Commons Sitting of 19 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Havant Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till to-morrow.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order Bill,
Adjourned Debate on Third Reading [18th July], further adjourned till tomorrow.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed on Thursday next.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed on Thursday next.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Berks, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That, in the case of the Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Berks, etc.) Bill [Lords], so much of Standing Order 73 as provides that notice of the day on which a Bill for confirming any Provisional Order will be examined shall not be given until after the Bill has been printed and circulated be suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS).
Return ordered of the Naval Expenditure of each of the Principal Naval Powers, showing their total estimated Naval Expenditure in each of the last ten years, their expenditure in each of the years named on new construction, including armament, and the amount of their new construction in each of those years expressed in tonnage (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 251 of Session 1909).—[Mr. Cameron Corbett.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Sale of Liquor to Children (Bombay).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that intoxicating liquors continue to be sold to children under fourteen years of age in certain shops in the Bombay Presidency; whether he can state the number of shops in which such sale is permitted; and whether, in view of the fact that the Excise Committee of 1905–6 reported adversely to this practice, the Secretary of State will suggest to the Government of Bombay the desirability of prohibiting by legislation the sale of liquor to children in all cases without waiting for the expiration of particular licences?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has been in communication with the Government of Bombay on the subject, and is informed that there are now no shop licences in Bombay City or in the districts of the Presidency which permit sale of liquor to children under fourteen. In all retail licences now existing a prohibitory clause has been introduced.

  Shooting of Kamalish Rai.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has any information to the effect that Kamalish Rai has recently been shot in the Jessor district; and, if so, can he say what was the supposed motive of the crime?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to refer the Noble Lord to the answer given to the hon. Member for Montgomery yesterday.

  Discoveries of Firearms (Calcutta).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked whether any further discoveries of five-arms have recently been made by the police in Calcutta?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No such discoveries have been reported to the Secretary of State.

  Women Voters in India.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Under-Secretary for India if he could say how many women, if any, have ever voted in elections in India for municipal, rural, or any other boards?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is an accepted principle in India that the privilege of voting at municipal and other similar elections should be confined to persons of the male sex. The Secretary of State is not aware that this principle has ever been deviated from.

  Indian Police Expenditure.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked what increase has taken place, since the Police Report of 1905 was presented to Parliament, in the expenditure on the Indian Police; how much of this increase is due to the numerical addition to the force; and what proportion has been appropriated to the European and Indian members of the force, respectively?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The increase in cost is from £2,891,884 in 1905–6 to £4,265,700 estimated for 1910–11. It is impossible, without very laborious research, to answer accurately the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, but the proposals of the Government of India contemplated expenditure in the proportion of six to one upon the Indian as compared with the English members of the force, and in the proportion of about seven to four on additional establishment as compared with existing establishment.

  Seditious Meetings Act (India).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Under-Secretary for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to introduce a 'Bill to extend the provisions of the Seditious Meetings Act; and, if so, can he state whether the step contemplated is due to any recent increase in activity on the part of those who are engaged in propagating sedition?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There is no intention at present to strengthen the pro-
  1062
  visions of the Act, but its operation expires on 31st October next. Legislation will be undertaken to continue it in force for five months until the question of renewal can be discussed in the full Legislative Council at Calcutta. The step is not due to increase of agitation.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Is the extension only as to duration, and not as to scope?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The extension is only as to duration. It is only five months at present.

  Regular Officers and Territorial Forces.
  Major ADAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Regular forces are being employed in the training of units of the Territorial Force at a time when they should be with their own units; if so, under what Army Order are Regular officers detached for this employment, which in many cases is uncongenial?
  The SECRETARY or STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): In some cases certain specially recommended officers have been attached to units of the Territorial Force. It is understood that this has been arranged for such times and for such periods as would not interfere with the training of their own units. It is considered that the Territorial Force will gain considerable benefit from the attachment of these Regular officers. No Army Order has been issued on the subject.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that no extra work is thrown on the officers of the Regular unit to which these officers are attached?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am far from satisfied that there is not, but I have explained that they are only too keen to take on extra work.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask, with regard to the Territorial Forces and the Regular Army, whether the right hon. Gentleman will give even greater facilities in future for officers of the Regular Army to be temporarily attached to Territorial Forces?
  Mr. HALDANE: The Noble Lord has indicated very much what is in my mind.
  Captain COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these officers suffer no monetary loss?
  Mr. HALDANE: I should be very glad to do that.

  Military Depots (Foreign Made Wall-bars).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked whether the foreign-made wall-bars and beams recently supplied to the military depots throughout the country have proved satisfactory, or whether any reports have been received to the effect that the apparatus has not proved durable and even in some cases already become unsafe?
  Mr. HALDANE: The foreign-made wall-bars and beams recently supplied to military depots throughout the country have proved entirely satisfactory. No reports have been received either at the War Office or by the Inspector of Gymnasia of any lack of durability or as to the apparatus being unsafe.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Are we to understand that no repairs have been made to the apparatus recently set up?
  Mr. HALDANE: I did not say that. Apparatus which has been a certain time in use requires a certain amount of repair. All I said was that it had proved entirely satisfactory.

  Military Manœnvres (Hired Horses).
  Mr. BOWERMAN (for Mr. William Thorne)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in hiring horses from omnibus companies, etc., for use in manœuvres the men employed in connection with those horses are temporarily thrown out of work; and whether any steps can be taken to obviate this hardship?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member raised the same point in connection with manœuvres last August, and I am afraid I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the various questions put to me.

  Territorial Force (Cadet Corps).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether in the future officers appointed to cadet corps and battalions will be gazetted to the Territorial Force, unattached list, and as such come under Territorial Force Regulations?
  Mr. HALDANE: These officers will not be gazetted to the Territorial Force, and they will be governed by the Cadet Corps Regulations, and not by the Territorial Force Regulations. They will receive commissions as officers of the Cadet Force of their respective counties, which will be issued by the Lord Lieutenant.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state why these officers should be treated differently from the officers of public schools, who are Territorial officers?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It is the Officers' Training Corps he refers to, not the Cadet Corps—special corps connected with the Army as a whole.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Do not both the Public Schools' Training Corps and those cadet corps equally train boys of from fifteen to eighteen years of age?
  Mr. HALDANE: No; they are entirely different. The Officers' Training Corps of course trains boys for the purpose of becoming officers of the Regular Forces. These cadet corps are under wholly different conditions, and they train boys with a view to their coming out to recruit for the Territorial Force.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the Secretary for War can see his way to modify the provisional regulations issued with Special Army Order, dated 21st May, 1910, with reference to cadet corps and battalions, and permit them to remain under practically the same regulations as have existed since their recognition by the War Office, in view of the fact that these units have in the past provided large numbers of recruits who would not otherwise have enlisted, and that they have appeared in the Army List for some twenty years?
  Mr. HALDANE: The regulations issued with this Army Order carry out the provisions of Section II. (2)(f) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, and effect a necessary part of the large reorganisation instituted by that measure. At the same time, they are an endeavour to secure a principle, which I think the House will accept, that recruiting for these bodies shall in future in no way interfere with recruiting for the Territorial Force. Every effort will be made to effect the changes in the cadet corps and battalions as smoothly as possible. The hon. Member's suggestion to leave these organisations under their old arrangement is, I am afraid, quite impracticable.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how these cadet corps could possibly interfere with recruiting for the Regular Forces, for the Reserve, and for the Territorial Force?
  Mr. HALDANE: The cadet corps, as we are organising them now, are organised with a view to producing that amount of training in boys which would enable them to join the Territorial Force and dispense with recruit drill. The old cadet corps have grown up splendidly, but, from the military point of view, they were simply a waste of energy. I agree that they did admirable work from another point of view, but it was outside the purview of the War Office.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no extra expense is thrown on these cadet corps, which must he the case if these regulations are continued?
  Mr. HALDANE: A Money Grant has been made which is more than the value of anything which has been laid upon them.

  Kilworth Camp (Troops of Sixth Division).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the troops of the Sixth Division will assemble at Kilworth camp in September; whether any training will take place there; and, if so, what Cavalry has been detailed to take part in the manœuvres?
  Mr. HALDANE: The troops of the Sixth Division will assemble at Kilworth and the vicinity on 5th September for divisional training. No Cavalry has been detailed to take part in the divisional training from 5th to 11th September, but one Cavalry regiment will act with the Sixth Division during the Irish Command manœuvres from 12th to 16th September.
  Mr. ASHLEY: How can this divisional training be carried on without Cavalry?
  Mr. HALDANE: A Cavalry regiment will act with the Sixth Division during the Irish Command manœuvres from 12th to 16th September.

  Territorial Force (West of Sootland).
  Mr. WATTasked whether the regulation as to attendance at camp of the Territorial Force in the West of Scotland is more stringent this year than last; whether last year an option between eight and fifteen days was allowed to the members; whether this year fifteen days is insisted on unless prevented by business considerations; whether it was made clear to the members joining that the option was not to be allowed in future years; and, if not, whether the original understanding will be carried out?
  Mr. HALDANE: The regulations for the attendance at camp of the Territorials referred to are the same as last year. In the case of one unit, through a misapprehension, more stringent instructions were issued, but this has now been rectified.

  Increased Licence Duties (Loss of Employment).
  Captain SPENDER CLAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ascertain the number of persons who lose their employment owing to the increase of the Licence Duties; and if the Government propose to assist them to find fresh employment?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I do not think it would be possible to ascertain with accuracy the number of persons, if any, who have lost their employment owing to any particular cause. Any work men desiring to find fresh employment will receive from the Labour Exchanges such assistance as they can give.

  Grand Duchy of Baden (Report on Trade).
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been directed to Mr. Consul Ladenburg's Report on the trade of the Grand Duchy of Baden for the year 1909, which states that wages during the year in question increased at a greater rate than the cost of material, number of workmen, or amount of sales, and that the level of wages has gone up more than that of the prices of eighteen kinds of the main necessaries of life; and whether, seeing that several political and economic authorities from this country who have recently visited the Grand Duchy have reported in a contrary sense, he can allay the uncertainty at present prevailing on the matter by publishing official figures from the office of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am aware of the statements made in the Report of Mr. Consul Ladenburg with regard to the relative advances in wages and the cost of living in Germany in recent years. These statements, however, appear to relate to different parts of the German Empire and to different periods of years. The question as to the true movement of real wages in Germany as measured by purchasing power in recent years is the subject of acute controversy among Germans themselves, and so far as I am aware no conclusion has yet been arrived at in the

  1067
  matter by the official statisticians of Germany. I regret, therefore, that I can see no immediate prospect of being able to allay the uncertainty to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that the persons who have reported in a contrary sense can be properly described as responsible?
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Is it not the case that certain Consuls have reported in their Consular Reports to the effect that the cost of living has risen to a higher rate?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: There have been Reports made as to the purchasing power of wages, but as regards the two deputations, I do not think it is my business to distinguish between them or to settle how far they are right.

  Labour Exchanges (Domestic Servants).
  Mr. WATTasked whether he has considered the advisability or otherwise of putting under the care of Labour Exchanges the engaging of domestic servants, male and female, especially in view of the charges now being made by outside exchanges, sometimes amounting to £1 per engagement; and will he say what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: Managers of Labour Exchanges are instructed not to accept notification of vacancies for indoor domestic servants. As at present advised I do not see my way to alter this instruction.

  French Tariff.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked what proportion of the imports into France from the United Kingdom and the United States of America respectively was benefited by the reductions of rates of duty originally proposed to be levied under the revised French Customs tariff?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: The new French tariff introduces a very large number of new tariff headings, and in many important cases the reductions of duty from the rates originally proposed affected subdivisions of the tariff which are not separately distinguished in the French, British, or United States statistics. For this reason it is, I am afraid, impossible to give even an approximate estimate of the proportion of the imports
  1068
  from the United Kingdom or the United States which benefited by these reductions. I may, however, point out that whilst the United Kingdom enjoys the minimum tariff rates on all the goods that she produces and send to France, the United States secures the application of the minimum tariff to less than half of her trade, so that we are in a materially better position than the United States in this matter.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Is it not a fact that the result of the tariff concessions to the United States by France cover something like 96 per cent. of the whole import trade from the United States to France?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: The material position, so far as we are concerned, is that we have obtained from France greater advantages in minimum tariffs than the United States; that is, a Free Trade country has obtained better advantages than a protected country.

  Fishery Cruisers.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether any statistics exist in the Scottish Office as to the number of days in 1909 that the fishery cruisers were at anchor in harbour on account of stress of weather or other cause; and, if so, will he give these statistics to the House?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): My hon. Friend will find, at page xliii. of the Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland (Cd. 5190) particulars of the number of days each cruiser was at sea in 1909, and from those particulars the number of days not spent at sea are, of course, immediately deducible. I am informed that the cruisers are practically at sea daily throughout the year except when coaling, boiler cleaning, or for annual overhaul.

  Wallis versus Haines (Agricultural Seed Stuffs).
  Captain FABERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if, with reference to the decision lately given in the case of Wallis versus Haines concerning agricultural seed stuffs, he can make any statement as to what steps are to be taken to protect farmers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board are considering what action, if any, they can with advantage take in this matter.
  Captain FABER: May I ask whether this could not come under the Food Stuffs Act of 1906?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not think it would be possible.
  Captain FABER: Could it be brought under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, under which it can be declared whether any such thing is unreasonable?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not think it could be done.

  Small Holdings (London County Council).
  Mr. WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that sixty-five men, the majority having agricultural experience and adequate capital, have applied to the London County Council for small holdings; that thirty-one of these applied in 1908, eleven in 1909, and twenty-three in 1910, but that none of their applications have yet been granted; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The facts are as stated. The difficulty is that the land required to satisfy the applicants would have to be obtained in neighbouring counties in which the value of land is so high as to render it by no means easy to satisfy the local demand. The Board will, however, confer with the county council on the subject.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the county council have approached the Vacant Lots Cultivation Society with a view to co-operation in the using of some of the vacant land in the town?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not know.

  Cattle Hides.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has any information showing the amount of the annual loss suffered by agriculturists, butchers, and tanners in Great Britain in consequence of the damage caused to the hides of cattle by the larvæ of the ox warble fly; and, if not, whether the Board can obtain such information?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have no official information as to the extent of the damage done by the warble fly, and it would be difficult to obtain it without considerable outlay and difficulty.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether, in view of the alleged large loss of national wealth from this cause, the Board will see fit to institute an inquiry into this matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We will consider the question. We cannot guarantee an inquiry.

  Medway Floating Dock.
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the placing of one floating dock in the Medway will in any appreciable way relieve the pressure that will fall upon that station for effecting repairs in time of war?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The answer is in the affirmative.

  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.

    MOTOR SPIRIT DUTY.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Motor Spirit Duty is charged at the full rate of 3d. per gallon on motor spirit consumed in motor cars owned by hotel keepers and used exclusively for hire, although under the Fifth Schedule of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, rebate of half the duty is allowed on spirit used by a motor cab or other vehicle being a hackney carriage within the meaning of Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, and in that Act the definition of hackney carriage states that it includes any carriage let for hire by a coachmaker or other person whose trade or business it is to sell carriages or let carriages for hire, provided that such carriage is not let for a period of three months or more; and whether he will interpret the Act in a more liberal spirit, and give instructions to the Revenue officers concerned to allow the rebate of half duty in such cases?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The rebate of half the duty in respect of motor spirit used by a motor cab or other vehicle, being a hackney carriage within the meaning of Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, only applies when the motor spirit is used whilst the cab or other vehicle is standing or plying for hire. This is clearly laid down in the Fifth Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. It does not and was not intended to extend to all the vehicles for which an Excise licence for a hackney carriage can be granted by reference to the

    1071
    definition in Section 4, as many of these carriages are let for a period to private persons, who use them as private carriages.
    Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how often motor cars or cabs would have to stand on a public stand in order to claim the rebate of 1½d. per gallon in the Spirit Duty according to the regulations?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not possibly answer that question without notice.

    LICENSED PREMISES (IRELAND).
    Mr. GRETTONasked how many licensed houses in Ireland it is estimated will be affected by the change recently made in the method of assessing licensed premises above £50 annual value?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The number is approximately 800.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that part of the old age pension to paupers is to be still paid by the guardians, their disability to vote will continue?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the 12th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth District.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how he proposes to treat the case of paupers over seventy years old who are too infirm to leave the workhouse or infirmary; and if, in these cases, the full pension of 5s. a week will be paid to the local authorities to go towards the maintenance of these persons?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The position of persons who continue to receive poor relief will not be altered by the expiry at the end of the year of the disqualification in respect of past receipt of such relief. No special provision, therefore, appears to be necessary in the cases referred to in the question.
  Mr. FELL: The right hon. Gentleman has answered as to individuals, but will he state how it will affect the guardians, and will they receive a proportion?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I had better not enter into that by question and
  1072
  answer. Obviously, when the definite proposals come before the House, I shall explain the relations of local and Imperial finance in this respect.

  Death Duties.
  Captain FABERasked whether, after the valuation of an estate is completed and part of that estate is sold at a higher figure than the valuation, Death Duties will be assessed on the whole estate at the higher figure; and, if so, whether, to meet this, a fresh valuation would have to be made by the owner?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question depends upon the particular circumstances of each case.
  Captain FABER: Would the right hon. Gentleman make no definite statement?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not make a definite statement on the principles of valuation. That question has surely to be decided by the courts of law.
  Captain FABER: Will every landed proprietor have to go to court?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really do not see that there is much point in that question. Of course the principles of valuation are settled by the courts, and he has only got to value for Estate Duty exactly as if selling the property to a railway company.
  Captain FABER: Then it will not make any difference whether a man's estate has seen sold at a higher price after being valued at a lower?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already given an answer to that question, which is the question on the Paper.

  Income Tax,
  Mr. FELLasked if, in the selection of the names of the persons to whom Super-tax forms are sent, the local surveyors of Income Tax have been instructed to send to the Commissioners the names of likely persons in their districts; and if, in selecting these names, they base their opinion on what they think the persons are spending, or on what they think their incomes may be?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, liability to Super-tax depends upon the amount of income and not upon the scale of expenditure.
  Mr. FELLasked if the Super-tax forms are sent to married women in cases where the Commissioners have reason to believe that the married women have incomes liable to Super-tax?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Returns of income for purposes of the Super-tax are required from all individuals chargeable with Income Tax for the year on which the Super-tax liability is based, and such married women as fall within this category form no exception to the rule.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if these forms are not sent to the husband, who is not expected to put in his wife's income, even if it exceeds £5,000 per year, and that they are not being sent to married women, although in some cases they are notoriously known to be very wealthy people?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to know, in view of the fact that under the Income Tax Act of 1842 the income of the wife living with her husband, with her own husband, is deemed to be his income, and can only be charged, not upon her, but upon him, whether, in the face of that, forms are being sent out for return of income, not theirs, and on which they cannot be charged?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think myself the whole position is rather unsatisfactory, quite unsatisfactory, and I have come to the conclusion, when the Finance Bill is brought before the House, and considered in Committee, that it will be necessary to effect an alteration in the law. I cannot defend the thing as it stands at the present moment.

  Estates Commissioners (County Kerry Application).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, the Estates Commissioners have taken to secure the reinstatement in the farm at Dunkerron, near Kenmare, from which she was evicted, of Mrs. Sugrue, now living at Coonalahee, Glenbeigh?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Mrs. Jane Sugrue, and have decided not to take any action in the matter.

  Appointment of Magistrates, Ireland.
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has considered the desirablity of appointing a Viceregal Commission to consider the
  1074
  manner in which justices of the peace are appointed in Ireland; and whether he will take any further action in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not had time to consider this matter fully, and I do not propose to take any action at present.

  Congested Districts Board, Ireland (Advances to County Leitrim).
  Mr. F. E. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the amount of money advanced by the new Congested Districts Board for Ireland for purchase, improvement, and building purposes since they came into office, and the amount advanced for such purposes in the county of Leitrim; and whether he is aware that there is more congestion in county Leitrim than in any of the scheduled counties?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Since 6th January, 1910, the Congested Districts Board have paid £260,343 for the purchase of estates and £38,698 for improvement expenses. None of this expenditure was made in county Leitrim, but the Board are in correspondence with many owners in that county with the view to negotiating for the purchase of their estates.

  Justices of the Peace (Report of Royal Commission).
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to take any action in the immediate future, to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on the selection of justices of the peace; and whether any opportunity will be afforded to the House of Commons to discuss the terms of the Report during the present Session of Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government are considering this question. Perhaps the hon. Member would put his question again when the House resumes for the Winter Session.

  Colonial Conference (Subjects for Consideration).
  Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the short time intervening before the next Colonial Conference will be held in London, and as yet no list of subjects to be considered by the Conference has been formulated, he will consider a request for the appointment of a Committee of this House to report to this House what subjects are recommended for consideration by the Conference, and, if approved by the

  1075
  House, a copy of such list of subjects shall be sent at as early a date as possible to each of the Dominions oversea, so that the representatives at the Conference of such Dominions shall be able on the assembly of the Conference to enter into the consideration thereof without any delay, and the people of the Dominions shall have an opportunity of knowing what subjects will be dealt with before their representatives leave for this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are, and must remain responsible for the subjects which they will submit for consideration by the Imperial Conference, just as His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions are responsible for the Resolutions proposed by them. The hon. Member may rest assured that the business to be transacted at the Conference will be arranged at such a date as to allow for a full circulation of the subject matter as between ourselves and the Dominions. This is, of course, the business of the permanent secretariat attached to the Conference.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Resolution relating to emigration came before the Imperial Conference last year not one of the delegates knew anything whatever about it and that the Colonial Secretary was unaware how the matter related to the various Colonies?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot charge my memory with that, but it certainly will not occur again.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that all the questions to be submitted will be sent out to the Dominions in time so that those Dominions Will have cognisance of them?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

  Board of Agriculture (Scientific Equipment).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, having regard to the fact that, unlike the Departments of Agriculture in most foreign countries and in our self-governing Colonies, the British Board of Agriculture possessed no department, other than its veterinary department, fully provided with a scientific staff and experimental equipment to enable it to investigate chemical, botanical, geological, physical, pathological, and other problems brought to its notice and to answer fully all in-
  1076
  quiries addressed to it without resorting to text books, leaflets, and outside sources of information, the Government would take steps to increase the amount voted annually for the purposes of the Board so as to render it fully equipped and self-contained in all branches of agricultural science?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government do not see any reason at present to increase the amount voted to the Board of Agriculture. I may point out that there has been an increase in the Vote of £50,000 during the past five years.

  Committee of Imperial Defence (Position of Lord Kitchener).
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked if Lord Kitchener had ever been invited to become a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence; had he ever been appointed a member of that Committee; if so, when did he cease to be a member thereof and why; was the holding of the appointment of General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in the Mediterranean a qualification for appointment to the Committee of Imperial Defence and a refusal to hold that appointment a disqualification; and would His Majesty's Government consider the advisability of strengthening the Committee by inviting Lord Kitchener to become a member thereof?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Lord Kitchener, when it was proposed to him that he should accept the post of Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, was offered in conjunction with it a seat on the Committee of Imperial Defence. After full consideration Lord Kitchener declined the Mediterranean command, and the other offer consequently fell to the ground. The Committee of Imperial Defence is constituted by the Prime Minister of such persons as for the time being he invites to sit upon it. I thought, and still think, that there were good reasons for summoning to it the holder of the Mediterranean command. I need hardly say that the Government attach the highest value to Lord Kitchener's distinguished military abilities and experience, but I do not think it desirable to give undertakings as to who should and who should not be invited to sit on the Committee.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is there any reason why Lord Kitchener should not be invited to serve on the Committee in virtue of his personal qualifications, apart from any office he may hold?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the last sentence of the answer I have just given.

  Scottish Universities (Grant).
  Mr. WATT (for Mr. Charles Price)asked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the sum of £21,000 in Class 4 of the Supplementary Estimates, 1910–11, was to be applied to the Scottish universities; whether that sum was to be taken as the full amount of the Grant to be made; and whether he was aware that –42,000 was the sum recommended by the Commission appointed to inquire into the subject; and (2) how the amount of the new Grant to the Scottish universities was to be allocated among them?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to-day by my right hon. Friend to the question of the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Duncan Millar).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SUPPLY.
  The PRIME MINISTER moved: "That, on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 82.

  Division No. 107.]

  AYES.

  [3.23 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Muspratt, M.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Neilson, Francis

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Agnew, George William

  Hackett, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Alden, Percy

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  O'Grady, James

  Anderson, A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Asquith. Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Pearce, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazelten, Richard

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

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

  Boland, John Plus

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hindle, F. G.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Bowles, T. Gibson

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brace, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Richards, Thomas

  Brady, P. J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hooper, A. G.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robinson, S.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seddon, James A.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Johnson, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Shortt, Edward

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Snowden, P.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lambert, George

  Soares, Ernest.J.

  Clough, William

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Leach, Charles

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Crawshay-Wlillams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Cullinan, J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dawes, J. A.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Waring, Waiter

  Doris, W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Menzies, Sir Waiter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Falconer, J.

  Millar, J. D.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Mooney, J. J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Gibson, James P.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wing, Thomas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Arbuthnot, G. A.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ashley, W. W.

  Falle, B. G.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Attenborough, W. A.

  Fell, Arthur

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Proby, Colonel Douglas James

  Barnston, H.

  Hamersley, A. St.

  George Rice, Hon. W.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Henderson, H. (Berko, Abingdon)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bird, A.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Horner, A. L.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Llewelyn, Venabies

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Macmaster, Donald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, J. F.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings in Committee of Ways and Means and on Report of Navy and Army Expenditure, 1908–9, be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (INSTRUCTION IN HYGIENE).
Dr. ADDISON: I beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to require that in public elementary schools instruction shall be given in hygiene, and to girls in the care and feeding of infants.
The Bill which I ask leave to introduce to the House represents what I believe is the essential and primary step in an organised and properly directed effort to remove the principal cause of the great waste of the strength of infant life which occurs at the present time. It represents a departure from precedent in that it proposes to make certain instructions Statutory in our schools although Article 2, Section 9 of the Code makes similar teaching of a more advanced type compulsory in schools for older scholars. I
1080
hope, however, that the House will agree that the grave state of affairs existing at the present time not only fully warrants this departure from precedent, but demands that our action in this respect should be as prompt as can be in its beginning, and thereafter methodical and sustained. At the present time, in this country, 120,000 children die every year under the age of twelve months. In the Constituency which I represent, for instance, 300 out of every 1,000 children born die before they reach the age of five years. Amongst those that survive the conditions that I am referring to there arises an unspeakable amount of bodily infirmity and waste of energy, which remains often throughout life. I believe this is the fountain that at all times feeds that reservoir of social distress and bodily incapacity which our Poor Law is striving vainly to drain. When we examine this subject we find that something like one-third of this waste of life is brought about by improper feeding and ignorance on the part of those who have the care of this infant life. Some improvement has been effected since the adoption of the Notification of Births Act, but, in the main, during the last thirty years in this country, notwithstanding the general decline in the death rate of adults, there has been an actual increase of the

1081
death rate of children under the age of twelve months from this class of conditions. Every industrial town of Great Britain supplies abundant proof of the character and extent of this evil, and it is the more conspicuous the more married women find industrial employment. If, for example, we examine the industrial towns of Lancashire, the Pottery towns, Dundee, and other places, we see this to be so. Compare two places such as Cardiff and Preston much alike in respect of population and housing conditions, etc. You will find that whilst in Preston, where a great many married women work in factories, the infantile death rate is about 240 per 1,000. In Cardiff where few women relatively work in the factories, the infantile death rate is only 150. A committee in Preston investigated the matter, and they discovered that the death rate of infants from 1880 to 1900 had actually increased. In support of my measure I
should like to quote two sentences from the committee's report. It says:—
"There are few people with less knowledge or experience of household duties than the ordinary factory girl, and as a consequence when she becomes a wife and a mother, knowing little of the duties required of her. she is content, as regards the management of her children, to follow the example of her parents … and the customs of those among whom she lives."
The report goes on to say that:—
"Unwholesome food and lack of cleanliness in its preparation and administration are the direct causes of many infantile deaths. Bread and starchy preparations are substituted for milk. When the latter is given, the feeding bottle is often in a dirty condition and a source of danger to the child."
Unclean feeding, of course, is bad for adults, and often it is fatal to the child.
As the result of careful examination of the deaths of over 8,000 children in Derby during the years 1900–1–2–3, Dr. Howarth proved that the death rate amongst those fed naturally was 69 per 1,000 and amongst those fed by hand 197. Dr. Hope, of Liverpool, came to the conclusion that fifteen times as many more children hand-fed died of intestinal complaints than those fed in a natural manner. Dr. Reid states that the mortality in the naturally fed and hand-fed classes in Longton in Staffordshire was 111 against 442. I may mention a very interesting fact which supports this general statement. Dr. Newman states that during the Lancashire cotton famine, when 20 per cent. of the people in the affected district were in receipt of charitable relief, the infantile death rate actually declined. The same occurred during the Siege of Paris. The women stayed at home in both cases. Again it was found that out of a com-
1082
parison of 72,000 Glasgow children, those living in one-roomed tenements were on the average nearly five inches shorter, and nearly twelve pounds lighter, than those of the same age, fourteen, who lived in four-roomed tenements. Physical incapacity of this sort diminishes wage-earning capacity. I am convinced that a well thought out and properly directed scheme of the sort I indicate to get at the main cause of our national weakness must begin at the cradle.
It is very difficult—only those who have had experience at first hand know the difficulty it is—to instruct women of childbearing age how to feed children. They inherit prejudices, and they feed their infants on all sorts of deleterious substances. For that reason it is necessary to begin with the girls of school age. The instruction to be imparted is quite simple. It need take only a few hours, and I think it would well displace some of the subjects which at the present time engage a good deal of attention in some of the schools. It would mean that these girls, when they came to be mothers, in the next generation, would be able to utilise the information that a baby should have no food artificially save milk. If they knew and believed this simple truth, it would diminish, in the next generation, the infant death rate by 25 per cent. The machinery is at hand. This subject is closely interwoven with housing, and many other problems. But we have the machinery for removing the ignorance already at hand. It could quite easily be put in motion, and I ask leave to introduce this Bill, which provides for it in a simple manner by teaching girls in our elementary schools.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Addison, Mr. Alden, Mr. Holt, Mr. Hughes, Sir Joseph Compton-Rickett, Mr. Wedgwood, and Mr. A. F. Whyte. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.

PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION OF SALE OR EXCHANGE OF) (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. ALDEN: I ask leave to introduce a Bill "to prohibit the sale or exchange of the plumage and skins of certain wild birds."
I should not attempt to detain the House, but the matter is urgent just now. The President of the Board of Trade and

1083
the Secretary of the Colonies are consulting together as to the best legislation that could be passed in order to obtain protection for wild bird now exported from our Colonies and Possessions. From many of our Colonies and Possessions these rare birds are exported against the wish of the people. The skins and plumages of these rare birds are for the most part exported to London and to Paris, and the object of this Bill is to try and prevent the absolute extinction of the few rare birds still in existence. The Bill that passed the House of Lords in 1908 was a Bill which prohibited the importation of the plumage of almost all birds. I only venture to include in the Schedule to this Bill a few birds that are on the point of extinction and which can be saved if a Bill is passed into law in the next year or two. The calculation is that these birds will be extinct within the next three or four years unless some protection is given, and I hope that this Bill, or some Bill drafted by the
Board of Trade with the object of effecting this purpose, may be passed at no distant time. There is a law in Australia preventing the exportation of the plumage of certain rare birds. One of these birds is the emu; but last year 1,019 emu skins were catalogued for sale in London which had been smuggled out of Australia against the will of the people. The present Prime Minister of Australia (Mr. Fisher) said, in a speech referring to Lord Crewe's proposals for preventing the indiscriminate slaughter of plumage birds:—
"Such suggestions would meet with a very favourable reception from the Commonwealth. Native birds were already protected in New Guinea, but in the mainland the only Federal power was the prohibition of export. If any sale was going on it ought to be restricted or prevented."
Many species of humming birds are almost extinct. In Trinidad, the different species have been reduced from eighteen to five, and 25,000 humming birds' skins were catalogued for sale in London last year. In 1910, twenty-three plumage pirates were arrested at the Hawaiian Island reservation, and they had 259,000 pairs of wings and two tons of other feathers, so that they are rapidly exterminating the birds on the islands. In the North Pacific reservation, 300,000 bird skins were taken, and several men in their efforts to protect these birds have been assassinated by the plumage pirates. Many Members on both sides of the House have done much to help in this direction. The senior Member for Oxford University (Sir William Anson) has always been
1084
interested in this matter, and introduced a Bill which was almost exactly the same as the Bill I am introducing now. There are many Members of the party opposite who take a very great interest in the preservation of historical and ancient monuments, and they are equally anxious to save the picturesque spots of English scenery. I believe there is practically no opposition to this Bill, which simply makes an attempt to save these rare birds from absolute extinction, and I am sure if the hon. Member who opposed this Bill up to the present knew the actual facts he would withdraw his opposition. I wonder whether hon. Members are aware that the number of egrets killed and exported from Venezuela alone in 1908 was 1,528,000. Owing to that amount of slaughter, the number last year was reduced to 250,000. The plumes of these beautiful birds are cut from them before they are half dead during the breeding season, and the young ones are left to starve to death. I hope I have said enough to convince the House this is a matter of urgency, and I trust before long this or some similar Bill will be passed into law.
Mr. E. H. CARLILE Mr. E. H. CARLILE rose——
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose?
Mr. CARLILE: Yes, Sir. I am sure the hon. Member was quite warranted in what he said, that the object of the Bill would meet with sympathy in all corners of the House. The hon. Member's Bill, however, would not have the effect desired. It would prohibit the exportation and sale of the plumage of birds in this country. That would not bring about what we all wish to see—the preservation of these birds. The result of the passage of this Bill would be that what at present comes to London would be transferred tc Brussels or Antwerp or Amsterdam or Hamburg or some other foreign city. The industry would be simply transferred from us to foreign markets, and at the present moment no one could contemplate such a thing with anything like indifference. It is useless for us, as one nation, alone to move in the matter. It is clearly a matter for international arrangement. If those countries which are in favour of the preservation of these beautiful plumage brids would come together, if the hon. Member would do something to promote that end, then the object he has at heart would be carried out; but without some such

1085
arrangement as that this Bill would be detrimental to a trade which has a value for many people in this country. On these grounds I find myself unable to support the hon. Member's Motion.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alden, Sir William Anson, Mr. S. H. Butcher, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. King, Mr. Lehmann, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Rowntree, and Mr. Radford. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

[SUPPLY.— [19th Allotted Day.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.— [PROGRESS.]
  [CLASS 3, VOTE 9.]
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  Considered in the Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  ARMAMENTS AND ENGINEER STORES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,482,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Armaments and Engineer Stores, including Technical Committees, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."
  Mr. A. H. BURGOYNE: It will be within the recollection of every Member of the House that during the last few weeks a number of questions relating to cordite have been addressed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen upon the bench opposite. They would be the first, I feel sure, to acquit the questioners of a desire to promote a feeling of insecurity in the public mind, yet I am bound to state that the comments and suggestions that have from time to time appeared in the Press do lend some colour to the idea that all is not as it should be. Sir, it is that, once and for all, every doubt should be set at rest that I venture to introduce the subject of cordite this afternoon. I would ask the especial indulgence of the House if I make an over-free use of my notes; it would be highly inexpedient open a Debate on so serious a subject without a careful attention to the facts of the case. I propose to call the notice of
  1086
  the House to several separate points: (a) The treatment of private manufacturers by Government Departments;(b) the efficacy of the test known as the "heat test";(c) the present state of Government or private reserves;(d) the adequacy or otherwise of the national means of output. In as far as is possible I shall be entirely non-technical, but the Committee will forgive me if, for the purposes of my argument, I enter a little fully into the history and manufacture of cordite in this country, from the time when it was first patented in 1889. Cordite was introduced into the Navy in 1890–1891. Its use was not generally adopted until about four years later, when tenders for its manufacture were called for from private firms. This cordite was what is known as ordinary cordite. Two firms, the National Explosives Company and Kynochs, Limited, named a price acceptable to the War Office, and received orders to manufacture at a price of 2s, 10½d. to 3s. per pound. The Nobels Explosives Company tendered too high, and did not receive an order until about three years later. In the spring of 1895 the first deliveries of cordite manufactured by the successful firms were made to the War Office. On the price paid, 2s. 10½d. to 3s. per pound, the profit to the manufacturers, allowing for a 5 per cent, to 6 per cent. rejection, worked out at about 1s. 3d. per pound. This fact was well known to the War Office, and could not be objected to, since the successful firms would be forced to lay down special machinery for its manufacture. This machinery is not capable of being used in the manufacture of any other type of explosives, and in one instance alone the capital outlay on it amounted to over £50,000. At this time glycerine ranged in price from £45 to £50 a ton and acetone from £50 to £60 a ton. The test made at Woolwich on the finished cordite is known as the heat test. This consists in the suspension of a small piece of filter paper, supplied by the Home Office, over a small particle of cordite, which is then subjected to a temperature of 180 degs. Fahrenheit. When this test was first instituted its duration was twenty minutes. The heat-test papers are prepared by dipping strips of white English filter paper, which have been washed with distilled water and redried, into a solution made from white maize starch (cornflour), boiled in distilled water for ten minutes. To this mixture is added pure potassium iodide dissolved in distilled water, the two solutions being

  1087
  thoroughly mixed and allowed to get cold, after which the filter papers are dipped into the solution for ten seconds.
  4.0 P.M.
  How is it possible to be quite sure that the cornflour is pure, and again, how is it possible to so arrange the height of that filter paper above the cordite to be tested that the degrees of heat are correct? Within one inch inside the test tube there is a difference of some sixty degrees of heat, and, if the heat for one or two minutes gets just under or just over the right temperature, the test is negatived.
  Finally, I come to the preparation of the cordite itself. It is prepared in this way. A certain portion of it is taken and ground in a pug mill. When it has been reduced to almost a dust, it is taken through three sieves. That on the top sieve and that on the lower sieve is thrown away and that on the second and middle sieve is retained. I ask the Committee to imagine how easy it would be for a few grains of dust to get in that portion of the cordite which they have got for testing. That really is my case about the heat test. This is a technical matter upon which experts are divided, but I would like to hear whether any experiment has been made with the test known as the total destruction test, where the cordite is entirely destroyed and disintegrated into its component parts. I believe they have tried the silver-cup test, which is not entirely satisfactory, and there is the gold-leaf test which, associated with the filter-paper discoloration test, is said to show the presence of mercury. Coming back to the firms who make cordite, about 1897 three other firms entered into competition: Messrs. Nobels, the Cotton Powder Company, and the New Explosives Company. Later on the Chilworth Gunpowder Company, Limited, and the British Syndicate commenced the purchase of cordite paste and they were therefore partly making cordite. Four years later, in 1904–5 the oldest manufacturers, Messrs. Curtiss and Harvey had plant prepared and obtained orders, making a total of eight firms capable of making or of partly making the cordite supplied to the Army and Navy to-day. The natural result, of this competition was that there came a drop in the price. No one can complain of that. The Army and Navy are sufficiently expensive to at least make one attempt to get the price of every commodity they use down to the very lowest basis.
  1088
  About this time, when so many of these firms had entered into competition, a new cordite was evolved. They had up to this been using ordinary cordite, but they then introduced cordite M.D., which is a modified cordite, the chief feature of which is that it possesses an increased percentage of gun cotton as against nitro-glycerine The advantage of it is there is less heat in the inner barrel of the gun. A part of it was heated and stood the test well beyond thirty minutes, with the result that the test was increased to a definite period of thirty minutes at Woolwich. Naturally, as a result of this increase of the heat test, the rejections became considerably greater. I would ask the Committee to remember that just at this period, when the rejections became greater, the prices were less, and on top of that the cost of the chief component parts went up. In 1908 came the greatest price of glycerine. It went up to about £80 per ton. I believe I am correct in saying that to obtain glycerine in the quantities that would be necessary in the event of war is absolutely impossible to-day. The price being paid for cordite at this time was only about 1s. 8d. or 2s. a 1b., giving a profit, if the rejections were 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., of no more than 2d. or 3d. per lb. The manufacturers have to meet the loss of the rejections and have to pay a greater price for glycerine. Acetone too has risen in price. It is now £70. In 1895 it was £56 a ton, in 1896 it was £54 a ton, and in 1897 it was £49 a ton.
  We come now to the case of mercuric chloride. They put in such minute quantities that it cannot be seen except under the spectroscope, but it is nevertheless sufficiently present to prevent effective testing by heat. The percentage of compound used works out at between 1 in 150,000 to 1 in 200,000. Yet it did mask bad cordite. I believe there was a Welsh explosion which first brought it to the notice of the Home Office expert, Dr. Dupré, who found there was a minute quantity of mercuric chloride in cordite. I have given this to remove a misconception, because I do not believe there is anything in the mercuric chloride scare. All cordite has mercury in it, even the cordite got from Waltham Abbey. The reason is very obvious. The ingredients from which ordinary cordite is made, and the machines by which it is made are bound to introduce it in the minute quantities in which it has always been found since the discovery of Dr.

  1089
  Dupré, and I should be glad to hear whether any cordite has been turned out without a minute trace of mercury in it. Mercury as found in all cordite is not dangerous, but the mercuric chloride is dangerous, and it is to that you can lay with absolute certainty the explosion which blew up the French battleship "Jena," and a little later the explosion on the Japanese battleship "Mikasa," where two magazines went off at once, and where it was proved that there was mercuric chloride in the cordite's composition. Mercuric chloride is utilised in Germany where they do not regard the heat test as definite. They use a nitro-glycerine powder in the Navy and a nitro-cellulose powder in the Army. Since that time, owing to the discovery of this mercury and to the care taken in the examination of cordite, the rejections have been higher and higher. I believe in one or two cases they have reached 50 percent. I would like the Committee to imagine what that means where manufacturers have 200 or 300 tons of cordite, costing so many tens of pounds per cwt., and capable of being used for no other purpose whatever.
  The situation, I contend, in face of that, is a very dangerous one, and certainly an unfair one to the manufacturers. It is dangerous because the Services are largely dependent for their supply upon one single factory, Waltham Abbey, and unfair because it leaves expensive machinery in manufacturers' factories, put up under a natural expectation of continual work, lying idle. I am informed that a deputation of manufacturers have waited upon the officials and informed them they cannot undertake to manufacture cordite under the present conditions. Waltham Abbey can turn out from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the necessary peace supply of cordite, and, if they put on overtime, they can turn out from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the necessary peace supply; but, if war came and it were found possible for an enemy to blow up Waltham Abbey, what would be our situation? At the present time there are few of the eight private firms turning out cordite. Their machinery is lying idle. They will be called on suddenly to make cordite. Our stock at Waltham Abbey would be blown to smithereens, including the acetone there, and they are the only people who have a big stock of acetone. The private supplies of cordite would have to be called upon and the Government
  1090
  reserves would be utilised. The private firms would know they were depended upon practically to save the Empire, and we should only be able to utilise them to manufacture cordite at an exorbitant price.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. McKenna), in answer to a question I addressed to him a short time ago, told me the time required to make cordite would be three months. Of course, that might well be qualified, because it is according to the size of the cordite and the time it takes to dry. From a naval point of view, the most important guns are the 12-in. and the 13.5-in. I propose to give the time required to make, say, from five to ten tons of ammunition for the 12-inch gun. The size of cordite required is that known as 45. To obtain the acetone it would be necessary for them to wire over to the United States, or to Hungary, and it could not be got over here under twenty-one days. During that time the necessary nitro-glycerine and gun cotton could be prepared. Then comes the making. If it is a large size, they can dry less, and if it is a small size they can dry more. The making would take seven days, and size forty-five would require fifty days to dry, making seventy-eight days or eleven weeks in all. I make no allowance for correspondence, the arranging of tenders, and delivery. I do not desire to instruct the Committee, but perhaps they will forgive me if I tell them what acetone is. It is a wood spirit, which dissolves cotton waste into a jelly pulp, and enables it to mix easily with nitro-glycerine. I believe there are no means in this country for the supply of acetone. It can only be obtained from America and Hungary. I shall be very glad to be corrected on that point; if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us we can get it here so much the better. I believe 100,000 tons of wood are required for the distillation of 1,000 tons of acetone. The forests in this country would soon be laid bare if you depended upon them for the necessary supply. No large stock of acetone is held in this country. I believe there is a stock held which is expected to last about eighteen months, but that is Government stock. It would be impossible with the price at £70 or £80 per ton for private manufacturers to hold a large stock. It would be unremunerative: it would bring in no dividend, and they cannot, therefore, afford it. In reply to a question I put to him,

  1091
  the Secretary of State for War said on 4th July:—
  "Cordite can be made without the use of acetone Acetic ether or ethyl acetate can be employed as a solvent for cordite, but it has not been used in this country on a commercial scale.
  "Ballistite is made with soluble nitro-cotton, and for this alcohol can he used.
  "The wet process is mixing wet gun-cotton with the nitro-glycerine instead of dry, and does not affect the solvent afterwards used."
  There is a little story told of a Free Trader who was asked what would happen in the event of war if he could not obtain bread owing to the supplies of flour running short. His answer was that he would live on toast and biscuits. The right hon. Gentleman says we would use ethyl acetate, but that cannot be obtained without acetone, and as both these things are contraband of war, where will this country be able to get its supply of cordite.
  Ballistite is mixed under water by means of a violent but steady jet of compressed air. It is of good ballistic qualities but untrustworthy keeping qualities. It is apt to absorb moisture from the atmosphere, to disintegrate and exude. It is also far hotter in combustion, and corrodes the bores of guns, and I am convinced the Admiralty would not guarantee a tube in a 12-inch gun after the use of forty rounds of this ammunition.
  To find fault without suggesting a remedy would be like a doctor diagnosing a disease and refusing to state how it might be cured. These are the conclusions I have come to: (1) The regular supply of cordite is not safely assured, and no certainty can be entertained that the present stocks are sufficient to meet urgent possibilities; (2) the manufacturers have not received fair treatment in the matter; and (3) the heat test is not entirely satisfactory; but this, being a technical question, I cannot and do not press. I would therefore ask: (1) Is the present means of output sufficient for probably war supply lasting over a year? (2) Are the Government reserves at Purfleet, Woolwich, etc., at present up to the standard suggested by the Mowatt Commission? And (3) will the Government consider the necessity of encouraging manufacturers to extend their works and hold adequate stock of raw materials by a continuity of work at sufficiently remunerative prices?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The hon. Gentleman has just made a very interesting speech, and
  1092
  we are all the better for so much technical knowledge as he has shown. I do not propose to touch at length on the larger question of the Reserves, but I am glad to say they are all right as far as the Army and Navy are concerned. These Reserves are kept in a different way. The Army Reserves are kept in the form of cartridges, and we have the Reserves quite up to the standard. I am informed by the First Lord of the Admiralty that the Navy Reserves also are all in order. But that I want to come to is the more difficult question of the process of manufacture and the question whether we have got the means of keeping an adequate supply of cordite within the country. It is quite true, as the hon. Member said, that the manufacture not only of cordite, but fall high explosives, is a very difficult and to some extent a novel matter. No one country agrees with any other country as to what is the best form of powder. We do not quite agree with Germany, but we are not so far off from them as we are from the French. The United States has a different powder, Spain has a different powder, Italy has a different powder, and each country, I believe, maintains that it has the best powder. We cannot all be right, and every one of us is open to that criticism.
  I may touch shortly on the grounds on which it is necessary to be extremely cautious in dealing with these powders, and subjecting them to more minute tests than the old gunpowder was subjected to. These so-called chemical powders are altogether unnatural things; they are particularly dangerous, for reasons which I will tell the House. I am speaking not only of British powder, but of the powder of every other country under the sun. The old gunpowder was admirably safe; it behaved itself in the most orderly, respectable, conservative fashion. It had no violent outburst, but, unfortunately, like many other institutions which proceed in that fashion, its proceedings were accompanied by obscurity, and vast volumes of unconsumed and wasted material were the result of its operation. The outcome was not only was the operation more difficult, but it afforded a beautiful target to the enemy itself. The sole purpose of the modern warfare presently became to dissipate the explosion in such a way that it would not reveal the place where the guns which were sending forth the projectile were situated, and thereby would not play into the hands of the enemy. It also would not involve a waste of so much

  1093
  material. When you go to war you carry as little as possible, and if you can produce your explosive in a small bulk so much the better. It is obvious, if you are wasting part of the constituents of your explosive by introducing unconsumed carbon and a great deal of the smoke, you are conducting a very wasteful operation.
  The object of the chemical process was to burn up the whole of the carbon which was in the powder in such a fashion as to produce the maximum of gas CO2 or CO. For that it was necessary, as the hon. Member well knows, to take a very daring step. In gunpowder the carbon lies in separate atoms from the oxygen. In chemical powders the atoms of oxygen and carbon lay side by side, and the result is when these powders behave naturally the two atoms rush suddenly together and produce a violent explosion. Yet that was the only way in which we got the whole of the carbon burnt up and the whole material used. What was the discovery made when ballistite was first brought on the scene in 1888? Under the Nobel system it was found that when nitro-cellulose was mixed with nitro-glycerine it tamed the nitro-glycerine, and was in its turn also tamed by the nitro-glycerine. The burning took place very slowly. One high explosive tamed the other. They became harmless mutually, but served the useful operation of slowly driving out the projectile, using up nearly all the carbon, and producing no smoke. That is really the principle of modern cordite, which is substituted for the low nitration of Nobel. Observe what was the duty of the Government using a powder of that kind. If it was not extraordinarily well manufactured it burst the guns. Therefore you have to subject them to very careful tests, because if once the elements get out of their groups then you have all the materials for the detonation of the substance, the gun goes into a thousand pieces, and probably life is lost. These powders have to be watched in case of decomposition. What is the test? It is to see whether nitrous fumes are given off, and for that purpose what is called the heat test is devised—the heat test which we use in this country. It has been fully described by the hon. Member, and I need not go into it again. The silver heat test is very good but very slow. The other one was not so certain, but they all depend on the principle of detecting heat on decomposition. They are extremely dangerous, and those conducting them
  1094
  have to submit to very exacting conditions. We know that these tests are in themselves obscure and affected by varying conditions, and, therefore, there is a desire on the part of the authorities of the Army and Navy and the Research Department, which is carrying out these tests, to make things as easy as possible for the manufacturers. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows it, but I will tell him that there has recently been a conference between the Army and Navy Departments and the manufacturers, and we have been in consultation as to the heat test. We have frankly acknowledged their difficulties, and we have entered into arrangements with them which we trust will enable the heat test itself to be tested on such a basis as to make allowance for any possible unfairness in that test itself. It may be that some of the defects are due to the heat test itself and not to the cordite, and we have taken such steps as we can to see that the heat test is right, and we are in consultation with the manufacturers who employ chemists of eminence and who are just as anxious as we are to put this matter right and produce the best stuff. I do not think we have been at all excessive in our caution in the past, but I do think that we have always got to study the heat test sufficiently on the one hand to see that it is sufficient, and on the other hand to see that it does not produce defects.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When did the authorities know the heat test was untrustworthy?
  Mr. HALDANE: We have known for ten or twenty years past that a certain amount of decomposition is to be looked for and some other facts. We have always taken a very reasonable view of the heat test, and always looked carefully about to see if it was subject to criticism in any particular case. I pass to the other point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the question of the acetone supply, and I quite accept at his hands a correction of what seemed on my part a slip. I said the other day you can use as an alternative to acetone in certain circumstances acetic ether. It is quite true you can do that, but you have to go back to the acetate of lime to get this, and if you go to the acetate of lime you may just as well use acetone. I was quoting from memory from a treatise on Service explosives. I pass to the question of acetone itself, and in one point the hon. and gallant Member is wrong. He

  1095
  spoke of being dependent upon foreign countries, but, as a matter of fact, acetone is now being produced in very considerable quantities in Canada, and we are placing large orders and getting large deliveries, which we hope will be larger in the future in that country where there are large areas of forest, so it is easy to produce acetate of lime.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: The point I wanted to make was that you would have to get it from over sea, and then what about the event of war?
  Mr. HALDANE: That is not absolutely vital, as I will show, in the case of war. We buy acetone from all sources, and we find it in all sorts of places where we can get it. We are now buying on the Continent a good deal, and a good deal from Austria, but in time of war we should not look to those sources of supply. We should look to Canada, and we hope to deal with Canada in any event much more largely, and to take a great deal more from her if they can give it to us, but we are busy with the question in this country, in connection with afforestation, and I think we ought to be able to produce a great deal of acetate of lime. We are going into it at this moment, to see how much we can do, but I do not wish to mislead the Committee, or to hold out any hope that it is either possible or desirable that—at any rate, in time of peace—we should be able to produce all the acetone we want in this country, but in time of war we should be driven to get a large amount here, and we contemplate getting a lot here, and we could, at all events, get a substantial amount in this country. We are taking steps to see how that can be done, and it is a question of cost if we should be driven to get a large amount here in case of war, which it would be absurd to get now. But we do get a large quantity. There is one firm, the United Alkali Company, of Liverpool, which is producing it on a considerable scale, and would be likely to produce it on a larger scale if we required it. I think there is an hon. Gentleman who is connected with the firm who will be able to tell the Committee much better than I can about this. Their chief market is Canada, but they would be able to produce it in this country in any quantity which we required.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Do they produce acetate of lime or acetone out of the acetate of lime?
  Mr. HALDANE: They produce acetone. Trees do not grow in Liverpool, and you make acetate of lime. Where there are trees they make the acetone. We have a very much larger stock of acetone than we have ever had before; we have increased it. The hon. Member referred to the price which we pay, and, of course, we pay higher prices for the experimental tests which are being held, but we have six or seven competing firms producing the stuff which we buy. They regulate their own price to some extent, but not altogether, for there is wholesome competition among them, and the price adjusts itself, and, so far as I know, I do not think we behave unfairly to them in the matter. Then, as regards the time taken, all these high explosives take a considerable time to manufacture, and that time is covered by the reserve. We have made, and we are making, provision for that, and we should, I trust, if war broke out, find our reserves put us in a comfortable position. As to glycerine, to which the hon. Member referred, that is a home product. We find glycerine in the making of soap, and what I am glad to see is the prodigious manufacture of soap in this country. It is one of our national characteristics to use soap, and therefore it is one of our national characteristics to have more glycerine handy than most countries. I think I have covered the points which were raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as far as they concern the War Office, and the other points which arose in the course of the discussion, and which touch the Admiralty, will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the First Lord.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not propose to follow either my hon. and gallant Friend or the right hon. Gentleman into the scientific details which they have given to the Committee, and which are of great interest, but I do propose to raise one or two practical points arising out of this Question, more particularly referring to the First Lord of the Admiralty. As to acetone, there were one or two points which were not touched upon by the Secretary for War upon which we may perhaps have a word or two from the First Lord. I think it is estimated that a ton of acetone requires 300 tons of wood.
  Mr. HALDANE: I know it requires a very large amount of wood, but I should hardly think so much. I should hardly like to contradict, however.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the Committee may take it that that is about the right quantity. My information is 300 tons, but that is a matter upon which the experts will pronounce. I am not an expert, and my information is secondhand. I never made any acetone myself. May I also add an important fact that acetone, I understand, is a by-product of charcoal, and the price of acetone mainly depends upon whether it could be made profitably in connection with the manufacture of charcoal. Charcoal again is mainly dependent for its prosperity upon the tinplate industry, and I understand that where large quantities of charcoal are made and used in connection with the tin-plate industry, acetone is a by-product. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the question of production in this country was receiving close attention. I am sure that will be satisfactory to the Committee, but I could not quite agree with him that although it is not necessary to make acetone in this country in peace time we could do it in time of war. I do not think that we could. I speak again under correction, but I am informed that the production of acetone of the required quality is a very difficult process. It requires a great deal of experience and a great deal of practical knowledge, and it is therefore not possible to start the production of acetone with any prospect of success without very long experience.
  Mr. HALDANE: What I meant to say was that in time of peace we should get no large quantity, but as much as was required for our consumption, but in the ordinary course we should get the experience by manufacture in time of peace in order to produce it in time of war.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If the manufacture is to be central, you must decentralise your operations. If, however, you are going to manufacture in one place only and educate a sufficient staff to explain what your working is, and to avail yourselves of your experience in war time which you have gained in time of peace, all is well. But the matter is so extremely technical and requires such a great deal of experience that you cannot start the manufacture in war time with any immediate prospect of success. As to reserve of acetone, I was extremely glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that they have a large reserve. I am told that there is no reserve whatever of acetone in the hands
  1098
  of the trade, and they live entirely from hand to mouth. Therefore we may take it that the reserve at the Admiralty and the War Office is the only reserve in the country, and until we have a home production it is necessary that there should be a large reserve of acetone maintained in the Government Departments. It is very satisfactory to the Committee to hear that statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these reserves are actually to be recognised. As to the manufacture of the United Alkali Company, of Liverpool, I understand that it is not on a large scale, and the acetone which they produce is very costly.
  Mr. MUSPRATT: What is considered a large scale?
  Mr. PRETYMAN:I suppose the amount of acetone required here. I do not want to say, but I could state figures.
  Mr. MUSPRATT: I should very much like to have figures.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The amount of acetone required for cordite manufactured in this country every year would be something like 12,000 tons.
  Mr. HALDANE: In time of peace?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No, it is half a ton of acetone for a ton of cordite, therefore the total you would require is about 1,000 tons. You would want 12,000 tons of acetate of lime. So that the production of acetone of first-class quality in any large proportion would obviously be of very great importance in this country. We have had a very interesting description of the heat test. I accept everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said and I only wish to make one small addition, namely, that the real object of the heat test, as I understand it, is to test durability. You require cordite to stand the test of a temperature of 180 degrees for thirty minutes to-day. You expect it to last twelve years, and at the end of the twelve years to stand a test of 160 degrees for eight minutes. It follows from that that the single test is not the final one, because it might easily be that cordite which would stand the thirty-minute test to-day might be found in twelve months' time to have deteriorated more rapidly than another sample which had stood perhaps not quite so good a test. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the heat test was uncertain, and

  1099
  that that has been known for a very large number of years. The crucial question about the heat test has only arisen since last January. I think until 1907 the Admiralty used to get cordite through the War Office, but in that year separate arrangements were made, and the Admiralty now have their cordite delivered to them at Waltham, and undertake their own negotiations with the manufacturers, and the War Office have theirs delivered at Woolwich, and they are also on their own. Since last January there has been great trouble between the manufacturers and the Admiralty, who, I understand, have done exactly what the right hon. Gentleman says they should not do, namely, regarded the heat test as infallible, and they have refused to pass a large quantity of cordite because it has not complied with the very fallible heat test—not one particular delivery of powder but deliveries from all the firms concerned. All these deliveries failed to pass the heat test. That would surely point to some defect in the test rather than in the cordite. I quite understand that the Admiralty are bound to protect themselves, but there has been great trouble, and I understand that the Admiralty have not been prepared until quite recently to admit the fallibility which the right hon. Gentleman says they have known of for years.
  Arising out of that I would suggest that it is not possible in the case of cordite to act wholly on the commercial competitive principle. That has already been admitted in the case of gun-mountings. There is no real open competition in the case of the supply of gun-mountings for the Navy. There cannot be, in the nature of things, any real open competition for the supply of cordite or of any other article of which the Government are the sole consumers. Where there is no general market your object is the same as in ordinary competition; you want to get the best article you can possibly get at the cheapest price. Ordinarily you go into the commercial market, and the best way to get what you want is to go in for competition and adhere strictly to tenders. In this case this is an impossibility, therefore surely it is far better to do as you do in the case of the gun-mountings and to work with the firms in the closest possible manner, checking their prices and their quality by every possible test and by your own manufacture at Waltham, and by that
  1100
  means, rather than by a sham competition, which cannot really exist in fact, to endeavour to obtain the best article at the cheapest price. I am quite sure this is quite as much a matter for the House of Commons as for the Board of Admiralty. There may be some idea at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind that if he enters into a kind of partnership with the cordite firms he will be laying himself open to censure here. I do not believe that at all. I believe if he can show that the methods which he has adopted are the best in the interests of the country, and that he has devised the best safeguards possible under the conditions which govern the supply of the trade, that will satisfy the Committee, and it is not necessary to show that he has applied the competitive tests, which are not applicable to this particular case. If he will do with the cordite firms what he has done with the gun-mounting firms and keep in the closest possible' touch with them, and obtain from them the latest chemical information which is to be obtained, and will insist on getting the best article at the cheapest price, and when there is a difficulty, such as there was about this latest heat test, he would consult the firms and deal with them not as though they desired to force upon the Admiralty an inferior article, but as though there was some error which both parties were interested in getting at at the earliest possible moment, a great deal of this difficulty would be avoided, and cordite would be obtained very much more cheaply, and certainly of quite as good a quality.
  The matter of reserves and of supply is after all the most important point from the point of view of the nation. What the nation will desire to know is whether the available supply of cordite in time of war is absolutely beyond suspicion. On that point the first question which arises is, What proportion does the capacity of output of the cordite firms of this country, including Waltham Abbey, bear to the war consumption? I believe the capacity of output is only about two-thirds of the war consumption. It may be, of course, that it can be extended to some extent, and that considerable time is required for the extension, and there will be no serious criticism on that proportion provided there is a sufficient reserve. I think the right hon. Gentleman said there was. I have some figures which it would not be proper to give to the Committee, but I

  1101
  have been very carefully into the figures of production and the figures of cordite actually supplied since the South African War to the Admiralty. The War Office is not in question, and is not nearly so much concerned as the Admiralty. I have compared these figures with what I believe to be the annual consumption of the Navy in peace time. There is a large surplus, and apparently there should be a sufficient reserve, but there is one uncertain factor, and that is that there have been presumably very considerable quantities of cordite destroyed after having been rejected. It was a matter of common knowledge that something like 50 per cent. of the cordite of the 1903 and 1904 orders was under suspicion. It was so much under suspicion that it was thought it might have to be destroyed, though I do not know whether it was absolutely destroyed or not. A quarter of the cordite supplied in 1905 and 1906 was similarly under suspicion. We might have a little enlightenment on that point and a definite statement whether the reserve is sufficient. I know a weight of cordite of all sizes equal to a year's consumption could be produced, but that does not cover the point, because the cordite mainly required is the large size for the 12-in. gun, and that is constantly a largely increasing proportion, and it takes 1,600 hours to dry, and the capacity of output is governed by the drying stoves, which are permanent brick structures. Taking all these facts, for the actual requirements of the Navy the capacity of output is only two-thirds. If there are ample reserves, and if there is an ample reserve of acetone, time will be given to extend the capacity of output in order to meet requirements. If the First Lord of the Admiralty will reassure us as to the supplies for the Navy and the reserve of acetone, and on the other point as to his desire not to apply too fully that useless competitive test, but, if he can, to work more in co-operation with the manufacturers, I think this Debate will have served some useful purpose.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. MUSPRATT: This is a subject to which for the last fifteen years I have given very great personal attention, and I believe I was, to a certain extent, instrumental in introducing cordite into this country, and certainly in the earlier days of its manufacture at Widnes I was one of the responsible experts who had charge of the department concerned.
  1102
  In recent years perhaps I have not been in the same intimate touch with the working details of the question. I did not quite realise that it was coming up in such a very prominent form to-day, and I have not had an opportunity of communicating with my office to get posted upon the latest features. I think that is probably a great advantage to this House, because I will be able to deal with the matter in a broader way, and I can assure the Members of the Committee that my remarks will not lack accuracy because they are not absolutely up to date. Before dealing with the main question there are one or two matters on which, as a manufacturer, I should like to say a word. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne) has raised a point as to the exacting tests which are utilised in testing cordite. As a manufacturer of twenty years' experience I can say that one of the facts we all have to realise is that as knowledge advances it becomes more and more necessary to have exacting tests. There was a time even in regard to inorganic chemistry when the tests for rough impurities such as sulphate of chloride were different from what they are now. At the present day things are not so smooth as they were then, and when you get into organic chemistry—and hon. Members know that acetone is well in the region of organic chemistry—you are getting into a field where you must have exacting tests. When my firm first went into the manufacture of acetone the test was a time test. Only two minutes was the time in which certain reaction had or had not to take place as a test of purity. We made our calculations on the basis of turning out the article on the test of two minutes. Almost before we were on the market the War Office raised the test tremendously and increased the stringency. This affected the amount of the article we could turn out, and it also affected our profits. A little later, when it became a question of storing acetone for a long period of time, the test was raised to four hours, and I confess that was the breaking point for us. We brought the matter before the attention of the War Office, and the experts of the War Office discussed the matter with our experts, and I think we came back to thirty minutes, or it may have been an hour. Every manufacturer has to accustom himself to the ever-increasing stringency of tests as scientific knowledge advances, and it is only when it can be

  1103
  shown that the stringency is becoming economically unsound that the War Office can be rightly called upon to make any relaxation in the stringency. As a manufacturer, I know what this increased stringency costs a manufacturer. One has to admit that the War Office, as the purchaser of these articles, has to be extremely stringent, and manufacturers can only claim a relaxation when it can be incontestably proved that the article they are producing is as good and that it is not of such a nature as to be economically unsound.
  I should like to say a word about the home manufacturers of cordite. The hon. Gentleman opposite told the House in perfectly good faith that no acetone was manufactured in this country. If he had said that outside manufacturers of cordite did not use acetone he would have been right. I believe he is a considerable witness in encouraging British industries, and I hope he will take the opportunity of mentioning that fact to the friends with whom he has been in communication on this important matter. In regard to the actual quantity of British cordite manufactured with acetone a point was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pretyman). I have not the official figures, but he will doubtless remember that a White Paper is issued annually showing the purchases of various articles for the Admiralty and so on from outside sources. I think I am right in saying that the acetone bought from outside sources is about £30,000 worth, or a matter of 500 tons. When it is realised that in the manufacture of cordite we do not use very much acetone, and that we go on recovering the acetone and use it over and over again, it will be seen that we can get a large quantity of cordite with a comparatively small quantity of acetone. I venture to say that 500 tons is not a quantity that we need be frightened about.
  As to the raw material of acetone, it has already been pointed out that it is made from the article known as acetate of lime, and that acetate of lime is a product of wood distillation. Some people say it is a by-product of which charcoal is the main product, while others say that charcoal is the main product of which acetate of lime is the by-product. If you go to buy any one of these products you will discover that the one you are trying to buy is the main product, and the other
  1104
  the by-product. I wish the Committee to keep very clearly in their minds the two stages in the manufacture, namely, the manufacture of acetone from acetate of lime, and the manufacture of acetate by the distillation of wood. Hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in afforestation and agriculture generally will no doubt bring forward the question of wood distillation. I do not want for a minute to discourage that, but I wish the Committee to bear in mind that, provided there is acetate of lime in England, the wood distillation industry, desirable as it is, and desirous as every manufacturer of these articles is to encourage it, it is quite of a secondary nature. The wood distillation industry is one that must be carried out, of course, where there are vast supplies of timber of uniform quality. To manufacture one ton of acetate you require something like twenty tons of timber that has been air-dried for over a year, and when it is remembered one ton of acetone requires five tons of acetate, you will see that you are running into very big figures, and I doubt if there is a tract of land in England at present available to turn out sufficient wood to give such a supply as would produce a paying quantity of acetone. These are things which, as we say in the chemical industry, you cannot do in a back yard. These operations which are carried out in the organic chemical industries require a great amount of time and space, highly intelligent workmen, and, even more, highly paid experts in chemistry. There is no use tinkering at this question, and trying to get out of it by distillation of wood, unless you are going to deal with it on a really large scale. I have here a paper which I read before the Society of Chemical Industry some years ago in which I state that I have come to the conclusion that an area of 6,000 acres is the very minimum on which one could have a proper wood distillation industry, replanting in rotation so that the supply would be continuous, if the replanting went on from year to year. We have not in this country great virgin forests, and we can only do this by artificial means. Whatever the possibilities are, I think that it would be twenty or thirty years before there was any chance of our manufacturig acetone in any appreciable quantity from English-grown timber. The practical point is that acetate of lime will not only be required for acetone but for a number of other products. Indeed, in our own case we had to start the manufacture of acetone because we had other chemicals employing a large

  1105
  amount of acetate. We thought we might manufacture acetone as well as other products made from acetate of lime. I venture to assert that even in England the stock of acetate of lime is sufficient to manufacture a very large amount of acetone, and I do not think that, on this side of the House, at any rate, we shall assume that we are going to so lose the command of the sea that we shall not be able, by hook or by crook, to get acetate in from Canada, where there are large supplies, and I think there will be a good deal of acetate available from the United States of America, even in time of war, however illegal it might be to get it. I am sure that acetate of lime would find its way across the Atlantic and into this Kingdom.
  Coming down to hard facts, let me say there is very little doubt that at any given moment there will be in England well over 1,000 tons of acetate of lime for various purposes, in cases of emergency. That will remain available for the manufacture of acetone, and 200 tons of acetone is a pretty large quantity. I will now turn to the economic question, which stands in the way of a large development of this acetone manufacture. It is a very small but a very vital economic difficulty. Acetate of lime is a very bulky article, and when an article is bulky the difference in the rates, whether it is carried by ship or by rail, is very considerable. When one realises that the manufacture of one ton of acetone requires five tons of acetate one sees at once that the manufacturer who manufactures in England is handicapped by five times the freight as compared with the manufacturer from wood distillation who manufactures for himself, and so this inevitable handicap, I certainly believe and trust, will always be taken into consideration by the War Office. They have always treated us fairly well. It varies a good deal to who the buyer is, and from the point of view of the manufacturer it would be much more satisfactory if he could have some kind of system upon which this article were bought. As a matter of fact, we would be perfectly prepared to show all our books and have them inspected every three months or six months, at whatever time was desired, and to give the War Office or the Admiralty the acetone for the cost price, and we would be quite satisfied with the profit, not an enormous profit, that we could make out of a certain by-product in the manufacture which is of no use to the War Office.
  1106
  I do not expect that to develop to-day, but I do think that justice should be done in this matter, and if this question of security is to have some kind of weight given to it, that a firm, even a big film like ours, to which the actual money is not very much here or there, because it is only a very small branch of a very large business, should not be unfairly treated. I certainly remember one contract where we lost about £15 a ton owing to a change in the acetate market. We took a contract from the War Office for a year, or we would not have got the contract at all. The acetate market went strongly up against us almost immediately afterwards. Of course over a term of years those things average out, but boards of directors are human, and when at the end of a year figures like that are brought before them there is always a chance that some member of the board who does not take very broad views of the matter might raise the question of stopping this plant, and although I do not think there is the smallest intention of stopping the plant as long as we do not lose too heavily over it, I think it is a fact which ought to be borne in mind. And if we could have a rather closer co-operation with the War Office and not depend upon selling acetate as if it were a parcel of biscuits or something else which is uniform, and can be submitted upon tender and specification, I think it would be a great advantage. Certainly if anything in the way of a sliding scale can be adopted it would be entirely satisfactory to the manufacturers, and in the long run to the War Office, in dealing with contracts. As regards quantities I do not know whether it is contrary to public policy to say anything about quantities, so that I am to a certain extent in the dark. But I do not think I am wrong when I say that at the present moment we are absolutely selling to the War Office considerably more than one-third of the total amount that they use, and we are working at something like half-rate at present. I think it is perfectly right and fair as regards the large stocks which the War Office is purchasing for emergencies that they should be bought from all over the world at the cheapest price at which they can get them, but for the emergency quantities and the kind of qualities that they would require in war time, in addition to these stocks, I think that they ought to make quite sure that the capacity is already in existence. I believe it is in existence. I feel perfectly confident that

  1107
  at a very short notice we could answer all the kind of demands that are likely to be brought upon us even in war time, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that as far as acetone is concerned, they can sleep perfectly safely in their beds at night time.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I do not propose to enter into the most interesting discussion in reference to the chemical properties of cordite, but I should like to ask some questions as to the practical utility of the cordite supply which we have to count on in the Army and the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was quite correct in his remarks as to the difficulties we have with all chemical powders; they are always treacherous. We have particular difficulty with chemical powders, because we have to use or store so much of it in the tropics and under all sorts of conditions. Owing to magazines those difficulties have been got over to a certain extent in the Navy by a very large expenditure of money—I think over £500,000—for the cooling apparatus; but that only proves the case as to how treacherous this powder is. The right hon. Gentleman was quite clear in explaining to the Committee how he got that powder. We have got absolutely to do the best we can with what we have got. The First Lord of the Admiralty was rather charged, I think, by one hon. Member with having the tests too high. From the information I get the cordite is, I believe, all right, but though the tests may be high, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not for one minute—and I hope his advisers will tell him the same—consent to ease off that test, because it would be fatal in time of action or at any moment for the officers and men to have any doubt of the powder in the magazine or the powder in the gun. And as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War showed, the quality of the powder makes little difference as to what would occur if it is not properly looked after, or it is even manufactured in certain kinds of weather. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the atmosphere and the time of manufacture even affect it. But if this chemical powder is ever fired in a condition in which it is not intended to be, either by heat or disintegration, it will not blow the shot out of the gun. It would blow the breech out of the gun. It would
  1108
  be a very serious thing in action if ever the officers or the men doubted the gun or doubted the explosive that is supplying the shot. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty will be as strict as possible with the test he has got and not ease it off unless he is very sure that it should be eased off.
  I have certain questions I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty. Am I to understand that we have not enough cordite now, notwithstanding the amount that has been rejected and the amount that has been destroyed, because a great deal of the cordite that was destroyed, as the First Lord knows, came out of the magazines of ships? I find no fault at its being destroyed. It is a very wise proceeding if there is any doubt about it. The First Lord of the Admiralty will remember how nearly we were to having a very serious accident on the "Revenge" owing to some powder that ought to have been rejected. It was in a six-inch charge that got alight and smouldered in the magazine, and if there had been anything that would have detonated it it would have blown the ship to pieces. That was a very dangerous occurrence and it was owing probably to the test not having been as good as it should have been. Now, about the reserve. Will the First Lord of the Admiralty tell me what he means by reserve? Has he got a reserve of cordite for the Navy with the possibility of a war that would last eighteen months? I think the Committee should know what is the reserve. A reserve for six months would not he enough. I consider we ought to have a reserve for over a year, and to have a proper reserve of cordite for what might happen in case of war. The hon. Gentleman opposite bears me out in that because he tells us we cannot manufacture in this country and that we must be dependent upon other countries. I will not enter into a discussion as to whether the trade is properly protected or not, but our reserve should be above all doubt in regard to these explosives in the country. I hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty will, therefore, tell us what his reserve is. I would also like to ask the First Lord as regards the cordite that was rejected, whether it was rejected because of mercuric chloride being found in it or entirely because it was not up to the test. My own idea is that the cordite was very good. At the same time the test must be very severe. I would like to ask the First Lord also, is

  1109
  it a fact that for three years past we have had a large supply that has not passed the Government test, and does the Government now require twelve months guarantee for the cordite? He said the other day he was experimenting. Will he tell us where he is experimenting? Is it at the magazine of one of the arsenals? I hope he is not experimenting on any cordite in a ship on active service at sea. It was in answer to a question, I think, which I asked him that he said he was experimenting with a certain amount of cordite at the present time. That is as far as I remember——
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Would the Noble Lord quote the question to which he refers as I do not exactly recall it?
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I have not got it now but I asked him a certain question and he told me, or at least I thought he told me, that he was experimenting.
  Mr. McKENNA: This year's cordite?
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Yes.
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, I can answer that.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Another point as to which I wish information is: Has he taken any cordite into the Service that has not passed a heat test? I think I can touch on this Vote on gun-mountings, or can I only refer to cordite?
  The CHAIRMAN: To cordite. It would not be in order now to refer to gun-mountings.
  Mr. McKENNA: This is the Army Vote.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: These are the only practical questions which I should like to ask the First Lord, and the most important is the question of reserve.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has addressed to me a series of questions, and I think, perhaps, it would be well that I should answer first the last question which he put, and before explaining what the position of the Admiralty is with regard to reserve of cordite. He asked me whether we retained any cordite in the Service which had not passed the heat test? The House will understand that passing the heat test does not mean that the cordite is or is not safe to be used. All that the heat test does is to tell us whether cordite can be relied on for a
  1110
  certain length of time. Our reserve of cordite in ordinary times of peace is so large that it takes thirteen or fourteen years for us to work through our supplies. Consequently if we have no war, we have to anticipate that every pound of cordite that we buy will be kept in reserve for fourteen years before it is used. Consequently we have to subject the cordite to a very severe test in order to make sure that it will last fourteen years without deterioration.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: In any part of the world?
  Mr. McKENNA: In any part of the world. The Committee will observe, therefore, that although cordite may not pass the very severe test to which we expose it it would nevertheless be perfectly safe cordite if it was going to be used in any period of time less than fourteen years. For instance, supposing the heat test is thirty minutes. If the cordite lasts through the test for only twenty-nine minutes, it is rejected because it has not passed the test. Nevertheless, that cordite would be perfectly safe for eight, ten or twelve years.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: How does the right hon. Gentleman know that twenty-nine minutes will give twelve years, and thirty minutes will give him fourteen years?
  Mr. McKENNA: These figures are always experimental. It will be understood that we cannot commit ourselves to any definite period. We do not know that the cordite that has passed the test of thirty minutes will last fourteen years; all we can say is that we find it does so, and that we believe thirty minutes will secure a life to the cordite of fourteen years, or longer, and will prove safe for that period. We also know that cordite which has passed a test of twenty-four or twenty-six minutes has lasted for a very long period. I only put it hypothetically, and all I can say is that twenty-nine or thirty minutes will give very nearly fourteen years. The Noble Lord has asked me whether we have taken into the Service any cordite that has failed to answer the test. We obtain cordite from two sources—from the manufacturer and from the Government factory at Waltham. The cordite which is supplied to us from Waltham factory sometimes fails to pass the heat test. What do we do with it? If we throw it back into the hands of the

  1111
  Government factory at Waltham that is a loss to us. The Government factory cannot sell it elsewhere, and there is no use for it. So that if the cordite, as it always is, be nearly up to the heat test, it is perfectly safe for the time being, and safe for many years, though it does not satisfy the test for the full fourteen years. We take it into the Service; we do not put it on board ship, we do not put it into the reserve, we use it up on the first opportunity. We do not destroy it, we do not waste it, we use it up. My answer to the Noble Lord's question is, then, that we do take the cordite into the Service although it fails to answer the full test. But it is a very erroneous conclusion to draw that in doing so we run the smallest danger, because we do not put the cordite on board ship, we do not put it into the reserve, and we use it up immediately.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: How?
  Mr. McKENNA: For experiments on shore. As to the second source of supply of cordite from the manufacturers, if the cordite fails to pass the heat test it is rejected, so that with regard to their supplies we do not take it into the service unless it passes the full heat test.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Has any been taken from the manufacturers that has not passed the heat test?
  Mr. McKENNA: None.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not with a guarantee?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has rather got hold of the wrong end of the story. From the manufacturers we do not take into the service any cordite which fails to pass the heat test. It may be said, "That is very hard upon the manufacturers. You take the Government cordite, but you will not take ours." But all that goes into the price. We pay more to the manufacturers for the cordite which they supply than we pay to the Government factory. Under the conditions of competition between the manufacturers we pay them a considerably higher price than we pay the Government factory. The question of hardship to manufacturers, therefore, does not arise. It is quite obvious we could not take cordite from the manufacturers on the same terms as from the Government factory, because if we did we should have too much cordite to use for experimental purposes, and we should not get cordite
  1112
  going into our reserve stocks. The answer to the Noble Lord's question is in the affirmative as regards Government supplies, and in the negative as regards supplies from the manufacturers. On the question asked as to the supply of cordite during this year by the hon. Member for North Kensington, much comment has been made in the newspapers, and very erroneous conclusions might be drawn. No doubt more than the usual amount of rejections took place this year in the supply of cordite from the manufacturers. But what does this rejection amount to? For the year's supplies, from June to June, the rejections amounted to 6 per cent. of the whole, and not this vast volume of 50 per cent. of the cordite supplied by the manufacturers.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Do these figures refer to cordite rejected for ballistics, or were they real rejections?
  Mr. McKENNA: These rejections had reference to the heat test, and they amounted to 6 per cent. The rejection for ballistics is not serious. The quality of the goods supplied to us, excepting very rarely, is first rate. Whether the cordite actually comes up to the full heat test or not is, comparatively speaking, a small matter, but it may be serious for us who have to keep the cordite so long in reserve. The whole amount of cordite from the manufacturers we have rejected during the year from June to June was, as I have said, only 6 per cent., which, though a small percentage of the whole, is still a large quantity. In January or shortly afterwards, owing to the rejections, we had a conference with the manufacturers of cordite. Some little suspicion, or I would say some little doubt, was thrown upon the accuracy of the heat test, or rather upon the certainty of the heat test under all the conditions of temperature and other things. I will not go into the conditions. The Admiralty agreed to take conditionally from the manufacturer 4 per cent. out of the 6 per cent. which had been rejected. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the guarantee. The condition under which we took this cordite from the manufacturer was that they would guarantee to repay us the money which we paid if after the expiration of a certain time the cordite then failed to satisfy another heat test. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we had not accepted this cordite and put at into stock although it had failed to pass the test. We have not put it into stock, and we are keeping it

  1113
  to be submitted to a further test. We have no doubt that a large part of it would satisfy the test under the new conditions which will come about after the lapse of the necessary time. I cannot state exactly the precise time. I do not think it is material.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: Is a different heat test to be adopted?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, the same heat test and the same conditions. It is a very difficult matter to know what the conditions are, and it is believed that the same heat test, under exactly the same conditions, vary in their results. As to the contractors concerned, we have to pay them for the cordite used, and if the cordite ultimately fails to pass the test they will return the money. Meanwhile cordite has come in which does satisfy this heat test, and our reserves at this moment are fully up to their proper standard. I was asked by the Noble Lord whether our reserves are satisfactory. I noticed that when he put the question he was cheered by the hon. Gentleman who sits below him (Mr. Pretyman). I gather from that that the hon. Member for Chelmsford and the Noble Lord agree as to what our reserve should be.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Noble Lord asked the right hon. Gentleman if the reserves of last year were for a year or eighteen months, and as I considered that reasonable, I cheered, deeming it to be a very proper question, and that there would be no possible harm in answering it.
  Mr. McKENNA: The question cannot be answered with any certainty as to what or how rapid the consumption would be during war over a long period of time. Whatever conclusion we might come to as to what should be the amount of our reserves, I understood from the cheer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he agreed with the Noble Lord as to what the amount should be. If that is so I am happy to be able to assure them both that our reserves at this moment are fully up to standard established by the Board of Admiralty when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was himself a Member of that Board. We are not one single pound of cordite behind. The Noble Lord asked me whether our reserves would last a year or a year and a half. I cannot tell anybody what the conditions in time of war would be and how long it would be before all our guns were run out.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Noble Lord did not mean that. Surely in regard to the reserves a calculation must be made by the Admiralty as to the probable amount required in a year's time. It must be so. and unless you can form an estimate, all that the right hon. Gentleman says is, and I am sure everybody will agree with him—that an estimate cannot be guaranteed. I quite admit that. But surely an estimate could be made, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question.
  Mr. McKENNA: I really would not commit myself at all as to any estimate of time, nor do I think it would be the best way to proceed to say what the reserve should be. It must depend on the guns and outfits. The reserve should be proportioned to the guns you have got and the outfits to be supplied for those guns. Guns will not last more than a certain time, and the ammunition on reserve should last as long as the guns, whether for six months, twelve months, or longer. We do not undertake to have reserves for a period of time, but to have reserves proportioned to the number of outfits or portions of outfits. I will not enter into the proportion, but whatever that proportion was at the time the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite was at the Admiralty, that proportion is preserved at this moment. After investigation and reinvestigation of the question, the Board of Admiralty are quite satisfied that the reserves are sufficient. That is on the general question. Now as to particular questions. Owing to the failure of certain cordite to pass the heat test our reserves appeared to be for a short period about 1 per cent. below the standard. Much has been made of this, and a certain number of experts in the Press raised an outcry, which might almost become the foundation of a scare. I hope the Committee will appreciate this point. Although there was, owing to the failure of deliverance by the contractors a temporary loss to the reserve amounting to about 1 per cent., that was not a real deficiency in the reserve in the event of war. In the event of war all the cordite which was rejected would have been accepted, because, as I have already explained, the cordite was perfectly good cordite for immediate use and for very many years to come. We were never 1 per cent., or a half per cent., or one-thousandth part of 1 per cent. below the standard for war. We were only 1 per cent. below, because for peace purposes we have to keep the cordite for

  1115
  fourteen years. If war broke out tomorrow all the cordite which is now in the manufacturers' hands, if it fulfils the substantial tests which assures us that it will be safe for immediate use, would be accepted, which would bring our reserve above the standard, while the reserve is actually now satisfied for peace purposes.
  The Noble Lord gave the Board of Admiralty one piece of advice which the Board of Admiralty are very grateful to receive from him against some other opinion expressed on this point. He advised us not to ease off our heat test, no matter what the manufacturers might say. No doubt it is a very severe loss to the manufacturers when cordite fails to pass the test and is thrown back upon their hands. I sympathise with them very strongly, but still nevertheless in the interests of safety we must fix a definite line, and the cordite must come up to that test and that standard, or it is not safe for us to put it into stock. We do not propose to ease off the test. We have been, we are, and we always shall be, willing to consider any question which seems to give rise to doubt whether a particular test, owing to test paper or something else, was a fair test. It we are satisfied that the test was a fair sample test, then we are bound to maintain the standard which has been recently set up. I think I have answered all the questions put by the Noble Lord. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford put one point to me, and that was with regard to our dealings with the contractors. I have already explained that we do in fact pay the contractors a higher price for the cordite which they supply us than that at which we could buy it from the Government factory. I justified our action in paying that higher price because we reject the manufacturers' cordite which fails to pass the test, whereas we do not reject the Government cordite. When the hon. and gallant Member asks me to abandon the practice of competition in dealing with the contractors, I regret I cannot go with him. If he had listened, as I have no doubt he did, to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for North Kensington, who gave us a very fair history of the growth of this trade, he cannot fail to have observed how the trade in cordite, which originally was in the hands of three firms, was gradually absorbed by new firms, until at the present time eight firms are engaged in it, and so late as 1904 Messrs. Curtis and Harvey joined in the
  1116
  competition. When three firms are conducting a trade and when a fourth comes in, and a fifth, and a sixth, and even up to an eighth, I think that the House may rest assured that the profits of that trade were sufficient to justify the introduction of new capital, and therefore down to the year 1904, when Messrs. Curtis and Harvey were the last to join in the competition, I do not think it can be suggested that the cordite manufacturers were doing bad business.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: The point I made was that the stringency on the manufacturers did not come until 1908.
  Mr. McKENNA: It will be observed in any growing trade of this kind that where capital for a period of years is coming into the trade it is a notorious fact that the profits in that trade, until the whole of the capital at present engaged in it has been absorbed, are above the average, and the cordite manufacturers for a period of years had not done badly out of the nation. At the present time their raw materials have risen in price, and consequently the times are not as good or as profitable for them as they were in the past.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I was not speaking from the manufacturers' point of view; I am not interested in that. I was speaking from the point of view of getting the best article at the cheapest price. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is no competion in price now, but that there is a uniform price amongst all the firms.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, I do not quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think his case was that we ought to deal with them as with the manufacturers of gun mountings, for which in his time there was no competition, although there is now. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the conditions of the manufacture of cordite are very different from those of gun mountings. We know what the price of the manufacture of cordite ought to be from the Government factory, and we are perfectly satisfied that whereas the price we pay is sufficient to remunerate a well-conducted business that it is not an extravagant price. We can judge whether the cordite manufacturers are attempting to extort an unfair price for themselves by the competition of Waltham Abbey. That is what we are doing at the present time, and that is our present system. If you dealt with the

  1117
  manufacturers of cordite upon any other principle than the principle of ordinary business you would, I am afraid, take away from those manufacturers the incentive amongst themselves to produce cheaply. It is in their competition with the Government factory that we can guarantee that we shall get the best article at a reasonably cheap rate. I do not think under those circumstances we are dealing unfairly with the contractors at the present moment. The hon. Member for North Kensington says that the profits of the contractors are not what they were eighteen years ago. I do not think, despite that fact, that the contractors have any reasonable ground for complaint. I think I have now answered all the questions put to me.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: As representing the part, of the United Kingdom which is more heavily fortified than any other part, I wish to refer to a question of cordite supplied to the fort in the Isle of Wight and the forts which defend it. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that lots of cordite are standardised in the Navy for a given amount of velocity for a particular gun. In the land defences that is not done, and the consequence is that they do not know what muzzle velocity cordite would give, and consequently they have to make careful experiments with very exact instruments to see what the muzzle velocity is. That is a very expensive way of doing it, and causes endless trouble and waste of time. I would suggest that if it is good for the Navy to standardise their lots of cordite, so that a given lot of cordite gives a given amount of velocity per gun, that they should do the same for the land defences. There was another point in regard to the quantity of the ammunition. Ammunition is no good without guns, and you must have guns to fit the ammunition and ammunition to fit the guns. In consequence of having reduced an enormous amount of guns from the forts and batteries of the port defences, the reserve of ammunition is necessarily very much less than it was before. This has gone on to such an alarming extent that I think I should draw the attention of the Committee to it. I could give instances of different forts and batteries on the island which had had their armament reduced, and consequently the stock of cordite necessarily reduced too.
  6.0 P.M.
  A great many guns are no longer in armament, but are placed in the mounted
  1118
  reserve, which, as the Committee knows, means that there is no personnel provided for manning those guns, and that the stock of ammunition is very much less. Consequently in the Government statistics, although they say that the rounds per gun are the same, yet they calculate that almost entirely on the guns in armament, and not on the guns in the mounted reserve. The consequence is, as a matter of fact, the guns in a great many of the forts and land defences throughout the Kingdom in time of war would not have a sufficient amount of ammunition to properly fight with. Whether a gun is in armament or whether it is in the mounted reserve, at the time of war those guns would have to be properly fought. As regards that, if we take the western defences of the Isle of Wight, and without mentioning the names of the forts, but calling the first fort A, that was reconstructed and rearmed just previous to 1906, when the right hon. Gentleman took over the duties of Secretary for War. Since that three 6-inch guns have been removed, and one of the 9.2 guns placed in the mounted reserve, which means that there is no personnel provided for it, and that there is no reserve in ammunition for it, as in the case of guns in armament. I understand that another 9.2 gun is now under orders to be removed. In the case of another battery two 6-inch guns have been removed and not replaced. Consequently if we do not have guns, necessarily we do not require cordite, and although the Government say they have the necessary quantity of cordite per gun it is not so because so many of the guns in fortresses and fortifications have been put in the Mounted Reserve. In the case of a large battery which was decided upon previous to 1906 there are only two 9.2 guns. The obvious origin of this work was to prevent battleships bombarding or taking up position for bombardment. Those battleships are armed with 12-inch guns which are capable of firing from 18,000 to 20,000 yards. What is the good of arming a fort like that with 9.2 guns which carry only about 14,500 yards? It is the same all over the Portsmouth defences. Guns have been reduced in all the batteries, and a great many batteries have been absolutely done away with. I might mention Southsea Castle; it was re-armed previous to 1906 with certain guns which have since been removed. The Lumsden port has been disarmed; Eastney East has been disarmed; Eastney West has been disarmed;

  1119
  Cumberland Fort has been disarmed; and at the sea fort of Spithead many of the guns have been removed and not replaced, and the hydraulic machinery for working the 12-inch guns is not now in working order. This is a very serious state of things, and I think, if the right hon. Gentleman says that he has the proper amount of cordite, he should also explain whether he has the same amount of guns. I have information, which may or may not be correct, regarding a great many of the forts throughout the Portsmouth defences, in nearly every case guns have been put into Mounted Reserve or have been removed; consequently the cordite for fighting the guns is very much reduced, and the reserve is not kept up.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: The First Lord of the Admiralty has just told us that our reserve of cordite is quite sufficient to wear out our guns, but that he does not know whether it would last six or twelve months—that is, he cannot tell us whether we should be able to continue a war after six or twelve months. The result seems to be that in six or twelve months we may have all our guns worn out and our cordite used up. When this happens, according to the First Lord, we shall have no ammunition left and only a certain number of reserve guns, and we do not know whether they also will not be worn out. I do not see how we are going to carry on a war under those conditions.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question of guns for the Navy will come on the next Vote. I allowed the question of cordite to be dealt with as regards both the Army and the Navy because it was obviously convenient that that course should be followed.
  Mr. HUNT: Then I will simply ask how we are going to carry on a war after six or twelve months, when all our cordite is used up and all our guns are worn out.
  Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: I wish to turn the attention of the Committee to the question of small arms ammunition. Some time ago the Secretary of State very courteously and fully answered some questions which I put to him with regard to the new experimental bullets, but he was unable to state what results had been achieved at Hythe, for the very good reason that the experiments were then only just commencing. They have now been going on for some time, and I hope before the De-
  1120
  bate closes the right hon. Gentleman will give the Committee some information about the actual trials of these experimental bullets, particularly at extreme ranges. I understand that there are two of the experimental bullets—one of 160 grains and the other of 175 grains. I gather also that the right hon. Gentleman and the Army Council have jumped to the conclusion that the 60-grain bullet is necessarily the better, because it more nearly approximates to the weight of the German Spitzer of 154 grains. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not reject the slightly heavier bullet simply on that ground. There is a great deal of difference in the conditions under which the German bullet and our bullet are fired. To begin with, the bore is different; secondly, owing to the up-to-date nature of the German rifle it is possible for their bullet to be fired with a muzzle velocity of 2,900 foot seconds and with a very great number of revolutions per second on leaving the muzzle. Consequently a very light bullet can be given great accuracy, even at extreme ranges. With our rifle it is different. The rifle is not at all up-to-date; it was designed for black powder; it has the smallest chamber capacity, I believe, of any service rifle in the world. Consequently it is possible, even with the new bullet, and with an increase of pressure from about seventeen tons to nineteen tons to the square inch, only to achieve a muzzle velocity of 2,480 foot seconds and about 3,200 revolutions at the muzzle. These figures suggest that they are insufficient to give accuracy at extreme ranges to so light a bullet as one of 160 grains. The results would probably be better with the slightly heavier bullet of 175 grains. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not rule out the heavier bullet, but will give it as fair a trial as he is giving the 160-grain bullet. and in the course of the Debate tell us the result of the trials of both.
  I wish to make one or two criticisms arising out of the same subject. I fully believe that these new bullets, whether 160 grains or 175 grains, are the best it is possible to turn out under the severe limitations imposed. Those concerned have to attempt to turn out an up-to-date service ammunition for an out-of-date rifle, and it is impossible to do it satisfactorily. I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman once more, as I have often appealed before, to give up this attempt at compromise, to give up tinkering with a great

  1121
  question upon which the fighting efficiency of our troops so largely depends, and to give us not only new ammunition, but up-to-date ammunition. That means a new rifle, because it is impossible to have up-to-date ammunition with our present rifle. I believe it would be far and away the cheaper course in the end. Take the cost of the new bullets. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that the new bullets are going to be very costly. They are not homogeneous, and under existing conditions they cannot be. If we could have a rifle with a slightly smaller bore and greater chamber capacity, so that the pressure was distributed over a greater area, there is little doubt that we could get most satisfactory results with a homogeneous bullet, and therefore a cheap bullet, as some other countries have done. That is only one of many reasons why I think that in the long run it would be more economical to embark at once on up-to-date arms and ammunition than to go on tinkering with an out-of-date weapon.
  I said just now that these bullets were the best that could be turned out under present conditions. But, after all, what are they? At 800 yards, the range usually taken for comparisons, you get with this 160 grain bullet, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, a trajectory vertex of about eight and a half feet. That is a great improvement on our present bullet I admit, but in the case of the German Spitzer, with a small breech pressure, it is only six feet. In other words, with firing going on at 800 yards, even with our new improved bullet, a whole army, horse, foot, and artillery, could cross, with perfect impunity, between the rifles and the object at which they were being fired, which is not the case with the German bullet. The German rifle, being an up-to-date weapon, has so much in reserve. It has a strong bolt action, and yet has these great results with ammunition which exerts only seventeen and a quarter tons pressure to the square inch; that is, only a quarter of a ton more than our present Mark VI. bullet, and one and three-quarter tons less than the 160-grain bullet. Surely these points are sufficient reason why we should have a new rifle and new ammunition at the same time. Would it be difficult to design a satisfactory new rifle? The right hon. Gentleman and his experts have so much material at hand that in the course of a few weeks they could design the most perfect rifle the world has seen.
  1122
  I am perfectly convinced of that. A rifle with breech action, powerful enough to take even more powerful ammunition than any foreign country uses, a chamber with a capacity large enough for the distribution of pressure, a bore which should be rather less than.303, but that is a matter of detail; I am not finding fault in this direction—last, but not least, it should have up-to-date sights. The right hon. Gentleman knows, and his advisers know perfectly well, that we must have an aperture sight close to the firer's eye, within three or four inches on a service rifle, if we are to bear comparison with foreign armies, and if our troops are to go into action properly armed. I know that only two or three years ago this question of aperture sights was laughed at. Everyone is convinced now that the aperture sight has come to stay, for it increases not only the accuracy of the shooting, but the rapidity of it. Other countries are adopting it, and it is a thing we must have. Great efforts have been made by associations, such as the National Rifle Asociation and others, to find out all that is best in these matters—where the sights should be, what size the aperture should be, and so on. All that information is at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers. I repeat that within a few weeks a rifle thoroughly up to date in all these details could be designed. Of course it will take time, I know, before it could be issued, because a change of arm also involves a change of ammunition, and cannot very well be done in driblets; it must be done in big lots. It will take time and costs money, but the cost will be spread over several years, and I do not believe that the total cost of rearming our land forces with a new rifle would exceed the cost of a single "Dreadnought." When once the plant had been laid down the manufacture of the rifle could certainly be cheaper than the manufacture of our present weapon. We could design a rifle that would cost materially less than the Lee-Enfield that is now being issued. Yet I believe it is only the question of cost that is delaying this matter. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can really conscientiously inform the Committee that it is owing to our anxiety to have an automatic rifle that we are doing nothing to improve our present arm. I do not think that that reason will hold water any longer. Can the right lion. Gentleman tell the Committee that his Expert Small-arms Committee

  1123
  advocates general adoption of an automatic weapon? Can he tell us Hythe recommends it? He cannot, I am sure, because they do not. I apologise for disturbing the right hon. Gentleman's conversation——
  Mr. HALDANE: I have been listening.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: If the right hon. Gentleman was listening, I gather that he did not deny the assertion that I made, and that he admits the accuracy of what I have said: that the excuse I have mentioned no longer exists—i.e., that we intend to adopt for general use an automatic rifle, and that we cannot do anything until that automatic rifle is issued. He knows quite well that there is no automatic rifle in existence suitable for military purposes, and there is no prospect of there being one in existence. I do not say that it may never happen. I do not say what invention may or may not do. My point is that we are no nearer a satisfactory automatic rifle to-day than we were twenty years ago. We have no metal that will make a barrel at present that would stand sixty or seventy rounds of rapid automatic firing without absolutely altering its accuracy for all time. The right hon. Gentleman knows that unless there is a water jacket sixty or eighty rounds of an automatic rifle will spoil any barrel so far as accuracy of shooting is concerned. Apart from all that, there is the question of military expediency. Is it really expedient from a military point of view that an attempt should be made to issue generally an automatic rifle to our troops? I am not going into detail in that. Personally, I think it is very doubtful. But those two facts, doubt as to the military expediency, and doubt as to when a satisfactory automatic rifle will be in existence for the purpose, are quite sufficient to justify me in saying that we are no nearer the issue of a satisfactory automatic rifle than we were years ago, and that, at all events, the hope, however strong it may be in the right hon. Gentleman's breast, to find a satisfactory automatic rifle is not a sufficient excuse for the delay in arming our troops with a weapon with which they can oppose on equal terms any rivals they may have to meet. They cannot do it at present. They will not be able to do it until we have designed and adopted an up-to-date, satisfactory magazine arm. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to hold out some
  1124
  hope that this will be done, instead of these tinkering experiments, which must be unsatisfactory, however ably and well they are carried out.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I hope when the right hon. Gentleman answers that he will really tell us when the new howitzers are going to be issued to the Army. The question is an old one, because, if my recollection is correct, these howitzers have been in process of manufacture for the last two years. Over two years ago I myself saw the first experimental battery being fired on Salisbury Plain. I was told at that time that the manufacture of these howitzers was going to be taken in hand at once. It does seem a very long time that the Army should have to wait for its new howitzers, because the old ones are notoriously not of equal standard to those of foreign armies. What is even as important is that the Territorial Forces are waiting to get the old howitzers before they can make themselves efficient. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us, at any rate, when the immediate issue of some of these howitzers is going to be made I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight did the Committee a great service in raising that very important question as to whether our land fortresses are properly gunned or not. Naturally, he mentioned the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth. He speaks from special knowledge, representing, as he does, that part of the world; but, Mr. Emmott, this question ought to be considered in this Committee not only in respect to the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth, but in respect of all our so-called fortresses all over the British Empire. It is notorious that during the last five or six years, year in and year out, guns have been and are being removed from land forts all over our Empire. We are not able in this House to ascertain whether efficient up-to-date guns are being put in their place. I fear, from all one hears, they are not. It is notorious that at Gibraltar, Malta, and many stations around the English coast, and I believe in coaling stations still further afield, in the China seas and other places, guns have been and are being removed. The military garrisons have been reduced. The man who is not expert in these matters asks himself on what principle this is being carried out. Do we expect now, as compared with ten years ago, that our coaling stations are less liable to attack? If we look at foreign Powers I do not think that

  1125
  is likely. Has the Government come to the conclusion that fewer guns are more efficient than the larger guns? It is true that a Commission was sent out to the Mediterranean two or three years ago. They visited various stations, and if rumour be true—of course I do not make it as an assertion—they went out with orders as to what they were to report. In Malta, Gibraltar, and on other important stations they found that the number of guns were being diminished and the number of men were being diminished. We have never been told from that day to this by the right hon. Gentleman why these reductions have taken place. Does any other Power except England consider that important dockyards, important strategical positions, can be properly defended with either no fortifications or with fortifications which carry hardly any guns? Go to any German or French dock or fortress. We see them every year more heavily armed. If we come to Portsmouth we will find that the defences of Portsmouth, if not non-existent, are at any rate very deficient in the number of guns that they ought to bear. I can speak from personal knowledge of these forts and of those in the Isle of Wight. I went over a great number of them last year. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman objects to that. At any rate, I did go. With every wish to think that what the right hon. Gentleman was doing was the right thing, it did seem to me, in talking with the officers in charge and everybody I came across, that the number of guns in those forts were absolutely inadequate. So far as I could make out the guns of the Isle of Wight, the only use they could possibly be put to would be by an invader to bombard Portsmouth with them when the Isle of Wight had been taken; for the only object on which these guns could be trained was Portsmouth Docks. Portsmouth is called a fortress. What is there of the fortress about it? Portsmouth should surely be defended by guns? There are no guns in Portsdown. There are a few old howitzers which the Territorials are supposed to put to use in case of invasion. But to defend that most important dockyard with a few old howitzers does not seem a satisfactory state of things. We may be right, and all foreign nations may be wrong, but in this Debate we are entitled to have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to why these reductions have taken place and why also when armament be-
  1126
  comes obsolete—as naturally it does—no steps should be taken to replace it.
  Take the case of the Tyne. I am credibly informed that there are two guns only to defend that very important industrial centre. Are those enough to place against a hostile cruiser? Take Barrow-in-Furness. There are some sort of defences there, but they are absolutely inadequate to defend that important position. Take the case of Belfast—is it fortified? I doubt it; at any rate, not satisfactorily. It cannot be denied that this reduction of guns has taken place all over the Empire in all the coaling stations, and that in England the so-called fortresses are open towns; nothing more, nothing less! If it is right that our important dockyards should be practically undefended except by the Fleet—they are, I know, well defended by the Fleet—and if they should not be defended on the land side at all, and that we should really have no guns in these forts, but depend entirely upon the mobile Territorial Forces—which, as we saw from the Debate yesterday in another place, do not exist—it is strange. We have thus nothing at all to defend our fortresses in England. I do hope when the right hon. Gentleman speaks that he will give us some information on these points.
  Mr. GUY WILSON: From my practical experience I thoroughly endorse every word that was spoken to-night about the absolute inefficiency of our small arms as compared with foreign countries. We have the old weapon with a poor bore and a small breach. Other countries have got weapons just as old, but with a very strong bore, which enables them to admit of a more or less high velocity. Five or six years ago, when the British Army was rearmed, instead of tackling the question then and providing an entirely new rifle with a proper bore, the matter was only tinkered with, and the only good part of the old rifle was interfered with—that is to say, the barrel was cut down. I think it is safe to say that the barrel of our old Army rifle was the best for such a weapon. That barrel was cut down and reduced by about three inches, with the result you had to make the rifling inside very much more rapid in order to get the necessary speed upon the bullet, and the result of that undoubtedly is that if you went into active service in a campaign your barrel, in a very short time, would be worn out. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether it is not a fact that many of the

  1127
  present short rifles get absolutely worn out after a limited range fire.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give up this will-o'-the-wisp of an automatic rifle. We are as far off from an automatic rifle as ever we have been. I know, of course, there is a Republic in South America which has adopted it. The automatic rifle has no water-jacket, and therefore its value for rapid fire would be absolutely useless. Again, these automatic rifles are very heavy. In all the automatic rifles brought before the National Rifle Association at Bisley every year, We never found one that was at all satisfactory, and this year no automatic rifle came before us for testing. With regard to the question of sights it is absolutely necessary we should have an entirely new form of sights, that is the aperture sight upon the rifles. It is absolutely essential that we should have a new rifle altogether, because you cannot put the aperture sight upon the present rifle. If you look at the shooting at Bisley in the last three weeks by men with aperture sights, it will be seen the enormous advantage this form of sight gives, not only at the despised bull's eye, but also at moving targets which we have been using at Bisley in the last few years. It was a most pitiable sight in the United Service competition to see the Regular Army at home compelled against their will to use these useless short weapons with the open sight. With all the improvements in ammunition and barrels, and arms generally, we have practically the same sights on our rifles that were used on rifles or muskets three hundred years ago. You see these men compelled to shoot with those open sights with no slings. I am told one of the reasons why slings were not allowed to be used is that the barrels are so bad and thin that if you used the sling over the barrel it would be bent and made quite useless for military purposes.
  The right hon. Gentleman ought to make some rearrangement in connection with the Small Arms Committee. At present it consists entirely of gunners, and I say these are not the men who have the expert knowledge necessary. The gunner looks upon the matter from an entirely different point of view from what we do. We demand a much lower trajectory. In field pieces you want a higher trajectory, so that gunners look at the position from an entirely different point of view from infantry and cavalry,
  1128
  and I hope these branches of the Service will have a better representation on that committee in the future.
  I think the Secretary of State should see that the long guardian bucket should be given to the yeomanry. At present the Yeomanry have but a short bucket in which to carry their rifle. And it is not at all satisfactory. People in authority are not always very common-sense in their new regulations. They order that, when the magazine is charged, and you have been in action, you must not uncharge it, but put on the safety catch. You give a, Yeoman a short bucket, you tell him to get on his horse with his magazine charged and with nothing but the small safety catch between him and certain death. That is one example of the modern way of doing things. We should have much better methods. I appeal to the Secretary of State to give up tinkering with ammunition and looking for an automatic rifle, and give us instead a really good weapon. There is no doubt it could be easily got, with proper sights upon it.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I rise for the purpose of supporting the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman from both sides of the House with regard to the rifle and the ammunition of the Army. In his heart I think probably the right hon. Gentleman sympathises with the appeals addressed to him. What he has to con sider mainly is the question of expense. The arguments laid before the Committee this afternoon are really unanswerable. They have been put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Rye and the hon. Member for Hull, both expert rifle shots, which I do not profess to be, and they have been testing their capacity, I understand, in the last few days in practice against the Members of another House—I do not say with any felonious intent. They are experts, who have been just using the Service rifle, and I am sure the arguments they have brought forward must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, there is the question of the new bullet. The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, cannot get money for a new rifle all at once, and therefore he goes on tinkering and trying to improve the ammunition. When he has got his new ammunition, his trajectory, which is so far inferior to the trajectory, for example, of the Germans, would neutralise at once the real advantage which I believe our Army possesses in the higher standard of

  1129
  marksmanship. It is possible, if the bullet has no higher point in its trajectory than the height of a man in 800 yards, the standard of marksmanship for infantry soldiers in decisive ranges is infinitely lower. We spend money in improving the marksmanship of our infantry, and we place upon them this mechanical handicap which really neutralises, to a large extent, the advantage which we ought to derive from our expert training.
  The Small Arms Committee has been referred to, and although I was a gunner, I think it would be absurd if this Committee was composed entirely of gunners. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will agree that the Small Arms Committee should consist, as far as soldiers are concerned, of officers of those branches of the Service that have to use small arms, and while a gunner may be able to offer very valuable advice, he should not be looked upon as the last authority in matters of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman might tell us what the Small Arms Committee are actually doing in regard to the new rifle. We may be told the matter is being most carefully considered. We all know the kind of official answer that may be given, but really it is time that the Small Arms Committee did produce some result. We have been asked to wait and see for a long time, but here now is an opportunity of which the right hon. Gentleman can avail himself to make some statement as to the actual position of affairs with regard to this question of the rifle.
  The problem of the new rifle cannot be insoluble. It has been solved in many foreign countries with very satisfactory results. We are not behind other countries, or, at all events, should not be, in regard to these matters. We have succeeded in producing what is, I believe, the best field artillery gun, and surely we can do the same with regard to the rifle. I am afraid that the whole trouble is that whatever the Small Arms Committee may evolve in the way of a new rifle, the real question is a question of money. And it is because the Government are not willing to face the expenditure that this delay has taken place. I do not share the views that it is a question that ought to wait until a satisfactory automatic rifle is evolved. Apart from mechanical difficulties there is the question of additional weight. No one wants to add to the weight of the rifle which is carried by the Infantry soldier, because the main object would be
  1130
  that he should be able to carry at the critical moment a large amount of ammunition. Some genius may arise who will be able to design a rifle which will be practically automatic, but I cannot believe that any genius will be forthcoming who will be able to devise a means by which a modern army will be able to largely increase the amount of ammunition it can carry, and until we can do that it is futile to bring into use an automatic rifle. I do not believe myself that development is likely to proceed along those lines at all. There is much more likelihood of development in the direction of small portable machine guns, of which a supply may be issued to units for use at decisive points. I do not believe the issue of a perfect automatic rifle to the ordinary Infantry of the Line would be an experiment beneficial to our Army or any other army.
  Then there is the question of the sight. This seems a very technical matter, but it must be obvious that the difficulty, more particularly in the case of men not very highly trained and having to get three objects in line in their eye at one time, is much greater than having to get two objects in line. With the aperture sight it is only necessary to get two objects in line, and consequently this brings rifle shooting more within the reach of the comparatively untrained troops. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be sympathetic with this point, in view of the fact that he is bringing in a larger body of untrained troops for the purposes of war than have ever existed in any other army. For this reason I think they ought to be provided with the most efficient weapon that can be devised. The old theory that you can give less efficient troops a less efficient rifle than you need for efficient troops is a great mistake, and if there is any difference the best weapon should be given to the worst troops, because they suffer so intensely from the point of view of morale, and, therefore, it is not fair to give them anything but the best weapon. Anything which simplifies accurate shooting is of the utmost importance when you are considering the utilisation in time of war of comparatively untrained troops. I believe the only solution of this difficulty is the new rifle, and it is the falsest of false economy to take two bites at a cherry. You may evolve ammunition which will produce better results, but you will have spent upon it a great amount of money, and

  1131
  after all your new ammunition may not be suitable to the new rifle. In this way you may waste an immense amount of money without really producing any practical results. This expenditure has got to be faced. I confess that I do not like the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Courthope), who suggested that to rearm the whole of the Infantry would only cost as much as one "Dreadnought." I do not wish to see even one "Dreadnought" sacrificed in order to help the Government out of this expenditure. No Government has a right to send British troops out to war armed with inferior weapons. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that the British rifle and British ammunition is inferior to the weapons and the ammunition in use in the armies of the greatest military Powers in Europe. Our Army is too small as it is, and its strength cannot be increased until we have for home defence a Territorial Army which is able to engage on fairly equal terms with any troops that can be brought against it. Until such a time arrives it is tempting Providence and doing an injustice which can scarcely be measured in words to arm our troops with weapons inferior to those possessed by their possible enemies. I hope the Secretary for War, when he replies, will not try to put us off with mere assurances that the matter is being very carefully considered. We think it is time some conclusions were arrived at on this question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what those conclusions are, and that he is doing all he can to persuade the Treasury to provide the necessary funds to rearm the British Infantry.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I have addressed certain questions recently to the Secretary of State for War in reference to the production of acetone as a branch of woodland industry. I think it is desirable to develop this production not merely for national reasons but also to develop a new industry which is likely to give employment to a large number of people. It has been some comfort to the Committee to learn that there are prospective supplies of acetone to be derived in the future from Canada. We have heard from an hon. Member opposite who represents the United Alkali Company that that company is manufacturing to some extent acetone at the present time. What I wish to ask is whether these two possible sources of supply will be available for the
  1132
  purposes of the War Office? Will this country be able to rely for a supply of acetone upon those who are manufacturing it in Canada and those who are manufacturing it in this country for certain economic purposes, both photographic and medicinal? What reason has the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that he can divert the supply of acetone from those purposes for which it is being manufactured at present to the purpose in which we are mainly interested in this discussion? Assuming that it is possible to divert the supply of acetone to national needs, is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he will be able to get this article at anything like a reasonable price? The effect of our own needs in this respect is likely to send up the price of acetone to an extent which may prove almost prohibitive. I would like to know whether in an emergency it would be possible to commandeer for the purposes of the manufacture of cordite the acetone which has been actually manufactured in this country? Bearing in mind that the strength of the chain is the strength of its weakest link, it seems to me that the weakest link in our national defence is this question of cordite. Surely the time has come when it is in the best interests of the Empire that we should have some reserve, not merely of acetone supply, but of acetone manufacture in this country. I live on the borders of the Forest of Dean, where up to twenty years ago there were a very large number of what used to be called chemical factories. producing various kinds of wood spirit such as naphtha and methylated spirit. This trade in the Forest of Dean has been almost killed by foreign competition from Germany and the United States of America. Here is a case for even a Free Trade Government to revive to some extent an important woodland industry which flourished in former days in one of the Royal forests, and which with a little encouragement from the Government of the day might be made a flourishing industry again. The Secretary for War has assured us that he has a larger supply of acetone at the present time than there has been for many years past, but I would like to ask him whether he is quite certain (bearing in mind how acetone depreciates, to the extent so far as the Government supply is concerned, of something like £10,000 a year) that in the event of war the acetone supply is going to be adequate for our needs, and is not such as may be cut off by the non-provision of this article on the

  1133
  part of those foreign Powers which are now supplying us with a large portion of our supply at the present time.
  I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the manufacture of cordite. Without in any way disagreeing either with the right hon. Gentleman or the Noble Lord who is sitting beside me that it is an absolute necessity to maintain the standard of cordite that we are now using in the interests of national safety. I would like to ask also whether the heat test is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for War, at the present time an adequate and fair test to impose upon the cordite submitted to the War Office. I am given to understand that so far from the heat test being an adequate one from the chemical standpoint, it depends very much upon the atmospheric conditions under which the test is carried out, the colour of the test tube in which the cordite is placed, and upon whether or not the substance of the tube itself is of such a character that it can be acted upon by the oxides of nitrogen to which it is subjected. I should like to know whether, in the opinion of the experts, a heat test can be relied upon at the present time, not merely so far as the constituents of the cordite are concerned, but as to the stability of the cordite and the value it has for resisting atmospheric conditions in every part of the world. To what extent has the cordite of private manufacturers been rejected on account of its containing not merely mercuric chloride but insoluble mercury? Since Mons. Dupré invented this delicate test to ascertain the presence of mercuric chloride a still more delicate test has been found by which the presence of a very small quantity of mercury can be discovered. I wish to know if this more delicate test is being applied to the cordite of private manufacturers, and is this test the cause of a large amount of private cordite having been rejected? Bearing in mind that there is scarcely a single article in this House, even including the clothes we are wearing, that does not contain an infinitesimal proportion of mercury, it certainly looks as if the private manufacturers are having a large amount of their products condemned without adequate justification. That is a question which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of private manufacturers. I have no interest whatever from a commercial standpoint in the prosperity of the private manufacturers of cordite, but I do feel very strongly that it is not safe for this country to depend almost
  1134
  entirely for the production of cordite apon the Government factory at Waltham Abbey.
  7.0 P.M.
  What would happen supposing an explosion took place at Waltham Abbey? Where is the right hon. Gentleman going to look for his supplies of cordite? Owing to the Government competition, the private manufacturers at the present prices find it almost impossible to produce cordite at a profit. Surely it is in the best interests of the Government itself and of the country that there should be something like a working partnership between the War Office and Admiralty, on the one hand, with their factory at Waltham Abbey, and the private manufacturers, on the other. In case of ultimate necessity the Government will undoubtedly have to fall back upon the private manufacturers for this most essential item in national defence. It would be only fair to the manufacturers, and it would be in the best interests of the country, that the estimated amount of cordite required for the year should be allocated at the beginning of the year, according to the equipment possessed, between the Waltham Abbey factory and the privately owned factories in the country, so as to ensure, if for any reason the supply from Waltham Abbey is cut off, there will always be a supply from private manufacturers upon which to fall back. I should like to make one last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this question of the production of acetone for the manufacture of cordite, to have regard to the woodland industry aspect of it, because by doing so he will not only provide for our national needs, but he will revive a national industry.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I represent that part of the country where the rifles are made, and I can assure the House that Enfield are only too anxious to supply a good and a better weapon than they have ever made before. We see the country with a weapon out of date, and we see Enfield with no work. Give Enfield the chance of getting full work, and let the country have a new rifle. My opponent at the last election suggested that the present Secretary of State for War had an automatic rifle in his pocket, and, if the Liberal Government were again returned to power, he would at once produce it and proceed with its manufacture, but if the present Government were not returned to office, and if we got into power, the right

  1135
  hon. Gentleman would not give it our Secretary of State for War, and the suggestion was, Vote against myself and put in my opponent. It was not done. I assured them that we understood all about the automatic rifle, and they believed me. May I join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to delay this matter, but to give us an effective rifle. Let us keep up to date and manufacture the best rifle we can, and let Enfield have the chance of making it.
  Mr. HALDANE: One thing that has struck me very much in this Debate is the extraordinary consensus of objectors to an automatic rifle. Up till lately I was told I was not thinking about it and was not bringing plans forward, but now the whole current seems to have changed. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Mr. Arthur Lee), the hon. and gallant Member for the Rye Division (Mr. Courthope), and all of them say, "An automatic rifle! What a retrograde thing!" This attitude is something quite new. I can only remind the Committee there is not a general staff in Europe or anywhere which has not set before it this problem of an automatic rifle and which it not working at it at the present time. As far as one can judge from the information, all the Powers seem to be on the verge of discovering an automatic rifle, and I do think it would be a very serious responsibility for any Minister to take, even on the request of this Committee, if he were to abandon the prospect of securing for the country an automatic rifle by turning his mind to something else, because abandonment it would be.
  Look at the situation. I am just finishing rearming the Army with a rifle which was very recently designed under the auspices of the Government of which the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Arthur Lee) was a Member—the new short rifle. The proposal is to throw that aside altogether and to start a new non-automatic rifle. It has taken years to rearm the troops with the short rifle, and, if we started the new rifle to-morrow, it would take us years before we could rearm the troops with it, and by the end of that time, or probably sooner, there is, at any rate, a very excellent chance we may be called upon to provide ourselves with an automatic rifle. If other Powers get an automatic rifle then we must have one. In these circumstances, I venture respectfully to say to those who think otherwise that
  1136
  it would be the height of folly if I were to take the advice given to me. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Mr. Courthope) spoke of two or three weeks in which we could design a new rifle if we would only give up the absurd notion of an automatic rifle. I am not sure of that. It took a very long time before the present rifle was designed, and apparently, according to the hon. Member, it was not long enough, because, he says, not without point, that the inventors of the Enfield did not consider enough the breech mechanism.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I said it was designed for black powder.
  Mr. HALDANE: When the short rifle was designed, and when an opportunity occurred for re-designing the breech mechanism cordite was the order of the day. It is only a few years since, in the time of the late Government, that consideration was given by the War Office to that breech mechanism, and the hon. Member asked me to produce in a few weeks another rifle for which, when it had been in existence about a year, I should be denounced if I were so unfortunate as to be responsible for it in this House. I altogether repudiate the notion of jumping at conclusions about the automatic rifle, or giving up the hopes of getting one, and proceeding with the summary manufacture of some new rifle, practically nobody knows what. There is another course, and it is the course which has been taken. It is to use the present rifle and to adapt it to the 160 grain bullet, and see what we can get with that. You can, with the 160 grain bullet and the present breech mechanism, get a cartridge which gives up to a certain range very good results indeed. Experiments on a large scale are going on at Hythe at the present time, and we shall know presently how far further we can go, and whether with certain improvements that are being made you can get at still longer range accurate shooting. That process is one which can only be brought to a satisfactory result if the ammunition is manufactured on a considerable scale, and that is now taking place. When we have got that knowledge we shall know better whether we have secured something—and I hope it will be the case—which makes our rifle a comparatively good rifle and certainly good enough to carry us to the period when we can undertake the manufacture of a new one with some certainty

  1137
  that we are producing something up to date and reliable. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the comparison between our rifle and the German rifle. I do not think the difference is as much as the difference of which he spoke. The difference between the danger space is not more than from 1 foot to 1½ feet.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: At 800 yards?
  Mr. HALDANE: I think at about 600 yards. I have not the particulars here, but I gave them to the House on a previous occasion, and my recollection is that at 500 or 600 yards the difference is only about 1 or 1½ feet. It was put to me 8½ to 6 but my recollection is that it is about 8½ to 7.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: The figures the right hon. Gentleman gave me for 800 yards were 8½ to 6.
  Mr. HALDANE: I think not, but at any rate I will not dogmatise. The difference is not so startling as to prevent us having this satisfactory result, that we are nearer the German danger space than every Continental rifle of first-rate Powers.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, as a matter of fact, what is being done in the matter of the automatic rifle? Is the Small Arms Committee engaged in trials, and, if so, when may we expect the results?
  Mr. HALDANE: Not the Small Arms Committee, but a special Committee. We are progressively getting nearer what is desired, but none of them fulfil the conditions laid down about a year ago, and published. The competition for designs has been thrown open without distinction, and rifles have been submitted of various patterns, but up to now none really fulfil the conditions so as to satisfy the Committee. With regard to the new howitzers, I am informed that delivery has been somewhat delayed owing to difficulties in the manufacture which are now surmounted, and the first instalment will be issued next month. A brigade will be armed next month, and it will go on steadily from that time.
  A question was also raised with regard to the Small Arms Committee. I may say that the Chairman of that Committee is the Commandant of the Hythe School of Musketry. There has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the reduction of the guns at various fortresses. That was raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of
  1138
  Wight who seems to have been making a kind of detective tour around the fortresses, and to have listened to a good deal of gossip, not confining his observations to one class or one sex.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I believe the information was obtained entirely from officials in charge of the forts.
  Mr. HALDANE: That is very interesting. I gather that the hon. Member found them all in a state of alarm. But the question how the armaments of these fortresses is to be dealt with is determined by a joint committee of the Army and Navy, which makes its adjudication according to certain scales laid down. It set up a standard of what the defence ought to be. I may say that these defences are constantly under the notice of a joint committee representing the Army and the Navy. The defences of Portsmouth and other forts are also constantly under the review of the Ordnance Committee, as well as the joint committee to which I have referred, and the conditions both of naval and of land attack are carefully considered in every detail.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: May I interrupt? That Committee came out to the Mediterranean when I was Commander-in-Chief. I saw several members of it, and pointed out that their recommendations were very bad from a naval point of view. They told me, in reply, that they were sent out in the interests of economy and not of efficiency.
  Mr. HALDANE: That Committee was sent out by the late administration, and I am not sure that at that time the Noble and Gallant Lord had not some controversy going on with the authorities. Apparently he met with some of his sympathisers on the Committee. However, although that Committee was started by the late Government I have always had the deepest respect for its recommendations, and the fact that as a result I have had to supply larger and more powerful armaments will go to show that they have not always been on the side of economy. All the schools of thought with regard to attack and defence have been considered by that Committee, and after very careful inquiry we have acted on the basis of their recommendations. The question was considered in this connection of the class of vessel likely to attack, and the most appropriate guns were chosen, together with the most appropriate places in which to establish them.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Did the Owen Committee make any recommendation with reference to the defences of the Portsmouth forts?
  Mr. HALDANE: The land defences all round the coast were dealt with. I think I have covered most of the points which have been referred to in this Debate. There are minor matters such as of the aperture sight. We have not given, so far, close attention to that, but it is one of those matters which it takes a good deal of time to work out. The Minister responsible for the Services, of course, listens to the blandishments and suggestions of his critics, but necessarily he must take time in order to give them mature and deliberate consideration.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? I am informed that the Small Arms Committee is not, as a matter of fact, the body which deals with small arms. That question was taken away from it and handed over to the Board of Ordnance. It may be quite true that the Small Arms Committee is not composed mainly or even partially of artillery officers. I think the right hon. Gentleman should clear up the doubt as to what is the duty of that Committee.
  Mr. HALDANE: The Small Arms Committee does deal with general questions relating to small arms.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Does not the manufacture of small arms take place under the direction of the Master General of the Ordnance? Is it not a fact that the Small Arms Committee is merely an advisory body, and that on many occasions during the last two years its advice has not been taken?
  Mr. HALDANE: There are a great many Committees whose advice is not taken, but I can assure the hon. Member that the recommendations of the Small Arms Committee are regarded with great respect.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: What is the percentage of loss in regard to the keeping of acetone?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not aware that acetone deteriorates. Our object is to keep a reserve of acetone in suitable condition.
  Mr. GUY WILSON: What is the use of having a Small Arms Committee when you prohibit it from taking any part in the experiments with new rifles.
  Mr. HALDANE: That is a highly technical subject, involving all sorts of abstruse considerations. Far be it from me to say that the Small Arms Committee Members are not versed in these matters of higher mathematics, but I may point out that a special Select Committee is dealing with the question of small arms, and after it has finished its deliberations its verdict will be submitted to the Master of Ordnance, who may wish to consult the Small Arms Committee.
  Mr. GUY WILSON: I venture to submit that the Small Arms Committee do understand the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,781,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I should like to ask if the sum of £400,000 increase is the proportion for armament of the £1,429,000 put down for building the thirty ships supposed to be in this year's programme, but which really will be in next year's? I would also like to ask if the gun-mounting manufacture is satisfactory? Are the Coventry works in full swing with Vickers and Armstrong? I believe that the Coventry Works were not allowed to tender for two years and six months, and I would like to know if they are now working, as well as the other great firms I have mentioned? I also want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether these new battleships—so-called "Dreadnoughts"—have an auxiliary armament, and if they have what is the character of it? Would he also tell the Committee how far the 13.5 gun has got through its experiments if it is satisfactory, and what proportion of rounds can it fire per minute? I should also like to know what is the reserve of heavy guns now for the main arm of the Fleet? Is it one in four, or has it been reduced? I should be glad also if he would tell us whether the Admiralty are making any reserve in regard to the 13.5 guns with the others they have got under construction.
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The hon. Gentleman will see the increases of the Vote under the different sub-heads, and be will be

  1141
  glad to know that under this particular Vote we are not using any stores without replacement, as we have done up to last year. The cash Vote will not be augmented at all by this means.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: My point was not quite clear evidently. The total increase of this Vote for the first item is £400,000; in another item for guns it is £292,300. What I wanted to know is if those sums of money represent the proportion of the £1,400,000 for new ships, and if that is all that is voted for armaments?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Of course, that depends upon the instalments which are payable. I will tell the Noble Lord that under the item F for guns he will see a provision of £1,003,300, which is very considerably above the figure for 1909–10, which was approximately £819,000, while in 1908–9 it was £554,211, and in 1907–8 it was £690,972, so that we have a very considerable increase in the provision made over previous years, and, although I cannot answer his question, because I do not know the extent of the instalments which will be paid, obviously we have made a very much larger provision for guns than has been made in any Estimate for the last six or seven years. I am just informed that there are no instalments becoming payable within this year for guns for the ships in the new programme. The Coventry Company is tendering. With respect to 13.5 guns, about which the Noble Lord enquires, perhaps, as the First Lord of the Admiralty is here, he will reply.
  Mr. LEE: The hon. Gentleman has not given us as full information as we desire. I think that the main point of the question which my hon. Friend wished to put is whether the Coventry Ordnance Company is now being admitted to full competition with other ordnance-producing firms in the way in which it has not been admitted for many years past, and whether they are permitted to tender on precisely the same terms as Vickers, Maxim and Company and Armstrong, Whitworth and Company. That is the question which the Noble Lord wished to put, because an uneasy feeling has been growing up that there has been no real competition in this matter, as the two other firms were in combination. Therefore it was thought there was no real competition, and the country was not getting the benefit it should get.
  Mr. McKENNA: I wish to assure the hon. Member that the Coventry Ordnance Works are competing with the two other great gun manufacturers for gun-mountings of all kinds.
  Mr. LEE: Only for gun-mountings, and not for guns?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly not. They have competed for guns for a long time past.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us, because it is of some interest, is this an absolutely separate firm, or is the combination being extended so as to include the three firms?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. We have made arrangements with the Coventry Ordnance Company that they will not make any arrangements with the other two firms, and therefore they are a competing firm, an independent body who will not join the others.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I should like to ask one question with reference to the submarines and torpedoes. Of course one knows that the submarine goes through its ordinary course of firing torpedoes every year, but it has occurred to me to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the submarine does fire a live torpedo; that is to say, the kind of torpedo fired in time of war, or whether their only practice is aiming at a target in time of peace. I understand it is not like a destroyer, inasmuch as the submarine must fire its torpedoes from the bow or stern. Therefore it is obvious when it is going to attack a ship which it wishes to hurt it must either fire the torpedo when brought to a standstill or when it is going forward or backward. If it is going forward it obviously must have some time before the torpedo is fired to get out of harm's way. I do not pretend to be an expert in naval warfare, but I have inquired from many naval officers, and they tell me that they have never known torpedoes fully charged to be fired from submarines, and therefore I put the question because it appears to me that submarines may, in time of war, suffer considerable danger from their own torpedoes.
  Mr. HUNT: Would the First Lord of the Admiralty tell us how long the guns would last? He said he did not know whether they would last six months or twelve.
  Mr. McKENNA: The life of a gun is determined not by the number of years, but by the number of rounds that are fired
  Mr. HUNT: I am perfectly aware of that. It does not take much to know that, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman can he give us any idea how many rounds one of these big 12-inch guns will fire, and from that can he tell us when these 12-inch guns can fire no more rounds has he got any guns to replace them, or are we going to be in the case I understood him to be in on the question of cordite—that in six months' time all those guns may be worn out, and we have no more guns to fire. If the reports are true, the German guns will shoot a great many more shots accurately than ours will, and can he give us some idea of how many rounds these 12-inch guns will shoot, and continue to be moderately accurate, because if they will only shoot from eighty to 100 rounds, or whatever it may be, after some time unless we have got a good reserve, which I understand not to be the case, we shall be in difficulties? Do I understand that the reserve is one in four?
  Mr. McKENNA: I never said that.
  Mr. HUNT: Perhaps he will tell us how many guns we have.
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not say so.
  Mr. HUNT: Will he tell us what the guns are, and will he tell us what the reserve is, because if all these guns are put to shooting fast it does not seem to me that they will last six months? It is not a laughing subject, and the right hon. Gentleman will laugh the other side of his mouth if we are not prepared.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps excuse me saying I was not laughing at it.
  Mr. HUNT: I did not understand his answer as to how we shall be off for guns if the first lot of guns on the ship now have fired off so many rounds that they no longer shoot accurately. That is what I should like to know.
  Mr. McKENNA: I can only make the same reply as I made with regard to cordite. We had the same reserve of guns that existed in the time of the late Government. There has been no change of policy in that respect. Those who were responsible for the Admiralty of that day were quite satisfied, and the Admiralty of this day are also quite satisfied. It is not in the interests of the public service to publish our reserves. We never do publish them, and I can see no possible reason why we should give information to foreign
  1144
  nations which no foreign nation would dream of giving to us, and which cannot serve any public purpose. The maintenance of reserves of guns and cordite has had the support of both parties continuously, and I cannot see why any suspicion should be thrown upon the policy of the Government at the present time which was not thrown upon the policy of the late Government.
  Mr. HUNT: The point I put to the right hon. Gentleman was that the right hon. Gentleman himself said he did not know how long the guns might last. It might be six months or a year. What we want to know is whether we shall have enough to go on with when the guns and ammunition have been used for six months or a year.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman the state of things, and it does not require very much intelligence to understand what I said. It is impossible to say whether the guns will last six months or a year, because it depends upon the number of rounds fired. But, whatever the number of rounds fired is, we have got the requisite number in reserve, whether you fire those rounds in six months or five months or a year. That period it is impossible to say, but, at any rate, we believe that we have enough guns and cordite to last us longer, and more than longer, for us to be able to supply ourselves with new guns and new cordite when required.
  Mr. STANIER: In order to clear this matter up, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the reserve of guns is now in the same proportion or if it is not better than it was in 1905 or 1906?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is the same.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the submarines and torpedoes?
  Mr. MACNAMARA: I understand the point is this, that a submarine following in the trail of her own torpedo might ultimately get so close to the objective of the torpedo as to be the victim of the explosion caused by the torpedo. I cannot answer that question. But, at any rate, submarines, although they fire forward, and not on the beam, go through the same practice as destroyers. Whether the point the hon. Member has raised has been considered by those who go into these high technical matters, I cannot say, but I will make inquiry.
  Mr. McKENNA: I ought to correct one statement I made. Our reserve of guns, I said, was the same as in 1905, but it is better. The proportion is higher.
  [VOTE 10.]

  WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,995,300, 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 Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): Usually this Vote is taken a great deal earlier, and I hope that the fact that it has not been desired to discuss it shows that there is not the same anxiety about docks that there was three years ago. I shall console myself with the fact that from the Parliamentary point of view, "blessed is the Department which does not invite Parliamentary criticism." When we have not Parliamentary criticism we think we are conducting our work with a good deal of efficiency. The total of this Vote shows an increase of £79,000 over last year. The total includes annuities, for works in the past, of £1,330,000. It has been stated that the Admiralty have by some false economy starved the Works Department, and that certain works were delayed for want of money. I desire to repudiate that in the strongest possible way. As a matter of fact, we did not spend all the money which was voted last year. We returned something like £200,000 for other services. The policy of the Works Department is to conduct and expedite the works in every possible way, believing that it is the best economy to finish any particular work at the earliest moment. We have very considerable difficulty in estimating what may be spent, for the money to be spent in March, 1911, has to be estimated for in December, 1909. We, therefore, have to provide a margin, which is some palliative for the somewhat large Estimate that we made last year. In regard to Rosyth we took, and we expected to spend, £120,000, but the contractor only earned £75,000, and naturally he was only paid what he earned.
  1146
  But the question of docks really has given the Admiralty a very great deal of anxiety. You may vote money for building "Dreadnoughts," but there is the collateral expenditure of providing docks for their repair and their upkeep. At Portsmouth, even after the Naval Works Loan Acts, when the "Dreadnought" was commenced, there was only one dock capable of taking her, and now that dock will be superseded owing to the size of the later "Dreadnoughts" and "Invincibles." Of course, this gave the Admiralty cause for anxiety as Portsmouth is our chief naval base. We have only one dock there capable of taking the largest type of ship, and that is not at all satisfactory. But there are very many difficulties in adapting old docks or putting new docks into an old dockyard. In the first place, the work of the dockyard has to go on, and even now there is very considerable inconvenience experienced at Portsmouth through the contractor utilising space which is wanted for dockyard work. The new proposals which we now put forward provide for a lock, and we hope to place side by side with it a new dock, which later can be converted into a lock as well. At present the only method by which a "Dreadnought" can get into the only dock at Portsmouth is through an emergency entrance, and then only at certain states of the tide. Our predecessors provided two locks, so that if one were blocked the other could be used, and we hope that within a measurable distance of time we may have two lock docks, which will enable one of these big ships to get in at any state of the tide.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: How long are they?
  Mr. LAMBERT: Nearly eight hundred and fifty feet.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: How many years will they take to build?
  Mr. LAMBERT: We hope the first dock will be finished in the early part of 1913 and the second in the early part of 1914. That is the contract date. To show that there is no reason at all for supposing that the Admiralty wish to curtail expenditure in this work, we have offered to the contractor a bonus for the first lock of £400 a week for rapid completion, and that has been increased to £250 extra per week for the rapid completion of the second dock, which will mean that the contractor can, if he expedites matters, earn a bonus of

  1147
  £650 a week by completing before the contract time. I hope this will show that at any rate, the Admiralty are pressing on this matter with the utmost possible speed. At Rosyth, again, the increasing size of ships necessitated reconsideration of the size of the dock. The new dock there will be increased by 100 feet in length, ten feet in width, and three feet in depth, even over the proposals of two or three years ago. When finished it will be 110 feet wide, 850 feet long, and 38 feet deep. We propose to order another new dock at Rosyth, which will cost an additional £280,000. I think the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) has fallen into some confusion, because he has taken the total estimate of the work and compared it with the amount of the present contract, but the present contract will only complete a certain portion of the work, and the total estimate of £3,055,000 includes an enormous amount of other things, such as shops, machinery, and all the various paraphernalia which go to make up a dockyard.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: It is no use without them.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I quite agree, and that is the reason why we have to explain the apparent confusion. The Noble Lord has taken the amount which the contractor will earn, whereas we have to take the total estimate for the whole of the work, and that is not included in the present contract. Demands have been made from all parts of the coast for docks, and consequently for Admiralty establishments. We have listened to every one of these proposals with the greatest possible respect. Some have been very carefully considered, and we have found that it is expensive to subsidise any private dock. We went into one case on the East Coast, near Hull, and we found it would cost something like £730,000 to get a dock there, and, in addition to that, another £100,000 for shops. We are going to build a new dock at Rosyth for £280,000, and, therefore, it is much wiser economy to build more docks at Rosyth than to scatter them up and down the coast. It is a very attractive idea for any port to get an Admiralty dock. They like to have Government wages paid, and they think it is a very excellent thing; but I know from my own experience at Plymouth that it is a very doubtful advantage indeed to have an Admiralty dockyard in a commercial port, because the Admiralty will exercise
  1148
  restriction upon the free flow of commerce. At Devonport commercial interests are sacrificed for the sake of naval exercises. I would respectfully commend that to the Gentlemen from the Tyne who waited on the First Lord the other day. It may appear very attractive at first sight, but may be more than counterbalanced by proving a restriction to their commerce. From the point of view of the Government there is not the smallest doubt. The establishment charges go up and the cost of police goes up with every establishment that you create, and, therefore, from the point of view of economy, we wish to concentrate these dockyards in the fewest places
  8.0 P.M.
  In addition to "Dreadnought" docks we have had to look forward as regards torpedo-boat destroyers. There has been a large number of torpedo-boat destroyers ordered, old ones are constantly in need of repair, and further accommodation was urgently needed. We obtained Treasury sanction last year for a new graving dock at Devonport which will take two destroyers. The cost of this will be £45,000. We propose to alter a dock at Pembroke which will enable two building slips to be utilised also for repairing destroyers. As to the dock at Haulbowline, I am sorry to inform the House that the contractor failed in his contract, but the Admiralty is completing the work with Departmental labour. Another question which the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) was good enough to give notice of has reference to the fairway at Portsmouth. He says there is only twenty-five feet of water there at low tide.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The fairway was dredged up to thirty feet, and it is now silted to twenty-six or twenty-seven feet. There is a patch in the fairway between the Spit Buoy and the Bell Buoy of twenty-five feet.
  Mr. LAMBERT: The Noble Lord has great experience which is of great value to us in all technical matters, but I went into this question this morning, and I find there is a very small patch of twenty-five feet. There are two patches of twenty-six feet, but the rest of it is from twenty-seven to thirty-three feet. I may inform the Noble Lord that we are spending in dredging £41,000. This is a matter under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, and if he wishes the dredger to be used in dredging the patch referred to, he has the right to say so.

  1149
  But if the Commander-in-Chief does not think it necessary to utilise the dredger in that particular patch, that shows, at any rate, that in his opinion safety is observed at the present moment. We have a large and complete dredging plant at Portsmouth, and the Commander-in-Chief can utilise it where he pleases. There is an item of £70,000 for a suction dredger. We can only dredge now to a depth of fifty feet, but the new suction dredger will dredge to sixty-five feet. That dredger will first be used for the new floating dock berth and will afterwards be useful for dredging wherever wanted, in other ports as well.
  The removal of the torpedo factory from Woolwich to Greenock is a matter in regard to which we have had a considerable amount of trouble. The torpedo factory itself is progressing very rapidly. It is a somewhat difficult matter to transfer 500 or 600 workmen from Woolwich to Greenock and to find proper housing accommodation for them. Naturally every Government Department would like its men to be well housed. To send men to Greenock without assisting to find proper accommodation for them would be contrary to Admiralty policy, and we have taken the rather unusual course of guaranteeing a portion of the rent of 100 houses which are to be provided by a private company for the habitation of these men. I think we have done everything in our power to make it easy for the men to be removed from Woolwich and placed down comfortably at Greenock. We have taken a lot of trouble and I hope we may succeed in moving them with the least possible inconvenience to themselves. I have briefly adumbrated the chief points, and I shall be very glad to answer any question that may be asked on this Vote.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I described the management of our Naval Service by this Government the other day as the most incompetent and the most extravagant we have ever had in this country, and I tried to give proofs of that, but of all their management the worst has been that with reference to docks. The hon. Member (Mr. Lambert) tried to make a great point about the Admiralty giving a bonus to its contractors to hurry up with the contracts both at Portsmouth and Rosyth. Why was that necessary? Because they deliberately delayed carrying out or finishing Rosyth Dock—or beginning it. These docks have always been necessary since you began to have
  1150
  "Dreadnoughts." They are now giving a bonus to the contractors to try to hurry up these docks which they deliberately delayed. They cannot get out of that. It was bad business, very extravagant for the country, and to a certain extent dangerous if we went to war. I have already said that we have got to have docks before war so that the bottoms of the ships can be cleaned, and that you will not have one ship going four knots less than another. Last year the Admiralty only spent £88,000 on Rosyth out of £160,000 voted. How much of the £263,000 voted this year is the Admiralty going to spend?
  Mr. LAMBERT: We spend as much as the contractor earns. We cannot spend more. All that we can do is to take a sufficient sum, and if the contractor does not earn up to that amount we do not pay out of this sum more than he earns.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: That is a most important point. The Admiralty have no right to say that they will finish the dock in a certain time. The Admiralty have laid it down that this dock will be finished at a certain time. I make out that you have £2,862,000 left to spend on Rosyth. The First Lord of the Admiralty assured the House that the Dock will he finished in five years. Therefore, he has to spend £600,000 a year for the next five years. I say he cannot do it, and he has no right to encourage this House and the people of the country to believe that that dock, which is most important for us in the North Sea, for we have no dock there at all at the present, can be finished in the time he states. The right hon. Gentleman says it rests with the contractor. Last year the Admiralty were in the amount spent a long way short of the money voted, and this year they will be in the same position, so that the dock, according to the present rate of progress, will not be finished for eight years.
  Mr. LAMBERT Mr. LAMBERT indicated dissent.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: You have to spend £600,000 a year in order to finish it in five years. The Admiralty deliberately stopped the building of the dock, and now they take the taxpayers' money and give the contractors a bonus for hurrying up work which was delayed through their own fault in years gone by. The case with respect to Portsmouth Dock is just the same. The Admiralty spent last year £200,000 out of £245,000. I suppose the hon. Member will say the

  1151
  same thing in regard to that. He is justified in saying it, but that is not my point. I say that you have no right to tell the public that you will finish these docks in a certain time when you cannot do it. It is all through the fault of the Admiralty that these delays have occurred. I make out that at Portsmouth Dock there will be still £915,000 to spend by 1913. The Admiralty will have to spend, besides the £600,000 a year at Rosyth, the further sum of £450,000 a year on Portsmouth Dock. No wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer is crying when he sees what his estimates will be next year. These Estimates have arrived at their present enormous amount by the carelessness of the Admiralty, because they did not undertake their work properly. If they had looked ahead with ordinary common sense we would not have been in this state now. I believe that to make Portsmouth a proper naval base the basin will have to be increased enormously. Portsmouth will cost alone £6,000,000 to £8,000,000 before the port is made efficient for modern ships of the enormous size and draught that are being built now. With regard to the fairway, it is not a very clever thing to build these big ships without having the fairway open. It is easy to say that the Commander-in-Chief reported that the fairway was silting up, and that the dredgers were employed at something else in the northern part of the harbour. The fairway some years ago was dredged to 30 feet on an average. Now it is 26 to 27 feet, and there is a patch 25 feet between the Spit Buoy and the Bell Buoy. The hon. Member wants to make out that that is safe. It is safe in ordinary weather, but it is not safe at other times, because if a ship is damaged in any way, and is down at the bow or the stern, and cannot steer in the fairway, it might go on that patch. My point is that the patch ought never to have been there. The fairway ought not to have been silted up, and it would not have been if ordinary forethought had been exercised, and if the Admiralty had seen to its being dredged directly it began to silt up. This all means the expenditure of extra public money on account of their want of foresight. The harbour is to be about 34 feet deep. What is the use of having a harbour of that depth if the fairway is at the depth I have described owing to silting up? At spring tides in Portsmouth Harbour you cannot get vessels of the "Dreadnought" class into dock more than three days a
  1152
  fortnight. The hon. Member tried to make out that it was a great deal more. There is only in Portsmouth Harbour 40 feet, and that is subject to the wind twice a year. If the wind is north-east it cuts the tide afoot, and if it is south-west it only adds 6 inches. This is for ships under normal conditions.
  I say that is disgraceful, it is scandalous, that we should have Portsmouth Harbour, the nearest port on the east coast, in a condition in which we have only got one dock for all our "Dreadnoughts." We have got ten at this minute and ten more are building, and they could only get in three days in the fortnight. And it is very much worse than that, because none of these ships can get into the harbour unless they get out their ammunition and coal and oil. Any seaman knows what it is to clear the coal out of the ship. I wish the First Lord of the Admiralty were here, because I want to call him to account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite me will write down all I say. The right hon. Gentleman said, in answer to me a little time ago when I was speaking about this question of the docking of "Dreadnoughts" and how devoid of common-sense and dangerous the existing system might be:—
  "When docking is in contemplation arrangements are made to obtain the necessary draft by not completing with fuel and stores."
  Nothing that has ever been put into "Punch" is so humorous as that. What are we going to do when arrangements are made for a ship to go into dock? We are to take out all our oil, our coal, and stores. The thing is absurd. It ought never to have happened. It shows at once what I complain of, that there is no forethought and no scheme, and this was because there was no war staff to carry these things out and get ready in time of peace the fighting machines we should require in time of war. It is a most disgraceful thing that you have got in time of peace to clear these ships out of their coal, oil, and ammunition before you can get them into the biggest harbour of the greatest naval base in the whole Empire. That is the position at the present moment. It is all very well to say that there is plenty of water when you have cleared them out, but these ships ought never to have less than three feet under them. The "Prince George" tried to get out of harbour with a foot under her. As she went out she filled up her condensers with sand, and she had to go back to the dockyard for

  1153
  a long time to get her condensers and bearings cleaned of sand before she could get out again.
  Hon. Members will remember the case of the "Gladiator." She was only a 4,000-ton ship. She drew normally twenty-four feet. When she was damaged they could not get her to draw less than thirty-four feet. She was right down on the ground in the basin at thirty-four feet. These heavy ships draw thirty-one feet under their normal conditions, but the point is this, that the ship must draw a big extra draught of water owing to being damaged, and in the case of these heavy ships they might go down thirteen, fifteen, or seventeen feet extra. It is impossible to tell how far they might go down as the result of damage which they would sustain, and such a ship would have to remain at Spithead—I am talking of the next four years—in that damaged condition, and get out all her coals, oil, and ammunition before she could get into harbour at all. And then she would be subject to the wind. You cannot have tugs all around getting her into this big dock if there is any wind, and you have to wait. Can anything be in a more ludicrous position than that? When a ship is damaged you want to get her into dock as quickly as you can, because at a time like that something is always disloyal, either a valve, a bulkhead, or a ventilating shaft, and the ship might have to remain four or five days before you could get into the harbour at all owing to the silting-up of the harbour. There is only one dock which has to be used for these ships that are fitted out, and they have to come in and out very often. I think the "Neptune" has been in four or five times, and has had to be pulled in and pulled out. Look at the expense of that! Look at the extra work entailed on the yard! Look at the delay entailed on the ship that is being made! That is all because these ships were built without any thought at all as to what was necessary in order to make them effective. The "Orion" will not be launched until September, and it will be in and out of that dock until it is finished. There is only the one dock, and in the intervals ships will come from the Fleet. It shows the folly of building ships without having docks to put them into.
  Another point on which I desire information is why have we not got a floating crane? We should have a floating 100-ton crane. Suppose that something
  1154
  goes wrong with one of the 12-inch guns, something of a minor character, but which requires that the gun should be lifted. That ship has first to get out its oil, its coal, and its ammunition at Spithead, and then it has to go up the harbour. It goes in, and there are only two cranes, one of fifty and one of seventy tons, in order to lift this gun for some minor detail. All this has to be done because we have not got a floating crane. The expense is enormous, and the ship is out of action for several days simply because the gun has to be lifted for some minor defect. She is then docked to get the chance of catching the wind because, although the floating dock is promised in two years, this is the only dock we have at Portsmouth, and the ship that is being refitted or being built, or the ship that comes in from the Fleet, is entirely subject to the wind. But if there is a minor defect such as I have described to the Committee, the ship has to go in to get under the shears. All these different points that I have mentioned will have to be looked into. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us something about a floating crane, and that he will at once see that the fairway into the harbour is dredged properly, because it is not a question of safety, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Pilots there will take the ship in with a twenty-five-foot patch; but the twenty-five-foot patch ought not to be there, and when a ship is damaged, even a ship like the "Gladiator," it is perfectly liable to go on that twenty-foot patch, because if she draws more water, either forward or aft, than she ought to do or has a list, she cannot steer even if you put tugs around her. I want to call the attention of the Committee to what I can only describe as the disgraceful condition in regard to the docking of these heavy ships. The Government had no right to allow the great delay that has taken place in the building of these docks, and then go and give the contractor an enormous bonus to finish them within the time specified.
  Mr J. WARD: The speech of the Noble Lord was very interesting, especially when he referred to the want of foresight on the part of the Admiralty in reference to the construction of these works The Civil Lord referred to the difficulties which naturally arise from attempting to build a new dock on an old one. I have no doubt there is considerable difficulty, but anyone going to Portsmouth will see that there was no necessity whatever why the

  1155
  Admiralty should decide to build a new dock on an old one. There is plenty of space a little higher up, including a lake, and it is absolutely unoccupied save by gulls and other wild birds. The entrance of a dock constructed there no doubt could have been brought down to within fifty yards of the present entrance of the new dock and lock now being constructed. As has been pointed out by experts on both sides, accommodation for these big "Dreadnoughts" will yet be required, and this site will eventually have to be used. The earth which is taken out of the new deck and lock is now being dropped into the middle of the ocean—I suppose to assist the process of silting up to which the Noble Lord referred; I daresay a good deal of it comes back to the fairway again. It does seem strange, even if you did not require this splendid site for the next fifty or 100 years, why you should not use the earth that you are excavating in reclaiming it for increased accommodation. Of course, this is not done because you have not a scheme for further development, looking years ahead instead of living merely from hand to mouth. While it is admitted on both sides of the House that extra dock accommodation is required for this new style of battleship at Portsmouth, yet you are building the present new dock on the old one, largely because the Admiralty have no definite plan with reference to the future development of the great naval base at Portsmouth. I have risen to draw attention to another matter of very great importance from my point of view, namely, the conditions under which the workpeople engaged on these works at Portsmouth are employed. It is not a complaint with reference to the Dock so much as to the Lock—the old part of the contract. I am very pleased that the Civil Lord is in attendance, because I understand he is responsible for what I think I shall be able to prove is an evasion of the Fair Wages Clause passed by this House a year or two ago. The contract for the lock was let, I think, to Messrs. Morrison and Mason, for a sum of about £900,000. The wages paid were very low indeed. The contractor in the first instance paid, I daresay, the proper rate of the locality, as he would have to do, namely 6d. an hour, but after he obtained a certain type of men he paid a lower rate, as in the case of other works he had in different parts of the country. He began to pay in some cases as low as
  1156
  4½d. and 5d. an hour for work which in the district was paid for at the rate of 6d. per hour. That is admitted. I am very pleased to say that so far as the old contract is concerned it was admitted that it was not within the Fair Wages Clause recently passed by the House of Commons, but under the old terms which practically left the matter of wages to the contractor to decide what he would pay.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. The rate paid was according to the current wage of the district.
  Mr. J. WARD: That meant that if a sweater paid his men 3½d. an hour or nothing, the contractor would pay his men at the rate of 3½d. an hour or nothing. The word "current" was the whole point in dispute, and so long as anyone was paid a sweating wage that was the current rate.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no.
  Mr. J. WARD: It was accepted as such.
  Dr. J. MACNAMARA: No, no.
  Mr. J. WARD: I believe so far as the discussions of this House were concerned that was undoubtedly the interpretation which was placed on the Fair Wages Clause at that time, among others, by such Members as Mr. Richards and the late Member for Wolverhampton. At any rate this much is clear, that we have signed a contract with the local contractor that 6d. an hour should be the minimum wage to all navvies and labourers employed.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The current rate was taken, and my hon. Friend knows that I was at great pains to ascertain what the current rate was.
  Mr. J. WARD: All I can say is that, so far as our men who work in the locality are concerned, ever since 1896 they have always received 6d. per hour. In addition to that, there were communications from the Corporation stating that they also insisted on 6d. per hour being paid to them. That was the current rate for labourers in the locality. Yet on the interpretation of the Admiralty of the previous Fair Wages Clause in this House, it was not insisted that the contractor should pay it. I am pleased to say that eventually, after a great deal of discussion, a compromise was effected. The Financial Secretary went to Portsmouth, and it was decided that certain classes of

  1157
  men who could be called navvies should be paid 6d. an hour. Knowing that the old Fair Wages Clause of this House was so ill-conceived as not to fix any particular rate, as a compromise I accepted it, but only for the work which was let to the contractor previous to the passing of the last Fair Wages Clause in this House. My complaint is that we made the compromise on the definite understanding that any new contract which was let should be under the new Fair Wages Clause of this House, and that the local trade union rate of wages should be insisted upon as part of the new contract. The original contract was for £900,000 or thereabouts for a new lock. Since then we have passed in this House the new Fair Wages Clause, which binds the contractor to pay the rate of the locality which is generally adopted, and, therefore, it we can show that there is an agreed rate between the contractors of the locality and ourselves as to what wages should be paid, I take it that the new Fair Wages Clause, as passed by this House, should be accepted, and the labourers engaged on those works should be paid accordingly. If it had not been that the Admiralty had a contractor already there doing work to the extent of £900,000, and if a new contract had been made for this additional work, then it is a moral certainty that the new Clause passed by the House of Commons relating to fair wages in Government contracts would be in that new contract. What has happened is this: that the Government have proceeded to give this old contractor, who made these previous contracts under the old Fair Wages Clause, the new contract for another million of money.
  Mr. LAMBERT: No.
  Mr. J. WARD: It is getting on that way—£400,000, I believe. I beg the Civil Lord's pardon with reference to that. I meant to have said about half a million, and even that is a big job. That amount of work has been let since the new Fair Wages Clause was passed by this House. I am now given to understand by questions across the floor of this House that while that new contract has been given to the contractor since the last Fair Wages Resolution was passed, it is only the old Fair Wages Resolution that is to apply to the new contract. Therefore, as anyone can see, a large proportion of those who are called labourers will be excluded from the benefits of the Resolution of this House so far as fair wages are concerned.
  1158
  I confess it looks at first blush almost as if it were a deliberate attempt to evade the Resolution of this House as to fair wages. I wish the Civil Lord to understand that when I first heard that this contract was about to be signed, that is, the second contract or the additional contract, I put a question in this House on the subject. I asked if it was signed, and I was informed that it was not signed, and I also asked would care be taken that the new terms under the new Fair Wages Clause passed by the House of Commons should be included as part of this additional work. The reply was that at the time they did not wish to answer me on the subject so far as details were concerned. The reasons which were given seemed to me to be very good reasons at the time, but in view of the fact that the new Fair Wages Resolution, which gives great benefit to the men employed on works of this description, is not to apply to any of the additional work voted by the House since the Resolution was passed, that in itself does look like an evasion of the Fair Wages Clause.
  Supposing in all your building work you were merely to say that the old contract applied in the case of the old contractors, then the new contract would never come under the new Fair Wages Clause, and if you were do so with all the contractors, then the Fair Wages Clause would not apply all round. That is what you are going to say in this case, at all events, that is that the new work is under the old contract, and that therefore the old scale of wages applies even though the work has been sanctioned and passed by the Admiralty since the last Fair Wages Clause was passed. I am bound to say that that looks like an attempted evasion of the Resolution of the House upon this particular subject. I was in Portsmouth a fortnight ago, and I am informed that the conditions that the Parliamentary Secretary and myself agreed upon with reference to certain classes of workmen there are not being complied with, and that men whom he and I agreed were to receive a certain wage have been dismissed for asking for that very wage which we agreed upon. I am sure if I call the direct attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to the specific cases that he would investigate them, and I hope that they will be rectified. With reference to Rosyth, the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) has complained that it is not going on as fast as it ought to. The Civil Lord himself declared that they had some

  1159
  hundred and odd thousand pounds which had been set aside for work connected with the naval base there, and that about £75,000 was the only sum that had been expended. I understand that the grievance of the Noble Lord is that this money is not being spent, and he suggests that it is because the docks were not commenced soon enough. There is another and a better reason, as I think the Noble Lord will admit when I mention it. There is not the slightest doubt that so far as space and working conditions are concerned that the contractors could get at least three to four thousand men on those works if they wanted. I do not suppose that any engineering expert would pretend for one moment that the docks could not be completed even now well within the contract time.
  Mr. LAMBERT: They will be.
  Mr. J. WARD: I have not the slightest doubt of the fact that they could be, but I doubt whether they will be. I am exactly of the opinion of the Noble Lord opposite, but for an entirely different reason. I have put questions backward and forward in this House I suppose scores of them, until I am nearly tired of them, with reference to the housing accommodation of the men there. As a matter of fact, no man can get lodgings, that is if he is going to take his wife and family with him, within miles of the place. Although there is any amount of vacant land on which houses could be erected quite near and belonging to the Government, the Government excuse themselves by saying that they have set aside six acres of Government land on which the contractors can build accommodation for the men if they choose to do so. As these contracts only last four or five years naturally the contractors are not going to build houses on Government property unless they know whether the Government are going to take possession of them when the works are completed, and so they merely salve their consciences by offering those acres of land to the contractors, knowing very well that under the conditions they could not use them to build anything like decent housing accommodation for the men.
  I do not know whether either of the representatives of the Admiralty know that that is the case, but anyone connected with public works and buildings knows that contractors would not think of put-
  1160
  ting up anything like permanent decent buildings on Government property which they would be able to use for only four or five years, and then have to pull them down or give them to the Government. Therefore, the offer of Government land to the contractors for the housing of the men is an absolute farce. The offices of the Navvies' Union is inundated with letters from men in all parts of the country who have been to Rosyth and found it impossible to obtain accommodation for themselves and their families. They can get lodgings about twenty in a room at Inverkeithing, and also at Dunfermline, but otherwise there is no accommodation whatever. It is true that quite recently a huge barracks has been built accommodating 400 or 500 men; but is that the kind of accommodation that the Admiralty want? Do they want to destroy absolutely the domestic life of 4,000 of 5,000 men? When the Civil Lord goes to Rosyth, the contractors will be able to tell him that hundreds and possibly thousands of the best men have worked there for a week or a fortnight, but, finding it absolutely impossible to obtain accommodation for their families, they have been obliged to seek work elsewhere. That is the reason why as much work as ought to have been done has not been done on these works during the last year. There is ample space for the employment of thousands of men, and the works are in such a condition that they could be proceeded with at full speed and completed in an incredibly short time, if only proper accommodation was provided for the men in the locality.
  There is, however, an additional reason. We had a whole night's Debate with reference to the housing of workmen on public works, and we were given a promise. If promises would improve conditions, the navvy population would be living in an El Dorado or Arcadia; but we get nothing beyond promises. Here is a great work, with plenty of land at the disposal of the Government, but no effort whatever is made to provide housing accommodation for the people. When the docks are completed there must be an immense number of Government workmen transferred there permanently for whom housing accommodation will have to be provided. Are the Admiralty relying absolutely upon private enterprise? If so, they are making a great mistake, and a very irksome period is in store for the men employed on the work.

  1161
  Such a condition of affairs ought not to prevail. I have asked times without number what kind of conditions the Admiralty intended to impose in the contract with reference to fair wages, seeing that there are no wages paid within nine miles which could be pointed to as being fair. I thought that some rate ought to be fixed, such as 6d. an hour for navvies, as has been done in the case of Portsmouth, and I suggested that it should be decided before the contract was let. Some local men who have been there making roads have employed farm labourers from the locality, and paid them in some cases, I believe, as much as 3d. an hour, with the result that the present contractors declare that when they pay 5d., or 1d. under the proper rate, they are really doing better than anyone has done there before. This is not carrying out the decision of the House of Commons that fair wages should be paid, and there is considerable grievance on the part of the men. Some minimum ought to have been fixed for work of this description. All the Government contractors are not paying the same rate. One firm is paying its navvies 5d. an hour, another 5½d., and another 6d. But you may take it for granted that the fifteen or sixteen contractors who form the ring for these great Government works and largely share the work between them are not going to pay 6d an hour if they can get out of it. We rely upon the Department to see that these grievances are real. If some rectification of the wages and working conditions is not considered I should not be surprised if the work is considerably delayed by the possibility of trouble in the district. There is a bonus offered to the contractors to complete the work in less than the contract time. I think it is £650 a week in the case of Portsmouth and £400 in the case of Rosyth.
  Mr. LAMBERT: £900 at Rosyth.
  Mr. J. WARD: Just think of it: thousands of men with the most miserable housing accommodation, while a bonus of £900 a week is offered to the contractor, who could get the men there, carry on the work as fast as he pleased, and get it done quite easily within the next three years, and possibly in less time than that, if only decent housing accommodation were provided and proper wages paid! I make these observations because I think it is nearly time that these matters were considered. Not only is it the wages, not
  1162
  only is it the house accommodation, but I will ask the Financial Secretary whether he has any record, or whether he can get from any of the contractors who sit in this House a record, of work ever started before involving nearly £1,000,000, and possibly before it is finished £2,000,000 or £3,000,000—I refer to Rosyth—in which the contractor has ever, before starting, not prepared hospital accommodation for accidents? No, you go to a place like the Manchester Ship Canal; there the contractors proceeded at the beginning of affairs to do what I have indicated. I dare say the company who let the work insisted upon the contractors making proper provision to meet accidents. I dare say most companies do. It is only when it comes to a Government Department that no mortal provision is made by contractors for this purpose. These men have to be jolted four miles before they can get any accommodation. Men have been very seriously injured—very seriously interfered with. There is no doubt about it—not the slightest! I am going there myself next week to see. We have an agent there at the present time, and I do assure the hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fact, that there is no accommodation within anything like a reasonable distance, and accidents at works of this description are always occurring. It does not matter how carefully you conduct these works, you must have a largish number of accidents, serious and otherwise. I believe within your Portsmouth works at the present time serious accidents have already numbered some thirty or forty, with two or three fatal accidents. Well, then, I shall ask for the figures, seeing that the particulars have been sent to me to give to this House. There have been either two or three fatal accidents anyhow at the Portsmouth works. There have been accidents of a very serious character at Rosyth. But nothing whatever has been done by the Government to say anything to the contractor concerned. Evidently when contractors are working for the Government they do not think it necessary to make provision of this description. If they were working for a private company or a corporation, these would insist upon this accommodation being provided—probably in the contract. These are grievances which seriously affect the men, and which hampers the contractors in getting the best men there for the works. Therefore, from the point of view of the public interest, as well as

  1163
  that of the interests of these men I hope that the Admiralty will thoroughly investigate the statements which I have made.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Navvies' work is very hard, and very often performed under very hard conditions, and we all, therefore, I am certain, have listened sympathetically to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and to any plea put forward on the navvies' behalf, but I think the hon. Gentleman has spoken a little too heatedly.
  Mr. J. WARD: I feel strongly.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No doubt, but take the case under the old Fair Wages Clause at the early part of the Portsmouth work: as a matter of fact, the rate paid was that current for competent men in the district. I can say as Financial Secretary, and I am certain that the Civil Lord will agree, that under that old form of contract we endeavoured to ascertain the rate paid by taking a number of employers and so getting a conspectus of what was the current rate. My hon. Friend knows that that was done, and that considerable pains were taken to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of the old Fair Wages Clause. I say, after taking all the circumstances of my hon. Friend's complaint into account that there is no case. I went down personally, and was very glad to examine the work and, so far as I was able, see what the men did. On the occasion referred to I saw the contractor and made an appeal to him in a number of cases without reference to the contract to give 6d. an hour to the men. This could not probably have been enforced, but my suggestion was accepted by the contractor, and personally I am very much obliged to him for having accepted my view—which was unofficial.
  As to the question of extended contracts, the hon. Gentleman says: "Why do not you put them under the new Fair Wages Clause?" The answer to that is given in a reply which my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty gave to the hon. Gentleman on 30th March:—
  Mr. McKenna: It was not possible to invite tenders for the dry dock at Portsmouth, and terms for its execution have been arranged with the contractors for the new lock on the general basis of their existing contract. The rates of wages must therefore he governed by the existing contract; but such work as the Admiralty find to be of a nature that entitles the men to the 6d. an hour rate will be paid for at that rate, as was arranged under the existing contract after investigation with my hon. Friend's assistance last year." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1910, col. 1293.]
  1164
  Although the extended part is under the old fair wages contract, yet, according to the answer, such men as were getting 6d. an hour will get it under the extended contract.
  Mr. J. WARD: My case is this, that there ought to be no old contract. You are making a new contract with labouring work and the men should be entitled to 6d. an hour.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If we were making a new contract we would put in the new Fair Wages Clause and we would have to see that the contractors carried out the purpose of that clause, but being an extension of the existing contract there was on obligation on the contractor but to give the men the same rate that he paid under the old Fair Wages Clause. He has given 6d. if they are doing similar work, the figure to which they have raised it on the representation of my hon. Friend and myself. The contractor there was dealing with the old Fair Wages Clause. I would be very glad to defer to my hon. Friend's views if I could, but I cannot hold out any hope that in this new work the new Fair Wages Clause is to be put in operation. Rosyth, also, is not under the new Fair Wages Clause. If it were so, if there is no rate of wages in the district you have to take the rate in the nearest similar locality. Rosyth contract was signed on 1st March, 1909, when the old Fair Wages Clause was in existence. If my hon. Friend will refer to his own Friends he will find that the new Fair Wages Clause of which I very much approve could not have been put into the Rosyth contract.
  My hon. Friend referred to the want of hospital accommodation at Rosyth. I went very closely into this matter with the contractor. I went down there specially for the purpose and I found that there is first aid and that there is a hospital, it may be five miles away. My hon. Friend spoke of the injured men being jolted away over roads. As a matter of fact the injured man about whom he spoke to me was treated to first aid and then conveyed in a motor car to the hospital. When any considerable number of men have got to the works the question will arise whether the contractor ought not to consider—and here I am talking of smoothing that is outside the contract, and is not part of the contract—whether provision should not be made that persons injured should be treated on the spot.
  Mr. J. WARD: There are over 1,000 men there now.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I found the contractor's representative was very willing to do everything which was pointed out to him, and I have no doubt that if it is suggested to him that some provision should be made for greater assistance upon the spot he will give it every consideration. Then, with regard to the housing. The contractor has got six acres of ground. There is nothing in the contract to compel the firm to provide housing accommodation, but these six acres of land are placed at their disposal and they cannot use it for anything else. No doubt up to the present effort has been made to meet the needs of the men as they come there by private enterprise. I inspected the accommodation and I went into the big building to which my hon. Friend refers. I shall make personal representations again. I will go there for the purpose, and, although the contract lays no obligation, we, as a great public authority, cannot wash our hands of all responsibility in connection with the welfare of these men. I will go into this matter, although there is nothing in the contract which would compel the firm to put up any housing except, as I say, that they cannot use the six acres of land for any other purpose. I must say, on behalf of the contractors that the representative of the firm seems to me to be a man anxious to deal sympathetically with those in his employment. I do not want to carry this too far, but I was greatly pleased, and so, I am sure, was the Civil Lord, at the ready way in which he accepted any suggestion we made to him. I wish now to reply to the criticisms made by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth. I understand he has now gone the length of describing the Admiralty as both incompetent and extravagant.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Most extravagant and incompetent, I remember I said.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: "The most extravagant and incompetent I have ever known." All the things we have done ought not to have been done, and all the things we have left undone ought to have been done. I do not want to go into any recriminations with regard to Rosyth, but the charge of having deliberately delayed Rosyth has so often been levelled against us that without importing any spirit of recrimination into it, there are one or two comments I should like to make. First of
  1166
  all as to our having deliberately and to the public danger delayed Rosyth. But before coming to that, I was very glad to hear the Noble Lord say we have got the ships although he said we have not got the docks. At all events, the first part of his statement, "We have got the ships," is a most admirable one. That is the first time I ever heard the Noble Lord say we have got the ships. He has told us also we have got the men, and now let me tell him, here we are about to get the docks. I do not know whether the Noble Lord is familiar with the history of Rosyth. I want to say one or two words which will throw light upon the matter. So far back as 12th March, 1900, a Committee called the Berthing Committee was appointed to go into the whole question of dock accommodation for berthing long ships and cruisers. That Committee reported on 31st January, 1902—eight years ago—and they reported a serious deficiency of berthing accommodation for those very long ships. They considered the question of whether you could provide that berthing accommodation by any extension of the existing docks, or whether you would require absolutely new docks, and they suggested it would be desirable probably to provide another naval establishment altogether, and they did that so far back as 1902. What follows that? The main purchase of land took place in 1903. Certain other smaller purchases were made in November, 1903, and in April, 1904, the final purchase took place. The late Civil Lord of the Admiralty knows that in 1904 a scheme was prepared at the Admiralty for the establishment of a naval base on a very large scale indeed. At that point there was a drastic change in the policy, and may I point out that it was not our policy. There was the proposal for the concentration of the Fleet and for the scrapping of a very large number of vessels, and that scheme appeared to have made a considerable change of policy. All the particulars of that scheme were set out in the Cawdor Memorandum of 1905. This far-reaching scheme was described by the Leader of the Opposition as "a courageous stroke of the pen." That changed the whole condition of affairs as to what was considered necessary in the minds of those who were responsible. A revised scheme was adopted on a smaller scale, which was no doubt capable of ultimate expansion, and this was in August, 1905, five years after the appointment of the Berthing Committee. If we are to go into the question of the

  1167
  charge of deliberate delay, may I point out that instructions were then issued that a definite scheme was to be prepared on a smaller scale, and therefore I do not think it lies in the mouth of the supporters of the late Administration in view of these facts to charge us with deliberate delay in this matter. We had the findings of the Berthing Committee in 1902 and the land was completely purchased in 1904. This changed scheme, into the merits of which I will not go, was finally adopted in 1905. In the year 1903–4 the expenditure on Rosyth under the late Administration was £147,719, of which £142,500 was for land, which left practically nothing at all for any other object. In 1904–5 the expenditure at Rosyth was £2,842, of which £1,440 was for land and £1,402 for operations in connection with the scheme. In 1905–6, the last year of the late Administration, the expenditure at Rosyth was £5,544. I admit if national needs change, and they do change from time to time, it is no particular argument to say, "Look what you spent in 1904, 1905, and 1906," but I am entitled to reply when we are charged with deliberate delay in this matter. Up to the year 1905–6, when the late Administration gave up office, the expenditure was £156,105, of which £143,957 was for land. In view of these facts I confess that I listen with some amount of objection to this constant charge of delay in connection with the work at Rosyth. In 1906–7 the expenditure was £5,663; in 1907–8, 21,887; 1908–9, £12,108; 1909–10, £72,074; 1910–11, the Estimate is £263,000. The Noble Lord opposite asks what is the use of voting £263,000 for Rosyth, and he says that, judging from experience in the past, you will have to surrender a lot of this money, and it is a mere paper figure. May I point out that the circumstances are now totally different, because the contract was signed on the 1st March, 1909, and the contractor will be paid the sum he will earn, and I should say he will go very far towards earning the provision which has been made in the Estimate. The total value of the contract is about £2,000,000. The hon. Member for Stoke complains that we propose to pay a bonus for every week's acceleration of the contract, but we have side by side with that provision a penalty for delay at the same rate. Section 1 of the contract gives the date of completion as four and a half years—that is, on the 1st September, 1913. The date of completion laid down in
  1168
  Section 2 is the 1st March, 1916, and I am inclined to think that the work will be finished much earlier. I do not wish to indulge in recriminations, but when we are charged with deliberate delay in this matter I think it only right to point out the extraordinary delay which took place during the early years in connection with the work at Rosyth by the party sitting opposite, who delayed the carrying out of this scheme, and ultimately left office without making anything like reasonable progress with the scheme. I am inclined to believe that, if the Noble Lord had been in the House at that time, he would have levelled precisely the same criticism against those with whom he now sits.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Certainly, I always did.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: At any rate, I do not think it is quite fair to charge us with undue delay. Certainly all the provision we have made is in the direction of securing the most expeditious execution of this contract, and I think I was entitled to call attention to the remarkable fact that those who are charging the Government with delay are those who, having prepared a scheme, left it in the way I have tried to describe quite fairly to the Committee.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE Mr. ARTHUR LEE moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Really, after the extraordinary speech, or, at any rate, the latter part of the speech to which we have just listened, I feel bound to intervene, because the hon. Gentleman opposite, who is usually fair in his methods of Debate, has really indulged in most extraordinary misrepresentations with regard to the history of Rosyth. I do not know, but he appears to have been nettled by some remarks made by my Noble and Gallant Friend (Lord C. Beresford), which I did not happen to hear, and which seemed to have led him on to make a series—I am quite sure they must be unintentional—of gross mis-statements with regard to what transpired under the late Board of Admiralty on this very question of the building of Rosyth Docks. I have taken down his various statements, and I will try to deal with them in order. He began, quite rightly, by saying the Committee's Report dates from 1902. The Reports of that Committee had to be considered by the Board of Admiralty. They were considered very rapidly, and the question of the purchase of a site had to be taken in hand. No one knows better

  1169
  than the hon. Gentleman how long these negotiations for the purchase of land take, but, as a matter of fact, the purchase was completed by April, 1904. That comes into the actual time when I was in charge of the Works Department. I therefore speak from actual knowledge of what occurred, and not from hearsay, which the hon. Gentleman is bound to do.
  In 1904, when the land was being purchased, as is always the case as regards every building scheme, the various Departments of the Admiralty were consulted. They were told to send in a full statement of their ideal requirement having regard to the modern naval race; and, in view of the unfortunate experience of the Admiralty in the past, which had led them so often to lay out these bases on too small a scale, with the result that if any extensions had to be taken in hand in later years great difficulties had to he overcome and great expense incurred, they were instructed to lay out the general plan in such a way that if future extensions, which no man could foresee, were necessary, none of the existing works should have to be destroyed or should be in the way of those subsequent extensions. That was done in 1904. A sketch was drawn out of a naval base which would contain everything that could be possibly required which the prophets of the Admiralty at that time could foresee. It was never intended to build a base on that scale. That is a misconception which exists in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and which he has repeatedly put before the House and the country during the last few years. There was no intention whatever of starting to build a base upon the scale suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I go further, and say from that point there was no avoidable delay whatever. After all, the preparation of a scheme of that kind takes some time. The present Superintending Engineer, Colonel S. H. Exham, was sent to the Continent to study all the latest developments of foreign dockyards. He had to make his Report. He came hack, and the scheme was drawn up, as the hon. Gentleman admits, in August, 1905, a very short time before the late Government went out of office. As soon as it was drawn up it was approved by the Board of Admiralty, and steps were at once taken to get out the necessary drawings in order to enable the contract to be made on the nearest possible date. At the time I left the Admiralty, in December, 1905, the scheme was advanced to such a point, and all
  1170
  arrangements were made that the contract could be actually let by 1st June, 1906. It will be seen there was no avoidable delay up to that time.
  Then the change of Government came at the end of 1905. I do not want to make this a party charge, but the hon Gentleman himself did so a few moments ago. He said the present Government is not responsible for any delay, and that the delay was due to the late Government. I have shown that up to the time when we left office we had pushed as steadily on with this scheme as it reasonably could be pushed on, and we had made all the arrangements for letting the contract on 1st June, and had actually included in the Draft Estimates a large provision for the ensuing year. That provision was struck out.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: How much in 1905–6?
  Mr. LEE: The total amount, if I remember rightly, which was put down for the contract was £1,000,000, but the amount for 1905–6 was bound to be small because the contract could not be let before 1st June, 1906. The Civil Lord has said again and again in defence of their own delay that it is impossible to spend very much in the first year of a contract. Did the hon. Member opposite think he was making a debating point and scoring a cheap party point by saying, "How much did you spend in 1904–5–6?" Who has ever heard of a Government Department or any sane individual spending money upon a job until the contract was let for it? How could you possibly spend money beforehand? It is absurd. The hon. Member knows just as well as I do that the small amount of money over and above the amount of the purchase of the land that we spent was simply and solely for the small staff on the spot who were working out the plans. Really it is hardly worthy of him to try and make a point of that description and to try and make out the Government were not spending money on the work but were dawdling, when the contract could not be let until six months after they had left office. Even if he had established his point and proved, as he failed to do, that the late Government neglected their duty in this matter, is that any excuse for the present Government going on delaying this work year after year? They only let the contract on 1st March, 1909. What were they doing all those three and a half years?

  1171
  They finally produced their scheme, and to all intents and purposes it is precisely the same plan we had drawn up before we left office. I would ask the Committee to remember that at the time the late Government left office there was no fleet of "Dreadnoughts" in existence. The idea of a "Dreadnought" had only just been evolved. The "Dreadnought "herself had only just been laid down, and there was not that same urgent need for immediate accommodation on the East Coast that has existed during the time of the present Government. Before that we had a dock at Chatham and several at Portsmouth capable of taking the largest ships in existence at that time. Yet the Government come in, make themselves responsible for a large programme—not as large as it should be—of ships for which no dock accommodation exists. They take over a plan which was complete in all its essentials, and a contract which could have been let six months after they Came into office, yet they dawdle on year after year until, in March, 1909, they finally screw up their courage to sticking point and produce practically the same scheme. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the face to come down here to-night and accuse us of having been responsible for all this delay. The point the hon. Member has made is really a very small one. Possibly he only brought it forward in order to draw attention off the neglect which the Government has shown generally in this matter of dock accommodation. At any rate, I do not know what his motive was.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have just told you.
  Mr. LEE: I thought it was a sort of recrimination.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I replied to a statement by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth that this was the most incompetent Admiralty ever known, particularly with regard to docks.
  Mr. LEE: I think I have succeeded in showing that the hon. Gentleman's repartee, for what it is worth, is entirely unfounded.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It was said I had made gross misstatements. I have listened with every care and with great attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I have not discovered proof of any one gross misstatement.
  Mr. LEE: If the hon. Gentleman has not gathered from what I said that I nave demonstrated clearly—I said the misstatements must obviously have been unintentional, but they were misstatements in fact—and I have shown by the dates from my own personal knowledge—I was in charge of the Works Department at that time—I think I have completely disproved the somewhat ridiculous charge he brought against the late Board of Admiralty. With regard to the bigger question of general neglect, although I did not hear my Noble Friend's speech, yet from what I gather from the brief quotation which the hon. Gentleman has culled from it, I should say he was perfectly justified. I think there is no feature of the Admiralty's naval policy which is more open to attack and condemnation than their neglect in this matter of dock accommodation. Here we shall have in the near future a fleet of twenty "Dreadnoughts," the headquarters of which have been, by the Admiralty themselves, established on the East Coast; and yet on the whole of that East Coast by the time these twenty ships are completed there will only be one dock ready capable of accommodating them. There is, I am aware, one other dock, the Hebburn, about which there has been some controversy. The First Lord of the Admiralty, I think, said, about a year ago, that that dock could not be used by "Dreadnoughts" at normal draught, and he tried to explain that that did not affect the question, because if a ship wished to use it it could take out its stores and guns. Imagine a ship in war time, in urgent need of docking, coming to the mouth of the Hebburn, possibly in a half-sinking condition, and being told by the First Lord, "Take out your stores and extra weight in order to make yourself light enough to go into that dock." Surely that dock for use in war time would be really out of the question, and the only dock available on the East Coast for all the ships completed will be the one floating dock which the Admiralty has now under construction, and which, I understand, is to be placed somewhere on the Medway. The docks at Rosyth will not be ready till 1914.
  Mr. LAMBERT: 1916.
  Mr. LEE: That makes it all the worse. If the Government had proceeded with the Rosyth scheme as bequeathed to them by the late Government in 1906, these docks might have been ready three years earlier. But even now, as I have pointed out, the

  1173
  Government are proceeding with this work in a leisurely fashion. We had a speech just now from the hon. Member for Stoke, who, speaking with considerable experience of the number of men that could be employed on work of this description, stated clearly there could be thousands of men engaged if only the Admiralty made the necessary arrangements. But they have not done so, they have chosen to defer their liabilities year after year and to pile them up to a point so that, according to my Noble and Gallant Friend's figures, which I believe are quite accurate in future years you will have to find an enormous instalment—7£600,000 in the case of Rosyth—if it is to be finished by contract time, and if that contract time is to be shortened, as the Admiralty profess to be anxious it shall be, the future instalment will have to be even greater. The only result of this theory which the Admiralty put forward that we in the past were wrong in building works out of loans whereas they intend to pay for them out of the Estimates of the year, is that they have not paid for them out of the Estimates for the year but they have simply deferred the liability in the hope that these enormous instalments will not fall to be paid while they are in office. I think I have dealt at sufficient length with the charge made by the hon. Gentleman opposite—as far as I am concerned an entirely unprovoked charge, which I strongly resent, because it deals with the period when I was myself responsible for this question of works. I know, from actual experience, the facts he laid before the House were based entirely on a misapprehension.
  One other point I have to draw attention to, and that is in regard to Rosyth. It is in the nature of a question which I addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the care and responsibility for these works. I have no direct knowledge of this matter, and I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as I am concerned, I have had no communication, direct or indirect, with any official concerned. But I have heard a rumour that it is proposed to make a change in the control of these works and to either retire or remove the extremely competent officer who has been in charge of the work from its very inception, and who knows far more about it than any other officer of the Department can possibly do. I shall be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us
  1174
  whether it is true that the officer who has been in charge throughout is no longer to be allowed to remain there, and, if so, why, because it seems for a work of this description of the first importance, admitted by the Admiralty to be a job which should be pushed on with all possible speed, that to swop horses when crossing the stream is not likely to conduce either to speed or to the efficiency of the work? There are many other questions I could raise with regard to this matter of docks, but I want to give the First Lord of the Admiralty an opportunity of replying. In view of the speech which has been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the absolutely unfounded and unjustifiable charges which he has made, in regard to which we ought to have some further explanation, I beg to move that this Vote be reduced by £100.
  Sir WILLIAM GELDER: May I very briefly support the appeal which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) in respect of increased dock accommodation on the East Coast? I am not going to attempt to follow his criticism in respect to Portsmouth or Rosyth—I do not know either of those two places sufficiently well—but, it does appear to me, if his statements with respect to Portsmouth are correct, there is need that some inquiry should be made in respect to the depth of water which is available for "Dreadnoughts" at the present time. My object is, however, to emphasise his appeal in respect to dry docks on the East Coast. There is a distance of possibly 400 miles between these centres, Rosyth and Portsmouth, and we are told that in the future the chief ground of the manœuvring of the Navy will be in the North Sea. We are told that is the danger spot, that is the zone where operations will take place. It is thought by many people that the distance of those two places from each other is too far for a ship to travel and a convoy to take a ship in case of disablement. Only the other day a very influential deputation waited upon the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was a deputation composed of the Associated Chambers of Commerce—a body of gentlemen whom we are all aware have great commercial responsibilities and undertakings, and whose opinion, I think, ought to be very carefully considered by the Board of Admiralty. The deputation consisted of representatives from the Tyne and the Northern ports, from the Humber ports, from Liver-

  1175
  pool, Manchester, Leeds and district, Sheffield and the Midlands, so that the Committee will see that it was a very important one. They waited upon the First Lord in order to present the case in respect to the necessity for increased dry dock accommodation on the East Coast, but I am sorry to say they got very little in return for their pains for waiting upon the right hon. Gentleman. He sympathised with them, but that was the extent to which he would go. There was no promise of any kind that he would afford any means to help forward this very important matter.
  The Tyne people presented their case; they thought they had a suitable place for the provision of a dry dock of a sufficient depth to take "Dreadnoughts," but the First Lord told them that the Tyne was not suitable—the river was too narrow and congested—and although they had plenty of skilled labour there in the shape of engineers yet they need not hope that the Tyne would be a suitable place for a naval base. Then the right hon. Gentleman came to the Humber, and he had not quite the same answer in regard to it. He did not say anything about the depth of the water, because there is a sufficient depth of water, and sufficient area to receive a fleet, but he said that the Humber was not a naval engineering centre of such magnitude as would justify him in considering the proposal. I maintain that if a shipyard is built at any point there is always sufficient labour to be obtained in the open market if there is a demand for it, and I go a little further than that, and I would point out to the First Lord that there is a great amount of engineering skilled labour at the Humber ports, amounting to several thousands of men, which number can be augmented at any time should the occasion require. The First Lord then said that so far as he was concerned he should be very glad—he would be only too happy—to tell the deputation that the Admiralty had it in prospect to build a large dock on the Tyne, although he had said before the Tyne was not quite suitable, and neither was the Humber, only in regard to the latter he said that there was not the right supply of labour. He would be very glad, he said, to tell the deputation that the docks should be built at these two important centres, providing the House could be prevailed upon to give him the warrant—the authority—by which he would be sure to get a sufficient Vote from the House to
  1176
  carry out these objects. I have here what he said:—
  "He would be happy to build a large dock on the Tyne and another on the Humber, but he would have in that case to answer for them to the critics, who would want to know whether, from the point of naval strategy, his proposals were the best his advisers could put before him."
  I am quite sure of this, that, although there may be a difference of opinion as to whether we ought to have an increased number of "Dreadnoughts," even those who prefer peace on this side of the House will admit that if an increased number of "Dreadnoughts" have to be built, we ought to have sufficient docking accommodation for them; and, speaking for myself, I would even sooner see one "Dreadnought" less, and three or four docks erected to receive a damaged "Dreadnought." However many "Dreadnoughts" we have, if a war takes place, and they are damaged, they will be practically of no use—worse than useless—and a possible source of danger finless we have proper repairing bases at command, not 400 miles off, but at the nearest point to double back to—on the east coast—not at Portsmouth, not at Rosyth, but near to the place where any naval engagement may take place.
  Mr. McKENNA: With regard to the Humber, I am unable to add anything to what I said before. In the interest of historical accuracy I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) of what happened with regard to Rosyth and what is recorded upon the Statutes of Parliament. In the Naval Works Act of 1903 the Rosyth scheme figures, and a sum of £200,000 was taken to be expended in the year 1903–4 and 1904–5. A footnote as to
  that states:—
  "This is the total sum only, and does not represent the total estimated cost."
  Mr. LEE: For the land?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, it was more than that. Already in 1903 in the Naval Works Act the late Government had the Rosyth scheme before them and they had to spend £200,000 in the ensuing two years. In 1905 they introduced another Naval Works Loans Act. There again we find: "Naval establishment at Rosyth, £200,000."That £200,000 had not been expended in those two years. In 1905 a considerable proportion of it still remained to be expended, and we find then this footnote:—
  "These figures refer to the preliminary works only. Subsequent expenditure will be charged in Navy Votes."
  So that as to the first point which the hon. Gentleman makes that the result of

  1177
  our transferring this scheme to the Navy Votes has caused delay, it was not we who transferred it to the Navy Vote, but the hon. Member's own Government. As to the second point he makes, with regard to inordinate delay, the scheme was already introduced in 1903, and by 1905 they had not then expended the £200,000 for preliminary work. The fact is, and it, is common knowledge, that after the introduction of the Rosyth scheme it was held up by both Governments in succession, because neither Government was fully satisfied that it was a proper scheme to undertake. The holding up by the new Government which came in in 1906 was only a continuation of the policy of the previous Government, and the two Statutes to which I refer are a sufficient confirmation of the truth of what I say.
  Mr. LEE: The right hon. Gentleman has not made his case any better in trying to stand behind the mis-statement of the case made by the Secretary for the Admiralty. He knows very well that the £200,000 referred to in the Naval Works Acts was for the purchase of the land, for preliminary services, and for the making of the plans.
  And it being after Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under discussion.
  Question put, "That the reduced sum of £2,995,300 be granted for said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 276.

  Division No. 108.]

  AYES.

  [10.0 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Arbuthnot, G. A.

  Duke, H. E.

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Attenborough, W. A.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Keswick, William

  Begot, Captain J.

  Falle, B. G.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Fell, Arthur

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fleming, Valentine

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Barnston, H.

  Fletcher, J S.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Boyton, J.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Grant, J. A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, W. R.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Gretton, John

  Macmaster, Donald

  Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Campion, W. R.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mason, J. F.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cator, John

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Cautley, H. S.

  Homersley, A. St. George

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Cave, George

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nield, Herbert

  Colefax, H. A.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Hickmann, Colonel T.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Proby, Colonel Douglas James

  Craig, Sir Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Croft, H. P.

  Hope, James Fifzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Starkey, John R.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirrall)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Royds, Edmund

  Strauss, A.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Rutherford, Watson

  Sykes, Alan John

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Talbot, Lord E.

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Winterton, Earl

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Tryon, George Clement

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Stanier, Beville

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, M. (Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Joyce, Michael

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

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

  Keating, M.

  Agnew, George William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Doris, W.

  Lambert, George

  Alden, Percy

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Anderson, A.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Elverston, H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Falconer, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  France, G. A.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Furness, Stephen

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Barnes, G. N.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Barton, A. W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leics.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Manfield, Harry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Black, Arthur W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Boland, John Pius

  Guest, Major

  Meagher, Michael

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brace, William

  Hackett, J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Brady, P. J.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Middlebrook, William

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Millar, J. D.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvii)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Muspratt, M.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Harwood, George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Bytes, William Pollard

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cameron, Robert

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Grady, James

  Chapple, W. A.

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

  O'Malley, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Henry Charles S.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hindle, F. G.

  Pearce, William

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hodge, John

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hogan, Michael

  Philipps, Sir Owen C (Pembroke)

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

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hudson, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Johnson, W.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tidvil)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  1180

  1181

  Rainy, A. Rowland

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Reddy, M.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Summers, James Woolley

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Richards, Thomas

  Sutton, John E.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Robinson, S.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Toulmin, George

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

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

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Wing, Thomas

  Seddon, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Shortt, Edward

  Wardie, George J.

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Waring, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Snowden, Philip

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Original Question, "That the sum of £2,995,300 be granted for said service," put, and agreed to.

  The Chairman then proceeded to put severally the Questions, "That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each class of the Civil Service Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy and Army (including ordnance factories) be granted for the said Services defined in those classes and Estimates.

  CLASS I.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,192,429, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Royal Palaces (including a Supplementary sum of £64,335)

  101,035

  2. Osborne

  6,100

  3. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  67,800

  4. Houses of Parliament Buildings

  34,8004.

  £

  4A. Campbell-Bannerman Memorial

  700

  5. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  32,800

  6. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  51,200

  7. Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  62,400

  8. Revenue Buildings

  515,800

  9. Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain

  59,000

  10. Public Buildings, Great Britain

  459,600

  11. Surveys of the United Kingdom

  122,796

  12. Harbours under the Board of Trade

  55,280

  13. Peterhead Harbour

  21,000

  14. Rates on Government Property

  374,700

  15. Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  169,804

  16. Railways, Ireland

  57,614

  £2,192,429"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 209.

  Division No. 109.]

  AYES.

  [10.13 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barton, W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Agnew, George William

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Boland, John Plus

  Alden, Percy

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Brace, William

  Anderson, A.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Brady, P. J.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hindle, F. G.

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hodge, John

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hogan, Michael

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Richards, Thomas

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hudson, Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hughes, S. L.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Robinson, S.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Chancellor, H. G

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Johnson, W.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L.(Cleveland)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Clough, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Seddon, J.

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

  Keating, M.

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lambert, George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Snowden, P.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutton, John E.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leics.)

  Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)

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

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Manfield, Harry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Doris, W.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Meagher, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Elverston, H.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wadsworth, J.

  Falconer, J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Millar, J. D.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  France, G. A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Furness, Stephen

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wardle, George J.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Waring, Walter

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Muspratt, M.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Gill, A. H.

  Neilson, Francis

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Glover, Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Guest, Major

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Grady, James

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hackett, J.

  O'Malley, William

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pearce, William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Williams, J.(Glamorgan)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Williams, Penry(Middlesbrough)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Harwood, George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wing, Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hazelton, Richard

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rainy, A. Rowland

  1184

  1185

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arbuthnot, G. A.

  Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Attenborough, W. A.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Nield, Herbert

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Goldman, C. S.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Greene, W. R.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Gretton, John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, H.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Proby, Colonel Douglas James

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Quliter, William Eley C.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bird, A.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Boyton, James

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Royds, Edmund

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rutherford, Watson

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Cator, John

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Stonier, Beville

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Starkey, John R.

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staffordshire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Stewart, Gershom (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Strauss, A.

  Colefax, H. A.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Alan John

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Keswick, William

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tryon, George Clement

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Croft, H. P.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Duke, H. E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Falle, B. G.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Fell, Arthur

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mason, J. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Haddock and Sir W. Bull.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  CLASS II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,879,172, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II.
  of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. House of Lords Offices

  14,443

  2. House of Commons Offices

  31,300

  3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  59,903

  £

  25. Works and Public Buildings Office

  58,610

  26. Secret Service

  35,000

  Scotland.

  29. Lunacy Commission

  4,003

  30. Registrar-General's Office

  3,214

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 215.

  CLASS III.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,445,604, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Law Charges

  45,596

  2. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  22,764

  3. Supreme Court of Judicature

  194,718

  4. Land Registry

  24,999

  5. Public Trustee

  5

  6. County Courts

  3

  7. Police, England and Wales

  60,312

  8. Prisons, England and the Colonies

  403,077

  9. Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  142,812

  10. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  53,500

  1192

  Scotland.

  £

  11. Law Charges and Courts of Law

  55,909

  12. Register House, Edinburgh

  28,561

  13. Crofters Commission

  56,480

  14. Prisons

  56,480

  Ireland.

  15. Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  36,775

  16. Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

  69,360

  17. Irish Land Commission

  255,166

  18. County Court Officers, etc.

  73,625

  19. Dublin Metropolitan Police

  35,982

  20. Royal Irish Constabulary

  755,167

  21. Prisons

  68,602

  22. Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,800

  23. Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,426

  £2,445,604"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 213.

  Division No. 110.]

  AYES.

  [10.25 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Glanville, Harold James

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Glover, Thomas

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Agnew, George William

  Clough, William

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clynes, John R.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Alden, Perry

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Guest, Major

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hackett, John

  Baker, Harold, T. (Accrington)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hancock, John George

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Cowan, William Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barnes, George N.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barton, William

  Cullinan, John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harwood, George

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bethell, Sir John

  Henry Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Boland, John Plus

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hayward, Evan

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brace, William

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Doris, William

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

  Brigg, Sir John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henry, Charles Solomon

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bryce, John Annan

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Elverston, Harold

  Hodge, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Falconer, James

  Hogan, Michael

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Byles, William Pollard

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Cameron, Robert

  Furness, Stephen

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Hudson, Walter

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Malley, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Summers, James Woolley

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutton, John E.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pearce, William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Johnson, William

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfil)

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Keating, Matthew

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Toulmin, George

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lambert, George

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Verney, Frederick William

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wadsworth, John

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, George Heynes

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Wardle, George J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Reddy, Michael

  Waring, Walter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Richards, Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Manfield, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Meagher, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Menzles, Sir Walter

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Middlebrook, William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Millar, James Duncan

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Seddon, James A.

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Muspratt, Max

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Shortt, Edward

  Wing, Thomas

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Snowden, Philip

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Nussey, Sir T. Willans

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  NOES.

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

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Campion, W. R.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Attenborough, Walter Annis

  Carilie, E. Hildred

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Cator, John

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Barnston, Harry

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Bird, Alfred

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Boyton, James

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Croft, Henry Page

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Grant, James Augustus

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

  Gretton, John

  1190

  1191

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Royds, Edmund

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Rutherford, Watson

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Hambre, Angus Valdemar

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

  Sandys, G. J.(Somerset, Wells)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Harris H. P. (Paddington S.)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Stanier, Beville

  Macmaster, Donald

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Mason, James F.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Hermon-Hodge Sir Robert T.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Strauss, Arthur

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Sykes, Alan John

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nield, Herbert

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  O'Grady, James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Keswick, William

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Quliter, William Eley C.

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

  King, Sir Henry

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Winterton, Earl

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rolleston, Sir John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Faber and Mr. Goulding.

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Division No. 111.]

  AYES.

  [10.35 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Agnew, George William

  Glover, Thomas

  Muspratt, Max

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Neilson, Francis

  Alden, Percy

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Nolan, Joseph

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Guest, Major

  Nussey, Sir T. Willans

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Gulland, John William

  Nuttall, Harry

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Grady, James

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  O'Malley, William

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Hancock, John George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Barnes, George N

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearce, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Barton, William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harwood, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  pollard, Sir George H.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brace, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Brigg, Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Bryce, John Annan

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

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henry, Charles Solomon

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Radford, George Heynes

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hodge, John

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Hogan, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Reddy, Michael

  Cameron, Robert

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Carr-Gomm, H W.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richards, Thomas

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberston, John M. (Tyneside)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robinson, Sidney

  Clough, William

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Clynes, John R.

  Johnson, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

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

  Cowan, William Henry

  Lambert, George

  Seddon, James A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crossley, Sir Williams J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shortt, Edward

  Cullinan, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Snowden, Philip

  Davies, Ellis Willam (Elfion)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkrick Burghs)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanely, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Summers, James Woolley

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

  McKenna Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sutton, John W. (Durham)

  Doris, William

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Manfield, Harry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Elverston, Harold

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Middlebrook, William

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Furness, Stephen

  Millar, James Duncan

  Verney, Frederick William

  1194

  1195

  Wadsworth, John

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Wing, Thomas

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Wardle, George J.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Waring, Walter

  Wiles, Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  NOES.

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

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Adam, Major William A.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Attenborough, Walter Annis

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Macmaster, Donald

  Baker, Sir Randal L. (Dorset, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Mallaby-Decley, Harry

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  Mason, James F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Barnston, Harry

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morrsion-Bell, Major A. C.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newman, John R. P.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Nield, Herbert

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Gretton, John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Bird, Alfred

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Boyton, James

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Campion, W. R.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Carille, Edward Hildred

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cator, John

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cave, George

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Royds, Edmund

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brantford)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Keswick, William

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Arthur

  Croft, Henry Page

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Holl)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Valentla, Viscount

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsay)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  1196

  1197

  Wardle, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

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

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Winterton, Earl

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ashley and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  CLASS IV.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,167,181, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  2. British Museum

  115,895

  3. National Gallery

  10,348

  4. National Portrait Gallery

  2,666

  5. Wallace Collection

  3,966

  6. Scientific Investigation, etc.

  44,228

  £

  7. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £21,000)

  174,100

  9. National Galleries, Scotland Ireland.

  2,326

  10. Public Education

  706,901

  11. Endowed Schools Commissioners

  525

  12. National Gallery

  1,146

  13. Universities and Colleges

  105,080

  £1,167,181"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 214.

  Division No. 112.]

  AYES.

  [10.46 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Clynes, John R.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hancock, John George

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L.(Rossendale)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Agnew, George William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Alden, Percy

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Cowan, William Henry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harwood, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cullinan, John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Daiziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hayward, Evan

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Davies, Ellis William (Elflon)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barnes, George N.

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

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Henry, Charles Solomon

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Barton, William

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Doris, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hodge, John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hogan, Michael

  Boland, John Plus

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ellbank, Master of

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Brace, William

  Elverston, Harold

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brigg, Sir John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Bryce, John Annan

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Furness, Stephen

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshlre)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Johnson, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Glanville, Harold James

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfll)

  Cameron, Robert

  Glover, Thomas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Joyce, Michael

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Keating, Matthew

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Guest, Major

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gulland, John William

  Lambert, George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Clough, William

  Hackett, John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Toulmin, George

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  M'Callum, John M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Verney, Frederick William

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Wadsworth, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

  Reddy, Michael

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Manfield, Harry

  Randall, Athelstan

  Wardle, George J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Richards, Thomas

  Waring, Walter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E.(Clackmannan)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Middlebrook, William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Watt, Henry A.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Muspratt, Max

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Neilson, Francis

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nolan, Joseph

  Seddon, James A.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Nussey, Sir T. Willans

  Shackleton, David James

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  O'Grady, James

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  O'Malley, William

  Snowden, Philip

  Wing, Thomas

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Pearce, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Summers, James Woolley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sutton, John E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  NOES.

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

  Brotherton, E. A.

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Adam, Major W. A

  Bull, Sir William James

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Campion, W. R.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Armitage, Robert

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Attenborough, Walter Annis

  Cator, John

  Fell, Arthur

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Cave, George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Forster, Henry William

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Barnston, Harry

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

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

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Bird, Alfred

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Grant, J. A.

  Boyton, James

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  1200

  1201

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Salter, Arthur Clevell

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droltwich)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset. Wells)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Startler, Beville

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Mason, James F.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred - Peter

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Strauss, Arthur

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Houston Robert Paterson

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Nield, Herbert

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Hunter Sir Charles Rodk (Bath)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Jackson, Sir John A.(Devonport)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walker, Col. W. N. (Lancashire)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Jessel, Captain, Herbert M.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Kerry Earl of

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Knight Eric Ayshford

  Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Winterton, Earl

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. Raymond Greene.

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Rutherford, Watson

  CLASS V.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,150,190, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Diplomatic and Consular Services

  353,184

  £

  2. Colonial Services (including a Supplementary sum of £130,000

  757,759

  3. Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  38,247

  4. Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

  1,000

  £1,150,190"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 214.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,554,400, 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, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—

  £

  1. Customs and Excise

  1,305,400

  2. Inland Revenue (including a Supplementary sum of £480,000)

  1,249,000

  £2,554,400"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 211.

  Division No. 113.]

  AYES.

  [10.58 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Been, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Cawley H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Chapping, Sir Francis Allston

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Churchill, Ht. Hon. Winston S.

  Agnew, George William

  Boland, John Plus

  Clough, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Alden, Percy

  Brace, William

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Brigg, Sir John

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bryce, John Annan

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Burke, E. Havlland.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Cowan, William Henry

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Barnes, George N.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Cullinan, John

  Barton, William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Keating, Matthew

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Kemp, Sir George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lambert, George

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Doris, William

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Seddon, James A.

  Elverson, Harold

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Falconer, James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shackleton, David James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ferguson Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shortt, Edward

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  M'Callum, John M.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Snowden, Philip

  George, Rt Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Manfield, Harry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Glover, Thomas

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Summers, James Woolley

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sutton, John E.

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Tennant, Harold John

  Guest, Major

  Middlebrook, William

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Gulland, John William

  Millar, James Duncan

  Thomas, Sir A, (Glamorgan, E.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Hackett, John

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taulmin, George

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hancock, John George

  Muspratt, Max

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Neilson, Francis

  Verney, Frederick William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wadsworth, John

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nussey, Sir T. Willans

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Grady, James

  Waring, Walter

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hayward, Evan

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pearce, William

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Henderson Arthur (Durham)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Henry, Charles Solomon

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hodge, John

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hogan, Michael

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough)

  Horne, Charles Slivester (Ipswich)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Wing, Thomas

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Reddy, Michael

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Johnson, William

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richards, Thomas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Soares and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshlre)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  NOES.

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

  Attenborough, Waiter Annis

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Adam, Major William A.

  Begot, Captain J.

  Barnston, Harry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

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

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  1204

  1205

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Nield, Herbert

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Bird, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Boyton, James

  Mall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  Hombre, Angus Valdemar

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashford)

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Quliter, William Eley C.

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Campion, W. R.

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Carille, Edward Hilldred

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Cator, John

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Ridley, Samuel Fords

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cave, George

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rothschild, Llonel de

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Royds, Edmund

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, William Watson

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Salter, Arthur Clevell

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hunt, Rowland

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col, T. M. (Bootle)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Croft, Henry Page

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Dalziel, Davidson (Brixton)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C S. (Glasgow, E.)

  Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Lewelyn, Venables

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Md)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droltwich)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Fleming, Valentine

  Macmaster, Donald

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Winterton, Earl

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Mason, James F.

  Wood, Han. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mills, Hen. Charles Thomas

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mitchell, William Foot

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gretton and Mr. P. E. Foster.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newman, John R. P.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Division No. 114.]

  AYES.

  [11.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Glover, Thomas

  Muspratt, Max

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Neilson, Francis

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Nolan, Joseph

  Agnew, George William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Guest, Major

  Nussey, Sir T. Willans

  Alden, Percy

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Hackett, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  O'Grady, James

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hancock, John George

  O'Malley, William

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendaie)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvii)

  Peace, William

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A,

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Barnes, George N.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Philipps Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Harwood, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barton, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hayward, Evan

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Helms, Norval Watson

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Boland, John Plus

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Brace, William

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Radford, George Heynes

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hodge, John

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hogan, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reddy, Michael

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Horne, Charles Slivester (Ipswich)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hudson, Walter

  Richards, Thomas

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Johnson, William

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshlre)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Clough, William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clynes, John R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Keating, Matthew

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kemp, Sir George

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

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

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Seddon, James A.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lambert, George

  Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Shortt, Edward

  Cowan, W. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Simon, John Alisebrook

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Snowden, Philip

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Culilnan, J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Summers, James Woolley

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sutton, John E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardiganshire)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  M`Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Doris, William

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Manfield, Harry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Elverston, Harold

  Meagher, Michael

  Toulmin, George

  Falconer, James

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Charles

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Middlebrook William

  Verney, Frederic William

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wadsworth, John

  Furness, Stephen

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  1210

  1211

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Waring, Walter

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Wing, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Watt, Henry A.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—,Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  NOES.

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Adam, Major William A.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster Henry William

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Newman, John R. P.

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Attenborough, Walter Annie

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nield, Herbert

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Baker, Sir Rondolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick

  George Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Grant, James Augustus

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bathurst, Hon, Allen B. (Gloc. E.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bird, Alfred

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Ridley, Samuel Fords

  Boyton, James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Royds, Edmund

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Rutherford, Watson

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Hills, John Walter(Durham)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge University)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Carille, Edward Hildred

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Cator, John

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Stanier, Beville

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cave, George

  Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirrall)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spend r

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Alan John

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Keswick, William

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshf d

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Walrand, Hon. Lionel

  Croft, Henry Page

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs. Southport)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Du Cross, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Winterton, Earl

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Dr twich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGsagh

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fell, Arthur

  Mallaby-Deely, Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mason, James F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir E. Sassoon and Mr. Staveley-Hill

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and the Chairman of Ways and Means reported that the Committee had come to several Resolutions.
  Ordered, that the Report be received to-morrow.

  CLASS VI.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,105,949, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  418,598

  CLASS VII.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £605,961, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Temporary Commissions

  22,000

  2. Miscellaneous Expenses

  4,594

  3. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  2,412

  4. Ireland Development Grant

  1,558

  5. Government Hospitality

  5,000

  6. International Exhibitions

  17,250

  7. Development Fund

  400,000

  8. His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught (Visit to South Africa)

  40,000

  9. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

  13,147

  10. Expenses under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

  100,000

  £605,961"

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £23,174,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

  £

  8. Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc. Matériel

  4,614,100

  8. Sec. 3. Shipbulding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc. Contract Work

  12,395,400

  9. Naval Armaments

  2,781,000

  10. Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

  2,995,300

  12. Admiralty Office

  388,800

  £23,174,600"

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £17,116,100 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-
  1208
  ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), namely:—

  £

  2. Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.

  452,000

  3. Special Reserves

  833,000

  4. Territorial Forces

  2,660,000

  5. Establishments for Military Education

  147,000

  6. Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

  1,589,000

  7. Supplies and Clothing

  4,397,000

  8. Ordnance Department Establishment and General Stores

  533,000

  10. Works and Buildings

  2,598,000

  11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  74,000

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

  1,789,000

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

  1,890,000

  15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities

  154,000

  Ordnance Factories

  100

  £17,116,100"

WAYS AND MEANS.
The House, according to Order, resolved itself into Committee of Ways and Means.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Resolved, "That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, the sum of £95,297,884 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
Resolution to be reported.
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and the Chairman of Ways and Means reported that the Committee had come to a Resolution.
Ordered, that the Report be received to-morrow (Wednesday).

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1908–9.
Resolution reported,
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1909, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

…

376,328

18

3

Total Deficits

…

…

238,138

0

10

Net Surplus

…

…

£138,190

17

5

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
(For Schedule, see 15th July, 1910, col. 829–830.)
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution".
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: There are very sufficient reasons for asking the First Lord of the Admiralty to make a friendly explanation of various items in this statement. We have here a very large increase on the vote for wages of officers, seamen and boys, and for victualling and clothing for the Navy. I do not suppose anybody would be likely to object to this increase, because I suppose it arises from the increase of the personnel, and is necessary. When we look at the Vote for shipbuilding, repairs and maintenance we find that there is £146,344 surplus on the Vote and £46,236 on contract work. I think we are entitled to ask how it comes there is such a very large difference between the estimates of the right hon. Gentleman and the figures given, and whether by any chance there has been starvation of repairs and maintenance, which under ordinary circumstances ought to have been carried out in order to find money for the increase in the personnel. There is no other point about it of importance, but there is room for considerable information by the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to deal with these points that I have mentioned. We do not know on what the right hon. Gentleman has saved this money, and we do not know how far he was entitled or justified in saving it. No doubt he will tell the House and satisfy our very natural anxiety on that question. Similarly on the contract work, has there been a saving on the contracts by a reconsideration of them or a reduction in the case of some of them? Has the right hon. Gentleman been saving on granite? I cannot help thinking that there may he some reasons of that kind to account for these savings.
Dr. MACNAMARA: These Estimates were prepared in the fall of 1907, and the expenditure began on 1st April, 1908, and ended on 31st March, 1909. The Chairman of the Accounts Committee was so good on examination as to congratulate the Accountant-General of the Navy on the, closeness of the Estimate. The details are set out in the Appropriation Account of 1908–9. My hon. Friend refers to two cases of deficits on Votes 1 and 2 and to surpluses on parts 2 and 3 of Vote 8. With regard to Vote 1 we spent £40,170 5s. 6d.

1215
more than was granted in wages, due to the number of officers and seamen, and an underestimate on our part as to the extra pay and variation in the ratings during the course of the year. As to the second point we over-spent £88,021 10s. 9d., but that is mitigated by savings elsewhere. We over-spent £91,207 2s. 4d. on victualling provisions, messing allowances, etc., due to higher prices, and increased numbers of men. In Part 2 of Vote 8 we had a surplus of £146,344 13s. 9d., due in part to lower prices of timber, coal, metals, and other articles. My hon. Friend referred also to a saving of £46,236 1s. 1d. on contract work. That is due principally to the progress of works on vessels being retarded owing to labour troubles, the failure of certain ships to complete trials, and the placing of some orders at later dates than was originally anticipated.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported,
II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1909, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

…

906,164

17

10

Total Deficits

…

…

306,464

7

9

Net Surplus

…

…

£599,700

10

1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
[For Schedule, see July 18th, 1910, col. 1043–1044.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Earl WINTERTON: I wish to call attention to a very important matter,
1216
namely, the deficit which has arisen in connection with the cost of the Territorial Forces. The Secretary of State has already had his attention called, by correspondence, to the fact that in the case of certain Territorial Associations there are very serious deficits indeed. In the Sussex Association, with which I am connected, we have a deficit of £3,000, and unless we are able to draw from sources, at present unexpected, our deficit before the end of the present financial year will have increased to £4,000. It is impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of the position. Unless the Treasury are prepared within the next few months to make a much larger grant the whole organisation of the Territorial Force will come to an end. Every possible economy has been effected; we have cut down to a dangerous extent the expenditure on all kinds of things on which money ought to be spent; still we have a very large deficit; and the Sussex Association, unless more money is speedily forthcoming, will be unable to continue. In view, also, of the deficiency of men, referred to in another place, it is highly important that the House should have an early opportunity of discussing this matter. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has spent over £238,000 in excess of the money voted; but that is not one-tenth of the amount required. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to come to the assistance of the Associations before it is too late. If he does not give more help, this scheme, which all, even those who are opposed to it, are anxious to give a fair trial, will come to an untimely end. In the opinion of all who have to do with the Force, matters have come to a head, and unless more money is at once forthcoming it will be impossible to continue that organisation.
Mr. HALDANE: I do not know how far it is in order, but I am glad of the opportunity of saying something of the accounts and the results of the various counties, which differ in the most extraordinary degree. One county that I have in my mind has a balance in hand of £23,000; another county has a very small surplus. All over England you will find in the great majority of cases that the Associations have a surplus, though there are Associations with no surplus. The Army Council and those associated with me have every sympathy with the difficulties of these Associations.
Earl WINTERTON: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I think he will find that where there are surpluses then there is a very considerable deficiency of men and officers.
Mr. HALDANE: Dear me, No! On the contrary, it is in those counties where they are most full of men and officers. I tell the Noble Lord that we have looked into the matter of the accounts of the Associations very thoroughly and sympathetically to see the why and the how of the expenditure, and I assure him that there is no desire to approach these things in a niggardly spirit. All we wish to do is to see that the money is spent as Parliament said it should be spent. As regards the £238,000 excess of expenditure over the estimate in the year 1908–9, it was caused by "The Englishman's Home" and the boom in recruiting. There was such an enormous surplus of recruits that we did spend more money than we estimated we should. That has rather died away this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, you cannot expect two plays of that nature! The result was that we spent more in that year, and we made it up out of the surplus of other accounts. I hope I have explained to the House the real situation.
Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

MINES ACCIDENTS (RESCUE AND AID) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the third time, and passed.

POLICE (WEEKLY REST DAY) BILL.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Mr. REMNANT Mr. REMNANT rose——
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman propose?
Mr. REMNANT: Yes, Sir, if I may, I will move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments." May I venture to appeal to the House to accept these Amendments, especially
1218
seeing that they have the approval of the Government. The Under-Secretary, to whom we owe so much for help to this Bill will, I think, give his approval, and I therefore again ask the House to accept the Amendments.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I certainly join in that appeal.
Lords Amendment agreed to.

LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
[RE-COMMITTED.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Clause 1 added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Licensing Districts and Authorities.)
(1) For the purposes of this Act a licensing district is a petty sessional division of a county, and a borough having a separate Commission of the Peace.
Where a county is not divided into petty sessional divisions, the whole county (excluding the area of any borough having a separate Commission of the Peace) shall be deemed to be a petty sessional division for the purposes of this Act.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, as respects a licensing district being a petty sessional division of a county—

(a) the licensing justices are the justices acting in and for the petty sessional division;

(b) the confirming authority are quarter sessions; and

(c) the compensation authority are quarter sessions.

(3) For the purposes of this Act, as respects a licensing district being a borough—

(a) The licensing justices are—

(i) in a county borough, as far as respects the grant of new justices' licences, the renewal of justices' licences, the ordinary removal of justices' licences, and the transfer or special removal of any old on-licences as defined in the Second Schedule to this Act, the borough licensing committee, and for other purposes the borough justices;

(ii) in a borough, not being a county borough, and having the required

1219
number of justices, the borough licensing committee so far as respects the grant of new justices' licences and the ordinary removal of justices' licences, and for other purposes the borough justices;

(iii) in a borough, not being a county borough, and not having the required number of justices, for all purposes the borough justices.

(b) The confirming authority are—

(i) in a borough not having the required number of justices, the joint committee appointed under this Act; and

(ii) in any other borough the whole body of borough justices.

(c) The compensation authority are—

(i) in a county borough, the whole body of borough justices; and

(ii) in a borough not being a county borough, the quarter sessions for the county.

The required number of justices in a borough is ten or more, all justices, whether disqualified for acting under this Act or not, being reckoned for this purpose, and the number being taken as at the time appointed under this Act for the appointment of the borough licensing committee.
(4) For the purposes of this Section the City of London shall be deemed to be a county borough.
(5) The justices of the county shall not have any power or authority as licensing justices in any of the principal Cinque Ports or in the two ancient towns, and in those ports and towns the justices of the port or town shall be the licensing justices, and the corporate and non-corporate members and liberties of any of those ports or towns, not being within the limits of a borough having a separate Commission of the Peace, shall he treated as part of the port or town.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved, in Sub-section (2) paragraph (a), to leave out the words "as far as respects the grant of new justices' licences, the renewal of justices' licences, the ordinary removal of justices' licences, and the transfer or special removal of any old on-licences as defined in the Second Schedule to this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "for all purposes."
Mr. JOHN J. MOONEY: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. SIMON: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in this Motion. The proposals in this Bill were considered by a Committee of both Houses before which every interest was represented.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I should like to join in that appeal. I was a member of the Joint Committee, and we took a very great deal of trouble and a perfectly unanimous conclusion was arrived at.
Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I should also like to say a word in support of the Bill. This Bill represents an enormous mass of labour. It really makes no change in the law. It is simply a consolidation, and all interests were represented before the Committee.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved, in Sub-section (2) paragraph (a) to leave out the words "and for other purposes the borough justices."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(General Annual Licensing Meeting.)
(1) For the purpose of granting justices' licences, the licensing justices for every licensing district shall within the first fourteen days of February in every year hold a special session (to be called the general annual licensing meeting).
(2) The justices acting in and for the petty sessional division or borough forming the licensing district shall hold a meeting at least twenty-one days before the general annual licensing meeting, and appoint the day, hour, and place at which the general annual licensing meeting is to be held.
(3) The licensing justices may at any general annual licensing meeting adjourn the meeting to such day and to such place within the licensing district as they think fit for meeting the convenience of persons intending to apply for justices' licences, and a day and place for at least one such adjourned meeting shall be so appointed by the justices.
(4) Every such adjourned meeting shall be deemed to be a continuation of the

1221
general annual licensing meeting, and shall be held within one month from the date of the original meeting; and the first adjourned meeting shall not be held on any one of the five days next after the date of the original meeting:
Provided that where an applicant for the grant of a justices' licence has through inadvertence or misadventure failed to comply with any preliminary requirements of this Act, the licensing justices may, if they think fit, and upon such terms as they think proper, postpone the consideration of the application to a meeting to be held on a later date, and, if at that meeting they are satisfied that any terms imposed by them have been complied with, may consider the question of the grant of the licence as if the preliminary requirements of this Act had been properly complied with.
A meeting held for the consideration of an application postponed under this provision may be held if necessary after the date on which an adjourned general annual licensing meeting may be held, and as far as that application is concerned the powers of the licensing justices may be exercised at that meeting in the same manner as at an adjourned general annual licensing meeting.
(5) When the justices have appointed the day, hour, and place of the general annual licensing meeting, the clerk shall within five days send copies of a notice of the day, hour, and place so fixed to the proper police officers, and those officers shall cause a copy to be fixed on the door of the church or chapel of any parish in the licensing district, or, where there is no such church or chapel, on some other public and conspicuous place in the parish, and the clerk shall also cause a copy to be served on every licensing justice, and on the holders of justices' on-licences in the district, and any person who has applied for a justices' licence.
The same procedure shall be followed as respects notice of any adjournment of a general annual licensing meeting, but it shall not be necessary to serve a copy of the notice of any such adjournment on holders of justices' licences or on applicants for justices' licences who are not required to attend at the adjourned meetings.
The copies of the notice to be sent by the clerk under the foregoing provision to the proper police officers shall, in the metropolitan police district and the city
1222
of London, be sent forthwith to the high constable, and the high constable shall, within five days, cause the copies to be fixed and served as required by that provision.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved in Sub-section (2), after the word "The" ["The justices"], to insert the word "licensing."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "acting in and for the petty sessional division or borough forming the licensing district."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved in Sub-section (5), after the word "the" ["the justices"], to insert the word "licensing."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "on-licences" ["Justices' on-licences"], and to insert instead thereof the word "licences."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(New Licences and Confirmation.)
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a new justices' licence is a justices' licence granted at a general annual licensing meeting in respect of premises in respect of which a similar licence has not theretofore been granted.
(2) A grant of a new justices' licence by the licensing justices shall not be valid unless it is confirmed by the confirming authority.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "in respect of premises in respect of which a similar licence has not theretofore been granted," and insert instead thereof the words "otherwise than by way of renewal or transfer as defined by this Act."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
Clause 13 added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Special Provisions as to Grant of New Justices' On-licences.)
(1) The licensing justices, on the grant of a new justices' on-licence, may attach to the grant of the licence such conditions, both as to the payments to be made and the tenure of the licence and as to any

1223
other matters, as they think proper in the interests of the public; subject as follows:—

(a) Such conditions shall in any case be attached as, having regard to proper provision for suitable premises and good management, the justices think best adapted for securing to the public any monopoly value which is represented by the difference between the value which the premises will bear, in the opinion of the justices, when licensed, and the value of the same premises if they were not licensed: Provided that, in estimating the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises where the profits are not wholly derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor, no increased value arising from profits not so derived shall be taken into consideration:

(b) The amount of any payments imposed under conditions attached in pursuance of this section shall not exceed the amount thus required to secure the monopoly value.

(2) The licensing justices may, if they think fit, instead of granting a new justices' on-licence as an annual licence, grant the licence for a term not exceeding seven years, and where a licence is so granted for a term—

(a) Any application for a re-grant of the licence on the expiration of the term shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new justices' licence, not as an application for the renewal of a justices' licence, and during the continuance of the term the licence shall not require renewal; and

(b) Any transfer of the licence or special removal of the licence shall, subject to any conditions attached thereto on the grant, have effect for the remainder of the term of the licence, and may be granted at a general annual licensing meeting as well as at transfer or special sessions, and any reference to transfer or special sessions in this or any other Act relating to transfers or protection orders shall for that purpose include a reference to the general annual licensing meeting.

(3) The amount of any payments made in pursuance of any conditions under this section shall be collected in the same manner as the duties on local taxation licences within the meaning of Section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and shall be paid into the Exchequer.
(4) A new justices' on-licence granted for a term under this Section may (without prejudice to any other provisions as
1224
to forfeiture) be forfeited, if any condition imposed under this Section is not complied with, by order of a court of summary jurisdiction, made on complaint, or, if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence committed by him as such, by the court by whom he is convicted.
(5) On the confirmation of a new justices' on-licence, the confirming authority may, with the consent of the justices authorised to grant the licence, vary any conditions attached to the licence under the provisions of this Section.
(6) This Section does not apply to Justices' on-licences for the sale of wine alone or sweets alone.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved in Sub-section (2) paragraph (b) to leave out the words "and may be granted at a general annual licensing meeting as well as at transfer or special sessions, and any reference to transfer or special sessions in this or any other Act relating to transfers or protection orders shall for that purpose include a reference to the general annual licensing meeting."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Notices Requisite on Application for New Licence.)
(1) A person applying for a new justices' licence must—

(a) advertise notice of his application in some paper circulating in the place in which the premises to which the notice relates are situated, on some day not more than four and not less than two weeks before the application is made, and on such day or days (if any) as may be fixed by the licensing justices; and

(b) within twenty-eight days before the application is made, cause notice of his application to be affixed and maintained between the hours of ten in the morning and five in the afternoon, of two consecutive Sundays, on the door of the premises, and on the door of the church or chapel of the parish or place in which the premises are situated, or, if there is no such church or chapel, on some other public and conspicuous place within the parish or place; and

(c) not less than twenty-one days before the application is made, give notice in writing of his intention to apply for the licence to one of the overseers of the parish in which the premises to which the

1225
notice relates are situated and to the superintendent of police of the district, and, not less than twenty-one days before the date of the general annual licensing meeting, give a similar notice to the clerk of the licensing justices; and

(d) if the application is for a new justices' on-licence, not less than twenty-one days before the date of the general annual licensing meeting, deposit with the clerk of the licensing justices a plan of the premises in respect of which the application is to be made.

(2) Any notice to be given under this section shall set forth the name and address of the applicant, a description of the licence or licences for which he intends to apply, and a description of the situation of the premises in respect of which the application is to be made.
Mr. SIMON Mr. SIMON moved in Sub-section (1) paragraph (d) to leave out the words "date of the general annual licensing meeting," and insert the words "application is made."
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time.
Ordered, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Dundas White.]
ADJOURNMENT.—It being after half-past Eleven o'clock Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Eight minutes before Twelve o'clock