Commons Sitting of 4 June 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
York Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Grays and Tilbury Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill (by Order),
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill,
Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group D),
Mr. Herbert Craig reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Wandsworth, in the room of Sir Henry Kimber, Baronet (Chiltern Hundreds)—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
BOATS AND DAVITS (DEPART- MENTAL COMMITTEE)
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee on Boats and Davits [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5087 to 5094 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 3rd June;Mr. Masterman];to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 145.]
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute dated 30th May, 1913, granting Retired Allowances to Ernest Robert Campling and George James Toms, Warders, Military Prison Department, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain Shops within the urban district of Selby [by Act];to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
First Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Alexandra Park and Palace [Lords], Petition for Bill the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed

859
with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Kent Electric Power [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3. "That, in the case of the Manchester Ship Canal [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

4. "That, in the case of the Great Northern Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    CAPTAIN TRENCH AND LIEUTENANT BRANDON (RELEASE).
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position of Captain Trench and Lieutenant Brandon, who have lately been released from imprisonment in a fortress in Germany; whether these officers will be placed on the active list; and whether any notice will be taken of the offence for which they have been imprisoned?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The officers referred to are in the position of other officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines on the active list not holding definite appointments, except that Lieutenant Brandon is borne on the books of one of His Majesty's ships for full pay. I have no statement to make at the present time.
    Mr. KING: Will the time that these gentlemen have been abroad count for promotion and for pensions just as if they had been at home?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly.

    ROYAL MARINES (SENIOR LIEUTENANTS' PAY).
    Mr. NIELDasked whether senior lieutenants in the Royal Marines of ten years' service are only entitled to receive 7s per diem at headquarters with 6d. per
    860
    diem messing allowance when at sea, while probationary lieutenants under the Osborne scheme draw pay at the rate of 7s. 6d. per diem on joining and 10s. per diem on the completion of their probationary term; if so, what is the reason for such inequality; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy it?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Andover on the 15th April.

    ORDNANCE ARTIFICERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked (1) whether the cost of maintaining a thoroughly efficient staff of ordnance artificers at a minimum rate of 5s. 6d. per day would not exceed £27,000 a year; and, in view of the shortage in the armourer ratings, and having regard to the high mechanism of present day armaments and the necessity of their constant care, will he appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the matter and report thereon to the Admiralty; and (2) whether on 31st March,]913, the Royal naval armourer ratings were 184 short of 900; can he account for this shortage in any other way than the low rate of pay offered to the men; and whether, with a view to placing the Navy in a greater state of officiency, he will arrange for first-class mechanics to be employed for the repair and maintenance of guns and their appurtenances and given first-class mechanics' rate of pay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of armourer ratings borne on 31st March last was approximately 985. The pay of the armourer class was increased at the end of last year by amounts varying from 2d to 10d a day, at a total cost of over £6,000 a year. There is a temporary difficulty in recruiting, but the necessity has not been shown of obtaining a much higher class of mechanic on entry. Proposals are now under consideration departmentally for increasing the supply of recruits, but it is not proposed to appoint a formal committee.

    DOCKYARD MASONS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the masons of the engineer manager's department in the Royal dockyards have only received an increase of

    861
    1s. during the last nineteen years; that disappointment prevails amongst these men owing to the fact that they have been left out of the rises given recently; and will he consider the possibility of raising their maximum from 34s. to 36s.?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the first part of the question, the rate for bricklayers and masons, hired men, was increased from 31s. 6d. to 33s. 6d. in 1905. In 1912 the rate was further raised to 34s., and special rates applicable to men in the Engineering Department on boiler work were fixed, the maximum being 38s. I am afraid I can hold out no prospect of any modification in the existing scale.

    PAINTERS (ROYAL DOCKYARDS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether but few painters in the Royal dockyards obtain the top rate of pay; that the proportion of those placed on the establishment is small; that, with the exception of 6d. on the maximum given last year, they have received no rise in pay since 1905; that they have to serve an apprenticeship to their trade and are required to do every kind of ship painting; that, although receiving only 8½d. per hour, they have often to work side by side with contract men getting 10½d. per hour for the same work; and whether, in view of these facts and the rise in the cost of living, he will consider the advisability of making these men some concessions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have considered the case of the painters, and without entering into a discussion of the various points in the question, I am afraid I can hold out no prospect of any modification of their scale.

    CHIEF AND FIRST-CLASS SHIPWRIGHTS.
    Mr. HOHLERasked when the details of the examination for chief and first-class shipwrights will be communicated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Details of the examination for chief shipwright have already been communictaed to the Fleet. There will be no examination for shipwright first class.
    Mr. HOHLERasked whether the new rates of pay for the naval shipwrights apply to the naval shipwrights lent to the Australian Navy and to the non-continuous shipwright ratings, Maltese; and will he state what retaining fee will be paid for service in the Fleet Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Shipwrights lent to the Royal Australian Navy receive Australian rates of pay. The new rates do not apply to Maltese. Service in the Royal Fleet Reserve is one of the conditions under which transfer to the established list of the dockyard is granted to Naval shipwrights who continue serving under the old system, this being in accordance with the terms on which they entered. No retainer is payable.

    H.M.S. "PROSERPINE."
    Mr. HOHLERasked (1) when the crew of His Majesty's ship "Proserpine," which commissioned at Malta on the 26th February, 1913, is likely to be relieved, having regard to the fact that the crew was transferred to the "Proserpine" from His Majesty's ship "Barham"; and (2) when the crew is likely to be relieved, having regard to the fact that the crew was transferred to His Majesty's ship "Proserpine," after having served on His Majesty's ship "Barham" from the 8th April, 1911, to the 25th February, 1913?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is hoped to relieve the crew of the "Proserpine" about, the end of the year.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (ADMIRALTY SCHEME).
    Mr. HOHLERasked whether the Admiralty scheme certified under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, shortly expires; whether it is proposed to prepare and submit a new scheme for certification by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and, if so, will he see that the new scheme provides that the injured workman shall have a right of appeal from the decision of the Treasury to the Registrar of Friendly Societies or to some independent person; that the injured workman shall be compensated on the basis of the wages he is earning at the date of the accident, instead of upon the basis of his average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, which inflicts hardship on injured men who have within the previous twelve months been working as apprentices or in a lower grade; and that the injured workman whose earning capacity is totally destroyed shall receive half his average weekly earnings, instead of two-fifths thereof as under the present scheme; and, if not, will he secure that an opportunity for discussing the new scheme be given to this House before it is submitted to the Registrar for certification?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The scheme certified under the Workmen's Compensation Act expires on the 30th of this month. At the recent hearing of petitions in the yards, representations were made to me respecting the details and administration of the scheme, and last Wednesday representative workmen attended from all the yards to confer with me upon the matter. The points raised in the hon. and learned Member's question were amongst those raised on these occasions and the Treasury have been duly notified of the fact. I have been in correspondence with the Treasury upon the whole matter, and it will be for them to submit a draft scheme to the Registrar. The scheme will be submitted to a ballot of the workmen, and will only come into force if approved by such ballot. I should add that there is no compulsion upon any individual man to accept the scheme, even if it is approved in the ballot. He can, without prejudice, be treated under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and further, if at any time he accepts the scheme, he can, on giving the necessary notice, withdraw from it, and come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Possibly an opportunity may arise in the discussion on Vote 15 to-day to deal more fully with the matter.
    Mr. HOHLER: Under the new scheme, has any provision been made to meet the case of injured workmen?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I stated, the matters raised by the hon. Member have been the subject of discussion.

    CARRIBEAN SEA (DRY DOCK).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked if the Admiralty are satisfied with only one dry dock in the vicinity of the Carribean Sea, considering that it is not capable of lifting even second-class cruisers; and if the Admiralty, in view of the completion of the Panama Canal, will take steps without delay for the construction of a first-class dry dock, with all modern improvements, at Kingston, Jamaica?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The docking facilities in the West Atlantic, which includes Bermuda, are sufficient for existing naval requirements, and the Admiralty has no present intention of adding to them at the expense of naval funds.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the case that his predecessor in office indicated in
    864
    this House that the Admiralty had under consideration the question of establishing a coaling station at Kingston, Jamaica?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot verify all these details, but the answer I have given embodies the view of the Admiralty on the matter.

    COALING STATION (JAMAICA).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Admiralty intend creating a large coaling station at Kingston, Jamaica?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, in giving the recent rise in pay to certain classes of men employed in the Royal Navy and Royal dockyards, he took into consideration the position of the assistants in the Naval Store Department; whether he is aware that these men enter as boys by competitive examination (a recent order allowing the naval store officer to select boys from the dockyard apprentices list); that in 1904 their wages were 5s. per week in advance of the ordinary labourers, whereas now they are on an equality, and this is the case even with assistants receiving 25s. a week, seeing that labourers employed in breaking up stores receive 4d. extra a day; and whether, in view of these facts, he can see his way to placing the men employed in the Naval Store Department on a footing more in keeping with the duties required from them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that I can give no undertaking with regard to the revision of the scale of pay of storehouse assistants.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that in the course of the Debate this afternoon I shall raise the point again.

  AIRCRAFT.

    HYDRO-AEROPLANES.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether any decision has been arrived at regarding an official designation for naval hydro-aeroplanes; and, if not, whether he will consider "navyplane" as a suitable title?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The suggestion is interesting, and will be considered with other alternatives.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the suggestion not rather suggest that the sea is always calm?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member seems anxious to read more into the word than I have been able to do. I cannot see how the adoption of the new word regulates the character of the sea.
    Mr. LEE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not delay the provision of a sufficient number of these instruments until the name is supplied.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked what number of fatal accidents have taken place among the Royal Flying Corps during the last year, and the number of officers and men engaged in that branch of the Service; and if he can state the number of officers and men in the French Army engaged in the same service, and the number of fatal accidents during the past year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): During the past year there have been five fatal accidents, involving the loss of eight lives in the Military Wing, which, on 13th May, consisted of seventy-four officers and 682 men. From statements which have been made in the Press it appears that in the same period in France there have been thirteen fatal accidents, involving the loss of seventeen lives; the number of officers and men employed in the aeronautic branch of the French Army amounts to 1,174.
    Sir C. HUNTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why there are so many more accidents than last year in our Service in proportion to the number employed?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think the hon. Baronet can have heard the figures I have given or he would not have drawn that conclusion.
    Mr. LEE: Is it not a fact that the number of accidents is over 10 per cent. of the number qualified?
    Colonel SEELY: From the information in my possession, to which I have given some attention, I believe we have had fewer fatal accidents in proportion to the number employed than other countries. Of course, I cannot be certain, because the figures are not published at all.
    Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether it is the intention of the War Office to confine orders for aeroplanes in future entirely to those built under contract to Government design, or whether, as is the custom in the Navy, promising machines of other designs will be bought and tested by officers of the Royal Flying Corps?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative.
    Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether the aeroplane upon which Lieutenant Arthur met his death on 27th May is of the same type as the machine which collapsed with Lieutenant De Havilland in April last; and, if so, what was the result of the inquiry, if any, into the latter accident?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether the seventeen aeroplanes which flew before His Majesty the King last week represented the full strength available of Squadrons No. 3 and No. 4 Royal Flying Corps, with the addition of one belonging to Squadron No. 2?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us no information, except a negative reply, as to the proportion which came from the other squadron?
    Colonel SEELY: I think it would be better if we dealt with that matter in debate.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked by what date it is expected that any one squadron of the Royal Flying Corps, Military Wing, will be brought up to the full strength of the establishment in personnel and materiel?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not prepared to state by what date the equipment of the squadrons of the Royal Flying Corps will be complete.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question, whether at the present moment there is one single squadron properly equipped?
    Colonel SEELY: I propose to make a full statement to-morrow with regard to the Royal Flying Corps squadrons. To

    867
    explain it now would take up a considerable time, and I think it would be more convenient to the House for me to make a statement to-morrow.
    Mr. SANDYSasked whether, on 19th March, 1913, the strength of the Royal Flying Corps, Military Wing, was 126 officers and 680 men, whereas on 1st May the strength was reduced to 76 officers and 651 other ranks; and, if so, on what ground the reduction in numbers has been made?
    Colonel SEELY: There has been no reduction in numbers. The figures given on the 19th March included the officers under instruction and those in the Reserve and Special Reserve.
    Mr. LEE: Does the number given now include only officers which have been passed as efficient pilots?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means by "now." I shall be glad to give him any information required. The difference is that in one case the figures asked for included the Special Reserve, and in the other case they did not.
    Colonel YATEasked whether, now that the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps has been on an established basis for some months, he will state what steps are taken to ensure that the flying officers possess a sound practical mechanical knowledge, apart from theoretical knowledge, before they are granted their pilot's certificate; and whether officers are expected and encouraged to diagnose and rectify simple causes of engine failure such as sooted plugs, choked carburetter, or defective lubrication for themselves without handing over the faulty engine to the attentions of the skilled mechanics, which latter step means loss of time pending the mechanic's arrival and loss of experience to the pilot?
    Colonel SEELY: All officers of the corps have a thorough mechanical knowledge. A practical knowledge of engines forms one of the subjects in the examination that all officers pass before graduating at the school. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. SANDYSasked for the numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Royal Flying Corps stationed at South Farnborough, Salisbury Plain, and Montrose, respectively?
    Mr. AMERYasked how many aeroplanes are available for the use of the Royal Flying Corps at South Farnborough, Salisbury Plain, and Montrose, respectively?
    Colonel SEELY: I will reply at the same time to Question 37. It is not considered to be in the interests of the public service to publish the detailed distribution of strength or materiel of any branch of the Army.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are we going to have that information to-morrow? I gathered in answer to my previous question that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a statement to-morrow.
    Colonel SEELY: No Sir. None of my predecessors would ever give the detailed distribution of the Army at home or abroad and I certainly am not going to create a precedent.
    Mr. SANDYSasked whether all expenses of officers or others engaged in cross-country flights are being defrayed by the Government; and whether all claims of expenses in connection with past cross-country flights have been now settled?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first part. of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, nothing is known at the War Office of any outstanding claims.
    Mr. AMERYasked what extra pay is now being given to officers and men engaged in aviation work?
    Colonel SEELY: The hon. Gentleman will find the detailed information he requires in Army Order 131, of 1912, a copy of which I will gladly hand to him.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Army branch of the Royal Flying Corps is now in possession of the 148 effective aeroplanes which he foreshadowed; and, if so, how many of them are English and how many are of foreign manufacture?
    Mr. AMERYasked how many aeroplanes are at present in the possession of the War Department?
    Colonel SEELY: I will reply at the same time to Question No. 36. There have been considerable delays in delivery, and in consequence the total number of aeroplanes has not reached the number required owing to delays in delivery, which

    869
    were considered possible, as indicated in my previous statement. The present numbers amount to 126, of which sixty-nine are of English make. Of the 126, thirty-one are in various stages of repair.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the number of airships at present in possession of the War Department?
    Colonel SEELY: Three.
    Mr. AMERYasked the date on which the first of the twenty officers who qualified as flying officers before the Central Flying School started obtained such qualification; and whether any alteration has been made in the tests since that date?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first part of the question is that on the 26th July, 1910, this officer obtained the Royal Aero Club certificate. As regards the second part of the question, the military flying test is much more exacting than the Aero Club certificate.
    Mr. STEWARTasked whether an order was given in March last to an aeroplane firm to supply a number of aircraft, some of them of a very old pattern and others of an experimental type; if so, how many of these machines have since been flown and approved by the Royal Flying Corps; and how many have been condemned?
    Colonel SEELY: Seven machines, some of which were not of the latest type but were considered to be very suitable for instructional purposes, were ordered from a firm in March. Of these four have been handed over to the Corps, two are under test at the factory, and one has been rejected and returned to the firm.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask if these old machines were included in the total of 101 which the right hon. Gentleman gave us some two months ago?
    Colonel SEELY: Some of them are quite new. Some, at least seven of the machines to which reference is made, were considered specially suitable for instructional purposes, and all those machines were included, as I stated, in March last.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether any provision is made for appointing civilian aviators to the Royal Flying Corps; whether officers of the Army cannot be permanently appointed thereto; and whether it is impossible to appoint applicants for
    870
    temporary attachment on probation to that corps because the number of aeroplanes is insufficient?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Civilians are appointed to the Royal Flying Corps for four years' service, either with the Reserve or with the Military Wing. It is not proposed at present to appoint officers of the Army to the Corps for more than four years. The number appointed is determined, amongst other considerations, by the number which can be thoroughly instructed at the Central Flying School.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, at the inquiry into the fatal accident to Lieutenant Arthur, on Tuesday, 27th May, at Montrose, it was stated that there was an old fracture in the machine which had not been sufficiently repaired, and which was the cause of the accident; and, if so, whether he will take steps to cause a complete and regular examination to be made of all machines used by the Royal Flying Corps?
    Mr. FELLasked what was the age and history of the aeroplane which collapsed at Montrose; how many flights had previously been made in it, and had it ever met with an accident or been damaged previously; and, if so, where were the repairs executed?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs on 2nd June.
    Mr. FELL: Does that reply tell us the number of flights previously made on this machine which has broken down?
    Colonel SEELY: It is a very full reply given with regard to the accident. I do not think we have any record of the number of flights made by each machine. I will inquire, but I should think probably we have not.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the report of the Royal Aero Club committee on the accident which caused the death of Lieutenant Rogers-Harrison, in which it was stated that the aircraft had structurally deteriorated since it was originally built in 1911, and that its

    871
    condition at the time of flight was precarious; and how many other machines now being used by the Royal Flying Corps, Military Wing, are in a similar condition?
    Colonel SEELY: My attention has been drawn to this report, but it cannot be admitted that any machine which is in a precarious condition is allowed to be used by the corps. Every machine is most carefully inspected before a flight is made.
    Mr. FELLasked if any aeroplanes in use by the War Office have been in accidents or been damaged and repaired; and, if so, how they are tested previously to flying to ascertain that there are no hidden flaws or weak spots in them resulting from the damage
    Colonel SEELY: Some of the aeroplanes in use have been damaged in accidents and have been repaired. They are thoroughly tested previously to flying; the tests applied depend upon the amount of repair that has been found necessary.
    Mr. FELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that machines which have been broken up should not be repaired, but entirely destroyed?
    Colonel SEELY: It would be an absurd rule to make that any damage done should not be repaired. It would never be accepted anywhere. Of course, in the case of spars, where they are repaired they are stronger at that point than elsewhere. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the greatest care is taken in the matter.
    Mr. FELL: Is there not a chance of flaws existing in machines that have been repaired, which would not be the case with new machines?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think you could take that as a rule at all. I shall be glad to make a statement on the subject to-morrow, if the House cares to hear it.

    BRITISH-BUILT AEROPLANES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether any of the seventeen aeroplanes which flew before His Majesty last week were of British build, other than those built in the Royal Aircraft Factory?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the affirmative.

    FOREIGN AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. SANDYSasked for the numbers of airships owned, respectively, by the Governments of Germany, Austria, Italy, France, and Russia; the number of airships privately owned in those countries but available for Government use; the number of airship stations in Germany, France, and Italy; and the number of aeroplanes in possession of the Governments of France and Germany?
    Colonel SEELY: The information asked for is not published by foreign Governments.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have the Intelligence Department no idea whether these figures are published or not?
    Colonel SEELY: I should have thought that question would hardly have been asked by the hon. Member. Obviously the information obtained by the Intelligence Department ought not to be made public.

    MR. F. E. BARON'S INVENTION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department has any knowledge of, or has given any encouragement to, Mr. F. E. Baron, who has invented an airship in the construction of which the characteristic faults of the Zeppelin type of ship are, he claims, corrected?
    Mr. H. BAKER: The proposals in question have been received and are at present under consideration.

    LOCAL FLYING CORPS (LIVERPOOL).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his connection with the Liverpool proposal for a local flying corps ended with his letter discouraging the movement which was read at the Lord Mayor of Liverpool's meeting; and what action, if any, has been taken by the supporters of the movement upon his letter?
    Mr. H. BAKER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The matter is under consideration.

    WAR OFFICE ORDERS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether an order for an airship has been placed by the War Office in Germany?
    Mr. H. BAKER: No, Sir.

    Macedonia, Thrace, and Albania (Destitute Refugees).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the need of relief for the destitute refugees in Macedonia, Thrace, and Albania is still urgent; and whether the conditions recently stated in the House of Commons as necessary to ensure participation in the work of relief by His Majesty's Government have been realised?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I understand that the answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the conditions referred to which would necessitate consideration by His Majesty's Government, have only been realised in so far as peace has been signed between the belligerents.

    Egypt (Arrest of Alexandre Adamovitz).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether a Russian subject named Arles has recently been arrested in Egypt; if so, whether the British Consul-General has taken steps to satisfy himself that Arles was not pursuing a legitimate occupation; and whether he can state the character of the alleged offence committed by the prisoner?
    Mr. ACLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question of the hon. Member for Leicester on this subject, on 29th May and to the statement in the House of Commons of the same date, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. WHYTE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he thinks he will have further information?
    Mr. ACLAND: I said yesterday that I would convey to the Foreign Secretary the desire expressed that we should find out the actual charge that was made, and I have not yet been able to bring that matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is His Majesty's Government in direct communication with the Russian Government in the matter?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir. We have no locus standi.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is considerable doubt
    874
    as to the Capitulations, and the Foreign Secretary's version is by no means accepted by the best authorities?
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not accept that statement at all.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    BRITISH TROOPS AT JAMAICA.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for War to state the number of regular British troops stationed at Kingston, Jamaica; and, if, in view of the strategical importance of Jamaica, he will consider the advisability of steps being taken to strengthen the garrison considerably?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not considered to be in the interests of the public service to publish any information concerning the garrison of fortified places. I am, not aware that the present garrison is inadequate for the purpose for which it is maintained, but of course the size and composition of such garrisons are frequently being reviewed and changes would be made in the event of necessity being proved.

    WEST LANCASHIRE TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the reasons given by the West Lancashire Territorial Association to the War Office, in respect of the deprivation of certain officers and men of the 1st Cadet Battalion King's Liverpool Regiment of the status and privileges set forth in the Cadet Regulations, differ from those communicated to the Liverpool Press and published on the 29th November, 1911; and whether, as the Army Council is inquiring into the whole matter, he will cause this discrepancy in the reasons assigned to be taken into consideration?
    Colonel SEELY: The statements in the Liverpool Press to which my attention has been drawn do not appear to contain any reasons for the action taken in this case.
    Mr. WALSH: Inasmuch as the whole of these circumstances took place before the end of the year 1911, may I ask how soon the Army Council is likely to report upon the matter, and whether, before they do report, they will give the officers and men affected a chance of being heard on their own behalf?
    Colonel SEELY: It rests with the county association to give or withhold permission, and I am afraid the Army Council cannot properly take action in the matter.
    Mr. WALSH: How is it that we got an answer a little while ago that the Army Council was considering the whole matter?
    Colonel SEELY: Quite so, and this is the result of our inquiries. We do not propose to take action in matters delegated to the county association.
    Mr. WALSH: Are we to understand that the decision has been arrived at that the Army Council can take no action at all, and that they do not intend to give the officers and men affected a single chance of being heard on their behalf?
    Colonel SEELY: It would be quite a mistake to suppose that. The fact is that it is a matter left to the discretion of the county association, in which we have not the power to interfere.

    CADETS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
    Mr. NIELDasked what are the approximate number of cadets recognised by county associations within the area of the London Command and its immediate neighbourhood, including the City of London; County of London, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, and Essex Territorial Force Associations?
    Colonel SEELY: The figures up to 30th September for the areas in question show a total of 15,631.

    MARRIED CIVIL SUBORDINATES (WAR OFFICE).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that married civil subordinates employed under the War Office, and living out of quarters, receive only 18s. 6d. per week, and that from this sum a reduction of 4d. is made for insurance; that a married man living in quarters has 6d. a week deducted from his wages for gas and 3d. for children's schooling; and whether, with these facts before him and the rise in the cost of living, he can see his way to raise the weekly wage of these men, at any rate, to the same minimum as the ordinary dockyard labourer?
    Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The total emoluments of a barrack labourer include wages, pension, additional pay, and 6d. for clothing. In any case in which
    876
    this total is less than the minimum of an Army Ordnance Department labourer at the same station, the difference is made up. The charge for gas is not fixed, but depends on the amount consumed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Am I to understand that it is the intention of the War Office to pay these low wages for married labourers?
    Mr. BAKER: The low wage is only a small part of the total emoluments.

    ARMY RESERVE.
    Mr. WHELERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can yet make any statement as to the reducing of the payments exacted in the case of men leaving the Army Reserve to join the Navy?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not yet in a position to snake any statement on this subject
    Mr. WHELER: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is over six months ago that he promised to give me the information?
    Colonel SEELY: Of course, two departments are affected. I will endeavour to obtain the information with the least possible delay?

    RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing with the present facilities granted in the Army for religious purposes; will he state under what Vote the provisions for religious worship made by the War Office will come up for discussion; and whether, when that Vote is reached, he will make a statement as to the present provisions and future proposals of the War Office in this matter?
    Colonel SEELY: It is presumed that this question refers to the provision of churches. Some provision for fabrics for Church of England, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Wesleyan communions is at present made in Vote 10. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to inform me of the places where he considers dissatisfaction to exist, to enable me to deal with the cases when Vote 10 is reached.

    Railway Rates and Management.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to set up the promised Committee of inquiry

    877
    into the subject of railway rates and management; what form of Committee he will propose; and whether the terms of reference will include the regulations recently adopted with respect to the marking of goods?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The question of an inquiry into railway matters is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. In any case, however, the reasonableness of a particular set of regulations as to the marking of goods is rather a matter for a Court than for inquiry by a Commission or Committee.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his absence, gave an undertaking to the House that an immediate inquiry should be instituted. That is some time ago?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Into the general subject, certainly.
    Mr. CROOKS: Is it not the fact that some of the goods are marked "Electric plant," instead of "Guns"?

    Plumage Bill.
    Mr. CROFTasked what steps the Government intend to take with regard to a Plumage Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question is being considered by a Cabinet Committee, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter at present.

    Inclosure and Regulation of Commons.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Prime Minister if he intends to give legislative effect to the recent Report and recommendations of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the existing requirements of the law as to the procedure at present prescribed in connection with the inclosure and regulation of commons?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Report is receiving careful consideration, and I hope to be able to make a statement soon.

    House of Commons (Procedure).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to move the appointment of the promised Select Committee on Procedure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: When the appointment of the Committee was moved
    878
    on several occasions, numerous objections were made from all quarters of the House. We agreed to set up the Committee at the request of private Members, and unless there is substantial agreement on the matter the Government will not press its appointment.
    Lord R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he gave a perfectly definite pledge that such a Committee would be appointed, and that on the faith of that pledge I withdrew my Amendment to the Address?
    The PRIME MINISTER: And I have fulfilled my pledge.
    Lord R. CECIL: No.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, by putting down the Motion. If the Noble Lord will make some effort to get the opposition to that Motion withdrawn—
    Lord R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opposition almost entirely comes from hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him? As far as I know, no single Motion has been nut down by any hon. Gentleman on this side of the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the opposition is largely due to the fact that the members of the Committee were largely nominated by hon. Gentlemen opposite?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The nomination of the Committee was as fair and impartial as it possibly could be. Personally, I am anxious for its appointment, but I cannot press the Motion unless it has the general assent of the House.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Is it not the fact that the objections from this side of the House to the Motion are based on the selections to the Committee, and not on the appointment of the Committee itself?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the greater part of the objection to the Committee is that, with the exception of my Noble Friend and myself, the members are too official and respectable?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the official element has been most carefully excluded.
    Lord R. CECIL: I give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.

    Fair-Wages Clause.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the strike of the men employed by the New Explosives Company at Stowmarket; whether this firm are contractors to the War Office; and, if so, whether he is aware that a number of the men employed by the firm are only in receipt of a weekly wage of 15s. 11d.; whether such wage is below the rate of wages paid in works of a similar nature; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take so that the men engaged on Government contracts in explosive works receive an adequate wage?
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the New Explosive Company, Limited, at Stowmarket, have a contract with the War Office; if about 400 workmen came out on strike because the firm pay some of the men 3½d. per hour, and also because the firm refused to grant the men an advance of 1d. per hour; whether the company are violating the Fair-Wage contract Clause; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. H. BAKER: At the present moment this firm does not hold any War Office contract. I have no information as to the dispute, but from the reports in the Press it appears to be of a general character, and in any case I do not think that the War Office could usefully intervene while the strike is in progress.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the company were not contractors to the War Office at the present time?
    Mr. H. BAKER: Not at the present time.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether in the event of this firm wanting to make a contract with the War Office, they will take into consideration the low wages they pay and refuse them the contract?
    Mr. H. BAKER: Certainly, we shall require them to observe the Fair-Wages Clause.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say when they last had a contract with the War Office?
    Mr. H. BAKER: I cannot give the date. They have frequently had contracts with the War Office, but I am not sure of the date of the last one.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in accordance with the Resolution passed by this House on 10th March, 1909, a notice. is exhibited in the workshops of the War Department in Plymouth and the neighbourhood to the effect that the Government will pay rates of wages and observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade societies, or, in the absence of such recognised wages and hours, those which in practice prevail amongst good employers in the trade in the district where the work is carried out; whether the masters in the building trade conceded an extra ½d. on 1st May last, making the pay 8½d. per hour, with the promise of an extra ½d. in six months, and that plumbers received a full increase of. 1d. on 1st May last, making their pay 9d. per hour; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to give effect to the Resolution passed by this House?
    Mr. H. BAKER: I am making inquiry into this.

    Royal Naval and Military Tournament.
    Mr. NIELDasked whether the boy scouts received an invitation to, and did attend, the rehearsal of the pageant and other events at the Royal Naval and Military Tournament this year; if so, what were the approximate numbers so invited and who attended, respectively; was any similar invitation extended to cadets recognised by the county associations under the War Office regulations; and, if not, what was the reason that invitations were issued to an organisation which disclaims any connection with His Majesty's Army or with military training, and not to cadets who are required to train in military work of all kinds?
    Colonel SEELY: These matters are not within the cognisance of the War Office.

    London Territorial Force Association.
    Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSSasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is with his knowledge and sanction that the joint committee of the County and City of London Territorial Force Association have allocated to the use of their own office 5s. out of the 11s. Grant, and 2s. 6d. out of the 6s. Grant, sanctioned for Classes 1 and 2 in the National Reserve regulations, dated 7th March, 1913, and have further taken the 9d. earned out of the 1s. Grant on the 1st February, 1913, as part pay-

    881
    ment of the above amounts; and whether such action will militate against the men of the National Reserve signing the obligation for which these Grants were sanctioned, namely, to assist them in obtaining halls and miniature rifle ranges of their own, of which they stand in need?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to a similar question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith on Monday, the 2nd instant.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to propose a Motion allocating time for the stages of the forthcoming National Insurance Act Amending Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would obviously be premature to make any announcement on this subject till the Bill is introduced.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has been in communication with any friendly society?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I, personally?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Government.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a resolution passed unanimously at the meeting of secretaries of Foresters' Courts asking him to provide in the forthcoming National Insurance Act Amending Bill that sickness benefit shall be payable from the first day of certified illness, provided that the illness is not of less duration than three days?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The answer is in the affirmative.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the amount fixed for the provision of sanatorium benefit under the National Insurance Act, namely, 1s. 3d. per head, was the result of actuarial advice; if so, upon what basis this amount was arrived at; whether it was the actual experience of friendly societies or the experience of
    882
    sanatoria and kindred institutions; and whether he had the advantage of comparing the sum fixed under the Act with the actual cost to any society or institution in which the members are admitted only after medical examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The experience in the sphere of tuberculosis, as distinct from other diseases, possessed by friendly societies and the authorities of sanatoria before the passing of the Act was too limited to be of much practical value in arriving at an estimate of the amount required to be provided by the Act for sanatorium benefit. A further difficulty was that tuberculosis was at the time not a notifiable disease. The figure was arrived at by a calculation based on the mortality statistics and such experience as was available of the cost of treatment.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman have the advantage of the Post Office experience, where the amount is 1s. 10d. per head of selected lives?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not answer that question without notice. Every experience available was taken into account, but it was very limited.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether the amount in London has been found fully sufficient?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no knowledge of that fact.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (VOLUNTARY INSURANCE).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether any information has reached him to show that the sickness experience of friendly societies on the voluntary side of their work has enormously increased since the passage of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No representations of the kind referred to in the question have been received by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, but I should be much interested to receive any evidence with which the hon. Member can supply me on this subject.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the recent meeting of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I have-not read that report.

    EXEMPTED PERSONS—CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any scheme has yet been prepared under which the contributions paid by employers of persons exempted under the National Insurance Act shall be set apart for the benefit of those employed persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Colchester on the 21st April, before a scheme for the disposal of the contributions referred to can properly be framed, it is necessary to possess further information than is yet available as to the average payments for exempt persons, and as to the proportion who cease to be exempt by becoming insured persons or ceasing to be employed or otherwise.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether under the National Insurance Act single or married women entering Poor Law institutions for the purpose of treatment during maternity are entitled to claim the full maternity benefits; and whether, if this be so, he will take steps to prevent persons claiming treatment at the expense of the rates, with a view to reducing the cost of Poor Law administration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under Section 12 of the National Insurance Act maternity benefit is not payable to or in respect of a woman while she is an inmate of one of the institutions referred to in the first part of the question. The sum which would otherwise have been payable must, however, be paid to, or applied in whole or in part to the relief or maintenance of her dependents, if any; and in so far as not so paid or applied, is payable to the woman or her husband as the case may be when she leaves the hospital, either in kind, or in instalments, or in a lump sum, as the society may determine. The latter part of the question should be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (EXPENSES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is now in a position to state what provision will be made for payment of expenses of insurance committees in districts where no possible levy would meet the necessary requirements?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have previously stated in reply to my hon. Friend, I am in communication with the Scottish Commission on this subject, and the matter is under consideration.

    DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES.
    Mr. BLACKasked the right hon. Gentleman if in some of the villages of North Bedfordshire insured persons whose total wages do not exceed 15s. have 4d. deducted from their wages for insurance instead of 3d. as provided under the Act; and what steps does he propose to take to put a stop to this deduction?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A special leaflet for farmers is now in preparation, and will be issued in a few days. The attention of the inspectors has been called to this matter; and if my hon. Friend will bring any specific cases to my notice, in which wrong amounts have been deducted, immediate inquiry shall be made.
    Mr. BLACK: I will certainly do so.

    DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. WHELERasked whether men working in His Majesty's dockyards whose salary is over £160 a year are compelled to insure under the provisions of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour are not required to be insured in respect of employment remunerated at a rate exceeding £160 per annum. All manual labourers are insured whatever their rate of remuneration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, from the time of the coming into operation of the National Insurance Act to 16th May, the sum of 4d. a week has been deducted from the wages of naval apprentices over eighteen years of age in the Devonport Dockyard, but that on 16th May only 1½d. was deducted (being 1d. for one week and 2d. for the following week); and whether, in view of the provisions of the Truck Act, he will see that an immediate refund is made with an accompanying apology?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These apprentices were regarded as civilians, and were consequently so treated in regard to the National Insurance Act. It was subsequently decided, however, that they should be treated as naval ratings for

    885
    medical attendance and treatment in naval hospitals, and an Admiralty Order to that effect was issued on the 4th April last. Refund will be made on account of the difference in contribution for the period from the completion of the third insurance quarter on the 13th April to the 16th ultimo.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the fight hon. Gentleman let these men know that the refund will be made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. We shall let them know with this statement.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is able to give a Return showing the number of recipients and the amount paid in unemployment benefits under the National Insurance Act for the months of January, February, and March of the current year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I regret that I am unable to grant a Return in the form asked for by the hon. Member. Information as to the amount of benefit paid out direct by the local offices of the Unemployment Fund each week is now available, but this is only a part of the expenditure on benefits for unemployment, as many workmen obtain their benefits through associations. Information as to payments through such associations will not be available for some months, and information as to the number of separate individuals to whom any payment has been made will not be available till the end of the year.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is able to give a Return showing the figures of unemployed benefit and dispute benefit separately paid by the 100 principal trade unions for the years 1911 and 1912, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The information specified by the hon. Member could be given as regards the year 1911, but complete returns from the 100 principal trade unions for 1912 will not be available for some months.
    Mr. CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman give me the Return for 1911?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I shall be glad to do so.

    Court of Appeal (Judges' Officers' Salaries).
    Mr. WATTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the salaries paid annually to the personal officers of the ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal; how many such personal officers are there; whether any pensions are paid out of public money to any who formerly acted as such personal officers; and, if so, how much money is so paid, and to how many ex-officers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Each ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal has attached to him a clerk with a salary of £400 a year, but with no title to pension.

    Agriculture (Wales).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is prepared to approve of a draft Provisional Order of the Local Government Board under Section 10 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1888, providing for the transference to a body representative of the county councils in Wales of certain of the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Board of Agriculture so far as they affect the Welsh counties?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Any draft Provisional Order which may be referred to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries by the Local Government Board will be duly considered.

    Irish Cattle (Detention at Port of Landing).
    Mr. DELANYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has received a communication sent on behalf of the Munster Agricultural Society, the South of Ireland Cattle Trade Association, and the Irish Cattle Trade Association, Cork, protesting against the continuance of the twelve hours' detention of Irish stock on this side and pointing out the injury it has done and is doing the trade in the increased cost of transit, the risk of loss of markets and further, in regard to dairy cattle, a class of animal which requires skilled attention in the matter of milking, feeding, and general attendance, and pointing out, in particular, that the trade most affected by the twelve hours' quarantine is the young lambs shipped from Ireland and intended for immediate slaughter, and that considerable deterioration results, which

    887
    causes loss to the public as well as to the trade; and whether he can say when he proposes to cancel this Order?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received the communication to which the hon. Member refers, and in response to a request made therein I have offered to receive a deputation on the subject next Monday.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted at a meeting of the county Donegal Committee of Agriculture on the 13th ultimo, representing that the Irish lamb trade is in every way most disastrously affected by the twelve hours' detention Order, the loss on young unweaned lambs being so great as to ruin the trade, and urging the Government to remove the Order which is destroying the most important summer live stock trade; and whether, having regard to the consequences entailed by this Order which causes interference with Irish trade, steps will be taken for its immediate removal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a copy of the resolution to which the hon. and learned Member refers. In consequence of similar representations made to me by the Newry Agricultural Society, I recently invited that society to send two of its members to Birkenhead in order that they might see for themselves the arrangements made for feeding Irish lambs during the period of detention. My invitation was accepted, and subsequently the secretary of the society courteously wrote to me acknowledging quite frankly that the arrangements were perfectly satisfactory, that the lambs readily partook of the food offered to them, and that they did not deteriorate in condition. Indeed, it has been proved beyond question that the lambs derive substantial benefit from the food and rest which they receive. I am glad to say that during the last few weeks the number of lambs imported into Great Britain from Ireland has been well up to the average. If, however, any doubts still exist in the minds of Irish farmers, in county Donegal or elsewhere, I will gladly give them an opportunity of convincing themselves by a personal visit to the lairages that the statements quoted in the question are quite devoid of foundation.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Vice-President of the Department of
    888
    Agriculture (Ireland), whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted at a meeting of the County Donegal Committee of Agriculture on the 13th ultimo representing that the Irish lamb trade is in every way most disastrously affected by the twelve hours' Detention Order, the loss on young unweaned lambs being so great as to ruin the trade, and urging the Government to remove the Order, which is destroying the most important summer stock trade; and what steps are in contemplation by the Department to secure the removal of this Order and to prevent the hindrance to Irish trade which its existence produces. I presume the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the President?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The resolution has been received. No particulars as to the losses referred to have reached the Department. The exports of lambs so far this year, though lower than in 1912, are substantially in excess of those in 1911. The figures are as follows:—In 1913, up to 31st May, 37,611; for the corresponding period last year, 44,776; and for the same period in 1911, 30,282. The question of the removal of the Detention Order is one for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The period of detention is about to be reduced from twelve to ten hours.
    Mr. DELANY: Will the right hon. Gentleman request the President of the Board of Agriculture to remove the Detention Order altogether? What reason is there for it?
    Mr. RUSSELL: My hon. Friend had better ask the President of the Board of Agriculture that question.
    Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the gist of the reports by his inspectors as to the young unweaned lambs?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I have sent two inspectors, one to Birkenhead and one to Glasgow, to investigate the whole matter. Their reports go to show that there has been very great exaggeration of the whole matter, that the condition of the young unweaned lambs has been very good, and that they have left the lairages much better than they went in.
    Mr. DELANY: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it takes three officials to hold a Iamb in this operation of feeding, and as a result the food is spilled and the lamb goes starving?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Both inspectors report that the lambs eat the hay and the lamb food ravenously. They were hungry when they got there, and there was no difficulty at all in feeding them.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does not this Detention Order owe its origin to the scare about foot-and-mouth disease, and, as that scare is now over, why should not the Detention Order be removed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Detention Order is not an Order of my Department, but of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in this country. The President of the Board of Agriculture has said over and over again that he is not prepared to remove it, and I must ask that questions as to its removal should be addressed to him.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Could not my right hon. Friend bring some gentle pressure to bear upon the President?

    Coal Mines (Inspection).
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Home Secretary whether two years' experience at the face of the workings of a mine referred to in Section 15 (1) (a) of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, means that the person must have been actually hewing coal for that period, or whether general experience about the coal face satisfies the meaning of the Act?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I am advised that two years' practical experience at the face, in whatever class of employment, would satisfy the requirement.

    Colliery Firemen (Certificates).
    Mr. RAFFANasked whether a colliery manager has the right to refuse to sign the certificate required by the examining institution for colliery firemen's examinations on being requested to do so by the candidate for examination, although the candidate has had the experience required by the Coal Mines Act, 1911?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am not sure to what certificate my hon. Friend is referring. If it is a certificate that the candidate has had the five years' practical experience required by the Act, this is not a matter on which approved institutions are required to satisfy themselves before issuing firemen's certificates. If my hon. Friend will communicate to me the particulars of the case he has in mind, I will make inquiry.

    Factory Inspectorate.
    Mr. GILLasked whether any reorganisation of the factory inspectorate is being made and, if so, whether any additional inspectors are to be appointed and the number in each grade?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Secretary of State has had under consideration the question of strengthening the factory inspectorate. As far as the district staff was concerned, he came to the conclusion that the most important need of the Department was to relieve the larger districts which, in consequence of the growth in the amount of work, had become unwieldy. The Treasury have now approved a scheme for increasing the number of districts from fifty-two to sixty-two, and an addition to the staff of ten inspectors of district rank for the purpose of manning the new districts. Four junior inspectors, however, will be withdrawn, making the net addition six inspectors. Two inspectors' assistants are also to be added. Further, my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that the time had come for strengthening the special branches of the inspectorate, and the Treasury have sanctioned the addition to the staff of another medical inspector, two lady inspectors, and an inspector of junior rank to assist in the work of electrical inspection. The total increase, therefore, is twelve.
    Mr. GILLasked what expenses are allowed for travelling to factory inspectors and inspectors' assistants when engaged on the work of inspection; whether both travel by the same class of carriage on the railway; whether hotel expenses are similar in each case; and, if there is any difference, for what reason is it made?
    Mr. McKENNA: Superintending inspectors and certain special inspectors receive for subsistence when away from home a night allowance of £1; inspectors below the rank of superintending inspector receives 15s. and assistants 10s. When travelling by rail inspectors are authorised to travel first-class, and assistants second-class, or third if there is no second. The distinctions are based on distinctions in the character of the posts and the scales of salary attaching to them, and are in accordance with the rules prevailing throughout the Civil Service.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has one inspector a better stomach than another?
    Mr. GILLasked how many factory inspectors' assistants have been promoted to the higher grade of assistants; what districts are they allotted to; whether they are engaged exclusively on special work, and, if so, what kind of work; and whether any restrictions are placed upon them in the full inspection of factories?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: There are twenty-six assistants at the present moment in the higher grade, but thirty-two in all have been promoted to that rank. I cannot within the limits of an oral answer give a list of the districts to which they are attached, but I shall be happy to send one to my hon. Friend if he desires to have it. All assistants of the higher grade have special duties assigned to them in connection with the inspection of docks, detection of time-cribbing, enforcement of particulars or other matters; but they are not exclusively or even mainly employed on these special duties. The main duty of the assistants is the inspection of workshops, and it would not be possible to employ them in general factory inspection without largely neglecting the workshop inspection.
    Mr. GILLasked how many factory inspectors' assistants have been appointed since the commencement of the system; how many have been promoted to the post of junior inspector and how many have been refused nominations to sit at examinations for such post; and whether the whole of the assistants, previous to their appointment, had a practical experience in factories and workshops?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Seventy-five persons have been appointed to be inspectors' assistants since the establishment of this class in 1893. Six of these have been appointed to junior inspectorships, of whom one obtained the appointment by success in the ordinary examination. Further promotions are now under consideration. I am unable to say how many have asked for and been refused nominations to compete for inspectorships. Of the present staff of fifty-three assistants thirty-two had experience in factories or workshops, five had been employed as sanitary inspectors, and most of the others had had experience in the offices of the factory inspectors.

    Reformatory School Training.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been
    892
    called to the fact that boys of fifteen and sixteen who are sent to reformatories for four years are not seldom sufficiently advanced to be at once placed in Standard VII.; whether, under the rules and with the funds at their disposal, reformatory committees can offer such boys no further education, notwithstanding they possess exceptional intellect susceptible of much higher training; and, if he can hold out no hope of an additional Grant for this purpose, can be provide, by legislative or administrative Act, that reformatories should be put in touch with higher education authorities, so that picked boys may receive such higher education elsewhere and not, as at present, run to waste?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My right hon. Friend is informed by the acting chief inspector of reformatory and industrial schools that he has never heard of a boy whose education on his admission to a reformatory was sufficiently advanced to admit of his being placed in Standard VII. Usually the boys committed to these schools are very backward in education. For boys who, in the course of their detention, show exceptional ability, special instruction is usually provided. Recommendations on the subject of education and industrial training in these schools have been made by the Departmental Committee, whose Report will be in the hands of Members in a day or so.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the fact that under Home Office Regulations reformatory committees have now to determine the position of the parents of children under their care before allowing such children, on expiration of detention, to return to their homes; whether it constantly arises that the visitor reports that though the home is a good one he cannot advise the return of the boy because the housing accommodation is defective; and whether he will call for a report from existing reformatories as to the extent that defective housing is found to prevent the return of boys to their homes?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: In deciding whether a child or young person shall be allowed to return to his home, the managers of certified schools have to take into consideration not only the accommodation available at the home, but also the character and circumstances of the parents, the employment available for the boy or girl, and the question whether association

    893
    with bad companions is likely to recur. It does sometimes happen that, when other circumstances are favourable, the defective accommodation makes it very undesirable to send a boy or girl home, but the decision in each case depends on so many conditions and circumstances that it would be impracticable to obtain useful returns on this point. The Departmental Committee over which I have the honour of presiding, has made valuable recommendations with regard to the disposal and aftercare of reformatory school children in their Report, which will be in the hands of Members in a few days.

    Kent Education Committee (Teachers).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can say what is the number of teachers employed under the Kent County Council education committee; and what are the percentages of certificated and uncertificated, male and female, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The total number of teachers employed in public elementary schools (including higher elementary) in the county of Kent for the statistical year ending 31st July, 1912, was as follows:—

    Adult teachers

    2,465

    In addition sixty-six pupil teachers were employed. The percentage of certificated teachers and uncertificated teachers to the total number of adult teachers was as follows:—

    Certificated men

    20.4 per cent.

    Certificated women

    34.0 per cent.

    Uncertificated men

    3.8 per cent.

    Uncertificated women

    28.6 per cent.

    Education (Wales).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared to approve of a draft Provisional Order of the Local Government Board under Section 10 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1888, providing for the transference to a body representative of the county councils in Wales of certain of the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Welsh Department of the Board of Education?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: In the absence of any specific proposal of this kind, it would be premature for me to express any opinion whatever on the matter.

    Income Tax (Schedule D).
    Mr. NIELDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any special instructions have been issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the speedy collection of Income Tax returns under Schedule D; whether he is aware that pressure is being put by the Commissioners through their officers on the public to make this return in the month of May, and, if so, what is the meaning for such pressure, seeing that partial exemption may be claimed up to the 30th September next; and whether he will give instructions to prevent the Inland Revenue Department so acting and causing inconvenience to the public?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The procedure with regard to the Income Tax returns under Schedule D has this year followed the ordinary and normal course. Under the Income Tax Acts every person chargeable is required to make a return of his profits or gains within twenty-one days from the date of issue of the precept of the District Commissioners of Taxes to the assessor. The forms of return for 1913–14 have been in course of issue in the ordinary way since about the last week in April, and I cannot interfere to prevent the local officials from carrying out their duties in accordance with the law.
    Mr. NIELD: Is it not the fact that last year, July was the month in which these supplementary notices went out?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to have notice of that. So far as I know there has been no change at all from the conditions of last year.

    Land Taxes.
    Mr. LEACHasked what amount is tax on his profit a builder will pay who erects a number of houses on leasehold land and immediately sells them at a profit of £1,200, but retains the lease of the land; and what amount of tax must the same builder pay if he sells the ground rent of the houses at an improved annual rent of £50?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The sale of a building in situ, apart from the land or any interest in the land upon which the building stands, is a transaction unknown to English law. I assume that the transactions to which he refers consist of (a) subleases of the land and the buildings erected by the builder for practically the same

    895
    term as the original lease for a consideration consisting of a capital sum and an improved ground rent; and (b) a sale of the improved ground rent, including the nominal reversion, for a capital sum. On this hypothesis no duty would be payable in respect of the first transaction, unless either the market value of the bare site had increased or the consideration covenanted to be paid were demonstrably in excess of the fair market value of the leasehold interest. As regards the second transaction, no duty would be payable, the statutory interest in the land being ex hypothesi merely a nominal reversion.
    Mr. LEACHasked how much tax on his profit a builder will pay who buys a piece of land for £1,000, covers it with houses, and then sells both land and houses at a profit of £1,000?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The data furnished by the hon. Member are quite insufficient to enable me to give a definite reply to his question, but on the assumption that there has been no increase in the market value of the land since the date of the builder's purchase and that the price he realises does not demonstrably exceed the fair market value of the land and buildings, no duty would be payable.

    Mail Service (Shetland Islands).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General what action has been taken to remedy the delays in the Shetland mail service caused by the steamers calling along at Wick and Orkney; and if the repeated delays are causing inconvenience and loss to the whole group of Shetland Isles?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Certain proposals for an improvement in the steamer services to the Shetland Islands have been made, and are under consideration. I will inform the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is it possible to have a copy of the contract?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider whether there is any objection. At first sight I see no objection.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the recent fatal accident caused by the conveyance of His Majesty's mails between Whalsay and the mainland, the action of
    896
    the contractors in sending the mails by a small boat was authorised by the Post Office; if he will inquire whether the contractors have in any way compensated the relatives of the deceased for the loss of their bread-winners; and, if not, will he reconsider his decision as to the liability of the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The contractors for the Mail Packet Service were allowed on this, as on previous similar occasions, to carry the mails between the mainland of Shetland and Whalsay Island by boat. The arrangement is of old standing, and I am informed that no similar disaster has occurred within living memory. When I inquired of the contractors soon after the accident they had not received any claims for compensation in respect of the deceased boatmen; but I am inquiring again. Much as I regret this accident I can see no ground on which I should be justified in imposing any liability on the taxpayer.

    Education (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the reason for and what is the object in making retrospective Clause 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill introduced by the Government this Session?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The reason for making the Clause retrospective is that certain school boards are understood to have incurred expenditure for the purpose of medical treatment on an interpretation of Section 6 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, which the Courts have since decided is mistaken.

    Prison Clerks (Scotland).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can see his way to promote store warders in the prisons of Scotland to the posts of prison clerks?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave on this subject yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow.

    House Improvement (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that John M. Sullivan, Baslickane, Waterville, applied to the Congested Districts

    897
    Board for a grant for house improvement and attended personally at the local office in Tralee before the sale of the estate took place; whether, in view of the fact that the roof and gables of the present house are likely to collapse at any time, that improvements have been made for the other tenants and building materials provided, and that this holding urgently required improving, he can state if there is a certain sum set aside for such improvements; and will the Board reconsider its previous decision in this matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): As I have already informed the hon. Member the fullest inquiries have been made into this case, and the Congested Districts Board are still willing to make a loan to Sullivan towards the cost of erecting a house upon the terms given to tenant-purchasers, upon the usual formalities being complied with, but they cannot make him a grant. The Board have not set aside any sum for making grants for the improvement of houses to tenants who have already purchased their holdings, except through the medium of parish committees.

    Housing Reform (Wales).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the need of Housing Reform in Wales, he is prepared to sanction a Provisional Order, under Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1888, for transferring the powers of the Local Government Board under the Housing Acts to a central administrative council representing all the county councils in Wales?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I doubt whether the proposal of my hon. Friend could be carried out under the Section.

    Seizure of Arms (Belfast).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary, whether the Belfast Customs authorities yesterday seized 2,000 rifles and bayonets which were being landed from the s.s. "Helen"; and, if so, whether these arms Were made in Germany?
    Mr. HEWINS: Has the right hon. Gentleman carefully investigated whether the arms seized were wooden guns?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have not been informed of that. I have been informed that the Customs authorities in Belfast, finding certain cases not entered in the ship's
    898
    manifest on the s.s. "Helen," in the exercise of their statutory powers examined the cases and found they contained about 500 rifles, apparently of Italian origin.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is it the fact that the exporters, who are said to be at Manchester, are not known to the authorities, and if they are known, are they under observation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Customs authorities have taken the preliminary steps and have detained these Italian guns, and further proceedings, I have no doubt, will be exercised in pursuance of the law.
    Mr. CROOKS: Have they paid duty as foreign manufactured guns?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Not yet.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.
    "To empower local authorities in England and Wales to levy a rate for advertising." Presented by Sir THOMAS ROE; supported by Sir Luke White, Mr. Nield, Mr. Alden, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Pretyman Newman, and Mr. Walsh; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 18th June, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
    "To give increased powers to local authorities with regard to Electric Lighting, and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Sir HOWELL DAVIES; supported by Mr. Cave, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Hamar Greenwood, Mr. Pointer, Sir William Priestley, and Sir Tudor Walters; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 8th July, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

    LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT.
    Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable leaseholders to become freeholders on fair terms."
    I ask leave to introduce this Bill with the full conviction that there is no social reform more urgently needed. Parliament, in solicitude for agricultural districts and slums, is overlooking the custom under which shopkeepers, dwellers in town houses, and tenants of thousands of working men's cottages in mining districts suffer. Large sums of money fall into the hands of freeholders who have done little or nothing to create it, it having been in fact created by the individual efforts of the leaseholders in particular and the community in general. The South is the burning centre of injustice. I believe the present leasehold system tends to bad building, and at the end of a lease it operates in allowing dwellings, mostly inhabited by the working classes, to become empty. The evils of the present leasehold system are admirably set out in the inquiries made by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working
    906
    Classes and the Town Holdings Commission. The latter says:—
    "We are of opinion that the conversion of leaseholds into freeholds would often promote improvements and encourage the development of trades and businesses by giving lessees the opportunity of securing the full benefit of their outlay in improvements, and the full value of any goodwill they may have created. It would also get rid of some minor incidents of leasehold tenure which are felt to be of an irritating character and would tend to remove the feeling of grievance among lessees, which, to whatever extent it may be well founded or not, exists among them."
    This Bill gives compulsory power to purchase the freehold at a fair sum, which, in case of disagreement, is to be settled by the County Courts. The object is to obtain easy and simple machinery, which shall not be too cumbrous and too expensive, to enable every leaseholder to become his own landlord. There is an alternative proposal of perpetual rent charge in lieu of purchase. This question has been discussed on two previous occasions, in 1889, when the Second Reading was lost by twenty-one votes, and in 1891, when it was lost by thirteen votes only. It ought not to be a party question, because both parties are equally anxious to promote the exercise of thrift, and there can be no better and no more tempting investment than to buy a house as a home for a mart and his family, which will tend to raise his self-respect and make him in every way a better member of society. This is not a revolutionary proposal, and lion. Members on this side of the House ought to give it their warmest support, for there can be no doubt that to create more proprietors and to give a larger stake in the country to all classes will tend to make them more sober and quiet in the views they may take in political changes. The time has gone by when we can put a thing on a pedestal and say it shall never be interfered with when it has been found that it is against the general good of the community. I hope the House will accept the Bill, as it is an eminently practical proposal.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Strauss, Sir John Spear, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Hay Morgan, Mr. Touche, Mr. Glanville, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Martin, Colonel Pryce-Jones, Mr. Shirley Benn, and Sir John Rees. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 2nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

    SUPPLY.— [NINTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

    VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.— (VOTE 2.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,930,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
    Mr. WHELER: I find that under subhead "K" there is an increase from £58,700 to £79,800 for "mess traps." It is stated that there is an additional cost of £22,000 in the amount for "mess traps for officers and men, and implements, etc., for His Majesty's ships." I should like a little information about this item. I am not quite certain what the words "mess traps" actually cover.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The addition is due to the increase in the number of the personnel, and to some other causes.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I want to raise a question which is familiar to the Secretary to the Admiralty, namely, the rum ration in the Navy. I wish to express to the right hon. Gentleman my thanks for doing something in this matter, and making a considerable step forward in the direction which has often been pressed upon him, not from this side of the House alone. He has agreed that this matter will be dealt with in the Navy under the "T" and "G" arrangement, which at first sounds mysterious, but which, I hope, will be attended with good results. I understand the presumption is that everybody in the Navy enjoys the right to the rum ration, and that unless he makes an objection as from 1st July next, he will not draw that ration Consequently all who do not object will demand tea, and be recognised as for temperance. If others make a special application for differential treatment, they will be inscribed on the list with the capital letter "G." I think that is a step in the right direction, because it assumes that every-
    908
    body will take the right course, except those persons who, in my view, are misguided. While I thank the Secretary to the Admiralty for having gone as far as that, I wish him to go a little further. This arrangement was originally suggested in the Report of a Committee issued in 1907. That Report recommended the arrangement which has now been adopted. So far, so good; but it also recommended that there should be an additional grant in the way of allowance for those who do not draw their spirit ration. I understand that the daily rum costs three-sixteenths of a penny, while the men who do not take rum get nine-sixteenths of a penny instead. This Committee suggested—I do not think it was an unreasonable suggestion—that an addition should be made up to a penny. I suppose it is a little difficult to calculate fractions, and if you offer nine-sixteenths of a penny, it is not so attractive as the full penny. We ask that the full penny should be granted. We were very hopeful that it might be granted, because a year ago, when the First Lord of the Admiralty had this question brought to his notice, he was extremely sympathetic, but he said he was not at that time completely informed. He said:—
    "It is quite true that the extra cost will be more than compensated by the diminution of expenditure which will arise under other heads."
    That is a point which has been very frequently urged in this House by the senior Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). He said that, in his opinion, there would be a real saving, and that this addition would attract a greater number of persons to become temperance men, so far as the Navy Service was concerned, and in that way the actual money cost might be made up in other directions. At that time the First Lord of the Admiralty said that every increase of money had to be scrutinised, and he wanted a little time to look into the matter. The effect of his sympathy has been that half of the recommendations of the Committee have been adopted. Having gone so far, I venture humbly to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to give us an assurance that the other half is going to be adopted. In the Russian Navy the allowance is no less than 7s. 2d. a month in lieu of spirits. In the United States Navy spirits have been abolished altogether since 1862. I believe that the Japanese Navy does not use spirits either. So we are only asking for something which is quite feasible and which two great naval Powers have been able to accom-

    909
    plish. The sum involved is not very large. The whole Vote with which we are dealing to-day, provisions and messing allowances in lieu of provisions, comes to about £2,000,000. The sum with which we are dealing is of infinitesimal importance—only £12,500. I am an apostle of economy, I hope, but this can hardly be refused on the ground that it is a very serious increase in the expenditure. This expenditure will come back to us in other ways, and will be of real value in the naval service. We are only asking this at present, but I must say that if there is one service in which the State should not supply alcohol, surely it ought to be the naval service! We know now a great deal about the operation of alcohol on the mind. A series of careful experiments has been made in Germany on what the actual effect of small doses of alcohol is upon the mind, and these have been most carefully tested. The net result is that it is now established, by these experiments, beyond dispute, that the effect of small doses of alcohol is to make a man think that he does his work more quickly and more accurately, while his work when measured by objective tests is found to be slower and more inaccurate.
    Those experiments are based on the work of an eminent Heidelberg professor and other eminent professors in Germany. The tests have been carefully worked out by a number of elaborately devised scientific experiments and the fact is really now one which it is impossible to contest. You get, from small doses of alcohol, a sort of illusion, a sense that you are doing things better when in reality you are doing things worse. In the naval service now, when you have got battleships which are a mass of complicated mechanism, you require extreme accuracy and great ability of judgment. Surely in that sense, from the State point of view, it would be an extremely wise thing and tend to efficiency to drop alcohol altogether! Anybody who knows the facts cannot doubt that it would tend to the efficiency of the Service to suppress entirely the use of alcohol. That is already recognised to a certain extent. I believe that when a man of war is engaged in battle practice or gunnery tests most captains withhold the grog allowance until the evening. I do not know whether that is an empirical piece of practice, but it certainly has got great deal of scientific experience behind it to justify it. I believe that this practice is a practice which is thoroughly sound and might be extended. If the
    910
    Secretary to the Admiralty will not go quite as far as I should like on that point still I hope that he may give this extra allowance. There is a very large increase of total abstainers in the Navy. Very nearly 25 per cent. of the men in the Navy are total abstainers now. That is a change very much to be encouraged, and which I am sure the House wishes to encourage, and I believe that by this comparatively small expenditure of money you would be able to do much in this direction. I therefore express thanks to the Secretary to the Admiralty for what he has done, but I would ask him to take those two further steps, one to-day and the other as soon as he can do it. The one to-day is an extra grant of money in lieu of the spirit allowance, and the other is, if he can see his way, to abolish spirits altogether as soon as possible.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman at any length though it is rather refreshing to find somebody who still believes in the Germans. Everybody I thought had now arrived at the conclusion that these Germans who made valuable experiments were almost always wrong in their conclusions. I believe that the conclusion which the hon. Member has stated would not be accepted by the great majority of people in this country, and I might quote in opposition to his contention the authority of Professor Pearson. But I did not rise to deal with that matter. I rose to ask the Government where is the First Lord of the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARAmade some observations which were inaudible.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Really, as a matter of respect to the House of Commons the First Lord should be here while the Navy Votes are being discussed. I will not move to report Progress if the right hon. Gentleman assures me that the First Lord is on the premises and is coming, but if there is any doubt as to his being in touch with the House itself we ought to insist on the chief of the Department being present. In order to preserve my rights, I beg to move that Mr. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have sent for the First Lord.
    The CHAIRMAN: I could not accept the Motion at this stage.
    Colonel YATE: I desire to get some information regarding the victualling of Malta. At page 47 in Vote 2, there is a charge of £2,620 regarding Malta, and I would take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us some account of the condition of Malta in this respect. Malta is supplied with granaries, but so far as we know the Government do not keep those granaries full, and we want to know what provision there is in case of war for the victualling of an important fortress and dockyard like Malta which is liable to the danger of a siege. I also take the opportunity, which comes under this Vote, of asking what steps the Admiralty have taken with regard to food supply in England?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not in this Vote.
    Colonel YATE: I do not think that it will be ruled out of order because I think it comes under this Vote. We have asked various questions of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister regarding the steps taken for the supply of food in time of war in this country and various replies have been given.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a question of policy which does not arise under Vote 2.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask under what Vote it does arise?
    The CHAIRMAN: I should say on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Sir J. D. REES: I came in in time to hear the hon. Member for Lincoln. I would beg the Secretary to the Admiralty not to accept that hon. Gentleman, with all the respect which I have for him, as a representative of the feelings of the sailors. Until he can produce his credentials to show that he represents them—which is hardly possible from what we know of the views of the hon. Gentleman and of the views of the ordinary sailors—I do not think that you could find any hon. Member in this House who is less likely to be representative of the views of the British sailor than the hon. Gentleman. I remember that there was a tradition, it may be—for I have never seen the tombstone, and it may not be true—but many years ago, when I first went to India, it was said that there was a tombstone on the Coromandel coast to the memory of the sailor who was slain by his fellow sailors for refusing his tot
    912
    of rum. I do not seriously mean to say that that is true, and I have not seen the tombstone, but I do say that the speech of the hon. Gentleman would be extremely unpopular in the Service in regard to the affairs of which he has for the moment intervened, and that the interest which he represents is not that of the majority of the sailors, who, though they may be perfectly temperate, are not intemperate to the extent of wishing to deprive everybody else who temperately drinks of the opportunity of doing so. I believe in temperance in the best sense of the word, in being neither extreme in one respect or the other, and I hope that the Admiralty will not be led astray by the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman, which he invariably supplies with great consistency, whether in or out of season, in regard to his own particular creed. May I ask a question in reference to the Vote on page 45 as to the proportion of contribution from the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters—£9,100? I do not know how that is calculated. I am far indeed from suggesting that it ought to be larger. I do not at all think so. I believe that the argument sometimes put forward in this House, that the Government of India does not give sufficient contribution, is entirely a bad argument, but I do not know how the amount is calculated. The next item is the proportion of repayments from the Government of India on account of services rendered by His Majesty's ships engaged in the suppression of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf. That is £7,000. It was £6,300 last year. What is the proportion? I would have thought that the whole of these services were debitable to India or that the whole of them were debitable to the Admiralty. I do not understand how that calculation is made. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give me some information upon that subject.
    Mr. LEE: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) in his very interesting dissertation upon the deleterious effects of alcohol I do not quite understand his point, but if he is asking for the abolition of the rum ration altogether, that is quite feasible. As I understand, however, he is asking that the men who prefer, perhaps rightly, not to partake of rum should be subsidised under the Navy Vote out of money voted by Parliament to maintain the Navy in a

    913
    state of right efficiency at the expense of other branches of the Service. The men, I believe, get nine-sixteenths of a penny in lieu of alcohol, which they might consume if they chose, and the hon. Member opposite proposes that they should get sixteen-sixteenths of a penny in exchange for what they give up.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Thirteen-sixteenths.
    Mr. LEE: The hon. Member opposite said he was an apostle of economy. I am not a judge of apostles; still, it is an economic question for the Liberal party. The total amount involved, the hon. Member said, was small, but I submit that what he proposes would be an indefensible system to adopt. The money is voted for the service of the Navy, and he proposes that a part of that money, which is much needed in other directions, should be used to subsidise those who refuse to indulge a taste which other members of the Service have. I could not accept that principle in connection with the expenditure of public money. I am prepared to hear discussed, and to come to a decision upon, the question of the abolition of rum in the Navy, but it seems to me that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, from the point of view of expediency or from the financial point of view, is not in the best interests or practice of the economic professions of the Liberal party.
    Mr. MUNRO: I rise to ask a question with reference to Cromarty. I think there are large naval developments pending there, and I have recently been given to understand that a canteen is to be opened at Cromarty. I do not know if any communications have reached the Admiralty on the subject or not, but I have certainly had representations against the proposed scheme, which is viewed locally with a considerable amount of apprehension—indeed, anxiety. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any information on the subject when he comes to reply, but I hone his answer will be of a reassuring character, for I can assure him such an answer would be welcome to the locality.
    Mr. FALLE: There are several questions I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman in regard to items on page 44 of the Estimates. In view of the fact that the pay of the lower deck is admitted by everybody to be inadequate, not to use too harsh a term, I should like to ask the right hon.
    914
    Gentleman whether he will make some provision for the renewal of clothes of seamen when the free kit is worn out. At the present moment that is not done. I also wish to ask him a question as to the allowance in lieu of clothing. Will that allowance be made to the full value of the clothing or at its cost value? Then I desire to draw attention to the kit of men on re-engagement for continuous service, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is possible to give those men, on re-engaging, a free kit. Those men are more valuable than any other class of men, and a great many of them do not re-engage. Their services are most valuable, and anything which can be done to induce them to continue in the Service would be very beneficial. I think the suggestion I make, to offer them a free kit, would be well worth trying. There is an item lower down on the page in reference to an allowance in lieu of bedding. I see that it is £400 more this year than last year, and I should like to know what the item means. Naturally, of course, it does not mean the hard plank. One further point has reference to marine clothing and allowances in lieu of it. In the Royal Marines the colour-sergeants and sergeants were allowed to wear mufti. That order was apparently stopped by the general in command. I should like to know whether it was after consultation with the Admiralty or not. That only the colour-sergeant and those above him in rank may appear in mufti is now the rule. It is a rule which presses very unfairly and unnecessarily on the men, and it would be a small favour to allow them to appear in mufti if they wished to do so. On page 45 there is an item, "Appropriations-in-Aid," for recoveries on account of seamen's clothing, etc. I do not know what "et cetera" means. I can understand that if a seaman or marine deserts, that his family should not benefit by the sale of his effects.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I rise to renew my Motion to report Progress.
    The CHAIRMAN: I said I would allow a sufficient time to elapse before accepting the Motion.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that the First Lord of the Admiralty was in the House.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I have sent for him. I said he was either here or engaged at the Admiralty.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the First Lord of the Admiralty was here.
    The CHAIRMAN:I will take the Motion of the Noble Lord after a reasonable time has elapsed.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely we ought to know where the First Lord of the Admiralty is. It has been invariably the custom to take such a Motion when the Minister does not attend within a reasonable time. I do press that very strongly.
    The CHAIRMAN: I said I would take this Motion shortly and when sufficient time had elapsed.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln raised the question of the rum ration, and a number of comments have been made upon the subject by the Member for Fareham and other hon. Gentlemen. The position is this: The men in the Navy over the age of twenty are entitled to have a rum ration of one-eighth of a pint of rum served out to them, or they can choose instead of the daily allowance a money allowance of nine-sixteenths of a penny. I think that something like 12,000 men take the nine-sixteenths of a penny in lieu of the ration. In 1908 a Departmental Committee went into this question, and they thought that temperance would be promoted if, in lieu of the rum ration, the men received each a penny. We undertook to obtain a report from the Fleet as to whether that would be the case or not, and, as far as we could, reports were obtained from ships and establishments containing about 80,000 men. With regard to the cost, if we assume on the figures of 80,000, what the amount would be for the whole Service, we might expect about 15,000 additional temperance men, and the cost with that additional number, would probably run to something like £25,000 a year. To give a penny on that basis, would cost something like £30,000 a year. The Reports were not unanimous that allowing a penny in lieu of the rum ration would promote temperance, and I think the change which we have proposed is the most salutary one. We propose that from 1st July every man over twenty years of age shall be eligible for a money allowance of nine-sixteenths of a penny, which he will get automatically, but, if he wants rum, he will have to ask for it. They have hitherto got the rum
    916
    automatically, and alternatively had to ask for the money allowance. But the proposal now is that the men shall be entitled to nine-sixteenths of a penny, or alternatively must ask for the rum. My hon. Friend must rest content with that; I cannot go beyond it at the present time. We propose to receive reports upon the new system at the end of the year, when it will have been working for six months. There, I think, the matter must rest. I may add that the giving of a penny all round in lieu of the rum ration would cost £100,000 a year.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: What will be the position if a man takes the nine-sixteenths of a penny on the Monday, the rum ration on the Tuesday, then the nine-sixteenths of a penny on the Wednesday, the ruin ration on the Thursday, and so on?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that the man would be allowed to change from day to day, for that would be a very difficult administrative procedure. A point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton in regard to the victualling of Malta. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether we were satisfied with regard to the victualling of Malta, and he based his question on figures on pages 47 and 49. Those figures represent the salaries and allowances of the officers and men. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under the impression that they covered the value of the stores. They do nothing of the kind. The stores are provided for under the regulations, and have nothing to do with these figures. The value of the stores at Malta is a very much larger figure than that to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred.
    Colonel YATE: I took the opportunity to mention Malta and to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give us any assurance on the subject, because there is a certain amount of anxiety as to the provisioning of Malta in time of war, and whether he could tell us that adequate provision had been made.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That has reference to military matters, but as far as we are concerned our stores are up to the mark. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) asked with regard to the contribution from India and the Colonies. That contribution is distributed in proportion to the extent to which the cost of the service falls upon a particular Vote.

    917
    The item of £700 to which he referred is an anticipated increase in the amount for victualling in respect of services in the Persian Gulf. It is chiefly victualling.
    Colonel YATE: When on the question of the Persian Gulf, can the right hon. Gentleman say if any arrangements have been made with regard to the arming of the ships of the Royal Indian Marine?
    The CHAIRMAN: Those questions of military and naval policy certainly do not arise in this Vote.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is this part of the £100,000?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is part of the two put together. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro), who asked whether we proposed to establish a canteen at Cromarty, that it is a very premature question to put until the proposals with regard to Cromarty become very much more materialised than they are at the present time. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Falle) referred to the question of free kits for the Navy, and asked how that stands now. All ratings now are entitled to free kit on entry as regards compulsory items. Up to the last concession made last year certain ratings did not get a free kit, but they got allowances. For instance, engine-room artificers and shipwrights received a gratuity of £3 10s. towards the cost of a compulsory kit of the value of £8 or £9. Officers, stewards, cooks, artisans, ships' stewards assistants and others received a gratuity of £2 10s. towards the cost of a compulsory kit of the value of from £6 10s. to £8. Now everybody gets a free first issue of a kit. The addition to the cost in making the first issue free already is £8,500 per year. Further than that, I may inform the hon. Member that ratings liable to be employed on coaling are entitled to a money allowance of 10s. per year to provide the necessary clothing for coaling. Engine-room ratings, stokers, and engine-room artificers are entitled to an allowance of 12s. to provide special clothing for wear in the stoke-hole and engine room. Oilskins and watch coats are issued free for the use of men when they are engaged on special duty. Again, when a man is promoted and his new rating involves a change of uniform, he gets a gratuity in aid of it.
    I agree with the hon. Member that undoubtedly there is a feeling in the Fleet
    918
    that not only should the first issue be free, but that the replacements should be at the expense of the Crown and not at the expense of the sailor. I have no doubt that is based on the fact that the soldier and the marine do get the replacements free, but you cannot compare the condition of the soldier and the marine with that of the sailor by merely taking the single item. You have got to take the whole field of occupation and rates of pay and especially non-substantive pay. Practically there is no non-substantive pay in the Army except to the Engineers and Artillery, whereas one in every two seamen is in receipt of daily extra pay varying from 2d. to 1s. 7d. per day. You have got to take into account also the proportion of promotion open to the sailor and to the soldier, which forms a very interesting contrast. I take the total of the seamen class compared with the Army, including the non-commissioned officers. Of leading seamen the proportion is one out of nine as compared with the corporal of one in twenty-three. Of petty officers one in eight as compared with one in twenty-eight of sergeants in the Army. Of chief petty officers one in forty as compared with the colour-sergeant, which is one in one hundred and twenty-two. From the point of view of non-substantive pay, undoubtedly the position of the sailor is more advantageous than that of the soldier. That being so, those things have to be taken into account in dealing with this question of the issue of kit and replacement. As a matter of fact, if we transferred this replacement to the Crown with the cost of the first free issue, it would amount to something like £370,000 per year. I would remind the Committee that the recent increases in sailors' pay amounted to £343,000, leaving out the officers. Certainly, on behalf of the Government, I do not recommend the Committee to take the course suggested as to the free issue of replacements at the present time.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I desire to ask the right, hon. Gentleman another question as to an item which appears on page 44 of the Estimates for allowances towards the kits of men re-engaging for a second period of continuous service. I see that has fallen from £11,250 to £8,750, which is a very large and marked falling off. Does that mean that there are fewer men re-engaging for continuous service, for if so it is a very serious matter? As to the subject of rum, the First Lord of the

    919
    Admiralty intimated that the man who received nine-sixteenths of a penny in lieu of rum ration was allowed to change. I think we ought to know how often the men are to be allowed to change, because if they adopted the ingenious suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, and changed every other day, they would get free drinks plus a bonus. I hope the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) will receive no encouragement whatsoever in what he is asking. I think that the men who prefer to take a money ration instead of rum are doing themselves very well at the present moment. I understand from the hon Member's figure, that while the rum ration costs three-sixteenths of a penny, they now get nine-sixteenths of a penny.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not say that.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: The hon. Member for Lincoln said it.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The figure 3–16ths of the calculation does not allow for duty. If you allow for duty, then the price would be very much higher. It is only the fact that the Government does not pay duty which allows for the figure of 3–16ths.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: At all events they do get a benefit. The hon. Member for Lincoln went on to say that they ought to get a penny instead of nine-sixteenths. He argued as if there was very little difference between nine-sixteenths of a penny and a penny. It is a most extraordinary thing that the Land Taxes and "ninepence for fourpence" have entirely upset the arithmetical proportions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is, of course, a very considerable difference. I hope the Admiralty will take a firm stand in this matter, and see that temperance shall not be indulged in at the expense of the nation, including the men who do take the very moderate allowance of half a gill of rum. Of course, the real reason lying behind the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lincoln is to stop all rum, and that sailors should not be allowed to have any drink at all. I should like the hon. Member for Lincoln to go out on board a ship to some place in the tropics where fresh vegetables and fresh meat are very hard to get, and he will find that the very small portion of rum allowed to the sailors is a very great benefit to them for discipline. I myself have derived some benefit from rum
    920
    in another connection on board a destroyer, where I found that it was the only thing that kept me warm on the bridge. The Navy is costing a great deal too much to indulge cranks at the cost of the nation, and I hope the Admiralty will put their face against this suggestion and will not give the hon. Member for Lincoln the slightest encouragement.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I really cannot allow the remarks of the hon. Gentleman to pass by without a word of reference. This suggestion has come even from his own side, and was made by the hon. Member for St. Albans. If my title to speak on behalf of the Navy is questioned, there is one in this House whose title to speak will not be questioned by the hon. Member, and he is the senior Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). On more than one occasion he has advocated this, and his authority will not be disputed. He will not be accused of having ulterior motives in his mind which prompt him in this "misguided" action. The Secretary to the Admiralty has told me that I must be content with what I can get. That is not an unusual experience. But I find it a little difficult to exercise the patience which he advises. I should like to ask why the Estimate has gone up so much? I think he said last year that the cost would be only £12,500.
    Dr. MACNAMARAdissented.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have not the actual words of the statement. I was therefore surprised that he should now put it at £30,000. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point made by the First Lord when he said:—
    "It is quite true that the extra cost would be more than compensated by the diminution of expenditure which would arise under other heads."
    I am very anxious to get the support of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth once more. On previous occasions he has certainly agreed with the view that this would ultimately be a saving to the nation. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Fareham's statement that I want to subsidise at the expense of the nation, people with whose customs and habits I agree. If the Noble Lord is right, there would be a real saving to the nation, and the efficiency of the Service would be increased. The Noble Lord speaks with much greater authority than I can possibly do in this matter, and should like to hear whether he would not support this policy. Putting it at its

    921
    worst, that it is a slight increase of pay to these men, why should hon. Members object? It is an increase of pay which might go all round, except in those cases where the individual preferred the spirit ration to the increase of pay.
    Mr. A. LEE: I do not object to any reasonable increase of pay to the Navy. What I object to is subsidising personal habits. If you subsidise a man because he does not drink, why do you not subsidise a man because he does not smoke? Personally, I think that smoking is a pernicious habit, but I do not suggest that people who do not smoke should be subsidised at the expense of the State. If there is any more money going to Navy Votes, we want it for purely Navy purposes.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: This would be a Navy purpose, as it would increase efficiency. I cannot carry the matter any further to-day. My right hon. Friend says that he will have a report in six months. Perhaps we shall then be able to bring the matter up again, and I hope that by that time he will be in a more melting mood.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The hon. Member opposite has referred to me on this question. I have often spoken in this House about the rum ration. My view is that it is a contract with the men on entry. I have often put it on the ship's notice that the defaulters' sheet is added to by men getting a little drunk as a result of the rum ration. But I never wanted to do away with the rum ration, in view of the fact that it is a contract with the men. I always wanted to give them a fair price for the rum they did not take up. The same argument applies to this as to teetotalism. It is necessary for some people to have alcohol, and it is not necessary for others. I would do anything I could to encourage temperance. But temperance reformers, I think, are too violent. Do everything you can to increase temperance anywhere, but particularly in the Fleet. I think you would do that if you gave the men a fair amount of money for the rum they did not take up. This is what really happens on the lower deck. There are many temperance men in the mess who do not drink rum, but the rum is taken up. It goes into the mess, and other men get the advantage of it. It is a sort of good fellowship. The man who does not drink rum says, "What is the good of this small sum to me? I may as
    922
    well let my mates have it." That is how the men get intoxicated. If you gave the men who do not want the ruin a fair price, it would go a long way to encourage temperance. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want to pay men to be sober. That is not at all a good idea. If we have money to spend, we want to spend it on the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. I think, however, that you would encourage temperance if you paid a fair price for the rum that was not taken up. With regard to the kit question, the right hon. Gentleman has gone some way towards dealing fairly with the men. A free kit on entry has been granted to all ratings, but there is no allowance for keeping up the kit. I think that ought to be done. As far as the kit goes, the Army is at a distinct advantage as compared with the Navy. I do not mean that the Army has too much advantage, but there ought to be an annual allowance for keeping up the kit. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to remedy this unfairness to the men.
    Colonel GREIG: I am sure that the Committee is very much encouraged by the Noble Lord's statement. We who are not intimately acquainted with these matters look to him for some direction. He has admitted that my hon. Friend's statement was in the main correct. He has stated from his experience that the amount of intoxication on ships where the allowance was taken was rather larger than on those ships where it was not. That seems to me to confirm the view of my hon. Friend that if the authorities saw their way to incur this slight expenditure, it would conduce to Naval efficiency. The Noble Lord has also approved the suggestion that the allowance calculated at nine-sixteenths of a penny is not sufficient. It seems to me, in view of the experience of the Noble Lord, that the authorities would do well to look into this question a little more closely, and see if they cannot come nearer the penny suggested by my hon. Friend. No one on this side would wish to deprive the men of their rum. We know perfectly well, as the Noble Lord has stated, that there is a contract with the men. But let us be quite clear what the contract is. The contract is an alternative one; that is to say, that the men shall have as part of the remuneration for their services a rum allowance or a fair money allowance in lieu thereof. We suggest that it might be better, with a view to the efficiency of the service, that a rather larger and

    923
    fairer allowance should be made, so that the men might be induced by the knowledge that it was a fair allowance to take the money. I hope, therefore, the authorities will look into the matter, and see if something more cannot be done.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not hear the commencement of the Debate; therefore I am not certain whether nine-sixteenths of a penny is a fair amount or not.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It is not.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is to say, it does not represent the cost to the Navy. I understand from my Noble Friend, that there is a contract with the Admiralty under which the men receive a certain ration of rum. If there is a contract, it ought to be observed. Then comes the further question, shall a man who does not take the ration which he is entitled to receive under his contract be given something in lieu thereof? On that my hon. Friend says, Why should you give something to a man to make him a teetotaler, when you do not give something to a man to make him a non-smoker? That seems to me a very reasonable argument. It is not the duty of the Admiralty to act as disciples of the hon. Member for Lincoln in the promotion of temperance. That has nothing whatever to do with the Admiralty. On the other hand, this point has impressed itself very strongly upon me. A man says "I am not going to drink this rum, but why should I put a certain amount of money into the pockets of the Admiralty? If I took the rum, the Admiralty would have to pay for it. If I do not take it, they make a profit out of me." To avoid that, he says that he will give it to my Noble Friend who would like two allowances instead of one.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I do not take it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was not aware of that. Then he might give it to my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Eyres-Monsell). The question arises, what are you prepared to allow under these circumstances? The contract ought to be observed, but there is something to be said for the point of view that the man who does not drink ruin is entitled to receive something in lieu of it. I think also that it is not advisable to give my hon. Friend two rations of runs when he ought to have only one. What does it cost the Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Materially less than nine-sixteenths of a penny.
    Sir F. BANBURY: For facility of calculation, might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should make it eight-sixteenths?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We give nine-sixteenths of a penny in lieu of the rum ration. If those concerned are prepared to take eight-sixteenths, we will agree to it at once, but I should not like to propose it.
    Mr. LEE: What does it really cost?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. My point is this: that what we ought to do is to give the man that which it costs the Admiralty.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: He gets more.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: He gets more; why? I object to giving him more. If there is money going about I feel, like my right hon. Friend below me, that it ought to be spent upon the service of the Navy, and not upon creating disciples for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts). I do think that the contract should be observed. In observing a contract what you have to find out is what does it cost the Navy, owing to a man not taking up his rum. Whatever it costs the Navy, you ought to give the man, and not a penny more.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That may be.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This, after all, seems to me to be a very extravagant business, and I do not know that we might not go into it in the Public Accounts Committee. My Noble Friend says it costs the Navy certain sums of money.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: May I explain? All naval officers know, and indeed the officers in both Services know, that the most of the crime is the result of drink. That sends men to prison, and that is very expensive, because you have to get other men to fill up their places. The crime that is caused by drinking is a real expense. I think you reduce that if you reduce the possibility of what I call good fellowship among the men who do not take their runs, but let their mess-mates drink it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I look at the matter I from a business point of view. I am not

    925
    here either to promote temperance, or to encourage drunkenness. I am looking at the matter from a purely business point of view. Is there or is there not a contract with the men who receive a certain amount of rum? If the man does not take up the rum, then a businesslike sum should be given to him in lieu of that rum, and I say that the businesslike sum to give him is the amount that the rum costs the Admiralty.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is the alternative contract.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, but the hon. Member opposite says that because it costs three-sixteenths of a penny he is not going to give the man nine-sixteenths. My suggestion is that eight-sixteenths, or a halfpenny, should be given, and that amount is one which could be easily calculated. Why should a man be given a fixed nine-sixteenths of a penny, which is not a sum that can be provided if a man does not want his rum on any one day?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): The contract runs over the month.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is all very well, but suppose it is a wet day, why should not a man have a little rum if he wants it? What, is the hon. Gentleman a teetotaler too?
    Mr. LAMBERT: We cannot go into the accounts every day; the thing runs over the month.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It would be very much easier if you calculated it in a coin of the realm, instead of in an imaginary amount, namely, nine-sixteenths of a penny. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member opposite who thinks that the amount ought to be more.
    Colonel GREIG: What I said was that I thought the amount ought to be the fair amount as put by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth.
    Sir F. BANBURY: A fair amount surely from a business point of view. I understood the present was a business Government, that one of their claims when they came into power was that they were going to have clear thinking upon all matters. This is a very simple business proposition. If you do not give a man a certain article that you contract to give him, and he prefers to take a money payment, you
    926
    should give him the money value of the article; no more and no less. That is what I think ought to be done. I do not know whether it is worth while moving an Amendment upon the point, but I really do think that the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary should carefully consider the matter. If not, I may feel that I shall be compelled to move a reduction.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: If I quite grasp the view of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, what you want to do is, in view of the contract made with the men by the Admiralty, you should give the man who does not take the rum a fair equivalent. The only question, therefore, is as to what a fair equivalent really is. The right hon. Baronet opposite thought we ought to cut the amount down. I do not think that would be very popular. It has been suggested from the other side of the House that what I am suggesting is not very popular in the Navy.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was not thinking of what was popular or what was unpopular, but what was just.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: It has been said in the first place that it was not popular, and I am endeavouring to argue whether or not it is just. I want to put my contention from a business point of view. The whole calculation is complicated by the fact that the Government, unlike the private individual, does not pay duty on this drink. You ought to calculate that in, because if you are going to deal with the man who does not take up his rum from the point of view of the contract, what you have to do is to find the fair equivalent in his mind for the drink which he gives up. Surely, therefore, the real point is what this drink will cost in the open market; what the man would be able to get for it there? If you are going to pay on the basis of the contract—and I accept that—if the Secretary of the Admiralty is going to give the man a fair equivalent market value, it should be the ordinary current price of the drink. That is really what the man is entitled to on the basis of his contract.
    Mr. LEE: What is that amount?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think it is much nearer a penny, probably more than a penny; so that hon. Members will see am really asking for less than I might ask for.
    Sir J. D. REES: This is the only chance which we have of dealing with these matters, and I understand that these Estimates are not framed exclusively or even primarily for experts, but to be understanded of the people. I will not go back to the matter which has just been referred to, and in which I heartily agree with my hon. Friends who are against the practice being introduced into yet another Department of the State of indirectly forwarding what is known as social reform—or temperance—at the expense of the taxpayers. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would kindly look at page 287 (the Index). He will see there a reference to a contribution by the Government of India on account of certain provisions, and we are referred to page 45, Vote 2, Sub-head Q, or to Q 2. If he looks at the reference in page 45, it is to be recoveries on account of Marine Clothing and Appointments sold to the Royal Marines. It may be my fault, and an explanation may clear it up, but it does not appear to me that there is reference to this matter in the Index. I believe the reference should be to page 45, Q 6, and not to Q 2. It is the point upon which the right hon. Gentleman referred when he spoke before, but I am not clear about it. It must not be thought that I am raising this in a mere spirit of criticism. It is really a very important matter. I want to get at the totals of these contributions by the Government of India. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that many arguments have been based in this House upon the fact that there is no sufficient contribution by the Government of India to the Fleet. I want to know whether I am correct on this point, and also whether there is a difference not contained in these Estimates, because I cannot find out any statement of what are the total contributions. If it is here, where is it? I am not complaining of the totals, but I want to be referred to it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Page 9 of the Estimates might be looked at.
    Sir J. D. REES: It is not in the Index. It appears to me that the Index is wrong.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no.
    Sir J. D. REES: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour to get up and explain the matter, and tell me where I can find the items I want. The whole thing may be perfectly clear to the experts, but it is not clear to me. What is the difference for instance,
    928
    between a master miller and baker and a leading man of millers and bakers? In the case of the former, these officers are combined in one individual, and he has neither a minimum nor a maximum; consequently, not being in the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has no increment. There appears to be one such officer with a fixed salary at Malta. Turning to the leading man of millers and bakers, whatever may be the difference between him and the master miller and baker, there is only one such functionary at the Royal Victoria Yard on a minimum of £140, rising by annual increments of £5 to a maximum of £150. Apparently two such officers do not revolve in one sphere. What is the difference between them? Why in the one case is there one functionary with a fixed pay of £200, while in the other case the officer, apparently for performing exactly similar functions so far as I can judge, is treated differently—though I never came across such an officer and have not heard of one, except the chief baker to the Pharaoh of Exodus? What is the difference between their functions that accounts for the difference in their pay?
    Mr. FALLE: May I refer back to the question asked to be made clear by the Member for Evesham and also the question of not getting Marines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Referring to the question of the rum rations, may I inform the hon. Baronet that there is an alternative contract with the men. The man can either have the rum or nine-sixteenths of a penny. That is the original contract that we are carrying out. I cannot make it a penny, neither can I agree with what the hon. Baronet has suggested that we should reduce it. The allowance is a money value greater than the value of the rum without the duty, and nine-tenths must for the present remain. I think the course we took of reversing the procedure and making every man over twenty years of age ask for the rum if he wants it a very salutary proceeding. There was a question put as to page 44—seamen's clothing: allowances towards the kits of men on re-engagement for a second period of continuous service. That was estimated at £11,250 last year and this year at £8,750. I was asked whether that represented any change in policy, or what did it represent; whether the effect of it was that we have had a smaller proportion of men re-engaging?
    Mr. FALLE: Also the effect of giving these men free kits.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have explained already that whereas in the past some got an allowance and some free kits, we are now giving all free kits. Then comes the £8,700 a year. I am afraid I cannot carry that point any further. The £8,700 does not mean a change of policy in any way, and it does not necessarily mean that a smaller number of men are re-engaging.
    Mr. FALLE: The right hon. Gentleman missed my point. I quite understand the free gift to men joining the Service. What I ask is why there should not be a free gift to men when they are re-engaging. That is a time when they are most valuable to the Service, and that is the time when we should try to secure men by every means in our power.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We recently raised the scale of pay by a considerable sum—over £300,000 a year, and we give every man a free kit on entry. I cannot recommend a free kit on re-engaging. With regard to the Indian contribution, the hon. Member for Nottingham will find the whole of that on pages 8 and 9 of the Estimates.
    Sir J. D. REES: There were other contributions in addition to this.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. There was £3,400 in connection with Indian troop service and £64,000 repayment to His Majesty's ships engaged in the suppression of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf. He will find that on page 45 there were a number of appropriations. When he puts it to me that these come out of the £100,000, I do not know. Sixty-four thousand pounds is in connection with the suppression of the arms traffic in Persia, and the item recovered on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters has nothing to do with the Indian contribution respecting the Persian Gulf Arms Traffic at all.
    Mr. FALLE: Formerly the colour-sergeants and the ranks above were allowed out of barracks in mufti in the Royal Marine Artillery and others. That order was changed, and all those in the ranks were allowed to go out in mufti; and then there was a change again, and the Admiralty came back to its original order.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be very glad to confer with the hon. Member upon that point. I do not see how it comes in on this Vote. It is an Admiralty Regulation.
    The CHAIRMAN: It must be raised on another occasion.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    HALF PAY AND RETIRED PAY.—(VOTE 13).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,005,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
    Colonel YATE: The point I wish to raise on this Vote is in connection with commutation of retired pay. I mention this matter because it is one of great importance to the Navy. Personally, I am adverse to any large commutation of pensions, because I think in many cases officers after commutation lose everything and are left in considerable poverty. Pensions are, after all, deferred pay granted to men for service, to the State to make provision for themselves and their families in old age. Therefore, if commutation is allowed, it should only be allowed on a small scale and for the good of the officers. I also think that the State should not make a profit on the commutation of those pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, some two years ago, acknowledged that the profit the State made had amounted to at least £200,000 out of the commutation of pensions for officers in the Service. That was only a rough estimate. His words were:—
    "It It is not possible to state definitely the amount of profit which has accrued to the Exchequer in respect of pensions partially commuted, but, by a partial investigation, it is estimated that the profits in favour of the Exchequer of about £200,000 would result from partial commutation."
    Possibly, a more careful investigation might show a larger profit to the State. In these cases the National Debt Commissioners get the money from the Savings Bank, which pays 2½ per cent. They lend it to the Treasury at 3½ per cent., and the Treasury lends it to the officers and charges them 5 per cent. for commuting their pensions, and makes a profit of 1½ per cent. on each pension commuted. The total amount paid in partial commutation of pensions as per the return up to the 31st December, 1912, under the Commutation Acts of 1871 and 1882, was £6,000,000. Of this sum, £4,500,000 was for pensions wholly commuted, and the sum paid for partially commuted pensions, upon which an estimated profit Of £200,000

    931
    was made, amounted to £1,588,276, and there has been a considerable extra profit from that date up to the present time. This question of the commutation of pensions has been rightly taken up by the Government of India. I have a copy of the Orders issued upon the subject on the 30th September last. Under these Orders of the Government of India the proportion to which commutation is allowed is not to exceed one-fourth of the pension except in exceptional circumstances, and under no circumstances can a British officer under the Government of India commute more than one-third, whereas in the British Service he can commute one-half provided that not less than £80 is left. The point I ask the right hon. Gentleman too consider is this: I suggest that the limit for naval and military officers in England should be decreased to one-third instead of one-half, and that there should be a proviso that £120 should be left instead of £80; and my final point is that this commutation should be made upon a 3½ per cent. basis in England, the same as in India, and not upon a 5 per cent. basis. I say this is a most important question for the Services, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take it into his consideration and to raise it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to get fair terms for the officers.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend says as to the disadvantage of commutation by people who get pensions. In the majority of cases the only result is that the pension is lost and that they are far worse off than if they simply continued to draw their pensions. But I do not quite follow the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend when he desires that the sum given by way of commutation should be made larger. If the sum is made larger the rate for commutation will be greater, and therefore the disastrous effect which the hon. and gallant Gentleman says arises when pensions are commuted would continue, whereas, if the amount to be given is rather smaller, then the temptation to commute is also reduced.
    Colonel YATE: My suggestion is that the limit should be one-third instead of one-half.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite follow that. My hon. and gallant Friend objected to the State making a profit.
    Colonel YATE: That is another point.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It seems to me to be an important point. If the State makes a profit there will be a larger amount of money to distribute, and therefore the temptation to obtain commutation would be greater. I also understood my hon. and gallant Friend to say that the Admiralty borrow the money from the Savings Bank, which pays 2½ per cent., and that the Savings Bank charges the Admiralty 3½ per cent. The 2½ per cent. is what the Savings Bank gives to the depositors, but they have to provide for all their expenses. I do not know what the amount is, but if the Savings Bank lend the money to the Admiralty at 2½ per cent. there would be a loss; there must be something for working expenses. Whether 3½ per cent. is the right amount of course I cannot say, but I do think myself that it is rather a good plan that it should be known that if a pension is commuted the full amount should not be taken and that the State should make something out of it. My reason for saying so is that it is not a good thing to encourage people to commute their pensions. That is so in all classes of life. The temptation to get a lump sum of money is, I am afraid, great, and very often it is put into a bad investment or is spent in one way or another. The idea of the State is not to give a lump sum down. I am obliged to admit that for once I think the Admiralty are right in not acceding to the request of my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir J. D. REES: I rather agee with the hon. Baronet. I, like every retired servant of the State, have seen very many painful cases of the commutation of pensions, which really make me wish that commutation was altogether forbidden. I do not think it would be unreasonable if it were done because the State gives pensions, not only for the benefit of the officers, but also in some measure to ensure that those who served it in former times should not fall into a state of degradation and poverty which, in a sense, would bring discredit upon the State. Of all classes of people those in the enjoyment of pensions are the most trustful and credulous. No one is so easily relieved of his capital as a man who has no capital, but raises it by the commutation of the pension. Nor can I, seeing the way the taxpayer is bled, regret the fact that something comes back into his pocket in the case of commutation which otherwise would be wasted on speculation on which public servants are most ill-fitted to judge

    933
    and in which very often they fall a prey to those who induce them to speculate.
    I rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in reference to the Appropriations-in-Aid. This Vote is for half pay and retired pay. We find that on page 168 there is an item "proportion of contribution from the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters." That sum is the same as last year. I do not understand how that can be a fixed and recurring item. I do not know exactly what it is. If it is for one of His Majesty's ships serving in Indian waters or the Persian Gulf, then I understand the Government of India is contributing towards the pay of the officers during that time. I wish to know how can they contribute to the half pay and retired pay of the officers there, because when they are receiving retired pay they are not serving there, and when they are serving there they are not receiving retired pay. My contention is that these Estimates should make clear what the expenditure is in regard to these very large Grants, and I should be glad to have some explanation. There is another item, "proportion of repayment from the Government of India on account of services rendered by His Majesty's ships engaged in the suppression of arms traffic in the Persian Gulf." I quite agree with this expenditure because it will probably save the lives of thousands of our soldiers, and I am glad this repayment is being made. I do not, however, quite understand what it is for, or why the proportion estimated is the same as for last year, because these operations are not constant and continuous, but vary according to the activity of this illicit traffic in arms. These remarks apply equally to the contribution of the Australian Cornmonwealth and the Dominion of New Zealand on account of naval expenditure, but there we find that the provision for the current year is only half of what it was last year. That does not appear to be a kind of recurring item like the Indian contribution, although so far as this particular matter is concerned as to the charges, the Commonwealth and the Dominion of New Zealand would be in the same position as the Empire of India. If the right hon. Gentleman will explain that point, I shall be very glad.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The matters referred to by the hon. Member opposite are governed by the regulations. The
    934
    question of policy is hardly a matter for the Treasury, and all we have to do is to make the payment to the National Debt Commissioners. I hardly know in these matters how far my jurisdiction runs, but I have taken careful note of the points which have been raised, and if I have any jurisdiction I will make representations in the right quarter. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), he asks why we take certain sums in reduction of Vote 13 which is for half pay and retired pay in respect of officers serving in the Persian Gulf. I think it is a very fair thing to make a charge of that kind for the period of time they are serving in the Persian Gulf.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it a proportionate calculation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We think the sums taken in respect of the officers for half pay and retired pay is a fair amount for the services rendered in the Persian Gulf.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is this included in the £100,000?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, it would be in the £64,000.
    Sir J. D. REES: And also the proportion for the suppression of arms traffic?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Here we are dealing with the retired pay. We have certain contributions from the Government of India, and we apportion a certain amount of that contribution in respect of half pay and retired pay of those serving there in the interests of the Government of India.
    Sir J. D. REES: There is a distinction made between His Majesty's ships in Indian waters and those engaged in the suppression of arms traffic.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that is so.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NAVAL AND MARINE PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.—(VOTE 14).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £1,562,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I wish to refer to the case of the widows of the men

    935
    who are pensioners of the Royal Navy and have been employed in the dockyards. I think the point comes under this particular Vote. There are two cases I would like to bring to the notice of the Committee. One is the case of a woman which, for the purposes of illustration, I will call case A. She is a widow of a painter in the Royal Navy, and I brought her case to the notice of the Admiralty as far back as June, 1910. Owing to an error in the wording of the certificate of her husband's death, or, at any rate, owing to the certificate not being considered sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Admiralty, it was decided, without further reference to any doctor, that this man did not die of lead poisoning. The man's wife knew that he died of lead poisoning, and so did a number of other people, including a number of doctors, and yet the Admiralty did not consider it necessary to make inquiries. It was left to me to approach the Admiralty on behalf of this widow, and, with the evidence which she was able to supply to me, and other evidence I was able to obtain, I was able to satisfy the authorities and the Admiralty that this man had died of lead poisoning. Having done that, I had hoped that some compensation or some pension would have been awarded to the widow and her child, but such was not the case. The Admiralty thanked me for the services I had rendered them, but decided that, even allowing the man died from lead poisoning, the disease was not caused by "extraordinary exposure or exertion while on duty," and therefore the widow was not eligible for a pension from Admiralty funds. After a correspondence extending over some two years, a change came over the Admiralty with regard to this particular case. All I can imagine is that greater authority must have been placed in the hands of some particular official, and whoever applied his mind to the case did it with something like sympathy and common sense, with the result that on 20th March I received the following letter from the Admiralty:—
    "With reference to our previous correspondence in which you wrote for consideration of the claim for A, widow of an able painter whom we are now told died of lead poisoning,"
    No reference is made to the fact that I hold in my hand a letter saying that I have satisfied the Admiralty authorities on that point.
    "I am desired to acquaint you with the fact that"
    936
    This is a very important matter for these widows.
    "the matter has been further considered,"
    This is two years afterwards.
    "and as a result it has been decided that deaths resulting from any certified industrial disease arising out of seamen's employment are to be treated as due to extreme exposure on duty within the meaning of the Regulation. The effect of this decision has been that A has been considered now eligible for a pension, and this decision has been communicated to her."
    That is a very interesting letter, a very polite letter, and a letter I was very pleased to receive, but I want to know how it came to pass that two and a half years elapsed after I had proved the case to the satisfaction of the Admiralty authorities before it was possible to give it favourable consideration. Secondly, there is the case of a woman, B. Her husband was also a naval pensioner, a skilled labourer in the Government dockyard. He worked there for sixteen years and died of paralysis. There was an inquest. A new doctor had been called in, and he could not take upon himself the responsibility of giving the primary cause of the paralysis. Meanwhile, I wrote again to the Admiralty, and I received the following reply:—
    "In reply to your letter of the 9th ultimo relating to the question of the award of compensation to the widow of B, formerly a hired skilled labourer in Devonport Dockyard, I ant desired by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that as no new medical evidence has been adduced, there are no grounds upon which the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury could be invited to modify then decision."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That does not arise on this Vote.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Should I be in order, Mr. Chairman, in referring to any correspondence I have had with the Admiralty with regard to awarding some kind of pension to women and children of men who die in the dockyard?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That would come on Vote 15.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then I will pass to the question of Greenwich age pensions.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, that would come on this Vote.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then at last we have got on firm ground. I do not suppose there is a single Member who has not in his constituency someone who is in receipt, or ought to be in receipt, of the Greenwich age pension. This pension amounts to something like 5d. a

    937
    day at the age of fifty-five, and an additional 4d. at the age of sixty-five. In 1865, when the Greenwich Hospital Act was passed, it was thought that 5,000 pensions costing £48,000 a year would be sufficient provision. In 1892 the men eligible became so numerous that the Government of the day—I think it was a Conservative Government—appointed a Select Committee of the House to consider whether steps could not be taken to provide for a larger number of pensions. The contribution from the Consolidated Fund had fallen from 20,000 to £4,000, and following on the suggestions of that Committee, an additional Grant of £22,400 was made from Naval Votes to the Greenwich Hospital Fund. This Grant brought up the actual total amount available for age pensions to £100,000, and that I think is the figure at which it stands to-day. I have not had the opportunity of ascertaining the exact number of pensioners now on the Greenwich Hospital Fund, but last year I was told it was 8,500, leaving about 3,500 eligible for the 5d., which they could not get owing to insufficiency of funds. I do not suppose that the numbers have gone down this year. I should imagine that hon. Members who have had anything to do with Greenwich age pensioners will agree with me that the numbers have gone up.
    Why is there a deficiency? I have already dealt with the question of the contribution from the Consolidated Fund, but there is another matter. In 1870 the Seaman's Pensioner Reserve was started, and, as an inducement to the men to take their drills in the Reserve, the Government of the day promised them pensions at fifty instead of fifty-five. This arrangement continued until 1892, and then a change was introduced. While the Reserve men were still to obtain their pensions at fifty, the money for the years between fifty and fifty-five was to come out of Naval Funds. On the men reaching fifty-five the liability was again transferred to Greenwich Funds. A further change was made in April, 1910, when the transfer was deferred until the men would obtain the award of a Greenwich age pension in the ordinary course of events. I admit this makes a substantial difference but it does not alter the fact that from 1870 to 1892 the Admiralty financed the Reserve pensions between the ages of fifty and fifty-five out of Greenwich Funds, and for the whole period between 1870 and 1910, when occasion required, Green-
    938
    wich Funds had also to bear the cost of the years between fifty and fifty-five, fifty-five being the age at which a pensioner obtains his award in the ordinary course of events. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he does not think the time has arrived when these moneys, which were wrongfully taken from that fund should be refunded from the Naval Votes? I am sure he is very sympathetic in the matter, but I should like to know whether it is not possible to try and recover some of the lost ground.
    There is a sum of £2,500 allocated for augmentation of Greenwich Hospital pensions to the widows of seamen and marines whose deaths are attributable to the Service, but not to warlike operations. That is the only money paid out of Naval Funds for this purpose, the remaining sum required to meet the widows' pensions, amounting to something like £6,000 a year, coming out of the Greenwich Fund. There is, therefore, a drain upon the Greenwich Fund for matters entirely foreign to the idea when the fund was first started. I find that if these two sums were placed upon the Naval Funds it would be possible to give 780 more men the 5d., and something like 600 more men the 4d. This is not the only drain upon the fund. I think I am right in saying that when a ship goes down in time of peace the pensions for the widows come out of Greenwich Funds. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider these points and to endeavour, if possible, to make some further contribution out of Naval Funds towards the Greenwich Hospital Fund, in order that more of these men may be able to get the small pension for which they are eligible instead of having to wait until they are sixty-two or sixty-three years of age before they can get it. Some of these men are in very poor circumstances. They often have to keep a very old wife, and I know cases where they have to support children who are either lame or blind. I know that the Greenwich Hospital authorities take all these questions into consideration and are very fair about them, but they say they have not got enough money. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that these men should go about in a state of penury, some of them almost being brought to the workhouse, when a few thousand pounds a year coming out of Naval Votes would prevent such consequences? I venture to

    939
    make an appeal to the Financial Secretary to consider the proposition I have put before him.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. FALLE: I want to refer to the pensions of warrant officers in the Coastguards. The right hon. Gentlemen will be aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the Coastguard service. The men of that service think that they should be treated on the same footing as their comrades afloat. I especially want to refer to the pensions of the chief petty officers. The average pay of the petty officer is £64 and that of the chief officer £128, or exactly double. But in the matter of pension there is only a difference of about £13, and it seems exceedingly unfair that when a man's pay is exactly double that of another man his pension should only be 13 per cent. in excess of that other man's pension. That is one of the mysteries which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain, although I very much doubt if he can. Next I come to a question affecting the widows of warrant officers. I admit not being able to thoroughly understand the Regulations on this point. If a man is retired or discharged from the Service after a court martial his widow is not entitled to any pension whatsoever. I maintain that the Regulations do not make that clear, and that they should be amended so that these men should know that if, as warrant officers, they misconduct themselves in such a way as to be tried by court martial, their widows will absolutely lose the pension to which otherwise they would be entitled. The matter has come before me recently in several cases. Men have been discharged or retired from the Service on pension, often of a very considerable amount, and their widows have found, greatly to their surprise, that they are entitled to nothing whatever. Then with regard to the cases of the children of seamen and Marines whose death is attributable to warlike operations. There were under this item nineteen cases last year and twenty-three this year, and the increase in the Estimate is only £20. Does that mean that these three children between them are only going to benefit to the extent of £20 in one year?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. The increase represents the net estimated increase for the current year.
    Sir J. D. REES: I apprehend that the explanation the right hon. Gentleman gave me on the last Vote regarding Appropriations-in-Aid applies equally to this Vote. Here is an item: "Proportion of Contribution of the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters, £4,300." That is the same sum as last year. Is it not the case that for many years the British Navy has been represented in East Indian waters by a second-class cruiser hardly deserving of the high-sounding name she bears, the "Highflyer"? Has not that second-class cruiser been replaced by a first-class cruiser, and, if that is the case, ought not the contribution to be proportionately raised? I only mention this because it seems to me that the entries of these items are somewhat of the nature of wooden repetitions. Take another item. I cannot understand why the same sum now proposed to be voted for ships engaged in the suppression of the arms traffic should be the same as was voted last year. Does the Board of Admiralty anticipate that these operations will annually recur and be of the same extent? I apprehend that that is by no means the case. On the contrary, I gather they are of an altogether exceptional, spasmodic, and fragmentary character. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain why the same sum is put down for this year as for last year? Then I come to Vote 13 for "Half Pay and Retired Pay". Vote 14 is "On Account of Naval and Marine Pensions." What is the difference between retired pay and pensions? I shall probably be told that Vote 13 refers to officers and Vote 14 chiefly to seamen and marines; but that does not cover the ground, because out of the £1,400,000 in the present Vote no less than £1,297,000 appears under the heading of "Pensions and Gratuities to Seamen and Marines." There is also on Vote 14 a repetition of an entry of £5,025 for pensions to retired naval officers.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not a repetition.
    Sir J. D. REES: The provision this year under that heading is the same as that made last year. That is all I wanted to convey. My point is, that to the uninstructed stranger, who is endeavouring to find his way about this bulky volume it is a matter of wonder what is the difference between retired pay and pensions, and, although he may think that one refers

    941
    to officers and the other to men, that does not altogether cover the case. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give a few words of explanation on the point.
    Dr MACNAMARA: There have been several points raised to which I wish to say a few words in reply. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) raised the question of the grant in the case of a sailor and not under the Workmen's Compensation Act, who, in his avocation, contracted lead poisoning and died there-from. There is no provision in the Regulations for the widow in such a case as that, as it could not be said that death was caused by exposure when on duty. The Admiralty, when the matter was first brought forward, took the view that it would not be fair to admit that the death of the man was due to extraordinary exposure, but, the case being represented a second time, it was decided, after very careful reflection, that it should be treated as a case of death from industrial disease, and it was so treated accordingly, and a grant made.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The point I made was that it was left to myself to prove the case. The man had died from lead poisoning, and the Admiralty ought to have obtained the information themselves instead of leaving it to others to do it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not going to quarrel with the hon. Member as to the responsibility for this matter. The fact remains that assistance has been given to the widow. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the administration of the Greenwich Hospital funds. Now the income of Greenwich Hospital is a little over £200,000, and the total expenditure for the current year is estimated at £199,000. It is worth noting what the items of expenditure are, so that hon. Gentlemen may see exactly where the money goes. We propose to spend on account of the Northern and Greenwich estates £7,300. The administration by the Admiralty will cost £4,300, and this, be it remembered, is on an income of £200,000. The legal and surveying charges are estimated to cost £850; the expenditure on the painted hall, chapel and cemetery, and superannuation allowances, £1,500. The pensions to officers, with contributions for the education of children, £9,200. The hos-
    942
    pital pensions for seamen and marines, and pensions to widows, and grants for the education of children, £143,450; and the expenditure on the hospital school, in which there are 1,000 children, £32,400; thus giving a total estimated expenditure of £199,000. The sum of £100,900 provided since 1897–8 for Greenwich Hospital age pensions of 5d. and 9d. a day will this year be increased by £6,100, thus bringing the total amount provided for age pensions up to £107,000. The increase of £6,100 will enable us to grant about 800 additional pensions as from the 1st April last. The sum at our disposal will provide for 3,837 pensions at 5d. per day, and 5,691 pensions at 9d. per day. It must be remembered that every one of these men has a naval life pension to begin with, and that fact is constantly overlooked by those who criticise the administration of this fund. The pension is only an augmentation of the naval life pension. The chief petty officers have a life pension roughly ranging from £43 to £53 a year.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: And they earn it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be the last man to deny that. The life pension of the petty officer runs from £32 to £42, and that of the able seaman is about £18. The Greenwich Hospital pension is an augmentation of that. In addition to that we have a sum of £23,000 set apart for the award of Greenwich Hospital special pensions—that is, pensions to men the majority of whom have not qualified for naval life pensions. To these men temporary provision is granted, varying from 6d. to 1s. 6d. per day, according to circumstances. Up to 1st April, 1892, the age at which men of the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve came on the Greenwich Hospital Funds was fifty. From 1st April, 1892, to 1st April, 1910, the charge was borne by Navy Votes between the ages of fifty and fifty-five and then transferred to the Greenwich Hospital Fund. We have already made another change. From 1st April, 1910, we have kept these Reserve men on the Navy Votes up to the age at which they would probably otherwise have come on the Greenwich Hospital Fund. The average age at which these men come on the Greenwich Hospital Fund now is about fifty-nine. When I first went to the Admiralty it was about sixty-four, that was about five years ago.
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Admiralty made it fifty-nine? During the last three years, since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been frequently told by the Admiralty that the age is sixty-two. Therefore it could only have become fifty-nine during the last few months.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The small dispensations we have been able to make in one way or anther makes it true to say that at the present time the average age of the pensioners who, by their circumstances, are eligible as candidates for getting upon the Greenwich Fund is about fifty-nine. The interruption enforces that point. In former years it was sixty-three, then it was sixty-two, and now it is about fifty-nine. The administration of the Admiralty with regard to this matter is perfectly simple. We take those naval pensioners who are, from their age and their circumstances, the most necessitous, and those who have the smallest means, and dispense these augmentations until the money is gone. I have the most complete confidence in the way that those responsible for the administration of this fund carry out their work. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) as to the service on the Persian Gulf, he asks why we have the same proportion of Appropriation-in-Aid each year, and why we do not vary it to a nicety. There may be something in that point. We dispense these Appropriations-in-Aid so far as we can in accordance with the services for which the Grant is made. If the hon. Member thinks the Appropriation-in-Aid upon this particular Vote 14 ought to be modified because of the displacement of a particular ship engaged in the Persian Gulf, I will look into it. But to adopt his suggestion would certainly be dispensing Appropriations-in-Aid with a meticulous nicety.
    Sir J. D. REES: That would be a perfectly fair answer as regards service in the Persian Gulf, but it would not cover the case of the substitution of a first-class cruiser for a second-class cruiser, the "Highflyer," in East Indian waters.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that we are entitled fully and equitably to carry to this Vote a share of the Appropriation-in-Aid which represents the character of the service. The hon. Member said that we have, under Vote 13, Retired Pay, and under Vote 14, Pensions,
    944
    and he asks what it means, and what is the difference between retired pay and pensions. Retired pay is given to all officers, while pensions are given for meritorious conduct, and there are also special pensions in necessitous cases.
    Sir J. D. REES: There are enormous amounts for pensions. How can that be if they are all of a special character?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not all of them; only some of them.
    Mr. FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question with regard: to the Coastguards? A chief petty officer receives £64 a year and a chief officer £128 a year, but when they are pensioned they receive exactly the same pension, with practically only 13 per cent. difference. Why does that practice obtain, and why should a man who receives £64 a year get as much pension as the man who receives £128 a year?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I confess I do not quite follow the point. If the hon. Member will put a question to me, I will look into the matter. The whole thing is done under Admiralty Regulations.
    Mr. FALLE: I have put the matter forward by questions on more than one occasion.
    Sir F. BANBURY: With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid, I understand that a first-class cruiser has been substituted for a second-class cruiser. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not want to treat these Appropriations-in-Aid in too close a manner, and that if there is a little larger service rendered he is prepared to take the same amount of money. That is hardly a businesslike way to do it. The proper way would be to obtain the proper sum for the services rendered.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We do that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If there has been the substitution of a superior ship for an inferior ship, surely the Indian Government, or whatever Colonial Government is responsible, should pay an increased sum in proportion to the cost of the ship and its maintenance! Am I right in thinking that that has not always been the practice of the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think there is some misunderstanding. This is not a question of the cost of service. That we must

    945
    charge. We then dispense it as an Appropriation-in-Aid. The point raised by the hon. Member is whether we are entitled to dispose, under particular Votes, of certain amounts of that Appropriation-in-Aid. Having got the £64,000, the hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) asked whether we were entitled to allocate that amount under this Vote, because the service is not quite the same as it was before.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then the question was under which item it should go?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I do not want the Committee to think that these old veterans and servants of the State are very generously treated. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is going in the right direction. I think he is going to give 800 men 5d. and 900 4d.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, no; the total addition, as a result of the £6,100, will be 800 altogether.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: That is a distinct improvement, and on behalf of the men I thank the right hon. Gentleman for it. But he must remember that there are about 3,500 of them still left. If we examine the origin of the Greenwich Pension Fund, we find that 136,000 men each paid at that time 6d. a month. It has never been known to what sum the fund amounted. It went up to either £2,000,000 or £8,000,000. I have often stated in the House that the men were robbed of that money, and that we should go on fighting to get every one of these men paid 5d. at fifty-five and 9d. at sixty-five. The State took that money; the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. Nobody knows whether it was £2,000,000 or£8,000,000, but it all came out of the men's pockets at the rate, of 6d. per month. Those of us who have taken up the question of the. Greenwich Hospital pensions are justified in doing all we can to give every one of these men at the age, at which they have arrived the augmentation of the pension they have earned. The right hon. Gentleman has always been sympathetic upon this point, and we hope that next year he will increase the number of men to whom these pensions are fairly due. Do not let the Committee run away with the idea that these men are liberally treated, for they were originally robbed of these sixpences for pensions.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The deductions to which the Noble Lord refers ceased in 1834.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I know; but that does not make any difference. The actual sum ought to have been there, but it was taken by the State, and the men have suffered from that day to this, because they have not received the pensions they expected at the age of fifty-five or sixty-five. However, the right hon. Gentleman is sympathetic, and I am grateful to him for that. I hope that next year he will put more men upon Navy Votes and release the Greenwich funds, so that these worthy old veterans shall get the pensions due to them.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will approach the authorities with the idea of getting more money for the Greenwich Fund from Naval Funds?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I can hardly give that undertaking. What I said I would do was to keep the Greenwich Pensioners' Reserve on the Navy Funds up to the age of fifty-nine. Afterwards they would become eligible for the Greenwich Hospital Fund.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I desire to raise a point under sub-head H, "Pensions to Widows of Naval Officers." I have here an actual case, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not mention the name, although I shall be glad to give it to him. It is the case of the widow of a commander in the Navy, who is in receipt of a pension of £80 a year, which is her sole means of subsistence. In 1909 it was decided to deduct Income Tax at the rate of is. 2d. in the £ from the full pension of those widows who were residing abroad for no other reason than the benefit of their health. For two years the Paymaster-General did not deduct this amount, hoping that the order might be cancelled, but eventually they were told to collect the whole amount, and the lady in question had to pay £9 6s. 8d. for the arrears during the two years, and ever since she has had to pay 21 3s. 4d. a quarter, which has been deducted from her pension. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. The lady in question is suffering from honesty. She had to fill up her papers, and she might have said that she was residing abroad owing to reasons

    947
    of ill-health, but she said she was residing abroad for reasons of economy. That is a very good example of the well-known fact, admitted by all except the more pureblooded Cobdenites, that it is cheaper to live in protected countries. It is a monstrous thing to ask the widow of any officer of the Army or Navy why she is living abroad, so long as she is living in a decent way—it is nothing to do with the Admiralty—to say nothing of deducting at one fell swoop one-eighth of her total income and deducting the 1s. 2d. from what might be humourously described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as unearned increment, her very small pension of £80 a year. Over a year ago, during the Debate on the Income Tax, I asked the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He waived it aside in rather an airy way, and said it would cost the Exchequer some thousands of pounds. I am at a loss to know how this could possibly happen, because the pension of officers is not a very great amount, and surely a difference of 2d. in the case of widows who happen to be living abroad would be a very small matter indeed in the consideration of the Treasury. I tried the Chancellor of the Exchequer and failed, and now I ask the Admiralty to help me in this. They have been very good during the last two or three years about reforms in the way of helping officers and men of all classes in the Navy, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing would be more appreciated in the Service than the knowledge that fair provision will be made for those they may have to leave behind and are now responsible for, and I hope the Admiralty may take this case up and really make a move. It has been going on for four years, and I have obtained no satisfaction out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: What the hon. Gentleman raises is, of course, strictly speaking, outside the scope of the Vote, and is a matter for the Inland Revenue, but if he thinks it is fair, just, and reasonable, that we should make representations, I will carefully consider any representation he may make, and see whether it would be right and fair to place it before the proper authorities. We are not the proper authorities, but it would be our duty, if we thought justice was not being done, to make representations. Whether this is a case where that should be done I cannot say.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES.—(VOTE 15.,
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £409,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation. Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I desire to raise a point, not on an item which is included in this Vote, but on the omission from the Vote of gratuities to two officers retired from the Civil Service under the Board of Admiralty, which, if they had been granted, would have been included under this Vote. The two officers in question are Colonel Sir Edward Raban and Colonel Exham. Both served in the Works Department of the Admiralty. Colonel Raban served as Director of Works for twenty-one years and ten months, and I think the Secretary to the Admiralty will agree with me as to the great value of his services. He occupied a very responsible position indeed. He was the land agent for the Admiralty, and their sole adviser in regard to the very large area And immense expenditure on civil engineering work which falls to the Admiralty Department. Recognising that, his salary was fixed, in March, 1903, at £2,000, non-pensionable. Had the matter rested there, when his time for retirement came no question would have been raised, but there was at that time under the Works (Loan) Department an immense expenditure going on outside the ordinary annual expenditure on works, and to carry on that work there was a separate Department under the Civil Engineer-in-Chief, Sir Henry Pilkington, and his salary was also, I think, £2,000 a year. Under the late Government, in 1905, it was decided that it would be possible to amalgamate those two Departments and place the whole of the works under one head. Sir Edward Raban was then asked whether he would be prepared to accept the responsibility of taking the whole charge of the loan works and the Civil Engineer-in-Chief as well as the normal work of the Works Department. He hesitated very much, as he felt the burden would be a heavy one, but finally he decided to undertake it, and for the last six years he has carried on both works, and the Admiralty have thereby saved a salary of £2,000 a year, which was then being paid to Sir Henry Pilkington as Civil Engineer-in-Chief. I can say from my own knowledge that in the Autumn of 1905,

    949
    when that amalgamation took place, it was intended to recognise the additional work thrown upon Sir Edward Raban by some increase in salary, or by some arrangement for pension or gratuity, but,a change of Government took place at that particular moment, and naturally the change was obscured in other larger issues, and an officer in his position did not like to meet his new chief with a suggestion for an increase of salary, and for six years he has done additional work, saving the Admiralty £2,000 a year, without a farthing of extra pay and without asking for extra pay. When the time has come for his retirement and he has left the Service, he asks that in recognition of that six years additional work which has fallen upon him some gratuity should be given him by the country for the saving which he has effected, and for the extra work which he has done. That is the position as regards Sir Edward Raban, and the case is a perfectly plain one. The ultimate decision in these matters rests with the Treasury and not with the Board of Admiralty, and the Board of Admiralty may represent to the Treasury the meritorious services of an officer, and it rests with the Treasury to assent or to refuse. I feel quite certain that there is no one who has worked with Colonel Raban at the Admiralty and knows the very heavy additional burden which he has carried for six years who will not realise that those six years of work deserve some recognition at the hands of the country.
    Then I come to the case of Colonel Exham. He was also an officer of the Royal Engineers, and entered the Admiralty Service in 1895 as civil engineer. He did admirable work at Portsmouth. He was responsible for the construction of a new naval barrack, for the construction of two new docks, and for the great workshop at Portsmouth, which, I believe, is a model for all the engineering shops in the world. In 1902 the question arose of a new naval base for Rosyth, and Colonel Exham was sent there to examine and report upon a suitable site from an engineering point of view. He reported favourably upon the site, and in 1903, when it was decided to construct a naval base, he was sent up to Rosyth and placed in charge of the whole of the constructive work, and he personally prepared a design, entirely out of his own brain, from his own observation, and from borings and calculations made upon the spot. The contract drawings were prepared at the Admiralty, but
    950
    he was solely responsible for the design, which was accepted as it stood. The country does not know what it owes to Colonel Exham. He had to prepare a design for the whole of a great naval base, not for a dock or a basin or a naval barracks, which are large things in themselves, but a design laying out the whole of the great property then acquired for the Admiralty, and laying it out, not only from the point of view of the works where were to be immediately constructed, but from the point of view of the future to make the very best possible use, both to-day and to-morrow and in the future, of the whole of that great area for naval purposes, so far as human foresight could do it. I believe that design has given the utmost satisfaction.
    Not only did he design it, but he was responsible for some of the most difficult and important negotiations with Scottish local authorities, and a Scottish local authority is a body which requires business capacity to deal with it successfully. There were most important and difficult negotiations about the water supply and boundaries, and other matters for the whole of which he acted as adviser to the Admiralty, and which he carried through with the utmost success, and with the greatest advantage to the country. That is the kind of work which is done by our Civil Service, quietly, which no one hears of or knows of, but which ought to be adequately recognised and rewarded. Colonel Exham was entitled, and had earned by war service, a pension of £450 a year, which he would have drawn irrespective of any further services to the country. The Admiralty added the magnificent sum of £650 a year, which is all that he received in respect of his services to them. During the whole of the nine years that he was in charge of the works at Rosyth, it fell to him to entertain every visitor who went to inspect the works, including many of the Lords of the Admiralty themselves, Royal visitors and other visitors of distinction of all kinds. Consequently, he was quite unable to save anything out of his salary during that time. Colonel Exham's one desire and wish was that he should be allowed to complete that, work, and that when his time for retirement came, he should retire with the completed work at Rosyth as a monument to his ability and his exertion. But promotion was required in the Works Department, and the late First Lord of the Admiralty told Colonel Exham, who

    951
    had then attained the age of sixty, that the Admiralty desired that he should retire at the end of 1911. I need hardly say what a very bitter thing that was. You may imagine an officer who has designed such a great work as Rosyth. It is his child. He had been in sole charge of it, and had seen it grow from a mud bank to what it is to-day. The late First Lord saw Colonel Exham at Rosyth, and told him he was very sorry that he would have to be retired, and promised to do his best to get him a pension, and he mentioned the sum of £200 a year. Colonel Exham did retire at the end of 1911, and he received a rather curt letter of thanks for his services to the Admiralty, but not one single farthing of pension or gratuity has been given to him in respect of those services. I may tell the House now that the great work at Rosyth, which will cost millions of money, has been designed by the man to whom the Admiralty for nine years paid £650 a year, and who entertained persons visiting the dock, and a grateful Government—I believe it is the Treasury and not the Admiralty—has refused to grant him a single farthing of pension or gratuity. I say it is a scandal and a shame. There is not a soul who has been connected with Rosyth, whether railway managers, representatives of Scottish local authorities, the Board of Admiralty, or anybody else, who has had occasion to come into contact with Colonel Exham, who will not bear the highest testimony to the value of his services from every point of view. To say that a man in that position, representing the Board of Admiralty for nine years, and who received £650 a year, a large portion of which he had to spend in entertaining, should have to leave without pension or gratuity, is a scandal. I say that these two cases are not only a scandal, but that they involve a breach of the previous traditions of the Board of Admiralty. It is a great asset to the country that the Board of Admiralty have always been able to obtain the best men in the country for the Navy, and that they have always treated, fairly and liberally, the men who have served the Navy well. This pinching is a new phase. The First Lord of the Admiralty is the one person who can go to the Treasury and say, "I will have this," and get it.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill)indicated dissent.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Oh! yes, he can. The First Lord of the Admiralty is in a very strong position. The Navy must be adequately served, and it is the first requirement, whether in the civil or the naval department, that good service to the country ought to be fairly recognised. I will name three cases where that was done. Sir H. Tanner, Sir William White, and Sir Henry Pilkington, served the Admiralty in a civil capacity, but they gave no greater service than the two gentlemen I have mentioned. On retiring they obtained substantial gratuities or pensions. Why should similar recognition be refused to these two gentlemen, I think my Noble Friend (Lord C. Beresford) has some knowledge of Colonel Exham's services, and he can speak of what that officer has done for the Navy. I think I have made my case fairly clear. I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to give a sympathetic reply, and to undertake to do his best with the Treasury in order to secure, at any rate, reasonable recognition of the services of these two gentlemen.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has given the House very briefly and concisely an account of the services of these two distinguished officers. The point where I find myself in disagreement with him is where he says that the First Lord of the Admiralty has only to go to the Treasury and say, "This must be," and the consequence is that the Treasury will do as the Admiralty wish. I should certainly wish on the part of the Department to disclaim any such dangerous assumption of authority. Of course, it is true that on technical matters connected with the Naval Service the authority of naval experts must carry very great weight with the civil head of the Department, and with his political colleagues in the Government; but when you come to a question like this raised with respect to the two cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, namely, the question of the financial treatment of public servants, then that is a matter which, not only in fact, but on the merits, the Treasury should be the judge, and it is a matter on which the Treasury is necessarily the highest expert authority. Every Department owes a debt of gratitude to the public servants who serve it faithfully, and we all feel that with respect to those attached to a Department, civil or military or naval, the successive heads of a Department can only entertain the very highest opinion of them. When the time comes for those officers to retire it is natural that

    953
    the various Departments should address the Treasury and say all there is to be said-and there is much to be said—on behalf of those public servants. We naturally plead the cases of those who have served us well. Then it is for the Treasury to consider those cases—not each one isolated as we would do in the Admiralty or the War Office—but to consider them having regard to the general range of the public service as a whole.
    At the Treasury they have an immense body of rules, precedents, and practice, which has grown up, and which has not differed markedly under one Government or another, but which has developed steadily, for dealing with those public servants. They are in a much better position to measure one case against another and to judge of the rights, or wrongs of a case than the particular head of any spending Department. It would not be of any use for me to go through the details of either of these cases, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the facts on the matters were brought to the attention of the Treasury, and that the cases were most carefully considered by them. After all, it is not a matter which merely affects the interests of the Government. It is a matter of carrying out the rules in a proper spirit. The financial interests which are at stake are insignificant as compared with those of administration. It is only a question of doing what is right, having regard to the general current of cases. In the cases referred to the facts unfolded to us were brought before the Treasury, and the Treasury formed the opinion that on the facts set before them there was no ground for special treatment. So far as Colonel Exham's case was concerned, the whole of that lay in the period before I became responsible in any way for the administration of naval affairs. In Sir Edward Raban's case I have to say that I have looked very carefully into the facts, and there is a new element in the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman which, I confess, was not fully before me when I last remitted the matter to the Treasury for their consideration. There is the question of the extra work which he did outside the regular work of his Department which was not stated in the previous communications with sufficient stress, and I have undertaken to bring that further aspect to the attention of my colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, it is a matter pertinent to that, for the hon. Gentleman opposite, who
    954
    was in a position of responsibility when the Works Department at the Admiralty was reorganised, to say that he and his colleagues had contemplated that some special recognition would be made of the extra duties which Sir Edward Raban was discharging. Therefore, so far as that case is concerned, I shall bring these further points to the attention of my right hon. Friend. But I must say that in these matters the spending Departments are bound to allow the Treasury, which is responsible for the whole of the public Services, to judge. May I ask the Committee, although it is not strictly relevant to the point, to grant me their indulgence by permitting me to be absent from the Chamber this evening, as I made a public engagement before this Debate was fixed which it would be very difficult not to fulfil. The Vote now before the Committee deals with matters which are fully under the charge of my right hon. Friend, and he is much more competent than I am to deal with them. I venture to hope that the Committee will grant this request.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the case of Sir Edward Raban, but I hope he will not confine his representations to that case, and that he will also make representations in regard to Colonel Exham, whose case was quite as strong.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any new facts.
    7.0.P.m.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I quite appreciate the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman is in with respect to the case of Colonel Exham. The matter was settled by his predecessor, but I am sure he will acknowledge that here was a man who undertook to create one of the greatest mechanical works ever done in this country. He created it out of his own brain, and the question which should be kept in view is, What would he have got for that work if he had been an engineer not in the service of the Admiralty? He would have been paid promptly. It is inconceivable that a man who has served the State in the Army and is receiving a pension of £450, should only be given £650 extra for this enormous work. I am not saying a word against the First Lord of the Admiralty on this occasion, but the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that this House can tell the Treasury that they ought to be fair. There was a case recently in which the Treasury would not

    955
    give Mrs. Horn £266, but we made the Treasury give it. I think if we had an expression of opinion that this work was very valuable, something would be done. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it was an enormous work. It was conceived and carried out by the brain of this one man, and surely we should treat him properly. Apart from the Army pension of £450, and his salary of £650 while employed by the Admiralty, he has not got a single shilling. I should be perfectly willing to leave it to the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I think that if the House would ponder over this, and if we could get a Division upon it, the House would say that that man was not paid properly and ought to be paid more than £450 a year for executing this enormous work for the, benefit of the State. I beg to move to reduce this Vote by £100, in order to test the sense of the House on this question.
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course, the Noble Lord is entitled to move a reduction of the Vote, but I should point out that with regard to this Debate we cannot discuss the responsibility of the Treasury, although it is quite right to ask that renewed representations should be made. Of course I will put the Motion if the Noble Lord desires.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: If the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will look into the case himself again I feel confident that when he does look into it this man will get some fair gratuity.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I looked very carefully into the cases of both Colonel Exham and Sir Edward Raban, and I have represented all the facts in both cases to the proper authorities. I have said that I will make further representation about Sir Edward Raban. My difficulty in reopening the case of Colonel Exham—of course I can give no pledge as to the decision—is that I am not aware of any new fact that has not already been laid before the Treasury. Of course I agree that when the arrangement is discussed in the House of Commons that is a matter which Departments are bound to take cognisance of, and any suggestion to the contrary reflects on the influence and value of our Debates. Therefore the fact that it had been discussed in Committee will certainly make it necessary for me to draw the attention of the Treasury to the observations which have been made.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: After the right hon. Gentleman's candid statement, I am prepared to withdraw my Motion.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have not yet put it.
    Mr. HOHLER: I have one or two cases to bring forward, in which the persons concerned are not in quite such a comfortable position in life, but I think that their cases are equally deserving of the attention and consideration of this House. The first is that of a hired messenger who has served the Crown for fifty-five years and is now discharged without a pension. All he has got is a gratuity, I think, of about £70. There is not a word against him and he was an excellent servant. It seems an extraordinary thing that in those circumstances there should be no means by which some small pension could be given to such a man to aid him in his remaining days. I have written to the Financial Secretary about it, and thought that I had found a way by which it could be done, but I regret to say that he did not accent my view. I think that the case of this very humble servant, though of a different character from that of the two distinguished officers to whom reference has been made, is equally deserving of consideration, which I trust will be given to it by whoever has the final word in these matters. It is nothing short of a scandal that after fifty-five years of service he has no pension. There is no private individual who after a service of fifty-five years would turn off a servant at the age of seventy with a small gratuity.
    There are two other cases to which I attach equally great importance. The rule in reference to service in the dockyard is that at the age of sixty the workman has to retire. There are exceptions, about which I need not trouble, which may give an extension for a year or two. During the past year there has been a great demand for labour, and there has been great pressure, more particularly in the dockyards, in order to enable the men to get through the work. I have two cases of men who have attained the age of sixty and were entitled to gratuities for their services during the time they had been employed under the Crown. They inquired, and were given to understand that in no case would it affect their claim in any way to the compassionate allowance which they had really earned at the age of sixty, but in deference to an invitation made to them they continued to serve on One of the two cases in which I am

    957
    interested is now before the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. The other he will also have, I think, in due course. In these cases the two men unfortunately died within a few months of their attaining the age of sixty. Though they had earned their gratuity at that age, and could have taken it and walked out, yet because they continued to serve at the invitation of the officers of the Admiralty at Chatham their widows have been refused the sums to which their late husbands were entitled. Surely those moneys have been earned, and ought to be paid to these widows. A small sum of about £50 or £60 should be paid in each case by the country, and paid gladly. Both men were of excellent character. They served on in the interests of the country, because you could not get similar men for that class of work outside. I ask that the Admiralty should take care that those three persons and persons in similar positions in other yards should receive what in my judgment is only their just right.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member suggest that this is a matter that could be done without an alteration of the Superannuation Act?
    Mr. HOHLER: Yes, I do.
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course, if it could be done that would be another matter, but my impression is to the contrary.
    Mr. HOHLER: I could only have one impression in the matter. My view is that such injustice could not be tolerated, and that it can be done without any alteration in the Superannuation Act. It is within the discretion of the Treasury to say that there is a case for superannuation in the case of the hired messenger, and that in the case of the other men the money has been earned, and should go to their representatives, and ought to have been included in the Votes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I desire to ask the Government this question: Could this be done without an alteration of the Superannuation Acts?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not in my opinion.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that binds the hon. Member.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hired man with whom the hon. Member was dealing is not a man who is pensionable. He is eligible to a gratuity of £60 under the Regulations. In the case of the other men
    958
    instead of retiring and taking their gratuity they go on for two or three years, and then they die, and the hon. and learned Member says, "Why are not you paying the gratuity to their dependents which they had earned, and for which they would have been eligible if they had left at sixty? "As to the equity of that I will not go into it. All I will say is that in my opinion it could not be done without an alteration in the Superannuation Act.
    Mr. HOHLER: I have said all that I desire to say on that matter. I was passing to another subject which is before the Admiralty—the scheme with regard to workmen's compensation. I raise it because the scheme expires shortly, on the 30th June, and I desire to refer to the defects of that scheme and its administration. The Treasury are the sole judges as to whether or not a man is entitled to compensation. You have to prove that his claim is made to the satisfaction of the Treasury. I only knew a little about the Treasury, but I understood, and I think I am quite right about it, that the Treasury consisted of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Junior Lords of the Treasury. They are a changing lot, and whether they understand much about justice is open to doubt. The way in which they met the claims with regard to a man named Lund and a man named Scott, I consider nothing short of a scandal. I wrote long letters on the matter, and I know that the Admiralty were with me to this extent, that they told me that the cases had been forwarded to the Treasury for determination. Then I was met by a decision of the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and, with great deference to his ability, I am bound to say that in my judgment, unless you have got something which he thinks can command votes, you will have great difficutly in getting anything out of him. That is his class entirely. If it is a question as to the Insurance Act, and he thinks that it is going to command votes, you will get something, but in individual cases of men who are suffering wrong you can get nothing out of him at all.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that that comment of the hon. Member is uncalled for.
    Mr. HOHLER: I am entitled to make my own comment and have my own views. The way in which I have been met by the Financial Secretary In these cases is

    959
    wholly improper, and when I put a question in this House I thought that when a matter had to be proved to the satisfaction of the Treasury, as the scheme required, that the scheme meant what it said. When I put a question to the Prime Minister on this point I am told that "the satisfaction of the Treasury" is a mere matter of departmental inquiry. I fought the case of a man named Lund for two or three years, and it was not until he was locked up in a lunatic asylum that I got full compensation for him. I could not get anything out of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I ultimately had to take the matter to the Registrar of Friendly Societies in order to ventilate the wrong this man had sustained. Eventually I got twenty-four-sixtieths, and that only with reluctance. That case caused me infinite trouble. The administration of this workmen's compensation scheme in the hands of the Treasury is nothing short of a scandal. There is another case in which I have met with a refusal from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, though I sent him the doctor's certificate, and gave him the statement of the position of the workman, who is as honest and truthful a man as ever walked.
    Then there is the case of a workman named Stubbs, who was engaged in the yard for a considerable number of years. Stubbs was caught in a machine in October of 1905. He was whirled round, and his arm was broken in six places between the elbow and shoulder; he was bruised about the body. He was three months in the Naval Hospital, and three months an out patient. That brought him to April, 1906, when he resumed work. His fellow workmen can testify that he was a shattered and changed man. I have the certificate dated July, 1912, of Dr. Lane Smith, who certified that Stubbs had been under treatment at various periods for nearly five years, and that he was suffering from nervous shock as the result of an accident some six years ago, when he was crushed in a machine, and his arm fractured in several places. I have another doctor's certificate in regard to that case. I offered to call the workmen who knew him to testify to his altered appearance, and how he was broken down in health. The man has a wife and six children, and he struggled on to keep at work, but he was constantly out of the yard. I had his discharge certificate,
    960
    Which says that he was discharged "on account of extended illness." That was in 1912. This man, with a wife and family dependent upon him, entirely broke down, and the medical certificate of July, 1912, shows what was his condition. I could not get a halfpenny out of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I sent the certificate to the right hon. Gentleman, and he wrote a letter expressing surprise that it had not been sent before; as if my word could not have been accepted. Instead of sending me a letter expressing surprise, I should have thought that he would have given me the money. But that is the way in which these men are treated. Stubbs had to go to other hospitals to obtain treatment, and then, not being able to get work, he went to Canada, leaving his wife and children here. My recollection is that this case was brought before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who very kindly undertook to see whether the man could be longer retained here—very kind of him it was, too! But by that time the man had gone to Canada, and it was too late. Still there are the wife and children, who, I submit, are entitled to the money. Who can doubt that a man whose arm has been broken in six places should not have some provision made for him? Yet the result has been that not a halfpenny could be obtained for that man.
    Then there is the case of a man named Clark, whose forefinger was broken a year before he was discharged from the yard. He cannot get a halfpenny. I have sent a certificate to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who writes back to say that Clark was not "appreciably impaired." To sustain an injury at sixty years of age does not leave a man in the condition he was in before. Fortunately, in this instance, the man had a very small Army pension. He had been in the band, and if the joint of his forefinger had not been injured he might have been able to earn something as a musician. But now he cannot. I submit that the scheme, in view of the manner in which it is administered by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is unsatisfactory. There should be some appeal, and I suggest that it should be to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Otherwise, broadly speaking, I think the scheme is a good one. The men have advantages under it, but they have also grave disadvantages. They have the advantage of half-pay from the first day of the injury, but apart from that they get

    961
    no advantage. I think it is desirable, in regard to all these questions, to avoid litigation; people should never go to law unless they are denied justice at every other door. I am very desirous that these Men should have the scheme of compensation properly administered, and what I do want to secure is the establishment of some tribunal of appeal against the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The workman should be in a position to say that he would not accept the Financial Secretary's decision, and that he would take his case before an independent person on appeal. I suggest the Registrar of Friendly Societies. My experience at the Bar has taught me that it is an excellent tribunal; there are no costs on either side; it is inexpensive and businesslike; and there is a skilled lawyer to hear the ease and to do justice. I do not blame the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury more than others, but I submit that a man should be in a position to get his case reviewed on appeal.
    I have the case of a man who, in 1905, was injured, his eyesight being affected and his hearing being permanently lost. He was discharged from the yard two or three months afterwards. What amount do you think was obtained from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? Two shillings a week. Such administration is ludicrous and incredible. This man has not been able to get work since. A large part of the poverty and distress with which we have to deal in dockyard constituencies really arise from cases of this kind.
    There are several cases still before me. In one instance a woman lost the finger of her right hand. She got 2s. a week, which was afterwards commuted to £50. She has been unable to work since as a seamstress. What I desire is that all these cases should be dealt with on some general and proper system. If it is believed that an injustice is being done to a workman or his dependants, there should be a right of appeal to some independent person against the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do feel most strongly in regard to the cases of which I have spoken. The scheme, I may also point out, is very defective in another respect. I have already said that I object to it in regard to the Treasury's present finality of decision. The scheme purports that workmen should be entitled to receive free treatment in the hospital, and, if the hospital is not available, should receive free medical attendance In my view the scheme is a contract that the workmen
    962
    shall receive those benefits. Strictly, you could not sue under the Act at all, but you could sue on the contract for any breach of it. Obviously you cannot sue where the breach is by the Treasury, who say, "We are not satisfied." But in regard to this particular point about medical treatment, a man could sue if he incurred expenses by going to a doctor. That is my view. There is the case of a man named Farrer, who sustained an injury, and I have written to the Treasury about it. This man has had to attend at the Maidstone Hospital to get treatment, and he has also had to attend a doctor. The Admiralty by their contract have undertaken to give him medical attendance, yet they have never done it. I submit, therefore, that they ought to make this man some allowance or some compensation. I only ask for a small amount, but I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty that Farrer's is a perfectly undefended case, and something ought to be done for him. Another aspect in which I complain of the scheme is that it sets up a number of degrees of injury—"slightly impaired, materially impaired, or totally destroyed." What a ridiculous complexity. What is the meaning of "slightly impaired, materially impaired, or totally destroyed"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered the "hurt" pay?
    Mr. HOHLER: I have considered the first six months' "hurt" pay, but it is after the first six months that. I am dealing with. The Act says simply that a man is entitled to receive half his wages or the difference between what he would have earned and what he was earning, not exceeding half his wages. But before that can be ascertained we have to see whether the man is "slightly impaired or materially impaired." The thing is impossible. I make no apologies for having spoken at some length on this subject, for I feel that there should be some proper means of dealing with all these claims. I have referred to this scheme more particularly because the Admiralty scheme is about to expire and a new one is to be made or proposed and submitted to the Registrar of Friendly Societies for certification, so that they can meet and deal with these points and get rid of them. I have pressed two points, and it is exceedingly desirable to have the scheme well administered, as nobody wants to indulge in litigation. I

    963
    hope the strongest pressure will be used with the Treasury to see that the men get a scheme in which justice may be simply and efficiently done without having to come here and complain of what are, in my judgment, hopeless shortcomings with regard to this class of case.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: This is not the first time that this subject has been ventilated. I suppose most of those who know anything about dockyard employés are aware that these cases are constantly recurring, and I suppose, so long as any scheme exists covering dockyard employés so long will these cases come to the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) knows as well as I do that there is a proper system and that this House has passed certain laws to deal with these cases. It amazes me to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should suggest that these cases would be properly dealt with and settled by the Registrar of Friendly Societies instead of under the Compensation Act.
    Mr. HOHLER: My point is that I do not want the men to lose the advantage they get. They cannot get paid for the first week until they are two weeks out of employment under the other system, but under this scheme they can get it from the first day. I do not want them to Jose that advantage, and that is the reason.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I am quite familiar with that, just as I understand that the ripe cherry is always on the outside of the bunch. My position is this, that I do not believe, and I hope I never shall believe, that the men in the dockyard towns should ever have any greater advantages or disadvantages than the people in private life. This House has passed a Compensation Act, and I want the men engaged in the dockyards of this country to be on exactly the same terms before the law as the men engaged in the private shipbuilding yards up and down the country. There are millions of workpeople under the Compensation Act, and there are of course thousands of cases being tried in the Courts of the country. The result is that a vast body of opinion, experience, and judgment is being acquired in the County Courts with regard to compensation cases. All that experience is thrown to the wind when we come to deal with cases under the scheme as it affects Government dockyards. The result is
    964
    that as soon as any case is slightly abnormal, or as soon as the question arises as to which class of case it comes under in the scheme, the trouble begins. The lead poisoning case is quite within the memory of the House. It was a difficult case, I admit, but still I venture to say that if that case had gone to the County Court there would not have been the slightest hesitation as to that man being entitled to compensation. If the dockyard men are going to have certain privileges and advantages, surely it is obvious that under any scheme you are also going to have disadvantages! So long as those men are under this scheme, and so long as the decision rests in the hands of some official, of whichever side may be in power, you are bound to have difficulties arising in those cases. I think the time of this House should not be wasted in discussing these little twopenny-halfpenny tinpot cases. There is a proper place for them, and that is the County Court. We shall never get any farther so long as Members representing dockyard towns are compelled by force of circumstances to bring those cases up here. I have not a word of blame or reflection for those hon. Members. It is their business to bring those cases to the House of Commons and endeavour to obtain what they think is justice for the people they represent. I wish to give them every credit for the work they do in that direction.
    Mr. FALLE: The trouble is they cannot go to the County Courts.
    Mr. DUNCAN: That is exactly the point I want the men to come under the Compensation Act. The hon. Member, I think, does not understand the position. As I understand the matter, it is entirely within the option of those men as to whether they come within the scheme or not. If they do not come within the scheme, they must naturally fall inside the Compensation Act. Therefore I am arguing here to-day, if those men were able to come under the Compensation Act, we should do away with this special pleading in special cases in the House of Commons, and those Members who desire would be able to raise other and more important questions in connection with what is, after all, a great and important section of the nation, the Navy, and questions which it would be much better the House should be engaged in discussing, than these tinpot cases, which ought to be settled in half an hour in the County Court, with the practice and experience of the County

    965
    Court judges. I am not speaking, after all, without a very wide knowledge of compensation cases. Taking the whole cases under the scheme in the dockyard towns, I am convinced in my own mind that the men employed in those dockyards would be infinitely better off under the Compensation Act. That would also save Members representing those constituencies from what must be an exceedingly unpleasant duty at times, and all these applications about cases, some of which there can be no doubt are cases which are most excruciatingly hard. If this scheme were done away with, it seems to me that no injustice would be experienced if the men were brought under the scope of the Compensation Act, and the law, as administered by the County Court judges, with their wide experience, would settle any of these trifling, petty differences which might arise. I think that is the way out. So long as we are granting privileges to dockyard men over and above ordinary workmen, so long are you going to have these cases in the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested a Court of Appeal. He must have forgotten that this is his Court of Appeal. Is the time of the House to be wasted debating these cases year after year, and sometimes the same case, and the time of 670 Members to be wasted in discussing what the County Court judge would settle in fifteen minutes?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am sure we are all very much obliged to the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) and the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan) for their interesting speeches, although they appeared to entirely differ. The hon. Member for Barrow appeared to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the scheme of the Government is of no value whatever, and he would like to see that scheme done away with altogether, and all the men brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There may be some ground for his suggestion. I admit that my own experience shows me that there are a considerable number of men in the yards who do not altogether value the scheme which has been brought before them by the Admiralty, and to which they have subscribed They say they would rather get out of it. The answer of the Admiralty is that "you can get out of it and you can go back to the Workmen's Compensation Act," but, they declare, that the men do not take advantage of the alternative, that they
    966
    remain under the scheme when they might come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. If that be the case, it does not prove, at any rate conclusively, that these men would prefer altogether to be brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act. With regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Chatham, I listened to all his cases with much attention. I do not propose to trouble the House with many cases of a similar kind, not that I could not do so, because in my own experience I have come across many cases of a similar nature where the Treasury have not acted, I will not say quite fairly, but at any rate with sympathy, and in which they have entirely refused to budge one inch from their decisions, which have affected men and their families very hardly.
    I brought a case under notice just now in which the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) himself intervened because he has a sympathetic nature. It was because he looked at the matter in a common sense and proper manner that he was able to give a decision, although it was after three years which allowed a woman and her child to have a pension. If the Admiralty, or anyone in the Admiralty, was in the position of being able to look at matters in this light, it would certainly be much better for the people who work in the dockyards. They would know they had some sympathy shown to them from a Government Department, which I am sorry to say is quite unusual with the exception of the Admiralty. I would like, if I may, to cite a case to the House which I brought up just now in mistake, that of a woman, case "B." She is the widow of a man who was a hired skilled labourer in the dockyard. The man died of paralysis; there is no doubt of that. An inquest was held. At the inquest, the doctor who had attended him at the time of his death was present, but was unable to say with absolute accuracy that the primary cause of death was paralysis arising from the accident he met with in the yard, the result being that the Admiralty, and I presume the Treasury, came to the conclusion that although the man might have died of paralysis, his illness did not result from the accident he met with in the yard. If that was so, how came it that the man was attended by three different doctors, all of whom were in a position to say that he died of paralysis, and one of whom, the one who attended him from the first, was in a position to say that he died from paralysis contracted from an accident met

    967
    with in the yard? What did the Government do? I brought the case to their notice, and they told me that there was no remedy. I have their letter of the 6th May:—
    "In reply to your letter of the 9th ultimo, relative to the question of the award of compensation to the widow of B., formerly a hired skilled labourer in the yard, I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that as no new medical evidence has since been adduced, there are no grounds upon which the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury could be invited to modify their decision, which was only arrived at after consultation with the Government medical referee."
    I will not discuss the merits of the Government medical referee. I will simply bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice the words, "as no new medical evidence has been adduced." Ought not the Admiralty to have endeavoured to find such medical evidence as would enable them to say positively that this man had not contracted paralysis from an accident in the yard? If that was not within their province, why did not the medical referee consult the doctor who attended the man immediately after the first accident and also within a month of his? Instead of that, it is left to an outsider to press the case home on the Admiralty. I have had communications with both doctors—the one who attended the inquest and the one who attended the man in the first instance. The doctor who attended the man in the first instance says positively that the paralysis was brought on by the accident in the yard, and that if he had been able to attend the inquest he would have said so then. The other doctor says that after consulting his friend who had the first notes of the case he is of the same opinion. Therefore, I have now in my possession the new medical evidence which I propose to send to the Admiralty, and I have no doubt that in course of time this woman will get the compensation that she deserves. But my point is that she ought not to have had to wait all this time. The case ought to have been gone into by the Admiralty, who themselves ought to have ascertained, as I have ascertained, that this man died of paralysis contracted from an accident met with in the yard.
    I wish also to refer to the Admiralty regulations governing pensions to men injured in the yard. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) referred to the limitations which the Admiralty think proper to place in their scheme. One of those limitations is in reference to a man being "materially impaired." I do not
    968
    propose to ask, as he asked, why those limitations are placed in the scheme. I know why they are there. It is to enable the Admiralty to give smaller pensions in certain cases, so that a man who is very much hurt will receive more than a man who is hurt in a lesser degree. That may be all very well, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that. Agree limitation may bear rather hardly upon individuals. I have come across a number of cases in which men have been told by the Admiralty doctor, "You are not exactly prevented from earning your living; you are only impaired; therefore your pension will be on a much lower scale." These men come to me over and over again. They can never get any other work. Nobody will employ them because they cannot be insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Hence they are obliged to walk about with pensions of 2s., 3s. or 4s. a week, on which they are supposed to keep wife and family. I hope that when we have the new scheme these absurd reservations will not be included, or, if included, that a more liberal construction will be placed upon them. Another matter closely connected with this is the question of work in the yards given to men who are injured or to their widows and orphans. The whole matter originated with the Financial Secretary, and a very worthy idea it was, but it can only be carried out in such a limited manner that it is not of very much use. He decided that a certain number of men who had been injured in the Navy or in the dockyard should be provided with light work in the yard. That is part of their compensation. But directly these places are filled up, the men go on living for a long time; consequently the places are never vacant. Hence you have a large number of people eligible and the Admiralty saying that they will give them light work to do, but there is no such work to be obtained. As to the widows and orphans, the Admiralty says that there is plenty of work for them in the colour loft, the ropery, and so on. I brought forward two cases, widows of men who had worked all their lives in the dockyards, and the Admiralty said, "They shall have work provided for them in the ropery; but it is a local matter, and you must make application locally. "I made application locally, but there was no vacancy in the ropery or in the colour loft, and there is no likelihood of a vacancy unless some-

    969
    body dies or marries. That is the position in which these poor people are placed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a satisfactory statement in reference to these matters.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir J. D. REES: The speech of the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan) illustrated very clearly, I think, how much more hon. Members on this side are the real friends of the working men than hon. Members who at any rate claim more particularly to represent them. The tone of that speech seemed to be extremely unfair, not only to the hon. Members who brought these cases forward, but to those on whose behalf they spoke. The position as regards the Workmen's Compensation Act is most unsatisfactory, and since the passing of the so-called National Insurance Act it has become more and more complicated and unsatisfactory to everybody concerned. There have been brought forward to-day by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, the cases of two gallant officers. In the encounter between the hon. and gallant Member and the First Lord, I thought that both were right. The hon. and gallant Member rightly said that these gallant officers had been most insufficiently paid for the great services they had rendered, and the First Lord was equally right in saying that he was not able to go to the Treasury and get the necessary funds for properly compensating them. But why was he unable to go? He ought to have been able to go. The reason he cannot go, and the reason why the defences are starved, and gallant officers are prejudiced, is that the chief inventor and promoter of fantastic and Socialistic legislation in the very Minister who should be in charge of the Treasury, and whose privilege and first duty it ought to be to provide adequate funds for the defence of the country and for the payment of compensation for those gallant officers who carry it on. These hard cases are not the fault of the Secretary to the Admiralty at all. The head of the Treasury himself has opened an account of some £20,000,000 which may next year run up to £50,000,000 or £60,000,000, and at no distant date equal the expenditure on the whole of the Navy; consequently there are not available the funds which I believe the taxpayers of the country would rather see provided than have these fantastic and incalculable schemes of extravagant legislation. I endeavoured to get the Prime Minister to confess that he was responsible for control
    970
    in this respect. He, however, repudiated the suggestion, saying that, while technically it might be so, as lie was First Lord of the Treasury, the actual control was under the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think my hon. and gallant Friend erred in bringing any charge against the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, as far as I can judge, carries out his duties in a manner which gives great satisfaction. The fault is entirely that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not in order on this occasion to make any attack on the Treasury except in the most general terms, but I do think that a distinction should be drawn, and that the indictment made by an hon. Member who preceded me should be laid not against the Secretary to the Admiralty, who I believe is not in the least responsible, but that it should be laid against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, against whom, if I could, I would press it to the utmost degree.
    There is a point, a very small point I admit, but one which I think ought to be cleared up—and I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has been most courteous to me—a matter which comes under the same heading—"Appropriations-in-Aid." The sum is £350. It is repeated in identical figures for the current year. It is a sum received from the Government of India, a fixed commuted contribution towards the cost of superannuation allowances to members of the transport department who work in connection with Indian troop services. I consulted the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Melton Division, who, unlike myself, has had the advantage of serving both as a soldier and as a Civil servant, but he could not make out what the charge really was, or I should not have troubled the right hon. Gentleman. It is not at all clear what it relates to. I imagine myself that it refers to payments made to certain members of the Home Service Transport Department who were detailed for duty upon the transport ships which take the British regiments out to India. Still, if that conjecture is right, that leaves me in some doubt, because in the case of regiments which leave this country for duty abroad they are naturally under military orders, and are supposed to be in their own barracks all the time they are on board the troopships. That being so, how is it that a charge like this is to be found in the Naval Estimates? I should have thought it would have more naturally appeared in the Army Estimates.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty undertake the transport arrangements.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is that the reason, then, that this charge is here? If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that it is because the Admiralty undertake the transport arrangements then I readily accept his statement, and will not further trouble the House with it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not listen at all to what was said by the hon. Member for Barrow in a speech which seemed to me to show very little sympathy with the poor, and that he will take into account what was said by my hon. and learned Friend regarding the Treasury; that he will bring it home, not to the Secretary of the Treasury, but to the Minister who creates all these difficulties by emptying the Treasury, that is to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. FALLE: I would just like to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman before we conclude this Vote: Is the Admiralty going to introduce the new compensation scheme and to allow the men in the dockyards to choose between the new compensation scheme and the Workmen's Compensation Act, or is the right hon. Gentleman only going to allow them a choice between the present compensation scheme and the present Compensation Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Sir J. D. Rees) in relation to the contribution towards the cost of superannuation allowance to the members of the transport department. This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on the, Indian Troop Service.
    Sir J. D. REES: How is it always the same amount?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We are responsible for the transport of the troops. We have certain officials in our transport department at the Admiralty who some day will be retired on retired pay or half-pay or pension allowances; therefore they are put proportionately upon this particular Vote from the Government of India. The Government of India gives us some return and we take a portion of that upon this Vote. There was the further question as to the scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the position of the Admiralty and their employés in regard to it. The first Compensation Act was passed in 1897, and came
    972
    into force on 1st July, 1898. At that time compensation to widows and children in was not new in the Admiralty service, or indeed in other Government services. We already had had provision prior to that Act for hurt pay for men injured and for compensation to widows and children in the case of death. On the whole the privileges of the system which was in vogue before the Workmen's Compensation Act were more favourable than those which were set up by the Workmen's Compensation Act. That being so, at the instance of the Treasury, it was suggested that advantage might be taken, under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, so that our men could be contracted out. As a condition of the arrangements made, the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies has to certify that the scheme put forward, and before contracting out is allowed, is not less favourable to the general body of workmen, and their dependents, than the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act itself. In the first instance, then, steps were taken to ascertain the views of the men, and finally the scheme was submitted for acceptance or rejection. In point of fact it was accepted practically unanimously, only sixteen men voting for rejection out of a total of 31,600 that were then in our employ. The main factor in this undoubtedly was that under the original Workmen's Compensation Act a man could not get hurt pay unless his illness was for more than a fortnight, whereas from the beginning our scheme provided for hurt pay at once. Further, if a man met with an accident, and had had to be compensated subsequently under the Compensation Act, the expense of his time in the hospital and the treatment are put against the compensation afterwards received.
    That is not the case in our scheme, and never has been, and these are the reasons I imagine which led the men of their own volition to prefer our scheme. That scheme expired on 30th June, 1905, and it was re-certified by the Registrar as from 1st July of that year. On that occasion we had 39,000 men, and only thirty-one rejected it. Then the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906 came in, and improved the position in regard to the hurt pay, in that it made the previous fortnight a week. Here again our scheme was better than the modified Workmen's Compensation Act. In the new Act the workman could not get hurt pay if his injury

    973
    did not extend at least for a week; the existing scheme of ours, which is now expiring on the 30th of this month, and which came into operation in 1908, was better. This scheme was accepted by 38,000 men and rejected by only 17; so that all these three schemes have been accepted with practical unanimity by the men, the only material difference between this scheme and its predecessors was that the withdrawal from the scheme could be made at any time by the workmen. This modification was necessary in consequence of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1906. Our present scheme expires on 30th June. With regard to the new scheme to replace it a number of representations have been made to us at the annual hearing of the petitions. The Board of Admiralty took occasion last Wednesday to call to London various representative workmen from all the yards. I met them, and we discussed together the various questions involved in relation to the new scheme, I was careful to explain that our jurisdiction is somewhat limited; the functions of the Treasury; the powers and duties of the Registrar-General. Having heard the views, I said that I would communicate with the Treasury at once, and that I had previously made certain communications to the Treasury arising out of the petitions sent to me. I again communicated with the Treasury, following the meeting, with regard to questions arising out of the new scheme.
    The Registrar-General is responsible for the submission of the men to the scheme, after he has received it from the Treasury, and after satisfying himself that it conforms to the provisions of the Act regarding schemes. He will decide in what manner the scheme has to be submitted to the men for their approval or rejection. The last time it was submitted was by way of poster in the workshops in a form approved by the Registrar. I think myself that every man ought to have a copy of it, and if it is within my jurisdiction—I am not quite sure whether it is not a matter for the Registrar—I will endeavour to see that every man gets a copy. After a reasonable lapse of time in which the Registrar will receive communications or deputations from the workmen he will either give his certificate or intimate the workmen's wishes with regard to any amendment of the scheme. I should like to be perfectly fair; we cannot, and do not, wish to make it any disadvantage to a man's appointment that he should accept this or the other scheme. He must act for
    974
    himself. Further, if he is in this scheme, if he accepts it he can substitute the Act for it at any time by signing this form which I hold in my hand, and which allows his withdrawal from the scheme. It states:—
    "I, the undersigned, being a workman at present employed as a—"
    say fitter,
    "in (H.M. Dockyard Department………), who signed a contract on, ……… 190…, that the provisions of the above scheme should be substituted for the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, during the continuance of my said employment as a (fitter), or my employment in any other capacity in the said (dockyard) or in any other Government dockyard or Admiralty Establishment, hereby give notice of my desire to withdraw from the said scheme, and henceforth to be dealt with, in case of injury, solely in the manner provided by the aforesaid Act. Signed. ………"
    Lord C. BERESFORD: What is the length of notice to be given.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think it is only about twenty-four hours. Let me say that is subject to correction, but it is a very short time; it is not a lengthy notice, but sufficient for the purposes of administration. That is actually how the matter stands. With regard to arbitration, undoubtedly the men put forward their claim vigorously that there should be some independent tribunal which should settle the cases in dispute, and they say that the Treasury have no right to be the judge in their on behalf. We are not judges on our own behalf, but if any criticism, or doubt, or conflict arises on the medical testimony, we send the matter to be considered by the Treasury, and the hon. Member for Chatham can send in any cases he has.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am going to do so.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member will be happy to know that they will be fully examined on their merits. The Treasury have a referee; it is not a subject for us. He can call any additional medical testimony he likes, and the Treasury's medical referee can also call in any assistance he likes to deal with the matter.
    Mr. FALLE: Is he a permanent official?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, certainly! But he is entirely beyond the control of the Director-General of the Admiralty; he has nothing to do with us, and he has the most complete authority to call other testimony. I should like to say this, after an experience of five years, especially as the hon. Member for Chatham has sent in cases,

    975
    that, if I am to judge by the Treasury's decisions I found the Treasury medical referee went with the greatest care into cases, and I should say his intentions are entirely sympathetic towards the working people whose cases are put into his hands. This scheme is more expensive to the Crown than the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is not a shadow of doubt about that. If the men want the Workmen's Compensation Act, then for goodness sake let them have it. If they do not want our scheme and if they want the Workmen's Compensation Act and the right to go to the County Court, it will mean more delay and expense; but that is their affair. Here is a scheme that is more disadvantageous to the Crown and more costly to the Crown, and I would advise the men, speaking entirely on their behalf, to take this scheme; but they can please themselves. There are points in this scheme upon which I made representations to the Treasury, but they are outside my jurisdiction altogether. All I can say to the Treasury is, "Here are our suggestions, will you consider them?" These regulations are made, and whatever the result may be when the scheme is devised, the Treasury will submit it to the Registrar who will take the proper course to see the men are fully safeguarded, and the men will have the fullest opportunity of saying which course they will adopt. I should like to thank the Treasury for the sympathetic way in which they met any representations I made to them, and they have been many, in connection with this case. I thank them for the sympathetic way in which they met me and also for the sympathetic consideration they have given to the suggestions put forward in connection with the new scheme to take the place of the old scheme.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The hon. Member for Barrow complained that dockyard Members brought up these cases which are cases of infinite distress that many of the dockyard men have laboured under, and that many of the wives of these men have laboured under when their husbands lost their lives, under this scheme of contracting out. The hon. Member for Barrow laid down the law that they ought to take the compensation scheme. Surely the men ought to know what is best for them, and by an enormous majority they voted for the contracting out scheme. I think the hon. Member for Barrow was most unfair. He has no right
    976
    to say in this House that such cases as the Horne case or cases of lead poisoning or cases where men lost their lives in the dockyard are brought up by hon. Members because they want to catch votes. It is our business to bring up these cases. And why have we got to do it? Because under the scheme of the Treasury, the Treasury are judge, jury, and everything else, Nothing could be more apparent than that in the Horne case. The Horne case was brought to the County Court and the County Court gave it in favour of Mrs. Horne, but the Admiralty wanted to appeal and what was the result? That no workman will ever again go to the County Court.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under the scheme.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: He cannot go to the County Court to get that adjudication as to whether he is right or wrong in contracting out.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: And never could.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: These cases, as they have cropped up, have been brought up by Members of the dockyard constituencies. Therefore something is wrong, and I say you ought to have some other course. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Barrow to say that the men ought to do this. He is talking about what might, could, or should be. We are talking about what is. The men want to contract out, and if they do that they should be perfectly fairly treated, so that cases which my hon. Friends who are Members for dockyard constituencies bring up need never come before this House. If they did not come before this House these people never would get a shilling, and therefore it is wrong to complain that we have brought them before the House. The fact remains that there is something wrong, and I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman cannot see that these cases have happened under this law. They are brought before this House, and we get the cases remedied, which shows that these men are in the right and the Admiralty are in the wrong. Some other scheme ought to be brought forward, so that the men would have the right to appeal and not to be merely adjudicated upon by the Treasury as they are now. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look up these cases. He knows these things have happened and that they ought not to happen. He should devise some scheme to prevent them happening again. They

    977
    are not tinpot things; they are things that concern the poorest men working for the State, and in many cases they cause the greatest hardship. I agree these things ought not to have to come before this House, and we ought to have legislation to prevent them, because there are far more important things to be brought before the House, but as long as that scheme holds the field these questions will be brought before the House. I do not want to see them brought before the House, but I want a scheme under which the men can appeal, and which will ensure that unfair cases will not occur again.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC. —PERSONNEL.—(VOTE 8, SECTION 1.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,063,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It will be within the recollection of most Members of the House that barely a month ago the Secretary to the Admiralty made an interesting statement, in which he said it was the intention of the Admiralty to comply with the request made from this side of the House to give early answers to the annual petitions.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. What I said was as far as wages were concerned.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I must be allowed to have my own recollection of what the right hon. Gentleman said. If he can produce evidence to the effect that he mentioned wages and wages only I shall give way. My recollection is that he did nut do so. He may have had other matters in mind besides wages, but I remember no reference being made to them. Now is it not a fact that for a great number of years several items, other than wages, in these petitions have been marked "Not acceded to." On some of these items the men employed in the dockyards set great value, and when they get the answer, "Not acceded to," naturally they get vexed, and this often leads to unrest in the yards. I could give instances going over five
    978
    years where requests have been made, to my mind very proper requests, to the Admiralty, but no notice has been taken of them so far as the men are concerned. No doubt the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty consider them, but they do not explain their answers, "This and that is net acceded to," and there the matter ends. There ought to be some official board to whom the men could have direct access on each occasion.
    Some of the requisitions have received the consideration of the Department, but, what irritates the men is the secrecy of the whole thing, and whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may say, he cannot deny the whole thing is done in secret. When the men have their points conceded you hear no more about them, it is only the points that are not acceded to that you hear about again. The men in the dockyards do not like the system of the annual petitions, and that is the reason why there is unrest in the dockyards and why it is fostered. The right hon. Gentleman says the men appreciate the opportunities they have of coming to him and to the other Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to place before them their grievances, but I can assure him that he is very much mistaken; they would appreciate far more a board to whom they could go and get an answer within a reasonable time and in a businesslike manner. I will pass on to one or two points connected with the work of the dockyard. This afternoon I asked a question with regard to the naval storehousemen, very important employés in the yard, and I expected a much more sympathetic answer than I received. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman dismissed the inquiry rather harshly, and I was obliged to say that I would bring the matter up in the course of debate. No doubt he has looked up the matter in the meantime, and he will be in a position to give me an answer with regard to my question about the naval storehousemen.
    I want to know if he has yet answered their petition which was delivered to him last August. Are these men going to get any answer before next August? Their case is a very simple one. They have had no rise in wages for ten years. How do they enter the Service? At first they enter from the dockyard apprentice lists. I do not think there has ever been a Debate on this particular Navy Vote when the right hon. Gentleman has not told us, and quite rightly, of the great interest which he fakes in dockyard apprentices. A man in the

    979
    naval store should not be placed in a different position to a man who is a fitter or a shipwright, and I take it the right hon. Gentleman takes the same interest in the naval store boys as he does in the boys who become fitters and shipwrights, because they serve an apprenticeship equal to the fitter. What happens as they go on? On reaching the age of twenty the lad only gets 23s., the minimum wage of the ordinary dockyard labourer, whereas when the dockyard apprentice finishes his time he receives mechanic's pay, which is 38s. a week. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman as a case which he ought to bear in mind. There cannot be a large number of these men, and, after all, we look to the Admiralty for justice. These men have to pass an examination before they become naval store assistants. They have to wait their turn to get an appointment and they start at 23s. a week, with annual increments of 6d. until they reach 25s. While they are waiting to get 25s. a week they have to look after a certain number of skilled and unskilled labourers in their own store, and very often the wages of these labourers are in excess of the naval store assistant.
    Take the second grade naval storehouseman. His pay is 26s. a week, rising to 32s. by annual increments of is. It will not take long to understand that in about six years he reaches the top figure, and then what results? He must remain all his life, or at any rate until he becomes a first grade man, as a second grade man at 32s. a week. The first grade man does not get very much more. His wages are not very high. The duties of the first and second grade storehousemen are practically identical. They are very heavy, onerous, and very responsible. They have to look after stores of the value of from £50,000 to £100,000, representing from 12,000 to 15,000 items. Their work in recent years has become heavier and more responsible, and yet the highest pay of second grade storehousemen doing the same as first grade storehousemen is something like 32s. per week. If a storehouseman takes a holiday he has to pay for it. You may say, "So do the labourers." That is all very well, but it does not assist the storehouseman. The labourer when he takes a holiday is free to look after himself and nobody else, but the storehouseman is not. He does not leave his responsibility behind him. He carries it with him. Although you put another
    980
    man in his place, the man on holiday is responsible, and, if anything goes wrong, he is the one dismissed. The time has arrived when you should at any rate add to the number of first grade storehouse-men, and, if you cannot do that, you should adopt the alternative of doing away with the two grades. I think you ought to increase the pay and give the men proper holidays and pay them for them.
    The Inspectors of Trades sent in a petition last August, and I cannot find that any reply has reached them. Perhaps you are replying next August. These men appear to have had an increase as far back as 1904. Since then their work and responsibility have increased by leaps and bounds. They have to ensure the continuous supply of stores and see that the surplus stores are returned. Look how the work of speeding-up has increased during the last four years! A ship which is finished now in two years would have taken a very much longer time a few years ago. There is on that ground alone some reason for thinking that they should receive some concession. Pneumatic machinery has increased very much in recent years. Who looks after it but inspectors of trades? That necessitates more preparation on their part and involves much greater responsibility. The House probably knows that the monthly re-fits have now to be done in four instead of six weeks. One would suppose that being the case, these men were paid something extra for overtime, but no such thing. The inspectors of trades are allowed no extra emoluments whatsoever, although every workman in the yard gets some extra emoluments for being engaged in what is known as dangerous employment. The chargemen who are under the inspectors in some cases even draw more money than the inspectors themselves. I was told the other day that if a man is promoted from chargeman to inspector he runs the risk of losing 18s. per week. The Parliamentary Secretary will be able to correct me if that statement is wrong. If it is right, I think he cannot deny that the inspector's case deserves every consideration. Formerly, the inspector was a free man, but now he is a bondman. He is obliged to pay 4d. per week, and to come under the Insurance Act. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would tell us it is a great thing to come under the Act, that it means an improvement in the position of the men; but the inspectors do not think so. They do not

    981
    want to be under the insurance Act. They think that it does not assist their position or prestige by being brought under it. They want to be free men, and not bondmen. Other people may like to be bondmen, but they do not. An Inspector of Trades ought to be, and in the private yards is regarded in the light of an official. Why should these men be brought under the Insurance Act at all? They would not be if you paid them properly. I submit that they should have a considerable increase in their stipend, and be placed in a more important position than they occupy now. It would, I think, be very much in the cause of efficiency in the Royal dockyard.
    I pass on to the case of Pensioner Writers, Second Class. They ought, I think, to be on the establishment. Every dockyard clerk is placed on the establishment, except the Pensioner Writers, Second Class. Dockyard Clerks, Third Grade, receive annual increments. Pensioner Clerks, Second Grade, still remain on the old scale of biennial increments, and are the only class, among the whole clerical staffs, not receiving annual increments. Their work has been vastly increased by the Insurance Act, and yet their pay has not been increased since 1879. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot see his way to place these men on the establishment, and to grant them the same increases granted to other dockyard clerks. I feel sure it would be appreciated by them, and would add very much to the efficiency of the Service. The chargemen of trades have also sent in a petition, and they are waiting the pleasure of the Parliamentary Secretary when it may please him to go down himself or to send by post the answer to their petition. They ask that an increase of 6d. a day should be granted to all chargemen and that they be confirmed in their rank after three years' service, that they be granted leave with pay in proportion to the time served from appointment as chargemen. Lastly, they ask that chargemen shall be allowed to participate in the maximum rates of their respective trades. I do not think it can be said that these demands are excessive, and I am sure, after the sympathy he has shown with the shipwrights' chargemen, the right hon. Gentleman will not consider that we are asking too much in requesting that all chargemen shall be paid 1s. 6d. per day charge pay, and after five years 2s. per day charge pay, and that they also be granted sick leave with pay.
    982
    I pass now to the engineering trades. I am sorry the hon. Members for Barrow and Blackfriars are not in their places. Surely two such stalwart supporters of the engineering trades might have been expected to have been here. Only a little while ago the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan), accompanied by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), went down into the West Country, and addressed a very large audience in a very excitable manner, telling them that they cared nothing about the Government, that they had nothing to do with it, and that they were all for the dockyard men. In fact the hon. Member for Barrow almost burst himself with his interest in dockyard men and with his antagonism to the Government. He asked, what were the forty Labour Members in this House for if they were not going to do something for the dockyard men, who were the very breath of their nostrils? They did not care about the Liberal Government! That was the attitude which the hon. Member for Barrow assumed in the West, but to-day butter will not melt in his mouth. His tone is of quite a different character. He asked just now what did these terrible dockyard men want anything extra for, and why should they have the privileges they were demanding? Who were they, he inquired, that they should demand privileges from the Admiralty. Thus the hon. Member played into the hands of the Government in the same way as when he was in the West he played into the hands of the dockyard men. It is to be regretted he is not present to-night, and that we shall hear nothing presumably from the Labour Benches about the engineering trades, because there is nobody on those benches qualified to speak on the subject. The minimum wage in the engineering trade was 36s. The other day the Admiralty brought it up to 38s., and I would like to point out that this did not constitute any great advantage, as the majority of the men employed in the engineering trades already were receiving 38s. Moreover, the effect of raising the minimum will be that new men and men coming out of their time are placed on the same footing as men who have served for twelve to twenty years. It would have been far better if the new scheme had provided, as in the case of the shipwrights, that every man in the engineering trade should get a rise. I should like to see the principle of annual

    983
    increments introduced with regard to these trades, for then the men would get a steady rise at fixed periods, according to service. I throw that out as a suggestion for the Secretary to the Admiralty to consider.
    The next question is that of the labourers. Here, again, the Admiralty have given a concession in regard to wages. They gave one shilling to the unskilled labourers, bringing them up to 23s., and, under certain conditions, they gave a rise to the skilled labourers. But that is hardly sufficient; it does not meet the case. It seems to me that the minimum wage for the ordinary unskilled labourer should not be less than 24s., and that 26s. should be the minimum for skilled labour. There are a variety of opinions as to the cost of living. Some say it has gone up 10 per cent.; others claim it is 15 per cent higher, and still others hold that the increase represents 20 per cent. At any rate it has gone up very considerably, and it will be conceded by most hon. Members that 24s. is not an excessive wage upon which to bring up a family. I remember the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman in last year's Debate—and quoted with very much sympathy, for he said it was practically impossible to expect a man to live on 22s. a week, as that only allowed him a margin of 1s. 3½d. for boots, medical attendance, clothing, and incidental expenses. If you add the cost of insurance it will be found that even a wage of 23s. a week is very inadequate, and the Admiralty might, without any undue demand on the Treasury, give the ordinary labourer 24s. weekly.
    It is claimed on behalf of the Admiralty that dockyard men have certain advantages which do not accrue to men working in private yards. I do not deny that. But one feels bound to point out that skilled labourers in the Royal dockyards are getting a less amount, in their view, notwithstanding all these advantages, than outside labourers doing similar work. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to sax if that is so. I wish to say a word about the limited classification in the yards. Drillers, riveters, machine men, and iron caulkers are classed as one trade, whereas outside they are classed as different trades. A change in that direction might be wise, and the men ought to go up to their maximum rates of pay by annual increments of one shilling per week. The Members for dockyard constituencies received a deputation of these men recently, and it was pointed
    984
    out that there was a great disparity between prices paid for piecework in the dockyards and in private yards, the result being that the pieceworkers in the dockyards get 1s. 1d. per week less than men doing the same work outside on day-work rates. It was suggested by that deputation that a Departmental inquiry should be held into the whole system of piecework in the Royal dockyards, with a view to the constitution of a board consisting equally of officials and of representatives of the workmen. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary if he can see his way to consider the question of appointing this board. It would meet with great approbation from the skilled labourers, which, on behalf of the Admiralty, he is only too anxious to secure.
    9.0 P.M.
    There is another point about the labourers which is of a personal character. Upon two occasions the Financial Secretary has twitted me with the fact that I have not answered a letter he wrote to me about the payments in the borough I represent to men working under the local authority. He has often said, perhaps, truly, that I did not answer the last letter. He told me that the wages given to the ordinary labourers in the yards were always based upon the wages paid in the neighbourhood. I have taken the trouble to ascertain from the town clerk of the borough of Devonport, the wages paid to the ordinary labourers. They are these: In the scavenging department, the able-bodied ordinary labourers receive from 22s. to 24s. a week—the last named sum being 1s. above the payment made to the ordinary labourer in the dockyard by the Admiralty, and being the minimum I suggest the Admiralty should adopt. In the surveyor's department the able-bodied ordinary labourers get 24s. a week, which is the minimum I think the Admiralty should adopt. We must remember that in both these cases the holidays are six days in the year, and that there is full pay for Saturday work, although the men leave at twelve o'clock. I have almost exhausted the different trades in the dockyards, and I now conic to two points upon which I have addressed the Committee on former occasions, and in regard to which there seems to be no improvement. The Financial Secretary will remember that he has often heard from this side of the House a request that the hired men should receive some kind of pension. It was suggested that the Government should provide these men with an actuary, and pay

    985
    for his services in order that the men might lay before the Admiralty a scheme through which the actuary might go with the idea of ascertaining whether or not it was actuarialy sound. I do not know whether any advance has been made in that direction. No doubt the Financial Secretary will be in a position to tell us whether or not anything has happened since we last discussed the question, whether there has been any advance by the men, whether they have come forward with any fresh suggestions, and whether he has found himself in a position to offer the actuary's services. I pass to my final point, one perhaps he has not considered, seeing that the greater part of it is altogether new—that is the question of establishment. I am going to lead up to a suggestion which I trust the Financial Secretary will carefully consider, because I have worked the matter out with a great deal of care and thought, and the figures I shall produce may be relied upon. The Estimates for this year give the number of men on the establishment at 6,447, the top figure being 6,500. The total number of men employed in the yards is 38,000. The percentage has fallen to 17 per cent., or 2 per cent. lower than last year. Thus we find, in seven years of Liberal administration of the party of progress, a reduction in the establishment of 500 men. The proportion has gradually gone down from 23 per cent. to 17 per cent.—in other words, while the number employed has gone up by 13,000, in order to meet the requirements of a larger shipbuilding programme, the proportion of pensioners has dropped by 11 per cent. Both in the First Lord's speech and in the speech, of the Financial Secretary we heard a great deal about the value of the additions to the men's wages. I am not going to find fault with the rises in pay—that is another story—I want to emphasise the fact that both the First Lord and the Financial Secretary have never failed to point out what they, as representing His Majesty's Government, have done for the men in the Royal yards. I should like to know exactly what has been saved in pensions by cutting down the establishment in the yards during the last five or six years. I think it must be something considerable. Under the old system for a man to get a 'pension he must have been placed on the establishment list not after forty-five years of age. Under the new system the limit
    986
    has been extended to fifty years of age. Let us see what that means. As the number of established men on the register is lower, obviously a number of younger men have been kept back in order to establish the older men. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will deny that, but I think it follows consequentially.
    That there is method in this arrangement I do not deny, because a man at forty-nine will take a smaller pension than a man of forty-five. It is generally admitted that under the old system the pension worked out at something like 7d. a week; therefore if a man instead of being established at forty-five does not get on the establishment until he is forty-nine, he loses 2s. 4d. a week in pension, which 2s. 4d. the Government gain. I believe I am right in saying that not more than 10 per cent. of the men upon the establishment live to obtain their pensions, while 10 per cent. of those men who do obtain them do not live on an average longer than five years to enjoy them. Men who are receiving under 26s. a week pay 1s. a week. If they receive from 26s. to 36s. they pay 1s. 6d., and over 38s. they pay 2s. That is a considerable sum, and I would like the Financial Secretary to bear that in mind when he comes to reply. If he can possibly obtain the figures I should like him to tell me What the combined sum amounts to per year.
    I will now pass on to the question of the bonus. No doubt several Members of the House imagine that a pension bonus is something like an insurance bonus and that the man is really getting something for nothing. It is nothing of the kind in the case of the establishment. The man is only getting back his own money which he has paid for years, and, if he lives long enough, the bonus is a very important matter to him, because if he lives longer than the average he loses considerably by accepting it. The bonus is available, in the first place, for the widow of a man dying on the establishment, but, after all, it may be to a great extent money coming out of his own savings, because the bonus is also a payment made when the man reaches the age of sixty. He can take it or he can leave it, but if he takes it, and if he lives for snore years than the average, he suffers in his weekly pension, which, after a certain number of years, is diminished to make up for the bonus. I should like to see a balance sheet, and probably there will be no objection to it being produced. Let us have a balance

    987
    sheet published, showing exactly what the Government contribute to the pension scheme and what the men contribute, and how much the Government gain by the ordinary rule of chances. An insurance office would be very glad to work the matter out. At any rate, they will be very glad to take the establishment upon the same terms as the Government, and, without in any way desiring to accuse the Government of making money out of the transaction, I have a very shrewd suspicion that in a number of cases what the Government lose on the swings they gain on the roundabouts. If the Government were really the party of progress they represent themselves to be and really wanted to help the men to provide for old age, they certainly would not cut down the establishment. I understand, and I think everyone in the House understands, the object of the establishment is to have ready in the Royal yards a sufficient number of skilled workmen, with all the technicalities of shipbuilding, on whose services the Government may depend in time of war. The question is: Have we got that number? I say we have not, and I think the Secretary to the Admiralty would himself admit that we have not. If you have not, you owe it to the country to get it, and the only way to get it is by increasing the establishment to a proper figure. We are building more ships and adding to the personnel of the Navy. On the other hand we are cutting down our dockyard reserve. That is a very shortsighted policy. The greater the number of ships and the greater the number of men, the greater the number of men on the establishment should be. For many years it was the custom to establish the shipwright apprentices within two years. That has fallen through. Then, we also know that very shortly a certain number of naval shipwrights are coming back to the yard and will be established. I think the Secretary to the Admiralty said this is going to be in addition to the men already on the establishment, but on looking through the Votes, I find no provision made for this extra supply of men on the establishment, and I should like very much to be shown exactly where this is. We ought, of course, to offer our congratulations to the Secretary to the Admiralty for what he has done in regard to the extra pay for the men in the yard, but that will not be complete until he places the establishment on a much more sound footing
    988
    than it is at present. I throw this suggestion out for what it is worth. Why not give pensions to a much larger number of men than at present? Why not give pensions to all men employed in the dockyard and put them on the establishment? Of course casual labourers would not be put on the establishment.
    An HON. MEMBER: Why not?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You must have a certain probation. A man who comes on for two months and goes off for two months cannot be put on the establishment. Then, of course, there must be provision for offences and malingering. All that must be provided against. But if that is done, I see no reason whatsoever why 80 per cent. of the men in the Royal yards should not be placed on the establishment, and have pensions. It is an easy thing to do. Then, when the Government cut down the establishment and altered the age to fifty, why did they not put on these men then on the establishment as extra men, and not count in the number for establishment as you do now, and just as you propose to do with regard to the naval shipwrights who are going back to the yard? If you had done that you would have had probably a considerable number of more men on the establishment than you have now. I should like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to give some consideration to the points I have put before him, and more especially to this point of the establishment, and see if he cannot get out a scheme and do something to enable the great majority of men in the Royal dockyards to be placed in the position that when they leave the yard on account of age they may carry away with them a pension to keep them comfortable for the rest of their lives.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I am pleased to have been in the House to hear the speech of the hon. Member, if it was only to make my position probably a little more clear to him on the very questions he has raised. I understand that he has found some little fault with me for my attitude with regard to the position of the men under the compensation scheme in existence in the dockyard towns to-day. I do not believe in the compensation scheme that is in existence. I am opposed to it entirely. I believe the men should come under the Compensation Act, and I am in exactly the same position with regard to the establishment. I have been to Plymouth

    989
    and to Portsmouth, and I have told the men exactly my position on the matter, and I have no fear of facing the men in any of the dockyard towns and making my position perfectly clear to them on these points. With regard to the establishment, there is not a horse in the country that is not established. My position with regard to establishment in this: I do not believe in it. In the first place, the men who are established have their wages reduced in some cases 1s. 6d. to 2s. a week. They are, to a certain extent paying 1s. 6d. to 2s. for what are called privileges. If, on the one hand, the men are going to seek privileges, they cannot naturally expect to have the proper rate of wages which is paid by the outside contractor. My position is perfectly clear and plain. I say that the men in the dockyards should have exactly the same rate of wages as is paid by outside contractors when the men are following the same avocations. How would that work? There are skilled men in the dockyards getting 36s. a week. Some of them, I understand, have been advanced to a small and, I would say, trifling extent. Side by side with these are men who are paid by private contractors 40s. a week. I contend that the men in the dockyards are as much entitled to 40s. as the others. They will get 40s. when they are prepared to throw over the petty privileges they are supposed to get at present. Under the system in existence at present it might be difficult to persuade the men in the dockyards that my view is right. Many of them think that if they are on the establishment they are better off, I disagree with them. I think it is not the business of this or any other Government to give any privileges to the men in their employment. The House of Commons has passed a Fair-Wages Resolution, and we expect outside employers to pay a certain rate of wages. The rate of wages in the dockyard towns is 40s., and yet the Government themselves, having passed the Fair-Wages Resolution, do not pay the same rate as the private contractors, I am quite familiar with the position. We have all these twopence-halfpenny privileges which have been brought into operation in connection with the dockyard system of the country. They have been in existence for a good many years. I am not conversant with the ideas or the motives of the people who introduced them. I rather think that the idea in introducing them was to cause conflict and to keep
    990
    the men in the dockyards divided from their fellows up and down the country who are employed by private contractors. I say that is bad business, and the result of it, of course, is that every time the Navy Estimates are before the House, we see Member after Member for the dockyard towns jumping up and putting certain hard cases with regard to compensation or the establishment. The hon. Member for Plymouth wishes to see all the men employed in the dockyards on the establishment.
    Let us bear this in mind. During the Boer war a very large number of men were taken on, and after the war was over between 5,000 and 6,000 were cleared off. It is obvious that the country ought to have the first call upon all highly skilled men to devote their attention and service to Government work and to help them in their difficulty. The Government will get these men at any time if they are prepared to pay the price, and if they are not prepared to do so they must take what they can get. I venture to say, from my own knowledge and experience, that the highest skilled men are employed by the private contractors. The Government does not get them because they do not pay the right rate of wages. It seems to me that it would be of very great advantage to any Government—it does not matter to me whether Liberal or Tory—if they could, by introducing a better and more up-to-date system into the management of the Departments, avoid all these petty appeals that are perpetually being made, and all the writing and negotiating which takes place with the heads of the various Departments in these matters. Speeches are constantly being made in this House with the view of increasing the establishment. What does it all amount to? If there is anything in the question of establishment, it is that you are giving certain privileges to your workers over and above what other men receive in the dockyard towns. I do not want to say anything about any of the officials in the yards. They may be all angels for anything I know, but I say that under the present system, which is in the, hands of certain individuals in the dockyards, they have the chance to give preferences and to show favouritism. They ought not to have that in their power. If the Government were to pay the proper rate of wages, it seems to me that all this kind of thing would go by the board. The men would know exactly where they were

    991
    in regard to wages, because if all the privileges were done away with they would be in a strong position. They could go to the various Government Departments and claim to be paid on the same terms and conditions as the men in private employment, and I do not see how the departments could resist the claim. Take the question of overtime rates in the dockyards. I believe the rate is time and one-sixth. Compare that with the rate paid by outside contractors. The men in the dockyards lose as compared with the men employed by private contractors. With private firms the terms are almost universal: For the first two hours time and quarter, and for all time after that, time and half.
    I am a skilled mechanic myself. I have worked in a shop as a journeyman, and have been for twenty-five years in the trade union. I wish the men in the dockyard towns to know the position taken up by my colleagues and myself with regard to this question. We claim that the Government would be doing their right duty if they were to pay the proper rates in the dockyard towns which are paid by private contractors. It may be a difficult thing to bring that about, but I am as sure as I am standing here that this condition will be brought into existence in the dockyard towns, and that all the efforts put forward against the business system will be futile in the long run. I am pleased to learn tonight for the first time that the number of men on the establishment is decreasing. I hope the Government will persist in that attitude. It is about the wisest and most sensible thing I have known them do for a very long time. There is no question that the Government are in the same market for labour as private contractors. They are manufacturing war vessels in the same way as private contractors, and if they are in the same market, they ought to pay the same wages and give the same conditions, or rather better conditions, if anything, if they expect to get the pick of the men who are engaged in the same avocation in the dockyard towns. I am against these privileges root and branch. I hope that the Government will see their way to place their men under exactly the same conditions as those of the private contractor, and, if so, this House will speedily find an end to all these complaints which we have when the Naval Estimates are before us and the House will be able to get on with its business and, instead of discussing these little twopenny-
    992
    halfpenny tinpot privileges that are granted to workmen, discuss questions that ought to be discussed. This Debate to-night is sheer waste of time. There are many important questions in connection with the Navy that ought to be discussed. There may be Members here waiting, who are anxious to discuss these questions, but cannot do so just because we have an annual review of the various little privileges that are granted to men in dockyard towns, and this will be so, so long as we have all these debates centring round these petty, insignificant matters that are of very little interest to any of the Members of the House of Commons, and can only be of interest to the representatives of dockyard towns, and cannot be very pleasant even to them.
    In their own interest and to save themselves, I might almost say, the degradation of constantly appealing to Government Departments in this House to correct some trifling little incidents that may be very interesting to the men in the dockyard towns but are of no concern to people outside, you must get the men in the dockyard towns on the same rates and under the same conditions as the men in the private employer's yard, and then we shall be rid of all these petty discussions. We were asked to-night by the Member for Devonport why should not all the men in dockyard towns have pensions. Here, again, it was the question of privileges. One would almost think that we are creating a new House of Lords. In these days one naturally associates privileges with people belonging to the aristocracy and Members of the House of Lords. I say that it is the last thing that workmen ought to ask for and the last thing that a Liberal Government ought to persist in carrying out, and I hope that, instead of having pensions for all, they will put the dockyard men on the same conditions as the rest of the working people of this country. What right have Members of this House to come here and appeal for differential treatment for men simply because they are employed in a Government dockyard? It is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to every other workman in the country. After all, the workmen in the other parts of the country who are employed by private contractors, have got to pay for these privileges that are being received by the dockyard town men. The principle is wrong. Not only that, but it does not give what the Government has a right to

    993
    look for, the best type, the most independent kind of men, and the most skilled men who ought to be in the Government dockyards. I have made my protest and am not going to apologise for it, and I am prepared to go to any dockyard town in this country and express those opinions to the constituents of any dockyard Member of this House.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I am not going to take up the time of the Committee in discussing the Naval Estimates, as I am one of those who would rather see them increased than decreased. However, there are two points I should like to urge upon the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. On the first, I agree with the hon. Member for Barrow who has just spoken, and, on the second, I entirely disagree with him. On the question of wages, while I realise that the Admiralty have increased certain wages, I do not believe that the wages paid by the Government have been raised sufficiently to meet the increase in the cost of living, and the Government of a country ought not to purchase the labour of its citizens without paying a just wage for it. It would be well for the Government to realise that the better the pay, generally speaking, the better the work, and that you must have men satisfied if you expect to get the best work out of them. I do urge the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty that it is better for this country to pay good wages than poor wages if we are going to have good work done. The point on which I do not agree with the hon. Member for Barrow is as to the question of pensions. If the Government has taken the best year's of a man's life it ought to make provision for his latter years. It is not the duty of those workmen to create a pension scheme, but the Government ought to form a pension scheme and ought to see that if men are working for them they are paid a decent wage, and that when they reach the age at which they cannot work the Government should pay them sufficient to live on for the remainder of their lives. I hope that the matter will be fully considered by the Lords of the Admiralty, and that next year we shall see better wages paid in the dockyards?
    Mr. WHELER: I desire to add a few words to the appeal with reference to the inspectors of trades, with whom the hon. Member for Devonport dealt slightly. I think that the last time when the dockyard rise was given in 1904 it was given with
    994
    a view to considering cases of normal overtime, but not with any idea of the excessive pressure put on those men at the present time. We have a great deal of overtime now which was never considered likely to be put on them a few years ago. I believe that they get no extra money at all for that. There are many cases in which, comparing these men with the men over whom they have to work, it will be found that year by year the men beneath them are receiving a higher wage than the men who are inspecting them. That must be wrong for several reasons. When you have a man who is at the head of a Department people ought to realise that the value of his services should command a higher salary than the services of those beneath him. There are undoubtedly cases where you find that the inspector of trades is not receiving the same rate of pay as some of those who are under him. Take, for instance, the case of a chargeman of storehouses. He gets something like £2 5s. a week and overtime is paid. Compare that with the inspector of trades overseeing that man on the minimum rate. His average is not more than £2 3s. 3d. That is a very strong reason why the Financial Secretary should reconsider the case of these men. A good many of these men have to pass a competitive examination which the men beneath them in many cases have not to do. Surely, in the case of such men, who have to pass a competitive examination, and who have to do certain work to qualify themselves to hold their position, that matter should be considered by the Admiralty?
    We all realise that the Government have been giving increased wages in many departments of the dockyards. Those for whom I am pleading are a small class of men, so that some increase for them would not be a serious financial burden to the Admiralty. I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-day whether men working in His Majesty's dockyards at salaries over £160 a year are compelled to insure under the provisions of the Insurance Act. I believe that these inspectors of trades have salaries in some cases of over £160 a year, yet we find that they are compelled to insure under the National Insurance Act, and I would like some explanation of the answer which I have received from the Secretary to the Treasury, which says that "persons employed otherwise than by way of manual

    995
    labour"—and inspectors of trades are not employed in that way—"are not required to be insured in respect of employment remunerated at a rate exceeding £160 a year." I presume that inspectors of trades do not come under the heading of those employed in manual labour, yet we find that they are compelled to be insured under the National Insurance Act. I hope the answer which I received to my question will be taken into account. There is only one other point which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration, and that is with reference to the painters of the dockyards. A day the men of the graving dockyards. A day or two ago, in reply to a question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty said he could hold out no hope of any modification in the scale of the pay of these men. They have received no rise since 1905, while, as everybody knows, the cost of living has gone up, which the right hon. Gentleman cannot fail to recognise, hits these men as hard as any other class of workers. These men have also to go through a medical examination every week, which must be rather a tie on them. Then, again, in order to carry out the work of painting the ships some of the men have to diet themselves very carefully, owing to the curious effect which the paints they use have upon them. These are points on which I hope the painters will receive some further consideration at the hands of the Admiralty.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: I desire to raise a question with regard to His Majesty's ships on the Australian station, and in reference to the position of the twenty-nine officers in Sydney dockyard.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This Vote relates only to the personnel of the dockyards. I understand the hon. Gentleman raises a question about the ships on the Australian station.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: My point has reference to the insufficiency of the staff at Sydney dockyard. In Section I of Vote 8, there is provision for the officers of the Sydney dockyard, and I suggest that the staff is insufficient.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was a question of ships. I must have misunderstood him.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: With a view to keeping in order, I make the suggestion
    996
    that the staff at Sydney dockyard is certainly insufficient to keep His Majesty's ships on that station in an efficient condition. I raised the matter of His. Majesty's ships on the 31st October last, and again on the 22nd January. The condition of His Majesty's ships on that station was practically admitted by the Admiralty to be very bad indeed. I endeavoured by means of questions still further to clear up the matter of the condition of the ships there, and I was informed by the First Lord of the Admiralty that the question should be raised on the Naval Estimates, and he refused to answer it. This is the only opportunity in the whole year when it is possible to raise this matter. The First Lord of the, Admiralty is not here, a circumstance which I deeply regret, as I had something of interest to say to him. As he is away, I can only raise the question as too whether the staff at Sydney Dockyard is really sufficient for the work they have to do. It has been proved that two of His. Majesty's ships, the "Torch" and the "Prometheus," were in a bad condition, and, since their case was raised, another ship has gone into the dockyard, the "Psyche." I have here a report from one of the papers in Australia which shows that this ship also was practically in the same condition as the "Torch" and the "Prometheus;" that is to say, first of all, a small leak was found; she was taken into the dockyard, and, when all the bottom plates were examined, it was found that the whole of the bottom of the ship was in an absolutely rotten condition. I suggest that the staff at Sydney Dockyard must be insufficient, because they were apparently unable to discover that these ships were in that condition before they were sent to sea. It is really a very serious matter indeed. In the case of the "Torch" she was sent to sea for several months in this condition, and if she had encountered heavy weather, which fortunately she did not, she might never have been heard of again. As it was, her propeller dropped off, and she was in such a condition that, if she had belonged to private owners, under the Merchant Shipping Act they would have been liable to heavy fines, and I believe even to criminal prosecution. If that is the case with private owners, surely in the case of' the Admiralty, precautions ought to be taken to see that these ships are in a thoroughly efficient and seaworthy condition. I am quite certain that if the nation realised that so many of His

    997
    Majesty's ships had recently been sent to sea in this condition they would insist on the employment of an adequate staff.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must confine himself to the dockyard, and not to the condition of the ships at sea.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: I was only alluding to the ships as showing that they could not have been properly examined before they went to sea. The condition of the ships proves that fact, and the Admiralty, in the case of the "Torch," at any rate, severely censured some of the dockyard officials. I suggest that there is room for still further inquiry, because since the case of the "Torch," we have the case of another vessel of His Majesty's Fleet being taken into the Sydney dockyard in a deplorable condition. I do not know what the whole establishment of the Sydney dockyard is, but, if the number is twenty officers, it does not appear to be sufficient to carry out a proper examination of His Majesty's ships on the Australian station. We should have some explanation why these officers at Sydney dockyard are unable to examine these ships properly, in order to ascertain whether they are in a proper and seaworthy condition.
    Mr. HOHLER: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. C. Duncan) scarcely realised the absurdity of his mission when he said that compensation to injured men was "tinpot," that compensation to a widow was "tinpot."
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: The hon. and learned Member, I am sure, does not wish to misrepresent what I said. What I did say was that these various privileges held out by the Government dockyards to the men are "tinpot." I did not say that the benefits of the Compensation Act were "tinpot," because it is these benefits I want the men to get.
    Mr. HOHLER: I quite accent the hon. Member's statement. I was referring to the reply made by the hon. Member. I would ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that he speaks about the privileges of the House of Lords. I wonder if there is any community in this country which has got such privileges as the House of Commons, which voted its Members a comfortable £400 per year! Does the hon. Member for Barrow propose to give it up? Do not talk about the privileges of the
    998
    House of Lords. What about that? Let us see about the tinpot argument. What is the existence of the Labour party for but to raise questions of wages? That is your salvation, and you know it.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will please address the Chair.
    Mr. HOHLER: I quite agree. Let me remind the hon. Member of what the Labour party did in, I think, my first Parliament of 1910. They raised this very question as to wages paid in the dockyard, and would not vote upon it because the Government would be defeated, and they talk about tinpot! I never heard such nonsense. What does the hon. Member know about the dockyards and the conditions of labour, or anything as to what the men are paid? He talks about going down to a dockyard constituency, and also the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). Let him remember that Alderman Jenkins, who was a Member of the Labour party and my predecessor at Chatham, did talk about the conditions and the wages paid, but it is all tinpot when it does not suit their purpose. So long as I am a dockyard Member, I am entitled to advocate the rights of the men notwithstanding what the Labour party may say or think. They are quick enough to vote one way or the other when it suits them. Alderman Jenkins was, I think, the only Member of the Labour party who voted in favour of a larger Navy. I would like to know what are the interesting subjects the hon. Member for Barrow would talk about or anybody else on the benches opposite. Let him restrain himself until he can get a minimum wage or anything else. A speech such as that which he made does not assist this discussion at all. I understand that the hon. Member for Devonport raised the question of establishment. Probably the hon. Member for Barrow has never concerned himself or inquired at what period of age those men who are employed in His Majesty's dockyards are bound to retire. He is not concerned. He hopes, I suppose, to have his confortable £400 per year pension until he attains the age of seventy. The dockyard men have to go at sixty, and it is exceedingly difficult at that, age to get other employment. Does he know that the men pay for this privilege and will be glad to pay for it. If it be a privilege, why does he not fight for it in the other

    999
    trades, and other branches of life outside, instead of decrying anything these men may have got. But, indeed, he does not consider them. What he really considers is, I suppose, that it is the privilege of the Labour party, headed on this occasion by the hon. Member for Barrow, to decry anything anybody else may say.
    The points I desire to draw attention to are in regard to the conditions that exist in the yards. I express at once my pleasure that there have been advances, though I protest, as I have ever protested, against the method of procedure by petition. It seems to me it is quite wrong, and at least it ought not to be final. My view, which I expressed in 1911, is that the real remedy for the question of wages in the yard that the men should have the right at least, if their petition is rejected, to go to a fair-wages board, in order that these matters may be settled on the same terms as they are settled for other bodies. That is the very thing for which the Labour party asked in 1910, and for which they had not the courage to vote as it did not suit their purpose. I understand the Secretary to the Admiralty has indicated that he is not wholly satisfied with the method of procedure by petition, and I hope there will be an alteration and change in this respect. I cannot help thinking, in regard to the present concession, that the hands of the Government have been moved by the fact that there was a general feeling of unrest. No doubt, independently of that, they were alive to the fact that there had been a great increase in the cost of living, and all those considerations weighed with them. I would ask in future they should secure continuity of employment and provide a scheme, so that when the requests of the workmen are not acceded to they should have the right to go to a fair-wages or conciliation board. The question would then be finally determined, and if the request was not acceded to by the board, it will be open to the men to go elsewhere if they wish. In examining the concessions that have been made, I realise fully that there are certain privileges in the yards. We know what those privileges have been valued at, but I cannot help thinking that the concessions made are the minimum in the opinion of the Admiralty. It would have been far more satisfactory if the whole question had been laid before the Board. With reference to shipwrights,
    1000
    the boiler makers, fitters, electricians, and steam engine makers, I have had explained to me the wages paid in other yards and places, and I am quite satisfied if this question had gone to a conciliation board that more than has been conceded by the Admiralty would have been given, and I am quite satisfied they could not have granted less than that.
    I, therefore, say it is greatly to the interests of those men that these questions should be removed and placed before a tribunal which really understands these things, and which would act independently. Nobody can doubt that in regard to this matter the Secretary to the Admiralty has been greatly controlled and confined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the concessions were announced, he told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gladly acceded to them. All I can say is if I found, or hoped to find, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that happy mood, I should have certainly, properly, and reasonably asked for more. I suppose we cannot really hope for any actual increase of wages upon the present Estimates, but I do ask that the unsettled question of overtime shall be dealt with at least on this basis. I ask that for the first hour and a half the men should be paid for overtime at least one and a quarter, and for overtime beyond that at the rate of time and a half. As a matter of fact, in the dockyards at the present time for the first one and a half hours men are paid for the bare time, and for subsequent hours only time and a third. The hon. Member for Barrow has said quite truly that that condition exists nowhere else, though I think he stated the case somewhat highly as to the time universally paid. That the question of overtime has been a great cause of unrest among the men is beyond doubt. They have not only been working overtime, but at the same time their actual rates of wages are lower than the outside rates to a considerable degree, and we must realise that the new system of the Admiralty, under which ships have to be repaired within a limited time, involves a very considerable employment of these men on overtime. Therefore, I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will insist upon the rates which I have suggested.
    10.0 P.M.
    I do not think that the hon. Member for Barrow appreciates that in addition to the trades with which he is so familiar—shipwrights, boilermakers, fitters, electricians, and so on—there are many other employments in the dockyard. I wish

    1001
    particularly to call attention to the position at Chatham as regards a class of men who are rated as skilled labourers, but who wish to be classified as wiremen. They do all the work that is done in other yards by electricians. They are trained as electricians as boys, but they are only rated as skilled labourers and paid as such. I submit that these men ought to be treated according to the knowledge that they acquire. They ought to be classed as wiremen, and receive wages approximately equivalent to those that other men in that trade receive. They wish to start at 30s. a week, which I think is entirely reasonable. You get these men, so to speak, cheaply, and directly they can get away to other employment, away they go. That is not desirable, nor is it in the interest of the Government. On the contrary, it would be greatly to the interest of the Government to keep these men continuously employed, and to pay them a fair rate of wage. I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to endeavour to accede to their request. The case of the storehousemen, to which I wish next to call attention, is extraordinarily strong. They are trained as boys, they have to pass a severe examination, and yet when they are appointed as assistant storehousemen all they get is 23s. a week. To pay storehousemen, who have to maintain themselves in a position superior to that of a labourer, only labourer's wages Seems to me an absurdity. These assistant storehousemen cannot enter an examination for the second grade for two years. Meanwhile they get an annual increase of 6d. Even when they pass that examination it is quite uncertain when they will be appointed, and when appointed as storehousemen, second grade, it only means 25s. or 26s. a week. I have in mind the case of a young fellow who two years ago passed fourth at Chatham and fifteenth of all the yards, but has not yet received an appointment, and is still getting, I suppose, only 23s. 6d. or 24s. 6d. I suggest that men who haze these great responsibilities in regard to stores ought to be paid at a higher rate.
    Another class are mechanics employed under storehousemen as writers. They get nothing extra for that. They have a wholly sedentary life, but get no sick leave or pay. It is very difficult to compare their case with the position in outside employment, for the very good reason that to a large extent this employment is
    1002
    peculiar to the dockyard. I ask that their case may be considered and something done for them. We employ at the Royal Naval Barracks civilian pension stokers at 21s. a week. Stokers' services are paid for at the Royal Naval Hospital at 28s. That is the case at Shotley, and I believe that stokers are universally paid at that rate. Why then are stokers at the Royal Naval Barracks paid only 21s.? Is it because they happen to be pensioners? That ought to have nothing to do with it. I ask that their case also may be considered. Grants and increases are from time to time made, but not too generously. Take the case of chargemen of trades. Why are some paid 1s. 6d. and some 1s.? They ought all to be on the same level. I have made inquiry, but cannot find that there is any difference in their responsibilities or obligations. I ask the Admiralty to wipe out the inequality which exists, and to extend the 1s. 6d. to all these men. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Wheler) referred to the inspectors and foremen of trades. Their obligations are exceedingly great. The inspectors have had new duties cast upon them as to the requisition of stores, and they have had great difficulties to contend with because of extra duty owing to robberies in the yards. I submit that in connection with the general increases which have been made the inspectors have a strong case for consideration. You must pay the head men far better than you pay those who are under them. That, I think, is an absolute axiom. I am quite satisfied that if the position of inspectors is not considered it will be found that the second-class inspectors are insufficiently paid, and in fact do not earn so much as the chargemen of trades, taking into consideration the overtime and the extra pay which the others receive. In my judgment it might be well indeed if these men had the right of appeal to a Fair-Wages Board. However interested the Secretary to the Admiralty may be in going down and hearing these petitions, I cannot help thinking that somebody who is constantly familiar with the subject and who could deal at the moment with it, when facts are fresh in his mind, would be an infinitely better tribunal than any ultimate appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    There is a case to which I have drawn attention and one which doubtless the hon. Member for Barrow would call a "tinpot" case, that of a gardener at the Royal Naval Hospital, who is getting 23s. or 24s. a week

    1003
    and no house—just as a labourer would—and he has got eight or nine men under him. This is a case that ought to be seen to. For myself I endeavour to look at cases from a broad standpoint and not from the atmosphere of Barrow. I endeavour to look at the individuality of the man, and would endeavour to see that a man gets his rights. I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to deal with this case, and to deal with it generously. I am quite sure that if he wanted a gardener he would not get one at 23s. a week who would be worth very much. Difficult as it may be to try and understand all the various classes of labour—and I confess the Secretary to the Admiralty is interested—and notwithstanding the taunts that have been made by the Labour Members, so long as the present state of things exists, I, speaking for myself, so long as I have the honour to represent the constituency that I do, shall never hesitate to put forward cases of this kind if I think, and so far as I think, they are just and fair. I have never advocated a case which I did not think so, and one in which I would not myself have acted if I had had the power. Therefore I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty fairly to consider these cases.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: On the important matter of the dockyard wages it is quite true, as the hon. Member opposite pointed out, that recently the cost of living, and in some cases rental, has gone up. Side by side with this there have been substantial increases in certain trades outside, thanks to the great prosperity of the industries concerned. These facts have recently made the dockyard men very insistent in their request for a great increase of wages. I have visited the yards on behalf of the Board, have met innumerable deputations, and have heard the petitions from the men. I have paid great care and attention to the requests of the men. The result, so far as the wages are concerned was announced to the House on 8th May. The increased wages which we propose will add to our wages sheet an annual charge of something like £104,000 per year.
    Mr. HOHLER: I understood that these rates were only so far as they dealt with classes, and not individual cases or anything of that kind.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Individual cases, subject to the numbers allowed, are within the administration of the local
    1004
    yard. The individual rate will depend upon the average which the local authorities have to work upon in each yard and the numbers of the men employed. I cannot deal, of course with the application of every individual. As I stated, the increases which the Board have decided upon will add to our wages bill £104,000 per year. They came into force on Monday last, or, to be precise, on Sunday, 1st June. This is the first week of the men receiving these increased rates. The bill, therefore, for the financial year of 1913–14 will be increased by £84,000. This increase, I admit at once, does not concede all the men asked for, but these increases represent, I think, a fair, equitable, and just reply to the petitions which the men submitted to me. Any hon. Member who desires can have a complete statement as promulgated on 8th May. I will only deal with the principal concessions. As the result of this Debate I think it is desirable to rehearse that and a few of the facts. The shipwrights got their standard rate increased, the hired man by 2s. and the established men by 1s. 6d., the difference being due to the result of superannuation payment in the case of the established men. The cost of that concession on present numbers is £35,750 a year. In the engineering trades the hired men get 2s., and the established men 1s. 6d. increase in minimum, the difference again being the result of the superannuation deduction. That makes a minimum of 38s. and 36s. respectively. The hon. Member for Devonport may say, "Oh, you will raise the minimum, but what about the other points of the scale?" There are fitters in the yards—and I have no doubt there are—who are paid as a maximum a special rate of 48s. Do I understand the hon. Member for Devonport to say that we ought to give 2s. all round, including these men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because there are other men entitled to the advance, and the man who gets 48s. a week and the opportunity of piecework receives a fair consideration—
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the number of these men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I stated it was not a large number. The hon. Member turns round and says, "You do not increase the maximum of what is given to them." Let me point out how we have increased the wages. We have increased the minimum

    1005
    in the engineering trade—the hired men to 38s., and established men to 36s. The maximum in the engineering trade goes up to, the hired men 40s. and the established,38s. The average rate before the increase used to be 37s. 6d. That has been raised to 38s. 6d. within the administration of the yard. That meets the point of the hon. Member for Chatham.
    Mr. HOHLER: That is not quite my point. My point was rather this: I do not understand that the increases at present given covers the whole ground of the petitions.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will deal with that.
    Mr. HOHLER: In other words, they only relate to particular classes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There are personal matters, no doubt, which have to be dealt with. I do not know. Generally speaking the concessions we issued on 8th May dispose, broadly speaking, of the wages question. The minimum of the engineering trade increases I have given. The hon. Member for Devonport is not quite right when he says that the minimum rate would not affect anybody but the men under the minimum. It affects the average. Then, the special rates for the engineering trades will remain—I do not pretend they are more than a small proportion—coppersmiths, 42s.; boilermakers, founders, pattern makers, 45s.; and fitters, 48s. And if the hon. Member says this raising of the minimum will not affect all the men, I answer that it will cost £35,000 a year. The unskilled labourers get 1s., and their wages now will be 23s., and at Haulbowline 22s. That will cost £14,000. Let me say this in regard to the unskilled labourers: In 1906 they had 20s., and they got a rise to 21s. Last year they got 22s., and now they are getting 23s., and I say that, taking a fair survey of the whole of the circumstances, that rate does not unfavourably compare with outside rates. There are corporation labourers who get 24s.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman says there are employés who get 24s., but the point that I put to him over and over again, and the reply he gave to me was that the Admiralty pay the rate common in the district. I have over and over again told him that the rates in the district to which I called attention is 23s. or 24s., and his only answer to that is that he is giving 22s. and 23s.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I was saying that there are cases where municipal employés make 24s., and even more, but if you take the whole field of unskilled labour you will find that 23s. for a forty-eight hour week does not compare unfavourably with outside rates paid to unskilled labourers. Then for skilled labourers the minimum is 23s., and at Haulbowline 22s., but the men will only remain a year on that, and after they have been a year or more they will get 24s.—Haulbowline 23s. That will cost £19,000. The skilled labourer got 1s. in 1906, last year we raised the minimum by another shilling and a special rate maximum of 1s., and the skilled labourers rate from this time will be 23s., at Haulbowline 22s., and the ordinary minimum 24s., and Haulbowline 23s., and the ordinary maximum 28s.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE:In giving those figures the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House the kind of work these skilled labourers do, and how they compare with men on outside work.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the hon. Gentleman might leave something to the intelligence of the Committee. I was going on to say we are treating the minimum as a probationary rate for one year, and then they go on to 24s., and that that concession will cost £19,000. The effect upon the men in the intermediate scale is that it gives an average rate of 26s. as against 25s. 6d. The special rates will remain at 29s., 30s., and 31s. A great part of these skilled labourers in the dockyard have a fair aptitude, and within the four walls of the dockyards they have opportunities of doing work, and we keep them in employment though we do not classify them as trades. Seventy per cent. of them are our own labourers, and they can go up to a special rate of 31s., and further, these labourers engaged in piecework in 1912 had average earnings of 34s. 3d. per week. They were men who had come from the labourers rank. These were the concessions. They included shipwrights, the engineering trade, skilled and unskilled labourers, and a number of others, but they were the principal. In all, these concessions represent on the present numbers an increase on our wages sheet of £104,000 a year. Let me repeat that since 1906, if you take the present numbers, the cost of the increase in the scale which we pay means an addition to our wages sheet of about £250,000 a year.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the increase between 1895 and 1905?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am taking the figures since Lord Tweedmouth's increase. Supposing we were paying the rates of 1906 on the numbers we are employing today, we should be saving about £250,000 a year. I admit that our weekly money wage is not in every case so high as some of the wages paid outside the dockyards, but when you compare the weekly money wage paid inside the dockyards with the weekly money wage paid outside you have not completed the investigation and there are several considerations which you ought to take into account. In the dockyards our men work forty-eight hours a week, but many of the workmen outside have to work fifty-three and fifty-four hours per week. One in six, I should say nearly one in five, of the skilled mechanics have a chance of being put on the establishment and becoming Civil servants, and once established he enjoys fixity of tenure and, subject to good conduct, a pension. They cannot be dismissed except for misconduct. In the case of the non-established men, numbering about 43,000, three out of four are fairly certain of continuous employment. It is quite true that we have to stand men off from time to time, but a wave of industrial depression, which is often so disastrous to the shipbuilding and engineering trades outside does not necessarily affect the Royal dockyards at all, because good trade or bad the building and repairing of the ships goes on. That, I suppose, will continue until the great nations come to some agreement in the matter. Therefore, these hired men are immune from the fluctuations of the outside trader. Therefore the non-establishment men have a privilege which is not at all general outside. If we stand one of these men off on reduction after seven years' service he gets a gratuity from the Admiralty of a week's pay for every year of service. After fifteen years, if stood off for any reason except misconduct or own desire, he gets a week's pay for every year's service. Under this system we have made provision this year to pay gratuities amounting to £13,500 to these hired men.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is that increase included in the £169,000?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not at all. That is the amount included in this Estimate, and we cannot leave these things altogether out of consideration. I have taken careful note of to-day's suggestions on both sides of the House. Several hon. Members have directed my attention to the question of wages, upon which I want to say this: A Departmental Committee is considering the hours, rates, and conditions of the yard craftsmen, and, should that Committee make its recommendations within the year and the Board agree, it may be necessary to make a statement with regard to their wages, but, broadly speaking, the decisions announced on. 8th May, just before we rose for the holiday, dispose of the wages for the year. There are many other points which have not been settled and which must be settled. There is, for instance, the pension contribution which the established men have to pay. The Treasury has agreed to a small concession which will be very acceptable to the men on the lower rates of pay, which has not yet been announced, and which will have to go forth to the yards. At present men receiving wages not exceeding 24s. pay 1s. superannuation contribution, and men receiving wages between 24s. and 36s. pay 1s. 6d. The margin is rather a wide one, and the Treasury has agreed to let the 1s. apply to wages up to 25s., to make the contribution 1s. 3d. in respect of wages between 25s. and 30s., and then 1s. 6d. between 30s. and 36s. That is a small concession which will be very acceptable to men on the lower rates of pay. There is also the question of overtime rates. They are under consideration, and we hope to be able to make some announcement as to them. We have discussed on the previous Vote the new scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and a decision in regard to that will in due course have to be announced. I shall also have to make suggestions as to the method of hearing petitions. Although I am very glad to see the men—it is a very liberal education to me—at the same time I do not think it is a good application of time and labour to hear the same thing over and over again from a great variety of classes at one yard and then to hear the same thing once more at another yard. I shall put forward suggestions to the First Lord respecting the method of hearing petitions, and an announcement will be made to the men in due course.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to agree to my request to place 80 per cent. on the establishment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I gave no pledge as to that.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: As to Sydney Dockyard?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That dockyard will shortly be taken over. I cannot for the moment admit the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member as to the personnel.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: In the case of the "Psyche" no less than £5,000 was spent on repairs last July, and that being so how was it that within a short period the ship was found to be in so terrible a state of disrepair? Surely that showed the staff must be inadequate?
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: The arguments used by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) in connection with the wages question are those which have been used by trade union officials for the last thirty years. I should like in respect of the increase of wages to point out one thing which I cannot understand. We were informed the shipwrights and engineers were having an increase of 2s. on the maximum.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, the minimum.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I wish to refer to the case of the joiners. These men have to Provide more tools than any other trade in the dockyard, and they are only to have an increase of 1s. 6d. per week. I cannot imagine why that is so. A joiner, I take it wishes to wear as good clothes, and eat as good food as a shipwright or engineer, and, therefore, his claim to an increase of wages is as well justified as is the claim of the others, especially as he has to spend so large a percentage of his income on the tools of his trade. I do not know what lines the Admiralty work upon, but I would support the suggestion that the wages question should be taken out of their hands and referred to a Wages Board composed of practical men. Further, I would like to point out that in the Royal dockyards there is a class of men called skilled labourers who are not recognised in the private yards—men so to say betwixt and between—neither labourer nor trades man. We say they should be classed either as one or the other, and that the Admiralty is not justified in thus introducing an intermediate class and taking
    1010
    advantage of men who have not served their time to a trade but have, while acting as labourers, gained a certain amount of knowledge enabling them to do skilled work—which in private yards is done by skilled workmen. We say if the Admiralty is going to employ these men on skilled work they should pay them the same wages as are paid to skilled workmen. I am sorry that the Admiralty are conceding such a small increase of wages to the labourer. We have been told time and again that the cost of living has increased by something like 3s. 9d. in the £. The increased cost of living affects the lowest paid workman the most; therefore the lowest paid workman ought to have had a higher increase than the skilled workman, but his wages have merely been increased by 1s. I am sorry the hon. Member for Chatham referred to the Labour party in connection with a Resolution moved in this House in 1910. If he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find he is absolutely wrong. That did not apply to the dockyards at all.
    Mr. HOHLER: Did it not apply to all Government labourers?
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. HOHLER: It was the Fair-Wages Clause.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: The hon. Member was not referring to the Fair-Wages Clause at all, but to a Resolution dealing with the Woolwich Arsenal. He will see from the speeches of Mr. Haldane (as he then was) and the present President of the Board of Trade that what we asked for was conceded. Therefore we were quite justified in the action we took. I know that the hon. Member is a lawyer, and, like a poet, has a certain licence. He brings forward facts which strengthen his case and ignores those which weaken it So far as the Labour party is concerned, they in season and out of season will do their utmost to improve the condition of the Government workmen. We welcome the hon. Member's support, and. I hope that when he ceases to be Member for Chatham he will continue his support of the trade union movement.
    Mr. GRETTON: I rise to emphasise the arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee). There is something wrong with the dockyards abroad for which we are asked to vote salaries and wages. The

    1011
    Government is not to blame for the initiation of the policy for the reduction of the staffs there. It was started before they came into office. But they have been responsible for the policy for seven years, in spite of its failure. The right hon. Gentleman has said they are going to hand over the dockyard in Australia to the Commonwealth of Australia. I am not surprised at that, because the way in which the work has been turned out by the establishments in those yards has been a scandal in the Commonwealth and has led to great distrust of the Admiralty methods. In Hong Kong there is an increased expenditure upon the dockyard. Does that arise from the expenditure on wages and salaries, because ships have been sent from the Australian station to be repaired there? I have one ship in my mind, the "Prometheus," and I believe another, the "Cambrian," was transferred from one station to another, and was found to be in such a bad state of repair that expenditure had to be made upon them at Hong Kong. Does the increased expenditure on the staff at Hong Kong arise from the deficiencies in the way the staff at Sydney has carried out the work of repairs. The increased cost of repairs done by dockyards abroad is not confined to Sydney or Hong Kong. Owing to the changed order of the Votes I have not the full particulars at hand to-night, but reports of a similar very alarming character, pointing to great defects through the ships being in dockyard bands in foreign stations come also from the Cape. Two ships particularly are in question—the "Pandora" and the "Forte." All these matters require the most urgent attention of the Government. Unless it is alleged that it is the fault of the staffs, either salaried or on the wages list, the only conclusion to be arrived at is that it is the fault of the Admiralty
    1012
    themselves for the instructions which they send and the sums of money they allot to be spent on these repairs. This question cannot be allowed to rest where it stands. The right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to-night to deal with it. We all regret that the First Lord is not here to deal with any question of this kind. We are asked to vote a considerable sum for maintenance of the staff of these dockyards and we should have full information before these sums are voted, even though the sum we are required to vote relates to expenditure for the coming year, and we should have information and a full explanation in this case before the sum is voted. The case will be raised again and we shall press for a full answer.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We take no objection to that. We were not desirous of securing the Vote to-night. We wish, however, to get the Reports of Votes 2, 13, 14, and 15 to-morrow, after the Army Votes.
    Mr. KING: I should like, as a private Member, to protest against a conversation between the two Front Benches, which is quite inaudible to everybody except persons taking Hart in it. I should like to have the conversation repeated in toto, so that everyone can hear.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
    ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Adjourned at a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.