Commons Sitting of 17 March 1910

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),-Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:-
Edinburgh Canal District Improvement Bill.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),-Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:-
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),-Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Transfer) [
Lords],
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
London Electric Supply Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),-Mr. SPEAKER, laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 11th day of March, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are
494
applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
London Electric Supply Bill.
Crystal Palace Company Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Mountain Ash Water Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to inquire whether the Promoters have made adequate provision by the Bill for the supply of water at reasonable rates to the agricultural community within the area of supply, and to any person or persons from whom any existing or natural supply is, or may be, withdrawn owing to the works or undertakings authorised by the Bill, and that they further have power to insert in the Bill such clause or clauses as they think necessary to impose upon the Promoters the obligation to provide such supply.-[Mr. Stanier.]
Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 31st March.
Tipperary Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 30th March.
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE [SALARIES, ETC.].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the Salaries and Pensions of two additional Judges of the High Court who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.-[
Master of Elibank ]

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Glamorgan (Mid-Division), in the room of Sir Samuel Thomas Evans, President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice.-[
Master of Elibank.]

POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee A.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Typhoid Fever at Funchal (Madeira).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received any communication from Madeira on the subject of the recent outbreak of typhoid fever at the principal hotel at Funchal; and whether he was in a position to say that the authorities at Lisbon had converted the mountain water in their possession for the amelioration of the distress caused amongst British visitors to Madeira by the neglect of the municipality to provide proper drinking water?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): According to information which I have received from Madeira, the cases of typhoid have been practically confined to one hotel, there being only four or five other cases in the rest of Funchal. The question of approaching the Portuguese Government with a view to the improvement of the water supply has been brought to my notice and to that of His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon, but it does not appear to be a matter in which I can properly intervene officially.

  Congo Mining (Belgian Syndicate).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he was aware that an extensive mining monopoly had recently been granted to a Belgian syndicate in the Katanga region of the Congo; and whether the conferring of such monopoly was reconcilable with the provisions of the Anglo-Congolese Convention of 1884?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I understand that a Belgian syndicate has been granted the right to prospect over a large area in the Katanga, but that no mining monopoly has been granted to the syndicate.

  British Trade with Congo.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the increasing interest displayed by the chambers of commerce of this country with possibilities of British trade with Congo, he would publish a statement showing the condition under which such trade may be carried on, with indications from His Majesty's consular staff of the openings for commerce ire various parts of the Congo?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: It would be very difficult to furnish a statement of the nature required by the hon. Member, while the conditions of trade in the Congo are in a state of transition, and without more precise indications of the particulars desired, but if any British merchant or firm applies to me, I will furnish such information as I possess or can obtain. As soon as new conditions are settled they will of course be made known.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would lay upon the Table of the House the Report or Reports received from His Majesty's Vice-Consul in Katanga, Mr. G. B. Beak, since September, 1907?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to lay Mr. Beak's Reports before the House at the present time, as they deal with a condition of things which will end on 1st July next. As I told the House last Thursday, I must await Reports from His Majesty's Consular Officers as to the working of the new system in the Congo, and as soon as I have definite information it shall be laid before the House.

  Congo (Ambulating Traders).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he was aware that, by a recent decision of the Belgian Colonial Minister, the licences upon ambulating traders in the Congo had been raised from £7 to £20; and whether, in view of the effect of this increase on British-protected Indian and Swahili subjects in carrying on their business in the Congo territory, he proposed to take any action in the matter?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I do not gather that any discrimination against British subjects is involved by this decision, and I do not therefore propose to take any action in the matter. I may add that the Belgian Colonial Minister has explained to the Colonial Council, with reference to this increase of the licence, that he is anxious to encourage settled traders in the Congo, and that if any ambulating trader chooses to set up a fixed establishment in Congo territory, he becomes, by payment of the tax on a dwelling-house, free to trade without taking out a "colporteur's" licence.

  French Tariff.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any further information to give to the House with regard to the French tariff?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The report of the Senate Commission on the French Tariff Bill has now been received. His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris has again drawn the attention of the French Government to various items in the proposed tariff which are injurious to British trade. The French Minister of Commerce informed the Senate on the 11th instant that the French Government would ask for the modification of the duties on a certain number of articles which they considered had been overtaxed.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that concessions have already been made to American and Belgian interests, and not to British?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I am not aware that special concessions have been made.

  Suez Canal Agreement
  Mr. MOONEY (on behalf of Mr. Dillon)asked whether the British Consul-General in Cairo was using his influence to secure the consent of the Assembly or the Egyptian Government to the Suez Canal Agreement; whether Papers would be laid immediately containing all the correspondence which had passed between the British Government, the Consul-General, and the Suez Canal Company on the proposed agreement; and whether the House of Commons would be afforded an opportunity of considering this matter before it was finally settled?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I am not aware that Sir Eldon Gorst is exercising any influence on the National Assembly with
  498
  regard to the proposed Convention. This question His Majesty's Government consider to be one which the Egyptian Government should decide freely for themselves, and in which His Majesty's Government should not exercise any influence at Cairo. I cannot undertake to lay Papers until the matter has reached its last stage; and as it is not one which is under the control of His Majesty's Government, I cannot promise that the House will have any opportunity for discussing it before it is finally settled.
  Mr. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether efforts will be made to get for the British representation on the Board exactly proportionate to their share of the stock, which representation I understand is, at present, conspicuously less?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The question of British representation has been under discussion for some years past.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: Can the right hon Gentleman give us any idea how long it will take before an arrangement can be finally come to between the Suez Canal Company and the Egyptian Government?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I cannot say. When the General Assembly has pronounced its decision the Egyptian Government will have to consider what course they should take.

  British Indian Petrol (Import into France).
  Mr. MITCHELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had yet succeeded in obtaining the most-favoured-nation treatment for petrol, the product of British India, when imported into France?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The French Government have stated that they axe unable to apply the minimum tariff to-petroleum imported from British India unless the Indian Government are prepared to reduce the import duties on French wines, silks, and silk goods. The Indian Government are unable to make this concession.

  Estates Sold Direct to Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Estates Commissioners now required their inspectors to report in accordance with paragraph 41 of the Regulations of 1906 when dealing with an estate sold direct to the tenants; and, if

  499
  so, why did uneconomic holdings continue to be sold without enlargement on estates comprising untenanted land?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The paragraph to which the hon. Member refers is included in Part II. of the Instructions, which relate solely to sales to the Estates Commissioners and not to direct sales to tenants. The inspectors report, as required, by the paragraph in the case of all estates and untenanted land which are the subject of proceedings for sale to the Commissioners. As regards uneconomic holdings sold direct to the tenants, the Commissioners, when making allotments of untenanted land, bear in mind the desirability of enlarging such holdings.

  Supervision of Public Accounts. (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Local Government Board for Ireland held that the object of their supervision of public accounts was correct bookkeeping, not honesty, and that, so long as the accounts of expenditure were correctly kept, they would not intervene if work for which payment were made were not done; and, if this was not their view, what action they had taken, or proposed to take, with reference to unearned payments recently brought under their notice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative.. If complaints as to definite instances of unearned payments are made to the Local Government auditors at the time of the audit and are supported by satisfactory evidence, and if on investigation the items objected to prove to be unfounded payments, the auditors will deal with the matter according to law.

  Land Sales in Ireland (Interests of Villagers).
  Mr. GINNELLasked why the Estates Commissioners permitted, in the vicinity of villages which had lost trade and required land, the sale of untenanted land under the Land Purchase Acts to monopolists and not to the villagers, thus making the relief of the latter more difficult; and whether the Commissioners would make any change in their practice in this respect in exercise of their new powers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not able to identify the par-
  500
  ticular sales to which the hon. Member refers. They have no such practice as is mentioned in the question.

  Estates Commissioners (Cases of Congestion).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Estates Commissioners required to be embodied in every inspectors' report of an estate all the cases of congestion on the estate; whether from small-ness of area or infertility of soil, and all the untenanted land on or near the estate from which that congestion could be relieved; and whether they would, in future, require the enlargement of uneconomic holdings, where possible, before allowing the sale of an estate to be completed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the case of estates which appear to be congested within the meaning of Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and Section 20 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, the inspectors are required to report whether any, and, if so, what, improvements could be made to relieve congestion, if the Estates Commissioners were in a position to deal with the lands as a congested estate. In the allotment of untenanted land the Commissioners have regard to the desirability of enlarging uneconomic holdings whenever it is possible to do so.
  Mr. GINNELL: Would that rule apply to any estate complying with the legal definition of congestion, or must it fall within the definition of the section even though there is real congestion there?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I cannot deal with it outside the authority of the Act.

  Lord Crofton's Estate (County Roscommon).
  Mr. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the estate of Lord Crofton, known as Ballybeg, parish of Ogulla, county Roscommon; and, if so, whether he could say if it was the intention of the Commissioners to immediately proceed with the division and allotment of the said lands amongst deserving applicants in the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not purchased this property, but proceedings are pending for its sale to them, and a scheme for the distribution of the untenanted land will be prepared as soon as practicable?

  Perigrand Ffrench Estate (County Roscommon).
  Mr. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether the sixteen years' lease, on 160 acres of untenanted land on the estate of Perigrand Maitland Ffrench, in the parish of Ogulla, county Roscommon, was held, had now only one year to run; whether there are, in the immediate neighbourhood, a number of poor people living upon small uneconomic holdings; and whether, under the circumstances, he would draw the attention of the Congested Districts Board to the advisability of purchasing the said land, known as Cashland, and distributing it amongst the small holders in question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estate in question has not been offered to the Congested Districts Board and their local officer has not been able to obtain any particulars as to the farm referred to.

  Closing of Augher Police Barracks (County Tyrone).
  Mr. LONSDALE (for Mr. Horner)asked whether it was the intention of the Government to close the police barracks at Augher, county Tyrone, this year; and, if so, whether the Government would reconsider its decision, in view of the fact that all the owners and occupiers of property in the neighbourhood memorialised the Government to retain the barracks, and that the local bench of magistrates repeatedly and unanimously passed resolutions against closing the barracks?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Irish Government have decided to close this barrack, as the responsible police authorities are of opinion that it is no longer required. I am not aware of any sufficient reason for reconsidering this decision, and the magistrates and other persons who have written in favour of the retention of the barrack have been so informed.

  Chapman Estate (County Westmeath).
  Mr. GINNELLasked by what procedure the congested tenants in Clonmellon and other portions of the Chapman estate, Westmeath, now deprived of employment and of trade, and left no alternative but land or emigration, could move the Estates Commissioners to purchase and distribute at once, under the powers conferred upon them by the Act of 1909, the untenanted land on that estate in which to their knowledge bogus tenancies were now being created?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The owner has instituted proceedings for the sale of this estate to the Estates Commissioners under the Land Purchase Acts, and it will be dealt with in its proper order. The Commissioners are not prepared to deal with the estate out of its turn. When on the lands the inspector will inquire as regards all tenancies on the estate, but the Commissioners have no information before them at present as to the creation of any bogus tenancies.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenant (County Roscommon).
  Mr. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the case of Pat Bushel, who was evicted in 1895 by Major Balfe, of Castlerea, and who had been promised several times by the Land Commissioners to be reinstated in a farm; would he explain why this promise had not been fulfilled; whether he was aware that Mr. Stuart, acting for the Land Commission, on 14th May, 1907, sent Bushel a telegram saying he was going to reinstate him in a farm, and asking him to meet him (Stuart) in Castlerea, and next day Stuart wired telling him not to come, and that since then Bushel had heard nothing from Stuart; and whether he would urge this case on the Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Bushel's former holding is in the occupation of another tenant, and the Estates Commissioners cannot interfere in the matter, but they have noted his name for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land on an estate for which they are negotiating but which they have not yet acquired.

  Kilmurry Assault Case.
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether he would give the names of the magistrates who refused information in connection with the charge brought against several men of resisting and assaulting the sheriff in the execution of his duty at Kilmurry on 22nd June last; and whether the action of these magistrates had been brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor with a view to their removal from the commission of the peace?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is not the usual practice to state the names of magistrates who have taken part in judicial proceedings. Moreover, some of the charges arising out of the occasion referred to are still pending, certain indictments found against the persons accused in the case

  503
  having been adjourned to the next Assizes. It is not usual for the Executive Government to bring to the notice of the Cord Chancellor the action of magistrates in the exercise of their judicial discretion.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether he would state who was responsible for the procedure adopted in the case of the men accused of resistance to the officers of the law at Kilmurry, county Kerry, in June last, whereby, the local justices having refused to send the men for trial, they were brought before a Kerry jury at the Spring Assizes and acquitted, instead of being brought at once before the resident magistrate sitting alone and returned for trial at the Winter Assizes where the venue would not have been in Kerry; and whether he would explain the reasons for the course adopted by the Executive in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: On the refusal last August of the magistrates to return information in the case referred to by the hon. Member, the Attorney-General directed a bill of indictment to be preferred against the accused at the first Assizes at which it was possible to do so. In giving this direction the Attorney-General followed the long-standing precedent in such cases. The course suggested by the hon. Member would have been unusual, if not unprecedented, and in the circumstances uncalled for.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted with reference to this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think I was.

  Intimidation (North Tipperary).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been drawn to the address of Mr. Justice Gibson to the grand jury at the North Tipperary Assizes, in which it was stated that there was a certain amount of intimidation practised in the county, with a view to preventing the letting of grass lands and preventing sales; and whether any steps were being taken in this district to restore to the owners and occupiers of such land full liberty of action without hindrance to their daily occupations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: According to the newspaper report, which I have seen, the learned judge would appear to have qualified the statement referred to by the hon. Member by adding that he did
  504
  not say that intimidation was prevalent. I am informed by the constabulary authorities that it has greatly decreased throughout the county of Tipperary during the past year. Wherever there has been intimidation the police are doing all they can to prevent its recurrence and to detect the offenders.

  Clarke Boycotting Case (Thurles).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked when it was intended to bring to trial the persons charged with boycotting conspiracy against Mr. Charles N. Clarke, of Thurles; and what was the reason for the delay in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is intended to bring the accused to trial during the next legal term, opening in Dublin on April 15th. While the cases are pending a discussion of the further matter raised by the hon. Member would not be desirable.
  Mr. LONSDALE: How long has Mr. Clarke been boycotted and under police protection.?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member knows as well as I do that he has been boycotted and under police protection for a long time, but I cannot give the exact date.

  Cattle-driving.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked what was the number of cases of cattle-driving reported to the constabulary in each of the years 1907, 1908, and 1909?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In 1907 there were 390 cases; in 1908, 681; and last year, 200.
  Captain CRAIG (for Mr. Charles Craig)asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to a cattle-drive at Ballynort, in the Ballysteen district, near Askeaton, when 150 head of cattle were driven off the lands; and whether extra police were to be drafted into the district as a result of lawlessness; and, if so what will be the cost to the ratepayers of the locality for the extra police?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that on the night of the 7th inst. seventy-one cattle and seventy-three sheep and lambs were driven off Ballynort farm on to the adjoining lands, and were driven back the next morning by the owners. No extra police are being drafted into the district in connection with this occurrence. It is an isolated case of lawlessness, and I am informed by the responsible police authorities that the state of county Limerick is at present most satisfactory.

  Extra Police Cost (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked what was the total amount levied in respect of extra police charges in Ireland in each of the financial years 1905-6 to 1908-9; and the total amount claimed in respect of similar charges during the nine months ended 31st December, 1909, exclusive of the amounts paid by Belfast and Londonderry under the special provisions applicable to these cities?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The charges for extra police (exclusive of the payments made by the Corporations of Belfast and Londonderry) for the several years mentioned in the question, and for the half-year ended 30th September, 1909, were as follows: For 1905-6, £l,572; for 1906-7, £2,726; for 1907-8, £13,933; for 1908-9, £26,256; and for the half-year ended 30th September last, £12,723. In accordance with statutory requirements the claims are prepared half-yearly for the six months ending 30th September and 31st March. Xo figures are therefore available for the last quarter of 1909.

  Normandy Sires (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked how many Normandy sires were upon the Irish Department of Agriculture's register of approved sires; how many of these animals were purchased with the help of loans made by the Department; how many were now being subsidised by the Department; and in what districts were these Normandy sires now standing?
  Mr. BIRR ELL: There is one such sire upon the register-a Normandy coaching sire purchased in England in 1907 by a Cavan farmer, and now in that county. It is not subsidised by the Department.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is it on the list of approved sires?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know.
  Captain CRAIG: That was the subject of my question.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question, as I understand it, was whether the sire in question was subsidised by the Department. The answer is in the negative.

  Hall Estate, Athenry.
  Mr. CONDONasked the Chief Secretary whether the landlord had received the purchase price for the Hall estate, Knock-brack, Athenry; and, if so, whether he could state why the tenants were still
  506
  called upon to pay 3½ per cent, interest, the agreements having been signed in May, 1905?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners and the purchase money has been advanced to the owner. The Commissioners rearranged the holdings, divided the un-tenanted land, and spent over £1,100 on improvements, and the tenants signed undertakings to purchase their holdings as rearranged and to pay interest in lieu of rent at 3½ per cent, until the lands were vested in them, which could not be done until the improvements had been completed. The improvements have now been made and the lands will shortly be vested in the tenants. The Commissioners know nothing of the agreements referred to in the concluding portion of the question.

  Election Riot (Ardglass).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state on whose recommendation the Lord Lieutenant acted in releasing the three young men who were sentenced at the Ardglass Petty Sessions to a month's hard labour for being drunk and disorderly on the day of the East Down election; whether the local county inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary, or the resident magistrate were consulted before he took that action; and whether he was aware that the police evidence went to show that the language of one of the party was so vile as to outrage humanity, and that windows were smashed and bottles and stones thrown at the police, that with regard to a second he behaved like a madman, urged the crowd to rush the barracks, and flung a bottle charged with sand at the sergeant, while the third was most boisterous and assaulted the police?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As regards the facts of this case I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Down yesterday. I cannot discuss the grounds on which the Lord Lieutenant was pleased to exercise the prerogative of mercy.
  Captain CRAIG: Was the resident magistrate or the local county inspector among the authorities consulted on such an important matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not prepared to say who was consulted by the Lord Lieutenant. He was fully informed of the circumstances of the case.
  Captain CRAIG: By the parents of the persons in prison?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.

  Board of National Education (School Amalgamation).
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the Secretaries of the Board of National Education had omitted to reply to official applications for instructions in connection with the amalgamation of schools under clerical management; and. if so, why this course had been adopted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The secretaries of the Board of National Education are not aware of any such omission on their part. If particulars of any case of the kind are furnished, they will look into the matter.

  Aughtercloney National School (Suspension).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state the dates of any meetings of the Board of National Education during the year 1905 in the minutes whereof it was recorded that the case of Aughtercloney suspended national school (1223) was considered; and the terms of any Board's Order in reference to this school made at any meeting since the 1st January, 1905?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The proceedings at the meetings of the Board of National Education are of a confidential character, and I am not therefore in a position to give the details which the hon. and gallant Member seeks. If there is any particular matter in connection with the school on which he wishes for information, I shall be happy to make further inquiries.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any control over the Board of National Education?
  Mr. BIRRELL: None whatever.

  Sligo Infirmary Appointment.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether the Government had any powers in connection with the appointments made by boards of guardians in Ireland; if so, if any notice had been taken of the recent appointment of a matron for the Sligo infirmary; whether he was aware that there were eight candidates, mostly duly qualified nurses; whether they were all passed over in favour of a lady who was not a trained nurse; and if the Local Government Board intended to take action?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No appointment such as is mentioned in the question has been made by the board of guardians in connection with the workhouse infirmary of the Sligo Union. If, however, the hon. Member refers to the county infirmary, I have no official information as to the appointment of a matron in that institution, nor have I any responsibility with regard to it.
  Captain CRAIG: Have the Local Government Board no jurisdiction at all over the appointments?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The workhouse appointments are subject to sanction by the Local Government Board, but the county infirmaries are managed under an Act of Parliament, and we have no control over them whatever.
  Captain COOPER: Has anybody control over these institutions which are subsidised from the rates?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not prepared to answer for anybody but myself and the Irish Government. We have no responsibility for them whatever.

  Charges for Extra Police and Malicious Injuries ompensation (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the schedule of special poundage rates in respect of extra police charges and compensation for malicious injuries in addition to the ordinary rates just published by the county council of Galway; would he state the total poundage rates for the divisions of Ballinasloe, Clifden, Galway, Glenamaddy, Gort, Loughrea, Mountbellew, Oughterard, Portumna, and Tuam, respectively, specifying in each case the special poundage rate for extra police and for compensation for malicious injuries; was he aware that the extra burdens upon the ratepayers of the county of Galway in respect of extra police and malicious injuries for the past year amounted to £28,000 or thereabouts; and would the Irish Government or the Congested Districts Board take steps to form a conciliation board representing the interests of landlords and tenants in the county, with a view to devising some means of relieving the ratepayers from this burden and its attendant unrest and ill-will?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper copy of the schedule to which the hon.

  509
  Member refers. The total poundage rates for the year ended 31st March, 1911, in the rural districts mentioned in the question are as follows:-Ballinasloe 4s. 5¾d.; Clifden, 7s. 3d.; Galway, 6s. 1¼d.; Glenmaddy, 4s. 7d.; Gort, 4s. 3¾d.; Loughrea, 4s. 2¾d.; Mountbellew, 4s. 7¾d.; Oughterard, 6s. 4¼d.; Portumna, is. 4s. 1½d.; Tuam, 4s. 9¾d. A rate of 1s. in the pound is being levied in respect of extra police, and the rate for malicious injuries varies from ¼d. to 1s. 8½d. The net amount estimated by the county secretary to be raised in respect of extra police is £28,219. I do not, for myself, see how the state of such a place, for example, as Athenry could be brought before a conciliation board, but I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I ask whether in England it is not quite usual that conflicts of equal gravity between capital and labour are settled by the friendly initiative of the Board of Trade, and will he kindly inquire why that should be impossible in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am prepared to make any inquiry which the hon. Gentleman suggests, but disputes between capital and labour are of an entirely different kind from those which unhappily exist over a limited portion of Ireland.

  Indian Indentured Labourers (Mortality).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the fact that the mortality among Indian indentured labourers to the Federated Malay States amounted in the year 1908 to 84.8 per thousand, the Government of India had taken steps to prohibit the supply of indentured labour to these states?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The figures quoted by my hon. Friend are those given in the Report of the Superintendent of Immigration for 1908, but it has since been ascertained that they are incorrect. The correct figures appear to be
  31.5 per thousand. Even these figures, however, are far from satisfactory, and in view of them action has been taken to put an end to the system of indentured immigration from India. The High Commissioner has informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies that after 30th June no more indentured Indian labourers will be allotted to the Federated Malay States,
  510
  and it is estimated that steps which are being taken under the Immigration Enactments in these States will result an the immediate termination of the engagements of at least a thousand labourers.

  Lala Chand (Lahore).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether Lala Lal Chand, of Lahore, has been convicted and sentenced to a long term of rigorous imprisonment for selling Hindustani translations of Mr. William Jennings Bryan's pamphlet on "British Rule in India" and of two chapters from Professor Seeley's "Expansion of England "?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Lala Lal Chand and a number of other persons were prosecuted under the orders of the Punjab Government for carrying on an agency for the production and dissemination of seditious literature. Among the publications of this agency was a garbled translation of Mr. Bryan's "British Rule in India," containing alterations and interpolations. The Secretary of State has no information regarding any translation of portions of Professor Seeley's "Expansion of England," nor has he as yet heard the result of these trials.
  Mr. REES: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Bryan's pamphlet was itself a compendium of all the stock, stale, and oft-refuted calumnies against British rule collected from the seditious section of the native Press?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think that arises; the pamphlet in question was not a translation of Mr. Bryan's pamphlet.

  Release of Deportees (India).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the attention of the Government of India had been directed to the statements published in the ''Madras Times" of 10th February, to the effect that Lord Minto's policy in relation to the release of the deportees was a policy of shilly-shally, and expressing the hope that Lord Minto would pass away into well-merited retirement; whether such expressions in Anglo-Indian papers, published in India, bring them within the provisions of the Press Act on the charge of sedition; and, if so, whether steps would be taken to see that the Act was applied in all such cases where the statements published were calculated to bring the Government into contempt within the terms of the Act?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State does not know whether the attention of the Government of India has been directed to the article in question, nor whether they are at all likely to regard it as worth -attention. As regards the latter part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that it is for the local Governments in India to interpret the new Press Act, subject to appeal to the High Courts in that country.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask whether the Secretary of State himself would permit discrimination in this matter, and whether, if he discovered that the Anglo-Indian Press were guilty within the terms of the Act, he would take action against those papers as well?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member will look at the Press Act he will see that the first move in the matter must come from the local Government, and anyone dissatisfied with their action can appeal to the High Court.

  Prosecution of Newspaper (Calcutta).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the printer of the "Hitabadi," of Calcutta, had been sentenced to a year's rigorous imprisonment for printing in the columns of his paper a translation into Bengali of an article which had appeared in the "Indian Daily News"; and whether any proceedings were taken against the "Indian Daily News" by the local Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir. The prosecution of the newspaper referred to was in respect of its own articles, not the republication of those of another journal.

  Veto Resolutions.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to place upon the Paper the text of the Resolutions to be submitted to the House with reference to the functions of another place, the duration of Parliament, and kindred matters?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Resolutions will be placed upon the Paper next week; but I cannot, at the moment, name the precise day on which this will be done.

  Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act.
  Mr. FELLasked if, having regard to the effect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act in the North of England, it is proposed to introduce a Bill to repeal that Act so far as
  512
  it relates to the counties of Northumberland and Durham?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill) (for the Prime Minister): The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  Finance Bill, 1909–10.
  Mr. GINNELLasked if, for the convenience of Irish Members, the Prime Minister will say when the Finance Bill of 1909-10, or any resolution in lieu thereof or giving effect to its proposals, would come before the House of Commons?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present state the day when this business will be taken.
  Lord HUGH CECIL had the following question on the Paper: "Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Finance Bill before the Spring Recess or at any time during the present Session; and, if so, whether that Bill will contain any, and, if so, which, of the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1909? "
  I am asked by the Prime Minister to postpone this question until Monday, as there are other questions on the same subject on that day. I have no choice but to comply with his request, but I must not be understood to acquiesce in the postponement.
  Mr. LONSDALE had given notice of the following question: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total estimated yield from additional taxation in 1910–11 and in future years imposed upon Ireland by the Finance Bill, 1909, and what is the estimated yield from each tax?
  I have been asked to postpone this question until Monday. But while I regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer's indisposition, I think the question might have been answered by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in view of its urgency.

  President of Divorce Division (Pension).
  Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether the retiring President of the Divorce, Probate, and Admiralty Court was, by his length of service, entitled to a pension?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the pension in question was granted upon a medical certificate.
  Mr. WATT: Are we to take it as a precedent that judges who retire before having served the necessary time will receive pensions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A judge is entitled to his pension when he has served fifteen years, and he is entitled to it also if he is disabled by infirmity before he has served the fifteen years.

  Colonial Second Chambers (Return).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he will state when he expects the Return relating to the constitution and functions of Colonial Second Chambers to be issued?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): I cannot promise it before Easter, as it is likely to be somewhat lengthy, but it is being expedited as much as possible.

  Corn Duty (Malta).
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether the Government had under consideration the propriety of abolishing at the earliest possible date the import duty on corn now levied in Malta?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State regrets that in the present position of the finances of Malta it is not possible for him now to agree to surrender any of the existing sources of revenue.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Under what authority was this tax laid, and when was it laid?
  Colonel SEELY: It was laid, I think, in 1837, at the beginning of the late reign, and it has been acquiesced in ever since.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very strong protest is made against it as a grievous burden.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes; but on grounds which would not commend themselves to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Am I to understand that the Government refuses to consider the propriety of abolishing this tax?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State, in the present position of the finances, finds it impossible to consider the matter now. We do not approve of a corn tax anywhere or at any time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does not the position of the revenue here require the impo-
  514
  sition of some fresh taxes of a similar nature?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long way from the question on the Paper.

  Port Soudan (Direct Service).
  Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked if any representations have been made to the Government as to the necessity for a direct service with Port Soudan and East Africa; and, if so, whether they propose to take any steps in the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: The question of improving the steamship service between this country and East Africa has been engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government for some time. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, a service to Mombasa has been started by the Union Castle Steamship Company,viâ the Cape of Good Hope, but it has not yet been found possible to initiate a service by way of the Suez Canal which would serve British East African and intermediate ports by that route.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Has the Colonial Office asked for any tenders?
  Colonel SEELY: Not at the moment. I think a large subsidy is required for this purpose, and His Majesty's Government, do not see their way to afford it at the present time.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Are there any tenders in the office which have not been accepted?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not a question of tenders at the present time at all.

  Canada and United States (Tariffs).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the negotiations which are being carried out between the Canadian and the United States Governments for the purpose of discussing the tariffs between the two countries in question; whether he will, in the interest of British trade, make representations to the Canadian Government to ascertain what reductions, if any, in the existing tariffs between the two countries are likely to take place; and whether he will have printed and circulated amongst the Members of the House any information that he may obtain in connection with his investigations?
  Colonel SEELY (for Mr. Buxton): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have to refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my

  515
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 10th instant to a similar question put by the hon. Member for the Chertsey Division. When the result of the recent discussion at Ottawa is known His Majesty's Government will be in a position to consider whether any representation should be made in the interests of British trade. At present there is no correspondence on the subject to present to the House.

  Joint Stock Companies (Unclaimed Dividends).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will consider the question of introducing legislation calling upon joint stock companies to disclose the amount of unclaimed dividends in their possession?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): As at present advised, I do not think that any useful object will be served by requiring joint stock companies to set out as a separate item in their balance sheets the amount of unclaimed dividends in their possession, and I do not therefore propose to introduce legislation with this end in view.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman condescend to give any reasons for that opinion, and does he not think it would be to the advantage of the State and to the rightful owners of these funds that they should be handed over to the Public Trustee?
  Mr. BUXTON: That would require legislation, and at present it is not opportune to have legislation with regard to that. As regards the other matters, if my hon. Friend has any particulars to give me I shall be glad to consider them.

  Assurance Companies and Societies(Forfeited Payments).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware of the sums of money which were annually forfeited by policy-holders in industrial assurance companies and societies owing to unemployment and other causes, and whether he would consider the question of introducing legislation to compel such companies and societies to make an annual return showing the amounts so forfeited?
  Mr. BUXTON: The returns required by the Assurance Companies Act of last year
  516
  include an annual return of the total amount paid by each assurance company for policies surrendered, and the valuation return (which is made quinquennially) requires the conditions to be set out under which free or paid-up policies are granted on the surrender of existing policies. Both these requirements are new, and I should not propose to introduce legislation further amending the law of life assurance until the law of last year has had a fair trial.

  Gas and Water Companies (Unclaimed Deposits).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will consider the question of introducing legislation to compel gas and water companies to disclose the amount of unclaimed deposits in their possession?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not proposing, at present, to introduce any legislation dealing with gas and water companies. I have not at present any information before me that would lead me to think that legislation is required for the object stated in the question. As I stated, in reply, just now, if my hon. Friend gives me any particulars I shall be glad to consider them.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I will do so.

  Labour Exchange (Carnarvon).
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the depression in the slate trade and of the expense now being incurred by the county council of Carnarvon in coping with unemployment, he can expedite the opening of a Labour Exchange at Carnarvon in accordance with the request of the county council?
  Mr. BUXTON: Stops are being taken to obtain suitable, premises for the Carnarvon Labour Exchange, which will be opened as soon as these are acquired and adapted for the purpose.

  Quarrymen's Union, Carnarvon (Unemployment Insurance).
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a request from the Quarry-men's Union, Carnarvon, for the inclusion of slate quarrymen within the provisions of the proposed Bill for compulsory insurance against unemployment; and whether, in view of the fact that the slate trade depends on the fluctuations of the building trade, he will favourably consider the suggestion?
  Mr. BUXTON: No resolution of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend has yet been received by me.

  Glasgow Labour Bureau (Leadhills Lockout).
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the action of the manager of the Glasgow Labour Bureau in telling unemployed men applying for work of the circumstances of the lock-out at Leadhills, and then asking them to decide for themselves whether to accept work there or not, he will instruct all the managers of these Labour Bureaux not to allow themselves in this way to be made the medium of interference in trade disputes.
  Mr. BUXTON: The manager of the Glasgow Labour Bureau did not interfere in any way with a trade dispute. He complied fully with the General Regulations applicable to the matter. These Regulations were drawn up after consultation with representatives of employers and workmen, and are designed to ensure an attitude of strict impartiality and noninterference on the part of Labour Exchanges in trade disputes.
  Sir W. MENZIES: May I ask if he will give consideration to the procedure indicated, and whether it is not a considerable temptation to the men out of work to take that work in order to provide food, and is it likely that an unemployed workman will take a strictly impartial view of any story told to him about a strike or lockout?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter upon which we all can form our own judgment.

  Trade Boards Act (Wages Board).
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be in a position to make the appointments of those who are to act on the Wages Boards of the various trades under the Trade Boards Act?
  Mr. BUXTON: A Trade Board for "hammered and dollied or tommied chain-making" has been formed in accordance with the Regulations dated 25th November, 1909. The Board of Trade appointed the chairman and two appointed members for this Board, and the representative members were elected by the employers and workpeople concerned. Several meetings of this Trade Board have already been
  518
  held. The regulations for the paper box trade will shortly be laid on the Table of the House, and inquiries are in progress in the scheduled branches of the lace and tailoring trades.

  Trades Unions.
  Captain MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish the numbers of the members of trades unions who in 1909 ceased to be members of their unions owing to their inability to pay their subscriptions?
  Mr. BUXTON: I regret that I have no information which would enable me to furnish the particulars asked for.
  Captain MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the figures for the years 1908 and 1909, respectively, of the sums paid out to unemployed members by each of the trades unions which give these benefits?
  Mr. BUXTON: The amount expended by 100 principal trades unions on unemployed benefit in 1908, which was a year of bad employment, was £1,001,000. The corresponding figure for 1909 is not yet available. No complete annual returns of the expenditure of all trades unions on unemployed benefit are obtained, but the expenditure of the 100 principal unions is known to represent the great bulk of the total.
  Captain MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures for 1909 when he can ascertain them?
  Mr. BUXTON: As soon as they are available I shall be very glad to supply them.

  Deaths from Anthrax.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention had been called to the death of Miss Edith Derbyshire, who recently contracted anthrax at the works of Messrs. Campbell and Harrison, woolcombers, of Shipley, a branch of the woolcombers' syndicate; if he will examine the depositions of evidence given at the subsequent inquest; and whether he will say how many cases of anthrax have occurred among Messrs. Campbell and Harrison's employÉs during the last ten years, and the number of cases which have occurred at the whole of the combined firms of Woolcombers, Limited,

  519
  during the same period, distinguishing between different years and fatal and non-fatal cases?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A report of this case has been received in the Department, and I have also obtained the depositions taken at the inquest from the coroner. An exhaustive examination of the existing conditions at the works has been directed. I will circulate the figures which the hon. Member asks for, and which cannot conveniently be given in an oral reply, with the Votes.

  Manx Constitution.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked when the promised inquiry concerning the Manx Constitution is to be held?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I appreciate the importance of the questions which have been raised, particularly as to the extensive powers and unrepresentative character of the Upper House, in the Isle of Man Legislature; but I feel that their consideration cannot take precedence of the settlement of similar constitutional questions in this country.

  Workmen's Compensation Act (Isle of Man).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked whether, in the event of the Manx Legislature failing to pass at an early date a Workmen's Compensation Act in order to extend to Manx workmen the protection and compensation enjoyed by English workmen, he will take steps to extend the operations of the 1906 Act to the Isle of Man?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The island authorities were consulted in 1906 on the question of extending the provisions of the Bill to the Isle of Man, but they saw objection to this course, as an Employers Liability Act had only recently been passed which was considered sufficient for the needs of the island. No information has reached me to show the necessity of further legislation, but. I will communicate with the island authorities on the subject.

  Exportation of Horses.
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can give the names of the ports in the United Kingdom from which old and worn-out horses are shipped to the Continent; what steps have been taken, particularly at the Northern ports, to enforce the regulations and to prevent Buffering and cruelty during the sea pas-
  520
  sage; will he state the number of such horses shipped during 1909, and the number of horses in 1909 which, on being disembarked, were unable to walk and had to be slaughtered on the spot or removed in waggons; and if, seeing the suffering caused by this traffic, steps could be taken to put a stop to it altogether?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The ports of shipment are Goole, Grangemouth, Grimsby, Hull, King's Lynn, Leith, London, and New-castle-on-Tyne. The enforcement of the provisions of the Exportation of Horses Order of 1898 rests with the local authorities, and they have appointed inspectors for the purpose. In addition, our own inspectors supervise generally the administration of the Order, and they make voyages to the Continent on vessels carrying horses, with a view to secure the more stringent and uniform enforcement of the law. In August last we appointed a veterinary inspector for the same purpose, who gives his undivided attention to the work. We have at present no statistics which give the information for which my hon. Friend asks, but we are in communication with the Belgian and Dutch Governments on the subject, and we hope to obtain from them periodical Returns of the character indicated. I believe that the inhumanity that has existed in connection with this traffic will be eliminated if we can secure the efficient enforcement of the law which absolutely prohibits the shipment of any horse which cannot be conveyed without cruelty during the intended passage and on landing. I have no power to prohibit the exportation of horses generally.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: May I ask whether, in view of the announcement that has been made that the Board of Agriculture is in communication with the Belgian Government, he will not think it advisable to get into communication with other Governments with regard to the same matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly. If we can do any good by doing so.

  Sheep Dipping (Montgomeryshire).
  Mr. REESasked the Parliamentary-Secretary of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that objections are raised in Montgomeryshire to two compulsory sheep-dippings in one year; and! what effect has been given to representations made to him in this behalf?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Representations have recently been made to the Board on this subject. They have been very fully considered and discussed at conferences between officers of the Board and those concerned. The matter will be kept in view, but having regard to the prevalence of sheep-scab in the county, I regret that any modifications of the regulations at the present time are not possible.
  Mr. REES: The hon. Gentleman does not consider the matter closed, I note. Does he consider it still open to consideration when the sheep-scab has happily disappeared from the county?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly, when it happily disappears.

  Small Holdings (Wiltshire).
  Mr. PETOasked when the decision of the Board of Agriculture will be arrived at with regard to taking Bradway Farm, in the parish of Bishops Cannings, Devizes, for small holdings; whether he is aware that twelve applicants have been waiting since July last for small holdings on this farm; and that the small holdings committee of the Wiltshire County Council is waiting for the decision of the Board of Agriculture to take action in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are fully aware of the circumstances of this case. One of the Assistant Commissioners recently inspected this farm, but he has deferred submitting his report pending the receipt of certain information required from the county council's land agent. The Board will arrive at a decision as soon as the information is received, and will communicate it without delay to the county council.

  Dog Licences (Preference to Farmers).
  Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary, Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will take steps to abolish the preference given to farmers on the subject of dog licences, or, if not, will he see that the preference is restricted to the number of dogs permitted by Law?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir, and the Board have no jurisdiction in the matter in regard to the enforcement of the law.

  Agricultural Education Grants (Annual Report).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST had on the Paper the following question: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture when it is proposed to publish
  522
  the Annual Report (nearly twelve months overdue) of the Board on the Distribution of Grants for Agricultural Education for the year 1907–8?
  The HON. MEMBER: There is a misprint, as 1907–8 should be 1908–9.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am not aware there is a misprint. The Report was issued in August last, and the other Report will be issued in the next two or three months.

  Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Board has received a representation from the Royal Agricultural Society of England to the effect that the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act in its present form is inoperative and requires amendment; and, if so, whether, in view of the injury which is being inflicted upon farmers, small holders, and cottage pig-keepers by adulteration, the Government will at an early date introduce a Bill for its amendment.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board will be glad to consider any practical suggestion for the Amendment of the Act and inquire into any specific case of injury to farmers by adulteration that may be brought to our notice, but the Board will consider if further legislation is required.
  Sir WILLIAM GELDER: Is it a fact that when county councils send up samples to the Board of Agriculture under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act they have often to wait six or seven weeks before they get permission to prosecute, and whether this delay does not often prevent county councils taking proceedings within the specified period of three months, which renders the Act imperative?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: If it is so, and if the hon. Member gives me information as to any cases, I shall inquire into them.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture is desirable?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It is in the Act.

  Condensed Milk (Returns of Imports).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board had been approached on behalf of the British Dairy Farmers' Association with a view to secure-

  523
  ing in future in the Returns of imports issued by the Customs House authorities a differentiated Return of the quantities of whole milk and skim milk now embodied under the general heading of condensed milk; and, if so, whether the Board had taken, or proposed to take, any action in reference thereto?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board are in communication with the Customs Authorities on the subject. I will acquaint the hon. Member so soon as a decision is arrived at.

  Small Holdings Act (Loans).
  Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how many schemes, involving the raising of loans, had been agreed to by the Board of Agriculture, under the Small Holdings Act of 1908, for the various county councils of England and Wales?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Practically all purchase schemes involve the raising of loans. The number of such schemes submitted to the Board is at present 339. The amount of loans actually sanctioned by the Local Government Board during the years 1908 and 1909 for the purposes of the Act was £826,289, of which £790,516 was for land and £35,773 for equipment and adaptation.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: What is the number of loans sanctioned for equipment and fencing, apart from the purchase of land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: How many counties are represented by these 339 schemes?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that also.

  National Telephone Company (Unclaimed Deposits).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether, when taking over the undertaking of the National Telephone Company, it was proposed to require particulars from such company of all unclaimed deposits in its possession, with a view to seeing that they were returned to their rightful owners?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The point suggested by the hon. Member will not be overlooked.

  Clifton Post Office (Status).
  Mr. GIBBSasked the Postmaster-General whether he contemplated making any alteration in the Post Office arrangements at Clifton, Bristol, either in the status of the office or otherwise; and, if so, what alteration was proposed.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No alteration in the status of the Clifton branch office is contemplated. Proposals affecting the hours of attendance and the composition of the staff are, however, under consideration, and the hon. Member may rest assured that I shall examine them carefully before giving a decision.

  Post Office Establishment (Case of Mr. Andrew Murray).
  Mr. MOONEY (on behalf of Mr. John Redmond)asked the Postmaster-General if he was aware that Mr. Andrew Murray, who was a witness for the adult night messengers before the recent Select Committee, had not yet been placed upon the establishment; whether he was aware that Mr. Murray was personally assured by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he would receive the benefit of an established appointment; and, in view of the fact that Mr. Murray's case was one of considerable hardship, and that by the Select Committee's recommendation adult night messengers were to be placed upon the establishment quite irrespective of the ordinary age limits, he would have inquiries made with a view to having Mr. Murray certified for the establishment either by Treasury warrant or under Clause 8 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, as was done in the case of the unestablished telegraphist employed at the Central Telegraph Office.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am making inquiry, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Case of W. H. Ellis (Royal Fleet Reserve).
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would consider the case of W. H. Ellis, petty officer, first class-(No. 94,080, born September, 1859), medal, clasp, and star Egypt, Royal Fleet Reserve, who, having served four drills, was prevented by a serious accident while on duty from completing the fifth drill, which would have given him a pension of 5d. a

  525
  day; and, seeing that the nature of W. H. Ellis's accident, resulting in the loss of his leg and thigh, prevented him doing much work and obliged him to move on crutches, whether he would give this case favourable consideration?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The man referred to cannot, under the regulations, receive the extra pension of 5d. a day, as he was not able to complete the necessary drills. The accident which incapacitated him occurred while he was employed as a civilian caretaker, and in compensation for it he was awarded £54 4s. under the Superannuation Act of 1887. The Admiralty have no power to make any further grant to him beyond the naval pension which he receives of £27 15s. per annum.
  Mr. FALLE: I understand that this man was employed as caretaker, and that, having now to walk with crutches, he is unable to go from ship to ship, or to bring up coal from the bunker. Under these circumstances, could not some lighter work be found for him?
  Mr. McKENNA: That was not the original question put to me, and in my reply I have dealt only with the circumstances there raised. I regret that the Admiralty have no power to go beyond what they have already done.

  Coastguardmen's Effects.
  Mr. MILDMAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in cases where such action involved the need or distress of a surviving wife and family, he would consider the possibility of altering the practice whereby under a recent order the clothes, effects, and cash of any member of the Coastguard are, upon his decease, impounded by the station officer pending the result of correspondence with the Admiralty as to the disposal of the same?
  Mr. McKENNA: The practice referred to is in pursuance of legal opinion that the effects of men dying at Coastguard stations should be disposed of under the provisions of the Navy and Marines (Property of Deceased) Act, 1865, which necessitate an official inquiry into the claims of persons describing themselves as legal representatives or nearest of kin. Consideration is, however, being given to the matter with a view to arranging the procedure so as to avoid inconvenience to relatives of deceased Coastguard men.

  Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act.
  Mr. CLELANDasked whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation with a view to strengthen the provisions of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): There is no intention to introduce such legislation at present, at all events.
  Mr. REES: When the Government do consider legislation on this subject, will they consider the propriety of making canvassing an illegal, if not a corrupt, practice?

  Manual Instruction in Schools.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the statement in the prefatory Memorandum to last year's Code that the Board were carefully considering the question of developing all forms of manual instruction in correlation with the other parts of the curriculum, he could state what progress had been made with a view to such development and correlation; whether any Committee had been appointed to consider that question; and, if so, whether any Report containing the recommendations of the Committee would be published?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I believe that good experimental work is being done both under Rule 36 (2) of Schedule III. of the Code for 1909 and in the extension of various forms of manual work in many schools, and I am carefully watching the progress made. The hon. Member is, I think, aware that in 1908 I requested a Committee of His Majesty's Inspectors to consider the matter and advise me. Their report was confidential and not intended for publication, but I hope to publish portions of the report which are of general interest at an early date.

  Board of Education (Science Museum).
  Mr. FRANCEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he was yet able to announce any definite reply to the request put before him by a deputation of scientists last autumn that a fitting building should be erected for the accommodation of the collection now in the Science Museum; and whether any steps could be taken to make the present building fireproof?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The matter is still under consideration, but favourable progress has been made by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of His Majesty's Works, and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly. With regard to the second part of the question, I think it is doubtful whether it would be worth while to spend money on the present building in order to make it what is called fire-proof if a new building is shortly to replace it; but every precaution is taken in the way 6f appliances and supervision to guard against the risk of an outbreak of fire.

  Sandhurst (Qualifying Examinations).
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he would state the average number of candidates per annum for the qualifying examination for Sandhurst since September, 1905, and the percentage of candidates during that period who failed; the percentage of such candidates who failed to qualify in mathematics; and the number of candidates who failed to pass the medical test for eyesight since 1905?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): It is not possible to state what proportion of the candidates attending the Army qualifying examination are candidates for Sandhurst. The average number of candidates presenting themselves at this examination since its institution in September, 1905, is 858 per annum. The percentage who failed to qualify is 51, and of these failures 67 per cent, failed in elementary mathematics. The number of candidates medically examined for Sandhurst during the same period who failed to pass the eyesight test is 30.

  Volunteer Officers' Decoration.
  Major WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the regulation relating to the former Volunteer Force, that an officer who had risen from the ranks of that Force would only be entitled to count half his service in the ranks towards the twenty years necessary for the Volunteer Officers' Decoration, still applied to such officers now serving with the Territorial Force; and, if so, with a view to the encouragement of such men, whether he could see his way to amend such regulation?
  Mr. HALDANE: This regulation still applies to the officers mentioned. The decoration was intended to be a special
  528
  reward for officers as far as possible for service as such, and the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion would entirely defeat this object, and cannot therefore be entertained.

  Territorial Force (Balloon Company).
  Major WHITE (on behalf of Captain Tryon)asked whether the Territorial Balloon Company was ready for immediate mobilisation; and, if so, to what division it would be attacked upon mobilisation?
  Mr. HALDANE: The Territorial Balloon Company is not yet equipped for mobilisation. The future organisation of the Regular Balloon Companies is at present under consideration, and the organisation of this company will depend on the decision arrived at. The Balloon Company forms part of Army troops, and is not allotted to any division on mobilisation.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is it a fact that the balloon with which this Company is equipped is a cast one from India, and is incapable of taking hydrogen; that it has only sufficient lifting power to raise its own basket or a man, but not both at the same time; and that the greatest altitude it has attained in this country is 80 ft.?
  Mr. HALDANE: As the Noble Marquess knows, the science of aviation, particularly military aviation, is in a very transitional stage, and I trust that before many months are over, we shall have very different balloons to work with.
  Captain CRAIG: Is this balloon by any chance capable of taking up the Budget?
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: It can only raise 24½ lbs. besides a light man and its equipment, so that it could not raise even the Income Tax.

  Road Repairs (Compulsory Powers).
  Colonel RAWSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would state how many rural parish and rural district councils had applied, under Section 19, of the Public Health Amendment Act, 1907, for compulsory powers to order the making up of roads which had become dangerous or a nuisance; and, having regard to the fact that nearly all such applications had been refused and other districts thus discouraged from applying, whether he would, with a view to the convenience of the residents in such districts, consider the advisability of giving more favourable consideration in future to these applications?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I have received formal applications from forty-one rural district councils for Orders declaring Section 19 of the Act referred to to be in force in the district. Parish councils are not empowered to make applications under the Act. The Section is not generally applicable to the circumstances of a rural district, and, in view of Sub-section (4), the powers of the Section should not, I think, be conferred upon a rural district council, except where the enactments referred to in the Sub-section are already in force.

  Old Age Pensions (Canterbury Case).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was aware of the case of an old lady resident near Canterbury whose application for an old age pension, after twenty years' service in a county asylum, was granted in the first instance, but who was subsequently pronounced ineligible by his Board on the ground that some thirty years ago she married a German; whether he was aware that the woman had never been out of the country, and had not seen or heard of the man she married during the last twenty-five years; and whether, when an amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act was contemplated consideration would be given as to the advisability of amending the Act so as to bring such cases as the above within its benefit?
  Mr. BURNS: I have been unable to trace the case referred to by the hon. Member from the information contained in his question, but I may say generally that, in the circumstances mentioned, the woman would probably be an alien under Section 10 of the Naturalisation Act, 1870, and consequently would not satisfy one of the conditions of Section 2 of the Old Age Pensions Act. Cases of this kind will no doubt be considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with any amendment of the Act.

  Chinese Pork Rejected.
  Mr. FELLasked if the Chinese pork which was rejected in London and rejected again at Liverpool would be again inspected if it was attempted to be landed after it had been cured as bacon at some foreign port or in the Isle of Man; and why the pork was not ordered "to be destroyed when it was first rejected at London?
  Mr. BURNS: The consignment in question will be liable to inspection if re-imported into England. As regards the second part of the question, I may explain that the Regulations do not require that the meat should be destroyed. The importer is allowed the option of re-exporting it.

False Telegrams to Newspapers (Robert Simpson).
Mr. CLELANDasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention had been directed to the case of Robert Simpson, sentenced to five years' penal servitude in connection with the sending of false telegrams to various newspapers; and whether he can see his way to recommend any diminution of the sentence passed?
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): This case, with the facts of which I am personally familiar, has been on more than one occasion considered by the Secretary for Scotland, who has not, however, found it possible to recommend any interference with the sentence. I may refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the College Division on 12th May last in the same sense.
Mr. WATT: Was it not the case that this verdict depended largely upon handwriting, and has not new evidence been forthcoming since on that point?
Mr. URE: No, Sir. It was not dependent largely upon handwriting. The convict went into the witness box and gave sworn testimony on his own behalf.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any announcement to make as to the arrangements for business next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we propose to take the Second Reading stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, of the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, of the Army (Annual) Bill; and the Committee stage of the East India Loans (Railways and Irrigation) Bill. On Tuesday we propose to take the Committee stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, the Army (Annual) Bill, and the Third Reading of the East India Loans Bill.
On Wednesday we propose to take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund

531
Bill, the Army (Annual) Bill, and the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill; and on that day I hope we shall also adjourn till Tuesday, 29th March.
Mr. JOHN WARD: May I ask when the Army (Annual) Bill is going to be circulated?
Mr. HALDANE: It will be introduced to-day; it is quite ready for the printers in anticipation. I hope hon. Members will have it to-morrow or the next day.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: On the business set down for to-day, No. 6, Supreme Court of Judicature Bill (Lords), Second Reading, this Bill has not yet been distributed to Members of this House. I therefore desire to ask whether it is a Bill originating in the House of Lords imposing a charge upon the subject for the salaries of two new Judges. If it be so, there are, it seems, strong objections to it in certain quarters of this House, and I ask therefore if the right hon. Gentleman could arrange that the Second Reading should be set down after the Bill has been distributed, and at such a time as will ensure full discussion of the measure.
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I have already said that we will not take the Second Reading till Monday. The Bill is in the Vote Office.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
Mr. LUTTHELL—Mitigation of the Criminal Law, etc.—Bill to mitigate the Criminal Law and otherwise to amend the law relating to the administration of justice in criminal cases, and to make further provision with respect to the management and government of prisons and convict prisons and the detention and treatment of prisoners and convicts, and for other purposes connected therewith. (To be read a second time upon 8th April.)
Mr. T. F. WILSON—Feus and Building Leases (Scotland)-Bill to amend the Law relating to Feus and Leases of Building in Scotland. (To be read a second time upon 23rd March.)
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE—Hop Trade-Bill to remove the obligations as to the marking of British Hops which are not applicable to Foreign Hops, while retaining the Statutory markings for voluntary use and
532
retaining the penalties for fraudulent and misleading marking. (To be read a second time upon 6th May.)

SUPPLY [15th March].REPORT.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  Resolution reported, "That 131,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, including 17,324 Royal Marines."
  Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I desire to offer a few remarks to the House on the Report stage of this Vote. They will not be of a contentious character; at all events, not as contentious, or as controversial, as some of those were which were made on both sides of the House on the Committee stage. Nobody will have been surprised that in the Debates in Committee there were subjects of bitter controversy raised in regard to which very different opinions were held on both,sides. Having sat all through that Debate, or during those three days, I think I shall not be inaccurately describing; it when I say that, so far as possible in the circumstances, there was an attempt in all quarters of the House not to discuss the Navy Estimates from the point of view of the party which the speaker especially represented, but to once again resume the position we formerly held to a very large extent upon this question, namely, a non-party one. But, at the same time, it was inevitable that subjects of controversy should arise. I said in Committee, and repeat it now, that if the First Lord of the Admiralty really desires to get rid of party and to get back to what is called a non-party platform, he would have been better advised not to have adopted some of the arguments, or to have made some of the remarks he adopted and made. I only say that by way of protest against the suggestion-to my mind an altogether baseless suggestion-that it is only on this side of the House that an attempt has been made to drag the Navy into politics. This Vote, which we are now called upon to Report,, is one for a considerable increase of the number of men in the Navy. We regard this part of the Government policy as a most important and most valuable proof of their determination to adopt that which is, in our opinion, a new policy in regard

  533
  to the Navy, and one that is far more satisfactory to us and those we represent than was the policy that was in vogue before the present Estimates were introduced. But we are not alone in this opinion, because hon. Gentlemen who represent the Labour party take the same view. This was the Vote against which they offered their most strenuous resistance. This was the Vote upon which the reduction was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. T. Lough), and in that case he and the Labour party found further courage-after it had seemed to desert them on an earlier occasion-and not only was a reduction moved by the right hon. Gentleman, but he took it to a Division and was supported in the Lobby by a certain number of those who sit below the Gangway. I may remark in passing that the courage which they brought to their assistance was not of necessity very considerable, because they were fully conscious, I doubt not, that when they gave vent to their opinions and supported them by their votes in the Lobby, that whatever might be their strength, the Government would be in no danger.
  Therefore they could give effect to their views and run no risk of breaking the coalition to which they are a party. But the fact remains that they apparently attached more importance to this, judging from their actions, than they did to any other part of the Estimates. This is the only part of the Navy Estimates to which they went to the length of voting on in the Lobby.
  We support the Government, not because we agree with them in the whole of their policy, not because we think, as the result of these Debates which have been concluded upon the Committee stage, that their policy was all that we could desire, but because we believed that this increase in the number of men is the most striking and valuable proof of the determination of the Government that, so far as their knowledge goes, they will do their utmost to make the Navy fit to discharge its duty by this country. We support them, and we shall support them, but, none the less, it has been made quite clear, as the result of these recent Debates, that there is between the Government and ourselves a clear line of difference. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, dealing with another subject, upon another Vote, made
  534
  a very definite statement, to which he adheres, and which seemed very adequately and fully to express the policy of the Government. Dealing with the question, of building ships, he said, "We have never built ships before they were needed, and we shall not do so. We have never willingly laid down a ship in excess of the requirements, and we will only lay them down when necessary." There could, of course, be no exception taken to that definition of the Government policy if it were not for the facts which are staring us in the face. The hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Murray Macdonald), in a speech which, if he will permt me to say so with great respect, while I entirely disagree with it, was wholly and unreservedly admirable, both for its courage and the form of the speech, dealt with our attitude in regard to the two-Power standard, and he said you take this particular standard, which has no meaning and no reality, and which is only an academic descripton of what you want; you take that for your policy, and for that reason you advocate this stronger naval policy. Well, for the very reason which the hon. Gentleman gave, we have hitherto stood by, and we do at present stand by, that policy, because we believe it is the only practical method by which we can, acting on advice at the present time, secure for this country a Navy sufficient for her needs. What are the facts? The most important of the facts to which I referred just now is that the First Lord said the Government will not build and will not lay down ships until they are necessary-that is running a risk we believe you ran last year. That means putting us in a position of doubt and danger. However distinguished may be those gentlemen, whether they are sailors or civilians, who constitute the Board of Admiralty, they know now, better than ever before, it is almost impossible that you can be certain, you have got in your possession the information you require in order to be able to say with certitude that so and so was necessary. Last year the Government were compelled to come down to this House and to tell us that a great deal of what they believed up to that moment to be absolutely reliable information-information of the greatest importance, and information which led them in a very large degree to formulate their policy-was altogether inaccurate, and could no longer be relied upon. The Prime Minister told us

  535
  the Government had relied upon and had framed their policy in accordance with it, yet they felt bound to come here and to tell the House of Commons that they were mistaken, and that it would be necessary to make a complete change.
  Fortunately the Government had been able, at all events to some extent, to make up for lost time, but we have always contended, and it was made perfectly clear by some of the speeches delivered from this side of the House yesterday, that by adopting the formula which the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs condemned, namely, the two-Power standard with a margin, you are making a definite rule which enables the Government who adopt and carry it out to make provision, and the only possible provision, for the future security of the country.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs in a very powerful passage in his speech appealed to this country to take some prominent step towards terminating this vast growth of armaments, and he asked us that if Germany were to decrease her armaments would we not follow her example? That seems to me to be a question that ought not to be asked of us. The question that ought to be asked of us is, If we were to adopt this suggestion and to make the first advance in this direction, can the hon. Member or any of those who advocate that policy say that Germany or any other country which may possibly be in hostility to us would follow our example and decrease her armaments? That is the question we are to ask ourselves. We are responsible to those whom we represent in the country at large, and every step that is necessary and possible should be taken to make this country secure. Having regard to the unquestioned ability with which the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs approached and dealt with this question, it seemed to me extraordinary that he seemed to fail to appreciate the entire difference between ourselves and all other countries. After all, other countries in their armaments, whether for Army or Navy, raise them and hold them for a different purpose in one sense to that which we have in view. Our Navy is necessary for us not merely for the purpose of self-defence in ordinary times, but that self-defence is emphasised and magnified to an almost incredible degree by the fact, first of all, we are an island country, and, secondly, that your possessions are spread all over the world. The Navy to us means
  536
  more, aye, doubly more, than it can to any other country in the world. Therefore surely we ought not to ask the question what we should do if Germany or any other country took this or that line. The question we ought to ask is, Do you believe if you run the enormous risk the terrible risk you may run if you were to decrease your Navy, that such a step taken by you would have any effect upon the armaments of other countries or the peace of the world? I am one of those humble people who believe that the old saying is still true: "If you want peace the best way to secure it is to be prepared for war." I believe the worst effort you could make in the interests of the peace of the world would be to be among the first to reduce that portion of our armaments which is of vital consequence to us, and upon which we depend more than any other country in the world.
  4.0 P.M
  I recognise, as everybody must recognise, the absolute sincerity of the hon. Member for Falkirk, but I think he takes a wrong view of the situation as a whole, and if his advice were accepted I am sure it would have a very different effect to that which he anticipates. I believe, the impression produced amongst other countries by taking the hon. Member's advice would be that we were failing to bear our responsibilities, and that we were no longer strong enough to carry our burdens. The effect of such a policy would not be to lead other countries to decrease their armaments; on the contrary they would be induced to go on making them stronger and stronger in the confident anticipation that the time would come when Great Britain, having begun the, policy of weakening her defensive forces, would be at their mercy, and would be very easily dealt with by them if only they were strong enough. I do not believe there is any hostility towards us in those countries which are most distinguished by the work they are doing in the increase of armaments. I believe it is impossible for anybody, however wise, or far-seeing he may be, or however great his experience or diplomacy to foretell what the future may have in store for us, or for other countries. The only policy we can pursue, in justice to those we represent, and in order to maintain the peace we all desire to see maintained, is to go steadily forward strengthening our position, and seeing above all that our Navy is strong enough to do all the work she is expected to do.

  537
  I know it is said by some hon. Members that we are going too far in this direction.
  I do not think it is just to say that whatever proposals are made hon. Members on this side of the House would not be satisfied with them, and that we should clamour for more. I think it has been shown by all the speakers who have taken part in our Debates that they honestly believe there are weak points in our armour, and that those weak points ought to be made strong. Nobody can deny that during the Debates on the Navy we have had a number of exceptionally brilliant and businesslike speeches, more especially from those who have made their first speeches in this House. I have had the great privilege-a qualified privilege, no doubt-of sitting in this House for more than thirty years, and having had the good fortune to listen to many brilliant speeches from new Members, I have no hesitation in saying that I have never heard so many well-delivered speeches-showing that those who made them have studied the question and had something to say to the House of Commons-as I have listened to during the last few days. One conclusion to be drawn from that fact is that whether hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with us or not, they cannot fairly maintain that our criticisms of the naval policy of the Government have been factious. We have not used our arguments as weapons with which to beat the party opposite, but I think hon. Members opposite must admit that what has been said in the country has been repeated here. Our criticisms have been the same, and our object has been not to beat the Government, but to do what we consider our duty, and that is to see that the interests we were sent here to represent are fairly put before the British House of Commons.
  A suggestion has been made that in supporting the policy of the Government in regard to increasing the number of men in the Navy we have been unmindful of the claims of social reform. That is a charge which, if anything, has less foundation than the other charge to which I have referred. I am one of those who believe that if our country is to maintain her position we must have wide-reaching measures of social reform; but, while I hold that view, I also hold that it is our bounden duty to see that the Navy is in the position which I have endeavoured to describe. I find in the action of the Government, and more especially in the increase of the number of men, a complete justification of the
  538
  attitude assumed in the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition, whose absence I regret as profoundly as I am sure every other hon. Member does. I think even the most bitter opponent of the Leader of the Opposition will admit that what has happened in the presentation of these Estimates has fully justified the line he took, and I can safely say, speaking as one who has had the great privilege of being an intimate colleague of the right hon. Gentleman for many years, that there is nothing he has striven more strenuously for than to avoid bringing the Navy into party politics. For the line he took there is in this increase of the men alone abundant justification. I firmly believe that had it not been for the line the Opposition took up and the agitation in the country the Government would not to-day have taken the course they have done. I am not going to cavil or find fault, but I thought it only right, as I listened to the whole of this Debate-and many speeches have been made which convey suggestions with regard to our action and policy pointing in the direction I have indicated-to take this opportunity of saying these few words. I heartily rejoice that the Government have made up their minds to increase the men by this number, and I hope, if they are responsible for the Navy Estimates another year, they will not flinch from any further increase in the number of men if they deem such a course to be necessary. Having put their hand to the plough, I hope the Government will not turn back, but determine, even within the narrow limits they have laid down for themselves to-day, that this course is necessary not only in the interests of the country, but also in the interests of the Empire of which this country is the centre.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: I hope hon. Members will agree with me when I say that I believe the present House of Commons is immeasurably superior to the last one, both in intellect, character, and in the more equal distribution of parties between the two sides. I think hon. Members opposite have made up their minds to go in for a larger policy, and I hope that policy will be hanging over us for many years if it will prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite from going into the Lobby against proposals in the direction of strengthening the Navy. The number comprising the minority against proposals for a stronger Navy is scanned very keenly both here and in other parts of the Empire, and, therefore,

  539
  I rejoice that the minority against such proposals has been very small. I have listened for three days to these discussions, and I have listened with great respect to those opinions which are opposed to my own. I confess that I have not been able to gather very clearly what were the precise objections of those who led the attack on the Navy Estimates. After devoting three quarters of their speeches to long denunciations of armaments, because they were said to lead to the development of the military spirit, the last quarter of those speeches was generally occupied by an apology to the effect that they quite understood that it was necessary to have some sort of Navy, and in that way they dismissed the whole of the case they were urging. If you are to have a Navy at all let it be sufficiently strong. The First Lord of the Admiralty said, "Do you think that I, whilst sitting on this bench, have forgotten the standards or the ideals which moved me when I sat upon the back benches. Not a bit of it. I am now in a position to know the real state of affairs, and it is because of this that I have changed my mind, and changed from those opinions which I used to advocate on the back benches." I could not help feeling in spite of the sincerity of hon. Members that there appeared to be an air of unreality about their speeches, and that they were speaking oblivious of the real facts. I am inclined to think that they were placed in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman, and had they possessed the same information as regards armaments and programmes we should not find them in a different position from that which the First Lord of the Admiralty has taken up. I do not think we can be attacked for not producing an alternative policy because the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth has produced a scheme which both in its comprehensiveness and in its detail leaves nothing to be desired. Lord Cromer said in a pamphlet that in the old days when there was any difficulty, or when a crisis arose, a few men got together and quietly settled amongst themselves the measures that had to be taken for defence. I know that cannot be done now, because the whole of our time is occupied, not so much in devising measures for defence as in bringing the facts of the situation home to the minds of the electors. Another point I wish to refer to is the small amount
  540
  that has been taken for building ships in this particular programme.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that that question does not arise on this Motion.
  Mr. PEEL: May I deal with the question of the two-Power standard?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be careful how he does it. This Vote involves an increase of 3,000 men, and the hon. Member is entitled to ask what is the purpose of it, to consider it, and so forth. The Shipbuilding Vote is a different Vote altogether. He cannot go into details.
  Mr. PEEL: Of course, the question of the number of men must be affected by the number of ships that you have to man.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It may or it may not. You might put more men on the ships you have already got.
  Mr. PEEL: I understood that the extra Vote for the men was for the new ships and not for the old ships. Under those circumstances, I thought I might deal with the provision for the new ships.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will follow the path trodden by the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) he will keep on the straight line. If he gets off that line I may have to call him to order.
  Mr. PEEL: I will endeavour to follow in the straight furrow ploughed for me by the right hon. Gentleman. I have never yet, in spite of the attention I have given to these Debates, really been able to gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite what precisely in his attitude towards the two-Power standard. He first of all quoted the original statement of the Prime Minister on the two-Power standard, but, of course, since then we have had the revised version of that standard which the Prime Minister dealt with last year, and I should like really to ask a question on that particular point. He then told us that our Navy was not to be equal to the next two Powers with a 10 per cent, margin, but that what we had to consider was the aggressive forces of the next two navies at any particular point. We had to compare with that our defensive forces at the particular point where contact might take place. That appeared to largely diminish the force and value of the Prime Minister's statement;

  541
  it seemed, in fact, to suggest that we should consider our force as a defensive force, and the navies of the other next most powerful Powers as the attacking force. That, of course, would naturally be contrary to all the proper principles of strategy, and, as that is the only sort of interpretation I can put upon the second statement of the Prime Minister, I should like to know from what point of view the First Lord of the Admiralty regards it-whether he regards it as a clear restatement of that first definite point put before us, or whether he considers it takes away something from that statement, and limits the necessity for preparation and also the size of the Fleet by a particular obligation.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that he did not like having programmes. I to some extent agree. His point was that if you have a programme you are almost bound to provide the limited number of ships of that programme, when perhaps in certain cases you would build more than was necessary. I agree it may not be a wise thing to have a rigid and limited programme. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted on each particular occasion to consider the facts of the case, and to build the number of ships and to supply the number of men necessary under those circumstances. I quite agree, but when you are considering that particular point you have, after all, to build to some standard, and you are only pushing the question a little further back. I should have thought it was much simpler for the public anyhow, and, of course, these matters have to be considered by the public as well as the experts, even although you may agree with the general proposition of the right hon. Gentleman that you should consider the facts in each case, to have some simple standard of that kind which it is known you have in your head when considering the programme with which you have to deal. The right hon. Gentleman and I think the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) also poured scorn on the two-keel standard, but if the right hon. Gentleman rejects that he ought to adopt the other, which is very simple and intelligible. The German system is possibly the best, because under it you have a very elastic programme. There is great liberty to either accelerate or postpone according to the circumstances of the case.
  You have there at least the backbone of a system, and I think the knowledge of
  542
  that increases the public confidence in two ways. They know that if disturbances or troubles arise, if new information comes to the Admiralty, and if changes take place in the course of the year, that there is power in the Executive to accelerate the programme, and in that way provide for any emergency or any fresh difficulty that may arise. That, perhaps, is impossible under our Parliamentary system, but if it is impossible, it seems to me to make it all the more important that you should have the two-Power standard clearly laid down as the one to which you must adhere. That is all the more necessary because the Government have not got a very good record on this particular point. They have diminished the number of ships, not on strategical grounds, but on the ground that possibly if they did not lay down a particular ship, some other Power might also agree not to lay down another ship. Of course, that scheme proved absolutely futile, but at the same time, the strategical character of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman has to some extent suffered. The Government did not build according to the strategic necessities of the case, but according to their idea of what might be the result of some arrangement with another Power. It seems to me, for that reason, additionally important that you should have your standard clear and definite. We know that on some previous occasion they have abandoned the proper strategic considerations.
  The matter goes even further still. We were told last year by the Prime Minister that two of the hypotheses on which he had acted in the past have been entirely falsified, first, as to the question of whether the German programme was to be a paper or real programme; and, secondly, as to the rate at which they were going to build ships. Speaking as a member of the ordinary public, I confess I am still impressed, and deeply impressed, by the statement made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary last year. The Foreign Secretary then told us that the Fleet would have to be rebuilt, because Germany was going to have a fleet of thirty-three "Dreadnoughts "-he did not know exactly the time within which they were going to have them-and that that fleet would be the most powerful fleet ever seen in the world. That, coupled with the fact that the Admiralty have been ignorant of these two other points, makes one feel that this is not the time when we can qualify in

  543
  any degree the interpretation of the two-Power standard. Looking at the necessity of keeping to this simple and plain standard, which every man may understand, and which may easily be criticised if it is departed from, and remembering the fact that during the last three or four years we have had a forgetfulness of the strategic considerations by the Admiralty, I think it becomes more important that you should make it additionally clear that you do definitely abide by the standard laid down by the Prime Minister, quite apart from any subsequent gloss put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman under the influence, I am afraid, of a large number of hon. Members on that side of the House, many of whom have happily disappeared, and that we should go back to the old interpretation which everybody can understand and everybody follow.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I will endeavour, in a few remarks I should like to make, to follow the lines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division, and I will also endeavour to keep to the tone which he adopted. I have, if I may say so with all respect, the greatest admiration for the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman adopts in our Debates. There are two points in his speech to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. He repeated the formula which, I think, has been repeated by very nearly every hon. and right hon. Member opposite, that the best way to maintain peace is to have these great armaments and to be prepared for war. I think that formula has been strained too far. A nation that devotes its time, its energy, its manhood, its ingenuity, and its labour and money to the invention and to the production of great engines of war will not rest satisfied until it has found out whether those engines are successful or not, and the only way to test the success of one of those great engines of war is by the destruction of human life in war. I think that formula, on analysis, will really be found not to hold water.
  If hon. Members opposite had their own way in these Debates, they would confine their arguments purely to what I may call the mechanical side of the question. They regard it from a mathematical, mechanical, and financial point of view, and they rather despise any other element being introduced into the controversy. I believe that when you are regarding the
  544
  equation of international relations, if you rely merely on the number of ships, on a purely mathematical number of "Dreadnoughts" or other ships, and on financial arguments as to exactly how much money is being spent by one Power or another, and you leave out any other considerations, you are really misleading the country and following what I consider to be a very mischievous policy. The country at large naturally look to right hon. Members on both sides of the House for light and leading on this question concerning the Navy. I followed very closely the Debates last year, and I have followed the Debates this year, and to a very large extent they are made up of these calculations as to how many "Dreadnoughts" we shall have at a given time, and how many Germany or some combination of Powers will have; and at last the people of the country begin to believe the safety of these islands depends wholly and solely on these mathematical calculations. I do not believe that that is the case by any means. There are other considerations to be taken into account, and by leaving out of account the many other considerations, we are running a very grave danger. I noticed that in their speeches hon. Members opposite have generally referred to anything connected with diplomatic negotiations as not worth considering, while the efforts of The Hague Conference has been spoken of with more or less contumely. But the last period of fifty years has shown a very great increase in the desire for peace. It has shown that the nations may rely upon diplomatic negotiations and on the growing desire to submit differences to arbitration. We have only to look at the last two years to realise that. If the complication in the Balkan Peninsula had taken place fifty years ago it would have inevitably resulted in war. But by negotiations, by the good sense of the Government, by the strong desire of the nations to keep the peace, these grave difficulties were smoothed over and, as we know, peace was maintained. That would have been quite impossible in years gone by. I am quite sure that is the sort of spirit which is on the increase. After all, what is the reason for war? It cannot be said to be the combative instincts of man. In days gone by, when they walked about spearless and clad in skins, they may have wanted to get at one another's throats, but now, when they go about with stylograph pens and wear trousers, there is no such desire. Neither can it be said that there is any animosity between nations. It is a

  545
  well-known fact that in the war between Russia and Japan there was no animosity on the part of the Russians towards the Japanese, neither was there any such feeling on the part of the Japanese against the Russians; in fact, they did not want to fight one another. What then, is the cause of war? It is the jealousy of Governments, and very often it is the unscrupulous action of statesmen. Is it too much to believe, in this twentieth century, that there is not some force strong enough to control these? I believe there is. I believe that, just in the same way as science and arts and even commerce have become international, and as the great barriers which have been found to baulk their progress have been broken down, in the same way we shall find, as time goes on, that general social reform among the nations of the world can only be brought about by right feeling and by international understandings.
  The question I have put to myself during the Debate which has been going on for three days has simply been: Are our preparations adequate or are they excessive? I have absolutely no doubt in my own mind that they are excessive, and that is why I very much regret that they are for such a very high sum. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) said it was very unfair for Members on this side of the House to suggest that the Cawdor programme had been issued with a view to a General Election closely following, and he argued that it would be just as fair to say that the Government had issued these Estimates in prospect of another election. If the Government in the issue of these Estimates thought they were going to gain votes by them they made a very great mistake. I fear there are a great many supporters of theirs in the country who place this question of excessive expenditure on armaments before any other, and their votes will have been alienated should an election come on. It seems to me that they have drawn up these Estimates of increased expenditure on armaments disregarding the assurances Germany has given us through her Ambassadors, and later on contained in the words of Prince Henry of Prussia. We have said they are only words, and that what we are going to build against is the fact that Germany is building at her utmost speed and is trying to steal a march upon us. I think that is the one way to aggravate this whole question of the burden of armaments. I believe that
  546
  if we can make a start-and the start rests with us, because we are the leaders in the race-other countries will be only too eager to follow. We all realise nowadays-and the point has been well emphasised by several hon. Members on this side-that there is no advantage to be gained from war even for the victor.
  I cannot help feeling some sympathy for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. He is in a rather difficult position. Other Members of the Government are completely responsible for their Departments. The President of the Board of Trade has a Board which is a phantom. The President of the Local Government Board also has a Board which is a phantom. The Secretaries of State are responsible and able to come down to this House on their sole Ministerial responsibility. The Secretary for War has, no doubt, an advisory body, but the First Lord of the Admiralty, in issuing his Estimates, has to depend on the consent and signature of the other Lords of the Admiralty. He is, therefore, not in the same position of freedom. He is obliged to assume a coordinate responsibility with admirals and other high officials. I have the greatest possible respect for admirals, especially on board their ships, but I do not consider that their share of the responsibility should be part of the share of His Majesty's Government. The First Lord should be free and should take upon himself the entire responsibility, and the Board of Admiralty should act as an advisory committee under him. In that case we should not hear, so often as we do, reports of resignations of Sea Lords under certain circumstances. The First Lord of the Admiralty would be in a far freer position, and I believe that that greater freedom would be appreciated by Members in all parts of the House.
  Hon. Members opposite, during the course of the Debate, have made certain lip service to the cause of peace. But I really believe that in their heart of hearts they are not great lovers of peace. I was talking to an admiral a short time ago, a supporter of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and he said, in his blunt way, representing no doubt, however, the opinion of many of his neighbours," What we want is really a good war: that will knock all this nonsense of politics out of people's heads." I think that represents the view of a great many supporters of hon. Members opposite, although they find it necessary in this House to utter some decent phrases in support of the cause of peace. This policy

  547
  of keeping up armaments is in the long run liable to lead to bad results, and it is only by checking this augmentation of expenditure that the maintenance of the peace of the world can possibly be looked for.
  I had intended to draw attention to a matter which I am now afraid would not be strictly in order. It was connected with Rosyth, but I understand that particular details should not be introduced at this period of the Debate. Rosyth carries with it two meanings in this House: one is "Dreadnoughts" and the other "granite." I did not want to touch upon either. I rather wanted to deal with the place in relation to the human beings who are working there, and who will in future reside there. Still, as I understand I should be trespassing on the narrow path which this Debate has followed, I will not press it now. I will simply conclude by again expressing my regret at the excessive expenditure. I feel that had not the Government been devoting its efforts to one supreme issue in this Session they might have found considerable difficulty in passing the Estimate.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: It is hard to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down. He has laid very great emphasis on the evils of war, but from communications I have recently had with the Detective Department in London it seems to me that the horrors of peace that are enacted in London are more terrible and more repellant than the horrors of the bloodiest field that was ever fought. There is much, I fear, that may be criticised in the Estimates which have been submitted to us, but, among the things which are to be criticised, I certainly should not select the increase in the present Vote. In that matter the Government have undoubtedly taken a step in the right direction. I only wish it were not a hesitating step but a virile stride. It seems to me the most interesting point in this Debate has been the final and definite rejection of the two-Power standard by the First Lord of the Admiralty. We have no standard now which the country itself or the man in the street can understand. I hardly think we have a standard that even an old expert can test.
  I think in regard to that the situation is the gravest one possible. Count Cavour did a very wonderful thing in 1849. He predicted that England and Germany would come into collision. Did he see-he must have seen-in his mind's eye Ger-
  548
  many unified, and becoming the mightiest Continental nation. He must have seen the overflow of her population and her acquiring colonies and coaling stations at the expense of other nations. I wonder if he saw any decay in the national spirit of England, and if he thought at all of the refusal of our people to bear sacrifices for the support of the Navy? I wonder if he thought that 144 Members of this House could deputationise the Prime Minister to reduce the armaments, and if he could have imagined that the Prime Minister would have succumbed to their representations and abandoned the two-Power standard to which he was quite pledged, and say that he gave us in place of the two-Power standard what the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated in these words, "a standard which will ensure our safety against any probable combination of nations "?
  I remember very well that Mr. Cobden said that it was the improbable combinations of nations that we had chiefly to guard against, and he gave one or two striking instances of improbable combinations that had actually occurred. But this standard of ships and men which the right hon. Gentleman gave us will not bear a moment's analysis. It is no standard at all. He says, "A standard which will ensure our safety against any probable combination of nations." What does that mean? It means a standard which, in our opinion, will do that, and which in the opinion of the Government of the day will secure us against such a combination. It is not a standard; it is an opinion of the Government in office. It may be the standard of Lord Cawdor, or that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the evil genius of the Government, and the representative of a Little Navy in the Cabinet. It is a fluctuating standard, and it must vary always with the opinion of the Government. If Lord Cawdor were in office it would be strong, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer held the power, I presume it would be as weak as he dare make it. You have published that standard, and you have given various opinions in regard to what it means, and I would ask, in conclusion, what will your Navy do if it is cast about on one side from Lord Cawdor's programme, and, on the other, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's standard? I cannot tell, but the abandonment of an external standard entirely independent of the opinion of anyone in the Ministry, or

  549
  out of the Ministry-the abandonment of that seems to me to be an abandonment of common sense, common sanity and national safety.
  Mr. H. T. CAWLEY: I ask for the indulgence of the House in addressing it, not only because I am a new Member, but also because I have no special knowledge on naval matters. I think, however, there is some justification for Members so situated addressing the House, because in the main the men who are defended by our Navy are men who are ignorant on naval matters. Moreover, the bulk of the men who pay for the Navy are ignorant of them, and the bulk of those who have to decide what size the Navy shall be and the number of men to be voted are mostly people who have no special knowledge on this subject. In a Debate of this kind, therefore, we must look to expert opinion and the arguments brought forward by those who have greater knowledge if we are to form an accurate opinion of the correct size of the Estimates which should be voted. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said we must look only to the safety of the country, but I cannot think that that is a satisfactory limit, because it is a limit on one side only, whereas we on this side, I believe, wish for a limit on the other side as well. We wish that the Estimates should not only not be too small, but that they should not be too large. We wish that they shall not only be large enough for safety, but as small as possible consistent with safety, and that being so, we are unable to feel the same amount of contempt which is expressed on that side for what is called the Little Navy policy.
  We recognise that if there is to be one correct standard, one correct size of Estimates, then there must be Estimates which are too high as much as Estimates which are too low, and it is the duty of every honest man to wish to lower Estimates which are extravagant just as much as it is the wish of patriotic men to raise Estimates which are too low. I think that most right hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that in theory, but in practice anything in the nature of a demand for Estimates lower than those put forward by the Government is described as a demand for a little Navy, and the men who make it are called Little Navy Men, and are generally regarded, I will not say always, as being deficient in patriotism. For my part, coming here as a new Member, I come with this fact borne in on my mind very strongly, that the constitu-
  550
  encies of the Northern industrial towns are very anxious for economy upon armaments, and particularly the trade unions and the trade organisations of those Northern towns. Coming with that recollection, as I do, I could not help sympathising with any efforts to get the Estimates as low as possible, and it is impossible for anyone so situated not to sympathise with the suggestion put forward that we should do what we can to lessen the growth of national armaments. But it is impossible for anybody to lose sight of the facts that face us now, and however anxious we are for economy and small Estimates, we cannot lose sight of three or four facts of the greatest importance.

  First of all is the fact that we occupy a unique position which no other country in the world does occupy, and, secondly, that in the first place, at all events, our Navy is necessarily a defensive weapon. We have no power whatever with our Navy to conquer the Continental nations of Europe, but there are Continental nations who have a navy almost as large as ours who have the power to conquer this country. We occupy in that respect a unique position. And lastly there is the fact that we have already made advances. It is said that we have not officially approached the Continental nations of Europe, but responsible statesmen in this country have expressed their willingness to do anything they can to enter into an agreement, if possible, with Continental nations. On the other hand, responsible statesmen in Germany have expressed the opinion that the size of their navy does not depend upon the size of ours, and if that is so, what is the good of our approaching them with a view to an agreement as to the limitation of armaments. Another reason why it is hard to follow hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who have spoken against the size of these Estimates is this, that they have most of them, I think all of them, expressed the desire for the lowering of the Estimates without giving us any idea of what the Estimates should be. We have not had a definite standard put forward to which we ought to approach as nearly as possible, and if we are asked to go with them we must know where we are going. We must know what is the size of the Estimates which they require. I have not yet heard from the advocates of the lower Estimates of what size these Estimates ought to be and what is the

  551
  standard which we ought to acquire. Then we turn to hon. Gentlemen opposite and ask them for a standard, and I muse admit that their standard seems to be almost equally tainted or, if not tainted, contradictory. We have two or three standards put forward from those benches opposite. I think the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) is responsible for three different standards which he has put. forward. First of all, he put forward, I think in 1908, the two keels to one standard, and he said that was the only safe course, and now he has abandoned it. What are hon. Members to do in the case of an hon. Gentleman who laid down one course as the only safe course and then deliberately adopted another course?
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: What is the third course?
  Mr. CAWLEY: I will come to the other two. The hon. Member said the other evening that the two-Power standard was the efficient standard, and that happens to be the one which he is now supporting, but in one of his speeches this week he also expressed a desire for a fixed and organic programme like the German programme. That is not a standard, of course, but it is inconsistent with his other two standards. That suggestion of the fixed programme has been put forward by more than one Gentleman on the benches opposite, and to my mind one of the strongest arguments put forward for it was that it will remove the Naval Estimates from the sphere of party politics and from the continual wrangle which takes place every year. I am sure that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be the first to desire that that programme could be established from that point of view, but I do not think you ever can remove Naval Estimates from party politics. I believe they are much too good an asset of the party opposite. I admit that from the Front Bench opposite during this week we have not had any indication of a party spirit, but I cannot agree that they have brought forward the same arguments which they brought forward in the country and that they have not had in the country a recourse to party speeches.
  5.0 P.M.
  If we are to judge from the somewhat rancorous speech of the hon. Member for Brighton last night, and from the interesting prophecies as to the next election made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft, we shall
  552
  have to look forward to the same kind of party spirit in the future that we have had in the past. But I think this fixed programme, at any rate, a perfectly impossible one, because who is to fix it? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to adhere to a fixed programme laid down upon this side of the House for the next ten years, if they consider it inadequate? Suppose in the next few years the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) sits on the Front Bench and brings in a definite, fixed, organic programme for the next twenty years, and suppose right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they come to sit here and! find they have a one "Dreadnought" a year programme in operation, are they prepared to stick to that definite fixed programme? It is an impossibility so long as you have the party system in this country. What does the two-Power standard mean? Everyone talks glibly about the two-Power standard, but hardly two-definitions of it are in agreement. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur Lee) when he came to test whether these Estimates were up to the two-Power standard, took, first of all, the amount which had been spent in this year by this country, Germany, and America, and he pointed out that we were not maintaining the two-Power standard because we were spending£40,000,000, and these two countries combined were spending£50,000,000. Is that to be the test of the two-Power standard?
  Mr. LEE: I did not base my case only on that. I said, whatever test you apply you find we are not keeping up to it, and I took various tests for it beginning with the financial one.
  Mr. CAWLEY: I agree that that was not the only test, but, as I understand, hon. Members say that we are to keep up to that test as well as the others. What is the use of a test if you do not keep up to it? You must keep up to it, and to the others as well. When you come to apply your two-Power standard, we find the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), when he deals with destroyers in the North-Sea, says we must have three, to one, as against one single Power. Very likely it is right, but it is not the two-Power standard.
  Mr. LEE: The two-Power standard never applied to anything but battleships.
  Mr. CAWLEY: That may be so in some tests. If it is the test of money you will

  553
  not find that. It is entirely irrelevant. Take another test. We have heard a good deal about Austrian "Dreadnoughts" as a. reason for increasing the Estimates. That may be so, but the Austrian "Dreadnought" has nothing to do with the two-Power standard. Austria is not one of the next two Powers, and therefore, if you are considering whether this country is keeping up an adequate Navy, look to your two-Power standard, and Austria will not come into it. Looking around on the tests put forward upon the other side, it is impossible to see in what way these Estimates are too low. The hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Lee) said the provision in past years must have been too small because of the large provision this year-that the provision this year was proof positive that the provision in previous years was inadequate, and was an absolute refutation of the Government's assurance that the provision in previous years was sufficient. To my mind that is absolutely untenable, because what is adequate in one year is inadequate in another. One hon. Gentleman spoke about an interval of four or five years, and said you might as well compare the present day with the time when William the Conqueror landed in England. I do not go so far as that, but it is perfectly possible and probable that two "Dreadnoughts" might be a proper provision in 1907 and five a proper provision in 1910-11. There is absolutely no inconsistency in that. To my mind, nothing has been put forward from those benches that would lead the seeker after truth, the man with no naval knowledge, to regard these Estimates as inadequate. Looking at the sources of information which the Admiralty have, and the grave responsibility which they bear, I cannot help thinking that their information and their feeling of what they owe to the country must lead them to put forward correct Estimates. At any rate, the onus of proof is upon those who say the Estimates are either too low or too high. It rests on hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and hon. Gentlemen opposite. During this Debate every argument put forward by hon. Members opposite against the Government has told with greater force upon those who require smaller Estimates than we have, and every argument put forward by hon. Members below the Gangway against the Government has told with additional force upon hon. Members opposite. I think the onus is upon these two parties to show that the Estimates are either inadequate or excessive, and I sub-
  554
  mit that they have not discharged that onus.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The remarkable feature of this Debate in the last three days has been the entire agreement on one point. There has not been a single Member who has not recognised that our Empire is only kept going by supremacy at sea. The whole of the arguments have been devoted to what that supremacy should be and whether these Estimates are too great or too little. There has been singularly little party attack on either side. There have been some party speeches, but I do not think they have been intentionally party speeches. The whole tone of the Debate has been from the national and Imperial point of view, and has shown thorough appreciation of the gravity of the case as far as naval supremacy goes. The speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Murray Macdonald) was one of the most dangerous I have ever heard. It was so honest and so earnest and so thoughtful that I am perfectly certain the hon. Member would convince a great number of men to his opinion. From my point of view I do not think the opinion is sound, because however we look at it it is only armed force that is going to keep us in our position. I honestly and earnestly wish to keep the peace, and the Admiral who said that there ought to be a bloody war, and that the politicians ought to be knocked out, did not give the opinion of the Royal Navy. What we want is peace-more particularly those who have ever seen the horrors of war, which is very often detestable and insane in its management.
  There were continual remarks on both sides of the House as to recognising that the Fleet, and money devoted to the Fleet, was a form of insurance, and the Secretary to the Admiralty, in a previous speech, pointed out with great clearness what our rate of insurance was in comparison with Germany, and if you are to judge it by that it opens up the question from a very interesting point of view. We pay £3 per ton of mercantile shipping, that is to say, you take the Naval Budget as the rate of insurance and you divide that by the tonnage of the mercantile shipping belonging to the Empire, and we pay £3 per ton. Germany, and I speak always with great respect of Germany, pays £5 6s. per ton. Look at the position. We absolutely exist by keeping the sea roads. Germany does not exist by that at all, therefore those of us who work out the facts are more or less anxious when we see a country, Whose main

  555
  defence must always be military, starting an enormous programme and making a rate of insurance which is so clearly beyond their needs. I can quite imagine anyone who feels strongly on this question of spending money on defence saying he would not have a Navy at all. That is a reasonable proposal from one point of view, but to have a Navy and spend all these millions, and to have a doubt as to whether it could carry out the duties it would have to perform in war, does not appear to me reasonable. You are metaphorically throwing the money into the sea. I agree with the efforts in the cause of economy, but I put efficiency a long way in front of economy, and I should like to see a Navy which would stop all these scares and would stop the shade of a shadow of an idea that it could be attacked at all, and if once we had a Navy of that character, I am perfectly certain it would be very cheap, no matter what the insurance was.
  I was very gratified to see that the Admiralty were going to join 3,000 men. It is a move in the right direction, but, of course, I do not think it is quite enough. They may not have been able to join more than 3,000 men, because I know the difficulties of the schools and training establishments. But our crisis will be about 1913 or 1914, and if we have to join, as I believe we shall, many more men next year, you will be putting the morale of the Fleet down to a lower level, because you will have such a very large number of men who are new in the Fleet, and to get bluejackets or Marines, or any of the first-rate men in the ship ready, will take from five to six years. I would much rather that they had joined 5,000 men, instead of 3,000, but I recognise that there may be difficulties of the character I have stated. The shortage of men is known thoroughly throughout the Service. We are short of men now to what we ought to be, and if we are short now, it increases this difficulty, which I wish to prevent, when we come to the final crisis.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to reduce the number of short service men. They are not suitable for the Service, and they are bad for discipline. The ordinary men do not like them at all. I had about thirty or forty in the ships I commanded, and personally I say that if ever I had to go into action I would rather have got rid of the lot for that simple reason. The First Lord will
  556
  remember that he paid me the honour of coming out with me in my flagship, and I endeavoured to impress this upon him. There are such things as "gun shys." If you do not drill men properly it is almost impossible to preserve discipline among them when they are waiting for the action of heavy guns, because they are not accustomed to it. Imagine what it would be in actual battle to have undisciplined men in the midst of the concussion not only of their own guns, but the splinters flying from the enemy's guns. You cannot train your men too much for this terrible affair which a battle will be with modern battleships. I wish die right hon. Gentleman to tell me that he will think of lessening the number of short service men. The petty officers do not like these men. They are always giving trouble, and they are not the class we want. I can assure the House that on-every ship I went on board of I could pick out every short service man. I communicated with them very often. I said to one, "Why did you join?" and the reply was, "I had nothing to eat ashore." When I inquired, "Do you like it?" the man said, "No, sir." "Do you wish to keep on with it?" I asked, and the answer was, "No, sir, not if I can help it." They deteriorate the lower deck. They are not the men we want behind us when we go into battle.
  I must really protest against the reduction of the Marines. It is very detrimental to the Service. There is no finer body of men in the world, and you can turn them to anything, except perhaps the wheel and other quartermasters' jobs. But those men are the most valuable you have got, because they are military-trained, and ready. With the nucleus crews of the ships and the ordinary men the Marines have always worked, and with these men you can go out and fight. If you send drafts on board a ship, you may have to fight an action to-morrow or next day. Well, I say, although I am a naval officer devoted to bluejackets, that I would rather take trained men and fight than take bluejackets drafted from different ships and not knowing anybody. The commissioned officers knew every man, and I say that these Marines ought not to be reduced. I cannot do better than quote Lord St. Vincent on this subject. He said:
  "I never called on these men but they more than realised my highest expectations. If ever the hour of trial and real danger should come the Royal Marines will be found the country's sheet anchor."
  I quite agree with Lord St. Vincent, and so does everyone connected with the Navy

  557
  from the Admirals down to the second-class boys.
  As to men, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to man the twenty-six reserve ships-that is, what is now called the Fourth Division and used to be called the Special Service ships-with other than Royal Naval Reserves. It will take over 17,000 men to man these ships, and with the present number of men you have in the fleet you will be unable to man these ships. I do not say that you will not do that with Reserves, but remember, that with shells bursting all over the place and about them you must have disciplined men with courage. You must have the greatest pluck-that pluck which only discipline gives-to keep the men together, and they must be trained together for war. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what he is going to do with these ships. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he gave expression to a curious sentiment the other day. He said that the manning had nothing to do with the availability of the ships. But the object of a ship is to fight, and what is wanted is availability to fight. Will he kindly make a note of that, and explain to me what he means. This question of the manning of the Fleet is a question of the men. You may have the biggest fleet, the best guns, armour, boilers, and engines in the world, but the whole question of winning a fight for this country if you are called upon in battle rests upon the personnel and upon the training of the men, their efficiency, and their confidence in each other, both officers and men. I may tell you that at this moment the Navy has never been so well during the fifty years I have been in it as it is now as regards personnel. The men are quite excellent. I have often said that they may not be born gentlemen, but they have all the characteristics which make gentlemen-the sentiments of pluck, chivalry, and good comradeship, and they are devoted to their officers and the officers like them. These are the sentiments of one and all, and they are the sentiments which we want in our men if we go into action. Remember that spirit is necessary to win an action in these days, and I tell you that a naval war will be one of the most shocking things possible to conceive in this world. Many hon. Gentle-men have read the accounts of the Japanese and Russian fights. Can anything be more horrible? Can anything call for greater loyalty, courage, and comradeship? Depend upon it, the fleet that has
  558
  best trained men who have worked most together is the fleet which will be most successful in action. I would rather take into action a smaller fleet, with men properly trained and properly drilled, than a larger fleet manned by untrained men and men suddenly thrown together. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) expressed a great fallacy, if I may respectfully say so, the other day. He said we were a two-Power standard in men. I suppose he meant in numbers. But he must remember the work we have to do. I pointed out the other day what the extent of our coast lines and our trade was. The question of guns, or tonnage, or numbers, has nothing whatever to do with it. The real question you have to consider is the work you have got to do. Remember the work you have to do is to defend the Empire in time of war. You have to look at the amount of work which will be thrown on the Navy if it is ever called upon, and more particularly if we were short in the number of ships and short in the number of men. The hon. Gentleman will agree with me that in case of disturbance it would require more police in Hyde Park than in St. James's Square.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I am not sure about that.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The hon. Gentleman is not quite satisfied with that argument. I am sure he will be satisfied with my argument that what you have to count is the work you have to do and not merely the number of men you have. There have been several remarks made in this Debate about experts. I do not think they were all quite fair or just. The Cabinet is responsible for the strength of the Fleet, the allocation of the Fleet, and the foreign policy which guides the Fleet, and nobody else. People talk about experts resigning, and, though you may sometimes have a man who is independent and who resigns, not caring very much about the matter, it is the business of experts to remain and to do their level best under the circumstances, no matter whether they agree or not with the Government. A speech was made by my right hon. Friend near me, and I re-echo what he said. The question of party in the Navy or with anybody belonging to the Navy is foreign to our ideas and our education, and there is not a single officer in the Navy who ever cares a fig about party. When at sea our business is to obey orders, whatever party is in

  559
  power. I have been blamed for making the Navy a party question. I have never done it in my life. I resigned from that bench some years ago in order to carry the £24,000,000, and now when I felt seriously on the question, I did not go out to the country, but I went to the Prime Minister and told him all I knew. It was the right and proper thing to do. I hope the First Lord will see how serious the question of men is. You may build up as you like, but you cannot buy training, you cannot buy experience, and you cannot buy the comradeship and discipline which make men ready to fight. Of all the serious things connected with the Service, the most serious would be if you were undermanned. I am very glad that the Admiralty are adding 3,000 more men. I hope they will join 5,000. I am sure that next year they will have to join more. The effect of having untrained men, if we got into war, would be very serious.
  Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Some great artists have rejoiced their friends by returning to the manner of their earlier days. My Noble Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) will receive the congratulations of the whole House for the greater portion of the speech which he has just made, and which is an absolute return to his earlier manner when he was here many years ago. He then used to attach supreme importance to men as against material, and it is a curious fact, I believe, that the only subject on which the rival Navy Leagues agree is the inability at the General Election of their speakers to induce anybody to listen to anything about any naval question except the number of "Dreadnoughts." The Noble Lord has left the General Election and the government of the Navy as a whole, and has put the question of men first again in his speech. That is thoroughly applicable to this particular Vote. The Noble Lord has raised some questions which I think should receive attention. These questions have been raised by one who knows the difficulty of speaking freely in regard to foreign navies, but as they have been raised, I think we ought to ask the Government to tell as much as they feel they can on this subject of men. I will only add that, supporting the Board of Admiralty, as I have pretty steadily done in this House, I have always been inclined to rely upon and act upon the unanimous reports of technical committees
  560
  appointed by them. Before the sitting of Sir Edward Grey's Committee, which contained some very considerable naval experts upon it, on this very question of manning many of us thought, and the whole House of Commons used to think, that it was the duty of the Admiralty, or it would be wise on the part of the Admiralty, to call on the merchant navy and to use the merchant navy, as it were, for training its men or training its boys. There was a continuous reliance upon the argument that the Navy must be in a bad way about manning, because the number of seamen of the English race, as contrasted with Lascars and Chinese, was declining, in spite of the increase in the number and tonnage of the British mercantile fleet. The training of these seamen was no longer what it had been in the old days on account of the use of machinery and the extent to which crews were made up of mere lads. Sir Edward Grey's Committee did not publish its reports, but it took evidence from all sides, and a good deal of that evidence was seen by those interested in the subject, and a great many Members of this House were able to see the whole or parts of the Report of that Committee. Of course, it published a short report, but it did not publish its full report or the evidence. But we all learned, and the House learned, that the Admiralty were justified in not taking upon themselves any responsibility for training mercantile seamen as reserves for the Fleet.
  The opinion of the country has changed on that point and the whole course of thought was altered from that time, and the country generally accepted the Admiralty's position. Are we in a position of great superiority over the German fleet, for example, or over Continental fleets owing to our very long service and the very short service on the part of the majority of their men, but not all their men? We are told that the efficiency of the German seamen in the Imperial navy is very high. Naval officers are inclined to quote the German navy as a whole as second only to our own. The fleets that count, I suppose are the American and Japanese fleets, the French fleet, which from the point of view of personnel was always very good, the German fleet, and ourselves. The Americans are generally put aside, because hitherto, though they have now greatly improved during the last few years, their quality has varied. They have had some first class crews of excellently

  561
  trained men. Others were made up differently. During the last few years there has been a change. The Japanese, of course, have this advantage, that their fishermen are much more like the old merchant seamen than any other seamen in the world. It is said that 5,000,000 Japanese subjects go to sea every day to fish. Many go great distances, and a large proportion of their fishing is done a long way off, while vast numbers go out every day for short distances, and they go under all sorts of circumstances in which they get a good training; of the German, French, and our own fleet we know the actual facts pretty well regarding the length of service.
  We used to be told in this House that the French personnel was always very high, second only, if even second, to our own, and that personnel was on the three years' service. It was on a nominal five years' service, and a nominal four years later on, but an actual three years' service. The French, of course, we know have constantly increased the number of long service men, the paid men as against the ordinary conscript sailor, and something like half the seamen in the French fleet are now on the footing of the long service men in our own. The German fleet have, so far as I know, a larger proportion than the French, and, of course, the French have a larger proportion than we have of very short service men. How do they manage to get this extraordinary efficiency on the ordinary length of service which they give the men. That is a question that has occurred to us, and which I think must be faced. The number of short service men in our fleet, of whom the Noble Lord now has reasonable and no doubt justifiable doubts, is very small, as lie said. Their introduction has been since Sir Edward Grey's Committee, and it has been on the scale suggested by that Committee. There was a Report-I forget whether it was published or not-five or six years ago upon the extent and nature of that experiment. It is just possible that it is necessary for us to have a larger experiment rather than to get rid of the change altogether, because Germany has succeeded so well in providing highly efficient men with a short service.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: They pick them.
  Sir CHARLES DILKE: They do not pick them so very much. They have to take them from the ordinary military con-
  562
  scription from all sorts of places. A large proportion of the men in the Navy is not found from maritime conscription in Germany. So that they cannot all be picked. The average length of service in our Fleet is extraordinarily high. I do not know how the Admiralty figures are arrived at, but I believe that they put as high as over nine years the average length of service. That is an extremely high figure when you consider all of which it is made up. We do not know, and I do not think anybody knows, what is the exact German average, but it is a very low average. The overwhelming majority in Germany, and more than half in France, are short service men. I am not one of those who are alarmed at any chance of failure in the number of our men. The Admiralty have always told us that they have looked ahead, and that they have made those increases from time to time which were required, for five years off, so far as they can see by their building programme-of course, not to man every ship on first mobilisation. My Noble Friend knows that there are not many admirals who would care to handle fleets composed of all the ships we have in the first instance.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: You must have a reserve.
  Sir CHARLES DILKE: Yes, and you may take the inferior ones out when you may want them later on, but you are without them in the first instance. Then, of course, we have now been told that the loss in naval actions of ships not sunk but damaged and unable to take part in further fighting, or temporarily out of their work, is higher than the loss of men. That is to say, there is not now, as there used to be, a special call on men after a short period of war, but you have more men, for you have men for whom you have not got ships except ships of an inferior quality, and therefore I am not alarmed myself. I have always believed the Admiralty's statement that they do look ahead, and that we have sufficient men. But on the other point my Noble Friend has raised in my mind a doubt. I do not think it is a subject upon which the special advisers of the Admiralty can entirely be trusted, because, of course, the Navy is a highly conservative service, and they might be wrong. It is just possible that Germany might be right and they might be wrong, and I shall be glad to hear anything which my right hon. Friend has got to say upon that subject.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): In the first place, I would like to associate myself with my right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Dilke) in his observations in relation to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth. I can say, cer-certainly for myself and the Board of Admiralty, that we should most cordially welcome all criticism put forward by the Noble Lord in what my right hon. Friend has described as his earlier manner, and I hope he will pardon me if I regret that, so far as I am concerned, he should ever have thought it necessary to depart from that earlier manner. There is no need to reply at length to the questions addressed to me by the Noble Lord and my right hon. Friend, because my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Dr. Macnamara) will reply to the Debate as a whole. The particular question to which I wish to reply is the subject of service, and the point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean as to how we compare with foreign fleets in this respect. We are the only nation in the world which have got a long service in the true sense. I think most naval officers in other countries would be disposed to envy us in that respect, and would be the first to recognise that the British Navy has a great advantage. Perhaps in saying that it may be suggested that I am acquiescing in the criticism of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the subject of such short service as we have introduced into the British Navy. These short service men were introduced primarily for the purpose of building up the Fleet Reserve. The Noble Lord asked me whether we could man the whole of our Fourth Division ships, the ships that used to be called ships in Special Reserve, with active service ratings. I think, in answer to a question yesterday in the House, I stated that we could not do so. We rely, to a certain extent-a considerable extent, I may say-upon our Reserve in order to complete the complement of the Fourth Division of the Home Fleet. Our active service ratings are more than sufficient to man the whole of the First, Second, and Third Divisions of the Home Fleet, and to man part of the Fourth Division of the Home Fleet; but we must rely on the Reserve for making up the full complement of the Home Division. It is necessary for us, therefore, to build up a really capable Reserve, and, in furtherance of that, we have various classes in the Fleet Reserve now, all of which, I believe, will prove to
  564
  be fully sufficient for the manning of the Fourth Division ships.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by joining these short service men in the Naval Reserve with some of these long service men who go into the Reserve? He does not mean joining together these short service men?
  Mr. McKENNA: After five years the short service men go into one section of the Reserve. My right hon. Friend (Sir C. Dilke) approached the question from the opposite point of view to the Noble Lord.
  Sir CHARLES DILKE: I have not advised anything.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, but in discussing the question he pointed out, with perfect truth, that here you have the German fleet, in which the men are short service men, and it is extremely complimentary to them that their efficiency is so high. Here you have a fleet with only 25 per cent, of long service men, and with these materials the Germans obtain a very well-trained fleet. If the Noble Lord complains that our Fleet Reserve is in part made up of men who have had only five years' service, I would point out that the best of the German reserves consist of men who have had only three years' service. The difference, therefore, I think, is not altogether against us. It must be remembered that the German fleet is recruited from men who are in the main landsmen-they are ordinary military recruits.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: They are splendid men.
  Mr. McKENNA: They conform to the ordinary standard of the German people, and they are not men specially selected for the navy. They are not volunteers-there may be a certain number of volunteers, but they are in the bulk made up of conscripts who are compelled to serve. The Noble Lord put his case in this way-let us have a Navy which will be so strong or above competition with other navies, that we may feel absolutely secure and peace assured. In furtherance of that view he takes the short service men and says they are not so good as the long service men, and that long service men should be put in their place. But the difference is the question of cost-it is far cheaper to have short service men. Where does the argument really lead? Does experience really justify it? Ten years ago

  565
  Estimates to the amount of £40,000,000 would have been thought to be beyond the bounds of possibility of competition, and would assure us peace. But the fact is that all the increase in expenditure, and all the improvements that you may make, whether in your material or in selecting your men, only raises the standard of expenditure without putting a stop to competition. Competition depends upon something quite different. It depends upon whether the object to be attained is considered to be worthy the sacrifice. I am sure that everybody will agree that if the expenditure of half a million, one million, or two millions would secure the cessation of competition, to bring about this, we should be only too ready to incur it; but we cannot entertain that hope, and we are bound to consider how peace and the safety of the country can be secured without spending money which it is not necessary to spend. We have only got a few thousand short service men in the total Fleet, which is now 131,000 men. Our short service men are, nevertheless, five years' men, and after they have served the five years they pass to the Reserve. I admit the experience of the Noble Lord. I do not dispute that his trained and practised eye will be able to select the short service men very easily from among the others. Nor do I suggest that the short service men are as good for all purposes as the long-trained seamen; but, in spite of that, I would ask him to acquiesce in the system which is now established as a result of the recommendation, the very powerful recommendation, of the Committee, and as a system which is only carried to a very limited degree. As a matter of fact, I have only taken 300 for next year, as against 500 in the current year. I ask him not to press his criticism on the Service, but wait until further experience will have justified either our defence or the criticism which he is now making.
  Mr. LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions with regard to the Marines? Is it a matter of policy on the part of the Admiralty to continue the reduction of the Marine force, or is the reduction which has been made only sporadic, and will not be repeated? My second question is, Who are the men who are to man the two first-class cruisers which are being built for the Colonies? Obviously extra provision will be required for many of those ships which are to be borne upon our lists.
  Mr. McKENNA: The cruiser built and paid for by New Zealand is an essential part of our own Navy, and the men will be supplied by us, excepting so far as New Zealand supplies them; but we anticipate that we shall supply the bulk of the complement ourselves. The Australian ship will be manned by Australia, but whether Australia can herself provide all the men is not yet certain. So far as she cannot furnish the men, we shall lend the men to her, but the payments of the men will be made by the Australian Government, and not by this Government. It must be remembered that at the present time we have at the Austration station, as near as my memory serves, nearly 3,200 men, or something very near that figure. Of course, when the Australian unit is established, these men will be set free. We have now, however, men in the Fleet to lend to Australia, and more than enough to supply both the Australian unit and the New Zealand ship. With regard to the question of Marines, our policy in reducing that force is simply to bring the number down to the level of war requirements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, owing to the system of training, Marines require that they should serve half their time in barracks. The result has been that we have a large number of Marines who would not be required in war for the manning of ships; that is to say, our peace complement is in excess of our war requirements. As the Noble Lord pointed out, we should require to fill some reserve ships with reserve men. In the case of the Marines, the peace requirements being in excess of war requirements, if war broke out suddenly we should have on our books a number of Marines for whom we had no special appointments. The system has not been changed; it is merely that the number of Marines has-now been reduced to war requirements. The force is even now, to a very small extent, above war requirements, but it has been reduced to the number which would be required for the manning of ships with a full complement of Marines. That has been the principle on which we have acted, and in working out that principle the reductions have now been completed. It must not be understood that I shall confine myself to such a number as fifty or a hundred, but in pursuance of the-policy no large reduction is to be made.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The Marines are now far longer at sea than they are in barracks. The really good

  567
  point of the Marines is the military discipline that they get in barracks. The marine improves in barracks, while a bluejacket deteriorates in barracks. The Marines used to be in barracks half their time, now they are at sea nearly the whole of their time.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, I have the list of those who served under me last. The majority of the Marines spend at sea a length of time far in excess of the time they are in barracks, and they are thus deteriorated in those military qualities which we all respect in them, and which are so useful.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord will remember that the Marines are originally trained in barracks, and therefore they get an impetus from that training. It is quite true that if you are to keep down the number of men to war requirements-that is to say, if you are not to maintain a number of men whom you would not require as Marines in time of war, then you must alter in some degree their, distribution in time of peace. The Marines, in consequence, are kept longer at sea than formerly, so as to give a shorter time in the barracks. We are thereby enabled to reduce the number of Marines, without reducing the number available for war service. I do not think that the character of the Marine has in the smallest degree deteriorated as a result of that system, and I can assure the Noble Lord that the general pride felt in that body is thoroughly justified, even at this moment, in spite of the changes that have been made.
  Mr. PAGE CROFT: I wish especially to refer to the position which is taken up by those who regard the Naval Estimates of this year as too high. The Leader of the Labour party, in speaking for hon. Members who sit on the benches opposite, said that a formal proposition should be made for the reduction of armaments, and so ease the burden both on ourselves and upon Germany. I hope, however, that we may take the word of the First Lord of the Admiralty that we are not going to put ourselves into the undignified position of going to other Powers and making ourselves ridiculous by proposing a reduction of armaments when we are the strongest naval Power in the world. The hon. Mem-
  568
  ber for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Ponsonby) recently told us that, because we were the strongest Power, that is a reason why we should reduce our Estimates. If he were engaged in a political campaign, and his organisation had sufficient money to finance twice as many meetings as his opponents could hold, and he was to go to his opponent and say, "Now let us reduce the number of our meetings." I think his opponent would realise that such a proposal would put him in a worse position still. Obviously it is the second and third greatest Powers who ought to make a move in that direction, and not the greatest Powers-a course which would give a false impression to those to whom these suggestions were made. I should suggest to those who oppose these Estimates that there have been very large sums of money spent in unremunerative work done by the unemployed in the last few years, when you might have had those men employed in ship construction.
  6.0 P.M.
  It is far more profitable to increase the personnel of His Majesty's Navy by 3,000 men rather than they should be set to work by corporations to make duck ponds in the public parks, and rob the ordinary working men of the corporations of work which would naturally be theirs in the future. We have also heard that the party on these benches have been responsible for the naval scare. I think it was miscalled "a scare," but at the same time we have had the satisfaction of knowing that practically what we asked for has beer, granted.
  I think all the world has realised, and everybody in the British Isles has realised, that it was the utterances of Ministers that made the feelings of the country uneasy, and that everybody understood the warnings of Ministers' speeches except the Ministers themselves. In this House the Government are so many Dr. Jekylls. They warn us of our precarious and undignified position. When they go out into the country they become Mr. Hydes. They call us scaremongers, and suggest that we are making use of the Navy for party purposes. I only hope that as a result of these Debates it will be possible to hear very much less about the Navy on the public platforms. Another point brought out by those who desire a reduction of armaments and a reduction of men is that they place such great reliance on the pre-" Dreadnought "battleships. It seems to me the greater reliance put on the pre-" Dreadnought" battleships the greater the strain

  569
  is going to be in the future, when their natural day is passed. Then we shall be compelled, unless we do not keep up to the two-Power standard, to have more rapid construction in the future. Also, it appears to me that in 1913 we shall find ourselves far too near the danger-line in the comparative position of our Fleet and the Fleet of another nation in Europe. We shall have to maintain the two-Power standard, and we shall particularly at that time, even if that Power does not build up to its full possible strength, to consider the United States of America. I can conceive nothing more wicked than a naval war between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race, but I think the Government, which failed to provide for the two-Power standard, taking the United States into consideration, would be taking a criminal course.
  The position of nations and empires in the world has changed very rapidly in the last twenty years, and more so than has happened in many previous generations. It is impossible for us in these days, when monetary interests unfortunately so influence the Powers and ambitions of nations to make absolutely certain that we may not have to reckon with any particular Power though we happen to be on the best terms of friendship with them at the present time. Only bad business men hesitate to scrap their plant and build up new machinery, new workshops, if they find that their competitors are starting forward in that direction. It is only fools who hesitate if they are dealing in highly inflammable goods to insure against a great fire. If war comes it comes so rapidly that in this country we should have no time for construction. It will not be a matter of six months, six weeks, or even six days, it is far more likely to be a matter of six hours. Then it is we shall require to see that we have got sufficient men and ships immediately ready. I would suggest that the civilised world was not shocked at the time of the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, in spite of the fact that the sea supremacy of the East was practically taken from the Russians before they had any notice of the Japanese attack. I can only conceive that the naval power which would engage with this country would be in hopes to take us by surprise, and that the attack would be very unexpected so as to have some hope of success. As a mere layman it seems to me not impassible that some five "Dreadnoughts" might be sunk at an unexpected time. If that happened, unless we have
  570
  a sufficient margin so far as we know, in capital ships of real fighting power, we might suffer a reverse in the year 1913, or thereabouts. It is the burden which tempts the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to ask us to reduce our armaments and the number of men that are engaged in the manning of our battleships. I venture to think that the burden is also realised by everybody on this side of the House. The burden is growing very nearly unbearable. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) speaking last night, said of Germany and the United States:
  " Both those nations, particularly the United States have such huge resources, such potentialities or greatly increasing population, that I do nut contemplate the possibility of this country for many years being able to build against two great nations."
  I must confess I heartily agree. It seems to me it will be almost unbearable, with the mighty human organism of the German Empire, and the growing population of the United States;-it will be extremely difficult for us to bear the burden. But it has got to be borne, and in my opinion it can only be borne in one way. I was asked last night by the hon. Member for Norwich to describe how it could be borne. I do not wish to introduce any vexatious question into this Debate, but I stated; as my private opinion that it could be borne by the union of the Empire as a whole. When we consider that Australia, with 4,500,000 of population, has this year undertaken a Navy Loan of £3,000,000, I say that within the Empire lies the possibility of the mighty Fleet which will be necessary if we are going to compete with the mighty empires which are growing up around us in various parts of the world. I believe that the only way that we can establish that union of the Empire is by encouraging our Colonies in every way. I need not point out what the way is in my opinion. We should try to divert the stream of emigration to out Colonies; so as to make them more powerful, and we should endeavour to do everything possible to build up their commerce. Then I am perfectly certain that Australia will not only be ready to have ship construction amounting to £3,000,000, but that the Empire as a whole will be willing and able to devote at least one-quarter of the Estimates which are necessary in order to keep the Fleet of the British Empire supreme in the future. Therefore, I hope that those who desire to see a reduction of armaments, or, at any rate, no greater increase in the future, will look to what, in my

  571
  opinion, is the only possible way, namely, by the bringing of our Colonies into our councils, and by the establishment of a union throughout the Empire-in fact, and in every respect.
  Mr. F. W. VERNEY: What interests me most in the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) was the reference to the question of insurance. If I understood him rightly, he said that Germany spent about £5 per ton on her mercantile marine and that we only spent £3.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Five pounds six shillings.
  Mr. VERNEY: I do not think the Noble Lord could for a moment suggest that we too should spend £5 per ton.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: No.
  Mr. VERNEY: I am very glad to get that admission.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: My argument was that she spent too much for what she had to secure.
  Mr. VERNEY: I am very glad to get that statement, because I think I rather misunderstood him. One cannot help remembering the comparative size of the mercantile marine of the two countries. I see from the last figures in "Lloyds Register" that the German mercantile marine for 1910 totalled 4,266,000 tons, and ours, taken from the same source, amounted to 18,700,000 tons, so that, of course, it would be quite ridiculous of us to embark upon a £5 insurance on that figure. I venture to call attention to this question of insurance in regard to the marvellous growth of the German mercantile marine. That is a possible method of looking at the matter, for, after all, we cannot but admire the wonderful energy which has prompted the nation whom we used to call a nation of landsmen to increase so enormously in recent years their mercantile marine. The figures are most remarkable. I find that in the year 1878 the German mercantile marine was a little over 1,000,000 tons. In 1900 it amounted to 1,737,000 tons; 1906, 2,469,000 tons; 1907, 2,629,000 tons; 1908,2,790,000 tons; and for 1909-10, 4,266,000 tons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to get those cheers from the opposite benches on that, because I wanted to account, if I may, at all events to some extent, for the growth in their navy by reference to the growth in their mercantile
  572
  marine. I think that tells entirely against the idea of any scare being got up in this country by reason of the growth of the German navy. Having given the figures, I wish to quote from a most remarkable speech of the German Ambassador delivered a few weeks ago in London. He began by saying:—
  " We are a peace-loving nation, and are far from contemplating any war of aggression, for the reason that our national aspirations would not be advanced by war now that we have accomplished our national unity. Every nation, however, and more especially one which is developing as rapidly as Germany is from the commercial and industrial point of view, has aspirations which vary in the course of its evolution. The demands of our home market have increased considerably, yet not to the same extent as the capabilities of production. We must therefore depend to a very large extent upon export trade, and in order to secure this trade we must seek commercial relations abroad, and try to preserve those already made. This is the real meaning of that frequently misunderstood expression ' Weltpolitik.' Our policy of commerce is directed towards the peaceable acquisition of new markets. The weapons with which this policy of conquest is carried on are intellect, industry, skill, and knowledge. As a matter of fact, no markets can be gained by brute force. You cannot compel anyone to do business with you at the point of the bayonet. I have never believed that among the commercial and industrial nations in this modern conception the destruction of one of two rivals could mean advantage to the other. The victor would no longer be able to sell anything to the vanquished, and he himself would have destroyed; a good customer."
  I hope the House will agree that it is no waste of time to quote words of that kind spoken by one in the position of German Ambassador. After all, he represents here the Emperor of Germany, and as representing him he made one of the most pacific speeches ever made by an Ambassador in the course of diplomatic history.
  I will call attention to one more set of figures. The total exports and imports of the United Kingdom have increased in a perfectly gigantic fashion in the last ten years. In 1899 they were £814,570,000, and in 1908 they were £1,050,025,000. Surely from every point of view, and particularly from the point of view of insurance, we must trust those at the head of affairs to gauge as accurately as possible the necessary increase and to avoid unnecessary extravagance. The Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) will probably agree in thinking that unnecessary extravagance in armaments means just that kind of offensive step which he would be the last to encourage. The speech he delivered a few minutes ago, which I followed with great interest, struck me as a very pacific speech. It seemed to me to be the speech, not of a man who wanted war, but of one who wished to avoid it in every honourable way. Some of us took

  573
  great interest in The Hague Conference. I was one of those who hoped and believed that a Conference of that kind would diminish the chances of war. But there was a dreadful irony in what followed The Hague Conference. We all know the old Latin proverb,
  Si vis pacem, para bellum. It seemed to some of us that the motto after The Hague Conference was, Si vis bellum, para pacem. We were all prepared for peace; we all wished it. England took a very leading part. We sent as our representative Lord Paunce-fote, than whom there was no diplomat more distinguished whom we could have sent, and no man who had lived more constantly in the atmosphere of peace, or had done more in his own career to encourage peace by diplomatic work. I do not suppose that anyone among all the diplomats of Europe went to The Hague Conference with a greater idea of promoting peace than did Lord Pauncefote. Yet what was the result? Within a few months of that Conference the most awful war of modern times had broken out, and the irony of it was that the head of one of the countries most closely engaged was the very, man who had appealed to the Powers of Europe to reduce armaments, on purpose to avoid the dread arbitrament of war.
  It seems to me that some things have been said in this Debate which had better have been left unsaid. Let me instance one of them. Quotation has been reduced to a, fine art. I protest against clipping quotations-quotations which do not give the real impression of the speech, but stop just where they ought to go on. I would allude particularly to a quotation made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. H. S. Foster), from the speech delivered by the Foreign Minister on 29th March last year. I am sorry the hon. Member is not present. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "First of nil, the house and the country are perfectly right in the view that the situation is grave. A new situation in this country is created by the German programme. Whether that programme is carried out quickly or slowly, the fact of its existence makes a new situation. When that programme is completed, Germany, a great country close to our shore, will have a fleet of thirty-three 'Dreadnoughts,' and that fleet will be the most powerful which the world has ever yet seen. It is true—"
  I do not think the hon. Member quoted this sentence:—
  " That there is not one of them in commission yet it is equally true that the whole programme comprises what I have said, and when completed the new fleet will be the most powerful which the world has yet seen."
  574
  The right hon. Gentleman also said:—
  " What we want to make sure of is our capacity. That is the real point of urgency."
  Mr. LEE: The hon. Member has left out a sentence which is the most important of all. He is committing the very offence with which he charged my hon. Friend.
  Mr. VERNEY: I was going to return to that sentence. I think it comes in better afterwards. I do not wish to leave out anything. I merely wanted to point out that the Foreign Secretary answers his own argument later on. He said:—
  "What we want to make sure of is our capacity. That is the real point of urgency; and I say that if hon. Members opposite had accurately gauged and really grasped the situation, there would have been no need for this Motion."
  That Motion was the Resolution moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lee), in these terms:—
  " That, in the opinion of this House, the declared policy of His Majesty's Government respecting the immediate provision of battleships of the newest type does not sufficiently secure the safety of the Empire.
  I will now return to the sentence which the hon. Gentleman wished me to quote. I do so gladly:—
  "That imposes upon us the necessity, of which we are now at the beginning-except so far as we have ' Dreadnoughts' already-of rebuilding the whole of our fleet."
  That is quite true, and that very argument strengthens the point of view I wish to put before the House. A little later the right hon. Gentleman goes into the question of capacity at considerable length. He says:—
  " With regard to capacity for building hulls and propelling machinery our capacity is considerably in excess of the German capacity—"
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing the number of men to be employed in His Majesty's Fleet. That is the only Question before the House.
  Mr. VERNEY: I bow at once to your ruling, and will refrain from going into the quotation which I should have been glad to have been allowed to give. There is one other point I wish to mention with regard to the men. The Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) will probably agree that when talking of the two-Power standard in regard to men, you have to consider not only the number of men, but also their quality. If he himself did not explicitly say so, he at any rate implied that no men in the world were superior to the men in our own Navy. We have now 131,000; a year or two ago the number was

  575
  128,000. I believe that only a few of them are short service men. All the rest, and perhaps he would include the short service men, the Noble Lord would say were as fine specimens of humanity as you could find in the world.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Not the short service men.
  Mr. VERNEY: At any rate, all the others. Therefore I think, tested by the number and by the quality of our seamen, there is nobody who would not admit that we have a Navy extraordinarily efficient and sufficient at present for the purposes for which it is required.
  Mr. FALLE: As the junior Member for the greatest dockyard in the Kingdom, I had hoped that I might be allowed to wander uncontrolled through the mazes of the Estimates but although I have been fairly assiduous in attendance I have not been fortunate, and we are now confined to a particular Vote. My qualifications to speak upon the Navy Estimates are perhaps the usual ones. I cannot be called exactly an expert; I am certainly a landsman and a lawyer. I shall not on that ac count attack my Noble Friend the senior Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford), but, on the contrary, shall back him up in everything. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Verney) has just referred to the German Ambassador. I think it was the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) who first quoted the German Emperor's speech. I hesitate to mention the old saying of Sir Henry Wootton that:—
  "an ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the Commonwealth."
  [HON. MEMBEBS: "Oh."] We know, of course, that in this country the Diplomatic Service is an honourable service, and that such a thing is impossible. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars said that at the same time he preferred the authority of an Ambassador to the authority of the Front Bench. But, of course, even the Diplomatic Service have to obey orders and to follow instructions. There is, however, no man on the Front Bench who is under any obligation so to do. Perhaps so far as "may" is concerned right hon. Gentlemen may be under an obligation to follow the advice and instructions of the different groups which keep them in power. But so far as the word "must" is concerned they have at
  576
  least an honourable escape. I trust I am in order in referring to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, because in his speech he uttered a few words which are, I consider,
  bbellous to my own Constituency. He said:—
  "The result of the last General Election proves that the Navy scare had no effect whatever except in one or two naval towns like Portsmouth, where the people, for selfish interests, desire to plunder the taxpayers' pockets."
  There was no naval or other scare at Portsmouth, but there was a thorough and a reasonable appreciation of the dangers of the situation, and there was also the fact that they looked upon the proceedings and programme of the Government as absolutely inadequate. The hon. Member for Blackburn says:—
  "The people, for selfish interests, desire to plunder the taxpayers' pockets."
  I think that was a statement absolutely unworthy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn. It is a statement which can only recoil on himself. There were none of these people, I feel quite sure, amongst the electors who returned the Noble Lord and myself as their representatives.
  I want to say a word or two on the question of the Royal Marines, and I am very-glad to have heard the Noble Lord take up that question so thoroughly. I must frankly admit to feeling somewhat disappointed by the replies from the Front Bench. There is a further question I should like to say a few words upon, the subject of the engineers. I should like to say at once that the replies-I will not call them evasive, but unsatisfactory-which we have received from the Front Bench is causing very considerable dissatisfaction amongst a fine body of men. Without the engineers we cannot take our ships into action, and without them we cannot, after the action, pursue the enemy. The question is of enormous importance. These men ask that they should be given executive authority on their own ships. We have spoken of the American Navy, and I now tell the House that in the American Navy these gentlemen have since 1899 been given executive authority. The position of the naval engineer is one of enormous difficulty. He is a man, it seems to me, who has, as the poet has said, to—
  " Abide in the heart of an eight-day clock The death he cannot see."
  That is a kind of bravery, frankly, I very much admire, and it is a kind of bravery which I for one do not possess. He must stay there in that steam pen of his, where

  577
  at any moment a shell may reach him, or he may be blown up by a torpedo. He cannot see the course of events, or have any idea how the fight is going on, and if he is killed he must be killed practically in the dark. That is the kind of thing I think that no fighting man-and we are all fighting men, even those of the peace party desires. Even with that responsibility cast upon him, the engineer is allowed no executive power whatever, while his comrade in the American Navy is given that power. Many of these men joined the fleets when 2,000 or 3,000 horsepower was considered great, and 100 lbs. steam pressure was also considered enormous. Now the steam pressure is up to 300 lbs., and we have 40,000 horse-power. We have vessels that are almost the size of a small town, and the population of the engine-room is that of a large village, while the men we put in control of these, engines and engine-rooms have no executive power whatever. These men ask, I think, not unreasonably that that power should be given to them. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the fact that German insurance was £5 6s., and ours was only £3. Does that not only prove that if the Germans are spending enough, we are not spending enough; and if we are spending enough, that the Germans are spending too much, and they are spending it only with an object? We have been told that the feeling that prompts these armaments is a feeling of suspicion. That is also possible, but there is also perhaps the feeling of envy, and a feeling that we have all that others may want. We have all the places, as the Kaiser said, "to the sun," and if we are not able, or competent, or strong enough to keep them, others may see no reason— for my own part, I see no reason-why they should not take them from us.
  The reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject of short service men rather alarmed me, for I have seen through a good many short service men. He said they were to be used for the Reserve. Surely if they are not thought good enough for active service it is hardly worth while picking them as a Reserve ! I have had some of these men working for me at home. They certainly have not the physique, and certainly are not the kind of men I should care to go with sea with, landsman as I am. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that during a war there would be no great call for ships, but there would be a great call for men
  578
  after the ships were injured. But if he has read the records of the Russo-Japanese War he would find that after an engagement the
  morale of the men was such that they required a rest, and in many cases it took a very lengthened rest before they recovered their morale. I should like to have spoken a little on the subject of dockyards and hired men, but I understand that these subjects are outside the scope of to-night's Debate.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed and the Noble Lord whose very interesting speech I listened to a short time before are both Members, I believe, for Portsmouth. There have been several other speakers from dockyard constituencies. I cannot help thinking that in a sense their evidence is tainted on the subject that, is engaging the attention of the Committee. [Laughter.] I will explain why when the hon. Gentleman's laughter has subsided. We are here voting a very large sum of money for the conduct of the Navy. Our constituents will have to find that money. The constituents of the hon. Gentlemen to whom I am referring will be the recipients of that money, and we all know that the cobbler thinks "there is nothing like leather." I am not in the least surprised the Service men should recommend large Naval Estimates, but I do think that the House may receive their arguments with some considerable discount. My views are probably well known. I have expressed my hostility to these Estimates by going into the Lobby in the only Division which has taken place during this week's Debate. To do otherwise would have been to deny the cherished convictions of a long political life and to fall away from the protestations which I have consistently made to my Constituents. But why should the Government drive me to this course? I do it with the greatest regret-with the greatest pain. Nobody could be more anxious than I am to support the Government now in power, and especially so because they have taken in hand what I regard as a great, essential, and very difficult reform. Then my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, dealing with the Estimates the other night, said he regarded them with dismay. Well, the nation wants something more than that explanation of them. Last year both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary came into the House, and both made important speeches commending their policy to the House. I myself should have been

  579
  very much better satisfied if, in making so extraordinary a demand upon the House as is now made upon it-the Liberal Government is, we have often been reminded, pledged to a policy of retrenchment-the Prime Minister had himself come here to commend his policy and to face the music. One would gladly have heard also from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs some defence founded upon the foreign policy of Great Britain of this demand for large armaments. I would have liked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the bearing of his policy upon these armaments, and the bearing of these armaments upon his policy. I would have liked him to say whether we have any military engagements with France, Russia, or any other country which have any weight in the determination of them. Above all, I would have liked him to say whether his efforts towards an understanding with Germany in regard to naval armaments have made any progress since last year. I do not think it is quite fair that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty should have been left alone upon the Front Bench to be bayed at by Tory wolves, and it is not quite fair to the House to leave us in the dark and to have a terrible policy of this kind sprung upon us-a policy which will be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as a defiance to Germany: a policy which tens of thousands of religious people, of moralists and humanitarians in the country, regard as the obsession of the doctrine of physical force and a denial of the potency of higher moral influences. The position of the Front Bench also during these Debates tends to leave the impression, and it has left the impression, of lack of unity in the Cabinet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] It does, indeed. It makes me wonder, for example, what my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India is thinking of these things. I would like to know his view.
  An HON. MEMBER: He is in the House of Lords.
  Mr. BYLES: I know he is, and I daresay that he is very glad of the shelter he has secured. I should also like to know what the First Commissioner of Works and my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland think of these Estimates. The names of these Gentlemen were, I noticed, absent from the Division List the other night, and therefore I would have liked them to have been here to support the First Lord of the
  580
  Admiralty in the demands which he is making. I do not like the suggestion that the great portfolios of the State are in water-tight compartments. Either this policy is the policy of the Admiralty or it is the policy of the Cabinet. If it is the policy of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I say frankly I do not trust him. I cannot trust him to formulate the policy of the Government. If it is the policy of the Cabinet I say, with great respect, they ought to be here to defend it.
  There have been a great many references in these Debates to what I may call the "Retrenchment party.'' It must not be assumed, as it has been, that its numbers are insignificant. It was sneered at this afternoon because of that, but I say it must not be assumed that it is to be numbered by those who went into the Lobby the other night. I am sure the First Lord himself knows there are a great many people who share these views, and that they are amongst his most earnest supporters in other matters. It is true that he dismissed us with a sentence, I might almost say with a sneer, and at once left us and devoted himself to what he called "the platform arguments of the Opposition," which he said he knew would not be repeated here, and which had been effectively answered by the General Election.
  These Estimates are on a very great and unprecedented scale. The appetite begins to grow upon what it feeds. A year ago we were told by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty that we were perfectly secure, even though the four contingent ships were doubtful. No programme has been enlarged. Germany is doing exactly what was laid down in her naval law at that time. Yet now we are confronted with a new and huge expansion, and this is not even to be the end. Far from it. Next year this record in expenditure is to be broken, even if the Liberals remain in power. If the Tories come in Heaven knows what lengths they may go to.
  " If they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry? "
  These proposals of the Admiralty, sanctioned as they were by the Government, are a departure from the best traditions of our party, from the counsels of their great predecessors, and even from their own better convictions. Old Members of this House who were here last year remember the very grave and solemn speech of

  581
  the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "It is true to say that half the national revenue of the great countries in Europe is being spent on what is, after all, preparations to kill each other. Surely the extent to which this expenditure has grown really becomes a satire and a reflection upon civilisation. …If it goes on at the rate at which it has recently increased, sooner or later it will submerge civilisation; sooner or later it must lead to national bankruptcy."
  These are very grave words. There are many other eminent men who have warned the House and the country against this growth in national expenditure. There were many eminent Tory statesmen who did so who might be remembered by hon. Members opposite, such as Sir Robert Peel, Lord Beaconsfield, and later, Lord Randolph Churchill, who threw up a brilliant career rather than consent to an increase in the Navy similar to that which we are asked for to-day. At any rate if there is no Tory voice to be raised against this vast expenditure I cannot remain silent.
  Retrenchment is the centre of the legend of the Liberal party. What has become of it since 1906? Without it peace, in my judgment, is in danger, and reform is relegated to the Greek Kalends. A good deal has been said about removing the Navy from party considerations. May I ask my colleagues in this House of all parties for one moment to listen to the case that presents itself to me, as to what we are really doing at this moment. The ingenuity of man is being constantly employed in devising this machinery of death. A complacent Government provides ample and unlimited funds which they draw from a patient and toilworn people. All the resources of science, all the forces of nature are employed—steam, electricity, the very winds of heaven, on land, on sea, under the sea, and now in the sky overhead, and for what? To destroy human life, to destroy property which has been gathered and fabricated by human industry—nay, worse, to provoke quarrels, to engender suspicion, distrust, and animosity between people who have no quarrel, and who do not desire to quarrel, who have no conflicting interests, and who, but for these preparations and the evil spirit which provokes them, would live side by side in amity and concord, in friendly rivalry, mutual aid, and co-operation, exchanging with one another the products of their skill and industry. That is what we are doing, that is what
  582
  these Estimates mean, and I do think that as citizens of the Empire we should try and consider whether there is not some other way of building up our greatness than by magnifying these engines of destruction.
  I may be fairly asked what is it that I would suggest. I can only say I have never lost an opportunity in season, and, I am afraid, out of season, since I entered this House, of urging upon the Government of the day to strive to bring about mutual agreement with regard to the limitation of armaments. As long ago as 1894, I questioned the then Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone, and he replied in a sympathetic tone, no doubt, that the moment had not yet arrived. The moment has never arrived from that day to this. The Navy is now three times as big as it was. We have had the Czar's Rescript and two Hague Conferences, and we have a growing desire all over Germany and this country for some accommodation to be arrived at between those two great hitherto friendly nations. I ask, Is it past the wit of statesmanship to find the solution and to put these proposals in form? It is sometimes said it cannot be done until nations agree upon a policy of arbitration and of submitting their disputes to arbitration. If that be so I might remind the House there is an organisation in existence called the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has now 2,000 members from the Parliaments of the world, and 150 or more members from this House who are, every one of them, committed to the principle of settling international quarrels by law and not by war.
  The only answer we get to all our pleas is a demand for five more monsters of destruction, monsters which we were told only the other night were never expected to fight. There is no man in this House expects, and certainly no one hopes, they will ever go into war. They are destined for the scrap-heap. Twenty years hence all of them will be on the scrap-heap. I would like to remind the House once more that the burden of these armaments on ourselves and on the neighbouring populations of Europe is very terrible. It must end, as the Foreign Secretary said, in submerging civilisation and bringing the nation to bankruptcy. The statesman who will find a solution for these matters other than providing these monsters of destruction will be the greatest man in history.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. E. C. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: A great many points in these Debates have been discussed over and over again, and, as the hon. Member for North Buckingham said, a good many things have been said which it would have been much better to have left unsaid. I propose to deal with one or two things that have not been said. I wish to allude to a complaint made by the First Lord of the Admiralty that those sitting on the Opposition side of the House have obstructed and made it more difficult for him to maintain the two-Power standard and obtain the number of men which he requires in order to make the Navy efficient. Nothing could be further from the thoughts of hon. Members sitting on this side of the House than to obstruct the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to strengthen the Navy. It is entirely because of the insufficient and unsatisfying answers which have been given to our questions relating to the Navy that we have had to put those questions over and over again. I will give the House a sample. Hon. Members on these benches ask questions with regard to the ' Dreadnought" or the "Invincible" class as to construction and the satisfactory working of their guns and machinery. The First Lord replies that he has not got at the moment information regarding that particular ship, but he can give information regarding another ship, as to the working of which he has never heard any complaint and which has carried out the purpose for which she was constructed. Consequently we have found it necessary to put down a great many questions. I asked a question the other day with regard to the Coastguards, because I wanted to know what reduction had been made. Having obtained that information, I asked if any further reductions were about to be made, and I was informed that the policy of the Admiralty would be declared from time to time. I trust the time has now arrived. I see that the reductions provided for in these Estimates reduces the number of Coastguards from 3,267 to 3,120, or a total reduction of 147. I would like to ask the Secretary for the Admiralty to give us an assurance that there is no further idea of reducing the Coastguards beyond the point which has now been reached. Not only are the Coastguards a very useful body of men for the purpose for which they were originally intended, but they are also useful to guard our coasts and warn the various stations when a ship is in distress. A great many bluejackets
  584
  when they join the Navy look forward to one day passing into the Coastguards, and that is a great inducement for them to join the Navy. They look forward to the time when they will be able to join the Coastguards, and be able to live at home with, their families, and yet in the event of war be able to fight for their country. The First Lord stated that the destroyers of the River class can keep to sea longer than the twenty-seven-knotters. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the German nation are to wait for fine weather to pick a quarrel with us?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has no reference to the Vote we are now discussing. The Vote under discussion deals with the men only.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I bow to your ruling, Sir; but I was just coming to that very point, namely, the immediate and considerable reduction in the number of men which must take place if the twenty-seven-knotters were to attempt to put to sea in rough weather, when the inevitable result would be that they would promptly convert themselves into permanent submarines or temporary coast destroyers. In view of this contingency I think that it would be most unwise to make any reduction in the personnel of the Navy. I wish to refer to the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) and others belonging to his party. I should have thought that they would have been the very first to advocate an increase in the number of men employed in the Navy. They are constantly complaining of the want of employment, and yet they vote against an increase of the number in the Navy, where the men can be employed in the best possible way in a thoroughly healthy calling. Hon. Members opposite go into hysterics if we suggest Tariff Reform, because they are afraid it will raise the price of food, although they are perfectly willing to risk the price of food going up to famine prices in the case of an outbreak of war. As the Government are anxious to get Vote A I will conclude by asking for a reply to my question.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Admiralty are always ready to give every consideration to any proposal coming from any quarter of the House calculated to increase the efficiency of the Navy, and I take this opportunity of saying with

  585
  what pleasure I have listened to the large number of very able maiden speeches which have been delivered during the course of the four days' Debate. With regard to the hon. Member for North Salford, I do not know that I need dwell upon the dark conclusions he appeared to draw from the absence of some Ministers. May I remind him that these are the Estimates of the Government, and if the Ministers mentioned by the hon. Member are not here to defend them, I have no doubt the reason is that they think they have left the Estimates in very good hands during their progress through the Committee and through the Report stage. That is an obvious explanation which I venture to give the hon. Member.
  As to the Royal Marines, which the Noble Lord opposite asked a question about, the First Lord of the Admiralty made some reply which I may, perhaps, be allowed to amplify in some degree. I remember in the Debates of last year and the year before there seemed to be an idea that there was some sort of prejudice against the Royal Marines. That view has not been expressed to-day, because it is obvious that nobody could have any prejudice against such a splendid and historic force. For two centuries the Royal Marines have been the honoured and invaluable ally of the Navy, and no one can have any prejudice against them. In my small way I have watched them for many years with great pride, and I know how well they bear their proud title of "Per mare, per terram." As our needs change we must adapt ourselves to those needs. The real question we have to ask ourselves is: What work have we got to do; and that common-sense observation must be applied to the Royal Marines.
  Mr. LEE: We are not accusing the Admiralty of any prejudice against the Royal Marines. All we note is that they have been reduced by nearly 3,000 men. Has there been any reduction in the amount of work they have to do?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I was coming to that point. I was saying that we must adapt ourselves as time goes on to our needs. The introduction of steam as a means of propulsion keeps a larger number of the ship's company below than used to be the case in the old days, when they were almost entirely employed upon deck. That is one great revolution. The proportion employed to-day on deck, owing to the development of steam power and other means of propulsion, is becoming less and
  586
  less as compared with the proportion employed below. That is one general proposition. As the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out, the number of Marines required is determined by war needs and not by peace needs, and the standard upon which the numbers is fixed at the present time is that every ship required for war shall have her full complement of Marines. Although in the Vote the number has been reduced, the number asked for to-day is in excess of our war requirements. Our general policy is to have a fixed proportion, and that is the only policy which can determine the number.
  The hon. Member for the Handsworth Division made a complaint that the answers given to questions from this bench by the representative of the Admiralty were not satisfactory. It is not for me to defend the First Lord of the Admiralty, because he is quite capable of doing that for himself. In my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman is always ready to give the fullest information, but, of course, he is bound to consider the public interest in any information he gives. Possibly consideration of that kind may have been wrongly interpreted by the hon. Member.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I would certainly not wish the First Lord of the Admiralty to answer any questions against the public interest, but we do complain that he has been rather curt to us.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I know very often that considerations for the public service make a Minister appear curt when that is the very last thing in his mind. The question of the Coastguards is, of course, very important. It is one upon which there is a very great deal of misunderstanding in the public mind, and possibly in this House. The Coastguard service in 1856 was transferred from the Customs to the Admiralty to make better provision for the defences of the coast of the realm, for the more ready manning of His Majesty's Navy in case of war or emergency, and for the protection of the Revenue. At that time there was undoubtedly a considerable amount of smuggling, and the stations were fixed, not with regard to the dangerous character of the coast, but with regard to the protection, of the Revenue.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: That is one reason.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Their position was determined mainly by that, and it was the duty of the Coastguards to protect the coast for revenue. The Coastguard men

  587
  are not pensioners; they are active service ratings, and can be mobilised at a moment's notice. They have undoubtedly, as everybody knows, in the ordinary work of controlling the coast for the protection of the Revenue, lent most admirable service in watching the coast for wrecks. Let me pay a tribute1 to the gallantry and readiness they have always shown in the matter of lifesaving. They have always been ready to lend a hand, but they have acted as volunteers, just as the hon. Member would, no doubt, act if the occasion arose. It is not part of their business, and they are not there primarily for that purpose; but, in case of a wreck, they have gone out with the lifeboat and have voluntarily and very graciously rendered willing service. There have, no doubt, been considerable changes since 1865, and, because of those changes, an Inter-Departmental Conference went into the matter recently, and a number of recommendations were put forward. In the meantime a number of stations not needed for the protection of revenue had been closed. The number borne on 1st January last was 3,273, and we proposed that it should be further reduced to an average bearing of 3,100 for the year, not as the result of the closing of any stations, but because of a reduction in the complement of the stations.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I asked if the Government contemplated making any further reduction. With regard to life-saving apparatus, there is a very great feeling of uneasiness that the present system is not as efficient as it was.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know that I am entitled to express my opinion upon that as a Member of the Government. It is not really the function of the Admiralty. These highly trained men have not been placed in these stations for that purpose, although they have rendered that service; neither were the stations originally built for watching the coast for wrecks; they were built for another purpose. The reductions will certainly not be beyond what is stated in the Estimates.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: This is finality?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I ought to have said for the year. I cannot speak for the future, because the whole system may be remodelled and put upon a different basis entirely. These reductions, at any rate, will not be the result of the closing of any
  588
  stations; they will be the result of a reduction in the complement of the stations, and, apart altogether from any view we may have as to what our functions in this matter may be, we shall watch carefully the case of stations where there are lifeboats and life-saving apparatus. I cannot, perhaps, without expressing any further opinion myself, do better than react the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty:—
  " The recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Conference on the Coastguard have only been partially carried out, and, as announced in Parliament, the force is being retained round the coast on the establishment provided for in the Estimates for 1909-10, care being taken to continue assistance where hitherto given at all places where lifeboats and life-saving apparatus have been established. The establishment of the Coastguard as so fixed is 3.100."
  There could certainly be no organic change in this force without coming to Parliament. I think I am quite authorised to say that. I do not for a moment wish to underestimate-no one could-the vital importance of this question of watching the coast for wrecks. All I am trying to do is to make the Admiralty position with regard to this matter, what the function of the Coastguards is, and what it was originally put there for, perfectly clear. I do not think I should be entitled to go beyond that at the present; time. I do not know whether I might now ask, as Vote 1 has to come on and I know there are hon. Members who want to raise some questions on that Vote, the Committee to let us have this Vote.
  Mr. J. C. WEDGWOOD: The Financial Secretary of the Admiralty, in the course of his speech, alluded to a sort of idea that there had been a prejudice in the Admiralty against the Royal Marines.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I said it seemed last year to have been suggested.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think there is no prejudice against the Royal Marines, but I do think there is a sort of feeling in the Admiralty against the engineering branch of the Navy. I raised the question three years ago and got very satisfactory answers, but there has been no change in the policy of the Board with regard to the engineering branch of the Royal Navy. Unfortunately, we have not at present any representatives of the naval engineers in the House. Some years ago we had Mr. William Allen, the Member for Gateshead, who adequately represented their point of view, but since his death there has been no representative of the naval engineers

  589
  in the House, and their interests in consequence have not, I think, been looked after as they should be at these annual Debates. Their power and their scope are ever increasing with the increase of our Navy. These new ships, running up to 70,000 horse-power, will, I believe, require a staff of something like 400 engineers, but the engineering officers of these ships have no power of controlling their men otherwise than by the influence of character.
  There is always considerable difficulty in exercising power or authority over men without the power of punishment for any offence that may be committed. There was a case only the other day brought to my notice of a man in the stokehold who refused to obey the orders of an engineer thirty years of age. He was brought before the chief engineer and still refused to obey. He was then taken before an officer on deck of only twenty-one years, and the order being again repeated to him he obeyed it on the spot. One can imagine the feelings of the engineering officers after they themselves have been disobeyed seeing an officer on deck promptly obeyed by a man on their own staff, the representative of 300 constantly under their orders. It cannot be good for the discipline of His Majesty's Navy that this grievance should go on year after year in the engineering branch absolutely unredressed. The difficulty is going to become more acute in future. Next year under a new scheme of training sub-lieutenants D will be doing service afloat. They will be doing duty in the engine-room under the orders of the old class of engineers, men of excellent training and standing, but who are slighted by the Admiralty and put deliberately into an inferior position to these juniors going on under the new scheme. This inferior treatment of the engineering branch of the Navy is bound, not only to have a bad effect upon efficiency and discipline in the Navy, but also to have a bad effect upon the new scheme of training. When these new lieutenants are selecting a branch of the Navy to take up, you cannot prevent them choosing the executive branches which are honoured by the Admiralty, such as the torpedo, gunnery, and navigation branches, and avoiding by hook or by crook the engineering branch. There is no doubt that you will get the failures in the engineering branch. In that department where you require the greatest possible exercise of ingenuity,
  590
  that department where brains and constitution are almost more important than in any other part of a ship, you will be getting, I will not say the worst, because they are all good, but you will be getting the least good of your sub-lieutenants. I should like the House to grasp for a moment what it is that these engineers on board His Majesty's ships do. They have by far the most important and dangerous work on board the ship-dangerous not only in time of war, but supremely dangerous in time of peace. With the terrible high-pressure engines of to-day, the very slightest accident may mean a horrible death, and over and over again we have had engineering lieutenants going down into the stokehold through the scalding steam in order to rescue some of the hands from certain death. The whole stokehold staff may, in fact, be killed by a boiler explosion. Day after day they run these risks in time of peace, and in wartime, if they had the right to elect whether they would serve in battle on deck or below, they would choose the deck, because then there would be a chance of dying in the water instead of in the scalding steam. These people are doing splendid service in the Navy. They are drawn from all classes of society without prejudice, and, although they have been labelled engine-drivers, there is now a proper appreciation of their services, and it is felt that these engineering lieutenants and commanders should be put into the position which their successors under the new scheme are bound to have. They ought to be put on a par with the new people coming from the training colleges. There is no reason one can possibly see against this change except mere prejudice at the Board of Admiralty. We have over and over again raised this point in Debate, and we have received pleasing words from the representatives of the Admiralty in this House, but on every occasion the favourable consideration which they have promised to give the proposed claim has evaporated before the breath of the Admiralty down below. I think the time has now come to reconsider the position and to put the engineers of the Royal Navy into the position which they ought to hold now, and which they are bound to hold in the near future.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Resolution reported [11th March] from the Committee of Supply, and then agreed to by the House, be now read:
  " That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 184,200, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Haldane, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Mallet do prepare and bring it in.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
    VOTE 1.
    Resolution [16th March] reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,389,400, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: With regard to this Vote, I am sure everybody will agree with me that every inequality and anomaly should be removed from all classes of men. With regard to the lower deck, a great deal has been done which was needed and right and proper in late years, but there are still certain questions that require to be ventilated. I wish to bring them before the House. I do not expect an answer on them all. Indeed, in regard to some of them I propose to put questions down on the Paper for Monday, in order that a definite reply may then be forthcoming. It is far better for both officers and men that effective answers should be given to these questions. Of course, some things which both officers and men wish for are not within the bounds of possibility. But do not let them have the idea that things are going to be done which cannot be done. The first principle in regard to the raising of wages and salaries in the Service has always been, to my mind, that a commencement should be made at the bottom of the ladder and not at the top. It will be remembered that in the Debate the other day the question was raised about raising the pay of the officers of the Army. I was very sorry
    592
    it was not raised on this Vote, because the principle has been adopted which was quite right. The men's pay has been raised by 25 per cent., but the officers' pay has not been raised for thirty years, although their work and responsibilities had increased a hundredfold. With regard to the question of the engine-room department, which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) brought forward, it has been discussed on many occasions. I believe the engineering officers had been led to expect that certain alterations would be made in their pay and position of command and general authority. When the education scheme was brought before the House many admirals and many engineering officers-many of those who looked ahead-knew that this question would arise and they warned the Admiralty that there would come a moment in which friction would crop up as a result of hopes being disappointed, which would be very bad for the Service. I associate myself with what the hon. Member has said in regard to this class. The engineering officers in the stoke-room must have great readiness of resource and independence of action individually when it comes to the bursting of a steam pipe. I have had under my command men who have done actions which deserved not one, but ten Victoria Crosses, and not infrequently in doing them they have lost their lives. They have known it was certain death when they undertook the duty. We appreciate all that in the Service. We all realise that these duties call for great energy, knowledge and readiness of resource. With regard to the engineer officers, there are certain questions which ought to be put right. I was given to understand by the Admiralty that there would be a Committee which would settle these questions one way or the other, and it is only fair not only to the engineering officers, but to the other officers in the ship that something should be done to put an end to the present state of uncertainty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a definite answer to this question, or that definite orders will be issued to the fleet. There are other questions on which I wish to say a few words. I think a Committee was appointed in regard to the position of the engineer officers, and I would like to know whether it has reported.
    Mr. McKENNA: There has been no report as yet.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the

    593
    report is got out as soon as possible. It is only fair to the engineer officers in the Service. I object to the education scheme of Lord Cawdor. I always knew that this would happen. You cannot make a man expert in everything. It takes him a lifetime to become an expert in any one thing. Why I objected to the scheme was on principle. The Service was democratic. The officers were drawn from every class of the community. I have been messmate and shipmate with officers of different grades, some of whom did not use the letter "h" in conversation, but they were splendid fellows, and we were perfectly good friends, because our duties were always active service duties. Under the new scheme care must be taken that we do not get an aristocratic Service. We must have a Service representative and thoroughly democratic, and it was because it was democratic in the old days we did so well on all sorts of occasions. To get an aristocratic Service, to have your officers drawn solely from the monied classes, would, I think, be unwise. There is another point I have to raise. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to reduce the engine-room artificers. You must not do it under the idea that you can keep the engines and boilers of a ship ready for service without taking her into harbour. Little can be done at sea. You have to get your engines and boilers cool before, you can work them. You have too few men to put them right in emergencies. The mechanician is a most excellent man, and there is plenty of room for him in the ship without taking work away from the engine-room artificers. Let me give an instance. I have my barge. I put a leading stoker on board, and he will probably drive me faster than an engine-room artificer. When the engine is laid up, however, it will be for three or four days. But the engine-room artificer, who sees little details, is able to put everything right without the barge being laid up at all. That is the difference between an engine-room artificer and a mechanician. I am not saying a word against the mechanicians. They are a splendid body, but do not think you are going to work your ships in action and do away at the same time with the engine-room artificer. The Japanese increased their engine-room complement considerably, and yet had not enough men to keep everything going. There is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a letter at the Admiralty written by a very talented engineer as to what the
    594
    Japanese did in their engine-rooms and the way in which they kept their ships so well during the war-that all the stoking machinery in the ships was always kept ready. The fact is that if you have people in engine rooms who understand construction they are able at once to put any little detail right which otherwise, if not attended to, might cause the engines to go out of action in consequence of defects that it would take a long time to put right. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will be careful not to reduce the artificers any more. Then, again, stokers ought to have warrant officers in proportion to their numbers, and the engine artificers ought to get tropical pay, just the same as the men in the engine-room. Further, warrant officers ought to be in the same position in the Navy as those of a similar rank in the Army. A man in the Army can join as a drummer boy and become lieutenant-colonel. The same principle ought to be introduced in the Navy, so that a warrant officer could retire with the rank of commander. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the rank he can now obtain is only that of lieutenant. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into that matter, because the man who joins as a bluejacket boy now cannot get higher than a lieutenant, whereas the drummer boy in the Army can get to be a lieutenant-colonel.
    In this connection you must remember that the warrant officers are the backbone of the Navy. They are the go-betweens of the officers and the men, and they are the finest lot of people we have in the ships. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also remember that there ought to be more chief warrant officers to take the place of the old ratings of gunner, boatswain, and carpenter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to remedy that grievance. On 10th September he stated, in regard to this question, that he was not in a position to make a definite statement yet, but that it was under the consideration of his colleagues. It is evident, therefore, that the matter has been considered, and I hope he will give a favourable answer. As to the carpenter warrant officers, there has been no increase in their pay. They only get 6s. 6d. per day, and the rest of the ranks on promotion get more. The carpenters get 6s. 6d. a day, but the young gunner gets 7s. 6d. a day, and he has only got instructional duties. These officers are most useful, if we go into action, because then there is a chance of the ship being knocked about and their

    595
    services being wanted. Another point which I want to raise has reference to a man who gets into trouble. You may have a man who has served his country with nothing against him and with a most excellent record of fifteen or sixteen years, but on one occasion he goes ashore and he drinks something. He did not mean to get drunk, but he gets some filthy liquor in the public-house, and he comes on board drunk. You have to disrate him for the sake of discipline, and that is quite right, but it is not right that you should deprive him of the pension for which he has served for fifteen or sixteen years, during which time he has borne a most exemplary character. He has served that time well to his own credit and to the country's benefit, and merely that for one mistake he should lose all that service when it comes to a question of pension, I think is unjust. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think over that case.
    Then, again, there is the question of the gratuity with the medal, which was reduced from £20 to £15, nobody knows why. Why should not the men have the money which they had before? If that is done to save money, it is not a very good way of doing so, and the men should go back to the £20. Then, again, the men who are entitled to good conduct badges, engine-room artificers and ships' stewards, and so on, if they are entitled to badges, why should they not get any pay in connection with them? If you give them the badges why do you not give them the pay which the other ranks get? Then I should like to see the raising of the status of armourers in the Navy; and there are other little anomalies which ought to be put right. A man now serves twenty-two years instead of twenty, and gets only the same minimum pay for twenty-two years as he got for twenty years. I think that ought to be looked into, as it is not a fair idea, and there is no reason for it. Then another important point is that the ships' stewards' assistants should be promoted by roster and not from the depots. It is perfectly possible JIOW for a man who is some years junior to be promoted at Portsmouth, because they want a ships' stewards' assistant, and he goes to sea as assistant over the senior man who is at sea. The right hon. Gentleman will see that that is quite wrong, and ought not to be permitted. They ought to be promoted by roster, because no man likes to have another man put over his head simply because he is in the
    596
    depot. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make a note of that.
    They have given the ships' stewards-increased pay, but they have laid down a condition under which they can never get it, and they have to leave the Service before they get it. That does-not conduce to give satisfaction. The stoker mechanic also should get an increase of pay on promotion to leading stoker, because the latter is the more important position. There are forty stokers with a leading stoker, and they have to obey his orders. The leading stoker, therefore, has the best chance of getting into trouble, because he is responsible for these men doing their work, and if you put a man in a senior position and do not pay him more, the man will not take that position because he is not paid for the additional responsibility. Since the abolition of the second-class petty officer, the leading ratings have more responsibility, but they get a less pension. It is not a question of pay, but of pension, and the artisan ratings, I think, should be allowed, to join the Royal Fleet Reserve, particularly the blacksmiths and plumbers. I wilt tell the right hon. Gentleman why. If any vessel goes out of action, you will have the standards, the ventilating pipes, the scantlings, and all sorts of things of that kind destroyed by shell and shot. You have only two blacksmiths and two plumbers to-put them right, whereas you ought to have a large number of reserve men of these ratings who understand a man-o'-war. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into that matter, because it is not a case where you can get a large number of men on the ship to do the work. You have only two or three men to do it, at the particular moment, and they may have a great destruction of pipes and things of that sort to deal with.
    Writers are another class who have been missed out. They are properly qualified men and should be able to achieve the chief rating in ten years instead of twelve. This, again, is a case in which you have given a privilege which the men, under the conditions of the case, are not able to get, except in a very few instances. Another thing I have written about for years, but with no success, is that blacksmiths, plumbers, painters, and coopers have not a chief rating. They do very hard work, and why should they not have the chief rating, as other men do in the ships? The men-themselves feel this most keenly, because other mechanical devices are introduced and men come in to deal with them and

    597
    they get the chief rating, and these men who have been in the service for years do not get it. Really the last point I wish to deal with has reference to hospital stoppages. The officers do not get them, but the men have to bear them after thirty days. They get full pay for ninety-one days, but their hospital stoppages begin after thirty, and they are l0d. for a man getting 1s. 7d., 8d. for a man getting less than 1s. 7d., and 4d. a day for boys. That is a very sore point with boys. A boy is very liable to get a cold or other ailment and be ill for thirty days and then he is liable to have his money stopped. I tried to get the officers sick leave for some time, and I also asked that these hospital stoppages should be done away with, and now the right hon. Gentleman has looked into the case of the officers it is only fair that he should not treat the officers different to the men. In all these cases I say always begin at the bottom of the ladder, and then you can look at the whole matter fairly when you get to the top. I am afraid I cannot touch on the wages of the dockyards and other things which I should like to mention, but I hope to put some questions on the Paper in relation to these and some other matters, and to get definite answers. I shall be quite satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman looks into these cases, and I am not asking for anything unfair. What I ask is on the same lines as those improvements for which the Admiralty deserves so much credit in giving them to the lower deck during the last three or four years.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. KING: I think we in this House have to thank the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth very much for the speech which he has just delivered, which is so thoroughly sensible and practical, and which has taught the lay Members of the House so much about the duties and hardships and the work of the men of our Navy. I must say that I feel that we are at a great loss during these Debates owing to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should especially have liked to have had him here on the earlier days of this week, for he could have elucidated some of the points which he made during the recent election, but in his absence the Opposition has been well led by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, except that, with characteristic timidity, he has not hesitated on many occasions to run away from many positions which he has previously taken up.
    598
    In reviewing the Debates we have had on the Navy nothing has struck me so much as the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have made assertions during the recent General Election
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): This is Vote 1, the pay for the personnel of the Navy, and general discussion is not open on it. Remarks are to be confined to matters arising out of pay for the personnel.
    Mr. KING: We were given an undertaking that general questions might be raised on these two Votes.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, my hon. Friend is mistaken-so far as the Government are concerned. The undertaking was given on the two Votes with the consent of the Chairman in Committee only.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has misunderstood the procedure. It is not in the power of the Committee to bind the House. It is a very well-known rule of Mr. Speaker that on Vote 1 the Debate must be strictly limited to matters arising out of the pay for the men.
    Mr. KING: I should like to call attention to some of the duties of the Coastguards, especially in connection with the watching of the coasts in the interests of the mercantile marine. I am not a dockyard Member, and I am not here to air the special grievances or interests of my constituents. I am here to voice what is a very widespread feeling amongst a large number of the community, probably much more widespread than many Members are aware, as to the dangers which are incident to our mercantile marine owing to their signals, which may be thrown up in time of danger or distress, going unobserved on shore. In the recent month, there have been one or two extremely serious and pathetic cases in which vessels have been in distress near to the shore and have been unable to make their distress known owing to their signals being for a long time unobserved. There was the case of the "Thistlemore," in December last, which went aground in Barn-staple Bay, and for six hours and a half threw up its signals, which were unobserved. Owing to the fact that another vessel came along, and was able to save a few of the men, the whole of the crew did not perish, but no fewer than twenty-one men went down and were lost; and a good

    599
    deal of interest, and even indignation, was excited at what seemed to be the unnecessary loss of so many brave lives. At the service in the village churchyard, where the majority of the men were buried, a company of 2,000 persons gathered, and the clergyman, in his address at the graveside, said they were there to bury these men, who need not have perished if only it had been the properly carried out and recognised duty of some authority to see that signals sent up from a ship in distress are observed and responded to. I want to impress upon the Admiralty that it is their duty to go further than they have so far been ready to go. There is, undoubtedly, a great demand that the coast-watching in the interests of the mercantile marine should be put upon a well-recognised basis. I am well aware that it is a subject which has been a shuttlecock between the Board of Trade and the Board of Admiralty, but, inasmuch as the expression "life-saving" comes repeatedly forward in connection with the duties of the Coastguard, it is the duty of the Admiralty to take the first step by approaching such authorities as there are, and there are several, to work out, in connection with the Coastguards, some definite and practical plan which would cover, at any rate, the most dangerous parts of our coast with a system of coast-watching with the object of life-saving, and especially to recognise that it is the duty of someone on dangerous, stormy, or foggy nights to see that our coasts are properly watched.
    There are a good number of authorities which ought to be brought into line in this connection. There are, first of all, the harbour authorities. They have many means of co-operating in this direction. Then there is the Board of Trade, which exercises its authority over merchant shipping; and I think the hint thrown out the other day by the President of the Board of Trade, implying that an extension of wireless telegraphy would mitigate a great deal of the danger now incident to the mercantile marine is one which ought to "be followed up. If there was more wireless telegraphy apparatus on our ships and more stations ashore something would be done by that means to mitigate things. Then there is the National Lifeboat Institution, and there is voluntary association and co-operation which might be brought into line. I should like especially to impress upon the Financial Secretary the importance of this subject. It has been so taken hold of by the papers as to create
    600
    something of a scare, and there are many families to whom the anxiety of having dear ones on the water is increased by the attention which this subject has received, and by the now notorious fact that there is no recognised authority to see that our coasts are watched for signals of distress. I thank the Financial Secretary for the most patient and courteous attention which he has given to Members on all sides of the House. If there is one point which has come out in these Navy Debates it is that in the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Junior Lord, and also the Financial Secretary, we have gentlemen who are giving most patient, careful and courteous attention to any representations, hostile or friendly, which are made to them.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down that in a country like ours, which boasts that it possesses half the mercantile marine of the world, it should be properly protected, and I am sorry that some of the money which is very often wasted in shipbuilding is not spent in protecting our mercantile marine. I agree with all that the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) states about various matters connected with the men in the Navy, but he left out one little matter to which I want to call attention. It is in regard to the substance money which is allowed to sailors on leave. I asked last October whether it was true that the substance money allowed to the sailor was 8½d. per day, and that the soldier got 1s. 0½d. substance money. The reply I received then was that it was correct that the sailor got 8½d. per day, but the right hon. Gentleman said he understood that the soldier got only 9d.-6d. by way of messing allowance and 3d. for rations. I cannot find out whether the First Lord was correct then or whether my information is correct. I got my information from a very good source, as I thought, and, though I may be wrong, I have no explanation except that the First Lord said he understood it. That is why I really want to get more information on the subject. Supposing the First Lord is correct, and that the soldier gets 9d., I do not think it is right that the sailor should get only 8½d. The men in one Service ought to be treated as well as those in the other. I have no doubt that all those Gentlemen who are going to get £5,000 a year do not think much of a ½d. per day, but to a soldier or sailor a ½d. off or on his allowance is a consideration. I hope

    601
    this will not be put on one side as of no consequence. If the soldier gets 1s. 0½d., I do not want to say that that is too much; if anything, it is not enough, and in time to come no doubt we will have to pay our soldiers and sailors better than we have hitherto done. I want to bring up the sailor to the same level as the soldior, for he does just as good work, and very often more dangerous work. I have only brought this matter forward in the interest of fair play and fair treatment as regards both the Army and Navy, and I hope it will receive full Consideration from the First Lord and his colleagues.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I shall not detain the House by referring to the matters which were dealt with by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford). He spoke as an expert, and I will be satisfied by simply associating myself with everything he said. I desire to direct the attention of the First Lord to the position of the shipwrights of the Royal Navy. These men I think should be placed on the same footing as engine-room artificers. Both classes receive six years' training in their respective trades, but the shipwright under present conditions joins the Navy as a leading seaman, and receives 4s. per day, while the engine-room artificers gets 5s. 6d. per day, together with all the privileges of petty officer's rank. The shipwrights have to be marched out of the yard by a shipwrights' guard, while the engine-room artificers may leave without a guard. Moreover, after serving twenty-one years, the engine-room artificer receives a pension considerably in excess of that given to the shipwright. I think the House will agree that that is an inequality which has only to be brought to the notice of the First Lord to be rectified. I have not yet received any answer from the First Lord in regard to the policy of the Government in regard to establishment. I brought forward the other day several arguments in favour of the extension of the establishment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be distinctly out of Order for the Secretary to the Admiralty to reply in regard to that matter, as it arises on Vote 8.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As to shipwrights, I have to say that if the hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) will place his view and particulars before me, that view shall have full consideration. I confess that I cannot off-hand undertake to give any de-
    602
    cision in any direction whatever. I make the same remark with respect to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) regarding the contrast between the payments made to sailors and soldiers. I understand that he gave notice to the First Lord that he would raise this question.
    Mr. MORTON: In that case the First Lord ought to be sent for. I gave him notice in writing before this Debate commenced.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will undertake to bring the matter before the First Lord.
    Mr. MORTON: I do not get £5,000 a year, like the First Lord.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; it is an ungrateful world. I undertake that the matter to which my hon. Friend has referred shall receive full consideration. I desire, on behalf of my colleagues and myself to thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. J. King) for his kind references to the work of the Admiralty. I can assure him that the subject of Coastguards to which he referred will receive attention. In the case he mentioned the whole matter, as the hon. Member probably knows, is now sub judice.There will be a Board of Trade inquiry, but I think I am entitled to say that the hon. Member is hardly warranted in saying that a reduction in the Coastguard might be responsible for the failure to protect life.
    Mr. J. KING: I never made such a suggestion. I should like to add that that view has no acceptance in any part of the country.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Taking the particular area to which the hon. Member referred, I would point out that the total number of men employed in the Coastguard service is now eighteen as against sixteen four years ago. It cannot, therefore, be said, so far as these numbers are concerned, that anything that has occurred is due to a reduction of the men. As to the matters to which the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth called attention, and with respect to which he has undertaken to submit further information, I promise that they will have careful consideration. As to the lower deck hands, what the Noble Lord said was quite characteristic of his regard and consideration for the men. I think it is just to say that we have made some changes recently in the conditions of the following grades.

    603
    The warrant rank has been established in the following ratings which had been able to rise only to the rank of chief petty officer-stoker mechanicians, ships' stewards, ships' police, and ships' cooks. The disciplinary position and pay of petty officers have been improved as a result of the deliberations of the Ratings Committee. With regard to civil employment for ex-sailors, I was very glad indeed to make an application to the Treasury, as a result of which we have entered into an agreement for three years with the Navy Employment Agency, who have undertaken in consideration of a grant of £l,000 a year to organise special arrangements to obtain employment for these men all over the world. With regard to hospital stoppages, we have arranged that men sent home sick from abroad are allowed thirty days' hospital free of stoppages. As Members of the House know, we have certainly done our best to make improvements in respect of the victualling arrangements, which do not come under this Vote. In all these matters we have improved the conditions as far as we can of the lower deck hands. Nevertheless, I shall be very glad to have before me the particular detailed questions raised by the Noble Lord, and without giving any undertaking in respect of them, I can promise that they shall receive our most sympathetic consideration. I hope that we may now be allowed to get Vote 1.
    Mr. PETO: There are two or three points which have not yet been made in this Debate. The Financial Secretary made a speech two or three nights ago in which he made several points that I really think were party points. One was the question of the defence—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question would not be in order on Vote 1.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY.
    Considered in Committee.
    Civil Service (Excess), 1908–9.
    Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £l, be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for the National Gallery, England, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1909."
    Resolution agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    Resolved, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the years ended on the 31st day of March, 1909 and 1910, the sum of £901,672 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolved, "That towards making good the Supply granted to his Majesty for the Service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1911, the sum of £24,122,400 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

    EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): A few nights ago when the Resolution on which this Bill is founded was passed through Committee after 11 o'clock, mainly owing to the generosity of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), I promised that I would make a statement explaining the Bill when we reached the Second Reading. As the hon. Member does not appear to have found it convenient to come to the House to-night I do not think it worth while detaining this House, which bears every resemblance to the usual House when Indian affairs are being discussed, with any long explanation of the Bill. Shortly speaking, the history of it is this. The Secretary of State for India possesses no power to raise money by loan in this country except with the consent of the Houses of Parliament, and so from time to time he comes down to the House of Commons with a Bill of this kind and asks for power to raise a limited sum of money. There were loans Bills passed into loans Acts, comparable to this, in 1893, 1898, 1901, 1905, and 1908. There are two kinds of these Bills. Sometimes power is sought to raise money for general purposes. Sometimes it is sought only for specified purposes. The Bill which is now under discussion is of the latter kind, and only seeks to raise money

    605
    for the specified purposes of irrigation and railways.
    General borrowing powers are only used to meet great emergencies, such as war or famine, and it is a matter of great rejoicing that since the Bill of 1908 no such emergency has arisen; and the Secretary of State still possesses unexhausted the whole of the borrowing power for general purposes granted by this House in 1908, together with an unexhausted portion of the borrowing powers granted by the Act of 1898, to the extent of sums amounting altogether to £6,371,699, so that it is absolutely unnecessary to ask for power in this Bill to borrow money for general purposes. The Government asks the House for power to raise £25,000,000 sterling for railways and irrigation. I may say that these powers are not to be exercised at once, but only during the years 1911, 1912, and 1913, and subsequent years, and they will only be exercised with due regard both to the necessity of the services involved and the conditions of the money market at the time. I may also say, having regard to the discussion in the previous Debate, that in the undertaking contemplated there is nothing military or strategic. All the work contemplated has to do with the development of the commercial prosperity of India. The subject of irrigation is only included in this Bill so as not to limit unduly the powers of the Secretary of State. But, as a matter of fact, the money required for irrigation is nearly always raised in India, and probably the money raised under this Act will be used entirely for railway purposes.
    I will deal shortly with the subject of irrigation first. There can be no doubt as to the value of irrigation, and the success of expenditure under this head is one of the outstanding features of the recent development of India. It was in 1864 that the principle was accepted of constructing works of irrigation out of funds supplied by loans, and since that date various systems have been steadily pursued of supplying water to country previously arid or exposed to the danger of famine in seasons of occasional drought. The policy now governing this work is based on the approved report presented by Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff's Commission in 1903. The sum of £32,143,278 had been invested in major irrigation by the end of 1908-9, and £4,028,294 in minor works, irrigating together the enormous area of 16,435,527 acres. This showed increase over the preceding
    606
    year of£1,628,541 capital expenditure, of£126,761 gross receipts, of£22,041 working expenses, of£104,720 net receipts, and of 358,639 acres irrigated. These figures are only the Departmental index of the general increase in the productivity of land and the effective protection of districts previously liable to famine in times of drought, and in some cases the settling on land previously uncultivated of large and prosperous populations. The major works only are constructed from borrowed money. The net receipts from these have increased from £1,711,000 in 1900-1 to an estimated net receipt of £2,350,000 in 1909-10. The capital liability at the same time has increased from £23,475,332 to £33,643,278, so that the percentage of net receipts to capital liability has remained practically constant throughout the ten years. We can therefore face the consideration of increased expenditure on irrigation with a confidence that the money spent is not only of immense profit to the population of India, but is spent on sound commercial undertakings, eminently satisfactory to the revenues of the Government of India.
    Turning to railways, we are again occupied with work, the advantages of which are undoubted. The building of railways in India, dating from 1853, has been the foundation of the growing prosperity of its people, the basis of any war against famine, the fundamental support of law and order, the root of all progress. Thanks to railways, food can be supplied to distressed districts and good harvests do not entail the waste of crops. Railways have equalised prices and distributed food and produce; they have colonised new districts and led, so far as is possible, to establishing a greater community of interest among the various peoples of India. Turning to the more material question of profit to the Government of India again, we see a story of satisfactory investment. About 24,000 miles out of the 31,485 opened for traffic are now the remunerative property of the Government of India, yielding in 1909-10, which has not been a particularly favourable year, 4.41 per cent, of the money invested in them, which now amounts to about £300,000,000. The railway service gives employment to 525,000 persons, of whom 508,000 are Indians. The number of passengers rose from 161,000,000 in 1899 to 321,000,000 in 1908, and during the same period there had been an average increase of 790 miles opened per year.

    607
    Loans raised under Bills such as we are now discussing are spent, first, in fulfilment of the railway programme for the year; and, secondly, in the discharge of capital liabilities. The railway programme for the year is decided by the Railway Board, which, subject to the approval of the Government of India and the Secretary of State, manages Indian railways. A portion of the money spent goes to improve the equipment of existing lines; increasing trade makes increasing demand on the lines built to meet the more modest requirements of earlier years. A great increase of goods carried necessitates the provision of more rolling stock and heavier waggons. This means new bridge girders, strengthening the permanent way, and new goods yards. By far the larger part of the money raised for capital expenditure is used for such purposes. Of the £20,900,000 included in the programme of capital outlay for this year 1909-10 and the coming year, £8,800,000 goes to open line works, £7,600,000 to rolling stock, and £4,500,000 to new lines and lines in progress. I may add that the Railway Board and the Indian railway companies themselves pay particular attention to the proper distribution of the charges for improved equipment between revenue and capital, and only such work as can properly be said to improve the revenue is charged to capital.
    Continued representations were received from India some time ago as to the insufficiency of railway development to keep pace with the development of India to supply the needs of its trade and to enable the railways to be worked to the best possible advantage. A committee was appointed as a consequence of these representations, which was presided over by Sir James Mackay, and reported in 1908. The report recommends that a capital expenditure of £12,500,000 should be incurred annually on railways, on which £4,000,000 should be provided in India and the remainder in England. It is with a view to meeting the recommendations of this committee that expenditure has been increased, and this accounts for the shortness of the interval between this and the last Loan Bill. The full expenditure recommended, however, has not yet been attained, and may not be attained for some time to come. The resources of India in the near future may fall short of the £4,000,000 contemplate by the Committee, which was to be contributed from such sources as the Revenue Surplus, Rupee Loans, and Coin-
    608
    age Profits. It is probable, therefore, that about £8,000,000 a year must be raised in this country for the purposes of the programme. Some part of this sum will be raised in the form of Capital Stock or Debentures of Guaranteed Railway Companies, for the creation of which the authority of Parliament is not required. It is not possible to give any accurate estimate, but, based on past experience, it may be suggested that about £6,000,000 a year will be raised for programme purposes by the Secretary of State. The amount raised for programme purposes under the Bill of 1908 has been £13,307,273.
    As regards liabilities for the discharge of capital, most of the railways belonging to the State in India are worked by companies, guaranteed by the State, under contract. Termination of a contract with any company means the repayment of capital contributed by them; this, together with the repayment of terminable bonds, must be met by borrowed money. Under the Loans Act of 1908, £997,300 has been spent on the discharge of debentures; before the end of this year, when the contract between the Secretary of State in Council and the Indian Midland Railway Company comes to an end, it will be necessary to repay to that company £2,250,000; possibly, also, though I hope this will not be the case, £1,510,000 may be required for repaying capital and certain debenture bonds to the South Indian Railway Company. The loans for these purposes will be raised under-and, I may add, go far to exhaust-the borrowing powers of the Act of 1908. In 1911-12 £1,776,200 worth of bonds, originally issued by the Madras and Indian Midland Companies, will have to be discharged, and in 1912-13, £1,477,600 worth of similar bonds, and in 1913-14, £1,281,200. Accepting, therefore, the estimate of six millions as the amount to be raised annually under the present Bill for the railway programme, the House will see that it is possible to estimate the requirements of the Secretary of State in each of the next three years at about seven and a-half millions, and that the powers asked for under this Act will have to be renewed at the end of 1913–14.
    There are only two other points which I should mention, rather by way of anticipating criticism, and they are not wholly unconnected. I have shown that railway undertakings have in recent years nearly always meant a considerable profit. This amounted to £9,770,000 during the last ten years, supplementing the revenue raised by taxation for meeting general administra-

    609
    tive expenditure; but in 1908-9 there was a loss of £1,242,000. This was due to a decrease in gross earnings consequent on unfavourable agricultural and trade conditions, and an exceptionally high rate of working expenses, resulting partly from the necessity of giving special allowances to compensate for the high prices of food while the effects of famine were still felt, and partly from the large outlay on renewals. This brings me to say a word on the matter raised on discussion of the last Bill as to the passenger facilities of the railways, the improvement of which was responsible to some extent for the increase of working expenses in 1908. The Railway Board in 1905 issued a circular to the several railway administrations urging the necessity for providing (1) facilities for passengers to obtain their tickets a longer time before the departure of the trains, (2) facilities for examining tickets of third-class passengers so as to enable passengers to have proper access to the platform, and (3) proper accommodation for the third-class passengers to prevent overcrowding. There is every evidence that ample response has been made to this circular. Continuous booking at the principal stations, and the opening of town offices for the taking of tickets, deals with the first evil. As regards the second, the railway administrations are rearranging their waiting-halls and platforms. The only way of dealing with the third evil is to increase the supply of coaching stock. New third-class carriages of a modern type are being provided with every possible speed.
    Finally, if there be any Member who thinks that we are proceeding too rapidly, I would remind him that, if we compare India with any of the advanced countries of the world, there is room and need for a great development of railways. To compare it with the United Kingdom, with one-fourteenth of the area and one-sixth of the population, you find that the United Kingdom has three times the mileage of railways. I would also point out that the productive debt of India makes up by far the larger portion of her debt. The total permanent debt on 31st March, 1909, amounted (in round figures) to £251,000,000. Of this total £182,000,000 represented railway debt, producing more than 4 per cent, interest; £31,000,000, irrigation debt, producing 8 per cent, interest; and £38,000.000, ordinary or unproductive debt. Few countries can show so favourable a record.
    I wish it to be clearly borne in mind that it is for this remunerative debt, not
    610
    for the unproductive debt, that I now ask for powers to raise money. Profitable as the expenditure of capital on railways is now, it will be more profitable in future. In the first place, the purchase of railways by the State has in the majority of cases been made by means of terminable annuities. When these are paid off, the railways in the possession of the Government of India will become an unburdened commercial property of enormous value. In the second place, a considerable number of railways have been built, not for immediate profit, but for the development of certain areas, and these will become remunerative in proportion as they achieve their object. Nor do the peoples of India have to pay highly for the inestimable benefit conferred upon them by railway development. Although during the four years ending 1907-8 the net annual gain to the State from this source was approximately £2,000,000, the rates charged for passengers are only one-fifth of a penny per mile and for goods a halfpenny per ton per mile. I think now I have laid before the House sufficient evidence of the necessity for this Bill and the purposes for which it is required. This House has granted to the Secretary of State in 1908 borrowing powers for railway and irrigation purposes, which have now been nearly exhausted on new construction, better equipment, and repayment of capital. I ask it with confidence to renew this power in order to give further assistance to the Government in providing for the continued improvement of the first necessity of the modern development of commerce, agriculture, and general prosperity-improved means of communication.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: The Under-Secretary has, I think, made out a very strong case for the borrowing powers which he asks the House to sanction. I think he meets with no opposition at any rate from this side of the House. I remember the last occasion on which we had an East India Loans Bill before us. Some opposition was made to the measure, but that opposition did not come from this side of the House, but from the other side. A gentleman, who was then a Member of the House, but who is no longer so, and whom I have heard sometimes described, most inappropriately I think, as a friend of India, proceeded to vindicate his claim to that title by moving the rejection of the Bill. I hope we shall have no factious opposition of that kind upon

    611
    this occasion. The Under Secretary pointed out that the debt of India was to a very large extent a productive debt. I think the value of borrowing money for the purposes for which it is now sought, to the extent of £25,000,000, can be made quite clear to the House. The debt of £70,000,000 under the Crown amounted to something like £97,000,000 in 1862, as a result of expenditure incurred in suppressing mutiny and reorganising the Administration. At the present moment the debt stands at approximately £250,000,000, which is an increase of £150,000,000 since 1862. It may sound rather like a paradox to say that this large increase in debt since 1862 has been responsible for relieving the Indian taxpayers of the whole burden of their National Debt, but, nevertheless, that statement is perfectly correct. Whereas in 1862 the only burden on the State was a debt of between six and seven millions sterling, the far larger debt of the present time not only entails no burden whatsoever, but it is actually responsible for the yield of about £400,000 to the Exchequer The explanation is quite simple. Since 1862 the policy of borrowing money for productive purposes-that is to say, for investing in railway and irrigation concerns -has been accepted; and since 1870 that policy has been steadfastly pursued, and has been crowned with financial success. The total of the productive debt has largely increased; but side by side with that the unproductive debt has equally steadily diminished, until at the present time out of a total of £250,000,000 of debt, only £38,000,000 is unproductive. That is a very satisfactory state of affairs.
    The money we are now asked to give the Secretary of State power to borrow is, we are told, practically entirely for railway purposes. There are one or two questions I should like to ask with regard to the construction of railways in India at the present time. About eight years ago the amount of capital expenditure devoted to new construction in the course of the year was about the same as the amount devoted to improving the status of existing railways, purchasing railway stock, and so on; but since that time, the proportion of the total annual capital expenditure on railways devoted to existing railways has steadily increased to the detriment of new construction. Since 1902-3 the amount spent on existing railways has increased
    612
    from £3,351,000 to upwards of £8,000,000 in the present day, whereas the sum spent on new construction has actually decreased in the same period from £3,800,000 to £1,333,000. I realise that the mere fact that you have to spend vast sums on existing railways is in itself a satisfactory feature. If you have to increase the capacity of existing railways for carrying goods it shows that you are experiencing a large and rapid expansion of commercial and industrial activity. It would be interesting to know, however, how soon we are likely to return to a more or less normal balance of expenditure in the course of the year between existing railways and new construction. The Under-Secretary referred to the Report of a Committee on Indian Railway Administration, issued in 1908. The recommendation as to expenditure contained in the Report was that a sum of not less than £12,500,000 should be spent on railways every year. I am sorry to understand that the Government of India have so far not seen their way to accept that recommendation.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. What I said was that although we were anxious as quickly as possible to work up to the standard recommended by that Committee, it would be some years before the full amount of £12,500,000 would be included in the annual programme. There is no question of not accepting the recommendation.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: The Government are obviously anxious to accept the recommendation, but on financial grounds they do not at present see their way to do so. But if the Secretary of State is to be given power to borrow the considerable sum of £25,000,000, surely it will be possible for him to accept the recommendation of the Committee and to spend the extra £2,500.000 per annum over and above what is at present proposed for railway construction. I know the Government of India are anxious to do what they can, and I suppose there are still financial reasons in the way of their accepting the recommendation in its entirety.
    The Under-Secretary referred to the length of railways constructed in India up to the present time, and he pointed out that in India we have a length of approximately 31,000 miles of railway. When it is remembered that within the memory of

    613
    many people still living railway communication in India was in much the same condition in which it is at present in Persia and Thibet, it will be seen that the performance of constructing 31,000 miles of railway is not altogether undeserving of praise. At the same time it is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that there is still a great deal to be done in that direction. He made a comparison between the Indian continent and this country. I will give him another comparison equally striking. France, with an area between one-eighth and one-ninth of the area of India, has nearly as many miles of railway as the Indian continent.
    Mr. REES: Does the Noble Lord think that that is a fair standard of comparison -to compare part of Asia with the most civilised countries of Europe?
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: No. I do not say the two cases are strictly comparable. I am merely pointing out that in a vast continent like that with which we are dealing, governed, as it is, by civilised Government, and having a vast population in a high state of civilisation, there is still a tremendous amount to be done in the way of railway construction. Take another comparison. The hon. Members present are probably all experts in Eastern questions, but many people outside the House do not realise the enormous extent of our Indian Empire.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Nor many people inside.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: For the benefit of those people, let me say that our Indian Empire is in extent about 100,000 square miles greater than the whole of Europe, excluding Russia. The whole of Europe, excluding Russia, has approximately 159,000 miles of railway; that is, more than five times the mileage possessed by India. I quite admit the force of the remark of the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees). You cannot strictly compare Asia with Europe. I merely quoted the figures to show that a considerable amount remains to be done before we can consider that our task in the matter of railway construction in India has been carried to a satisfactory issue. I do not think I need say much about irrigation works, because I understood the Under-Secretary to say that the work has been commenced for which we are asked to-night to sanction the money. That money is partly to be raised in India
    614
    itself. That is a very satisfactory feature of our rule in India. I wish that more and more could be raised in India itself for productive purposes. Still, as it is not possible to raise all that capital in India, I give my hearty support to the hon. Gentleman in borrowing the money in this country. I hope, for the sake of India itself, and for the credit, reputation, and name of this House, that this Bill will be allowed to find its way on to the Statute Book without confronting any opposition.
    Mr. J. D. REES: The Under-Secretary—whom I congratulate on the very excellent speech he has made on his first appearance in this House in his present capacity and on a very important occasion-referred to the fact that the House was empty, and therefrom deduced the conclusion that the House was not interested in Indian affairs. May I submit to him and the House that any Debate on any subject that happens by fate to begin at half-past eight o'clock will invariably begin in an empty House; and that, on the whole, the present condition of the House is, I think, considering that it is now only five minutes past nine o'clock, satisfactory testimony that India possesses an increasing interest for the House of Commons and for the country. I must say also, by the way, that I think the greater interest now displayed in the Indian Debates in Parliament, and in the House, is due in a great measure to the manner in which they have been treated from the Treasury Bench. I think the predecessor of the hon. Gentleman, who has been advanced to a higher place, did a great deal in that respect to make these Debates interesting.
    There was a, remark which my hon. Friend made in the beginning of his speech which might not have been superfluous, but which I am not altogether in accord with. He hastened to say in a somewhat apologetic strain that there was nothing strategical about these proposals. The strategical railways in India-the railways which we began on strategical grounds-have proved themselves to be very fair commercial speculations. I think military strategy and commercial policy in India go very well hand-in-hand-as they do in many other parts of the world. Then my hon. Friend, in speaking of the irrigation works, said that a small part of this loan would be required for irrigation, and he referred to the danger of famine. This I only allude to in passing to say how deeply I regret that this word "famine" is engraven in the discussion of Indian

    615
    affairs. None of as can cut it out. Whereas, as a fact, under the extraordinarily able system of outdoor relief which is now automatically in force in India, there is practically no famine. A succession of bad seasons only leads to the greater application of one of the most magnificent systems of outdoor relief which have ever been elaborated by man. My hon. Friend referred to the railway programme and Railway Board. May I for a moment, as a director of one of the greatest railways in India, as well as a Member of Parliament, refer to this? I think what my hon. Friend said about the importance of proper equipment of the lines was very much to the point, and where he said that considerable sums of money were to be devoted to increasing the rolling stock he put his finger upon one of the greatest requirements of the railway system in India. There is no doubt that this is a very great requirement. I am extremely glad -and I congratulate him and the Secretary of State on the fact-that this matter is being properly dealt with. He referred also to Sir James Mackay's Committee. I may say I am not entitled to speak for any railway but my own, but I am sure that other boards have been as anxious as that of the South Indian Railway to carry out the recommendations of that Committee, and, above all, to improve the conditions under which third-class traffic is carried on. It is a very easy matter-I have heard it done in some quarters of this House-to suggest that third-class passengers are not properly treated. There is one hon. Member who always suggests that they should have the same accommodation for sleeping as first-class passengers. But the net result of that would be, if carried beyond a certain point, that these services could not be carried at the low price at which Indian passengers desire to be carried. These low rates have led to the enormous development of the Indian railways, and on the railways with which I am best acquainted really provide us, unlike English railways, with far greater part of our receipts. I should like to take this opportunity, as these matters seldom come before the House, to assure the House that the boards of the Indian railways-I am sure others are no less virtuous than my own-spare no pains to provide for the comfort of the third-class passengers. And it is probable that those boards, consisting of gentlemen who have spent their lives, I
    616
    suppose, for the most part in India, are quite as well aware of what can be done and what is required by third-class passengers as gentlemen who take an altruistic, but a somewhat remote, interest in their welfare.
    My Noble Friend in his very interesting speech showed how conscious he was, as a great traveler—as I know him to be—that you must compare Indiain Asia—with Asia, and with other countries in Asia—possibly, if you like, with other countries under European rule; but you must not compare it with other countries in Europe. But, I was really astonished to hear my Noble Friend, who is familiar with Persia, Thibet, and other countries, proceed to compare the mileage of that vast Indian Continent with the proportionate mileage of the French Republic and the United Kingdom.
    Lord RONALDSHAY: I was only following the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. J. D. REES: Then all I can say is, with all my respect for the Front Bench, that the Noble Lord followed a bad lead. I mean to say that we ought to be most careful in our comparisons, for often the standard is forgotten, and India is compared with an absolute disregard of cosmic, geographical, and economic conditions with these islands. There is no more fertile source of error, and I am quite sure that the Noble Lord would not maintain the position which for the moment, and in the exigencies of debate, he took up. Neither do I desire for a moment to maintain that there is anything wrong about the statement of my Noble Friend.
    The Noble Lord also said that he wanted to see the expenditure on new construction brought up to a higher figure. I should like to see that, too, but I am bound to say that I think that if there is a case as between the requirements of bringing up the existing lines to a proper standard in the matter of rolling stock, and the requirements of new construction, I do think that the cost of bringing the existing lines up to the proper standard of rolling stock ought to come first. Therefore, for my part. I approve of the policy of the India office in this behalf. Coming for a moment to the clauses of the Bill, I see references were made to the provision to repay part of the capital and certain Debentures of the South India Railway Company. I will pause for a, moment to say that the fact that the

    617
    Secretary of State desires to continue the management by this Company, and by other companies, is a testimony to the successful management of Indian railways, even where the greater part is owned by the State. It is a testimony by the State to the successful management of these railways through the agency of companies; an agency which I sincerely hope will be maintained, believing as I do that there is no part of the world where private enterprise is not infinitely better for any concern than the management of any Government, however capable and efficient; and I believe the Indian Government to be one of the most capable and efficient that there is in the world. Then there is one remark upon this subject of repaying that I should like to make. Whenever there is a question of raising capital for India, and whenever the circumstances require that capital should be raised for railway purposes in India, I sincerely hope that every step that is possible will be taken to distribute that capital, so as to bring the great financiers and firms in England into this business of Indian railways. I should like to see it so distributed and as many great firms as possible interested in the business of railways in India. I should like that it should cease to be regarded as a special branch of finance, and I should like to see these securities, which are as good as any in the British Empire-there is no better security, and they pay far better dividends than the English railways-I should like to see them as popular in the City as any other railways or branch of finance. I should like to see them spread over as wide an area as possible, and not pressed into any particular groove or direction.
    As regards irrigation, there is very little to be said about it in connection with this Bill, because the Under-Secretary for India told us that most of the money would be devoted to railways, irrigation being provided for by Rupee loans raised in India. The Under-Secretary told us that £32,000,000 had been spent for irrigation. I think it is just as well to cross the t's and dot the i's in regard to what has been done in the matter of irrigation. The report of Sir Colin Moncrieff's Committee afford an excellent answer to the criticisms which we have heard from time to time about irrigation. That report points out that only 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 acres more can with advantage be irrigated at a cost of some £8,000,000 or £9,000,000. It is
    618
    not desirable to go further into these figures, because, of the fact that most of the loan is to be devoted to railways and very little to irrigation. Perhaps it would not be irrelevant to remark, in passing, that while India is generally supposed to be an over-occupied country, as a matter of fact less than two-thirds of the whole country are cultivated, and I for one am in entire accord with those who press for as great extension of irrigation as can be reasonably effected. For instance, take the Punjab; great comment was made upon the fact that the land revenues had risen by 80 per cent. That is a striking figure, and it might look as if the Government was screwing down the cultivator, but the cultivated area has increased 100 per cent., so that instead of a drastic Government screwing down the cultivator you have a Government charging 20 per cent, less than the amount to which it would be properly entitled.
    The Under-Secretary gave some figures in his speech. They are, of course, later than any I could have, but the figures I have are of a most striking character as regards the public debt of India. They put it at £246,000,000, of which £177,000,000 has been incurred for railways, and £30,000,000 for irrigation works. All the expenditure is practically remunerative, except £38,000,000, so that the debt, which may be described as "drain," is about half a year's revenue. The return the Government gets on its railway investment is higher than that which the private investor in this country gets upon his railway stock. The unremunerative debt is only about half the normal year's revenue It seems to me to be very relevant at the moment to refer to the statement made by Lord St. Aldwyn, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House, to the effect that the finances of India are in a far better condition and are far better managed than the finances of this country. I make that observation without instituting any comparison at the present moment, but with a, series of years in mind. Upon this point of the allocation of this loan, most of which is to be devoted to railways, I regard it as quite material to refer to the criticisms which have been made upon the relative amounts devoted to railways and irrigation. There is no limit practically to the extension and the profitable extension of railways in India. We find that a railway, founded even for a strategic object, at once becomes remunerative, but there

    619
    is an immediate limit to what may be spent upon irrigation, because the amount of land that can be improved by irrigation is limited, and if the land is not capable of being irrigated at a profit, it is unjust to the general taxpayer to charge him for irrigation which would be beneficial only to a few, but for which the taxpayers would have to find the money. That is a consideration that seems to me to be eminently material. It affords an answer to the shortsighted criticism which is frequently made in regard to the Government of India, but which is likely to be less frequent in this Parliament. Owing to the discrimination of the electors of the United Kingdom, these criticisms are considerably diminished in volume in the present Parliament, a circumstance which, while I recognise how fickle is popular favour, I cannot on public grounds regard with anything but with satisfaction. In a most valuable and interesting work recently published by Mr. Forrest there are some important documents given which were written by that great Governor-General, Warren Hastings. Warren Hastings says:—
    "The Government of India will never be properly carried on unless that Government is treated in this country with the consideration which is due to it."
    The words of that great man may very well, I think, be considered in this House on such an occasion as this when such a Bill is before us, and when nothing is said to which the Government of India or anyone concerned in it will take the slightest exception, and for my part I sincerely hope that nothing will transpire during these Debates of that sort. I hope this Bill will find its place upon the Statute book without opposition, believing it to be, as I do, a most valuable measure providing funds in a most satisfactory manner, because this money cannot be raised in India, The money is provided at a far cheaper rate of interest than that which would obtain if the money was raised in India, and it is provided for works in connection with railways upon which the average return is about 4¼ per cent., as against 3¼ per cent, in this country. I wish this Bill good luck, and for my part I shall heartily support it.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I should like to offer a few remarks on the financial side of this question. I would like to ask whether it is really necessary to find £25,000,000 now. I wish to congratulate my Noble Friend the Member for Hornsey
    620
    (Lord Ronaldshay) upon the speech he has just made, and the useful information he gave to the House in that speech. I hope hon. Members opposite will bear that speech in mind. My Noble Friend stated that the result of the State management of railways and other productive enterprises in India was that there was actually a profit to the State of over £400,000, after the interest had been paid.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: That was in the year 1908.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that that profit has been made on the private management and not on the popularly elected body. If it had been under the management of a popularly elected body, instead of there being a profit of £400,000, there would probably have been a deficit of from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000. The representatives of labour in this House are always telling us that popularly elected bodies are the remedy for all evils. I wish it to be known that in India selected bodies manage to conduct the affairs of a great country at a profit, whereas in this country we generally find that popularly elected bodies have to draw upon the ratepayers to make up the deficits arising from bad management. I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the finance of this Bill. I do not doubt that the £25,000,000 is necessary, and I am prepared to take the statement of the hon. Gentleman, which, I regret, I did not hear, to the effect that it is necessary; and I presume he said it was. All I wish to point out is that if the raising of this £25,000,000 is absolutely necessary at the moment, it is a bad time now to come on the market to borrow money. No doubt the Under-Secretary is aware that within the last two or three months the Indian Government tried to raise a large loan without any very great success. It is true that the money was obtained, but only by the underwriters. The loan was not floated when it was issued, and it does seem to me that immediately after a failure of that sort to come forward and ask for £25,000,000 within three years is, to use homely language, a strong order. Indian Three-and-a-Half per Cent, now stands at 95½, and that is the lowest price they have reached within the last thirty years. I am not making these criticisms in a party spirit. The position is the same as when the private individual who has rather overrun the constable, tries to obtain money on too many bills, and so

    621
    depresses his credit. Just in the same way a country, however good its credit, if it is continually borrowing at unpropitious times, must suffer depreciation of its credit and must pay an increase in the interest for the accommodation it desires. I do not know whether it is absolutely necessary to obtain this £25,000,000 at once. If it is necessary I suppose the hon. Gentleman is doing the right thing, but if it is not I think it would be advisable to postpone the borrowing for two years until the credit of India has been re-established.
    My next point is, How is the hon. Gentleman going to raise the money? Is he going to adhere to the plan carried out by both parties of guaranteeing the loan by railway companies instead of issuing stock by the Government itself. I remember a very considerable amount of profit being made by certain astute people in the City owing to the system of finance adopted by the Indian Government. I forget which particular Indian railway it was, but I know one Indian railway was purchased by the Government and the stock was guaranteed, and at the same time an option was given to the holders to exchange into Indian Three per Cent. Stock. There was a large margin between the guaranteed stock and the Indian Three per Cent. Stock, and these astute people in the City availed themselves of that knowledge, with great advantage to themselves and a corresponding disadvantage to the Government. I have never yet seen what the object of guaranteeing this stock was, because it always stands below the Government stock, and I do not see why this course has been taken instead of issuing the Government stock direct. Very large sums of money have been lost by that method of finance which has obtained for a good many years. I do not know why I should venture to give good advice to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I cannot refrain from pointing out what seems to me an error in their financial management, and I hope the Under-Secretary will at any rate consider whether or not in obtaining this money it would not be more advantageous to obtain it by a Government loan instead of by guaranteeing it.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: The hon. Baronet who represents the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has asserted that railways and tramways managed by popularly-elected bodies are not so well managed as those conducted by private individuals. If the hon. Baronet will take the trouble, to read the papers issued by this House he will find
    622
    that tramways and municipal undertakings are managed quite as well and quite as profitably as the railways of this or any other country. But there is something more to be considered. We find that under municipal management the employés get a great deal better conditions than the employés on the private management. That being so we are rather inclined to look at matters from a rather different standpoint. I would like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees) has said. I do not pose as an expert on Indian affairs, and after listening to the hon. Member's speech I am rather inclined to thank God that I am not one. I rose principally to ask a question with regard to the firms who are given the contracts for the iron work required for the railways and bridges in India. I want to know whether it is possible under this Bill, or by regulations to make conditions forbidding the contractors for such work in this country from getting these contracts unless they observe the Fair Wages Clause. I say without hesitation that when public money is being expended for work of this kind in India, the same conditions ought to apply wherever the work is done. That does not take place now, and I am told by people who have tendered that the ironwork required for the railways and bridges in India is nearly always given to people who do not observe the Fair Wages Clause, although the contractors who tender for such work in this country have to observe that clause. I want to know whether it is possible to compel those firms who are exploiting this work to conform to the Fair Wages Clause.
    Mr. B. E. PETO: I wanted to ask one question with regard to what the Undersecretary said in his opening remarks. He mentioned that one of the reasons why this money was to be borrowed was that so much money had not come in from the profits of the coinage as was anticipated. I want to know if he could give the House any reason why these coinage profits are so extraordinarily spasmodic, why sometimes the mints are working at high pressure with the greatest profit, and why at other times the profits die away practically altogether. He said that a very large proportion of this loan is to be spent on the improvement of the equipment of the railways, and he particularly mentioned the third-class carriages. I believe he

    623

    said that this was in consequence of the pressure which had been brought by certain Members below the Gangway to bear upon the Government with regard to the accommodation for the native passengers. It is due to the extraordinary fashion for railway travelling on the part of third-class passengers that wonderful profits are made on the Indian railways which are quite impossible over here. Although possibly the third-class accommodation is not all that the people in this country would certainly require, it is certainly worthy of consideration that it does, on the whole, amply satisfy the native population of India. They are perfectly willing to travel under the conditions which have hitherto obtained, and it is very doubtful whether, when this large sum of money has been spent in improving the third-class accommodation, it will bring in the same rate of interest.
    With regard to the letting of contracts for the ironwork for the Indian railways, I certainly sympathise with what the hon. Member opposite said. If we have a Fair Wage Clause, it is certainly very undesirable that money raised by the Indian Government for ironwork let on contract should go to pay unfair wages in this country. The hon. Member suggested that the Under-Secretary should bring in a rigid interpretation of the Fair Wages Clause, and should see that only firms were allowed to contract who paid the full rate of wages paid in this country. I wonder he did not go one step beyond that, and ask that the Government of India should be precluded from purchasing its railway materials from other countries where the wages are infinitely lower than those paid even perhaps by those firms in this country who do not pay the full standard of wages here. It seems to me futile to ask the Government of India to insist upon special conditions which obtain in Government contracts in this country whilst they are left perfectly free, as, perhaps, hon. Members opposite probably think they ought to be left free to purchase their railway materials in any country of the world, and under any conditions of labour which may obtain in those countries, although the moneys for these railway materials are provided by loans authorised by this House.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: After listening to the Under-Secretary and to the Noble Lord opposite, I think there is not very much
    624
    more to be said with regard to this Bill from the Indian point of view. I would like, however, to say that I was infinitely pleased that attention has been paid, as regards third-class passengers, to the needs of the native population. It has been known for years to railway men in India and to the Government of India that the accommodation in the carriages was very often insufficient in many ways, and also uncomfortable, and that the people, not being much used, as we are, to railway travelling, often had difficulties, in the hurry of things, in getting tickets and in getting comfortably from the ticket office to the railway carriage. These matters may seem to hon. Members in this House of small concern, but as they affect millions of people, they are matters of grave concern. I have not the least doubt that the Indian Government, in its parental care of the people, has taken that same view, and I am glad that policy has been now successful. It is a very great gain indeed, politically and otherwise. If I might ask the question, I would like to know from the Under-Secretary how the system of the Railway Board managing all the railways of India is being worked, and whether it works without friction, both as regards the various State railways worked by the Government, and those that are being worked under contract by private companies. It was a big departure when that Railway Board was started, and I think it would be well that the House should have some information at this point as to how the system is now working.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Charles Hobhouse): I only rise because my hon. Friend cannot speak again, to give an answer to one or two questions put by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) upon specific points. I think the point as to the interpretation of the Fair Wages Clause raised by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson), and the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and by my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Sir John Jardine), would be better discussed on the Committee stage, when these smaller points can be raised, rather than upon the Second Reading of the Bill, which deals more with the general principles to which the hon. Baronet opposite has referred. He asked, in the first place, as to the time of borrowing. A good deal of information on this point is con-

    625
    tained in the Memorandum which is on the same paper as the Bill. If he will look at the second part of that Memorandum, he will see it will be necessary in 1911 to issue a loan. It is obvious the Secretary of State cannot at this moment pledge himself as to the exact amount it will be necessary to raise, and still less to the exact rate of interest it will be necessary to pay a year and a-half hence, but he will have to raise during the next three years-I very carefully do not pledge the Secretary of State to any exact figure-a sum for the programme purposes to which my hon. Friend referred in his speech. He went very carefully into that programme and the purposes for which the money would be used. He also pointed out the necessity of taking in advance powers which it was not desired to exercise till 1911. The money will be raised, as regards India Stock, about £6,000,000, and £2,000,000 will be raised for the needs and requirements of the guaranteed companies. The distinction between the direct and the indirect responsibilities of the Secretary of State in railway matters are, I have not the slightest doubt, known to the hon. Baronet. He knows the narrow distinction drawn in Indian railway matters between railways which are worked direct by the State and those worked by guaranteed companies on a lease for a certain number of years. I think that answers the two points to which he referred. The other points are Committee points, which can be more properly dealt with in Committee, and I will only add for the information of the hon. Member for the West Houghton Division that the India Office is represented by a member on the Advisory Committee, with reference to which a pledge was given by the Secretary of State for War three or four days ago that any question of the payment or non-payment of fair wages which may arise in connection with the construction of railway stock or other material for the Government of India can be dealt with on the advice of and at the suggestion of the Advisory Committee, armed, as it will be, with new powers under the pledge given by my right hon. Friend.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow" [Mr. Montagu], put, and agreed to.

    DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL (CHAPEL) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): Perhaps it would be as well for me to give a brief explanation of this Bill. It contains only one clause, designed to attain a single and simple object, by the only method known to our procedure, by which a chapel can be unconsecrated. This chapel is now disused. There is no cure of souls. It has no congregation. It has been dismantled inside, and it only cumbers the ground. It cannot be got rid of except by tins method of procedure. The Bill only applies to the site of the chapel, not to the site of the Duke of York's School, for dealing with which no legislative powers at all are required. It is merely to enable me to remove this now useless building that this Bill has been introduced.
    Mr. HOAREmoved as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
    I hope it will not be thought that my opposition to a Bill which looks harmless is either vexatious or obstructive. I find, in passing, that opposing the disposal of the site of the Duke of York's School is almost the inherent right of the representative of the Constituency which has sent me to this House, for on reference to past pages of "Hansard" I see two of my predecessors in the representations of the Constituency addressed to Ministers a number of questions with reference to the way in which this historical and extensive open space is to be dealt with. On the face of it this is a harmless measure. The object of the Bill is apparently to free the site of the old chapel of the Duke of York's School from ecclesiastical uses. Let me say, in passing, I understand the Commissioner of Works is breaking away from the traditions which have up to a recent date attached to Bills to desecrate consecrated buildings. I believe it has hitherto been the practice to obtain the formal approval of the bishop of the diocese. The failure to obtain that approval, however, is not the ground on which I am opposing this measure. I oppose it because I regard it as an integral part of the general scheme

    627
    for dealing with and disposing of one of the largest and most historic open spaces in the central district of London. Three weeks ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman what was going to happen to this site. He gave me a very unsympathetic answer. He practically said he was prepared to dispose of it to the highest bidder. I regard this particular Bill as dealing with a very salient point in connection with the site. I believe it would be extremely difficult to develop the site of twelve acres on commercial lines if this particular piece is not free from ecclesiastical uses, and I take this opportunity of opposing the general scheme for disposing of the whole twelve acres. This is one of the best known open spacer, in the West of London. Hon. Members will remember the massive Georgian building and the large tracts of grass surrounding it. I understand that when the school was moved a year ago there was some understanding that the money required for building a new school should be obtained by the sale of the present site, but I should like further information from the Commissioner of Works before the whole site is sacrificed. In the answer he gave me three weeks ago he implied, in the first place, that there was no great need for this open space in this part of London, because there are a great many other open spaces, such as Chelsea Barracks and Hospital. He also implied that it was not in the legal and technical sense of the word an open space. In reference to the fact that this district is already well supplied with open spaces, I quite realise that Chelsea is more fortunate than a great many other districts in the centre of London, but that seems to be no reason whatever for sacrificing any one of the open spaces which it already enjoys. It is no doubt fortunate. I hope it will remain fortunate in this matter of open spaces. But I repeat, that is no reason for sacrificing this particular twelve acres. With reference to the second point, that this tract of land is not legally and technically an open space, I quite agree it never has been, and is not at the present time legally open to the public. But it seems a very analogous case to that of the square gardens. These are not legally open spaces in the sense that they are open to the general public, but somehow the general public have got to feel that they have a very real interest in their preservation as open spaces, and if it is proposed to build over any one of these square gardens, a large number of which
    628

    London enjoys, an outcry is immediately raised. On one or two occasions when a. private landowner has proposed to build over a square garden, although entirely within his legal rights, there has been such an outcry that the municipal bodies of London have been compelled to take action. I have here a case in which the London County Council had such pressure brought to bear upon it that in one instance, that of the Albert Square, it was compelled to pay many thousands of pounds to keep the space open simply because the public felt that they had a right to its preservation. In a second case, that of a square at Kensington, there was such strong feeling that certain hon. Members opposite, who were then Members of the London County Council, actually promoted a Bill to prevent private landowners building over square gardens. It is a curious fact that this particular site was, when it was bought by the Commissioners of the Duke of York's School, the property of the largest landowner in the district, the Lord Cadogan of the day. One hundred and ten years ago it was the town residence of the then Lord Cadogan. Imagine for a moment that this site, instead of having been sold to the Commissioners, had been leased to them, and the lease had fallen in, and the Lord Cadogan of the day proposed to do what the right hon. Gentleman opposite is proposing to do, and build over it. We all know what would have happened. We should have had such an outcry in the Press that it would have afforded the raw material for the whole of the campaign of the gentleman who might be called upon to oppose me at the next General Election. I heard enough about the iniquities of ground landlords at the last election; what would it have been if the greatest ground landlord in the district had proposed to build over an extensive open space extending to no less than twelve acres, which the public had got to regard almost as its own? If it is wrong for a private landowner to be guilty of an action of that kind, surely the same code of morals applies to a public Department. It may be rapacity or it may not be rapacity on the part of a private landowner, but it matters not in the least to the neighbourhood whether the person who builds over the site is the ground landlord or a public Department. The site is built over, and London loses one of those lungs upon which it depends so much for its fresh air. I believe at the

    629
    present time, if this was the property of a private landowner, the agitation would go even still further.
    10.0 P.M.
    I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that only last year one of his colleagues passed, or was instrumental in passing, a Housing and Town Planning Act, and it seems to me to be principally designed to deal with cases such as this particular site. I could refer the right hon. Gentleman to a large number of clauses of this very lengthy Act, which seem to me to exactly apply to a site of this kind. In Part II., Section 54, it is provided that a town planning scheme may be made in accordance with provisions of this part of the Act as respects any land which is in course of development, or which appears likely to be used for building purposes, with the general object of securing proper sanitary conditions, amenity, and convenience in connection with the laying out and the use of the land or any neighbouring land. That seems to me to exactly describe this particular site. I could also refer him to other clauses which distinctly say that one of three things should happen when sites of this kind are threatened by building or development In the first place it is enacted that the private landowner should be called upon to make a scheme to ensure the safeguarding of public interest, and in the second place, supposing the private landowner refuses to do that, the county council may step in, and either compel him to produce a scheme of his own or make a scheme of their own. Thirdly, if they refuse to do that they are at the mercy of the Local Government Board, who come in and say, "You are not carrying out your duties as a local authority properly, and we must make a scheme over your head." At present the London County Council is only too anxious to see some such scheme drawn up. I understand that the late chairman of the county council and the clerk are making representations to the Commissioner of Works with this end in view, but how are you to expect a local authority to do its duty in carrying out an Act which was only passed last year when another colleague of the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the Act brings in a Bill with the incidental result of frustrating the application of the Act in this particular locality? It seems to me that the unfortunate county council is between the Devil and the deep sea. I will not press that metaphor too far, but at the same time the county council on the one hand
    630
    is expected, under the Town Planning Act, to see that some scheme is drawn up for dealing with the site, and if it refuses to do so it is at the mercy of the Local Government Board to come in and make a scheme over its head.
    What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do with the site? Does he propose to develop it entirely as house property, or would he, for instance, consider some sort of compromise by which, at any rate, a part of the site should be preserved for public use? Has he considered the requirements of London traffic? At this point of the King's Road on which the Duke of York's School abuts, the thoroughfare is very narrow. It is one of the main thoroughfares, east and westward, and it is most important that King's Road should be widened at this point. On the west side of the site there is a very narrow street, and it is quite possible in the future, with improvements in the neighbourhood and the demolition of certain houses, that that narrow street might become an artery between Victoria Station and South Kensington, or between the south of the river and South Kensington. It is of the utmost importance that not only should the King's Road be widened at the point of the Duke of York's School, but on the west side also a small street-Cheltenham Terrace-should be widened. I suggested the other day that the site might very profitably be used as the headquarters for the County of London Territorials. I understand the Territorial Force Association for London is very anxious to get headquarters somewhere in a central district, and it seems to me that no site would be more suitable, either for its position or for its historical traditions. It is most important that the site should not be lost, and it could not be used in a better way.
    Lastly, I move this Amendment for the reason that it is most important that the London County Council should be able to make its representations, and that the municipal bodies in the neighbourhood should also be able to do so. I ask, What is the hurry? There is surely no particular demand at the present time for more houses in London. I am told that there is a considerable number of empty houses in Chelsea. It seems to me there is no reason for bringing a large site extending to twelve acres into the market when it is known that there are about 50,000 empty houses in the County of London Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks

    631
    this open space will become an extravagant luxury. It is quite possible if the Budget, in the quest of which we are faint yet pursuing, goes through this House, the increased taxation will make the preservation of these sites very difficult and expensive. The passing of that measure is still problematical, but if this Bill goes through and this site is entirely developed, then a large extent of land will be lost for ever to London in general and to Chelsea in particular. For these reasons, and particularly because we have had no definite information as to the site, I beg to move.
    Captain COOPER: I do not think that in seconding the Amendment I need say very much. I am fortunate enough to come from a country which though poor in many respects, is rich in open spaces. But I am about to become a resident in Chelsea; I know the neighbourhood well, and take very great interest in it. I think the House is entitled to have some assurance from the Government as to what they are going to do in this matter. Of course, I can understand the attitude the Government take up. They see the chapel in the condition which has been described, and they look upon the site as undeveloped land, and wish to redeem it from that un-regenerate condition. I think we are entitled to some assurance as to the way in which it is to be developed. When this chapel is torn down the site will be put to some public use, or it may be made into an open space for the use of the community as a whole, and not for a cinematograph building or something of that sort. Personally, although I should like to see the Territorials housed there, I cannot help hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to leave it an open space for the benefit of the poor of the locality. Hon. Members know that all round King's Road and Victoria there are a great many streets inhabited by the poor, whose children would use this open space. It is in the interests of the poorer class I speak.
    Viscount DALRYMPLE: I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend on another ground. The object of this Bill is to do away with the military chapel. So far as I know, that is the only military chapel in London at present which is consecreated, and if any of the troops wish to get married in the other chapels, which they are bound to use, they have to pay a licence of£30 or so to some unknown authority-I do not know who. I did so
    632
    myself for the privilege of being married in one of these particular chapels. I am certainly opposed to doing away with any consecrated chapel until the others are consecrated. Another reason for opposing this Bill is in connection with the subject of barracks. Taking the barracks in London, the Wellington and Chelsea are probably the most uncomfortable barracks in the British islands. I think that the Wellington Barracks have been condemned for the last twenty years. Everybody thought that they were going to be pulled down until about five years ago, when the whole place was given a new drainage system-a putting of new wine into old bottles. I suppose in future the troops have got to be satisfied with that particular form of barracks which now exists there because they have got new drains. For that reason I oppose doing away with these barracks. We certainly need far more barracks in London. They are not quite so much needed now since the present occupants of office have reduced the number of men, but possibly some day there will be an adequate army maintained in London, which will certainly want barracks.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think that the House may not quite understand my position in this matter. I am trustee for the children of the Duke of York's School. I have no power to give away this land or part with it for any purpose, however desirable, except for the benefit of the school and the advantage of the children. I have no power by the Act of Parliament under which I hold this land to devote it to the purpose suggested. It cannot be devoted to that purpose unless it is purchased by somebody who is willing to use it for that purpose. I hope that the hon. Member for Chelsea does not think that I throw any obstacle in the way of its purchase to have it converted into an open space. The Borough Council of Chelsea has not yet approached me, and the London County Council has not yet approached me, as purchasers. If my Friend the Secretary of State for War made me an offer on behalf of the London Territorials I should welcome competition between them all, because that would mean that the boys of the Duke of York's School would profit. But I must point out that the whole of the new school for these children, which has been erected at Dover, with its splendid grounds and swimming baths, which I hope hon. Members passing through Dover will visit, have all been

    633
    provided by loans advanced on the security of this site. The money for the new Duke of York's School has not been voted by Parliament. It has been advanced in preparation for the sale of this slum. The widening of any streets in this locality would, of course, depend on the way in which any ultimate purchaser determined to lay out the site. I should naturally keep a close eye on the way in which the site was laid out in view of the traffic in the neighbourhood, so far as I was able to effect it. The hon. Member for Chelsea seemed to suggest that the Borough Council of Chelsea and the London County Council had no notice of the way with which this site was to be dealt with. It was advertised in the ordinary way in last November. I gave the statutory notice of the introduction of this Bill; and in answer to questions in this House during the last four years I always stated that the site would be disposed of as soon as the boys were properly housed. In reference to the question of the marriages of troops in a dismantled chapel, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Wigtownshire would not find it a very suitable place. I do not think he could marry there, or that the church could be used for any service or ceremony. It is without a pastor, and is absolutely dismantled. I am acting in this matter merely as trustee for the, advantage of the boys. I am making no profit for the Government out of the sale of the land. I am merely acting for the profit of the Duke of York's School, the interests of which I am bound to look after under the terms of the Act of Parliament.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has given, in his second speech, a reason which he did not give in his first. He moved the Second Reading in a very short speech, illuminated, no doubt, by his accustomed wit. The chief words in his speech were that the Bill was a curious Bill, that it consisted of eight preambles and one clause, and, having said that, sat down. Having had the privilege of listening to the right hon. Gentleman for some years, and knowing his great ability, I thought there must be something concealed in his mind which he did not want to reveal. The right hon. Gentleman saw that it would not go down with this House. It was different in the last House, when they had their big battalions behind them, and when their supporters stayed in the smoke-room and other places, and it was not necessary to
    634
    advance some argument in favour of a Bill. But, seeing that the Second Reading was likely to be treated adversely, the right hon. Gentleman gets up and poses as the champion of the interests of the boys, and remarks that any hon. Members going to the Continent might stop at Dover and see the swimming baths provided for the lads. Why were we not told of all this before?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I assumed that the hon. Baronet knew that all this has gone on for four years.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There are many things which I do not know, but I learn a great deal from listening to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going abroad, and, therefore, I shall not have an opportunity of stopping at Dover to verify the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, which, of course, I accept in good faith. Since when has the right hon. Gentleman constituted himself the champion of the boys of the Duke of York's School?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Not the champion but the trustee.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What is the difference between a trustee and champion? I understood that a trustee was a person who was appointed to do the best he could for the people who were beneficiaries of the trust. That was my idea in old-fashioned phraseology. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain the difference in his mind between champion and trustee. The right hon. Gentleman poses as the trustee of the boys. Is it, or is it not the fact that the authorities connected with the school have objected to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman? [HON. MEMBERS: "What authorities?"] The Governing Body of the school have objected to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. HARCOURT: The decision was taken by the late Executive Government before I came into office. I dare say objections were made at the time, but no objections have been made to the building of the school I have provided for.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have no doubt the buildings provided by the right hon. Gentleman are very excellent. I ask is it not the fact that the Governing Body of the school have objected to the proposals in this Bill?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, they have no power.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should be the last person to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of endeavouring to evade a clear issue, but I did not ask him whether they had the power, but whether they had objected.
    Mr. HARCOURT: To this proposal, certainly no. I mean, not to my knowledge.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am informed they have objected.
    Mr. HARCOURT: To whom?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am informed, I do not give it on my own authority. If it is the fact that they have objected-[HON. MEMBERS: "To what?"] To the Bill, what else would they object to. I am not venturing to assert that they objected to the right hon. Gentleman as trustee, but only to the Bill. If it is the fact, and the right hon. Gentleman does not contradict that the Governing Body do object to this Bill, may I ask if he would consent to the adjournment of the Debate until we can ascertain what the views of the Governing Body are? That seems to me to be a reasonable prposition.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I deny that they object.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As the right hon. Gentleman has now denied that they object of course he stands by that statement. Possibly on the Committee stage we may be able to discuss that again. I stated that I listened to this Debate with an open mind. I know the position of the site in question. I happen to be a ratepayer in Chelsea, and I am not so sure that it is a very enviable position. In fact, I would rather not be a ratepayer in Chelsea, as the rates are very high. It does seem to me that the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in this Bill is not a good one. The Bill is very vague upon what is going to take place. A consecrated building has been destroyed, and, I presume, from what has taken place in the course of this Debate, that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to sell the site to the speculative builders at the best price he can get. It is true he made some observations about safeguarding the manner in which the site was to be laid out. After all, we know perfectly well that those observations are not binding, and that apparently if the right hon. Gentleman gets a good buyer he is going to throw over all the requirements of the neighbourhood in order to obtain a large sum of money. While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I wondered why he was anxious
    636
    to do this, and I came to the conclusion that he was under the impression that the Budget of last year had passed, that the undeveloped land clauses were in operation, and that possibly his colleagues would come down upon him for not having developed the land. Let me reassure, the right hon. Gentleman. The Budget of last year has not passed, and those particular undeveloped land clauses are not likely to pass for some considerable time, so that there need be no hurry in this matter. I am informed that there is a use to which this site might be put which, while not destroying it as an open space, would be useful for the military forces of the Crown. I understand that the married quarters at Chelsea Barracks are not as good as they might be, and that a portion of this site might be used for providing such quarters. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) cited the Town Planning Act, and said that they were between the Devil and the deep sea. I do not know whether the Devil was the First Commissioner of Works or the President of the Local Government Board, but I am sorry the latter is not present to see what his colleagues are doing.
    My hon. Friend made a good point when he asked the House to consider what would happen if a private individual did what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do. If a duke, in possession of an open space more or less open to the public, proposed for his own private ends to soil that space to the building speculator who would give the highest price, nobody would be more ready than the right hon. Gentleman to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in denouncing the iniquities of the duke in question. Yet when the interests of his own Department are concerned, in order to make some paltry sum the right hon. Gentleman proposes that this open space should be destroyed. I think we ought to have, before we decide to pass this Bill, some further explanation from some responsible person in the Government-the right hon. Gentleman cannot speak again-as to whether or not there is any violent hurry for this. I cannot conceive what good is going to come of it, for the right hon. Gentleman has never told us what he is going to do with the money when he has obtained it. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has."] What am I to understand as to the receipts from this open site, when it is sold, and the chapel is pulled down, and the consecrated portion unconsecrated-I do not know what

    637
    my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) has to say on the desecration of a consecrated place, and I think we could hear on that an eloquent speech of at least three-quarters of an hour's length. I will, however, confine myself to the merely pecuniary aspect of the case. Am I to understand that the proceeds of this sale are to be entirely devoted to buildings which the right hon. Gentleman has already erected? If he has already erected them, where has he got the money from? [HON. MEMBERS: "Borrowed it."]
    Mr. HARCOURT: It has been advanced by the Treasury.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We talk of finance! I thought that one of the reasons the Members of the Ministry, which the right hon. Gentleman adorns, advanced when they came into office was that no loans would ever be taken? Therefore both the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman have committed two grievous errors. Both have broken faith, and both have borrowed money; or, rather, one has borrowed it and the other has lent it. This money is to be used to condone the error which has been made by the Treasury in breaking its rule and advancing the money. Supposing there is a surplus?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Treasury will then deal with it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: But what are they going to do with it? Was it instead of collecting Income Tax?
    There is another point which my hon. Friend has mentioned. Where does the trustee come in? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is trustee for these people, and yet he is going to allow his colleague, because he happens to be hard up, to use the money for his own purpose. The more this Debate continues the more I am convinced that my hon. Friend is right and the right hon. Gentleman wrong. I think the best thing the right hon. Gentleman can do is to admit once in his life-we all make errors-that he is wrong, and to consent to the adjournment of the Debate until he knows a little bit more about the subject which the Bill is supposed to advance. I shall have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
    Mr. R. D. HOLT: As I have listened to this Debate I have been very much astonished and very much shocked—
    Sir F. BANBURY: What?
    Mr. HOLT: Shocked, indeed, by the I attitude the hon. Gentleman has taken up, and in particular the attitude taken up by the hon. Baronet, who poses as an advocate of sound and honest finance. It is proposed by this Bill to enable the Commissioners of Works to sell a site for the greatest possible advantage and benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea and the hon. Baronet, who told us that he was a very large ratepayer in Chelsea—
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, no; certainly not. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to misrepresent me. I said I was a ratepayer in Chelsea, and that it was not a pleasant thing to be so.
    Mr. HOLT: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he was a large ratepayer. What do these gentlemen want? The plain truth is they want to get an open air site in the rich borough of Chelsea without paying for it. If it was West Ham, or some poor district that came forward with this plea something might be said for it, but Chelsea is one of the richest districts in the whole of England. If the rates are higher in Chelsea it is simply because gentlemen for whom hon. Gentlemen opposite voted have had charge of the government of Chelsea ever since it came into existence. Why should Chelsea be treated differently from any of our great municipalities in this country? If Liverpool, Manchester, or Glasgow wanted an open-air space they would have to pay for it, yet here is the case of one of the richest districts in the whole of England absolutely cadging on a trust for small children-the children of poor officers-trying to cadge the money in order to save themselves from the disagreeable necessity of paying for it. I hope that the House will not agree for a moment to postpone this Bill. If the inhabitants of Chelsea want a site they have plenty of time to make up their minds to pay for it like anybody else.
    Captain JESSEL: The hon. Member who has just sat down said the ratepayers had plenty of time to make up their minds like honest men if they wanted a site and also to pay for it. Surely that is a reason for supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea asking that the Bill should be adjourned for six months. The local authorities have not been properly consulted.

    639
    The borough of Chelsea has not had notice, and the London County Council is now formulating a scheme to be placed before it as you are aware. These are the points upon which we want to be consulted. It is not a question of cadging in the least. All we want to do is to preserve an open space for the benefit not only of Chelsea, but of the rest of London. What humbug this is after all! It is humbug on the part of the Government. They came down to the House last year, and they passed the Town Planning and Housing Scheme, in which provision is made for this very case of providing open spaces; and yet they do not give the local authorities of London a chance. I should like to have heard the President of the Local Government Board, if he was sitting upon this side of the House, denounce the Government that would have tried to take away a local lung from London without giving an opportunity for the local authority to be heard. What is the hurry? Are the Government afraid they are not going to make a better bargain when the Budget is passed. Is that the reason there is such a tremendous hurry? On the other hand, why is a society like the Open Spaces Preservation Society not opposing a Bill like this? The real fact is we have not had time. It is true, notice was given last November, but what has municipal London been doing since last November? It has been electioneering, and very successfully electioneering too. At the same time we have not had an opportunity of considering this measure. I hope the First Commissioner of Works will be able to agree to this Motion. He must be aware that the London County Council have a scheme to approach the right hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has said, if a duke had done this thing the whole of the Radical Press throughout I London would have been howling with denunciations. The Government seem to have done the very same thing, and have not given anybody a chance. I want the right hon. Gentleman to give the local authorities a chance in order to see if some compromise cannot be arrived at. We have not heard what is going to be done with this money. If the whole of the twelve acres are going to be sold they will produce more money than is necessary to provide the swimming baths. If that is so surely the Government might meet the representatives in London half-way. I think the hon. Member for Chelsea has
    640
    done a public service to London by drawing attention to this question, and I hope the First Commissioner of Works will accept this Motion, and thus give the local authorities a chance of meeting the right hon. Gentleman in conference, in order that they may secure one more lung for the people of London.
    Mr. HARCOURT: Hon. Members seem to be under the impression that this is a Bill giving power to deal with the whole of this site, but it does nothing of the sort. I could have sold the whole site, with the exception of the chapel, any time during the last four years. This Bill enables one small corner of the twelve acres to be pulled down and thrown into the site, but that will have to be done by the same process whatever authority purchases the land, either to lay out as an open space or for any other purpose. This Bill only deals with one small corner of it. I shall be most happy to receive any suggestions from the London County Council. That body has been aware, during the last three years, that this site was to be sold, and they have not made any proposal to me. Any time they do, if I have not sold it, I shall be most happy to consider their proposal, but the rejection of this Bill to-night would have no effect in making me retain the land, and it would only deprive me of the power to sell one very small corner of it.
    Viscount DUNCANNON: I wish to support the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. I do so on special grounds. The right hon. Gentleman says the Borough of Chelsea have not approached him with reference to the purchase of this site, and neither have the London County Council. If I am correctly informed, the Chairman and the Clerk of the London County Council have already had the privilege of an interview with the right hon. Gentleman on this very question in order to arrange that he may receive the representatives of that body. The hon. Gentleman opposite expressed himself very much shocked that Chelsea should desire to obtain an open space for nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) and myself have been for the last three years members of the London County Council, and during the whole of that time we have been twitted because we have not increased the open spaces in the County of London. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has time to read the

    641
    speeches of his right hon. colleagues. I believe it has been stated in this House that right hon. Gentlemen have not always the time for that pastime, but if the right hon. Gentleman had read the speech of the President of the Local Government Board-and I would like to echo the question of the hon. Baronet as to where the President of the Local Government Board is on this occasion-he would know that he took the trouble to go on the platform during the recent London County Council election and to attack the council, to which my hon. Friend and myself belonged, for not increasing the open spaces of London. That charge, as a matter of fact, was not correct. During the past three years the open spaces in London have been largely increased, and it seems to me very hard that we should be attacked in this matter, when we have from that Front Bench opposite been attacked in the past for not increasing the open spaces of London. I would therefore join with my hon. Friends in supporting this Motion.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not propose on the present occasion to enter into the matter raised by my hon. Friend. Perhaps the atmosphere of the House is hardly sufficiently serious to deal with a question of that kind; but I would venture to submit to the Government a suggestion which might, I think, bring this discussion to a close and lead to an agreement among all parties. If the Government could see their way to send this Bill after its Second Reading to a Select Committee that would give a full opportunity to those who may criticise the proposals of having their various suggestions considered, and, if the Government are right-and probably they are right-in their plan, no ultimate loss to their scheme would accrue, whilst those who at present feel dissatisfied would have the satisfaction of knowing that a hearing had been given to them, and that the matter had been properly looked into. The London County Council, the Borough Council of Chelsea, and those, perhaps, who are sentimentally interested in the school, might give evidence before the Select Committee, and the Report of the Select Committee would in such a matter generally be held to be decisive. I do not think very much time would be lost by the inquiry, and I think very great satisfaction would be given. Amongst other things the ecclesiastical point, which is certainly worthy of some interest, might also be looked into, and thus any disregard of ecclesiastical sentiment or
    642
    principle might be avoided. In all respects the Government would, I think, fully meet the desire of the critics of their proposal if they would send this Bill to a Select Committee, and so ensure a full inquiry. I have never pretended to understand why some Bills which are public Bills are as a matter of course sent to a Select Committee, and why others are not. I often observe on the Notice Paper an order for Second Reading, and the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee afterwards. I have always imagined it was the case that some private rights were concerned when that notice appeared, and that those interested in that private right were thought to have a title to appear before a Committee and to be heard. Though strictly there is not a private right here, there is naturally a local interest excited, and it seems reasonable to apply the analogy of the ordinary practice of this House, and to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee. I am sure that that will give satisfaction, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that proposal.
    Mr. E. H. CARLILE: The right hon. gentleman seems to have thought, when he rose a moment ago and explained that he had had the power to sell this large plot of land any time in the last four years, that he would satisfy the feelings and sentiments of the people of Chelsea by showing that hitherto he had regarded their interests, and that now when bringing forward this Bill he would not be likely to depart from the attitude he had previously taken up. That is not at all apparent to anyone who gives the least thought to the subject, because we all understand that a plot of land such as this is very largely reduced in value if it cannot be dealt with as a whole. It is undoubtedly the case, although the right hon. Gentleman did not explain it, that in order to get this large plot of valuable land into a condition when it would be likely to be attractive either to the jerry builder or anybody else, he has come down to the House and asks for power to wipe out this chapel in a corner of the block. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea ought to be heard on a subject of this kind. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman has consulted no one-not even the governing body of the school, or the county council, or the local municipal authority, or anybody else. He now comes forward with a proposal which, if carried out, will clearly put him in a position to sell

    643
    this land regardless of the wants of the district and regardless of everything which should be considered in connection with it. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly frank: he tells us he means to get various classes of persons to compete for this bit of ground. Surely the Government ought not to part with it without deciding as to its eventual disposal. They are taking upon themselves a most serious responsibility if they allow it to pass out of their hands beyond recall. The responsibility rests with them to see that this valuable open space is secured for the benefit of the people of Chelsea. But the right hon. Gentleman takes up a very heartless attitude, which we should not have expected of him. He ought to make this site perfectly safe from the jerry builder. The right hon. Gentleman says he is merely the trustee for the property, but the Duke of York's School is in no kind of danger at the present moment, and the interests of the school will be quite safe in his hands. I hope he will allow the Bill to go upstairs, where the whole subject can be threshed and all the interests considered. We hope that this most valuable site may be saved from becoming the centre of a new slum in that part of London, which needs still more open spaces, and we trust, too, that the Government will retain it as an open space in the interests of the locality and of all concerned.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: I must confess that when an hon. Member opposite stated that he was shocked at us, I also was shocked that his mind should contain such thoughts, although I have no occasion to be so over anything we have said. With respect to open spaces or anything of that sort, I have long since ceased to be shocked by anything which hon. Gentlemen opposite do. I may perhaps say, however, that I was somewhat surprised that those hon. Members who were responsible for the Town Planning Bill and spoke so much with regard to open spaces should have taken this action. I remember well during the last election hearing many strictures about the iniquities of various landlords in London in this connection-and I quite agree that perhaps in many cases they were right-but I failed at first to discover the reason why the right hon. Gentleman opposite should be so anxious to pull down this consecrated chapel and why one of the best open spaces in London should be built
    644
    over. I think, however, that I have discovered the reason, because this is a proposal to pull down a great historical school which is a monument to the first British general who ever did anything for the British soldier, and I think that the reason for this action on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite is due to their opinions with regard to dukes. So we have to remember that this is not a fight against existing dukes or future dukes, but it is a fight against a dead one, and probably that is the reason why this particular school has to go. I am very much surprised that hon. Members below the Gangway have not said something in regard to this open space in London, which would be most useful, and a godsend to the children of the poorer people in that part of London, and I must say that this is a shock which has met me since I have had the honour of being a Member of this House. Perhaps if they do not mind about open spaces for the people, possibly hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may look upon it from the view that it might be useful for electioneering purposes, and as a place for holding various public meetings, and so on, at the next election. In any case, I am quite certain that the people in this district of Chelsea would have been most grateful to the hon. Members below the Gangway if they had done something to keep this open space, if it was possible, in this part of the town. There is another rather important point, and that is that this space might be made very great use of for the troops in that district. As has been stated, there are barracks in that neighbourhood almost unprovided with married quarters, and there is no better spot than this which could be chosen for the purpose of building such married quarters and providing a playground for the children of the married people. There are also practically no officers' quarters in these barracks, and this is a space almost opposite to them, and here are the Government throwing away an open space upon which they might build for these purposes at the present moment simply because they want to make a little money. That is the chief reason why these boys have been sent down to the country, although that may have been to some extent for the benefit of their health, but as a matter of fact there were no more healthy boys in London.
    And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."-[
    Master of Elibank.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes past Eleven o'clock.