Lords Sitting of 10 August 1905

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill; Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway Bill; North-East London Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEED- INGS).
  Returns for the months of March, April, May, and June.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Forty-first Annual Report of the Registrar-General, for the year 1904.
  MISCELLANEOUS, NO. 3 (1905).
  Correspondence respecting the International Conference on the "White Slave Traffic;" held in Paris, July, 1902.
  NAVAL WORKS.
  Statement showing the total estimated cost of each work, the estimated expenditure thereon during 1905–1906 and 1906–1907, and the expected date of completion.
  MINES AND QUARRIES (EXPLOSION AT THE CAMBRIAN COLLIERIES).
  Report to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department by F. A. Gray, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred at Cambrian Collieries, Clydach Vale, on March 10th, 1905.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Annual Report of Proceedings under Acts relating to Sea Fisheries, for the year 1904.
  Directory of Industrial Associations in the United Kingdom in 1905.
  WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR.
  Report on changes in rates of wages and hours of labour in the United Kingdom in 1904, with comparative statistics for 1895–1903.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Return of all British ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers, during the period from July 1st, 1904, to June 30th, 1905, to be provisionally detained as unsafe; also of all foreign ships ordered to be provisionally detained during the same period as unsafe by reason of overloading or improper loading; together with summaries showing respectively the total number of ships ordered to be detained as unsafe since October 1st, 1876, distinguishing between the cases in which ships were found safe or unsafe (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Od. 2217]).
  STATISTICS.
  Statistical obstract for the several British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates in each year from 1890 to 1904. Forty-second Number.
  BOILER EXPLOSIONS.
  Report to the Secretary of the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 and 1890, with Appendices (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 2513]).

  NAVY.
  Returns of the number of courts-martial held, and summary punishments inflicted, on seamen of the Royal Navy, etc., during the year 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BISHOPRICS ACT, 1878, AND BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM ACT, 1904.
  Order in Council, of August 7th, 1905, approving a scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with respect to the Bishopric of Southwark, and for other purposes.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council of August 7th, 1905, entitled "The Ottoman Order in Council, 1905."
  ARMY
  Regulations under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893.

  MOTOR-CAR ACTS, 1896 AND 1903.
  Regulation as to the restriction of the driving of motor-cars on the highway known as Grove Hill, Harrow, made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896, and Section 8 of the Act of 1903.
  Regulation as to the restriction of the driving of motor-cars on the highway known as Bank Lane, Kingston-upon-Thames, made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896, and Section 8 of the Act of 1903.
  Regulation as to the registration of motor-cars made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896, and Section 7 of the Act of 1903. London (County). For assigning a second index mark to the London County Council in addition to the index mark assigned by the Motor-Car (Registration and Licensing) Order, 1903.
  Regulation as to the registration of motor-cars made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896, and Section 7 of the Act of 1903. Northampton (County Borough). For changing the index mark assigned to the council of the county borough of Northampton by the Motor-Car (Registration and Licensing) Order, 1903.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.
  City of Liverpool.—Statement of modification permitted by the Local Government Board to be made in the Liverpool Improvement Scheme, 1902.
  Borough of Southampton.—Statement of modification permitted by the Local Government Board to be made in the Southampton Improvement Scheme, 1894.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Eighteen Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following county and county borough councils:
  Bedford.—For defining the boundary between the parishes of Everton and Tempsford.
  Cambridge.—For altering the boundary between the parishes of Papworth Everard and Papworth Saint Agnes.
  Carnarvon.—For uniting parts of the parish of Llanrhychwyn and of the township of Tre Gwydir to form the parish of Capel Curig.
  Essex.—For transferring part of the parish of Walton-le-Soken and of the urban district of Walton-on-the-Naze to the parish of Frinton and the urban district of Frinton-on-Sea.
  Glamorgan.—For transferring parts of the parishes of Coity Lower and Daudy to the urban district of Bridgend, for uniting the parishes of Newcastle Lower and Oldcastle and the said parts of the parishes of Coity Lower and Daudy to form the parish of Bridgend, and for transferring the remaining parts of the parish of Coity Lower to the parishes of Ewenny and Merthyrmawr, and the remaining part of the parish of Daudy to the parish of Laleston.
  Glamorgan.—For uniting the parishes of Llansamlet Higher and Llansamlet Lower to form the parish of Llansamlet.
  Hertford.—For transferring a detached part of the parish of Great Amwell, in the Ware Union, to the parish of Little Amwell, in the Hertford Union, for uniting an area (formerly part of the parish of Little Amwell) to the parish of Ware Urban, and for transferring part of the parish of Little Amwell to the parish of Great Amwell.
  Hertford.—For transferring the parish of Arkley from the Barnet Rural District to the Barnet Urban District.
  Kent.—For abolishing the Medway Rural District and for adding the parish of St. Margaret Extra, which was coextensive with the rural district, to the parish of Wouldham in the Malling Rural District.
  Lancaster. - For transferring the township of Ainsdale from the West Lancashire Rural District to the Birkdale Urban District.
  Leicester.—For transferring part of the township of Kirby Muxloe, in the Blaby Union and Rural District, to the parish of Ratby, in the Market Bosworth Union and Rural District.
  Middlesex.—For converting the rural parish of Ruislip into the urban district of Ruislip-Northwood.
  Middlesex.—For converting the rural parish of Hayes into the urban district of Hayes.
  Reading (County Borough).—For uniting the three parishes in the Reading Union and county borough to form the parish of Reading.
  Sussex, East.—For dividing the parish of Rotherfield into the two parishes of Crowborough and Rotherfield.
  Westmorland.—For uniting the urban districts of Bowness-on-Windermere and Windermere to form the urban district of Windermere.
  Wilts.—For uniting the nine parishes in the city of New Sarum to form the parish of New Sarum.
  Yorkshire, West Riding of.—For transferring part of the parishes of Knaresborough Outer and Scriven to the township of Knaresborough and Knaresborough Urban District.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the funds of suitors of the Court in the year ended February 28th, 1905; also account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.

  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) ACT 1896.
  Fifth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under the Act, 1903–1905.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]; PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons for copies of the Reports, etc., of the Select Committees. Ordered to be communicated accordingly.

  MACEDONIA.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Questions of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether under the scheme drawn up by the Powers for the control of the Macedonian finances the delegates will be empowered to dismiss incompetent officials; whether the scheme has yet been accepted by the Turkish Government, and, if not, whether any steps will be taken by the Powers to enforce their demands.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, according to the terms of the Note addressed to the Porte by the Foreign Ambassadors on the 8th of May last, the international delegates are to be entrusted with the duty of superintending the execution of the financial reforms in accordance with the scheme accepted by the Powers, and the Commission, which is composed of the international delegates, is to have all the powers necessary for the accomplishment of its task. It is, in our opinion, obvious that those powers will include the right of requiring the dismissal of corrupt or incompetent officials; it is, indeed, laid down in the scheme itself that any official who fails to act in accordance with its provisions will be held responsible. In reply to my noble friend's second Question, I have to say that the scheme has not yet been accepted by the Porte, but that the Powers fully intend to take steps for the purpose of ensuring compliance with their demands.

EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS) BILL; NAVAL WORKS BILL;
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL; PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL;
    PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARRIAGES) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons, and read 1a
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and suspended for the remainder of the session.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is intended to confirm the decisions of the Court of Tynwald in the Manx Parliament in regard to certain matters affecting Customs duties.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to; Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the Bill is read a third time I should like to ask the noble Marquess a Question of which I have given him notice, but, I am afraid, rather insufficient notice, although I think the Question is one which will not be difficult to
    900
    answer. The Bill as put before us is experimental. There are in it conditions under which assistance may be given to those who are considered proper objects of that assistance, and those conditions were, as your Lordships know, the subject of a certain amount of criticism last night. The main Answer to the objections or criticisms then made was that, after all, the local authorities were not altogether foolish, and must to a considerable extent be trusted.
    The Question I want to put is this Can the noble Marquess assure us that in the regulations to be framed by the Local Government Board, there will be adequate instructions to the local authorities that they are to keep sufficient records of the cases that come before them and of the method in which they dispose of them, so that this experiment may be judged by those who take an interest in the matter, upon the actual experience of the local authorities? Everything will depend, if that judgment is to be a useful one, on the adequacy of the information which is provided for us in the records of these local authorities. This seems to me a reasonable request, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the noble Marquess that the regulations will make sufficient provision for this information being kept in a complete form.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANDSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the point which my noble friend raises is to some extent met by Sub-section 3, paragraph "l"of Clause 4. It is there laid down that the Local Government Board may make regulations for requiring returns to be made to the Board by any body or committee having powers under this Act. It seem to me, irrespective of that, that these local bodies—the distress committees and the central bodies—must, if their business is carried on on businesslike lines, keep records of the manner in which they dispose of the cases which come before them; and I have no doubt that those records will, as my noble friend suggests, be considered by the Local Government Board with a view to enabling them to form an

    901
    opinion as to the success of the experiment which will be carried out under this Bill.
    On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a, and passed.

    PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
    *LORD STANMORE,who had given notice to move that the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Palace of Westminster: the Earl of Carlisle, the Earl of Stradbroke, the Earl of Lytton, Lord Hawkesbury, and Lord Stanmore, said. My Lords, it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that a few days ago the House ordered the appointment of a Committee to inquire into and report with respect to the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the service of this House. I now beg to move the appointment of the members of the Committee, and in doing so, I wish to make a short statement. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works, in assenting to the appointment of this Committee, said that His Majesty's Government must take time to consider the best way of carrying out the object desired; and I beg to say that, in the event of my noble friend the First Commissioner holding in the next session of Parliament the office which he so well fills at present, I shall be quite ready to accede to any proposal that he makes, either for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses, which appears to some the best way of dealing with the subject, or the appointment of a Royal Commission, which seems to me by far the best way of dealing with it.
    Moved, "That the following Lords be named of the Select Committee—

    E. Carlisle.

    E. Stradbroke.

    E. Lytton.

    L. Hawkesbury.

    L. Stanmore."

    —(Lord Stanmore.)
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords,
    902
    I want just to confirm what my noble friend has said. His Majesty's Government do not think that there is really any use in appointing a Committee this session, because it would naturally have to be reappointed next session; but they do not wish to oppose the appointment as the noble Lord desires to have it nominated. They do not think that a Committee of this House is the best kind of Committee to deal with this question; but, on the understanding, as he has said, that this question shall be reconsidered at an early date next session, His Majesty's Government agree to the appointment of the Committee.
    EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I only wish to say two or three words on this matter. It certainly strikes me that it would be creating rather a bad precedent if this Committee were now appointed, and if a different form were given to the Committee next session. I would myself very much prefer to see a Joint Committee of the two Houses, as this is a matter which equally concerns both Houses. I would have thought that the noble Lord, the First Commissioner of Works, himself ought to be a member of the Committee; but, at all events, it strikes me that it will be a rather useless thing to appoint a Committee at the end of the session. It would be much better to leave it over till next session, and when the Committee is appointed I hope it will not be a Committee of this House, but a Joint Committee of both Houses.
    *LORD STANMORE: My Lords, my object in moving the appointment of the Committee was rather with a view of meeting what I may call a chapter of accidents. I cannot feel sure that the noble Lord who is now First Commissioner will be at the head of the Office of Works next year, and, therefore, I wish that the House should so far commit itself by appointing a Committee that we should not have to go through the whole thing again next year. But, after the statement of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who will probably have something to say to the formation of the Committee next year if my noble friend on this side has not, I am not disposed

    903
    to press the Motion. I should, however, like to see the Committee named.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, we shall be very glad to consider the noble Earl's suggestion that the matter should be dealt with by a Joint Committee, but that is not a point we can take on ourselves to decide; and all I can promise is that the suggestion shall be considered.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I would like to ask what is the use of naming a Committee that is never going to sit? Parliament is to be prorogued to-morrow, and if you name the Committee it cannot sit.
    *LORD STANMORE: I am quite aware of that.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Does the noble Lord press his Motion?
    *LORD STANMORE: As the Government does not oppose it I should like it to be passed.
    On Question, resolved in the negative.

  EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Marquess of BATH): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill perhaps I ought to explain to your Lordships the purport of it. It gives power to the Secretary of State to borrow £20,000,000, which, of course, will not be used all at one time. The practice has been to give to the Secretary of State in Council borrowing powers sufficient to enable him to borrow, as he requires, for some time ahead, without having to apply to Parliament on every occasion. The purposes towards which the powers given in this Bill will be used are, first, for the purchase of the Bombay and Baroda Railway Company, with regard to which
    904
    the Secretary of State is exercising his right of purchase, and which will cost nearly £12,000,000. Besides that, the powers will be used in the direction of establishing new railways, that system having proved of great value in India, and also towards the improvement of existing railways, towards the discharge of bonds, and towards the payments which the Secretary of State in Council has to make on taking over the railways over which he exercises his rights. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Standing Order No. XXXIX, having been suspended, Bill read 2a (The Marquess of Bath); Committee negatived; Bill read 3*, and passed.

    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended, read 2a (The Marquess of Lansdowne); Committee negatived; Bills read 3a, and passed.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARRIAGES) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, this Bill is one which I think will receive your Lordships' general assent. From time to time it does occur, through carelessness or ignorance, that marriages are celebrated in places where they have no right to be celebrated, and other objections sometimes arise. Your Lordships are periodically troubled with Bills to validate those marriages. The object of the present Bill is to simplify the procedure and to enable the necessary steps to be taken by Provisional Order, which, however, will require to be sanctioned subsequently by Parliament. The sole object of the Bill is to simplify the procedure, Parliament still retaining sole control in the matter.
    Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended, Bill read 2a (The Lord Chancellor); Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
    EARL SPENCER: I am afraid I must interrupt the rapid process of passing Bills, for I have a few remarks to make upon the Naval Works Bill. This is a very important Bill, and I feel some responsibility in the matter, having been at the Admiralty when the first of these Bills passed. It seems to me that at this moment, when there is going to be, apparently, a change in the matter, it is right that I should call attention to the Bill. I would take this opportunity of expressing my extreme regret that the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, is not able to be in his place on account of illness. We all regret exceedingly that one who is so able in speech and in business has been prevented from being in his place except on very few occasions since his appointment to that high office. But I have thought that notwithstanding the absence of the noble Earl, it is my duty to say a few words on this Bill.
    The question of loans for naval works has assumed a very serious condition within the last few years. Side by side with payments into the Sinking Fund for the National Debt we have been running up very considerable expenditure in loans for public works. The first of these Bills was passed, as I have said, in the year 1895, when I had the honour to be at the head of the Board of Admiralty. At that time the arrangements in the harbours and docks struck the Board over which I presided as being in a very unfortunate and disastrous condition. The fact was, public works had not kept pace with the increased number of ships, the increased size of ships, or the different kind of ships that were used in modern war. I need not say that the old-fashioned docks were hardly sufficient to take in the new battleships or large cruisers, and torpedo attack had rendered perfectly dangerous many roads and anchorages which had formerly been used by ships with perfect safety. Every-
    906
    body who is conversant with old naval history will remember how often the Fleets were anchored and remained at the Downs in perfect safety. The moment torpedo attack began the Downs became perfectly unsafe for ships. That was the cause of the origination of the harbour works at Dover, which are now, I hope, approaching completion.
    I would instance another case—that of Portland Harbour. Portland Harbour was considered a safe place of anchorage for our Fleets, but when torpedo attack began it was found that torpedo vessels might in the night creep round the shore and practically destroy any ships that were lying in the harbour. It therefore became necessary to deal with this. This, and other expenditure of the same sort, would have increased enormously the ordinary Naval Votes. Up to that time, I think, with rare exceptions, all the public works connected with the Navy had been paid for out of the annual Votes; but when we considered what we had to do, and the fact that these works were permanent works, we came to the conclusion that it was possible to divide the expenditure and, to a certain extent, raise the money by loan. Of course, this was not simply a matter of arrangement by the Admiralty. It was a matter in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a voice. My late lamented friend Sir William Harcourt and the Cabinet agreed to this proposal.
    Since that date there have been great changes. An enormous increase has been made in the number of naval works. When we began we estimated that we should probably have to ask for about £9,000,000, though we admitted that that sum would not meet all future requirements. But at the same time we never contemplated the enormous increase that has followed the introduction of this principle. Some financiers assert that the total, which we thought would amount to £9,000,000, has sprung up to £32,000,000, and some put it at even a higher figure. I think this is a serious state of things that needs checking. I hope that the great arrears in public works that existed at the time I speak of, namely, in 1895, have now been almost overtaken—at all events, that they very soon will be overtaken—and

    907
    that in future we shall not require these enormous sums of money for naval works. I am not going to say that on no possible occasion ought we to borrow, but I do say that the power to borrow ought to be limited to very special occasions, and that the class of works to be paid for out of loan ought to be carefully criticised.
    I confess there have been certain works put down in the list which appear to me to be hardly works that ought to have been paid for out of capital sums, and which can hardly be called permanent works. I would instance one—coaling facilities and fuel storage. I cannot help thinking that that is a matter which ought not to have been put under capital head and dealt with by loan. In old days the money for coaling facilities and fuel storage was always met out of the annual Vote. Then there is another matter which I understand has been dealt with under the head of permanent works—namely, dredging. Dredging is a most important and essential work, but I think anybody who has had anything to do with it will know that what you dredge in one year is very often filled up in the next, and it cannot therefore be looked upon as a permanent work. I do not observe that any guns have been included, but in my time it was proposed that guns should be placed under this category. We refused to do that, because obviously guns are always changing and wearing out, and it was not considered right to include them among permanent works.
    I should like to ask what is now proposed. The present Bill is a considerable one, and if we look back we find that the whole series of Bills, including this Bill, amount to the enormous total of £34,800,000. That leaves, before this Bill becomes law, £12,700,000 to be passed; £5,800,000 is authorised in this Bill, leaving for the future £6,900,000. I am not clear what His Majesty's Government propose to do in regard to the future. Is the whole of the sum required to complete the works now begun to be put on the Votes or not? Some of it is, no doubt. That has been distinctly stated by His Majesty's Ministers in another place. I should like to know how much of this is to be
    908
    still paid out of future loans and how much will be paid out of the annual Votes. I rejoice to think that a healthier state of things may be arrived at in the future. I only notice, in passing, that the sounder state of finance which His Majesty's Government foreshadowed for the future has not been announced for this year.
    When the first Naval Works Bill was passed the Government of which I had the honour to be a member were very particular in making the Bill an annual one. It was made an annual Bill in order that it should be as nearly as possible as much under the control of Parliament as the ordinary general Votes for the Navy. Now that has been changed, and instead of its being an annual Vote it is made for two years. There is another equally important matter. When we were in office it was certainly our desire that the whole of this money should be repaid within thirty years from the first payment made. That has now been altered, and the thirty years is taken from the time when the work was first begun. I think those are two very important changes, and I do not know exactly how His Majesty's Government can defend them.
    I may be allowed just to glance at some of these items. Since we were in office a great many of them have been very largely increased. Take, for instance, the Gibraltar dockyard. The Gibraltar dockyard was, I think, when we first started it, under £500,000; now it has reached the sum of nearly £3,000,000. I do not say that that was an unnecessary work; but if we see these enormous docks there and at other places we expect some diminution in the cost of docks at home. Then take the Hong-Kong dockyard extension. That is a large expenditure— £1,500,000. I have always had a very strong opinion with regard to the Hong-Kong dockyard extension. I held it before I left office, and within a few months afterwards I visited Hong-Kong and tried to master, as far as I could, the situation. I have always maintained that the new dockyard at Hong-Kong was placed in the wrong situation. It is now placed on the island, and one of the reasons why I thought it was wrong was that the town and colony of Hong-Kong were

    909
    desirous of developing their works and roads, and this dockyard being where it is prevented their doing so. But my great objection was this, that with regard to future developments the site of the dockyard was so confined that it would not be possible to have the accommodation which an increased Fleet in the China Seas required. That accommodation will not be found where the dockyard now is. I have always thought that the proper place was opposite, at Kowloon, which is on the mainland. At that time there might have been some objection because our boundaries were somewhat limited there, but since then we have had a considerable extension of boundaries, and there can now be no doubt that there are ample facilities there for a dockyard. But I fear it is too late. I might mention that there was already a very large private dock there which might have been bought and developed into a great naval yard.
    I now come to several additions which have been made. I understand that a very large increase on the Keyham Docks has been caused owing to difficulties in dredging. I do not criticise that. These difficulties must arise, and there is no doubt whatever of the enormous importance of getting an effective dock for our modern Navy in the great and important centre of Plymouth and Devonport. But with regard to Chatham dockyard extension a very remarkable thing has happened. There is no place, probably, in England better suited for a dockyard or for a base for warlike operations than Chatham. It is protected, it is inland, and the approaches to it now, owing to dredging and other things, are very good. It is safe from hostile attack from fleets, and its position strategically with regard to other countries is certainly of the first importance. Last year there was a great proposal to lay out £4,500,000 on increased dock accommodation at Chatham. Now only £70,000 is put down.
    The noble Marquess some time ago referred, and I did not like to correct him at the time because I was not quite sure of my facts, to the great reductions in the Navy Estimates as having been caused by the change in policy with regard to a great number of ships. A great number
    910
    of ships were not thought fit for war, and, therefore, the principle adopted was that they were not to be kept in peace time, costing a large sum of money to maintain and occupying a great deal of room in the dockyards. The noble Marquess was incorrect in what he said, for the real decrease in the Naval Estimates was not due to this particular thing. The amount gained by this change amounted to only a few hundred thousand pounds. I am ready to admit, and I do so with great satisfaction, that this change with regard to works at Chatham does arise in this way. An enormous number of ships which were practically useless, or of very little use, were docked at Chatham and at other places, and the accommodation which their removal has given has overcome the difficulty and the necessity for largely increasing the ship accommodation in that port. But I want to know what is the Government policy in regard to Chatham.
    When this large Vote of £4,500,000 was foreshadowed for Chatham, there was also a considerable future expenditure foreshadowed with regard to Rosyth, in the East of Scotland. I should like to know what is going to be done there. Will the "token" Votes of £70,000 for Chatham and £200,000 for Rosyth bind future Governments to larger expenditure? I confess I have always had considerable doubt as to the necessity of this new Scottish naval yard. As I have said before, I value enormously the strategic position of Chatham, and I have considerable doubts whether it is a wise policy to begin a new dockyard at Rosyth rather than develop the old one at Chatham, if more accommodation is required. At all events, I should like to ask the Government whether they intend to do more than foreshadow the possibility of great works at this place in Scotland. They have purchased the land. I imagine that the greater part of the £200,000 goes towards the purchase of land. I should like to know what is the intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to this, and whether they still adhere to the proposal to convert Rosyth into a very large naval establishment rather than develop Chatham to a larger extent.

    911
    There have no doubt been an enormous number of works added to this list which we never contemplated. I cannot help thinking that the Government have gone too fast with regard to a great many of these works. We considered works at the Cape and other places, and though we quite admitted that probably at Malta and elsewhere works would be necessary in the future, we had no contemplation at all of the enormous developments which have been made since. We admit that naval barracks have been necessary at Portsmouth, Chatham, and other places, but we had begun nearly all those; and I cannot help thinking that the Government have gone almost too rapidly to work in developing those works, and that the system which we began has encouraged them to expend very much larger sums and with less consideration than would have been shown if they had been on the Votes. It is a question whether the whole of the electric lighting should be charged to capital and not to the ordinary annual expenditure.
    In my recollection of expenditure at the Admiralty there was no expenditure so great and so continuous as that on coastguard buildings. I see here a large sum with regard to coastguard buildings. Is that to be permanent? In my time coastguard buildings were almost invariably paid for out of annual expenditure. Are we to go on with this expenditure, or is there any other plan with regard to coastguard stations in the future? I quite admit that when a great change is made in policy, which we must all welcome, particularly when the policy not only increases efficiency but is also economical, very often enormous expenditure that has been incurred prior to the change strikes one as having been unnecessary. I quite admit that if there is any very large change we must always face that; but, when we contemplate this, it does make us reflect that a policy of this sort ought to be very thoroughly thought out, and that if large sums of money, amounting to hundreds of thousand and even millions, were voted only a few years ago for a thing which is discontinued now, there is a lamentable absence of stability of policy.
    912
    I should be glad of some explanation on the points I have raised, particularly with regard to the intentions of His Majesty's Government as to future works of this sort. Are they to be discontinued? Have we come to an end of the naval works? If not, are they in future to be charged on the annual Votes, or are they still to be paid for out of loans? I do not for a moment say that you are never to pay for these things out of loans; but I think the dimensions which these loans have now reached show how enormously important it is on business grounds that the whole question should be most strictly looked into, and that, wherever possible, the expenditure should be placed on the annual Votes rather than on loans.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have often during the course of the session regretted the absence of my noble friend Lord Cawdor, and I never regretted it more unfeignedly than I do on the present occasion, for I fear I have not the expert knowledge, which would enable me to reply to the criticisms of the noble Earl, who speaks with all the authority belonging to a former First Lord of the Admiralty.
    I can only say with regard to the general principle of this Bill that it is not a Bill which attempts to obtain public money for any new items of expenditure. The works contemplated by this Bill are works which have already been sanctioned in principle by Parliament. They are works resulting from the policy which has been deliberately adopted by the nation and which has been the consequence of those alterations, in the conditions of naval defence to which the noble Earl referred. The number of our ships has increased, their size has increased, new forms of naval attack are invented, and it follows that in order to meet these new circumstances new expenditure on new works has to be incurred. It has hitherto been the accepted policy of both Parties that expenditure of this kind should be provided by means of these comparatively short loans. It has been felt, and I must say felt very naturally, that

    913
    large increases of expenditure on this account could not be thrown upon the Estimates of the year without considerable hardship. On the other hand, the necessary works are not perhaps of so permanent a character as to justify an addition to the fixed debt of the country in respect of them.
    That has been the policy—a policy for which, I think, the noble Earl admitted he and his friends were not less responsible than we are. But we share the noble Earl's opinion that expenditure of this kind does require to be most carefully watched; and I am able to say, in reply to his Question, that, although, no doubt, the Admiralty will certainly not undertake that in no circumstances whatever shall money be borrowed for a purpose of this kind, it is intended that future expenditure under this Act beyond the sums now dealt with is to be paid for out of the current Navy Estimates.
    I pass to one or two points to which the noble Earl called special attention. He asked whether it was not the case that in the first instance this period of thirty years ran from the date of the original Bill of 1895, and whether of late we had not been in the habit of calculating the period of thirty years not from that date, but from the later date at which the funds were actually provided. The thirty years period was calculated from 1895 until the year 1903. Eight years had then passed from the date of the original Bill, and it was felt that the period of repayment thus reduced was becoming unfairly short for the present generation of taxpayers; and accordingly the practice was resorted to of dating the thirty years not from the original date of 1895, but from the time of the issue of the money lent.
    The noble Lord questioned me with regard to the large sum inserted for works at Hong-Kong, I find that is due to the fact that a large extra expenditure has been necessitated in the execution of the contract in consequence of unforeseen engineering difficulties which presented themselves owing to bad foundations and increased cost of dredging due to rock having been found to a larger extent than was anticipated. The noble Earl expressed some surprise that there should be
    914
    a charge for coaling facilities and fuel storage; but I am told that for this purpose it has been necessary to acquire land, and to construct engineering works of a permanent nature, works not really differing in character from other works for which we believe money can properly be borrowed under this Bill.
    The noble Earl said a word as to the large reduction in the item charged for the Chatham dockyard extension; and I take the opportunity of saying that I think the noble Earl was quite right when he corrected me for a somewhat inaccurate statement which I made the other evening when I attributed the large reduction in the Naval Estimates to getting rid of a number of useless and obsolete ships. That only accounted for a part of the sum. The main saving has been due to a restriction of the shipbuilding programme, but I have no doubt that the reduction in the number of useless and obsolete ships has had a good deal to say to the reduction under this particular head.
    The noble Earl made an observation as to the charge on account of coastguard buildings. I am told that it was decided two years ago that it was more economical to build Admiralty stations instead of, as before, leasing the necessary accommodation. It has now been determined that, after the amount in the present Bill is spent, the future expenditure shall appear on the Votes. As to Rosyth, I learn that plans have been got out for a first-class naval base, but the Government are at present only proceeding with that part of the work which is required for the Fleet—namely, a naval yard and a graving dock. These works will be undertaken without prejudice to any further development. I greatly regret not to be in a position to give the noble Earl any fuller information.
    Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

    CONSOLIDATED FIND (APPROPRIA- TION) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons and read 1a; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX.

    915
    having been suspended), read 2a (The Marquess of Lansdowne); Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.
    House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.