled to criticise the present Board of Admiralty for not pressing on Rosyth sufficiently. I think they have not the same feeling about Rosyth as we had.
Sir C. DILKE: Are you speaking personally?
Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope the right hon. Baronet does not think that we are going to differentiate between Members of the Board of Admiralty. From what I know of the right hon. Baronet I think such a suggestion would not come from him, and I am sure it would not be made by anyone

643
on the Treasury Bench. When we discuss the Admiralty we discuss the Board as a whole, and any attempt to differentiate the opinions of this man or of that man is absolutely futile. The Civil Lord has told us that two floating docks are to be immediately constructed for use on the East Coast. That would be welcome information if he was able to add to the statement where they are to get accommodation.
Mr. LAMBERT: I said they would be put where they were strategically necessary.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That brings me to my point. It is one thing to construct floating docks and another thing to have places to put them. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the coast on the East side of the country is rather different from that on the West side. On the East Coast there are hardly any places suitable for floating docks, for this reason: A floating dock must have a very great depth of water. To take in a "Dreadnought" I think something like a depth of 50 feet is required.
Mr. OWEN PHILLIPS: Fifty-eight feet.
Mr. PRETYMAN: A depth of 58 ft. of water is required, combined with very complete shelter. [An HOST. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Gentleman says, "No," and I do not wish to put my opinion against his, but I have heard the opinion expressed by competent naval officers that you cannot put a vessel of 18,000 or 20,000 tons in a floating dock and expose it to wind pressure in an exposed place without incurring very serious risk. On the East Coast you will never find a depth of water anything approaching 60 ft., except where it is accompanied by a wide area and great exposure. Our East Coast estuaries are shallow. The North Sea itself is a shallow sea, and you cannot dredge to a depth of 58 ft. because it will immediately fill up. Therefore, the construction of floating docks involves the provision of some kind of camber of a depth of 58 ft., and the water must be maintained in the camber at that depth. To construct a shelter for a floating dock is very nearly as big an operation as the construction of a dry dock, I do not wish to dogmatise. It is a subject which has been a great deal discussed, and the opinions of competent engineers vary. Some engineers advocate floating docks, while others are opposed to them. It is not enough for the Admiralty to tell the House that floating
644
docks are to be constructed on the East Coast without telling us where accommodation for them is going to be found, because it is almost as important for us to know where the camber or accommodation for a floating dock is going to be provided as to know where a dry dock is to be made, and what it is to cost.
The question is one of great complexity and difficulty. Of course, I know that the way in which a floating dock can be utilised owing to the possibility of being able to remove it from one place to another is an important advantage; but if this House is under the impression that a floating dock is a cheaper article than a dry dock, it is, I think, entirely under a misapprehension. The original cost is less, but the cost is enormous over a period of years, and if you take the cost of maintaining a floating dock under Vote "A" and add it to the interest on the cost of construction, I think you will find that it will cost very little, if anything, less than the cost of a dry dock.
Mr. LAMBERT: You can construct one in one and a half years and the other takes four years to construct.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That is a question of time and not of cost, but if anyone goes into the question and takes, over a long period of years, the depreciation of a floating dock and the heavy expense of repairs and the comparatively little depreciation of a dry dock, he will see there is little or no saving whatever in the construction of a floating dock.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: There have been complaints as regards the delay in the construction of the Rosyth Dock. I think all this hurry and bustle, of which we have heard so much of late, has been caused by the so-called German scare. It has all arisen within the last six or twelve months. I should like to clear up one matter with regard to the construction of the docks. It is supposed that they are to be built of granite. The great bulk of the docks at Rosyth will be built of concrete and Granolithic. The granite is only going to be used for the more vulnerable part. If the dock were to be built of granite it would cost mors by something like half a million. There is also a very grave misunderstanding with regard to the cost of this granite which is going to be used for Rosyth. It is said that the difference between the cost of British and Norwegian is the difference between £105,000 and £134,000. It is nothing like that. These

645
were figures given by my hon. Friend below (me (Mr. McKenna) in March last, but if anybody reads carefully what he said he will find that he referred to the cost of the granite, the estimate price of the granite fixed in the dock. That is a very different thing from the granite supplied from the granite quarries. At that time he did not know really what the cost of the granite was, because this was the contractor's price, and the contractor does not tell anybody what his charges are. These prices which he gave were the prices of the finished article, and they include the whole of his work at Rosyth after the granite was delivered—all the haulage, the masonry, the work of adjustment, and all his establishment charges. I know that these establishment charges in this case amount to something like £40,000, so really the difference in price at Rosyth between Norwegian and British granite is the difference between £75,000 and £96,000. From the questions which have been put across the floor of the House, and from what we have seen in the public Press, this Government has been blamed for not setting aside altogether that difference by giving the order for British granite. But would the last Government have dared to do such a thing? It is all very well for irresponsible men and an irresponsible Press to suggest that, but would the last Government have dared to give such a bounty to British granite, and, if they had, would they not have been bound to see where that would lead to? If you give a bounty of 30 per cent. on a contract of £65,000 a bounty of over £20,000, where is that to lead you to in the hundred and one contracts issued from Government offices? Are you going to give bounties all round? How could you do it? The late Government never did it; the German Government, of which we hear such a lot, do not do it.
What happened in the case of the German Government? Two or three years ago a company I was connected with got an order for £10,000 worth of goods manufactured in England, which they could perfectly well manufacture over there, but the ring having put their own price on, the order was given to my friends, and that order was repeated two years afterwards for exactly the same amount. Only last year the German Government asked the Berlin people and the coal-owners throughout Germany for a quotation for a large quantity of coal. They put in a quotation, and as there was a ring they
646
put it pretty high. What was the result. The German Government sent over here and got quotations from some 20 coal-owners. They put this before their own people, and they said, "These are the figures; if you like to come to it, you will have it." Like wise men, they came to it, and they had it. That is how other Governments do. From the expert point of view, it has been put that this Norwegian granite is not strong enough, and will not bear the proper strain. Who says that? The late Government cannot say that, because, as my hon. Friend below me pointed out, they used it for a dozen places, so that it does not lie with them to say that it is not good enough. If the British quarryowners say that it is not good enough, how do they account for the fact that time and again, when they have been short of stone for docks and other places, they have gone to this very same man who has sent in the lowest tender for the Rosyth Dock? And why did they go to him? Because they can rely on his supplying the goods quickly to enable them to meet the contract. These very same contractors, Easton, Gibb, and Co., had a contract for Kew Bridge, and they gave that contract to an English quarry owner and to a Scotch quarry owner. They were both—which is not very unusual—behind the time of their delivery, and the bridge had to be delivered completed under heavy penalties by the contractor by a certain date. They could not deliver the stone, and he went to this very same man; and one-third of Kew Bridge is Norwegian granite. So that British quarry owners cannot possibly say that the stone is not good enough for all purposes. Then we were told it was sweating, and it was dumping. What is the fact? I have taken a very great deal of trouble to find out the facts with regard to wages in Norway, and I find they are not quite comparable with the wages here, because they work somewhat differently. They do what is quite common in the North of England; they work in gangs. These gangs actually make from 9s. to 11s. a day, and to say that it is sweated employment is to talk nonsense. As a matter of fact, these quarry owners have their own trades union, and there is no doubt whatever that they are the best paid workmen in all Norway. With regard to dumping, one does not like to give this Norwegian granite an advertisement.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What you are doing, it strikes me.
Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot help it. It is as well, rather than the Government should be stupidly blamed for this, that the facts should be known. Anyone who will take the trouble to inquire into the matter will find this—that the Norwegian quarries arc situated beside the deep water. I have in my hands photographs of one belonging to a new firm. These quarries run for two miles—just imagine! from here to London Bridge— along the face of the open water. Along the front there is a tram laid down, on which the steam crane runs along, and picks the stones from the side of the quarry and drops it into the ship. There is no such thing here. The quarries in my districts lie 20 miles inland, and they do not outcrop on the side of the hill as they do in Norway, and you have to go two thirds the way to the top of the hill, and then cut down into the middle of the hill, and some of them go as much as 200 ft. deep, necessitating a whole series of expensive operations. Then in these quarries the stone is blasted. Wherever that is done there is always a lot of waste. Then the stone has to be drawn to the top, put into a wagon, and conveyed some 18 miles. That alone accounts for more than 6d. on every foot-cube. On the other hand, the whole of this Norwegian quarry crops out at the side of the hill, so that it can be cut in wedges at the point of severance without any blasting at all, and they can slip the stone down the side of the hill to the train which takes it away. That must account for a great deal in the difference of price; and there is no doubt whatever it cannot be said that there is anything in the shape of dumping in this Norwegian granite. Of course, we all know what the remedy suggested is. Hon. Gentlemen have not put these questions across the floor of the House without suggesting that the remedy is to put on a tariff. I am not going into the question of tariff, because it does not arise on this Vote, but you will observe that the difference in price is 25 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has never spoken of anything but a small duty—5 per cent. or 10 per cent. But there would not be the slightest use in this case in putting on such a duty. He could not have stopped it under a 40 per cent. duty. Now we have never heard of such a duty imposed, and I do not suppose that any hon. Gentleman opposite will have the hardihood to go about the country suggesting that there should be a duty of 40 per cent. to keep out this granite. We have heard a great
648
deal about the "Morning Post." I am not going to say much about it except this: the "Morning Post," while at the same time it was preaching the doctrine of keeping out the foreigner and of giving the work to our own people, it employed a French architect, an American builder, and used Norwegian granite.
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. Are these people employed at Rosyth? Rosyth is the subject we are now discussing.
Mr. HENDERSON: I was only giving it as an instance; I do not blame them; and I say if they have a right to do this, as I say they have, so much more is the Government of this country bound to do it. Every man is entitled to protect his own pocket; and certainly the Government are not only entitled, but they are bound to protect the taxpayers' pocket. That is all I meant. I am particularly sorry myself, as representing a granite-producing Constituency, that this granite should come from Norway. I did all I could to prevent it. More than 12 months ago, in regard to these contracts, the Member for Penryn, the Member for Launceston, and the Member for Bodmin and I brought a great many quarry owners to this House. We begged them to organise in order to secure these contracts. We had an interview with the First Lord, who met us very sympathetically. We asked him to meet us if he could, and without giving any pledge he said that he would get alternative contracts. They secured the Portsmouth contract, but all their efforts appear to have been in vain with regard to Rosyth. The hon. Member for South Aberdeen and myself have seen the contractor, and there is still some hope. He has promised to give them all an opportunity of competing again. If they can come within anything like the price, I dare say they will be able to secure it yet. I have not too ardent a hope that that may be the case.
Mr. W. REDMOND: Not after to-day.
Mr. HENDERSON: Whatever I have said will not alter the fact. The fact remains, and it is idle to shut our eyes to it. I really do not see why, because the Norwegians have all these advantages, we should say that we will not trade with them or seek to trade with them. To say that we will not do so would be most churlish, and would be against our own interests. The Government were perfectly right to accept that contract, and they would have been doing wrong to the State, and wrong to the taxpayers, if they had

649
thought of or entertained the idea of giving such a large bounty as hon. Members opposite seem to think they ought to have given.
Mr. W. ASHLEY: The Civil Lord, in his speech, mentions that two floating docks were to be commenced, but did not inform us were they were going to be placed. The First Lord of the Admiralty interjected the statement that these docks would not be ready until the spring of 1912, and we may assume that an answer, which he gave to a question put to him some weeks ago, is approximately correct, namely, that they will be finished in two years from the time of being commenced. If that be so, surely the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to spend a little more money on these floating docks in view of the situation. I do not think it can be denied that the question of these docks is very urgent. He admitted—in answer to the questions of some hon. Members on this side of the House—that, at the present moment, there is no dock nearer than Portsmouth where a damaged "Dreadnought" could go if disabled in any way. If that be so, it is a very urgent matter that we should, at the earliest possible moment, complete these two floating docks for which money is taken in the Estimates of this year. I think the right hon. Gentleman might well consider whether it would not be advisable to spend rather more money than he intends to spend on these floating docks, and enable us to have a dock which would be able to take a"Dreadnought"—accommodation which we will not have at all unless we spend the extra money. With regard to Rosyth, it has been very ably dealt with by the hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division (Mr. Pretyman), who, I think, disposed of the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that the late Government did not intend to proceed with the construction of Rosyth. The hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out to us that the borings had taken a great deal of time, and he also pointed out that the late Government had put in their Estimates for 1906 not only the total sum of money which Rosyth was to take, but also put down a sum of money so that the work at Rosyth should be begun in 1906. If that be so, and I understand the First Lord of the Admiralty does not question that fact, then any allegation that the late Government were not anxious to press on Rosyth falls to the ground. When we come to the question of whether the present Govern-
650
ment have fulfilled their national obligations, I think we are on a very different footing. What are the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to the question of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) with reference to Rosyth? The Noble Lord asked the reason of the delay of the construction of a dock on the East Coast for "Dreadnoughts" and the actual commencement of the work. The answer was that the investigation of foreign dockyards, trial borings, and the settlement of designs, with a variety of other circumstances, all contributed to postpone the actual date of construction after the decision was arrived at. It has already been pointed out that the investigation of foreign dockyards was carried out by the late Government, that the trial borings were carried out and completed by the late Government, and, therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that the only other reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave, namely, change of Government, is the reason why Rosyth was not proceeded with. Why not? Simply because they wished to save the money. They wished to save money all along on the Navy, and it is for this reason that they have made no provision for a floating dock on the East Coast. What have they done since they have been in office? They came into office in December, 1905, and during these three years they have only spent £10,000 at Rosyth. No justification has been given by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty for that delay, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, if he speaks in this Debate, will give us some reason. But it does seem to me an extraordinary state of things that Rosyth, which was decided upon in 1902, the land being purchased in 1903, and all the preliminary investigations and borings completed in 1905, should, in 1909, be in the position of only having had £10,000 spent upon it
Mr. McKENNA: That is incorrect.
Mr. ASHLEY: I have the estimates for 31st March, 1909, which shows the sum of £10,000. I am perfectly correct.
Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that we have the sum of £200,000 under the Naval Loans Bill of 1905. That money has been drawn upon, and is being drawn upon.
Mr. ASHLEY: It may have been drawn upon, but, as a matter of fact, we have ii stated here that only £10,000 has been spent on Rosyth during three years.
Mr. LAMBERT: That is not so.
Mr. ASHLEY: If the Government say it is not so, I leave it to the House and to the Government to work it out for themselves. At any rate, whatever sum they have spent, and whether I am right or whether I am wrong, nobody will deny that Rosyth is one of the instances where the Government have been neglectful of their duties as regards the Navy. I come to the question of the lock at Portsmouth, and here the Government seems to have been very chary of spending the taxpayers' money. Portsmouth Lock was decided upon in July, 1907, and it was to be finished, we were told, in the autumn of 1912. If hon. Members look at the Estimates they will see that in these few years we have only spent the sum of £52,000 out of the total estimate of £940,000 which the new lock will cost. Is there going to be a bonus given in this case to the contractor to expedite the work?
Mr. LAMBERT: I said so.
Mr. ASHLEY: Then because the Government have been dilatory at Portsmouth, and have not carried out this work as quickly as possible, we have now to pay a bonus to the contractor so that the lost time may be made up. Surely that is not the way in which the country wishes its affairs to be carried on. Then there is the question with regard to the dock at Colombo, which is to take vessels of the "Dreadnought" or "Invincible" type. I believe I am right in saying that these big ships could not go through the Canal, and in time of peace it is not necessary that they should; but in case of war, probably the Canal would not be open to men-o'-war, and they would have to go round by the Cape. Therefore, if these big ships are to use the Colombo Dock, which should be capable of taking a vessel of the "Dreadnought" type, it seems to me that the construction of the dock is considerably behind time. As to Chatham Harbour. I should like to know if 1s. 4d. per cubic yard is being paid for excavations at the entrance to Sheer-ness Harbour, and at Southend and Gravesend 8½d. per cubic foot is being paid for excavations there; while in the latter it ought to be more expensive, as it is further from the sea.
Mr. LAMBERT: Where have you got the figures from?
Mr. ASHLEY: From somebody on the spot. I am merely stating, if my figures
652
are correct, that it is a matter for investigation. Dover Harbour does not seem to have turned out as well as was hoped. It was started under the Naval Works' Act of 1903, and a sum of £3,500,000 appropriated for the work. It was to be a great national harbour of refuge. It is a curious fact, it may be only a coincidence, but the fact remains, that while the Conservatives were in office the work seemed to go along very well there, and such progress was made that more money was spent than there was in the Estimates. Ever since the present Government have taken office there seems to have been a good deal of difficulty, and I understand the total sum will not exceed the original sum fixed for completion, although there will be two or three years' extra time. We know it has been found that the men-of-war, without a considerable amount of dredging, cannot use the harbour. Last year there was, I think, only £13,000 spent in dredging, and this year the sum is £15,500. At the present time it is well known that the harbour is no use at all for a big ship, while, as the tide runs so strongly, that smaller vessels can get up more quickly. I understand that last year the Admiralty issued an order that it was dangerous to enter the harbour in heavy weather. It will not be of much use as a harbour of refuge if ships cannot weather there. We know that the "Duke of Edinburgh" got into considerable difficulties in trying to get into the harbour. What steps are being taken to remedy what, I think the Government will agree, are great defects in this new harbour? A sum of £2,500,000 is being spent in Gibraltar, and £17,000 still remains to be spent in the present financial year. In Malta a smaller sum—£620,000—is being spent, and of that £51,000 in the present financial year. Are the Government satisfied these enormous sums are really being wisely spent in view of the great reduction of the garrison? The garrison in Malta has been reduced by half and at Gibraltar by one battalion.
Mr. LAMBERT: The money spent has been money spent by the late Government.
Mr. ASHLEY: I am sorry the Estimates do not seem to agree with what the hon. Member has said. According to them, £17,200 is to be spent at Gibraltar and £51,000 at Malta in the present financial year. Are we right in spending this money if the security is not an adequate one?
Mr. LAMBERT: These works have been going on for a great many years, and this

653
amount of money is required to complete them. Gibraltar cost about 2½ millions, and surely it would be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar if we did not spend £17,200 to complete them.
Mr. ASHLEY: I quite see the point, but is it not spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar to spend this sum of money without having adequate forces to protect those works? I wish to move the reduction of £100 in view of the fact that the Government have not spent the money for the defences of Rosyth in the way they ought to have done.
Mr. SPEAKER: The main Question has already been put from the Chair.
Mr. OWEN PHILIPPS: I congratulate the Government on having made a start in ordering large floating docks. When the Estimates first came before the House it appeared that they were going to build two small floating docks; but I am glad they have now made up their minds to spend the money in the most useful way, and that is to build docks large enough for our very largest ships. In view of the fact that in 1912 we will have either sixteen or twenty "Dreadnoughts," it is of the utmost importance that before that date we should have a sufficient number of graving docks and floating docks, both on the East Coast and on the West Coast, to enable any large ship of the "Dreadnought" class, which is damaged in war, to toe repaired as frequently as possible. I hope that now the Government have made a beginning in this matter that next year they may see their way to go on in the same direction by putting down a great many more, either of floating docks or graving docks, as the present provision is, in my opinion, absolutely inadequate for the number of large ships that are being added to the Navy.
An hon. Gentleman opposite, in discussing the number of docks available on the East Coast, seems to think that because the danger zone is at the present time on the East Coast, that all naval operations in the case of war would take place on the East Coast. I contend that in the event of war, say, with Germany, it is very probable that before the war had been going on for many days both the North Sea and the English Channel might be made practically unusable by ironclads, owing to the fact of the modern habit of using floating mines, and still more owing to the fact that any modern submarine has very much greater power of going over
654
long distances than in the past. That might make it absolutely necessary that the naval fight might take place on the West Coast. Therefore it is equally important that provision should be made, not only on the East Coast, but also on the West Coast, for sufficient docks. I listened with very great interest to the discussion of the past history of Rosyth. Whether the late Government did or did not delay that great scheme, or whether it is only a delay caused by the present Government, personally I think it is a matter of absolutely no importance, because whether either or both delayed the scheme I believe the interests of the country have been served by the delay, as it is quite possible that before the whole scheme is carried out it may be found it is absolutely of no more use to the Navy than the large sum which we all know was spent on the island of St. Lucia, which has now been proved to have been absolutely wasted money. I hope the Government will continue, in dealing with Rosyth, not to press on the matter unduly, and to simply devote their energies to completing the dry docks they have next year, and use the rest of the money that they propose to spend on Rosyth in making a large number of docks at other ports.
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: Those who have listened to the speech made by the Civil Lord hours ago must, I am sure, have felt that his remarks would not allay any of the feeling that is in the country at the present time in regard to the condition of the East Coast and as to the steps that His Majesty's Government are taking to provide the necessary docking accommodation necessary in an emergency such as war. I listened with great interest to the able speeches of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke) and my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Arthur Lee), but those speeches did not seem to take us much further, so far as the present condition of affairs is concerned. From 1902 to 1906 there may or there may not have been delay. One thing is very certain, that when the present Government came into office matters were ready for the contract, and the contract could have been let within a very few weeks. There has been the gravest delay, amounting almost to indifference, in regard to Rosyth during the last three years. There was not the same apparent urgency between 1902 and 1906. But during the last three years a new condition of affairs has arisen in regard to

655
the action Germany has taken, and in the country generally there is a strong feeling that indifference apparently reigns at the Admiralty in regard to the condition of affairs on the East Coast. The present Estimates provide for an expenditure of only about £140,000 on Rosyth. That is the kind of action the Government take when there is urgent necessity to carry out the work. If they had chosen during the three years they have been in office, they could have finished these works entirely. The work on the dry dock and the other things necessary for the commencement of an establishment at Rosyth could have been finished during the last three years, but we find ourselves with the work scarcely begun, only £10,000 or £12,000 having been paid for works already accomplished, and during the coming year not more than £140,000 is to be expended. At that rate, Rosyth would take 10 or 12 years to complete. We are to-day in just about the same position as we were a year ago. The Government's policy with regard to this urgent and most important matter is one of procrastination and risk. The Civil Lord referred to the amount of money necessary to be expended on dockyards. The general neglect in the maintenance of dockyards during the last few years is known to most people. Outside official circles it is being very generally discussed that the machinery and the up-keep of the dockyards is not anything like what it ought to be; and because the Government have not the most up-to-date and efficient machinery they cannot carry out their works in the way they should do or compete effectively with private yards. If they are not prepared to maintain the highest state of efficiency in regard to the tools with which they have to work in the dockyards they can get their work done neither as quickly nor as cheaply nor as efficiently as it can be done in the private yards, which are so thoroughly equipped. In regard to dock accommodation on the East Coast, it is quite certain that Rosyth will be no good for the purposes of the Admiralty for dry docking for at least another five years. On the Tyne there is one dry dock which, under certain conditions, may be used. That is the only dock on the East Coast that the Government could use for one of their "Dreadnoughts," and that is a private dock, having at high water 28 feet of water, which is not more under the best conditions than would be required for docking such ships
656
as are now being built; while, in the event of their being disabled, that dock would be practically valueless. We had been hoping that the Admiralty were seriously considering this question, but they do not appear to be doing so. There are, however, a large number of Gentlemen in this House and out of it who are considering the matter, and in the interests of the nation hoping that something will be done to meet what may be a great necessity before 1912. The Germans are taking a wider view. They have not the great fleet that we have to look after; but they have probably as much wisdom as those who govern naval affairs in England, and they take steps wherever it is possible, from private sources as well as from naval sources, to find money to equip themselves with dry docks. They have six large dry docks available at the present time, and one very excellent dock at Hamburg, with a lifting capacity of something like 30,000 tons. There is another dry dock, with 112 feet entrance, under consideration by the German naval authorities. So that at the present time they have seven large dry docks, none with less than 56 feet entrance, all over 700 feet long, and all with the fullest water capacity for taking any ship they may have, and they have already equipped themselves with splendid instruments in the direction of taking care of their ships. The Government have known this all the time, but we are no better off in this respect than we were three years ago. They have not even ordered these floating docks yet; they have only talked about them; and unless there is a considerable agitation in the country I believe, judging from past experience, that if we are here a year hence, they will still be talking about them, and about what they are going to do. The First Lord of the Admiralty apparently does not like that remark.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I do not mind it.
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I quite agree; I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is powder-proof against almost anything. But as representing an East Coast Constituency, and a great sea interest, I contend that I am right in making the statement that the Government are neglecting this important matter. A great many questions have been asked on the subject of dry dock accommodation; but what does it all amount to now? That you will not have one dry dock on the East

657
Coast, but you may be favoured with a floating dock should the necessities of the case require it. Is that the kind of protection we ought to have for the Navy on the East Coast? It is not because the Government have not had opportunities of making excellent terms for the provision of dry dock accommodation. No Government has had a better opportunity of making suitable arrangements for most efficient accommodation of that description. The Tyne authorities have been, and are, most anxious to meet the Government. They will be very glad to see provided and to assist in providing a dry dock on the Tyne, but the Admiralty have turned a deaf ear to almost every proposal made by them. In connection with the Humber, the authorities at Grimsby, who ought to and do take some interest in the protection of their great river, presented a case to the Admiralty some years ago, when the Immingham dock was about to be constructed. More than two years ago Lord Charles Beresford and other officials of the Admiralty visited those works, and made a report upon them. The Admiralty at that time had an opportunity of making an arrangement to construct a dry dock at that particular point, either for their own use, or for the joint use of themselves and the commercial undertaking there. The matter was allowed to slide for nearly two years, but during the last eight or nine months there has been some activity in regard to it on the part of the Admiralty—they have made an official inspection; they have had excellent terms offered them; they could have had and can have a dry dock on the Humber by the payment of a reasonable subsidy.
Mr. McKENNA: How much?
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I do not wish to go into the details of it.
Mr. McKENNA: It is necessary to consider the details.
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: In the first place the commercial dock now being constructed would have been placed at the service of the Admiralty for a very small subsidy. Then a proposal for a large dock 750 feet long, with 100 feet entrance from the commercial wet dock itself, was placed before the Admiralty, and not a large subsidy was asked on that occasion.
Mr. McKENNA: How much?
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: The right hon. Gentleman can tell us that. Then
658
the Admiralty suggested that they should have a dry dock with an entrance from the river—a very proper thing—of 110 feet, with the fullest depth of water possible, available for any purposes they might require. It was a magnificent scheme, involving an expenditure of nearly a million pounds. That money could, and would, have been found most gladly by the proprietors, and reasonable terms could have been, and can toe, arranged with them. The proprietors of these docks do not desire the Admiralty to come there unless they wish to do so. They put the scheme before the Admiralty entirely on national grounds; they were quite prepared to enter into a reasonable arrangement, and if the First Lord is desirous of discussing that reasonable proposal it can be discussed. But with a capital expenditure and the payment of a subsidy for a period of years there could, and can be, established there as fine a dock as the Government require for Admiralty purposes, and whatever that dock might earn during the time it was not used by the Admiralty itself would be set off against the subsidy. I mention that to show that the Admiralty have had an excellent opportunity of securing a first-class dry dock on the Humber, and there is no superior place on the East Coast. There is a depth of water of 28 feet at low water spring tide, and over 50 feet when the tide is on the flow. There is abundance of water also at the mouth of the Humber for practically the whole of the Channel Fleet to lie there. Under these circumstances I think I have shown the House that the Government might have had, if they had wished to, an excellent dry dock on the Humber, and could have had it finished by now. With regard to floating docks, I am not here to criticise or to find fault with the ordering of them as a most useful instrument, but a floating dock cannot be compared with a graving dock, either for its usefulness, stability, or general advantage for docking ships. One reason which has been assigned why the Government has ceased to consider this—if they have ceased—is that a dry dock is expensive, and the second reason is that you can get a floating dock in eighteen months instead of about two years. I consider that already time enough has been wasted by the Government in considering this question to have got a dry dock built. I consider that so far as the East Coast is concerned there ought to be at least two efficient and useful dry docks at the disposal of the Admiralty. There ought to be at least two floating

659
docks which could be used under similar conditions. I hope the Government will take this matter into serious consideration, because it is a serious question from the standpoint of those who live at seaports, and who have their businesses at the seaports of the East Coast. They are large taxpayers, like the rest of the people of the country, and they have the same right to expect that the Admiralty will see to the protection of their commercial interests in the event of war, or any other difficulty of that kind. The opportunity has been presented to the Government. At present I say they have done nothing, and appear as though they are going to do nothing. I do hope that after this discussion we are going to have some assurance that the Government are not going to build "Dreadnoughts" without at the same time building and equipping docks for the purpose of harbouring them in case of need.
Mr. J. JENKINS: I am very anxious not to be misunderstood, and I want first of all to pay a tribute to the Admiralty on the fact that they have at last decided to give increased facilities in the way of dry docks and general docking accommodation. Three years or about ago, as a young Member of this House, I had the audacity to divide the House on this important question. I very seriously thought at that particular time that there was a necessity, if we were going to build two "Dreadnoughts," to find accommodation to repair them in the event of anything happening to them, but, although the Admiralty has decided to give facilities in the way of docking accommodation, I still adhere to what I said on the former occasion, and that is, that a floating dock is not, in my opinion, the dock that is necessary for repairing battleships of the dimensions of a "Dreadnought." I also, on the last occasion, stated that I had served my apprenticeship to the trade of shipbuilding, and I have also been in charge of a floating dock. Floating docks are very convenient in themselves. There are three floating docks in the district where I come from, that is the Bristol Channel district. But any huge repairs that any shipowner might wish to make to his vessel would not be made on a slipway if he got near a permanent dry dock. The number of dry docks in the country is thirteen. Three belong to the Government. One of these is at Portsmouth, and the other two at Devonport. The other
660
ten belong to private companies. I cannot for the moment say where they are located, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, private companies would construct huge dry graving docks if they could build as the Civil Lord suggested? The only reasons assigned by him was, that first you could build floating docks quicker, that is, in eighteen months; and, secondly, that they are more economical. Economical! How far is that going to extend with the Admiralty? It is quite possible to be too economical with battleships costing £2,000,000. In the event of anything happening to the hull of such ships, or to the keel-plate, and the ship was placed on a floating dock, the difficulty in doing the repairs would be found to be immense. There is no such stability in the floating dock as there is in the permanent graving dock. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman even yet to consider this important question. We have at the present time docks in existence that might very well be enlarged. The Civil Lord told us that the Haulbowline dry dock would be ready for use in 1910. The contract was let in 1907. It will be a fully equipped dock, capable of taking in a "Dreadnought." Very well, you have at Chatham at the present time a dry dock sufficiently large to take in a type of vessel like the "King Edward VII." These dry docks which we have already should be utilised for the repair of ships. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheerness the First Lord of the Admiralty, I think, suggested that one of these docks would be located at the lower end of the Medway and the other will be located I know not where! Have the Admiralty taken into consideration the location of the floating dock? Is it to be in a tidal water where there is a great ebb and flow of the tide. Take a typical case. Take the case of the "Sappho" that was recently run into. It was beached at Dover. Supposing the floating dock were located there and a ship of the "Dreadnought" class were in it receiving repairs, it would be exposed—supposing there was an invasion and an attack—to the enemy. What earthly use would there be in having that floating dock and that vessel standing the charges brought against them? Would they survive it? You had your dry docks in the days gone by, and the old fighters would hide themselves from the enemy by sweeping up the river and secluding themselves where no enemy could make an attack upon them. Is it wise to spend money on an instrument whose life is only 40

661
years? In the case that I have illustrated that life may be brought to a conclusion in a short space of time. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty should even yet consider this important problem. A floating dock is simply a shell that has to take in a huge battleship worth a couple of millions, and there is nothing like solidarity when you have to dock a ship of that description.
I want to refer briefly to the question of waterways. It is perfectly true that there is a sum of money being spent in this connection. There is allocated to the Medway £23,000, but I often wonder why the Government cannot make their watercourses of such a depth as to keep them up to date and fit for modern requirements. Twenty-five years ago I went up the Belfast loughs. What was the position then? You had to travel a circuitous route with the steamer going "dead slow." What is the position to-day now that Messrs. Harland and Wolff have the thing in hand? You can go up and down the loughs in the largest steamships. If that can be done by a private company surely in the interest of this country at large, in this important question of the British Navy—which has been recently forced and impressed upon us—the Government could do something of the same. I trust that the First Lord of the Admiralty and his advisers—who are doubtless men well equipped—will look into the matter. But I speak of what I know and from a practical point of view. One word more in reference to the statement of my hon. Friend, the Member for Grimsby (Sir George Doughty). He referred to the obsolete machinery in the dockyards. He did not wilfully make that statement I am sure, for it must be within his knowledge that the Government dockyards can do repairs at 10, 20 and 30 per cent. less cost than they can be done by private employers and in the private shipyards of the country. Where a Government can put out a huge vessel in two years and ten months, that stands to the credit of the Government and the men whom they employ.
Mr. HAY MORGAN: I rise for the purpose of recalling the attention of the House to the question of the supply of granite at Rosyth. I represent a Division in Cornwall in which there are to be found a large number of granite quarries. I frankly admit that I rise on this occasion to speak with regard to the granite question, because in the last election I pledged myself to do all that lay in my power to induce
662
His Majesty's Government, were it Liberal or Conservative, to use British granite in the construction of Government work.
It is in fulfilment of that pledge that I am on my feet at this present moment. I must say that I am fairly staggered at the appearance of the Benches opposite, not only now, but all the way through since four o'clock. I will give the reason why it is that I am staggered at the comparative nudity of the Benches opposite. For the first three months of this Session the Government were greeted literally with a hailstorm of questions with regard to the supply of granite for Rosyth, and again and again the Government was threatened that when this Vote 10 came on something dreadful was going to happen. We have had four or five or six speeches from the Benches opposite, and in these speeches there was not the slightest reference to this question of the supply of granite. Why is this? I rather think it must be due to some word having been passed round from some authoritative source saying, "Do not be too strong upon this point. We shall be back in power some time, and we shall not be able to do anything better on the question than the present Government." The fact is that when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power themselves they behaved in the same bad way in regard to this matter as the present Government are behaving. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen—he might have been the Member for Norway from the way he spoke—was like a voice crying in the wilderness. He spoke about certain percentages in favour of Norwegian granite—he is a financial man—and the percentages he worked out showed that Norwegian granite was something like 25 per cent. cheaper, and then he contended that it was the duty of the Governmnet to protect the taxpayers' pockets. I have no doubt the pocket of every man is a most important part of his being. But, in my humble opinion, the business of a Government lies a great deal further than a man's pocket, and that in order to save his pocket it is necessary for the Government to give him protection for his home and shores by the efficiency of the Navy. I think the protection of the pocket is a small matter.
This is a Free Trade Government. I do not follow hon. Gentlemen opposite in their suggestion—I suppose the suggestion is implied—that there should be a tax upon any foreign granite. I do not think a tax upon foreign granite would keep it out;

663
what I really think would happen would be that the price of granite would be so much raised that the Government and all other consumers would cease to use granite, and would go in for a cheaper material. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the Government ought to use British granite where it possibly can be used. That is a perfectly reasonable and just course, especially when the quality of British granite is admitted to be a great deal better than Norwegian granite. Down to 1896 there was not a bit of Norwegian granite or foreign granite used in the construction of Government docks or lighthouses or anything of the sort. It was all British granite down to 1896, and in many cases after that period. Why is it that British granite was used down to 1896 and after 1896 for Government work? There is only one answer to that question, and it is that those who use British granite knew it was better stuff, and, though it cost a little more money, it was well worth the extra. It was used in Portsmouth in 1898, in Key-ham Harbour in 1896, in Gibraltar in 1898, where, either expressly or impliedly, the Government orders insisted upon the use of British granite, and even now, when they use Norwegian granite for certain bits of docks, when they come to the hinges and smooth water-tight surfaces they still use British granite, because it is harder and because it is necessary to use better material for those particular portions of the docks.
It has been proved that Norwegian granite is 25 per cent. softer than British. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a statement some time ago that the Admiralty had now great experience of Norwegian granite. Well, considering it was only used in 1896 for the first time, I fail to see where the great experience of Norwegian granite comes in. I have no doubt the Government have been bolstered up by the friends of Norwegian granite, and have got a great opinion of it dinned into their heads. But, so far as its durability is concerned, they have practically no experience at all as compared with the durability of British granite. Municipalities like Glasgow, Liverpool, and Newcastle, who used Norwegian granite for setts, found it was too soft, and they took it up and put down British granite instead. May I put this question to the Admiralty? Why is Norwegian granite cheaper than British? Because it must be admitted it is cheaper. I admit what the hon. Member for Aberdeen
664
said that it is cheaper because it is near the sea and because the fishermen and farmers engaged in their operations for certain portions of the year turn their labours in their spare time to cutting granite. That is true, and here is another fact. Norwegian granite is brought over in old bottoms, not only discarded by our own merchants but condemned by our own Board of Trade. In addition to that, there is this important fact, that the wages in Norway are lower than those in this country. Take the piece-work first. In connection with that there are three grades. In Scotland the first grade is paid 6d., in Norway 5d.; In Scotland the second grade is paid 1s. 9d., in Norway 1s. 3d.; in Scotland the third grade is paid 2s., in Norway 1s. 4d.
When the people of Birmingham thought about extending their Art Gallery, they issued a request for granite tenders. Tenders came in from Norway to the effect that granite could be supplied —dressed in Norway—at £7,137, but that if it had to be dressed in England, the cost would be £8,560, that is to say, that the difference of doing the work in Norway and doing the work in England was no less that £l,423, a difference of 20 per cent. Now, some portion of that was due to the fact that if the work was done in Norway, they would have to bring it over in large quantities, but I am told that a very small portion of the £1,423 extra would be due to that fact. Most of it would be due to the fact that you would have to pay higher wages in England. Another grievance is that the Fair Wages Resolution insisted upon in this country for British merchants is not insisted upon when the contract goes to Norway. That is grossly unfair, and is bound to make a difference in the price of the tender; in fact, I fail to see the use of having a Fair Wages Clause at all, except that it differentiates against this country. If the country are going to go abroad for their granite, let them go abroad for everything else they use. My hon. Friend beside me says: "What becomes of Free Trade?" I am not a bit troubled about Free Trade in this connection. Free Trade does not mean to me: "Buy in the market where you pay the least for the article." Free Trade, in my judgment, means: "Buy in the cheapest market, but remember that cheapness does not consist in money." Buy the best article at the lowest price. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, who is sitting on the Government Bench, smiles. I could take him to a shop

665
in London where he would be supplied with boots at 7s. 6d. the pair, but these would never do. You have to look to quality as well as to price, and quite rightly so, and I ask the Government to apply the same principle —Free Traders though they are—to this granite question. The policy of the Norwegian granite merchant is perfectly obvious. It is, he intends to secure his contract at low prices, to ruin the British granite merchant by under-cutting him as much as he possibly can, and then—when he has ruined the British granite merchant—he will secure his own price. That can be shown by the history of the granite kerb trade. There is practically no granite kerb trade in this country now. In 1881 the Cornish quarries produced 39 miles of kerb. In 1903 they produced a quarter of a mile. That was due to the effect of Norwegian competition by which prices gradually went down until in 1905 the kerb trade in this country was practically killed. In 1905 the price for 8 in. by 12 in. kerbs was 1s. 0¼d. a foot; in 1906 it was 1s. 4d.; in 1907 it was 1s. 5d.; and the President of the Board of Trade told us the other day that from inquiries he had made in the London County Council in 1908 it was 1s. 6d., so that it had gone up from 1s. 0¼d. in 1905 to 1s. 6d. in 1908. That is what happened in that case. The Admiralty to-day by accepting granite 25 per cent. cheaper than British granite are in reality only cutting a rod for their own backs. When they have killed the granite industry in this country the Norwegian prices will immediately go up.
I appeal on behalf of the working men of my Division who are being driven out of the country by the action of the Admiralty. This is a skilled trade. You cannot get workers into the granite industry in a day. You cannot call them back from foreign countries to this country in a day. There are no granite workers in the kerb trade now, they have been driven abroad. These men did not go singing up and down the country, "We have no work to do." There were 1,100 men employed at granite works in my Constituency some years ago. To-day there are only 400. The rest have gone to America. I say that the policy which drives 700 men abroad in five years, sensible honest men, hard-working men, skilled workers—the policy which drives 700 men of that character abroad in five years is not a right policy. The Government has done a great deal to cure unemployment, we heard a great deal about the hurrying on of naval works in order to provide employment for the workers. Now
666
you give an order that Rosyth works should be hurried on so that the men in Norway may be given work.
Sir ARTHUR BIGNOLD: Early this afternoon the Civil Lord of the Admiralty stated that we are to have two floating docks, and that they are to be placed in positions according to their strategical necessity. There can be no doubt about the necessity for them on the East Coast. In a question I addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty a fortnight ago I put forward the statement, which he did not traverse, that any "Dreadnought" put out of action in the North Sea could not be repaired unless it was taken to Portsmouth and placed in dry dock, being exposed all the way to torpedo attack. It is a fact that our Fleet is quite defenceless in this respect from the Shetlands to the Tyne. I have heard to-day that the dry dock in the Tyne will take a "Dreadnought." I would like to ask what better locality could be found for the construction of a floating dock than Kirkwall Bay, by Scapa Flow, where there is a depth of water closely approximating to 60 feet, and where every admiral in the service is delighted to take his ships. With regard to the necessity of security for your floating docks, if you go between The Sutors you have absolutely the finest bay next to Fort Jackson which you could get, and it is capable of holding the entire British Navy at one time, and possesses an average depth of water of over 70 feet. It is admitted that for 18 months from the present time, if any of our ships were put out of action in the North Sea, they would have to be sent down to Devonport Or Portsmouth. I should like to ask the Government if they can give us any indication as to what is likely to be the cost of the construction of the floating dock. I have read with surprise that it is likely to be something like £300,000, but engineers who are supposed to know have assured me they would be very glad to undertake the construction of a floating dock for half that money. I feel certain the First Lord has under his observation the ports on the East Coast to which I have referred. If it is true that the cost of a floating dock is not more than £150,000, and that their construction may save the life of a "Dreadnought," I hope the Government will not halt at two floating docks, but will resolve immediately to construct three or four.
Mr. H. BELLOC: I want to call the attention of the House, and through the

667
House the attention of all those who regard this matter as one of supreme imporance, to the fact that Votes for naval construction and the whole of our construction of docks and new naval stations omit all consideration of their defence. I should be out of order were I to go into any details of what the land defence of a naval base should be. There is a Vote under which this question can be discussed, but I wish to express my agreement with the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean when he said it would have been better to discuss the general strategical position of the land and marine forces together. As that cannot be done, we must confine ourselves to what this Vote allows. I want the House to remember the gravity of the decision which has been come to by both parties, and which has become a fixed doctrine, that the defence of a naval base shall be for all practical purposes a purely naval defence. I want to point out why I differ from that point of view. If we were at war, being a maritime nation, there are two things at which an enemy would at once attempt to strike. That any enemy would attempt to strike at the British battleship fleet in the first stages of a war by laying against it other men-of-war in line of battle seems to me to be very doubtful. I think that the policy of our enemy would be rather to keep his fleet in harbour, safe from our attack. The two things our enemy would be tempted to strike at would be, first of all, our vast sea-borne commerce, and, secondly, our naval bases. Our naval bases are few in number. The French Government do not know at what point mobilisation might take place on the part of their enemy, or at which part of the 300 miles of their frontier an enemy might strike; but an enemy desiring to strike us would only have to choose places, the number of which can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The attack upon a naval base would be exceedingly rapid. When you are attacking a large area with a small force time, of course, is important, and when you are attacking a small and definite point with a large force time is far less important, because you can move with much more rapidity. If our enemy desired to strike at Rosyth, Sheerness, or Devonport, the objective would be a simple matter, because it would be like an attack upon a thing definitely known, and so small that an enemy would be able to choose his own time and weather.
668
But there is a third point. Not only would a small force be needed, but the amount of damage that could be done in that time by a small force might be enormous, and it might be absolute in a sense, crippling the Fleet in repair in the neighbourhood of the base. The vital points of any naval base are few. If an enemy destroyed perhaps half a dozen special points where special machinery is concentrated, you might in the space of the few hours make it impossible for a fleet to repair for some considerable period of time. To a modern fleet, much more than to the fleets upon which we base the historic traditions of the English Navy, immediate repair after an action is absolutely essential. The modern fleet lives by the power of repair just as much as by ammunition or by the skilful seamanship of its officers. If that is so, it seems to me to be most unwise for the Government to have taken up a policy of mere negation upon the subject of the defence of our naval bases. When the time comes it will be of moment to point out what has been designed for the defence of Rosyth itself, and I think it will be quite possible to show how inadequate that design is in regard to fortifications. Those who still maintain—and it is the official view—that a naval base in our case, and ours alone, can be defended by naval means entirely or mainly, if they are put to it will find it difficult to justify their position. I do not think there are many experts who believe that a naval base can be defended by naval means alone. If that theory were accepted then the damage that might be done by a raid would certainly be enormous in a short time, and might be absolute, and, in fact, turn the course of a war. In the past, when naval bases were not of the importance they are now, when a fleet could keep to sea for many weeks without repair, when all the repairs could be done at sea, and when it was not so necessary after a battle to send any ships to a naval base; when the superiority of the British Fleet was not a matter of theory but a question of proved fact; when our Fleet was overwhelmingly superior, in those days we fortified our naval bases. That is all I want to insist upon now. This is an important matter, but it is one which I cannot discuss properly within the limits of this Vote in the detail I should like.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire for a few moments to follow the lead given in this matter by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and the hon. Member for Truro. They

669
make great complaint that the local granite quarries in their counties were entirely ignored, whilst large orders were given for Norwegian stone. If that applies to Aberdeen and Cornwall it also applies to a considerable extent to Ireland, because everybody knows perfectly well that there is in Ireland a great supply of granite, and if the Government only like to take the trouble which they ought to take in the matter it would be quite possible for purposes such as the construction of a dock at Rosyth to obtain large quantities of suitable stone from Ireland. When this matter was first raised in the House I was one of those who questioned the Government several times on the matter, and I agree with the hon. Member for Truro that it is a strange fact that many hon. Gentlemen occupying the Unionist Benches who were very diligent in questioning the Government on this matter are not present today in order to express more fully their opinion with regard to the purchase of Norwegian stone. I think it is a matter which ought to engage more interest than has been shown this afternoon. The hon. Member for Aberdeen delivered the most extraordinary speech that I have heard delivered in this House in all my life. He represents a constituency in the very heart of which there is absolutely the finest granite that can be found in the whole wide world outside of Ireland. Granite from Aberdeen is well known in every part of the world to be a most magnificent stone. There is plenty of it there, and the quarrying in Aberdeen is a great industry capable of enormous development, and yet the hon. Member for this constituency devoted nearly the whole of his speech to really showing that the Norwegian stone is much better than the Aberdeen stone. I am sorry the House of Commons was not built of the granite from Aberdeen, because it might have shown its value to their Member, who, to say the least of it, is not very ardent in expressing the opinion of his constituents in the matter. I say no more of him except that perhaps he has been living in a cave of Aberdeen granite stone for some time, and does not see the interests of his Constituency. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whenever Irish granite is mentioned, breaks into a smile, as if the subject was a comic one. It is not; on the contrary, it is a subject really of a serious and sad kind. Everybody knows that in the various portions of Ireland there is a large supply of the very best granite that can be had anywhere. When we ask the Government about the
670
matter, we are immediately told that it is true there is granite in Ireland, but it is quite impossible to develop it, and that if they gave an order for Rosyth it could not be executed; quarries are closed down, and there are not a sufficient number of men at work; the thing is impossible. I am very sorry to say that owing to many long years of neglect on the part of successive Governments it is true that the quarries in Ireland are not in the position which they should occupy. Many have been closed down, and others have only been partially worked. The number of men employed in quarrying is small compared with what it was years ago. Still, it is perfectly true that if the Government were anxious to develop an Irish industry and to give employment to the Irish people, they would, at any rate, make a commencement in the matter. It is no answer to say that, because the quarry owners in Ireland may not be in a position at once to carry out completely a large order like that which might be given for Rosyth, no order at all should be given. The Government should at least give a share to the quarry owners in Ireland and let them supply as much as they can and do at least some part of the work. Instead of doing that, the Government, so far as I know, without making the slightest inquiry of any kind, go off gaily to Norway and give tens of thousands of pounds to foreign quarry owners and employ foreign labour.
We are told that in the interests of Free Trade you must buy where you can buy most cheaply, and that, if the Norwegian granite is cheaper than the Irish or Aberdeen granite, it must be obtained, especially by a Free Trade Government. Surely to goodness there must be an exception to every rule, and even the heart of the staunchest Free Trader must be touched to some extent by the fact that in the poorest districts of Ireland there are strong, able-bodied men anxious and willing to work, and looking for work, who are unable to earn a crust of bread, whilst tens of thousands of the money of the taxpayers of this country go into the pockets of foreign workmen in Norway. That is a state of affairs which ought not to be allowed to continue by any Government, whether Free Trade or Protectionist. The hon. Member for Aberdeen endeavoured to show that Norwegian workmen were paid as well as the British workmen and that the conditions of labour there were as good as here. He exhausted every argument in order to excuse the Government, but I venture to say there is no real

671
excuse, and it is not the slightest use for the supporters of the Government to point to the Front Opposition Bench and say that when they were in office they got some Norwegian granite. I daresay they did, and they were just as wrong as the present Government. When the present Opposition come into power, if ever they do, I shall certainly with much interest look to see whether they act up to their principles in this matter. I shall expect that every bit of granite required for the whole of the British Empire will be taken out of Ireland, because they have led us to believe they will never, under any circumstances, use Norwegian granite so long as granite can be got from this country or from Ireland.
The First Lord of the Admiralty was good enough recently, when I pressed him, to answer questions; but from that day to this I have never been able to ascertain whether any serious effort was made by the Government to get from any quarry-owners in Ireland an estimate or an idea as to whether they could carry out any part of the work. Were they ever asked? Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the names of quarry-owners who were asked? Did they refuse? Did they say they were unable to supply any of the stone required, or was any effort made at all? I may be told the Government do not know that it was entirely a matter for the contractor, that it was the contractor who asked for the tenders, and that they are not in a position to know whether he asked for Irish, Scotch, or Cornish tenders. If that be the case, it is a very blameable state of affairs on the part of the Government. Before a large contract is given it ought to be made a condition that the contractors shall obtain the material required at home if possible. I have never been able to ascertain whether any such condition was made with the contractor for Rosyth. I venture to submit, as strongly as I can, that the question of price is not the only question to be considered in this matter. I may be told by the Government it is their business to see economy is practised, and that they should not give £20,00, £30,000, or £40,000 more for material at home than the price at which they can get it abroad. That is all very well, but there is the other side of the Question. There is the side which presents itself to men, like myself, who represent constituencies where there are granite quarries. When I pro back to Clare my constituents will say that "Dreadnoughts" are being
672
built, but there are none being built in Ireland, and no employment given there. They will say that they saw that on 1st July the House of Commons was engaged in voting millions of money for great naval works in England and abroad, but that very little, hardly a shilling, is being spent in Ireland. We have only one naval station, at Haulbowline.
The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): There is £30,000 on the Estimates for that.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, we were very glad to get that £30,000, but how many millions are there in the whole of the Naval Estimates? Thirty thousand pounds is absolutely out of all proportion to what Ireland is entitled to, having regard to the taxation she pays. My constituents will say the Navy is being increased and "Dreadnoughts" are being built, millions are being spent for works at Rosyth, Gibraltar, and all over the world, but what do we get out of it? The Government will not even take what we can supply them. We can supply them with granite, but they actually go and spend our money, because it is, to a large extent, the money of the Irish taxpayers as well as the British taxpayers, in purchasing in Norway stone, which, with a little care, the Government could have procured in Ireland. It is all very well to talk of economy, but there is no economy in leaving the population on the shores of your country and in Ireland in a work-less condition. There is absolutely no economy in driving the young men of Ireland to emigrate because there is no work for them at home. I will undertake,if he will go with me, to take the First Lord of the Admiralty to districts in Ireland where there are quarries, either entirely or partially closed down, and where there is stone which could be developed and which is ready to the hands of the Government for such works as at Rosyth. I will show him at the same time portions of the country practically deserted and without population. I will show him districts where many of the able-bodied men who still remain only too anxious to get work, who cannot find work, and I will ask him to look on these things and say whether we are to be found fault with because we make such attempts as I am making tonight to get for our people and our country some return for the taxation they pay. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take a sympathetic view of the matter. Do not let us be told that we must get

673
stone where it is cheapest. Do not let us be told we cannot supply fully the demand for a place like Rosyth, and that it is too big a job for Ireland. These replies lack sympathy and reality. When we ask that some little effort should be made by the Government to develop the resources of Ireland and give employment there, we do not often get sympathy, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to pledge himself on behalf of the Government that a beginning will be made, that the quarries in Ireland will be carefully inspected, that where stone can be got it will be got, and that encouragement will be given for the future development of the industry in Ireland, so that quarries now closed down may be opened up, and those now only partially worked may be extended and developed, giving employment to the people of the country who have paid their share of the taxation.
Mr. McKENNA: Many claims have, in the course of this Debate, been pressed upon me, and, of course, it is impossible for me to satisfy them all. The hon. Member for East Clare has spoken of the great value of Irish stone. I have heard a good deal about the merits of Cornish and Aberdeen granite. I fully recognise that all these classes of stone are most admirable, but, representing the taxpayer, as I do, I am bound to have some regard to cost, and to get the materials we require in the market which can at once supply the goods at a moderate price. Claims of a like nature have been made on behalf of various dockyard and other interests. I have been invited to establish floating locks at many places, including Cromarty, the Tyne, the Humber, and Chatham. I am only too anxious to satisfy every claim made upon me. I do not make any complaint of any legitimate interest being pressed on the attention of the Admiralty —I will give the House this assurance: that, for my part, I shall do my best to judge every claim purely and simply on its merits, and without regard to such pressure as hon. Members, very properly, no doubt, endeavour to put upon the Government, not in their own interests, but in the interests of those whom they represent. At the beginning of this discussion to-night we debated the question of Rosyth. I do not propose to go into the history of that undertaking, but if I sum up the situation in these words, I think it will suffice: For two years the late Government did not regard the building of Rosyth as urgent, and for one year
674
the present Government, after it came into office, held the scheme up. I do not think that was an excessive time for a Government, which only came into office in December, to take to consider the merits of a scheme which involved the expenditure of several millions of money, and which had not been considered urgent by their predecessors. I submit that was a moderate time to consider whether or not it was desirable to immediately press the scheme forward. Remember it was never abandoned by the late Government or by the present Government. But there was the same want of urgency admitted by the late Government, and continued for a period of one year by the present Government. However, it has been decided to press the scheme forward, and it will be completed at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) pressed my hon. Friend on a number of topics relating to contracts for which the present Government had not the smallest responsibility. Take the case of Gibraltar. The work there was begun in the year 1898, and the contract was let for that work as a whole. All the present Government have had to do for the last three or four years has been to pay cheques out to the contractor, accordingly as the work has been completed.
Mr. ASHLEY: My point was this. Although no doubt this Government were only carrying out contracts started by the late Government, it is responsible for reducing a number of men employed upon them.
Mr. McKENNA: I do not see that that has anything to do with the point I am raising. In regard to Gibraltar, the Government had nothing to do except to pay. They are responsible for the policy. They have to pay under a contract already made. The same remark applies to Dover. The hon. Gentleman has complained of the money spent there. We simply completed the contract which had already been entered into in respect of a matter for which the credit of the nation was pledged. We could take no other course. Indeed, I do not think the hon. Gentleman, in his references to Dover, did justice to the late Government. This contract was entered into at a time when the Eastern entrance was not open, and the Western entrance was not always satisfactory as an entrance to Dover Harbour. I cannot join with the hon. Member in his

675
censure of the late Government in regard to their Dover scheme. Then we have had raised the question of the Colombo Graving Dock. I have been asked whether it is large enough to take a "Dreadnought." My answer is that it will not be. The hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond) has requested some assurance as to the situation of the two floating docks which my hon. Friend has been able definitely to announce. They are to be of the largest size, and capable of taking the largest ship. So far as the Board of Admiralty anticipate at the present moment, one of the docks will be situated in the Medway. As a matter of fact the possible situations for large floating docks on the East Coast are limited in number. There are not many areas where you have in combination the required depth of water and the necessary protection. I think we have in the Medway both the sufficient depth and the protection which is necessary to make a floating dock perfectly safe. As regards the second floating dock various possible situations have been considered by the Admiralty, and we have no doubt that we shall be able to find a suitable place, but I do not think it would be desirable at this moment even to indicate where the Admiralty contemplates that the docks shall ultimately be situated. It will be no doubt on the East Coast, but I do not say it will always be situated there. It will be capable of being moved to other places. There will be a second home for the floating dock, and, of course, it will be in the vicinity of the repairing shops. In regard to the matter of building large graving docks it is receiving most anxious consideration. Negotiations are going on and preparations are being made, but I think the House will agree with me it would be undesirable to expose the Admiralty plans at this moment. The hon. Member for Grimsby has dilated on the facilities afforded by the Humber. I agree with him that if it were possible it would be well for us to conclude arrangements with the authorities for building a large dock there. But it is a question of price, and I had hoped that he had some authority to make an offer which I might find myself able to accept.
Sir G. DOUGHTY: It depends, of course, on the expenditure which is to be incurred in providing the docks.
Mr. McKENNA: I think I may say the price asked for was one which precluded
676
us from coming to terms. We must have some regard to the interests of the taxpayers, even in supplying the urgent necessity for large docks. If other offers are made to the Admiralty which I am in a position to accept I shall be only too glad. We always keep an open mind on these matters, and are ready to do business on reasonable terms. I do not think the hon. Member was quite fair in the observations he made in regard to the dockyards. Repairs are most admirably carried out in them, and I do not think anyone will deny that in dealing with out great ships, built at Portsmouth and Devonport, the work undertaken at Haulbowline, Sheerness, and other places, is quite as well done as in any private yard.
Sir G. DOUGHTY: I did not say it wa3 not. I only suggested that it was more expensive.
Mr. McKENNA: I think if the hon. Member would accompany me to some of these yards I should be able to disprove that statement. I hope I may now be allowed to have this Vote.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1909–10.

  Class II.
  Resolutions [17th June] reported:—
  (1)"That a sum not exceeding £169,294 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 31st of March, 1910, for the salaries and expenses of the Local Government Board."

  Class IV.
  (2)"That a sum, not exceeding £821,921, 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, 1910, for the expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
  Postponed Resolution to be further considered upon Monday next (5th July).
  And, it being a Quarter after Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

TAFF VALE RAILWAY (RHYMNEY RAILWAY VESTING, ETC.) BILL. [Lords.]
Order for second reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. HUDSONmoved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
The House is fully cognisant of the character of the Bill and those which have preceded it during the present Session of a similar character—it is a large combination Bill, such as we have discussed on more than one occasion. It is a Bill for combining two very large interests into one. Speaking of this specific Bill, its first object is to combine two railways, the Taff Vale and the Rhymney—two companies which have systems running parallel with each other and have facilities of access to a very wide coalfield in South Wales. The termini for these railways is at Cardiff and at the Bute Docks, and I think I am right in saying, that for more than 30 years the two companies have been, and are still, in active competition for the coal and general traffic of the South Wales district. There is no doubt as to what would happen on the combination of these two railways into one undertaking. I would ask hon. and right hon. Members to look to the districts where you have one railway holding a large monopoly, and to consider what has been the policy pursued with regard to the trading interests and the interests of the travelling public and all concerned. I do not for a single moment blame people coming here to get powers if they can do so, but it is the duty of this House to see that the public interest is safeguarded, and also the interests of all those who are connected therewith, including the employés. I think I am correct in saying that in 1889 a Bill was promoted for the amalgamation of the Bute Docks with the Taff Vale Railway, and the opposition then raised against it by conflicting interests caused it to be dropped. An attempt was also made in the Session of 1896 to combine the Rhymney
678
and the Taff Vale, and make the two concerns into one, and that also was obliged to be dropped, and I would like to ask the House if there is any difference in principle to-day to what there was at that time. The only difference is that there are greater powers of capital behind the concerns, and. therefore, they would have greater power if this House were to sanction the Bill now proposed for second reading. It would mean that the healthful competition which had existed for so long would cease, and it is in the interests and for the benefit of both traders and workpeople, and all who have participated in the benefit which has resulted from the healthful and rival competition in the district, that it should continue, and I think that is the case, despite the fact that we have had it said on more than one occasion that competition has practically ceased and is somewhat limited. Yet, nevertheless, it exists to-day, and it is because it exists that an amalgamation Bill is sought for. If there was no competition, I venture to say that this Bill would not be asked for. Parliament has hitherto maintained the attitude that competition should continue, and for that purpose lines have been sanctioned in order to give to the community the benefit of it. Here we have an application that sole power ranging over very wide coalfields, should be confined under one control. I think I am quite right in saying that out of 27,000,000 tons of coal per year this combine would at least control 20.000,000, and not only that, it would dominate and regulate as it chooses, and at its own pleasure, the whole shipment of that large amount of coal coining from the colleries. The setting up of such a monopoly power was never contemplated by this House. I know that combines have taken place, but they have been but small, and nothing in comparison to this, which we have before us at the present time. The interests affected here are of a national character. It is of national import. It is not only of a Welsh national character, but it is a combined national character. You cannot allow monopoly to be let loose in one district and expect that it is going to end there. This monopoly in Wales would control, I think, about a third of the total output of coal of the United Kingdom. That is a very serious matter. When other Bills were before the House we were told that it was owing to difficulties that they were seeking to get the powers for working agreements—to be brought together in combination and to

679
pool the receipts, and so on. It cannot be said in this case. The Taff Vale Company declared a dividend on its original Ordinary Stock in 1908 of 105–16ths and the Rhymney Company 7½ per cent. They are doing very well as they are. The object of combination can only be to do better. They do not come here in the interest of the general community. That is well known. They come here in the interests of the concern that they are going to set up.
With regard to the literature that has been circulated, we cannot take everything for granted. We quite admit that all sides have a legitimate right to do the best they can to further their ends, but I find from inquiry that every trade and labour council in the whole area covered has decided distinctly that this will be against their interests. While we have circulars from some of the town councils, we can hardly take them all as strictly genuine in the sense in which we receive them. It is quite true that we have them even from the Mayor and Corporation of Cardiff and that that representative body passed a resolution favourable to the amalgamation scheme; but it is also true that the circular they sent out was never submitted to the corporation for approval. I have another circular here, issued, I think, in the name of the Miners' Federation, but there are other names besides the miners'. I do not say it in any disrespect, but we should know exactly where we are in the matter. It is in the name of the persons who have sent it and whose name it bears.
Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: What circular is that?
Mr. HUDSON: Here is one issued on 29th June. It has the hon. Member's name to it. Over and above all these considerations there is another, namely, that this House has decided that the question of amalgamation should be inquired into by a Departmental Committee which has already been set up. Last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made certain promises that if the House would accept this they would accept certain things afterwards, but this should not be a matter which was left merely as a compliment to any combination which had power to accept anything before the combination is allowed to exist. A Committee should give its decision and the House should consider it and attach any condition to the Bill before it goes from the
680
House. It is no excuse to say this Bill was introduced before the Committee was thought of. Amalgamations have been thought of for a long time. Whatever power exists to-day vested in any railway company, it is merely a delegated one from the State. It is not theirs to bargain with and use as they think fit. Before a State Department should allow a matter of this description to go any further it should at least, in the interests of the community at large, endeavour to place necessary safeguards and restrictions upon the combination. I do not think it is right that we should take even the decision laid down by the President of the Board of Trade a week ago. It is not necessary for the House to prove that a Bill is either fundamentally immoral or scandalous. Where would you expect a Bill to get admission in the House that was of that character. It is sufficient for us to prove that a Bill of this character is not in the public interest, and that being the case, we ask the House to reject this Bill. Before amalgamations come along let us have at least a clear dictum laid down, and give State Departments the power and the initiative to step in at any time, in the interests not only of the traders but of the great mass of the workpeople in that part of the country. What would follow in other parts of the country from a proceeding of this character being set up? I ask the House to reject the Bill.
Colonel Sir IVOR HERBERT: In rising to second the Motion for the rejection of this Bill, I should like to refer to the circular mentioned by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hudson), which he was under the impression had been issued by the Miners' Federation, and which bears the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Rhondda Division (Mr. W. Abraham). I think my hon. Friend was mistaken as to that circular. I understand it was not issued on behalf of the Miners' Federation, but merely as an expression of individual opinion. On that subject we shall no doubt hear something from the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division. Although he is against me on this occasion, I am quite sure that the whole House will agree with me in saying that we are very happy that the efforts of the hon. Member in another quarter have been so successful, and that he is able to be present to take part in this discussion. In the Debate which took place on Thursday last on the second reading of another Taff Vale Railway Bill, which is the com-

681
plement of that now under the consideration of the House, I personally refrained from intervening until after the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade had had an opportunity of making clear to the House the position taken up by that Board. I refrained for a two-fold reason. In the first place, having personal interests in South Wales Coalfields, and being connected with the Port of Newport, I did not wish to intervene in such a manner as might appear to suggest that I was speaking on behalf of any personal or sectional interests whatever. I wish merely to deal with this matter as it concerns public interests—those public interests which are the special concern of the Board of Trade. I refrained, secondly, because my position in opposing this Bill depended greatly upon the attitude that might be taken up by the Board of Trade. My opposition will have been perfectly apparent to all the Members of the House through the Amendment I have had on the paper for some time with reference to the manner in which the Bill should be dealt with on second reading. I drafted that Motion in the identical terms of the Motion proposed by the President of the Board of Trade on the occasion of the commitment of the Great Northern, Great Central, and Great Eastern Railway Bill before he accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond).
If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to deal with these Bills in the way in which he dealt with that Bill when it come before the House early in April, I should be perfectly prepared to go with him, and I think most of those who appear in opposition to these Bills would do the same. To-day, however, I am guided by the experience of last Thursday, and by the statement which was made on behalf of the Board of Trade by the Parliamentary Secretary of that Board (Mr. H. J. Tennant). Speaking in this House last Thursday, the President of the Board of Trade laid down certain considerations which he said should govern the action of this House in dealing with private Bills. I agree with every word he said on that occasion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Glamorgan (Sir A Thomas) that as a general rule, it is far better that Bills of this nature should be allowed to pass the second reading, and should be referred to a Committee, but there are special considerations connected with the Bills now before the House which, I think, should vary the procedure
682
in regard to them. I also accept the principle of which the President of the Board of Trade is a most brilliant exponent, that there should be a discriminating manner of dealing with various Bills. He explained that on 6th April, when he moved the Motion to which I have referred.
I think it is apparent to anyone who considers the matter that the nature of the evidence necessary in regard to the subject-matter to be brought under inquiry necessitates the adoption of a particular form of inquiry. In the case of the Rail-way Bill which the President of the Board of Trade described as a proposal for the largest amalgamation ever brought before this House, he considered it desirable that a special hybrid Committee, should be set up to deal with it. The House took his view, and the hybrid Committee was set up. What I should like to know from the Secretary to the Board of Trade is whether there is any difference between the Bills now before us and that which was dealt with in that exceptional manner. Why is it that these Bills, which undoubtedly set up a condition of monopoly in regard to one of the most important industries of this country, should be treated as if they were merely ordinary Bills for some trifling railway extension? Nobody can pretend that in the matter of mileage, or subscribed capital, these little Welsh railways are to be compared with the great system of railways involved in the Bill dealing with the Great Central, Great Northern, and Great Eastern railways. But these Bills have a character which, I venture to submit, is peculiar, and the position of those railways is such as has no parallel anywhere in England. I would ask the House for one moment to bear with me while I try to put before them the geographical and the physical conditions which surround the coal trade in South Wales. There we have three ports —two in Glamorgan and one in Monmouthshire. The ports of Cardiff—which include Bute and Penarth docks—and the port of Barry, in Glamorgan; and in Monmouthshire, the port of Newport. Those three ports are outside the Welsh coalfield. They are separated from the Welsh coalfield by a range of hills: and those hills are only traversed by three narrow valleys. The Taff Valley, the Rhymney Valley. in Glamorganshire; and in Monmouthshire, the Ebbw Valley. These fix the lines of communication between the coalfield and the port where the coal has to be shipped and restrict the possibility of the creation of other lines of communi-

683
cation. These valleys are narrow in all cases, and it is practically an engineering impossibility to put more than the one railway that there is in them. The valleys are completely filled up with the railway, generally a canal, and a river. There is no possibility of making any competing lines with them. If, therefore, we should have two lines upon which the whole of the coal output of the Glamorgan coalfields is dependent in order to reach the sea, in one hand, that one hand can close the whole output of that port. It creates the strongest possible monopoly you could have—a monopoly against which it is impossible to compete by making a competitive line. In Monmouthshire the port of Newport is mainly, I do not say altogether, dependent upon the Great Western Railway, which has the control of the Ebbw Valley, which is a precisely similar valley to the Glamorganshire valley that I have endeavoured to describe. But it has been abundantly evident from what has come out in the Committee of the House of Lords that if there is not a complete understanding there is something very like it between the Great Western Railway Company and the two companies which are already endeavouring to make an amalgamation, and it is perfectly certain that at no very distant date the whole of these three railway companies must control the direct transit of coal to the sea at Cardiff. That would be practically an amalgamation. That is a condition of monopoly I certainly do not view without great concern. If the House would bear in mind this topographical condition which I have endeavoured to describe, they will realise most accurately the conditions which require that these Bills should be dealt with in a peculiar manner —a manner different from that which is generally applied to railway Bills and similar Bills coming into this House. The Taff and Rhymney Valley Railways are the only two lines of railway which have the means of conveying coal direct from pit to port in the Glamorganshire coalfield, and the Great Western is the only line that similarly convey coal from pit to port from the Monmouthshire coalfields. In every other case all the other railways in that area are merely connecting railways with these three great arteries. They are the arteries of communication, and if they are placed in one hand you establish unmistakably a monopoly, against which we complain. There is only one further point to which I would refer. That has al-
684
ready been referred to by my hon. Friend opposite. That is the argument upon which the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Tennant) laid great stress in last week's Debate—that the amalgamation of the Taff Vale Railway with the Cardiff Docks Company was desirable in order that those docks should be sufficiently completed and equipped and appointed to serve the public. Whilst he was endeavouring, I think with indifferent success, to show that great benefit was to be conferred upon the general public, he undoubtedly conveyed to the minds of some of us that the larger share of the blessing would undoubtedly go to the Bute estate. I do not grudge the Bute estate or the possessor of it anything which he can reasonably expect to receive from the very great enterprise which for upwards of a hundred years they have shown in the development of Cardiff. But if the argument is a good one, and, for the sake of argument, I will accept that it is a good one—
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): I may say that that was not my intention.
Sir IVOR HERBERT: I merely say it was the impression conveyed on my mind, and, as far as I understand, on the minds of other hon. Gentlemen, but I do not wish to press that point. I will confine myself to the other part of the argument, that he wished to convey to this House an impression of the enormous benefit to mankind —and to South Wales mankind in particular—from the amalgamation of a particular railway with one particular dock. I will accept, for the sake of argument, that that great blessing is going to be accomplished as the hon. Gentleman said.
I will challenge the hon. Gentleman to get up again this evening and say that, in order to complete that blessing which he told us last week was to be conferred on mankind, it is now necessary to bring into combination another railway. It is against that other railway that I am directing my remarks, and I protest against the Bill being carried any further unless we have such an assurance from the Board of Trade as I have indicated and as would be acceptable; otherwise I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in the Division for the rejection of this Bill.
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Lord E. TALBOT: When the sister Bill to this was under consideration a few days ago, it may be within the recollection of the House that certain grave charges were made against the company with which I have been associated. These charges were made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton and the hon. Member for Denbigh, who are not here this evening, I am sorry to say.
Sir IVOR HERBERT: Perhaps the Noble Lord, before he proceeds, will allow me to mention what I had intended stating, that I particularly dissociate myself from any attack such as was made upon the manager of the company with which the Noble Lord is associated, and who I certainly do not believe would permit anything to be done such as was stated.
Lord E. TALBOT: I am glad to hear the kind observation which has fallen from the hon. Baronet with reference to this point. At the same time, these charges were made. I was not present in the House at the time when the hon. Member for Bolton made his speech, but I was present at the time the hon. Member for Denbigh spoke, and beyond a disclaimer by way of interruption I was not at the time ready to make any refutation. I had received no warning whatever that these charges were going to be made. I had no idea of any such action being proposed, and, frankly, at the moment I did not understand what was meant. Therefore, I take the very earliest opportunity I can to state the facts and the truth. In the arrangement come to between Lord Bute and the Cardiff Company, which was called in question, there was nothing wrong, and there was nothing secret. The action taken was perfectly legal and perfectly public. A statement has been issued to Members with reference to this question, and, perhaps, I may be allowed to quote one paragraph in it. No doubt hon. Members like myself are in the habit of receiving similar statements by every post, and do not very often scan them with such care as the senders of them would wish. The paragraph I wish to read is as follows:—
"All that was done was that instead of paying the interest on the cost of works in course of construction out of capital, as is often done, and as the Cardiff Railway Company have power to do. Lord Bute undertook to make these payments himself. And these sums appear regularly in the accounts as 'interest on works in course of construction,' and are separately entered as distinguished from the balance from revenue account,' the only effect being that capita was relieved of these payments."
686
After the charges were made, I sought and took the best advice I could as to whether by any possibility anything wrong had been done, or any mistake had been made by the company with which I am associated. I have been assured on the highest authority that nothing whatever was done in the transaction and arrangement which was come to that may be called in question at all in any way whatever. Not only was this matter, as I say, a perfecly legal and a perfectly proper thing to do, but there was no attempt to deceive the public. Attention was called to it in the report issued by the directors to the shareholders in August, 1902:—
"The Directors have to report that, in order to prevent the undue diminution of dividends through the large amount of capital expenditure which must remain unproductive until the opening of the new dock, and to give the ordinary shareholders the benefit of the revenue actually earned by the works in operation, the Marquess of Bute, whose estate will be greatly benefited by the completion of the docks, has consented, in the meantime, to pay interest upon the capital expended upon new works at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum."
Effect was given to this in the company's accounts, which were regularly audited and sent to the Stock Exchange from time to time.
Mr. C. EDWARDS: Has anything appeared about this payment of dividend, or money for dividend purposes, by Lord Bute, in any other document published by the Cardiff Railway Company, except in their balance-sheet, from which the Noble Lord is now quoting, published in 1902.
Lord E. TALBOT: Yes; every year further publicity has been given to this transaction in the "Stock Exchange Official Intelligence." From the year 1903 to 1907, it contained, among the particulars given as to the Cardiff Railway Company, the following:—
"In order to prevent the undue diminution of dividend through the large amount of capital expenditure which must remain unproductive until the opening of the new dock, the Marquess of Bute has consented, in the meantime, to pay interest on the capital expended upon new works at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. Net revenue account, at 3 th June, 1905, included £27,123 interest thus received against £23,919 for the corresponding half year of 1904."
Mr. C. EDWARDS: He misunderstood my question. What I asked was if there had been any other statement published in any of the documents issued by the Cardiff Railway Company except one isolated balance sheet for the year ended June, 1902?
Lord E. TALBOT: I am aware that there has been a similar statement shown in the accounts as described in the "Balance from Revenue Account," in which that yearly statement was shown.
Mr. C. EDWARDS: I differ from the Noble Lord.
Lord E. TALBOT: If he will look at it he will see.
Mr. C. EDWARDS: I have gone very carefully through the accounts, and there is no indication. As the Noble Lord is aware, interest on capital is quite a different thing from a dividend. You may pay interest on capital from many directions, but you cannot pay dividend except out of profit. I do say that that is not shown in any of the accounts published by the Cardiff Railway Company.
Lord E. TALBOT: I will be very happy to show him the statement of mine, and I think I will be able to prove his statement is wrong. That is the statement I have to make about this question. I apologise for taking up the time of the House on what, perhaps, is, more or less, a personal matter. The House is naturally, and properly, jealous, and I hope always will be jealous, whenever the conduct of any one of its Members, however humble he may be, is called into question; and I thought it only right and proper I should take this first opportunity of endeavouring to explain what actually happened, and the true facts of the case. With regard to the Bill actually before us, it is regarded as of the utmost importance in the interests of the traders of Cardiff and the local authorities. There are others who will speak with more authority with regard to the corporation of Cardiff and their interest in this particular Bill. This Bill is very different in one respect from the Bill we had under discussion last week, namely, that without this Bill those improvements in passenger facilities at Cardiff could not take effect, and I understand locally the greatest possible effect is expected for the benefit of the general public from passenger facilities which will be afforded by the proposed purchase under this Bill. It is intended to have a joint station of the Cardiff Valley and Rhymney Valley railway at Cardiff itself, and also arrangements by which trains from the district served by the Rhymney Railway will get access to the Great Western. Those are matters of very great public interest
688
and advantage, and they will not be secured without the passing of this Bill. Further, if the other Bill, the Cardiff Railway Bill, the purchase of the Taff Railway, is passed alone, the great benefit of getting traffic in one hand at the dock end, and unity of management in working the traffic between the sidings and the docks, and at the docks, will only be very partially secured. That is an advantage Barry possesses already. Cardiff only desires to obtain and not to get any advantage over Barry, simply to be placed in a position of equality in this respect. It hardly needs any emphasis to show that to get traffic into one end, at the dock end, as it is at Barry, instead of having four railways working on the same lines as at Cardiff, must necessarily constitute a very great improvement. If this Bill goes to Committee it will be demonstrated, I believe, that Barry cannot be injured in any way. At any rate, no facility that Barry now enjoys will be taken away by this Bill. All that will be done will be to improve the working of Cardiff, and that is to the advantage of everyone interested with the trade. Quite apart from the merits or demerits of either of these Bills, I respectfully submit that having passed the second reading of one of these Bills last week we are bound in justice to put those two Bills on the same footing, and, it already having been decided one of them was to go to second reading, to allow the second Bill to be placed in the same position.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: This appears to me to be a matter of very considerable importance to the people of Wales and to the country generally. It is a matter which I think we might very properly consider on the second reading rather than let it go upstairs. We are generally met by this cry of "send it upstairs." We have no right to send a bad Bill upstairs and to compel people to spend thousands of pounds in opposing what is wrong. A doctrine of that sort that we ought to send a Bill upstairs is in my opinion utterly wrong. I know we generally send a Bill for second reading upstairs. It is very proper generally when there is nothing special against it. I was astonished to hear the Noble Lord say, practically because we passed one Bill last week we are bound to pass this one to-night and give it a second reading. It is really absurd to tell us because we have done wrong one night we must do wrong the next night. In my opinion we did very wrong last week in passing that

689
Bill, and we should be doing more than doubly wrong if we committed the same error to-night. We really ought to wait before we allow amalgamations until after the Departmental Committee which is, or will be, appointed to consider this question generally. That is what we understood the Board of Trade promised us, and that we should then, in an authoritative way, take the opinion of such Committee as to whether we ought to allow those amalgamations at all or not, and if so, what conditions ought to be attached. Surely before we allow amalgamations of this sort we ought to get the opinion of that Committee. It will be no good having the Committee at all if you allow all the amalgamations to take place first. Last week the Board of Trade did not seem to be looking after the interests of the people at large, but rather to be helping the promoters. The Board of Trade are paid for by the public, and they ought to spend their time, not in company promoting or in looking after companies, but in looking after the public interest. No doubt it is their duty on these occasions to give us their opinion and the opinion of their experts; but, having done that, they are going out of their way when they attempt to force Bills through the House by the aid of Government influence when the people most interested are against them. To my mind this amalgamation is an attempt to kill competition in this particular district. It is said by those who know something about the matter that the amalgamation may to a large extent ruin the Harry Docks. Those docks were established and have been kept going by Cardiff merchants to relieve themselves from the tyranny of the Bute docks and those connected with them, and this House, in my opinion, ought, if necessary, to go out of its way to support that competition of the Barry Docks rather than do anything to kill it. The same remark applies to a large extent to the Newport Docks. The object there again is in the interests of one particular company to ruin or damage those docks. I trust, therefore, we shall to-night take care that we do not commit a mistake a second time by allowing this Bill to be sent upstairs. We have a little too much of the Marquess of Bute in this matter. An attempt has been made to explain the payment of interest on these stocks, but I do not think the matter has been helped by that explanation. Nobody has ever accused the Marquess of Bute of doing anything criminal in connection with the matter. It was simply a smart
690
piece of business. I am told outside that the Marquess of Bute and those interested with him will make at least a million pounds out of this amalgamation. If that is to be the result they can afford to promote a good many Bills in Parliament; but they have no business to put other people, such as the Newport or Barry Docks, to the immense expense of opposing those Bills.
The public must be the sufferers by these amalgamations. As far as our experience has gone, such amalgamations nave, generally speaking, been against the public interest, and have resulted in increased charges to the public. That is why we ought not to allow a bigger monopoly to be created than we have in any case in connection with the railway companies. I am always willing to vote for the second reading of Bills which are right and fair to the public; but in the case of railways we have to remember that they are necessarily a monopoly, and that we give them that monopoly for the benefit of the public, and not to work against the public. Therefore, while we may be willing to give railway companies every right and proper advantage by passing their Bills, we ought to take care that we do not pass them against the interest of the people. If Members would do as I have done, go down and see these docks and what they are doing, they would realise how very unfair it would be to allow any amalgamation of this sort to kill the competition that is brought about by the Barry and Newport docks in the general interest of the people. I trust-that the Board of Trade, seeing that they were saved last week by a curious combination of forces, and those not Liberal forces, will be in a more chastened spirit to-night, and will content themselves by giving us all the information they can, leaving Members to settle for themselves in the best interests of the people a matter which is non-party, and should be non-political.
Sir ALFRED THOMAS: Although I have listened very carefully to the speeches to-night, I have not heard a single argument why this Bill should not go upstairs. It has been said several times that we ought to do what is right and just, but the House will not be doing that if they do not send the Bill to a Committee in order that it may be threshed out in the only place where it can be threshed out. What the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Hudson) has said

691
is only another proof that this is not the place to manage local affairs.I No doubt he knows a great deal about railways, but he evidently is not familiar with the Taff Vale and Rhymney Railways. He said that these railways were in direct competition. In the most microscopical way they may be; but as the Taff Vale Railway is in the Taff Vale, and the Rhymney Railway is in the Rhymney Vale, how can they really compete? A nobleman's name has been freely mentioned, but I think he ought to have fair play. The only place he can have it is in the Committee. Contrary to what has been alleged, when this transaction has been consummated he will have got one and a quarter million sterling less capital. This House has granted some 1,043 undertakings, and out of these no less than 933 are amalgamations. This little Taff Vale, that we hear so much about, is only 124 miles altogether, and there are 13 undertakings in that. Thirteen is an unlucky number, and we ought to take the opportunity of making it 14 or 15. I have the honour and the great responsibility of representing a Constituency in which more than half of these railways are situated. I can speak with authority with regard to the Merthyr Corporation, which has unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the Bill. There are no less than 12 Labour members on that corporation, and the mayor also is a Labour member. The Pontypridd Urban District Council have passed a resolution in favour of this Bill, and the chairman of that authority happens also to be a Labour member. Caerphilly is unanimously in favour of the amalgamation. Monmouth, Brecon, and other places are in favour of it. The Cardiff Chamber of Commerce are in favour, too. With regard to the men, their interests would be safeguarded, and they will only have to meet one instead of three conciliation boards, nor will they have to deal with three boards of directors, and those not already under, will come under the Taff Vale old age pensions scheme. I am asking for this second reading for a great mass of people whom I know are anxious for it. The Bill may not be perfect. Probably there never will be one that is perfect. But the opportunity should be given to show whether it is fair and just. It will be an outrage upon these people not to have the opportunity to prove their case.
Sir JOHN KENNAWAY: Having had some experience of the conduct of public business upstairs, I feel bound to raise my protest against the action which was taken last week and again this week in opposition to this Bill. I feel a great public danger is being encouraged if this House claims upon its own Motion to decide very great and important questions upon generalities, and thereby to do away with the detailed system of examination upstairs, where all parties are heard, merely on the ground of statements made, such as we have heard here to-night from hon. Gentleman who are opposed to this Bill. There is a tribunal formally constituted, and proved by long experience to command the confidence of the public and to satisfy all interests concerned, and that is the Committee upstairs, where all rights are examined and protection is afforded to all the various interests affected The established practice in this House has been to give a second reading to Bills of this sort unless some great public interest is menaced, and unless the Bill is one which calls for the declaration of principle to be decided and not a mass of details. It seems to me that in this case private interests are alarmed at the prospect of the passing of this Bill, and these private interests are, I am afraid, seeking to trade upon generalities, and to use the feeling which is natural against the doing away with competition or anything of that sort to obtain the rejection of the Bill. In order to save themselves the cost of opposing the Bill upstairs they have urged the cry of preserving competition. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the large sum of money which the fighting of this Bill would cost, but it is in accordance with the practical feeling and temper of this House that Bills should be contested upstairs, and as far as I can form an opinion this is not a scheme of great amalgamation. The Taff Vale Railway is the principal opponent, but it will remain with all its full powers, and it is protected also by special clauses. In the same way all public interests affected have been safeguarded by clauses introduced by the Board of Trade. The promoters of the Bill come with a strong case before us. The Rhymney shareholders are unanimous in their approval. An hon. Member said "Cardiff is always seeking to be protected against the Marquess of Bute," but the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce is unanimously in favour of this Bill, and in the same way the Cardiff Corporation is in favour of it. The House of Lords,

693
after three weeks' careful examination, decided that the Bill is in the interests of the public, and I say it will be a very strong measure indeed for this House, on the statements of the wild character that have been made, to undertake upon its own responsibility to reject a Bill which is very largely desired in the interests of the shareholders of the railways concerned, and of the public. The proper course is to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs, where all things will be fully gone into, and if such statements as have been made here to-night are substantiated, there can be no doubt the Committee will give full and entire weight to them. It seems to me there is a very strong primâ facie case made out in favour of this Bill. I submit that the details of the Bill are not to be decided by this House, but by the tribunal legally constituted for the decision of such matters, where all the interests concerned can be heard, and where all the statements in opposition to the Bill can be thoroughly sifted and most carefully gone into. I believe the country generally has the fullest confidence in the decisions of the Committees upstairs, and I earnestly hope the Bill will be sent to a Committee.
Mr. ALFRED MOND: I did not intend to interfere at all in view of the fact that we are to-night covering much of the ground which was covered last Thursday; but after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it would not be right for anyone who opposed the Bill, not on local, but on general principles, and not as the representative of any individual, but of a large number of traders throughout the country—it would not be right to allow that speech to pass without reply. There is one point to which I must bring the House back, and that is that the question of amalgamation is not a local but a national question. This is not only a question affecting South Wales, but it is a great problem affecting traders in Scotland, in Lancashire, in the Midlands, and right through the country. The Railway Managers' Association works together; traders work separately. This amalgamation might be a small one, but if we sanction it now we shall be told when the next amalgamation scheme comes along that the House has adopted the principle of amalgamation, and, therefore, the next amalgamation scheme ought also to have a second reading. With what consistency can the House take up this attitude in regard to the principle
694
of amalgamation? I cannot understand the point of view taken up by the President of the Board of Trade the other evening when he said that the Committee which has been set up to consider this question of amalgamation was not meant to stop railway companies acquiring what he calls their rights. Since when has it been the right of two railway companies to amalgamate? This House, if it thinks fit, may pass a Bill allowing two railway companies to amalgamate, but this is the first time I have heard it asserted that railway companies have a right to amalgamate. The purpose for which the Committee was appointed was to inquire whether amalgamation should be sanctioned, and, if so, upon what terms. In this particular case you are saying that this amalgamation shall take place before the inquiry. When the horse is stolen you are going to lock the stable door. It is really very remarkable that this House should be asked to deal with a great national question in this manner. The hon. Member for East Glamorganshire said that the House of Commons had assented to a large number of amalgamations in the past, and that is perfectly true. I wish to point out, however, that anyone who follows that argument up in detail will find that amalgamations in the past consisted not of competing lines but of sections of lines. Most of our great trunk lines have been formed by the amalgamation of small lines in the earlier days of our railway industry. There is no doubt that in the past the House of Commons has laid down and every Select Committee has laid down, that competition is a good thing. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to look at the map of this district he will find that these railways run parallel with each other, and Parliament permitted this in order to establish competition.
I think we are entitled to have some better reason from the promoters of this Bill why we should allow this House now to undo what Parliament has done. I think we ought to have some better reason than that which has been put forward to the effect that all these questions can be discussed upstairs. I protest against the assumption that this House is incapable of discussing a private Bill. We are not here to discuss what the Newport Docks should have, or this trader or that. I agree that is a question to be dealt with upstairs; but surely this House is capable of deciding between the principle of competition and amalgamation. The late Mr. Gladstone, in an interesting

695
memorandum, in 1842 made a great point of the fact that this House should be extremely jealous of the rights of the public with regard to railway matters, should carefully scrutinise all railway Bills, and not send them to a Committee, but should look into the matter themselves. Most of the speeches we have heard to-night would have been far more applicable to the Bill which passed its second reading than to this measure, because the two Bills do not hang together. I hold in my hand a list of firms representing an output of 11,400,000 tons of coal, all of them opposed to this amalgamation. I think it is only right that I should put the House in possession of all these facts. What we want to know is whether the Board of Trade adheres to the policy which they have previously adopted in regard to this question of amalgamation? I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to accept in regard to this Bill the Instruction he moved in the case of the Great Central, the Great Northern, and the Great Eastern amalgamation? There is in this Bill an important question of principle involved affecting a very large industry and a very large number of people, and if the President of the Board of Trade will intimate to the House that he will accept the Instruction which stands in the name of the hon. Member who seconded this Motion I think we might be disposed to accept it and bring this matter to a conclusion.
Mr. H. J. TENNANT: Upon the last occasion, when the question, which is very closely associated with this one, came before the House, I gave my reasons for recommending that the House should not deny the Bill a second reading. I am sorry if I gave a false impression to my hon. Friend the Member for South Monmouthshire (Colonel Sir Ivor Herbert), but, if I did, I did so quite unintentionally. I recommended the second reading of that Bill to the House on the ground that it would bring public advantage. I said it was a matter of considerable difficulty, but, after consideration and balancing all the advantages and disadvantages, I had come to that conclusion. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) said the Board of Trade ought to be engaged more in recommending what they thought was the public advantage rather than in taking part in company promoting. If I thought my hon. Friend really understood the full meaning of those words I should be very
696
angry. I can only think he did not comprehend all they conveyed. My Noble Friend the hon. Member for Sussex (Lord Edmund Talbot) alluded to the action of Lord Bute. I have consulted my advisers, and I am informed by them they did not disapprove of any action Lord Bute took. They think his action was perfectly justified. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Mond) is under some misapprehension as to the terms of reference of the Committee now sitting. He stated that it had been appointed to say whether amalgamation shall take place. That is not what the Committee have been appointed to do. It has been appointed to recommend whether any and, if so, what changes in the law with regard to amalgamation shall be made, and, supposing Parliament authorises amalgamation, what protection is necessary for safeguarding the public interest.
Mr. MOND: The matter is one of very great importance, for the traders have not read the reference in that way. They wish to know whether the Board of Trade assumes that amalgamations are to be the official policy in the future and whether the Committee is to go into the question not of whether amalgamation will be a good or a bad thing for traders, but what protection can possibly be framed.
Mr. TENNANT: I think I am correct, but I do not happen to have a copy of the reference by me. The promoters of the Bill allege that by it the passenger traffic in this pare of South Wales will be very much improved owing to the fact that you cannot diminish by the terms of the Bill the number of trains per day, but that that number will be spread out over the day. The promoters allege that owing to the inter-communication between Rhymney and Taff Vale and the Central Station at Cardiff advantages will accrue to the public, and I think that is the view of the inhabitants of that district, otherwise you would not have had all the documents which have been circulated to hon. Members from the chambers of commerce at Rhymney, Cardiff, and Pontypridd. I realise there is not unanimity in those districts, inasmuch as the workmen represented by the Trades Labour Council are opposed to the Bill. They allege that it is dangerous and injurious to trade by the withdrawal of competition, and that the Powell Duffryn Colliery, in the Aberdare Valley, will be prejudiced and injured by the absence of this

697
competition. Surely we ought to be able to find out which is right. It is not for this House to make investigations of this kind. These are points eminently to be investigated and threshed out by a Committee, and I have already informed the House that on a balance of the advantages and disadvantages the Board of Trade have arrived at the conclusion that the Bill ought to go to a second reading for investigation. There are only two valleys in which these companies really compete, the Aberdare and the Merthyr, and it is rather singular that at Merthyr, where there is the most inter-communication between the two companies, that we should have the strongest representations by the Merthyr Council, which has upon it twelve labour members. This question of competition or its absence should be investigated by a Committee, so I say the main interests ought to be investigated by a Committee.
It seems to me it would be a great pity, if you have a chance of really improving the commercial facilities of a great growing and important district—and the Board of Trade believes that that will be the outcome of this Bill—it seems a great pity that, owing to fears which may be groundless, the chance should be denied of having this matter investigated, especially in view of the fact that if the Committee decided that the fears were well founded they could insert clauses for the protection of those who entertain them.
Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I have been pressed by a considerable portion of my Constituents, whom this amalgamation will affect, to say a few words in favour of this Bill. No one will deny that the amalgamation, one way or another, will greatly affect the Miners' Federation. The executive of that Federation, of its own initative, investigated this proposal with a view to seeing if the interests of the workers were sufficiently safeguarded. It is not merely the interests of the Valleys which are concerned. Those who live in the East, West, North, and South are equally affected. The executive of the Miners' Federation, as a result of the investigation they made, were satisfied that the protective clauses, so generously and liberally granted by the promoters of the amalgamation, sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the workers; and they therefore felt it their duty to help on the amalgamation movement. I have always laid great stress upon direct labour representation. Take the case of the Rhondda Valley, which is supporting the
698
second reading of this Bill. There could be no more representative labour body than the Council there, and I am informed that they are unanimously in favour of the amalgamation. Then, again, an ex-Mayor of Merthyr Tydvil this very day explained to me that, on his corporation, there are ten direct labour representatives, and they are unanimously in favour of this amalgamation. I cannot feel, therefore, that I am going against the interests of labour in this matter when I support this Bill. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, this amalgamation will enormously increase the trade facilities in the Pontypridd district. Now I come to the Rhyinney district. In our investigations we had to see if that district was adequately protected, and I may assure the House we were thoroughly convinced that, in view of the clauses agreed to by the promoters, there was no danger that that district would be damaged. That is one of my reasons for interposing in this Debate. There is another railway which has to be considered—the Cardiff Railway—which, in my opinion, commences nowhere and ends nowhere. It has no direct connection with anything, but I am clearly of opinion that if this amalgamation takes place that little rail-way can be made an enormous influence. Great help will be given and facilities will be increased by putting that railway into this combination. With all due respect, therefore, let it be understood that my direct interest is to protect the rights of labour by wishing for increased facilities for workers, but the transfer of the management of that line into the hands of this new combination will give us vastly increased facilities beyond anything we have now. For that reason, I, for one, and the members of the committee of the executive of the South Wales Miners Federation, consider it our duty to come here and say a word in support of the second reading.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: With regard to the Labour interests affected by this Bill, our trade councils, on which the miners are represented, together with the railway men and men in other trades, were unanimously against the Bill, and the same is true of every body of organised workmen anywhere. Every body of organised workmen who have given expression to their opinion have pronounced against this amalgamation, and I rise to make this correction lest the

699
House should think that the Labour opinion is anything like so favourable to the measure as has been supposed. An hon. Member told us of the different interests that were in favour of this Bill, and, naturally, the cargo shipping owners are in favour of it, because it plays so much into their hands. The hon. Member made one interesting statement, which has a direct bearing on the Labour aspect of this case; he told us how, at the present time, a workman dismissed by one of these three railways cannot find employment on either of the other two.
Sir ALFRED THOMAS: I did not get that from the railway people, but it was given to me by a man who advocated the amalgamation.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: My argument is this, if this complete form of blacklisting applies when three companies are in existence, what is going to happen when the three companies become one. It is the fear of this that forces the people on railways to take such a strong stand in opposition to the Bill. The promoters of the Bill have worked with considerable skill in obtaining support and the management has been distributing, in the form of promises, largesse with a very prodigal hand. A station is promised here, a fresh train there, and workmen's travelling facilities somewhere else, and all the interests likely to oppose have thus been conciliated. But those who accept these proposals forget that the Taff Vale Railway Company at present is in the position of the wooer. It is a different matter when the Bill becomes law, and the promises of these courtship days are then being called upon to be redeemed. I have heard nothing this evening to alter the opinion I expressed in the last Debate that the passing of this Bill would establish a dangerous precedent, and until we have the Report of the Special Committee set up by the Board of Trade nothing should be done to prejudice the findings of that Committee, and to fetter the action of the House in the future by establishing a 'precedent of this kind.
Mr. IVOR GUEST: It will be admitted that the House is in no ordinary position in coming to a decision upon the merits of the Bill. It is true that it is a similar Bill to that which we decided upon last week, but this Debate is not without interest, and the importance of the subject justifies the time the House is spending upon it. It will be admitted that Labour
700
opinion on the Bill is divided. There is, on the one hand, the working mining interest, who see the advantage which has accrued to them by the more rapid delivery of coal and other facilities. On the other hand, it is true that the Cardiff Trade Council have expressed their opinion in opposition. It is clear from that fact that this measure offers certain advantages to the whole community of Cardiff and to the whole district connected with Cardiff in which the labour interests will naturally share. On the other hand, the labour interest is also rather anxious that some advantages it has derived from the present competition should not be lost. I agree with the Secretary to the Board of Trade that it is difficult for the House on a second reading Debate to thrash out the various pros and cons of these interests, and the mere fact that there is a division of opinion in the Labour world in the district rather points to us sending the Bill to a Committee. If we turn from the labour interest to the trading interest of the general community, I am inclined to think we shall be guided to adopt the same course. It is obvious that the competition of the various railway systems in South Wales-have been in the past a very great advantage to trade. The formation of the Barry Company, the creation of the Barry Dock, and the building of a competing line were of very great advantage to the whole community of coal owners and shippers. At the same time I think it would be unwise for us to overlook the advantages which can very naturally redound to the community of the whole district from amalgamation. The hon. Member for Merthyr has stated that the promoters have promised, or are able to promise, very considerable facilities, both for traders and the travelling public, as a result of this amalgamation. I have no doubt, if they know what they are about, these facilities will be forthcoming. What we have now to do is to weigh the advantages as between amalgamation and competition. I think the House would be very ill-advised if they granted to this combination such an advantageous position as would enable it to force those companies which remain outside the combination to their knees. That would be a great misfortune, and I think the men of South Wales, and the men of Cardiff themselves who are particularly interested, and who are pressing the advantages of this scheme, will feel that a great disadvantage would occur if that were to be the result. Of course, I know it is stated by the opponents of the Bill

701
that no terms can be inserted which can possibly guarantee the continual existence of competing systems. I believe it is perfectly possible for the Committee to insert such clauses as will guarantee the continued existence of those other companies. When this Bill comes down from Committee for third reading, if these conditions have not been considered, and if the result of the Committee stage has been to place the new amalgamation in a position to tread under the Barry Company or any other existing system, I think it will be perfectly competent for this House to reconsider the decision of the Committee, and possibly to reverse it.
Having tried to consider this matter absolutely impartially from the point of view of the representative of Cardiff, I cannot see my way to deny a second reading to the Bill. After all, nobody can ignore the fact that the trading community of Cardiff are in favour of the proposal. They believe their interests, and those of the docks, demand that this Bill should be passed. The salient point is that, unless the Bute Docks are acquired by a strong body, both financially and commercially, there is grave reason to apprehend that the development and equipment of those docks will not be carried out, and that the result may be that Cardiff will fall behind in the natural and legitimate competition in connection with the different ports in South Wales. I think it is my duty to support the Motion for the second reading. It would be wrong on our part to deny to the great city of Cardiff the right to place before a Committee of this House the case they have for amalgamation.
Sir C. J. CORY: I wish to say a few words as a director of the Barry Railway Company, to which reference has been made to-night. In the first place it has been said that when the amalgamation takes place improved facilities will be given to the public. On the other hand. I would point out that the Taff Company are now carrying at company's risk goods which the Rhymney Company carry at owners' risk. When there is no competition the same rates will apply to goods which are carried at owner's risk. My colleagues on the board of the Barry railway state their belief that if the amalgamation goes through they would be bound to approach the amalgamated companies and practically sell their interest to them on any terms they may claim. I should like to state to the House the history of the Barry Railway and why it was
702
started. The condition of Cardiff was such that steamers were hung up there for weeks at a time for want of berths. A certain number of freighters, in order to overcome all those difficulties, agreed to promote a Bill to make a dock and railway of their own. This was very strenuously opposed by Lord Bute. Lord Bute had powers to make a further dock. When pressed to make that dock owing to the great congestion of the trade of the district he said, "Why should I be put to the expense of making that dock? If the freighters want more accommodation let them go and make a dock themselves." Yet when they attempted to make it themselves Lord Bute opposed it, and it was only after very great expense that they succeeded in getting the powers. Then we made the docks and the trade of the district has increased by leaps and bounds ever since. I am a director of the Barry Railway having a very large interest in the Barry dock. My company naturally send as much traffic as we can to that dock, but we have also to send at least a million tons a year to the Bute docks. It would not suit us to send the whole of our traffic to Barry dock even if they could take it, because, owing to the tonnage it would be impossible to get the tonnage of the whole of our ships at one dock. If this amalgamation goes through we shall find that the competition which exists to-day in the port of Cardiff in having the Penarth dock will be done away with, that is to say, if we did not get facilities these things are so hung up at Cardiff that while now we have a second string to our bow yet if the Amalgamation Bill goes through that competition will be done away with. It is said that the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce and also Cardiff shippers are in favour of the amalgamation. I understood from a number of members of those bodies that the reason they are in favour of it is that they find that the Bute Docks are carried oil in such a bad way that they feel that any change would be a change for the better. There is absolutely no reason whatever to have an amalgamation to bring about these improvements. All that is wanted is to have improved management of the Bute Docks. The Noble Lord the Member for Sussex (Lord E. Talbot) said the other night, when the Cardiff railway amalgamation was on, that Cardiff was indebted to Lord Bute's grandfather for its development, owing to his spending huge sums on making the docks. But Cardiff is not indebted to Lord Bute any more

703
than to the colliery proprietors who sank their money opening collieries in the different valleys adjoining Cardiff. The docks would have been no use without the collieries any more than the collieries without the docks. If Lord Bute had not made the dock, no doubt other people would have made it for themselves. I cannot help feeling that, in the interests of the competition which has been the life and soul of the trade of Cardiff and the districts in South Wales, it would be most disastrous if these amalgamations passed. The competition of the Barry Railway, which has been of much benefit to the district, would be done away with if these amalgamations go through,' and I would therefore appeal to the House not to pass the second reading of this Bill.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): Whatever may be the merits of our Private Bill procedure, the second reading is very often decided by the votes of Members who know too little of the subject and by Members who know too much. Whenever a railway Bill is discussed it is the duty of the Board of Trade to offer advice to the House. I am frequently told that our advice is supposed to be unduly favourable to railway companies. If that is so, it arises out of the new procedure which the House is inclined to adopt with reference to private business. Whenever a Private Bill is brought forward of any controversial character we are always enjoined to reject it on the second reading, and if a request is made on the part of the Government or the Board of Trade, quite apart from the merits of the Bill altogether, that it should go to Committee for a thorough and scientific examination, then there is a suggestion that the rights of different parts of the country and the general interests of the public are being invaded. The general interests of the public are best served by a proper procedure in regard to private business. The safe rule to go upon —one which I always went upon before I had an official position in these matters—where there is a private interest, local or special, interest of any kind whatever, is not to try to overthrow a private Bill on the second reading simply because they have more chance of doing justice to arguments in two or three hours' discussion than they would have had if they passed the second reading and sent the Bill upstairs for proper examination in Committee.
704
I am sorry to differ with many hon. Members, but I do suggest that on this Bill, as on any other private Bill, and almost every other private Bill that occurs from year's end to year's end, the proper thing is to send the Bill upstairs and let the Committee thresh it out. I do hope the House will take that point of view, because injury is done to the general procedure of the House of Commons, and injury is done to the general interests of the country, when, without hearing arguments fairly and without challenging statements made in great detail by Members on one side or the other who had the case at their fingers' ends, the House is advised to reject one of these proposals without its being examined. This general statement I venture to submit, and I have submitted it before, that in this case there are particular reasons, quite apart from the merits of the Bill, why the House should not deny it a second reading. The House has passed the sister bill—["No"]—or the rival bill; at any rate it has passed a companion bill. I will not quarrel about the relationship. The House has passed the Tatt-Cardiff Bill, and, having given it the second reading and sent it to a Committee, it is necessary that a second reading should be given to this Bill in order that the Committee may have it in their power to protect the district served by the Rhymney Railway against any misuse of power by the Cardiff company. This is really consequential upon the decision which the House came to last week. The Committee ought to examine into the case—they ought to look into it as a whole. I should think the Committee would be failing in its duty if it did not attach the fullest importance to the interests dealt with when it came to examine the proposals. It will be for the House to say if the Committee has done its work, and to what extent it has dealt with the subject, whether there are omissions or failures on the part of the Committee, to give proper protection to all the other interests. I say, without hesitation, to reject the Taff-Cardiff Bill last week would have been, I think, an injudicious procedure with regard to private business, but to pass the Cardiff Bill and send it to a Committee after second reading, and then to reject the Taff - Rhymney Bill would not merely be an injustice, but it would be an absurdity. I am confident of the duty I have in this matter, and the Government have not put the slightest pressure, but we offer our advice simply

705
from the point of view of the Board of Trade. I am confident my duty is to ask the House to have this Bill thoroughly threshed out and examined with its companion Bill. We are told those Bills are a scandal, that they contain elements of the grossest impropriety and immorality. Can you not trust a Committee to throw light on the scandal? If this is a Lord Bute "Relief Bill," as I heard it called, is not a Committee of this House, chosen impartially, with all the exhaustive process of examination and cross-examination, capable of throwing light on that scandal? Will not the House have the courage and the fullest material to deal with the matter drastically and with the Committee's decision and the Report of the Committee after the examination has taken place? I trust that the House will not hesitate in the course it should adopt. I say this without saying a word with prejudice to the decision the Committee may come to. The Committee may find the preamble of the Bill is not proved, and that injustice done to other interests make it undesirable that the Bill should proceed. The Committee has on more than one occasion in recent times rejected a Bill which the House referred to it. Therefore I say let the House adhere to the proper procedure adopted after long and careful consideration. That is the only procedure to enable the House of Commons to do justice to the complicated proposals which are from time to tune brought before it.
Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has made no reference to what seems to me the most decisive factor in this situation. He has deliberately, after the very important discussion on the Bill to amalgamate the Great Northern, Great Central, and Great Eastern Railways a few weeks ago, appointed a Committee to deal with the whole of the questions relating to railway agreements and railway amalgamation, and for the protection of the
rights of the public and trade in relation to them. But in this Debate he has made no reference to this, the most serious argument for rejecting this Bill, and has referred in his speech solely to local matters and opinions, as to which I express no opinion upon with regard to this particular Bill. I must, as a Member of long experience in these matters in the House, enter my protest against the policy of the Board of Trade in adopting a strong and partisan attitude in defence of Bills which involve the very principle which they themselves have decided should be and ought to be thoroughly threshed out by a responsible Departmental Committee. Having taken that decision it really appears to me singular that a great Government Department should deliberately invite the House to take a step which sets their own decisions absolutely at defiance.
Lord BALCARRES: I have listened to many Debates of this description, but I do not remember one in which there was so much difference of opinion between Members as has been shown to-night. I do not know the district, the railways, the docks, or the promoters concerned. I am not interested, except as wanting to do the right thing. I cannot support one view against another, my only chance is that the Bill should be discussed upstairs. There four or five gentlemen, somehow or other, I never understand how, manage to divest themselves of every vestige of party feeling, and after sitting for days and even weeks, while points are discussed in the most minute and exhaustive fashion, come to conclusions which, in 99 cases out of a hundred, are accepted by the House at large. So far as I am concerned, I cannot honestly do other than vote for the second reading of the Bill, in order that the divergent views which have been expressed may be cleared up.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."
The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 91.

Division No. 225.]

AYES.

[10.50 p.m.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bright, J. A.

Craig, Chales Curtis Antrim, S.)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bull, Sir William James

Craik, Sir Henry

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, William J.

Ashley, W. W.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Dalrymple, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Banbury, Sir Freerick George

Cheetham, John Frederick

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Doughty, Sir George

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Clyde, J. Avon

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Elibank, Master of

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Falconer, James

Fell, Arthur

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lundon, T.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lupton, Arnold

Redmond, William (Clare)

Fletcher, J. S.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rees, J. D.

Forster, Henry William

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Fuller, John Michael F.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Marnham, F. J.

Sandys, Col. Thomas Myles

Gretton, John

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Seely, Colonel

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Menzies, Sir Walter

Simon, John Allsebrook

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

Mooney, J. J.

Starkey, John R.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Moore, William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Morse, L. L.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Hills, J. W.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Jenkins, J.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Valentia, Viscount

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Nolan, Joseph

Waring, Walter

Joyce, Michael

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

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

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Kerry, Earl of

O'Malley, William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Kilbride, Denis

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

Lambert, George

Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff, Wald.)

Younger, George

Lamont, Norman

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Phillips, Owen C. (Pembroke)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Lewis, John Herbert

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

A. Thomas and Mr. W. Abrahams

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Pullar, Sir Robert

(Rhondda).

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Glover, Thomas

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Ambrose, Robert

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Pointer J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Radford, G. H.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Gulland, John W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barnard, E. B.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Bell, Richard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Rowlands, J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Higham, John Sharp

Seaverns, J. H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hodge, John

Snowden, P.

Brigg, John

Hogan, Michael

Spicer, Sir Albert

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Horniman, Emslie John

Steadman, W. C.

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

Hunt, Rowland

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Summerbell, T.

Byles, William Pollard

Jowett, F. W.

Sutherland, J. E.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Kelley, George D.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Wardle, George J.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Laidlaw, Robert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Waterlow, D. S.

Crosfield, A. H.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Watt, Henry A.

Cross, Alexander

Levy, Sir Maurice

Wedgewood, Josiah C.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Maddison, Frederick

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Duncan, C- (Barrow-in-Furness)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wiles, Thomas

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Massie, J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Meagher, Michael

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mond, A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Hudson and Sir Ivor Herbert.

Fenwick, Charles

Parker, James (Halifax)

Flynn, James Christopher

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 89.

Division No. 226.]

AYES.

11.0 p.m.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baldwin, Stanley

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bull, Sir William James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Barry Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ashley, W. W.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Carlile, E. Hildred

Balcarres, Lord

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Cecil, Lord I (Marylebone, E.)

Joyce, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Joynson-Hicks, William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Pease, Rt. Hon J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Clyde, J. Avon

Kerry, Earl of

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

Kilbride, Denis

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Lambert, George

Pullar, Sir Robert

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Raphael, Herbert H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Crossley, William J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Rees, J. D.

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lundon, T.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Doughty, Sir George

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roe, Sir Thomas

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Elibank, Master of

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

Falconer, James

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Seely, Colonel

Fell, Arthur

M'Micking, Major G.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Fergusson, R. C. Munro

Markham, Arthur Basil

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Marnham, F. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Stanier, Beville

Forster, Henry William

Menzies, Sir Walter

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fuller, John Michael F.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Glen-Coates, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Mooney, J. J.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Gooch, Herry Cubitt (Peckham)

Moore, William

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Guiding, Edward Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Ure, Rt. Hon Alexander

Gretton, John

Morse, L. L.

Valentia, Viscount

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Waring, Walter

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nolan, Joseph

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Younger, George

Hills, J. W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

O'Doherty, Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

A. Thomas and Mr. W. Abraham

Jenkins, J.

O'Malley, William

(Rhodda).

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Fenwick, Charles

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Ambrose, Robert

Flynn, James Christopher

Pointer, J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Glover, Thomas

Radford, G. H.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barnard, E. B.

Gulland, John W.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Barnes, G. N.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Bell, Richard

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rowlands, J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Seaverns, J. H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Snowden, P.

Brigg, John

Hodge, John

Steadman, W. C.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hogan, Michael

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hunt, Rowland

Summerbell, T.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Sutherland, J. E.

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jowett, F. W.

Wardle, George J.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Kelley, George D.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Waterlow, D. S.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Watt, Henry A.

Crosfield, A. H.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Cross, Alexander

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Weir, James Galloway

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

Wiles, Thomas

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

Maddison, Frederick

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Massie, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Meagher, Michael

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Mond, A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Hudson and Sir Ivor Herbert.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Everett, R. Lacey

Parker, James (Halifax)

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) FUND.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON moved, "That an humble Address be presented
710
to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold his assent to the scheme of allocation of the balance of the Education (Scot-

711
land) Fund for 1909–10, contained in a minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated the 3rd day of June, 1909, and laid upon the Table of this House on the said 3rd day of June, 1909."
This scheme, as prepared by the Scotch Education Department, was strenuously opposed last Session by the Educational authorities. The authorities for the greater part of the country having been unable to obtain any redress have urged that this Motion should be brought before Parliament. They have a strong case. The Education Act of last Session enacts:—Clause 15. That the grants provided by the Imperial Exchequer to be hereafter devoted to purposes of education in Scotland shall no longer be applied or distributed as heretofore, but shall be distributed in accordance with a definite principle which is set forth with absolute precision in section 16 (2) of the Act under which the balance of the money is to be allocated amongst the several education districts according to a scheme "prepared by the Department and so framed as to give greater aid to those districts in which, per head of the population, the burden of expenditure on educational purposes approved by the department is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district." The scheme appended to the Minute does not carry out the principle laid down in the Act, but is at direct variance with it, and if the Minute is allowed by this House the Department can apply at their discretion as heretofore moneys which the Act expressly ordains should be distributed in accordance with a definite principle. The scheme is contrary to the principle laid down in the Act, first, because out of 39 education districts in Scotland it prejudicially affects 17. Ten, or practically 60 per cent., of these have education rates over the average for the whole of Scotland, the excess in certain cases being as high as 4d. in the £. On the other hand, of the 22 districts which, compared with these, are unduly advantaged, only five, or 23 per cent., are over the average. In the second place, of the 17 districts adversely affected, 15, or 88 per cent., have a necessity over the average for the whole of Scotland, while of the 22 districts deriving undue benefit, only 5, or under 23 per cent., show a necessity over the average, while no fewer than 17, or 77 per
712
cent., have a necessity under the average. In the districts advantaged the average of their education rate is 8½d. per £, while in those disadvantaged it is l1d. per £. Of the six burgh school board districts five have education rates and ratios of necessity over the average—only one (Edinburgh) is under the average in both respects, and yet this district is the only one of the six that the scheme favours-As to the grants districts will receive calculated per head of the school population, districts with a necessity under the average for Scotland and benefited by the scheme are, amongst others, Peebles gets 80s. 2d. per child, Edinburgh gets 13s. per child, while districts with a necessity over the average for Scotland and prejudiced ay the scheme are inter alia, Linlithgow, 9s. per child, and Dumbarton, 9s. 3d. The average grant per child in the districts advantaged is 14s. 9d., while in the districts disadvantaged it is only 10s. 6d. The scheme proposes, quite contrary to the principle of the Act, which is to provide for present and future needs, to earmark to the districts certain payments which they have been receiving in respect of past requirements. The amount of these grants can, it is obvious, be no true test of present or future necessity—on the contrary, it may be urged that the liberal grants of the past should, in respect of the full educational equipment which they were the means of procuring, reduce present necessity in those districts which have hitherto received an excess as compared with other districts.
The scheme appended to the Minute, as I have said, therefore does not carry out the principle laid down in the Act. I will give one or two examples of these past grants per head of school population in the districts benefited by the scheme and having a necessity under the average. Peebles has 12s. 1d. and Edinburgh 4s., whilst in the districts adversely affected Linlithgow has only 2s. 7d. and Leith has only 1s. l0d. In the districts benefited by the scheme, the average of these grants is 6s. 5d. per head, in those disadvantaged it is only 2s. 8d., and the districts disadvantaged by the scheme represent close on 70 per cent. of the population of Scotland. There is one comparison which will take a bit of setting over by the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General. and that is that between Stirlingshire, which, with a population of 142,291, gets £13,688, whilst Forfarshire, a county which does not get much from the political point of view but which seems to get a good deal from

713
the educational, with 122,909 inhabitants, gets £14,222. Stirlingshire's valuation per head of the population (£6.53) is lower and its education rate, which is nearly 12d., is higher than that of Forfarshire, with its £7.03 and its 8¼d. respectively. Therefore Stirlingshire, whose need is greater, as shown by the Department's ratios, which give the necessity in Stirlingshire as 19.829, and of Forfarshire as 12.763, should receive some thousands of pounds more, while under the Act she receives less. The Edinburgh School Board borough, with a higher valuation of over £10 per head of population, and a lower rate of 9¼d. than the Aberdeen School Board borough, where the valuation is only £5.86, with a rate of over 1s. 2d., gets nearly £27,000, as against Aberdeen with a little more than £15,000, whereas the population, in Edinburgh over 30,000 and in Aberdeen 29,600, shows that Aberdeen ought to receive almost as much as Edinburgh. There are districts, in which the burden of expenditure is excessive, which receive less than their fair share of the grants. Other districts have been most liberally treated and have low education rates. I can quite well remember that special grants were given in relief of the Highland rates, putting on a penny rate in a parish in Ross-shire in order to keep up appearances. The whole educational costs of the parish were defrayed out of this special rate, and yet that is the kind of grant which might quite well have been perpetuated under this scheme. Notwithstanding all this, it is proposed, in face of a quite specific direction of Parliament under the Act, to continue past preferential treatment, with the result that whereas, under the Act, money is to be allotted to give greater aid to those districts in which per head of population the burden of expenditure for educational purposes approved by the Department is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district, yet it is allotted under the scheme of the Department intended to carry out the Act in exactly the opposite way. Notwithstanding all this we have had two pleas only in support of the scheme. One is that no district should receive less than it has had in the past, and the other is that the allocation in the Minute will result in giving every district as much as in the past. But the necessities of districts in the past are no test of present or future necessity, and in any case it is idle to say that because a district has been unduly
714
advantaged it shall continue to profit as against other districts where necessity has become apparent, and which, under the principle laid down in the Act, should receive much larger sums than they obtain under the scheme. No doubt any scheme of general application may result in individual cases of hardship, and these can be dealt with, but, in order to meet a few isolated cases, what we complain of is A that the whole original scheme of the Department, which has been so carefully thought out, and which, in the Department's own words, "effect was given to the principle laid down in the Bill," has been abandoned, and the principle of the Act disregarded to the great disadvantage of the greater part of the population of Scotland and to the undue advantage of a number of districts in which no case of necessity has arisen. It is admitted by the Secretary for Scotland that the scheme is not the full application of the principle of the Act. There is no provision for modifying the prescribed principle, and so long as it stands part of the Act the scheme which it contemplates must be based on the factors of population, educational expenditure, and valuation, and as the scheme departs from the Act in all these essentials, I beg to move the Address.
Sir W. MENZIES: It is always an unpleasant thing for a Member rising from this side of the House to oppose any action of the Government, and it is a particularly unpleasant thing for me to do to-night, and looks somewhat ungracious. But these counties with large school boards which are adversely affected by this second scheme of allocation will continue to be so in future, and we must make our protest now or for ever hold our peace. I have continuously opposed the second scheme of allocation since ever it saw the light. I say, as emphatically as I can, that, in my opinion, it is not in accordance with the meaning of the Act of Parliament which was passed last year. I am strongly under the impression that it is on the whole illegal. I am aware that the Lord Advocate said the other day that the second scheme of alloca-tion is in accordance with the Act. I hope I shall be able to place a few arguments before him, out of the mouth, so to speak, of the Scottish Education Department, which will at least show that there is a considerable amount of reason for what I say. In May, 1908, the Scottish Education Department issued a scheme

715
illustrating the proposed mode of distributing the grant under Clause 16 (2) of the Act. They distinctly say in that Paper (4051) that the scheme of distribution is on the principle laid down in the Act. The amount available for distribution at the present time is £421,831. Under the scheme, to give effect to the principle laid down in the Act, Lanarkshire would have received £49,915 instead of £41,640. In that case the loss to the county will be £8,275; Linlithgowshire, which would have received £6,184, only receives £5,881, being a loss of £303. There are, on the other hand, counties which are most extraordinarily favoured by the second scheme of allocation. The county of Forfar gains £3,596, while the county of Berwick, a small and comparatively unimportant county, which would only have received £1,724 will get £4,033, or a gain of £2,309. It was found that by giving effect to the allocation as described in Clause 16 (2) of the Act certain counties would get less. But if the principle of the Bill, the common-sense meaning of the wording of the Act, is justified, I have never been able to see why counties should not get less where it is distinctly proved that they were getting too much before. What has happened shows conclusively that the Department made up their minds to issue this scheme. The protests of myself and other Members were all futile. All the deputations that came up here from Scotland were useless. All the money that they spent coming here —it amounted to hundreds of pounds—might as well have been distributed among the deserving poor. No attention whatever was paid to the deputations or anyone else, and this scheme was perpetuated, or the attempt is made to perpetuate it.
I should like to call attention to the reply of the Secretary for Scotland to some remarks I made in this House on the 24th of November, 1908, with regard to the peculiar position of my own Constituency in this matter. He said: "It would be quite possible to consider whether the special circumstances of a district such as South Lanark were not of sufficient magnitude to justify the creation of a special district committee for the purpose." May I ask the Lord Advocate to say whether these special circumstances have now been considered, and what has been the result of that consideration? I can find nothing in the second scheme of allocation showing that any consideration has been given to
716
it. On the other hand, I should like to refer to the paper issued by the Department, which goes to prove not only my contention that this scheme is not within the meaning and intention of the Act, but that the Department itself at that time (on the 22nd of June last year) did not believe it was within the meaning and intention of the Act; because in that paper there are two columns. In one they say, "Distribution of the fund divided according to the principle of Clause 16 of the Act." In the second column they say "distribution according to the scheme." I trust that the Lord Advocate, who tells me that this allocation is strictly in accordance with the Act, will explain it. I ask him definitely if it is possible that both these schemes can be within the meaning of the Act. Under one of these schemes Lanarkshire gets £49,900, while under the other it gets £41,600. Are both these schemes according to the Act? If they are, and if the Secretary for Scotland and the Education Department can alter and twist about in this capricious manner the amount of money which they give to the various districts of Scotland under the Act, then the sooner we have the Act altered the better. I think I have sufficiently proved that I have every reason for saying: I am not, of course, talking from a legal point of view, for I am not a lawyer, but a business man who has looked at legal documents for many years from a common-sense point of view—that we have a right for an explanation of that extraordinary diversity. In the speech which the Secretary for Scotland made on the 24th November, 1908, he said:—
"Therefore they were obliged to modify the application of the principle of the Bill, and instead of applying that principle to the whole sum, they applied it to only a part of that sum."
I ask the Lord Advocate whether it is possible for the Secretary for Scotland or for the Department to modify an Act which has been passed by this House. There are only two courses open here. They must either fall back upon the scheme of distribution originally printed in May, 1908, with a Memorandum explanatory of the provisions of the Act, or they must repeal Clause 16 (2) of the Act as being more in accordance with justice to the populated parts of the country.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I hope the House will not proceed with this Motion of the hon. Member for Leith. It is quite natural that he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Lanark should complain of this allocation. I

717
suppose every locality in Scotland which considers itself injured by the allocation will complain. On the other hand those localities which consider they are favoured will be ready to support the scheme. The House will recognise at once the impossibility of pleasing everybody by the distribution, I need scarcely say that the Education Department has been at infinite pains, and has made careful and anxious inquiry in framing the scheme now before the House. In framing the scheme they have had consultations with and listened to the views expressed by all the various localities interested. That is the best result which I think could be produced in the first year of the working of the Act. My hon. Friend challenges the scheme on the ground that it is customary with the Act of Parliament, and, as I understand, he asks the House to believe that the Statute lays down a fixed and rigid rule in accordance with which this money is to be expended. The Act of Parliament does not do so. If the Act had done so the Minute would be a wholly unnecessary document, would be entirely superfluous, and the office boy or the accountant would have framed the scheme without the slightest difficulty if he had only to follow the peremptory and mandatory terms of the Act. It is just because the Act, whilst enjoining on the Department to have certain considerations in view in framing their allocation, left them a free hand, and with a large discretionary power in the distribution of money, that it becomes necessary to lay the Minute on the Table of the House showing the method of distribution proposed. I think the House will recognise that if a Minute is to be framed and laid on the Table of the House that it must be done having due regard to the various elements mentioned in the Act as matters to be taken into account in determining the distribution. What are those elements? You are to give greater aid to the localities which are most necessitous. That is the leading rule. My hon. Friends cannot dispute that the most necessitous districts benefit greatly by this allocation. It cannot be denied that Orkney, Shetland, Caithness, Cromarty, and Inverness are all greatly benefited. I have no doubt the hon. Members who represent those constituencies will support the scheme. So far I am glad to find myself in entire agreement with my hon. Friends.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: No, no.
Mr. URE: It may be challenged by the Members for some counties, but I submit the necessitous districts have generous treatment. We must keep population and valuation steadily in view. Those are the factors which necessarily enter into our calculations, but it is not laid down in any rigid or peremptory rule that you must keep them in view. You are entitled to exercise your discretion in the distribution of the money having regard to the heavy weight imposed upon certain poor localities where the education rate is very high. It may be worth while to remind the House that the total sum distributed is something like £422,000. A sum of £190,000 is distributed according to population, and secondly, there is a sum of £94,000 which is distributed according to what my Friends call "the peremptory and rigid rule of the Act." I do not admit there is any rigid or peremptory rule in their sense, although £94,000 is distributed according to a rigid and peremptory rule. Next there comes a modest grant of £6,000 for Highland counties. Then there comes a grant of £38,000 distributed amongst the localities where the population is sparse, and where it is necessary, if education is to be efficient, that some assistance should be given in support of the teaching staff. These are counties where the schools are small, and the Education Department does not feel that it would be quite fair to insist upon rigid adherence to the rule with regard to the number of pupils and teachers. You may have a school with 50 pupils and one teacher. According to the Code that is sufficient. In a large school in a thickly populated district you might find your 50 pupils all of the same stage and easily taught by one teacher; but in these sparsely populated districts the children are of different stages, and if you insisted on the rule of the Department being applied you would have very inefficient teaching; whereas if you make a grant of £30 or £40 towards an additional teacher you get efficient teaching. It is really these grants which have caused many of the inequalities pointed out by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson). I do not challenge his figures at all; I offer an explanation of what seems at first sight to be an unfair distribution.
Then there follows a sum of £30,000, distributed amongst those localities that have what are known as "higher class" schools, which were excluded from the

719
Parliamentary grant by the Act of 1872, and some of which fell into a very sorry plight after the passing of that Act. It was found that if these schools were to be kept in an efficient condition, it was necessary to give them a grant of money, and this £30,000 is distributed amongst them. It so happens that Forfarshire, to which the hon. Member called our attention, is a county in which there is an exceptional number of these schools; therefore there was a considerable sum of money granted to keep them efficient. This money was not given in relief of rates at all. What it did was to increase the efficiency of the teaching. If you withdrew the money you would not relieve the rates, you would merely reduce the efficiency of the education given.
I come last to a sum of £62,000, which is known as the residue grant. That is distributed under the Act of 1890—I admit according to what we now consider to be a wrong principle, namely, the amount of valuation. The amount of the grant is in direct ratio to the valuation, and not in inverse ratio, as we now prefer. I readily admit that that £62,000, as it is distributed under this Minute, is not distributed strictly according to the rules, such as they are, laid down in the Act of Parliament. If there was a rigid rule, which I have pointed out there is not, I agree that this distribution would not be in accordance with it. But let the House observe what would be the effect of abruptly changing the method of distribution. You dislocate the finances of these localities. What the Department has endeavoured to do is not to make a sudden and abrupt change. The Department has endeavoured to make the change gradually, so as not to inflict any hardship or inconvenience upon these localities by suddenly withdrawing the grants upon which they have been accustomed—entitled indeed—to rely to give efficient education within their boundaries. Finally, there is nothing rigid or cast iron about the distribution. It is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. It is subject to revision in the light of experience which we shall presently gain when the money is distributed and the results are seen. Let me offer the assurance to the House that it is not the intention on the part of the Department to lay down a rule to be rigidly followed throughout, and after experience has shown us that it may be defective in various particulars. The great merit of the scheme laid down by Act of
720
Parliament is that it is subject to annual revision. Experience will doubtless enable us to make the distribution on a sounder basis in the future.
Let me invite the House to come to a decision. I do not challenge the figures given by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs; only I ask the House, in considering these figures of grants to the localities, to consider that they are not really grants by any manner of means in relief of the rates, but they are given for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the education of the localities. I do not think it is within the power of man to make a distribution that is absolutely mathematical and proportionately exact. When we have made our distribution and garnered our experience, we shall probably distribute our money next year even on a better system than this present Minute discloses.
Mr. W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman has made the very best case that it is possible to make, but he has put forward two different arguments which are mutually destructive. He began his speech by maintaining the position that he has taken before—that in the action of the Scottish Department with regard to this Minute there was to be found nothing inconsistent with the most scrupulous regard to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. But the Lord Advocate made no attempt to meet the figures of the right hon. Gentleman. He said: "I admit the accuracy of the figures." Then he went on to say that he agreed that the present distribution was not strictly according to the rule. He said there was no rigid rule in the Act of Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said this is not a sudden and abrupt, change. There is a good deal of force in the argument not to have sudden and abrupt changes, but if changes are to take place we hope they will be changes towards the position in the Act of Parliament and not away from it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act itself. The Act lays down certain broad principles of method, certain purposes for which the distribution is to be made and to which certain sums of money are to be applied. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate in saying the Act is not absolutely rigid. No Act is absolutely rigid as to the exact distribution, but Acts are absolutely rigid as to the principle that govern these matters, and for the very good reason that the

721
money controlled by the Department by virtue of the Act of Parliament are moneys placed outside Parliamentary control and over which the ordinary financial machinery of Parliament—the Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons—can have no such exact control as they have over sums of money that appear yearly upon the Estimates. That being the case, Parliament always has been most zealous of preserving the most scrupulous accuracy in the action of the Departments in regard to the administration of the principles on which the distribution should take place. We maintain that this scheme of the Department does not carry out, in the spirit or indeed in the letter, the principles which are laid down in the Act. Section 16 (2) has been referred to. I will only quote the most important words: "A scheme is to be prepared which is to be so framed as to give greater aid to those districts in which per head of the population the burden of expenditure on educational purposes is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district." In order that there might be no possible doubt as to the meaning of that Act, the late Lord Advocate, Lord Shaw, made a speech in Committee on the Bill, in which he set forth very clearly indeed what was the intention of the Government, and his speech certainly influenced my vote on that occasion, and probably influenced the votes of a good many others. What was it the then Lord Advocate said? He said:—
"Our scheme is going to be so framed that it will be a scheme in order to help densely populated places where there was not a large valuation. The object was to get hold of the necessitous districts and relieve the populous districts which needed money and could not levy rates because they were so high already."
That is a clear statement of the intentions of the Government. That is the gloss which the Government put upon the words of their own Bill which is now an Act. Let us see how far this statement made by the late Lord Advocate in regard to the necessitous districts is justified by the facts. Take the counties of Kirkcudbrightshire and Sutherland. Judged by the standard the Government have set up, those two cases do not correspond with their intentions. The point we have to keep steadily in view is valuation per head of the population, and the rate per thousand as compared with valuation. The figures on those two points are entirely against the scheme which has been brought forward. As regards valuation,
722
I find that in Scotland, as a whole, the average valuation per head of the population is a fraction over £7, but in the districts which benefit under the present scheme the valuation is nearly £8. When you come to the rate in Scotland, as a whole, it is l0d. In the districts advantaged it is 8½d., or l½d. less than the average, but in the districts which are disadvantaged it is l1d., or 1d. over the average. Districts with a high valuation and a low school rate and a small population are, one after the other, getting more money than districts with a low valuation, a high rate, and a large population. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks about the necessity for having a more or less continuous policy, may I remind him that that is exactly the vicious principle of earmarking and stereotyping past errors of grants in regard to which the Scotch Education Department on a previous occasion fell foul of the Public Accounts Committee of this House.
If I remember rightly, there was five years ago a case in which this precise point of earmarking a certain grant came up, and the Minute of the Scotch Education Department was disallowed by the Auditor-General. When the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate spoke of that as a more or less continuous policy, I am bound to say the recollection of that case crossed my mind. I am not going to labour the point any further, but the matter is rather intricate and complicated, and it is important. I have not argued it from the point of view of one set of districts as compared with another set of districts, but in proposing this scheme the Department are going beyond the declared and expressed provisions of Parliament, and more than that, the clearly expressed intentions of the Government, as explained by the Lord Advocate.
Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: The Lord Advocate, in the course of his speech, succeeded in steering clear of most of the most awkward questions put to him. I desire to support the Motion for two reasons—first, because I believe that this new scheme inflicts gross injustice upon certain districts; and, secondly, because I regard it as a breach of faith towards the House itself. When the Scotch Education Bill was passing through its Report stage, we were assured by the representatives of the Government that the net result of the scheme they themsolves put forward would be that the voluntary schools in Scotland would

723
receive an increased grant of 2s. per head. What has become of that pledge now? It has been absolutely broken, and the voluntary schools in Scotland will not only not receive 2s. in increased grant; but they will not receive any increased grant at all. The finance of the Scotch education system is so complicated that it is impossible for an Englishman, and very difficult even for an Irishman to understand it; but this, so far as I can gather, is the position. There are certain prior charges or preferential claims for higher education upon the Scotch Education Department, and the board schools and the voluntary schools get only the residue of the money. It is common knowledge that the demands for higher education are increasing year by year and will have to be met, and anybody can see that as the prior claims increase the residue must be reduced. That is a great danger of which I am afraid we shall hear more as the years roll by. The scheme, which was in accordance with the Act of Parliament, provided that the valuation of the district should be the standard of the allocation, and the poorer the district the greater should be the grant. That has been absolutely swept away and we are back again to the old system. The Lord Advocate himself admitted, as indeed the Secretary for Scotland (Lord Pentland) has admitted before him, that this scheme is not in accordance with the Act of Parliament. Who has empowered the Education Department of Scotland to override an Act of Parliament? Is it the Secretary for Scotland? I regret we have not got him here, but political circumstances have transferred him to another place, and I am only sorry he has acclimatised himself so soon to the atmosphere of another place that he is prepared to override an Act of Parliament. Perhaps it is not his fault. It may be the fault of the Secretary of the Department of Education for Scotland. I have formed a very high opinion of his abilities and have very great respect for him. I believe in Scotland he is regarded as a great educational authority. But I am not prepared to say he is infallible, and I do not think the scheme proposed is one likely to meet with general approval in Scotland. Neither do I think that he or the Secretary for Scotland has a right to override an Act of Parliament. I do not know what your power would be, Mr. Speaker, if it were pointed out to you that this Order is not in accordance with
724
the Act. It is a point which may be raised at a later stage and it certainly deserves consideration. The Lord Advocate seems to think that the scheme is for the benefit of necessitous districts, but I fancy it might fairly he described as the Edinburgh, Peebles and Berwick Relief Scheme, as its effect will be to benefit residential districts where people of wealth and leisure live and to penalise industrial districts. We have heard the dismal dirge of the dilapidated dukes in regard to the Budget, but there is no reason why this House should pass an education scheme which clearly has been drafted in the interests, not of the industrial but of the well-to-do classes. Even the Tories could propose nothing more undemocratic than this. I hope that at the earliest possible moment the Secretary for Scotland will reconsider the scheme. In Edinburgh, which is benefited by it, not a penny is voted for the up-keep of the Catholic secondary schools, whereas in Lanarkshire and in other districts which are penalised by it large contributions are made towards the maintenance of Catholic schools. It is a fact which should not be lost sight of, that three-fourths of the children attending voluntary schools in Scotland, are attending schools in the very districts which are disadvantaged by the scheme now before the House, and it is not to be wondered at therefore that we, who represent here our fellow countrymen in Scotland, should resent this proposal and ask the Department to reconsider it. I have been told that if this is pressed to a Division, it may be a serious matter, and that the Secretary for Scotland may resign. I hope the Members of the House will not be afraid to record their votes even in face of a threat of that kind. There was once a famous Member of Parliament, the late Mr. Biggar, who took for his motto, "Never resign anything," and I think the Members of the Liberal Party may rest perfectly satisfied that the last thing the Secretary for Scotland will think of is handing in his resignation if the House decides against him to-night. He will show resignation, but it will be resignation to the decision of the House, and I hope on this occasion the House will give it clearly to be understood by the Secretary for Scotland and the Education Department, that having passed an Act of Parliament which lays down the principles upon which this Statute should be administered, it means to insist upon what it has laid down being obeyed.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
And the Question not being decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 27—
Original Question again proposed.
[Standing Order 27. Questions for the closure of Debate under Standing Order "Closure of Debate," shall be decided in the affirmative, if, when a division be taken, it appears by the numbers declared from the Chair that not less than one hundred Members voted in the majority in support of the Motion.]
Captain WALTER WARING: When the Lord Advocate commenced his speech he began with an appeal to the hon. Member (Mr. Munro Ferguson) not to proceed further with the Motion. I cannot help thinking the Lord Advocate was wise in making the appeal at the commencement of his speech instead of at the end.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 21.

Division No. 227.]

AYES.

[12.18 a.m.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Rowlands, J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gulland, John W.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Seely, Colonel

Barnes, G. N.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clyde, James Avon

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire))

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Laidlaw, Robert

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Craik, Sir Henry

Lamont, Norman

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Cross, Alexander

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lewis, John Herbert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

M'Callum, John M.

Watt, Henry A.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Weir, James Galloway

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

Massie, J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wiles, Thomas

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Morse, L. L.

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Elibank, Master of

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Younger, George

Everett, R. Lacey

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Falconer, James

Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saffron Walden)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Munro Ferguson and Sir Walter

Forster, Henry William

Pullar, Sir Robert

Fuller, John Michael F.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Menzies.

NOES.

Bowerman, C. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Philipps, John (Longford, S.)

Bryce, J. Annan

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Meehan, Francis E. (Lei trim, N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph

Sutherland, J. E.

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

O'Doherty, Philip

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dundas White and Captain Waring.

Lundon, Thomas

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Nothing which he said will in the least modify the discontent which is felt with this scheme generally. I will only give one instance of the injustice, and this in reference to my own Constituency. The example I will take is the comparison between Peebles and Banffshire. Banffshire, with eight times the necessity, receives only three times the grant as compared with Peebles. My Constituency consider that is unfair, and certainly unfair as compared with the first scheme laid before the Scottish Grand Committee last year. Under the first scheme laid before the Grand Committee, Peebles would have got £910 and Banffshire £7,760. or eight times the amount. Naturally there has been considerable discontent, and we had hoped to receive from the Lord Advocate a statement that he was willing, at all events next year, to produce a scheme in conformity with the Act—a.
scheme which would have carried out the principles of equity and the promises of Members of the Government as well as the intention and letter of their own Act of Parliament. Nothing the Lord Advocate has said leads us to believe that that will be done, and therefore I trust that the Motion will be carried to a Division. I will certainly vote for it.
Mr. J. DUNDAS WHITE: I wish to call attention to the fact that the scheme adopted by the Department as to distribution of the fund is of a highly complex character. It seems to me that it is hardly the system which anyone would have arrived at if he had gone on the principle which, according to the Act, governs this matter. The Lord Advocate said something about the necessity of continuity of policy, and of not making too great a break in the existing system. I should like to know whether that means that there may be a chance of a change being made in some future year. There again we will find ourselves in a difficulty, because if any difference is proposed we will be met with the same argument as we are met with now, that if any other system is adopted some of these favoured localities will receive somewhat less than they receive now. Therefore, it will be as difficult to do it then as now. If the Department would adopt a more simple system of distribution I should think it could be carried out, and the case of necessitous districts could be fairly met by a simple scheme based on the principles of the Act.
Mr. C. E. PRICE: Several hon. Members have referred to the first scheme under this Act, and one of the hon. Members for Lanarkshire said we should fall back on the old scheme. But that scheme actually reduced the grants in nineteen districts, although the Act imposed new duties on these districts. Yet these Members preferred to see these grants reduced in spite of the new duties. Reference has been made to the increase given to some districts. May I be allowed to give the percentage of increase on the old grants to necessitous districts? Shetland has 51 per cent. increase, Orkney 34, Caithness 26, Sutherlandshire 22, and Ross 18. These are all poor, necessitous districts.
Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Edinburgh?
Mr. C. E. PRICE: Our Friend says it was passed in the interests of Edinburgh. But a greater percentage of increase was given to Glasgow than to Edinburgh under this scheme. Glasgow gets 11.3 per cent. and Edinburgh 11.1.
Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Does the hon. Member suggest that in the second scheme, as compared with the first scheme, Glasgow is getting an increase?
Mr. C. E. PRICE: My point is that under the first scheme nineteen districts would suffer by getting decreased grants, although under the Act new obligations are placed on them, while the new scheme accepts the principle of increased grants to all necessitous districts, and the localities which need these grants are to get a considerable increase on what they got before. If you compare Edinburgh with Glasgow you will find that Glasgow gets a greater increase than Edinburgh. The county of Lanark gets an increase of over 17 per cent. while the county of Edinburgh only gets an increase of 6.5 per cent., that is to say the county of Lanark actually gets three times the increase that is given to the county of Edinburgh. Educational authorities met the Under-Secretary for Scotland in Edinburgh. All these men from different parts of Scotland discussed this question and decided to allow the scheme until we have some experience of it, and it would be very unfair of the House to break through this arrangement.
Sir ARTHUR BIGNOLD: In reference to those places which are to receive more under this scheme than under the other, am I not correct in supposing that although they are receiving more under this scheme, they are not receiving so much as they would have received under the original scheme?
Mr. URE: I cannot say whether the hon. Member is correct or not in that.
Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: We have heard a great deal about the increases in various counties of Scotland, but I should like to call attention to the exceptional cases of Nairn and Kinross, counties which, instead of having been increased, have actually sustained a decreased allocation. They are the only two counties which have got less than they had before.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about Kinross. There has been special provision for it.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The little county of Nairn has been singled out of all the counties of Scotland for a diminished grant instead of having an increased one. There is apparently a battle between the rival school boards of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and while this battle goes on the poor little county of Nairn is given the cold shoulder. I should like to know whether the Lord Advocate cannot give some assurance that Nairn will receive an increased grant.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Secretary for Scotland, in November last, when he proposed this distribution of the grant in regard to the effect it would have on the voluntary schools of Scotland, said he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the balance of the fund to be distributed, according to the last part of Clause 15, was an increase of at least one-half on the distribution now. made to voluntary schools. He went on to explain that instead of the distribution amounting to 4s. per head, the allocation with which the House was dealing would be increased to 6s., and in some cases double. Is that still the case under the present scheme?
Mr. URE: I have not the figures with me, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON (who spoke amid cries of "Divide"): I wish to point out the very important fact that there is no such thing as a valuation of the districts, and you are going to conform to the law when this most important factor is wanting. The county is the district, and there is no such thing as a valuation for the school board rate, and, therefore, you cannot conform to the law. There was a conference last Monday in Edinburgh of three members supporting and three members contesting this scheme. The hon. Member read the Resolution which set
forth that it was agreed that the present Minute be accepted on the understanding that there should be a further conference to make known the result.
Mr. CATHCART WASON: The county of Orkney and Shetland, while they do not receive as much under this as under the original draft sketch, which the Secretary for Scotland carefully stated was only a tentative proposal, do receive very much larger grants than under the scheme finally decided on by the Scottish Committee for which I am grateful.
Mr. G. B. ESSLEMONT: This question is one which affects the interests of our constituents very seriously indeed. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) referred to a conference which took place a few days ago in Edinburgh, and at which three representatives of the counties content with the scheme and three representatives of the counties opposed to the scheme now before the House met. He pointed out that those gentlemen came to an understanding that this scheme should be accepted tentatively, but he forgot to mention to the House, or omitted to mention, that when the three representatives of those who objected to this scheme reported to those whom they represented they absolutely repudiated the decision at which they had arrived. As a matter of fact, they had no power to come to any such decision.
Question put, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withheld his assent to the Scheme of Allocation of the balance of the Education (Scotland) Fund for 1909–10, contained in a Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated the 3rd day of June, 1909, and laid upon the Table of this House on the said 3rd day of June, 1909."
The House divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 67.

Division No. 228.]

AYES.

[12.45 a.m.

Barnes, G. N.

Laidlaw, Robert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Lundon, Thomas

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Bowerman, C. W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cross, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Waring, Walter

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Watt, Henry A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Callum, John M.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Nolan, Joseph

Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tydvil)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Munro Ferguson and Sir Walter

Hogan, Michael

O'Doherty, Philip

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Philipps, John (Longford, S.)

Menzies.

Joyce, Michael

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Haworth, Arthur A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Lamont, Norman

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

M'Micking, Major G.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Massie, J.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Morse, L. L.

Weir, James Galloway

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Wiles, Thomas

Elibank, Master of

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Falconer, James

Pullar, Sir Robert

Younger, George

Fuller, John Michael F.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Rowlands, J.

Gulland, John W.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Seely, Colonel

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
Resolved, "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of Five Members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the state of business in the King's Bench Division of the High Court and report thereon, and whether any increase is desirable in the number of judges of that division, and to make such recommendations as they see fit."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

STAGE PLAYS (CENSORSHIP).
Resolved, "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to inquire into the Censorship of Stage Plays as constituted by The Theatres Act, 1843, and into the operation of the Acts of Parliament relating to the licensing and regulation of theatres and places of public entertainment, and to report any alterations of the law or practice which may appear desirable."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Thursday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Seven minutes before One o'clock.