Sitting of 2 March 1891

QUESTIONS.

  SENTRY DUTY AT METROPOLITAN PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state for the information of the House what was the average number of nights a week in bed, during the months of May and June, 1890, for soldiers of the Brigade of Foot Guards stationed in London (exclusive of those at the Tower) and who were on the roster of their battalions for sentry duty; and how many soldiers of the Brigade of Foot Guards, who were stationed in London during the year 1890, were invalided out of the Army on account of pulmonary disease?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: During May and June, 1890, privates of the Foot Guards stationed in London (exclusive of those at the Tower) averaged 5·8 nights a week in bed. At this time one battalion
  1926
  was at Pirbright, so that sentry duty fell entirely on three battalions. I may be allowed to explain that the military expression "nights in bed" does not mean so many nights a week, but that the men sleeps in barracks for that number consecutively before being out for one night on sentry duty. The figures given by the General commanding for May and June are thus—4·94 and 4·87 respectively. Since the months named by the noble Lord, the number of sentries has, as I have already stated, been reduced, and the proportion of nights in bed has, of course, been correspondingly increased. Twenty-four soldiers of the Foot Guards stationed in London were invalided during 1890 for pulmonary disease.

  ADULTERATED MANURES AND FEEDING STUFFS.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed at the Central Chamber of Agriculture, on 10th December last, in which it is stated that legislation to prevent the sale of adulterated manures and feeding stuffs is urgently needed; that the extension of the principle and the improvement of the administration of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, or legislation on similar lines, appear to afford a convenient method of effecting the desired reform; and that the Board of Agriculture be requested to take steps to protect the British farmer in this matter; and whether he will introduce a Bill dealing with the matter during the present Session, or appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: Yes, Sir; my attention has been directed to the resolution passed by the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the 10th of December last. I concur in the opinion that legislation is desirable, and I am engaged in preparing a Bill on this subject at present. The hon. Member is aware of the business which the Government have before them already, but I hope it may be possible for me to introduce it during the Session.

  MARKET RIGHTS AND TOLLS.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recommendations, Nos. 23 and 26 of the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls, in which they recommend—
  "That markets which are now required to be provided with machines for weighing cattle should be furnished with sufficient and suitable accommodation for the same";
  and—
  "That statistics of the market prices of meat, and in particular of the prices of cattle at per stone live weight, should be collected";
  and whether he will take the necessary steps to give effect to the same?
  MR. CHAPLIN: My attention has been called to the matters referred to in the question of my hon. Friend. With regard to the first part of the question, I have no doubt that the provision of adequate accommodation for weighing live cattle at markets is a great advantage to farmers and others when they make use of it, although I am bound to say, from all the information which reaches me, that in the majority of cases they appear to have been somewhat slow to avail themselves of it. I am, however, making careful inquiry into the subject, with a view to giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Upon the matters contained in the second part of the question, namely, the market price of meat, and the prices of cattle by live weight, I am now in communication with the Board of Trade with the same object.

  THE EASTER REVIEW.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, having regard to the fact that Civil servants of the higher divisions who also serve Her Majesty in the Volunteer Force, are allowed to be absent with their several corps on the Saturday before Easter, without trenching on their annual leave, the same privilege cannot be extended to copyists who have only 12 days' leave, bearing in mind that otherwise their regiments will be wholly deprived of their services at Easter, while the Saturday office work is practically limited to three hours?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension if he supposes that there is a general rule authorising Civil servants who are Volunteers to be absent with their several corps on the Saturday before Easter without trenching on their annual leave. The Treasury has promulgated no such rule, and there is no provision of the kind in the Orders in Council relating to the Civil Service. Nor has the Treasury received any representations on the subject, and I am, therefore, unable to take action in the sense indicated by the hon. Member.

  THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Income Tax collectors have received special orders this year to press forward its collection; and whether the statement made by some of them that the latest time to be allowed will be the middle of March is correct?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: No, Sir; no such orders have been issued. But I may remind the hon. Member that the Easter holidays fall within the current financial year, and that the collectors have very properly appreciated the desirability, in the general interest, of allowing for the shorter time at their disposal in getting in a tax which is payable on the 1st of January, and ought, in any case, to be paid within the financial year. Any statement which has been made that the latest time for payment is the middle of March is incorrect, and has certainly not been made on the responsibility of the Board of Inland Revenue.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND,
  MR. GOSCHENsaid: The tax must be collected within the financial year, and my hon. Friend should remember that it is really payable on the 1st of January. Every leniency is shown, provided the tax is collected within the financial year.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will announce through the Surveyors of Income Tax

  1929
  to owners of labourers' cottages his decision to exempt from Income Tax the amounts received from cottages built by the Old castle Board of Guardians, on account of the various annual charges exceeding the rents received; and whether he will instruct the local collectors and assessors of Income Tax to exempt all owners of cottages from Income Tax on account of cottages where the owners can show, as they did at Oldcastle, that the various annual outgoings exceed the amount received as rent?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No general instructions, such as are suggested, can be legally issued. The case of the Oldcastle Board of Guardians is a peculiar one, because the interest of the money borrowed from a Public Department equalled the total of the rents, and, therefore, there was practically nothing to tax.

  INDEX TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Index to Members of Parliament, ordered to be prepared and printed some years ago, but still undelivered, is likely to be completed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: The Paper in question is in the hands of the printers, and it will not be long before it is distributed.

  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what was the average day's work in the Savings Bank Department during the months of January, 1890, and 1891 for the male sorters, and also for boy messengers (aged 13 to 17); whether some of the male sorters have been kept at work for 13, 14, and 15 hours out of the 24; whether boy messengers have been kept at work for 16 hours out of the 24; and whether any boy messenger averaged 12¾ hours work a day during the month of January?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The average day's work of a male sorter in the Savings Bank in one particular month, namely, January, 1890, was 11
  1930
  hours 40 minutes. In the corresponding month of 1891 the average was 12 hours 36 minutes. The average day's work for boy messengers in January, 1890, was 11 hours 18 minutes. In the corresponding month of 1891 it was 11 hours 20 minutes. In the early part of January in each year some of the male sorters have volunteered to work between 12 and 15 hours, but the practice is objectionable. I am not aware of any boy messengers having been kept at work for 16 hours. Some of the elder boys have averaged 12¾ hours work a day during the month of January. I entirely deprecate the continuance of such a state of public business, and, although no complaints have been made by the staff of excessive hours, I have, in order to stop it, directed steps to be taken to add about 50 officers to the minor staff.

  THE SEWERS IN WESTMINSTER.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the basements of many valuable properties along the line of certain of the principal sewers in Westminster have for the past five or six years been frequently flooded with sewage, owing to the insufficient capacity of such sewers for the increasing requirements; whether the alterations to the system of drainage of the Houses of Parliament, which cost some £30,000 in 1887, were occasioned by the imperfect local sewerage system; and whether he will call upon the Local Authority of Westminster to inform him of the steps taken to protect the district from a recurrence of the evil?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: My attention had not been drawn to the matter to which the question of my hon. Friend refers prior to the notice which was given by him. I have communicated with the Vestry of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, and I am informed that the basements of many valuable properties along the line of certain of the principal streets in Westminster have for the past six years been frequently flooded with sewage, owing to the insufficient capacity of the sewers for the increased requirements. As regards the alterations in the system of drainage of

  1931
  the Houses of Parliament, I learn from the Chief Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works that these alterations were not occasioned by the imperfect local sewerage system, but were undertaken in order to improve the mode of connecting the main drains of the building with the Metropolitan main low level sewer, and to enable them to be freed from sewage at all times, and that the cost of that portion of the work did not exceed £12,000. The Vestry of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, attribute the flooding to the fact that when heavy rains occur at or near the time of high water in the Thames, the main lines of the sewers become so fully charged as to be unable to afford an outlet for the surface water from the local sewers, and they state that as the water accumulates from the higher land it flows back from the main line sewers through the local service into the areas and basements of many of the houses and buildings in the low-lying parts of the parish. The Vestry, it appears, were for a long time in communication with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and subsequently have been in communication with the London County Council with a view to their providing additional means of discharging storm water. The Vestry, it appears, were informed by the Chief Engineer to the County Council in September last that a scheme for the prevention of flooding was then being prepared. The matter is not one in which the Local Government Board have any jurisdiction.

  ARMY RECRUITS.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the existing difficulty in obtaining recruits, he will take into favourable consideretion a proposal to form a battalion essentially composed of Army candidates who, having failed in scoring sufficient marks for commissions, can pass the medical examination; and whether he will give, by Return or otherwise, information as to the number of such candidates who have entered the ranks, and with what results, especially with regard to promotion?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The proposal to form a corps of gentlemen has been very carefully considered on previous
  1932
  occasions, but for various reasons the Military Authorities have not thought themselves able to recommend its adoption. It is not one that I have myself personally considered, and I will look into it. There are no records at the War Office of the after career of candidates for commissions who have failed to obtain them.

  INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in relation to the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the question of the Investment of Trust Funds in Colonial Inscribed Stocks?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; I am not able to made a statement on the subject at present.

  THOROUGHBRED STALLIONS.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether thoroughbred stallions receiving the Queen's Prizes are examined so that their soundness can be relied upon by breeders; and whether the examination for soundness in wind is made by lunging; and, if not, by what other means the soundness in wind of horses receiving a Queen's Prize is ascertained?
  MR. CHAPLIN: All the stallions, before receiving the Queen's premiums, are strictly examined by three veterinary surgeons, and they are disqualified if they are found to be affected with either of the following diseases, which the commissions consider are of a hereditary nature. The diseases are roaring, including whistling, ringbone, unsound feet, navicular disease, spavin, and cataract. The rule observed by the veterinary surgeons in examining the horses for their wind is this—that in all cases, where possible, they are lunged. If, however, for any reason lunging is found to be undesirable, other means are adopted; but this is only in very exceptional cases.

  STREET ACCIDENTS IN LONDON.
  MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would obtain

  1933
  from the Coroners of the London District the number of inquests held over persons who hare met their death by street accidents in the Metropolis during the years 1889 and 1890?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: If my hon. Friend's object is to ascertain the number of persons killed by all descriptions of vehicles in the streets, he will find the figures for 1889 in the Report of the Commissioner of Police for that year, page 39. The figures for 1890 will be given in the same Report for that year. It seems, therefore, unnecessary to obtain a Coroner's Return. If I have misunderstood the object of my hon. Friend, perhaps he will specify more exactly what information he requires, and I will then consider whether it can be given.

  PARISH ASSESSMENTS.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that a great deal of unpleasantness is being caused by the action of the London County Council, who, not satisfied with the parish assessments even when appealed against, are insisting upon re-raising the assessments; and whether they have the power to thus revise what has already been properly investigated and settled?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not received any communication with reference to the action of the London County Council in the matter referred to. By the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act, 1869, any body of persons authorised by law to levy rates or to require contributions payable out of rates in the Metropolis may appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions if they feel aggrieved by reason of the total gross value or rateable value of any parish being too high or too low, or if there be no approved valuation list for the parish. I assume that the appeals referred to are made by the London County Council under this provision, and it appears to me that the valuation lists cannot properly be considered as settled unless there has been an opportunity of appealing to the Quarter Sessions and such appeals have been decided.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: The question I ask has no reference to the
  1934
  gross and total assessment, but I wish to know whether the separate assessments in parishes have not been attempted to be raised?
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the appeal affects certain properties which had not been sufficiently rated. That being so, the appeal applies also to the total assessment.

  DOCKYARD EXPENDITURE.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the probable amount which will be available out of the unexpended balance of the Navy Estimates of 1890–91 for expenditure on ships building in the dockyards in the year 1891–2; and what is the amount which will be repayable out of the Estimates for 1891–2 for stores and armour plates bought and paid for in the year 1890–91, in accordance with Section 3 of the Naval Defence Act?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: At present it is not expected that there will be any unexpended balance on the Navy Estimates for 1890–91 as regards shipbuilding in the dockyards under the Naval Defence Act, but there is an estimated balance on armaments of £162,300. There is nothing repayable out of the Estimates 1891–92 for advances made for stores and armour-plates bought and paid for in 1890–91. The estimated expenditure under the Naval Defence Act for the coming year is:—For hulls and machinery of ships building by contract, £3,140,733; armaments, £280,000.

  SALIH PASHA.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Armenian inhabitants of Zeitoun have forwarded to Sir William White a Petition in which they set forth a series of grievances against Salih Pasha, the Governor of the Province of Marash; whether this Salih Pasha is the same Salih Pasha who was implicated in the notorious massacres of Christians at Damascus; whether it is the fact, as stated in the Petition, that Salih Pasha has arrested and thrown into prison a number of peaceable Armenian travellers, and has practically left the Province at

  1935
  the mercy of bands of Circassian and other brigands who have received carte blanche to do as they please; and whether any inquiry has been or will be made into the truth or falsehood of the allegations contained in this Petition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: Sir William White has not reported his having received a Petition from the inhabitants of Zeitoun, but he has instructions to take such steps as he may deem advisable to ascertain the facts with regard to the disturbances at Zeitoun, respecting which the reports are very contradictory. We have no information as to the antecedents of Salih Pasha.

  SOLDIERS ON THE MARCH.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to secure that soldiers on the march shall have some breakfast given them before starting in the morning, and that they shall not be dependent on the generosity of innkeepers for this meal for which at present the innkeepers receive no remuneration?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: When a soldier is in barracks the ration he receives from the public has to be supplemented at his own expense in order that he should be provided with breakfast and tea. When on the march he is allowed a hot meal, which is more than equivalent to the ration in barracks; and, consequently, he has less difficulty in providing the supplementary meals. The soldiers do not depend on the generosity of the innkeeper for their break fast, that meal being provided, as in barracks, under regimental arrangements. Billets are, however, much scattered—often over two or three miles—and it would be impossible for an officer to see that all the men had morning meals and marched at the proper time. All that can be done is to give general directions.

  VOLUNTEER POSITION ARTILLERY.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability in garrison towns, such as Liverpool and Manchester, of allowing the use of the riding school of cavalry barracks for the purpose
  1936
  of giving equitation lessons to the non-commissioned officers and drivers of Volunteer Position Artillery stationed in such towns; and whether he is aware that the present arrangements entail a cost of from £50 to £60 a year on Volunteer Artillery Corps?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If definite applications on the subject should be made by officers commanding batteries of Volunteer Artillery, endeavours will be made to meet their wishes as far as possible. I have no information as to the cost entailed on Volunteer Artillery Corps by the present arrangements.

  TORPEDO GUNBOATS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of the seven torpedo gunboats of the Salamander class have yet succeeded in doing their trial speed of 21 knots; and whether the 18 torpedo gunboats, described as sister ships of the Salamander, and also stated to have a speed of 21 knots, are expected to realise that speed?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: None of these vessels have developed on trial more than 3,500 to 4,000-horse power, as against 4,500-horse power specified. I have fully explained the reasons for this falling off in a Memorandum on the Estimates for 1891–92. The speeds attained have been from 19½ to 20 knots, as against 21 knots estimated under maximum forced draught trial. Of the 18 vessels mentioned two have boilers of the same size as, although differing in details from, those in the Salamander. The remaining five, which are already begun, have larger boilers. With the larger boilers a higher speed may, I hope, be obtained. Eleven other vessels have yet to be ordered.

  BRITISH HONDURAS.
  MR. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Baron Siccama's Report on the sanitary works in progress in Belize, British Honduras, and the Correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Governor on the subject of the recent outbreak of yellow fever in that town?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: Papers on the subject will be laid in which will be found a Report by Baron Siccama.

  THE SOUDAN.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government recognise the right of sovereignty of Egypt over the Soudan; and, if so, whether he will define the frontiers of the territory over which this sovereignty is claimed by Egypt; and whether it is intended to increase the Egyptian Army, in view of the contemplated military occupation by Egypt of that part of the Soudan called Tokar?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The term Soudan is applied to extensive regions in Africa, all of which certainly do not belong to Egypt. Her Majesty's Government have not assumed the duty of defining the limits of Egyptian rights in this territory. The second question must be answered in the negative.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is it in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that the following telegram was sent on January 6, 1884:—
  "Baring to Granville.—The Khedive says that he accepted policy of the gradual abandonment of the whole Soudan, which he believes, on mature reflection, to be best for the interests of the country."
  I wish to know whether the policy of the abandonment of the Soudan is compatible with any effective assertion of sovereignty such as is being made now?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the withdrawal of the Egyptian troops from the Soudan did not constitute an abandonment of the sovereignty of that region.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government now recognise the sovereignty of Egypt over the whole Soudan, Khartoum included?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not prepared to make a general statement on the subject. If the hon. Member desires an answer I must ask him to place a question on the Paper. I may remind the hon. Member that in 1883 and 1884 the Government bound themselves to protect the Egyptian Government in Egypt and also in the ports of the Red
  1938
  Sea. The Government do not consider that they have departed from that limitation in assenting to the occupation of Tokar.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Are we, then, to understand that the Government do recognise the sovereignty of Egypt over that part of the Soudan?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of further questions.

  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Montagu Williams is correctly reported in the Standard of the 10th instant as having stated, on the hearing of a School Board summons, that,
  "In his opinion, it was for the parents to say whether a child should go on attending school after having passed the Fourth Standard";
  and, if so, on what legal authority the opinion is based?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the learned Magistrate that he cannot remember his exact words, but the substance of what he said was that, in a case where a parent proves that the presence of a child is necessary at home on account of poverty, sickness, or other trouble, and where that child has passed the Fourth Standard, he thought it was rather for the parent to say whether he might retain the child at home. This opinion, the Magistrate informs me, is based on the decision in the case of "The School Board of London v. Duggan," which was tried in the High Court of Justice in 1884.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Arising out of that answer may I ask who is the proper authority to reprimand, or suspend, or dismiss a Stipendiary Magistrate who refuses absolutely to administer the law and encourages the parents to disobey the legal authorities?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The question of the right hon. Gentleman is based on an assertion which the learned Magistrate entirely repudiates.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relating to the negotiations with France for the

  1939
  settlement of the Newfoundland Fisheries Question will be presented to the House; and when it is intended to present the Papers already promised relating to the attempts that were made, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, by Mr. Bond, representing the Colony of Newfoundland, to effect commercial and fishery arrangements with the United States?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is hoped that both sets of Papers will be ready for presentation in about a week or 10 days.

  BRAZIL AND UNITED STATES TREATY.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to make a statement as to the position of proposed Treaty between the Republics of Brazil and the United States of America; and whether the 1st of April next is the day on which it is proposed the Treaty shall come into force?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Ministers have been directed to telegraph the date at which it will come into force, and to state whether ratification or legislation is necessary, the general effect of the Treaty is that United States imports to Brazil will be placed on the free list which hitherto have amounted to about 18½ per cent. of the entire imports of those articles; and United States imports will pay a reduced rate of 25 per cent. which hitherto have been under 5 per cent. of similar imports. In return, Brazilian sugar, molasses, coffee, and hides will be admitted free into the United States.

  FRANCHISE QUALIFICATION FOR SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what franchise qualification is necessary to enable an elector to record his vote at a School Board election?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The qualification necessary to entitle anyone to vote at a School Board election is that his name should appear on the latest valuation roll as owner or occupier of lands or heritages of not less than £4 annual
  1940
  value. In counties, as the valuation is now made up, under 52 & 53 Vic. c. 50, service franchise occupiers of premises of the prescribed value are entered as inhabitant occupiers; and, in my opinion, they are therefore entitled to vote at those School Board elections for which the county valuation rolls furnish the lists of voters.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the grant in aid of £5,000 for Swaziland, he will state the amount of revenue collected for the period for which the aid of £5,000 is asked; from what sources is the revenue obtained; whether it is derived from the taxes, &c. on white persons imposed by Section 6 of the Proclamation of 18th December, 1889, or whether it includes taxation from other sources; whether he is aware that Article 9 of the Convention provides that such deficiency has to be certified according to rules as to accounting and audit to be approved by the High Commissioner and the President of the Transvaal; whether these rules have been made and approved, and whether the deficiency has been certified accordingly; and whether the Transvaal Government is contributing a like sum of £5,000?
  BARON H DE WORMS: The amount of revenue expected to be collected by the Joint Government during the period in question is estimated at £1,347. This revenue is derived from the sources indicated in the third part of the hon. Member's question, and does not include taxation from other sources. As regards the 4th paragraph, I am, of course, aware of the provisions of the Swaziland Convention; but the rules of Account and Audit have not yet been received from South Africa; nor could the amount of the deficit be certified under them until the year is closed on the 31st instant. The sum of £5,000 is an estimate, and no more of it will be applied to the deficiency of the current year than is requisite to make good a moiety of the certified deficit. The South African Republic has undertaken to supply a moiety of the deficit equal to that supplied by Her Majesty's Government.

  LONDON FOGS.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the serious injury to health, the disturbance of business, and the hardships inflicted on many of the poorest wage earners of the Metropolis by the curtailment of their working hours, caused by the increasing prevalence of fogs, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to examine and report how far the evil is one which can be mitigated by legislation?
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the various descriptions of coal used in the Metropolis, and their relative capabilities for converting mist and white fog into the yellow and dark conditions of the atmosphere known as London fog; and also to the possibility of inducing persons residing in London to use coals comparatively smokeless by means of legislation, having the effect of placing taxes or duties on those coals which are most deleterious to the atmosphere?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: Her Majesty's Government are, in common with other inhabitants of the Metropolis, extremely sensible of the serious injury, disturbance, and hardships inflicted by the increasing prevalence of fog. They are, however, seeptical as to the value of a Royal Commission for the investigation of the subject. It is notorious that the evil mainly arises from the smoke emitted by ordinary domestic fires, and the problem to be solved is whether it is possible by legislation to prohibit and prevent the production of smoke in this way. A Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in 1887 with this object, and was referred after a Second Reading to a Select Committee, which took evidence which went to show that smoke could be prevented by the use of non-bituminous coal, by the substitution of coke or gas for coal for heating purposes, and possibly by the adoption of an improved grate and great care in lighting and feeding fires with common coal. The Bill was not proceeded with beyond this stage in 1887. Another Bill with
  1942
  the same object has been introduced, and stands for Second Reading in the House of Lords this evening. If it should come down to the House, the noble Lord will have an opportunity of considering whether it is possible by penalty on occupiers of houses and tenements to secure the object he has in view.

  VICE CHANCELLORS' COURTS AT OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill for the purpose of abolishing the Vice Chancellors' Courts at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and of making members of these Universities and inhabitants of the City of Oxford and Borough of Cambridge exclusively amenable to, and triable by, the ordinary law and the ordinary tribunals of the land?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: A meeting has, I understand, been arranged to take place between the Vice Chancellor of the University of Cambridge and the Mayor, as representing the Town Council of that place; and both parties have agreed to a Conference on the whole question of University authority over townsmen. As regards Oxford, proceedings are governed by Act of Parliament (6 Geo. IV., c. 97, sect. 3), and all cases are heard by the Vice Chancellor in open Court, another county magistrate in almost every case being present. Evidence is taken on oath unless the defendant pleads guilty, and she is entitled to be represented by a solicitor. Under the above circumstances, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that legislation is at present necessary.

  ELECTORS REGISTRATION (ACCELERATION) BILL.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he his prepared, with regard to this Bill, to accept the Amendments down on the Paper, striking out of it all interference with the Parliamentary register?
  MR. RITCHIE: I fear that we can hardly expect to make any progress with the Bill this evening. If we could

  1943
  make progress with it I should be glad, as the Bill is urgent. After all, it simply deals with a question of machinery. So far, I have putdown on the Paper all the Amendments to which the Government are prepared to agree.
  MR. COBB: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the object we have in view is merely to assist him in making a simple change without making any alteration in the Parliamentary register?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not know what the hon. Member means by simple change, but I know that the Amendments on the Paper raise a vast number of questions of great importance, dealing not only with registration but also with amendments of the Electoral Laws. They are questions which the Government could not undertake to consider in connection with this Bill.
  MR. COBB: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the Amendments that were put down by myself in regard to the Parliamentary register were simply put down because the Bill dealt not only with the County Council register, but with the Parliamentary register?
  MR. RITCHIE: The law as it stands at present says distinctly that the revision of the County Council register, and of the Parliamentary register must take place at the same time; there could be no separation in regard to them.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: Is it not the fact that so far as London is concerned the unanimous feeling is that the Bill should apply to the Parliamentary register? Does the hon. Member for the Rugby Division claim to represent the majority of the electors of the country?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: May I ask if I understood my right hon. Friend to express an opinion that Amendments tending to extend the scope of the measure should be discouraged?
  MR. RITCHIE: I must have been misunderstood. This is a Bill simply to alter the machinery of registration, and the Government could not undertake to consider Amendments which would in any way affect the franchise, whether Parliamentary or County Council.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman
  1944
  be prepared to consider mere alterations in the dates mentioned in his Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: Such an Amendment would mean a very material alteration in the law, and that is an alteration which I cannot entertain. The dates in the Bill have been settled after most careful inquiry, and I do not think any change in them would be likely to advance the object which hon. Gentlemen opposite have in view.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in connection with the appointment of members of the Royal Commission on Labour, if he will be good enough to take into consideration whether anyone shall be appointed on that Commission who has some special knowledge of questions affecting the agricultural labourers, and who shall be someone in whom those labourers shall have complete confidence?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There is a question on the Paper for to-morrow on this subject, and I will then give an answer.

  THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to go on with the Army Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Gentleman can inform me when the Navy Estimates will be completed, I will give him an answer.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will the Army Estimates be taken after Navy Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes.

  BELFAST PRISON.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result of the conference between the Irish Government and the Irish Prisons Board, concerning the unanimous protest of the Corporation, of Belfast against the projected alterations of Her Majesty's Prison at Belfast, upon the several grounds that they would create an eyesore, destroy the frontage line, and deteriorate the value of property in the district?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I am not able to answer the question, and must ask the hon. Member to defer it.
  MR. SEXTON: I will defer it until Thursday.

  TELEGRAPH STATION AT KNOCK.
  MR. DE COBAIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has seen the Report of Sir Andrew Reed, the Inspector General of Royal Irish Constabulary, strongly recommending the establishment of a telegraph station at Knock, County Down, in order to afford greater protection to the person and property of those living in that locality; is he aware that outrages perpetrated at this place were frequently not communicated to the police till the following day, thus affording facilities for the escape of criminals, owing to the want of telegraphic communication; and would he take early steps to remedy a condition of things so seriously affecting the interests of a community which is rapidly growing, and which embraces a population at present of close upon 4,000 persons?
  MR. RAIKES: The Report of Sir Andrew Reed, which I understand is addressed to the Irish Government, has not been referred to me; and I have no knowledge of the circumstances attending the outrages mentioned by the hon. Member. In May of last year I made an offer to establish a telegraph office at Knock under a guarantee of £22 a year. This does not appear to me to be a sum which it should be difficult to raise if any importance is attached by the residents to such communication.

  THE FOUR COURTS, DUBLIN.
  MR. DE COBAIN: I had intended to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that complaints have been made by suitors and the public generally in regard to the delay on the part of the officials of the different Courts connected with the Pour Courts, Dublin, in making up the orders and decrees given by the different Judges, almost a month, and sometimes even two months, elapsing in getting out the order; whether the different Law Societies have repeatedly complained of such delays; and whether, in view of
  1946
  the fact that the hours of attendance at the Four Courts are from 11.30 to 3.30, whereas in London the Judges sit from 10.30 to 4.30, some steps will be taken at an early date to ensure the greater despatch of business at these Courts, in the interest of the professional gentlemen practising there and of the public at large? At the request of my right hon. Friend I beg to postpone the question.

  BELFAST STREET TRAMWAYS.
  MR. DE COBAIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Street Tramway Company had, on the construction of their lines through the City of Belfast, infringed the provisions of the Act of Parliament which provides for a space of nine feet sis inches being left at either side of the tramway lines, and that, notwithstanding this infringement proved a serious inconvenience to vehicular and other traffic at Donegall Street and other important thoroughfares, the Belfast Corporation, which had charge of the streets, took no steps to enforce compliance by this company with the provisions of the Act; and would he call upon the Local Authority to have the law in this particular observed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURThe matter referred to is not one under the control of the Executive Government. I understand, however, that the Belfast Tramway Acts confer on the Corporation certain discretionary powers, and that in any case where there has been a departure from the nine feet six inches space mentioned, the Corporation have sanctioned it.

  IRISH RELIEF WORKS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the relief works, to which he recently, referred as instituted for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish of Ardara, County Donegal, are seven miles distant from that parish; whether he is aware that an engineer named Gahan, who is employed in the Government relief works at Garrick, visited the parish of Ardara about a fortnight ago with a view to the making of the roads by the Government in the neighbourhood for the purpose of relief, but

  1947
  that hitherto no step in this direction has been taken; and whether, having regard to the fact that the fulfilment of his promise made at Ardara, that the Government would cut a road through the hill of Glengesh, would give employment to between 200 and 300 people in the neighbourhood of Ardara, and to the destitute condition of the people of this neighbourhood, any measures are to be taken for their immediate sustenance and relief?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A relief road has already been ordered to be opened in the Electoral Divisions of Inishkeel and Glengesh. It is expected that it will be commenced to-day.

  BELFAST POLICE STATION.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the entire site for the new Central Police Station at Belfast has now been taken over, and when he work of building will begin?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the site for the new Central Police Station at Belfast consists of two plots or divisions, on one of which the barrack is to be built, and on the other the stables and offices in connection with them. The division required for the barrack has been taken over, and the necessary steps taken for proceeding with the erection of the building, which, it is expected, will be commenced in a few days. The second division of the site, that required for the stables, has not yet been taken possession of, but arrangements have been made for doing so to admit of that building being proceeded with in sufficient time to secure its being completed at the same time as the barrack.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added Sir Charles Pearson to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacture.
  Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table.

  PARISHES (UNITED, DIVIDED, &c.)
  Address for—
  "Return of Parishes divided and Districts assigned to Churches by the Ecclesiastical
  1948
  Commissioners for England under the provisions of the Church Building Acts and 'The Parish of Manchester Division Act, 1850;' of all Districts and new Parishes constituted by the same Commissioners under the New Parishes Acts; and of all Districts or Parishes assigned or constituted by the same Commissioners under 'The St. Leonards and St. Mary Magdalen Church Districts Act, 1868,' or any other local Act, from the 31st day of October 1880 to the 31st day of October 1890 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 413, of Session 1881)."—(Mr. Talbot.)

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-six Members.
  Ordered, That Sir Albert Rollit and Mr. Pickard be added to the Committee—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Jackson.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SEA COMMERCE, BRITISH COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the growth of Colonial Sea Commerce and increase of British Naval responsibilities caused thereby; and to move—
  "That the growth of the Sea Commerce of the British Colonies and Dependencies and of the war fleets of Foreign Powers render it desirable that the annual Navy Estimates presented to this House should in future be accompanied by a Return showing the total number of war ships of each class in commission, in reserve, and building; the annual aggregate revenue; the annual Naval expenditure; the aggregate tonnage of the mercantile marine; and the approximate annual aggregate value of the Sea-borne Commerce of the British Empire and of each Foreign Power possessing war ships: and a further Return showing the annual Naval expenditure on Sea-going Forces, and the approximate annual value, exclusive of interchange with the United Kingdom, of the Sea-borne Commerce of British North America, British South Africa, British Australasia, and British India respectively."
  We are asked, Sir, that you shall leave

  1949
  the Chair, in order to discuss the Navy Estimates for the coming year—Estimates which are intended to provide for the security of the sea interests of the whole of the Empire up to the end of March, 1892. What may happen before March, 1892, it is impossible to predict; but if war should by any chance break out before that date, we must stand or fall by the provision made by the Estimates now before the House, and the responsibility can only rest with the House of Commons. I wish, in the first place, to invite the attention of the House to the broad fact that if ever and whenever we are involved in war, and our naval sufficiency is put to the test, we shall find that our condition has entirely changed from what it was when we last fought upon the sea for our maritime supremacy. Then the population in these Islands was not dependent for food on the sea. Now that population is absolutely and entirely so dependent. Then British commerce, and, therefore, the area of danger of the commerce, was practically confined to European waters and the North Atlantic. Our trade with India was practically small, and its protection was confided to the care of the armed fleet belonging to the East India Company. The area of our maritime commerce now includes every ocean and every sea in the world, and our naval operations must include action not only in European waters and the North Western Atlantic, but over every sea and ocean. What we had to protect then was wholly and solely the commerce of the United Kingdom; but nowadays the commerce of the United Kingdom only forms a portion of British commerce which we have to protect. When the last gun was fired at Waterloo we had a Navy Estimate of £22,000,000, and we had only then the germs of a great Empire. The Navy Estimate now amounts to £14,000,000, and we have a gigantic oceanic Empire to protect. I will not trace the gradual growth of our Empire since that date, but I will mention one or two facts that have occurred during the reign of Her Majesty. The Revenue of the United Kingdom was £56,000,000 in 1837, and the annual sea commerce amounted to £155,000,000. The Revenue of the United Kingdom has now reached
  1950
  £89,000,000, and the annual sea commerce £744,000,000. The Revenue of our colonies and dependencies in 1837 was £23,000,000, it is now £105,000,000; and the sea commerce of our colonies and dependencies now amounts to £460,000,000. Consequently, although the Revenue of the United Kingdom has only increased by one and a half times, the Revenue of the outlying Empire has increased fivefold; and while the sea trade of the Mother Country which the Navy has to protect has in the same period increased only five times, the sea trade of the outlying Empire, which the Navy has also to protect, has increased 20 times. It is quite apparent from these figures that we are within a measurable distance of the time when the sea trade and commerce of the outlying Empire will equal, if not surpass, that of the United Kingdom. It is interesting to compare the commerce of the Federal States of America when attacked by the Alabama with the present commerce of our Empire beyond the sea. The Federal States had then a sea trade of about £153,000,000. The aggregate trade of our three great groups of self-governing colonies—British North America, British South Africa, and British Australia, now amounts to £198,000,000. Those colonies have therefore at this moment a sea trade far greater than the total sea trade of the Federal States of America at the outbreak of the Civil War, and at the time of the operations of the Alabama. If we add the trade of our dependencies, I find that it amounts to £260,000,000, not far short of double the sea trade of the Federal States at the time of the commencement of the operations of the Alabama—so that the sea trade of our colonies proper exceeds the sea trade attacked by the Alabama by about £45,000,000, while that of our dependencies exceeds it by about £110,000,000. I may add that the sea commerce of Australia is larger at this moment than that of the Federal States at that time. The commerce of the outlying Empire divides itself properly into two parts. There is the interchange with the United Kingdom and the sea trade, which is carried on entirely independent of the United Kingdom; and what I desire to draw the

  1951
  attention of the House to is the growth of that independent sea commerce, for the protection of which this House has to provide, and which neither goes from or comes to these islands. The value of the imports and exports of our outlying Empire is about £460,000,000, and of this amount only £187,000,000 is interchanged with the United Kingdom; therefore, the independent trade of the outlying Empire amounts to about £273,000,000. It amounts to 11 times the amount of the independent trade of the outlying Empire in 1837, and is one and three-quarters more than the total trade of the United Kingdom at the time of the commencement of Her Majesty's reign. That shows the increase of the naval responsibility incurred, not by the United Kingdom only, but by the communities which compose our colonies and dependencies beyond the seas. Let me take that independent trade, and compare it with the sea-borne trade of great Foreign Powers which possess large war Navies. I find that it is about four times as much as the sea-borne trade of all Russia; about equal to that of Germany; about three-fourths that of France; two and a half times that of Italy, and nearly half that of the United States. Every year the sea commerce of the outlying Empire, independent of the interchange with the United Kingdom, is increasing. It is not only overtaking the sea-borne commerce of the Mother Country, but in a short time it may eclipse all the sea-borne commerce of the great European countries. The net expenditure to be incurred by the United Kingdom on the Navy Estimates is £14,215,100, and the net naval expenditure by the outlying Empire, with its enormous trade, is only £381,546. It is interesting to consider for a moment the way in which this £381,546 is made up. India contributes for troopships and harbours £170,576, but for the sea-going force which has to protect her trade, independent and otherwise, she contributes only £84,200. Therefore, the total contributed by India for the defence of a trade greater than that of many first-class European Powers is £254,776. For the first time Australia appears as chief contributor to the expenses of the Fleet. It appears by the Estimates that Australia contributes £126,000; Jamaica £520 for
  1952
  a fresh water supply to the town of Port Royal; and Ascension £250 for pier dues. While last year Ceylon contributed £4,500 to the naval expenses, it disappears this year from the Estimates. The House will observe that out of every £1 spent for the naval protection of the Empire in 1891–92 the outlying Empire will spend about 6¼d., and the United Kingdom spend the balance, 19s. 5¾d. It is to be remembered that the larger part of the Revenue of the Empire is now raised outside these Islands, and that it is an increasing Revenue, while the Revenue of these Islands is almost stagnant. Looking at the outlying Empire by itself, and comparing it with the Revenues of the great first-class maritime Powers maintaining fleets for the protection of a smaller commerce, I find that the total Revenue of the outlying Empire, being about £105,000,000, is about 1⅛ times more than that of Russia, 2½ times that of Germany, more than three-quarters that of France, about 1½ times that of Italy, and 1½ times that of the United States. An interesting Return has been compiled by a distinguished member of the Foreign Office and is re-published in Whitaker this year, giving the average Annual Revenue and the average Naval and Military Expenditure of the Great Powers from 1882 to 1887. Taking on the one hand the Revenue and the independent sea commerce of the outlying Empire separately, and basing a comparison on those Returns, the following are the interesting results: If we take the percentage of Naval Expenditure to Revenue, for example, I find that while the Naval Expenditure of Russia is 5 per cent. of her total Revenue, of Germany 4 per cent., France 8 per cent., Italy 4 per cent., and the United States 3 per cent., the Naval Expenditure of the outlying Empire compared with Revenue is practically nil. If we take the percentage of Naval Expenditure of these nations and compare it with the Naval Expenditure of the outlying Empire in the ratio of Naval Expenditure to seaborne commerce it comes to this:—While the Naval Expenditure of Russia on every £1 value of her seaborne commerce is 1s. 9d., Germany 1d., and France 5d., and so on, that of the outlying Empire cannot be expressed in the appreciable fraction of

  1953
  a farthing. If we take the Naval Expenditure in proportion to the national shipping entered and cleared at national ports we find that Russia spends £5 10s. per ton, France £1 per ton, and the United States about 10s.; while our outlying Empire does not spend on protection the appreciable portion of a farthing on her tonnage. If we take the shipping owned it will be found that Russia is spending on her Fleet £11 3s. per ton of shipping owned; France, £10 13s.; and the outlying Empire 4s. 5d. I hope I have said enough to justify the importance of having Returns dealing with the matters specified in my Motion accompanying the Naval Estimates, so that the House may be placed in a proper position to discuss them from the only point of view from which they can be discussed—that is to say, the relation of their adequacy to the work to be done by the Fleet. It now only remains for me to deal with that part of the Motion which refers to ships in commission, in reserve, and building under the British and all other flags of Maritime Powers. The Navy, as we all know, is for the protection of maritime interests, and these interests, naturally, group themselves under two heads—the defence of seaboards and the defence of sea commerce. The relative national importance of the one or the other depends entirely upon several circumstances. For example, let us suppose Australia an independent State, and let us compare her with Russia, and see in what relation of importance a seaboard defence and sea commerce defence would apply to Australia and apply to Russia. Russia has an extensive seaboard, and so has Australia; but the sea commerce of Russia is not much more than half that of Australia. The sea commerce of Russia represents about 10s. a head for every Russian, while the sea commerce of Australia represents about £30 a head for every Australian—so that every Australian has 60 times the interest in the sea that the Russian has. Therefore, for purposes of pure defence, Russia could confine her naval preparations to harbour defence. But an independent Australia could do no such thing. An independent Australia, without a sea-going fleet, could be shut up in a few weeks like a telescope by the Fleet of China, Chili, or Japan, to say nothing
  1954
  of any European Fleet. The naval policy of a nation, therefore, can be sufficiently surmised from the number and class of her ships of war taken in relation to her real maritime necessities, and the necessities of her population as they appear by their enforced reliance upon the sea. If a nation with a small sea commerce developes a fleet of sea-keeping cruisers it is fair to assume, indeed, I think it must be assumed, that such development indicates a policy of attack rather than a policy of defence. And thus to measure our naval necessities, we are absolutely bound to consider carefully the naval programmes and the fleets of foreign nations—not in an abstract way, but in relation to their maritime interests, and the distribution of the commerce and the sea property they have to protect. Therefore, I think it is exceedingly important that the information for which I ask in my Motion should be attached to and accompany the Annual Navy Estimate, so that the House and the country responsible for the security of this gigantic Empire, and the safety of this gigantic sea business, will be able to judge whether the preparations are adequate, and whether the Government are taking the steps necessary to secure these interests. Another reason why it is important we should have information of the number of war ships in commission, in reserve, and building at home, and the number belonging to foreign nations is the modern practice—a very good one so far as this House is concerned—of having programmes of shipbuilding spread over a series of years. This practice commenced with what is known as the Northbrook programme which brought about an increase in the fleet that was to be completed by a specified time. Whilst that programme was being carried out there was a development of British trade and a development of foreign navies, ships were built conceivably for purposes of attack; and taking our present programme which is to expire in 1894, seeing that foreign nations know what it is and are aware that we restrict ourselves to it until 1894—and seeing that they are now increasing their fleets, especially in the direction of sea-keeping cruisers—I cannot see the justification of our present voluntarily restricted naval position. But I will reserve any remarks

  1955
  I may have to make on that subject to a future occasion. I trust the House will forgive me for having intervened, and having put, in this short way, certain broad facts before it to prove my contention—that certain specific information should be placed before us prior to our going into Committee on Navy Estimates. I think that information should accompany the Estimates, so that on broad grounds we may be able to see whether we are doing our duty—as we did it in the past, and whether we are facing our responsibilities and maintaining a force adequate to the naval wants of our Empire. It is also desirable that the House should be in a position to watch these developments, and that the communities under our flag should have it brought home to them year by year that they are not sharing the burdens with us—that they are piling up responsibilities on the United Kingdom, and that while they have increasing resources and revenue they are not fairly contributing or sufficiently helping the Old Country. It is a trite saying that the Navy is the first and chief line of defence of the Kingdom. Let us remember that we differ from all other States of the world in the fact that the internal communications of our Empire are sea communications, and that the sea being the commonage of the world, we cannot exist on sufferance, and must be prepared to maintain our water communications in the face of the world. Let us remember that it is the interest of every part of the Empire to assist in keeping the waterways free, and that it can only be done by a complete arrangement with all parts of the Empire and an adequate force established, not by abstract comparison with this or that Power, but with a due regard to all the facts and circumstances of the position as defined by geography and necessity. In the past we have gone wrong through making small abstract comparisons instead of calmly reviewing and working out the whole great problem, and deciding upon a comprehensive estimate of the amount and distribution of commerce to be protected, which is the only business-like way of arriving at the force necessary to prevent a collapse, not merely of the United Kingdom but of the whole Empire. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "The growth of the sea commerce of the British Colonies and Dependencies and of the war fleets of Foreign Powers render it desirable that the annual Navy Estimates presented to this House should in future be accompanied by a Return showing the total number of war ships of each class in commission, in reserve, and building; the annual aggregate revenue; the annual naval expenditure; the aggregate tonnage of the mercantile marine; and the approximate annual aggregate value of the seaborne commerce of the British Empire and of each Foreign Power possessing war ships, and a further Return showing the annual naval expenditure on sea-going Forces, and the approximate annual value, exclusive of interchange with the United Kingdom, of the seaborne commerce of British North America, British South Africa, British Australasia, and British India respectively,"—(Sir John Colomb,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We have heard the hon. and gallant Member state with ability and research most interesting facts with reference to the magnitude of the commerce of Great Britain. Well, that is a subject which we all contemplate with satisfaction and with pride, but the hon. and gallant Member's speech, from its tone, I consider one of the notes of alarm which hon. and gallant Gentlemen are constantly in the habit of sounding, and which are intended to induce people of this country to believe that there is some great danger threatening our commerce, and that the already enormous expenditure of the country upon naval and military defence is inadequate. I should think that that is not a view which is very satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, because within the last two years Her Majesty's Government have in two measures, one called the Imperial Defence Act, and the other called the Naval Defence Act, provided for an expenditure of £24,000,000, and in that they have not merely made a present provision, but have really mortgaged the resources of the future. On that policy I will say nothing now as there will be other opportunities more appropriate for discussing it; but what was the object of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? He has pointed out that

  1957
  there is this gigantic commerce in which England and her dependencies are interested. We all admit the magnitude of that commerce. It is to he counted by hundreds of millions—but the whole object of the hon. and gallant Member's speech and Motion was to represent to the country and the Government that the growth of that commerce indicated that the provisions which have been made for its defence are altogether inadequate, and that they ought to be increased. I confess that having regard to the knowledge and ability of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I was extremely surprised that he did not refer to the position of that commerce in the event of a war. From the character of the attendance in the House this afternoon, there does not seem to be very much alarm in Parliament, and I hope there is not in the country. I do not see here a great collection of naval officers or, what is still more important, of the great merchants of England, who are trembling on account of the danger which threatens their commerce. The hon. and gallant Member has dealt not merely with the commerce of England but also with that of India and the colonies, and his great object seemed to be that India and the colonies should contribute much more largely than they do now to the defence of their commerce. If the hon. Member had been addressing the representatives of the various provinces of Australia, who are now gathered together for the purpose of uniting Australia, and had suggested a great scheme of taxation for raising an Australian Navy, I could have better seen the pertinence of his speech—or if he had been addressing the Government of India and saying, "You must contribute your millions towards the protection of this trade," that would have been intelligible, but he has not attempted to face the question of what will be the position of the commerce of England, or of any other country in a state of war. It is upon that point that I principally wish to make a remark. The hon. Member seems to imagine that in the event of war the commerce of this country would be at once threatened by a belligerent Power, and that we should then lose our exports and imports. That is a fair issue to take. I have seen alarmists and panic-mongers going about the country telling
  1958
  people who do not consider or understand the question—"Unless you have an overwhelming Navy which governs every sea, England will be ruined, because no corn will come here and your manufactures will stop because no cotton will be received, and you will have no export of your textile fabrics or hardware manufactures." Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is sufficiently well informed to be aware that not one single ton of these imports or exports can be threatened by war. Surely the hon. Member is not going back to the defence of commerce of the last century or the beginning of the present century. He is surely aware that by the Declaration of Paris the whole trade of a belligerent is safe. I am not speaking of the carrying trade, with which I will deal presently. Not a hundredweight less corn would come into England if we were at war, and not a yard less cotton would be exported; but the imports and exports would be carried under neutral flags. Goods could not be prevented from coming into England. So far from the country being starved by reason of no corn coming into Liverpool, it would be brought in in perfect security under a neutral flag and in as great quantities as at present, and so with cotton; and so with goods going out of the country. Goods could go out in absolute security, and, therefore, as regards what I may call general trade, the Declaration of Paris makes it secure—and do not let there be any mistake about that. The hon. and gallant Member may reply, "But you will lose the great carrying trade of England." No doubt that would be a great loss. Let us measure the loss. It is not the loss of hundreds of millions of which the hon. Member speaks, the goods will remain and come and go as before, but you will lose no doubt the carrying trade of Great Britain. This is the greatest carrying trade in the world, and greater now than at any former period. I do not depreciate the amount of that loss, but let us look at it as men of business and measure it. Of course you may say the world, apart from Great Britain, has not the ships to carry on that trade. But that will happen which has happened before— there will be a transfer of ships from the British to neutral flags. During periods of war in old days, when belligerent

  1959
  Powers were most predominant in the world, they might have disputed this transfer as a legitimate transaction. But as time has passed the power of belligerents to give the law to the world has diminished, and the power of neutrals has increased; and there would be no difficulty in finding ships which would carry the commerce in absolute security. I do not believe for a moment that any multiplication of expenditure on the Navy could create such a cruising fleet as would enable belligerent commerce to be carried on in belligerent bottoms. I heard the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles) speak upon this subject last year, and he, speaking as a practical man, said it was impossible that this could be done. Take the case the hon. Member has referred to by way of illustration. In the American Civil War the Northern States had a great naval superiority over the Southern States, and were able to maintain an effective blockade of hundreds of miles of coast. Yet the presence of one single Southern cruiser was enough to prevent the North from carrying on trade in belligerent bottoms. With these there must always be some risk, which is not shared by neutral bottoms, and this will effect a difference in the insurance sufficient to give the trade to the neutral flag. Those things are perfectly well known to mercantile men and persons connected with shipping, and no amount of a cruising fleet you can get—unless you suppose you are going to have as in old days the assertion of the right to seize enemies goods in neutral vessels—will enable us to carry on trade in our vessels, we being belligerents. This is impossible under the operation of the modern law of nations since the Declaration of Paris. It is 75 years since England engaged in a maritime war in which this question could arise, for it did not arise in the Russian War. Therefore, in the whole of the dangers to which the hon. and gallant Member has directed his attention, he has omitted the main point in the consideration of the case. It is said that no food supplies would come to England in time of war unless our fleet practically covered the waters of the globe; but since the decision in the controversy between Great Britain and the United States, 100 years ago, on the
  1960
  subject of contraband of war—a controversy that is not likely to be renewed—since the decision of 1794 by which England paid compensation to America for treating food supplies to France as contraband of war—it is clear that no interference with food supplies conveyed in neutral bottoms can take place. To use the language of Lord Stowell, trade will fall into the lap of the neutral. There will be the loss of the carrying trade, no doubt a very considerable loss, but this is one of the recognisances which I confess I do not regard altogether with disfavour, one of the heavy recognisances under which a country is bound to keep the peace. The country need not be alarmed by stories of people being starved and factories closed in time of war. Truly this was the case of the Southern States in the American Civil War; but the Southern States were blockaded, and how can England be blockaded? This cannot be without an absolute defeat of our fighting fleet, such as the hon. and gallant Member does not contemplate. A country all seaboard cannot be blockaded. But if he considers that by any amount of exertion we can keep such a force in all quarters of the globe as will enable us to carry on our commerce in time of war, then I think the experience of all practical men will be against him. Stories are told of what will happen to the Suez Canal in time of war; but I do not believe that belligerent vessels will pass through the Canal, while neutral vessels can do so as in time of peace. There is no reason why they should not. A great fabric of panic has been reared, but let us apply to it the test of experience and the business-like way of regarding these transactions, and this is what I desire to do. My objections are not to the Return for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved—they are rather addressed to the arguments that the Return is intended to reinforce. I do not wish it to be supposed that I seek to diminish the naval supremacy of Great Britain, and that I do not desire a fleet which would give perfect security to the great possessions of the Empire abroad. I desire Great Britain to have, and I believe that she always will have, a Navy competent to defend her great interests. But I cannot understand the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman

  1961
  addressed to the inadequacy of our fighting fleet.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I never entered into the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of our Fleet. I stated the facts, and drew no such deduction.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman credit for making his speech with some object, and that object it was perfectly easy to perceive. I thought it was intended to put pressure upon Her Majesty's Government in view of future Naval Estimates. I desire to see the Fleet of England maintain that supremacy it has always held. I desire to have a Fleet that shall give security to the country at home and all our great possessions, and this is the desire of the nation. But I protest against attempts to alarm the country with the idea that its foreign commerce will be stopped and its industry at home and abroad will be paralysed if its foreign trade cannot be carried on in belligerent vessels. All the money expended on the hypothesis that it is possible, in any circumstances, to keep alive a force which will enable trade to be carried on in belligerent vessels in time of war, will be money wasted. The idea is an utter delusion. The difference in the rate of insurance alone would be sufficient to throw the trade into the hands of neutrals. It would therefore, in my opinion, be a great mistake on the part of the Government to allow themselves to be embarked in any great expenditure for this purpose. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think that I have done him injustice in my remarks upon his speech, or that I in any way wish to disparage or diminish our naval supremacy.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I am prepared to support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, though certainly not as an alarmist. I have not had the advantage of listening to the earlier remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I do not know what he may have said to cause alarm to the right hon. Gentleman, but certainly in the latter part of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech he said nothing that induced me to believe that his object was to bring about a large increase to our Naval Estimates. I am under the impression that our Navy is sufficiently strong for all
  1962
  the requirements of the Empire. It is equal to any two of the other maritime countries, and that seems sufficient to me. In addition we have those fine and powerful mail steamers which can be converted into war cruisers in case of war. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the growing sea commerce of the United Kingdom; but that of the colonies and dependencies is growing very much faster. The trade of our Australian Colonies is, per head of population, 25 times that of the Mother Country. Perhaps the most extraordinary increase in the whole world is to be found in Hong Kong and Singapore. I believe that the sea business of those two ports is greater to-day than was the commerce of the whole of the British Empire 50 years ago. Though I am not prepared to sustain this with the exact figures, I believe I am within bounds in making the statement. I think it very improbable that this country will ever be engaged in another great war. There is no country except Russia with which it is likely that we may go to war, and I believe that in 15 or 20 years' time public opinion will have become so strong in favour of peace that there will be no probability of war even with Russia. I am no alarmist, and believe we can defend our interests even on the North West Frontier of India against Russia. Neither do I think my hon. and gallant Friend can be called an alarmist. We have often discussed questions in relation to our colonial and foreign trade, and I have not found my hon. and gallant Friend under the influence of alarmist views; and I think it is unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to put into the mouth of my hon. and gallant Friend words which he did not use. It has been said that neutral ships would carry our commerce in time of war; but at present there are very few neutral ships. Nearly 75 or 80 per cent. of the steam shipping of the world is owned in this country. I do not think it would be possible for us to convert our own ships into neutral vessels, and I believe my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) has something to say as to difficulties under the Treaty of Paris upon the point. I do not believe that the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend, if given, would lead

  1963
  to an increase of the Navy; but it would tend to give confidence to Members of the House and to people outside.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: The Motion of nay hon. and gallant Friend seems to be a very fair Motion, because it proposes to embody in a practical shape certain information which may be very useful, not only to Members of this House, but to other parts of the Empire. All that my hon. and gallant Friend proposes is that there should be put into a succinct form the annual revenue, the amount devoted to naval purposes, the amount of our sea-going commerce, together with the contributions from different colonies. So far as the Government are concerned, there will be no objection to the information asked for being given, though not exactly in the form in which it is asked for. We must be careful not so to earmark the contributions from the colonies as to imply that they are too small, without considering that local contributions are generally associated with control. Local control is incompatible with that mobility which our Fleet in war time should possess. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has made a very interesting speech, in which lie laid down the proposition that, if this country went to war, not one quarter of wheat less would come into the country. Trade, he said, under the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, would be carried on under a neutral flag. I think the right hon. Gentleman was rather rash in saying that our commerce would enjoy in time of war under a neutral flag the same immunity it finds in time of peace. Does the right hon. Gentleman lay down the proposition that belligerents will always recognise a neutral flag, however colourable the transfer?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not say colourable.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman says the transfer would be a real one; but how could there be a sudden real transfer of our enormous tonnage to a neutral flag? It is an impossibility. Certain conditions attach to the neutrality of the flag, and one is that a considerable portion of the crew should be of the nationality of the flag. It has been said that if the misfortune
  1964
  of war should ever occur, it will not be confined to one or two nations, but will involve the great nations of Europe. In that case, the commerce of one belligerent would be colourably transferred to a neutral flag of a small nation. Is it to be assumed that the commerce of a great nation can be transferred to the flag of a small nation alongside, and that such a transfer will be recognised by the belligerents? Such a transfer would never be recognised. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that all nations reserve to themselves the right of deciding what goods are contraband of war; and not long ago a great nation declared that rice was contraband of war. If that is so, what becomes of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that in time of war not a quarter less of wheat would come into this country? I cannot agree with the observation of my hon. and gallant Friend that an increase of commerce must necessarily entail an increase of naval danger. I differ altogether from that doctrine. Comparing the naval expenditure of the five great naval Powers of Europe, it appears that, out of a total gross revenue of £89,000,000, England spends £15,600,000 on its Navy, or 17 per cent. In France, out of a revenue of £123,000,000, the naval expenditure is £8,300,000, or 7 per cent, In Germany the total revenue is £60,000,000, of which £4,600,000 is devoted to the Navy, or 8 per cent.; while in Italy, out of £72,000,000, the Navy absorbs £5,000,000, or 7 per cent.; and in Russia, out of £94,000,000, the Navy receives £4,300,000, or 4½ per cent. It thus appears that our naval expenditure is in excess of that of any two other nations. These figures ought surely to be regarded as satisfactory. It is also interesting to compare the average annual cost of naval protection per ton of the seagoing mercantile marine of these different nations. In this country the average cost of naval protection per ton is £1 6s. 11d.; in France it is £7 19s. 11d.; in Italy, £6 4s. 6d.; in Germany, £2 19s. l0d.; and in Russia, £10 4s. Therefore, according to these figures, Russia ought to have a much more effective protection in time of war than we have. Therefore, I differ from the conclusion

  1965
  of my hon. Friend that in proportion to the increase of British commerce must be the increase of British naval expenditure. The greater cost of naval protection in other countries shows that the navies of those countries have not behind them the commercial reserves that we have. We ought to keep up our Navy, so that it may maintain in every part of the world its fighting supremacy, and for this duty the Navy could not rely on any system of merchant cruisers. But the Navy, besides maintaining its fighting supremacy, has to give all protection that is possible to our commerce throughout the world. And in the discharge of this duty it certainly could be greatly assisted by merchant cruisers. During the last two or three years accordingly the Admiralty has subsidised and encouraged the building of merchant vessels with the most modern armaments which may be available at a moment's notice. There has thus been developed a system which will be an important instrument in protecting our commerce in time of war. Therefore while I cannot agree with all the conclusions of my hon. and gallant Friend, still I agree with him more than with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I shall be quite willing to grant the Return of which my hon. and gallant Friend has given notice, though, in order that such Return may be more useful and compact, I should like to confer with him as to the form such Return should take. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the enormous increase in our Mercantile Marine. That is certainly the case, and the most satisfactory feature of such increase has been the increase not in the number of ships built, but in the size of the individual vessels, for the larger the ships of our mercantile marine are the better will they be able to take care of themselves. Although the tonnage of our Mercantile Marine has so enormously increased, the number of our seagoing vessels at the present time is probably not greater than at the commencement of the century. The substitution of steam for sails and the facilities afforded by telegraphic communication have placed the commerce of the country at greater advantage in times of war; and, therefore, though we cannot hope that in any
  1966
  future war our merchant shipping will secure perfect immunity such as the right hon. Gentleman seems to anticipate, yet I believe that with the courage and resource which have always distinguished our Merchant Marine, it would fare much better than in the past.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The noble Lord has gone into a statement with regard to which I may say that for my part I have not the slightest objection to offer to his figures. But the noble Lord said he agreed more with the conclusions come to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Colomb) than with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt). I must say that I fail to understand in what the conclusions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman are to be preferred as opposed to the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby stated certain facts, and those facts have not been controverted in any way. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a matter of fact that if you go to war with any other nation, the rate of insurance will be so raised in British bottoms that commerce will go away from British bottoms to neutral bottoms. No one can deny this. We know that it occurred during the Crimean war, and also during the Secession War in the United States, and when persons talk very grandly and patriotically about giving a preference to British borne goods they are mainly actuated by their pockets; for no one likes to pay extra money in order that goods may be brought by British ships, when he knows ho can get them cheaper from neutral bottoms. Well, what does the noble Lord say? He says, in the first place, that all countries have not signed the Treaty of Paris giving free ships and free goods. The noble Lord, when he spoke of all countries not having signed the Declaration, of course alluded to the United States. But the noble Lord is somewhat ignorant of history, or he would have been aware that the United States had joined in many treaties with other countries recognising free ships and free goods long before the Treaty of Paris. One of the reasons why the United States Government did not

  1967
  sign the Declaration of Paris was that they did not think any Treaty or Declaration was required on the part of the different Powers in regard to this point, because goods carried by free ships were in their nature free goods, and because if any treaty or agreement of the kind were suggested, any country might say it would withdraw from such a proposal. But the noble Lord says the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was wrong in saying that not a quarter of wheat less would come to this country if we went to war. I do not suppose that when the right hon. Gentleman said "one quarter of wheat" he meant only one quarter, or a dozen quarters, or a hundred quarters, or, even, thousands of quarters. What he really did mean was that the price of wheat would not be raised in any appreciable degree by our being at war, because it would be carried in neutral bottoms. But the noble Lord says belligerents would not allow the colourable transfer of British bottoms to a neutral flag. No one ever said they would, as the transfers would, of course, be bonâ fide. During the American Civil War a great part of the carrying trade of the United States was bonâ fide transferred to this country, and the result has been to place the United States in this difficulty, that having lost that trade they cannot recover it, and we have retained it ever since. Then the noble Lord asks, how do we know that if we had our ships placed under the flag of some weak neutral Power the belligerent with whom we might be at war would continue to recognise the principle? Well, Sir, the question is a very simple one. We should take care not to transfer our trade to a weak Power but to a strong Power. "Yes," says the noble Lord, "but three or four great belligerent Powers might be united in war against us," and that we should then have to transfer our trade to the United States. But I ask why should we transfer our trade to the United States? And do you think that the belligerent Powers of Europe wish to have the United States down upon them? The noble Lord says you cannot transfer to the States because they would insist upon certain conditions. But the United States are a very intelligent nation, and within three days they would alter the
  1968
  law. If they thought they could get our Mercantile Marine on the cheap, do you not think that they would run a law through enabling them to do it? The other objection of the noble Lord is that food is contraband of war. I should advise him to stick to his Navy, and not go into questions of International Law.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I did not say that food was contraband of war.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The rule is this, that if you consider a port is being blockaded, and the people can be starved out, then you make food contraband of war. There has never been a country which has more abused the International Law with regard to what is contraband of war than has this country, yet we have never made food contraband of war. You must remember that although this country goes to war other countries are left out, and those countries are anxious to get the benefit of the increased commerce which arises. Depend upon it these neutrals will never recognise for a moment that wheat or food is contraband of war in respect of a country like this. The United States have an enormous quantity of wheat and cotton, for which they want a market, and if any of the European Powers declared that their produce should not come over in neutral bottoms, they would soon have the United States down upon them. When any country is at war with a large and important Power like ourselves they are not anxious at the same time to be at war with the United States. Whenever a suggestion is made for the increase of the Navy we have these stories about being starved out—and hon. Gentlemen opposite are less careful about those stories outside the House than they are inside it. There is not the slightest danger of our being starved out. I am not in favour of great military expenditure, and I would limit the whole of it to what is necessary for defensive purposes. I think what we do spend is generally better spent on the Navy than on the Army. I wish naval Members opposite would begin by saying that we spend a great deal too much on both the Army and the Navy, that a great deal too much is wasted and frittered away in the Army, and that the money would be better expended on the Navy. If they would do that, I can assure them they would have the

  1969
  warmest support from me. But when the First Lord of the Admiralty tells us one year that the Navy is perfect, and the next that it must be increased so that we may have a Navy equal to that of any other two maritime Powers, I say he is contradicting himself, and that he does not know much of his subject; he is not a sure guide in this matter. I believe no greater mistake could be made than to say in this House that we must have a Navy equal to the combined Navies of any other two Powers. What is the consequence? Why, that other Powers seeing our policy, themselves build more ships, which necessitates our building more, and so this game of brag goes on. I want to see our coaling stations defended, I want to see a sufficient fleet to defend our shores against attack; but I do not want a fleet which shall be sufficient to protect our whole maritime commerce all over the world. I do not believe that would be possible. Sometimes simmering, and sometimes bursting into flames, this abominable Jingoism distinguishes our country. We have a Jingo Government in power—a Jingo Government afraid to do much, but still doing something when they have the chance. I believe if we had that Government in power for the next 10 years we should be at war with some Power or other. They are most dangerous. When they have got our Army and Navy increased they will try some abominable scheme of annexation, or some arrangement with Germany or some other Power, in order to test both our Army and Navy. We have been dragged in this way into numerous wars, and Parliament has been told that it was too late to remonstrate, and that in honour England must fight. I hope it will be made clear to the House that the noble Lord stands to the proposition, or that he does not, that our Navy is to be made sufficient; not merely to protect our coasts, but also to protect our carrying trade in such a way that there will be no possible risk of our ships being seized if we are at war with any one or two great Powers, with the effect that the rate of insurance on our ships as against the rate for neutrals will not go up.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: Sir, the senior Member for Northampton remarked that
  1970
  if this Government were in office for 10 years we should be involved in war. The hon. Member seems to forget that it has been in office for five years without a war, while the Government of which the hon. Member was a supporter had a war every Session between 1880 and 1885. I see no reason for his deduction at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and the hon. Member seem to suppose that it is an absolute impossibility to maintain our carrying trade in security during the time of war. If they have studied the history of the old wars they must know perfectly well that such was the action of the British Fleet, that British bottoms were considered safer in those wars than neutrals. There are two periods which should be considered—that when we had an adequate Fleet, and that when we had an inadequate Fleet. During the French War at the beginning of the century to 1815 British commerce largely increased because we had an adequate Fleet, but during the War of Independence with the United States, when we had an inadequate Fleet, our commerce largely decreased,
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Of course, I quite appreciate the hon. and gallant Member's argument, but he must remember that at that time neutral vessels were just as liable to capture as belligerent vessels. The whole distinction is in what has happened since.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: But I do not admit the absolute safety of neutral bottoms of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, nor do I think any person, certainly any naval officer, would for a moment admit it. It is sufficient for the purpose of a naval officer that the cargo of a neutral should be detained, and sent into a neutral port, so as to prevent it being landed at the proper time at the port for which it was embarked. And I am afraid I must admit that the captain of a cruiser would have no scruple about sending vessels to a neutral port. I should not like to criticise in as strong language as I well might use what the hon. Member for Northampton said as to our shipowners transferring their ships to neutral flags rather than look to the proper protection of our Fleet. I do not believe the shipowning community of this country have yet fallen so low. But when he spoke of Jingoism and of the

  1971
  present Government increasing the Navy, I must remind the House that no one ever feels more offended or insulted than hon. Gentlemen opposite by the slightest suggestion that they had allowed the Navy to fall off in strength. We have had Lord Northbrook's programme, and other programmes continually brought up, to show that the Navy never was allowed to go below a certain point; in fact, it has been contended that my noble Friend the First Lord has merely been continuing the Northbrook programme. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of an "absolute convoy," and about the fleet "covering the waters of the globe." I do not know that we ever contemplated any such thing, and if the right hon. Gentleman had studied this subject he would have found that all, we aim at is the protection of certain fixed trade routes, which should be kept practically clear, and we believe that could be done for a very small amount in comparison with the enormous amount conveyed. I think that a great mistake is made when people talk about taking the fastest of our merchant vessels for war purposes; those are the vessels we shall in time of war want to carry the grain cargoes, and I believe shipowners will be able to run these vessels with comparative safety without transferring them to neutrals at all. With regard to this question of transfer, it must be remembered that not only is transfer to the United States impossible under the existing law, but also that France requires that a bonâ fide transfer shall be made; the captain and a large proportion of the crew in the latter case are to be Frenchmen; and they will not accept a transfer otherwise. So I do not hold with the right hon. Gentleman that it is an "utter delusion" that trade will be carried in belligerent bottoms. In the case of a European war our fleet, if only it is managed as it used to be, will carry by far the greater part of the trade of the whole world. As to the possibility of our being starved out, that is not worth arguing. We know the misery that Frarce suffered years ago was due not alone to our action in stopping her commerce on the seas, but largely to internal exhaustion. As to the question of insurance, that may be dealt with in various ways, and much has lately been written upon it.
  1972
  I do not propose to go into that subject now, but I must say that I was utterly surprised to hear the light tone in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the loss of our carrying power. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that it means a loss of £80,000,000 a year? It means four times our Defence Bill. To lose it means, in all probability, that we shall lose it for ever—at all events, for a considerable time. I maintain that, properly protected, belligerent bottoms could and would carry almost the whole trade of the world. As to panic, we can afford to laugh at those who sneer at us. We know that in case of war it would be our duty to protect the country while others are sitting quietly at home. We shall be the sufferers if it is found we cannot face the enemy in a proper way. All that we are urging upon the First Lord of the Admiralty and the country is, that they should fix upon an adequate standard, and that they should keep up to that standard and maintain our maritime supremacy, not only by cruisers but also by battleships. Try to imagine the feeling of the people of this country if they woke up to find that we had been beaten in a great battle in the Atlantic! We are not asking to have too great a Fleet, but an adequate one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has spoken of the emptiness of the House as showing that hon. Members do not feel alarmed at the state of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman does not often honour us with his presence at naval discussions; if he had, he would have known that for the naval discussion this is rather a full House; we usually vote millions in the presence of very few Members on the opposite benches. I earnestly hope the House will not be led away by any such speeches as we have heard to-night from the paramount duty of making adequate provision for the Navy.
  MR. H. J. ATKINSON: If the present had been a meeting of the Chamber of Shipping We should not have heard the allusion we have to the sweeping away of the ships of the United States in the Civil War. The hon. Members who made those references seem to have forgotten that the vessels so swept away were sailing ships. The war in question broke out just at the time when a transition was

  1973
  taking place from, sailing to steaming, and therefore it was that a few small cruisers sent out by the Southern States of America were so successful in capturing the sailing ships of the Northern States. But at the present moment a steamship is a ship to be relied on, and England, in respect of such vessels, is far in advance of all other nations, simply because of her long purse. The increment of wealth of other nations, is not sufficient to enable them to keep pace with us. It is absolute nonsense to talk of our ships being transferred to other flags. I would point out that the shipowners would like to see their money before they transferred their ships, and what two or three nations combined could pay the sum required to buy the enormous steamship fleet of this country, even if we wished to sell it? They could not do it, and therefore it is a downright absurdity to tell us our ships are going to be transferred to other flags. There is no doubt we have the carrying power, we have the speed, we have the money, and we have the men. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby may laugh at that because it is a quotation from a music-hall song, but let me remind him it is a quotation which he has used in many of his political speeches. The hon. Member for Northampton called this a Jingo Government. He admits it will be 10 years hence before his Party get into power, and therefore I say his condemnation is like the curse of the Jackdaw of Rheims—;it cannot hurt us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, because he wrote letters on historical law, wishes to be taken as an authority on shipping, but we cannot accept him as such. I have had 45 years' experience, mostly in connection with steam shipping, and I tell him that all experts in shipping must know that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are all fallacious. If there is a panic, it will be from what the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight, but I do not think that the people of this country will believe it. The country owes a great debt of gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for having taken the best steamers on to their list, and thus encouraged the companies to build more like them; those vessels would bring in wheat or anything
  1974
  else that we want in time of war. As to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the subject of insurance, it must be remembered that a great part of the insurance of the country is carried out on the mutual principle, and, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman's City friends will tell him that marine insurance premiums are getting lower and lower from day to day. The right hon. Gentleman's fine spirit of panic is only the outcome of political necessity. The fact is, he has been altogether at sea in his arguments, and, at the same time, he has not been to sea sufficiently to enable him to make and apply proper arguments. When those acquainted with shipping matters read the right hon. Gentleman's speech tomorrow morning they will probably have as much contempt for his views upon insurance as the right hon. Gentleman would have for my opinion as to how a case before a Select Committee upstairs should be conducted.
  MR. GOURLEY: With regard to the Declarations of the Treaty of Paris, I can remember that when this subject was discussed in this House years ago I urged that we ought to go beyond those Declarations, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby opposed that. I hold that, in the event of war, any Government in power, whether Liberal or Conservative, ought to endeavour to extend the limits of the Treaty so as to make all private property free from seizure. I would, therefore, urge Her Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations, with the American Government especially, and with other Governments, for the purpose of extending the Treaty of Paris, so that all private property shall be free from capture in time of war. Supposing we were at war with the United States; they could immediately buy and equip vessels as privateers for the capture of our ships in all navigable waters. No Power would suffer more with regard to war with the United States in its Mercantile Marine as this country. If we were at war with a European Power, our carrying trade would, I believe, be transferred to neutral bottoms. The insurances would prevent merchants shipping goods into belligerent bottoms. Although some of our steamers might and would outstrip the enemy's cruisers,

  1975
  we must not forget that an important part of our carrying trade is still conducted in sailing ships, which would be at the mercy of the enemy's cruisers. Therefore, that part, at least, must be transferred to neutral flags, and shipowners would be compelled to sell their vessels to foreigners. One great inducement to foreigners to purchase our ships would be the increase in freightage which would take place in the event of war. It would be an utter impossibility to convoy our merchant shipping in time of war. We failed to do so during the last French War, when private ersraked our very doors. Suppose, for instance, there should be starting on each of four or five trade routes 50 vessels simultaneously. How could we find convoys for them? And if we did, and an enemy's squadron were met and defeated, how could our warships chase them, unless the merchantmen accompanied them? I take it that the object of the hon. and gallant Member opposite in asking for these Returns is to show to what extent the colonies are protected by our Navy. Hence I say that if we are to give more protection to our colonies, which have become rich under Imperial protection, they ought to be made to pay the additional cost. India, a Crown colony, has already to pay her full share of the cost of the Army kept there for her defence. She requires no protection from the Navy. Bat if we make India pay for land defences, why should not the same rule apply to the colonies in regard to naval defence?
  SIR E. J. REED: As one who has always insisted on the importance of maintaining the greatness of our Navy, I should like to say a few words. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has administered to the House and the country a very necessary warning. It cannot be denied that for a long time past we have had comparisons made between our Mercantile Marine of to-day and the War Navy of to-day with the Mercantile Marine and War Navy of the past. I have seen assertions that there ought to be exact correspondence between the one and the other. Therefore, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a valuable one, and it was supported by arguments which hon.
  1976
  Gentlemen opposite have not attempted to meet. I agree with him that it would not be possible to carry on trade in belligerent bottoms. One very sufficient and obvious reason is that those ships would furnish the enemy with the means of coaling in any part of the ocean. Every British steamer would be a coaling station for the Navy of the enemy, and thus relieve them of the greatest difficulty which has attended the efforts of hostile cruisers to prey upon our Mercantile Marine. Every captain of a privateer would at once look upon our merchantmen as coaling stations. I understand that the noble Lord offers no objection whatever to furnishing such a Return as the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes. I desire to see such a Return, and for the reason that I do not believe the truth of this matter lies in any broad generalisation, but is to be found in a close study of all the facts and circumstances attendant upon a maritime war. We are very deficient of facts. Facts of the kind referred to in the Return proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are generally brought forward by irresponsible persons and without sufficient care. I agree with the First Lord of the Admiralty that, while the form of it might perhaps be changed with some advantage, the Return would be very valuable. With respect to the question to which the proposed Return seems to point, I agree with the noble Lord that what we have to do is to secure our supremacy against the War Fleet of other nations with whom we are likely to come into conflict, and then to utilise, as far as we can, the constantly improving vessels of the Mercantile Marine in the protection of the commerce of the country. I think the present Government deserve very great credit for having taken steps to bring into relation, and that by simple and economic methods, the War Navy of the country and the powerful and fast steamers of the Mercantile Navy. My opinion is, that if we were brought into war to-morrow, we should not have in the Navy of the country any vessel built for the Navy proper so suitable for the protection of our commerce as the large transatlantic liners. Those vessels can be fitted with light armament, and they can carry a much larger supply of coal than vessels belonging to the

  1977
  Royal Navy. But whatever may have been the object of my hon. and gallant Friend in proposing this Motion, I am disposed to think we ought not to seek to use it for the purpose of goading the Admiralty into an increased naval expenditure, and I base that statement not so much upon the programme which the Admiralty brought before us a year or two ago, but upon the fact that the Government have realised the extreme importance of building ships quickly. I am sorry to say anything which in any way reflects upon my own Party, but I am obliged to say that for 17 years I have pleaded in vain in the House of Commons for the introduction of such a reform. I always regarded it almost as an outrage upon the commercial and business-like character of the country that we should vote money for ships which it was to be presumed were required for Her Majesty's Service, and then should linger for four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten years over the construction of the vessels, thus involving the country in an expenditure which could have no fruit in the event of a naval war. It is greatly to the credit of the present Government that they have insisted on ships being quickly constructed, because when the money which was asked for a year or two since has been expended it will have produced three or four times the increase of naval force which the same sum of money would have produced under the old system, inasmuch as under the old system it would be spent on ships which never could have been turned to any useful purpose during time of war. I shall never fail to speak in favour of a policy which I believe tends to give the country value for its money, and which will add to the Naval Force of the country enormously in itself and still more enormously when it is compared with the policy of slow construction pursued by the French. While the British Government have been going from bad to better the French Government have been going from bad to worse, with the result that in a couple of years' time the comparison of naval strength will be almost incredibly greater in our favour than it could possibly have been under the old system of slow construction adopted by our Admiralty. I am in favour of this Return being granted, but think it
  1978
  should not be embodied in the Naval Estimates. There it would do harm. There it would lead to a false impression. There it would lead many persons astray; but placed in the hands of hon. Members as an ordinary Parliamentary Return, it would afford very valuable information, which it is very desirable the House should possess.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question again proposed.

  PROMOTION FROM THE RANKS.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: By the indulgence of the House I wish to say a few words upon a notice which stands on the Paper in my name: It is to call attention to the want of a proper system of promotion from the ranks. Hon. Members, no doubt, noticed a few weeks ago in most of the newspapers an appeal which was made from the ranks of the Navy in favour of a proper system of promotion to the rank of lieutenant and upwards. I do not wish to dwell on the appeal, or to take it in any sense as the text of the few remarks 1 desire to make, but I refer to it for one or two reasons. In the first place, those who read the appeal were very likely struck with the very strong point the appellants made of the paucity, or the supposed paucity, of lieutenants in the Navy, and that lieutenants could be taken from the ranks of warrant officers very much more cheaply than they can be found under the present system. I notice this, because I wish to correct what I think is an error. I have noticed, in talking over this matter with naval officers and others, that there is an impression that what is wanted by seamen and warrant officers is a regular system of recruiting from their ranks. I do not think that this was intended, and it is not what I advocate. Whatever is done must be done tentatively and gradually, and it ought not to be done on a very large scale. I have been told that the appeal did not come from the majority of the Navy. No doubt it came only from a minority, but that minority does not consist of the drones of the Service. There are many in the Service who cannot benefit by what is proposed, but there is a minority who really wish to have some means of raising themselves from the position they

  1979
  hold, and it is a laudable ambition that ought to be encouraged. What is the present system in regard to promotion? There is a certain amount of promotion from the ranks now, but it is so very small that it is practically at a deadlock. Many years ago the Admiralty issued a regulation to the effect that on certain conditions warrant officers might be promoted to the rank of lieutenant, and an Order in Council stated that the promotion should be given for exceptional gallantry in action. That is not the way to reward a warrant officer—for exceptional gallantry. I can conceive that a man may show conspicuous gallantry, and yet be the very last man who ought to be given a commission as lieutenant, because he is not qualified for it in other ways. Up to the present time only two have been so promoted. A certain number of chief warrant officers, who have served a certain length of time, are allowed on retirement to take the rank of lieutenant. I propose that this list should be considerably increased. As to promotion on the Active List, there are several objections, the first of which is the social difficulty created by the rise of rank. I have noticed that until quite recently that has been put forward as the leading objection, but latterly it has rather melted away. In a letter to the Times the other day Admiral Sir Geoffrey Hornby, who is regarded as one of the highest authorities in the Service, said that so far as regarded association on shipboard difficulty need not be apprehended, and Admiral Colomb, who is also considered a high authority upon these matters, does not think the existing body of lieutenants would be touched by the social difficulty. In the Navy there are so many different kinds of duties to be performed that appointments might be found for warrant officers where there would be no social difficulties at all. Then it is objected that our naval officers ought to be highly-educated men in every branch of their profession. I thoroughly endorse that. It is also said that the education of to-day is very different from what it was; and that the whole professional status of the lieutenant has very greatly risen. That is perfectly true, but it is also true that warrant officers have to pass examinations which are far more formidable than
  1980
  examinations were in days gone by. The warrant officers who aspire to be promoted to the higher ranks know perfectly well that they will have to undergo certain examinations. Let me remind the House what are the examinations that have to be passed by ordinary lieutenants in the Navy. They consist mainly of three subjects—seamanship, gunnery, and navigation. I do not think there is any naval officer here tonight who will deny that a gunner in the Navy is quite as well instructed in gunnery as any officer, or that the boatswains or the gunners are not quite as well up in seamanship as the ordinary lieutenant. In fact, it is the warrant officers who instruct the lieutenants in seamanship and gunnery. Then we come to navigation. Until very lately there were very few warrant officers who had any knowledge whatever of navigation, but some short time ago the Admiralty gave permission to warrant officers to qualify in that branch of a naval officer's education, and I think I am correct in saying that about 30 warrant officers voluntarily, and at their own expense, passed the examination in navigation. I think about six of them are at this moment surveying in the navigation line. This shows that it is not beyond the power of the warrant officer to qualify himself in that branch of a naval officer's education. Sir Geoffrey Hornby touches on this point, and says it will be easy for warrant officers to acquire a knowledge of navigation. Other officers who have written on the subject make no difficulty at all on the point. Admiral Hornby, however, goes on to say that capacity to handle a ship will be at their age much more difficult to acquire. I really do not see where the difficulty comes in. You do not want any special education for that. Like myself, many naval officers who had never been in charge of a ship before were suddenly appointed to the command of one, and had suddenly to acquire a knowledge of handling a ship. It is not a question of navigation, but of a cool head and plenty of nerve; it is rather a matter of a man's digestion than of a knowledge of history or navigation, or anything of that kind. It requires merely an average knowledge of the use of the sextant, and a cool head. I will deal with only one further objection, and

  1981
  that is a small one. It has been said this will be of no advantage to the men. As far as that goes, I really think those people who are advocating this change should be allowed to be the best judges whether it is of advantage to them or not. One gallant officer talks about its being a "Dead Sea apple." Well, there is an increase in the pay, and that is not a Dead Sea apple. But it is said that when one of these officers is on shore he will find it much more difficult to get on in society. I do not see that that follows at all. Many officers in the Navy at the present moment have risen from very humble positions indeed, and they find no difficulty in getting on on shore. We ought not to lose sight of the fact that it is not only an advantage to a man himself to become a commissioned officer, but it is also of advantage to his family. Undoubtedly there are many appointments which a commissioned officer's sons would be able to go in for, and which would not be open to so great an extent to the sons of a warrant officer. I have seen a great many of the men on this point, and they do not look upon it as a Dead Sea apple. They have indicated an alternative to the scheme under which, side by side with the proposal to advance warrant officers to the rank of lieutenant, warrant officers should, after a certain number of years, take the honorary rank of sub-lieutenant. I believe the appeal made by the men is a serious one, and I commend it to the House and the Government, because I believe its adoption will lead to the greater efficiency of the Service.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I regret very much that my hon. and gallant Friend has taken up this subject, as I think without due consideration, and without taking the opinion and advice of those officers in the Service who are most qualified to give sound opinions on the subject. I find myself in a very difficult position. In the first place, it is very unpopular to condemn anything which appears like helping the poor man to get on. As far as the social difficulty is concerned, if it consists in having as a messmate a man who has risen from the ranks, I do not believe there is one officer in 20 who would ever think of it. If there were any feeling at all it would be on the part of
  1982
  the man who had risen from the ranks, and not, I think, on the part of those among whom he is placed. The greater part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech advocated the promotion of warrant officers to the higher ranks of the Service. Well, the other day I saw a number of these officers, and I put to them various questions on this subject. The result was that they asked me to strike out of the proposal all that part which relates to the promotion, as all they wanted really was the honorary rank of lieutenant into the general line of the Service. I asked if they were authorised to say that on behalf of the warrant officers? and they said, "Yes, we have full authority, we do not want any substantive rank; we shall be perfectly content with retired rank." Now, I do not quite believe that they could undertake to answer for the whole of their class; but if that be so, of course that clears the ground to a great extent, knocking away most of the arguments against the proposal. Whether it may be possible to give them some better retirement is a question which may well be considered. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought forward this proposal has not spoken on behalf of any but a very small minority of the warrant officers; in fact, if I am rightly informed, some two or three men have got up the whole question. This small minority want something, but they do not know exactly what. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says this should be left to them; but there I differ from him, and experience in the Service tells me that when you give an officer rank, unless you give him pay according to that rank you immediately create another grievance. It is no use giving an officer gold lace without pay. I know in such a case the man promoted finds it is no good to him with the expenses of uniform and mess on the other side of the balance sheet. As a matter of fact, the two officers to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred, who were made lieutenants, have to be kept in two small commands, one at Portsmouth, the other, I think, at Plymouth; at any rate, two small commands; because the Admiralty does not consider itself justified in putting them to the expense and other awkwardnesses, if I may use the expression, of

  1983
  the ordinary ward-room mess, but keeps them in these two small commands by way of saving them expense and enabling them to eke out their pay by the command money. But the Admiralty cannot create small commands for all the warrant officers to be promoted. I remember a case in which a chief petty officer complained to me that he had much better have been left to follow his old lines, and that it had been no kindness to him to be removed from the lower deck, and be made a warrant officer. I remember a chief boatswain's mate refusing a warrant again and again, and when I questioned him he said, "I shall only be put out of my place. I am happy in the position in which I am." He objected on that very ground which the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think an advantage, that his wife, his sons and daughters would be put into a position to which they were not bred and educated, and which he would not have money enough to support. I think it would in many instances be cruel kindness. The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes no claim on behalf of carpenters and engine-room artificers; but why should they be left out? Why should one class of warrant officers be selected for personal advantage, and not others? The fact is, warrant officers' rank was meant to apply to men specially selected because they had served well, and were good men to put into a class in a somewhat better position than their comrades, the principal object being to lessen the distance between the two classes on board ship, and give the men a better representation, so to say. I will not go into the question of the handling of ships, because I think that may be learned by some, but can never be learned by others, no matter what is their rank; and it is, as has been said, to some extent, a question of nerve and digestion. But the social position of a commander is another matter, and does not mean merely his position in a ball-room. If you put a man in command of a ship, you have to consider how he may bear himself in all the varied conditions imposed by the nature of the service on captains of ships on foreign stations. I remember very well the answer of the late Lord Malmesbury when questioned as to the
  1984
  chances of a war with America after the Trent affair. He replied that is depended very much upon the naval officers in command of ships meeting with each other at sea, and he expressed the greatest reliance on the tact and judgment, of the various officers in command, and, therefore, did not believe there was any imminent danger. Such tact and judgment, which are essential, can only be relied on with men in the position from which our officers are selected and educated from earliest youth in its exercise. I had a letter from a captain the other day in which he says—
  "This question of promotion from the ranks is got up by a few warrant officers of advanced ideas, and he had six warrant officers serving with him, and none of them were in favour of it. They believe that the extra expense that they would have to incur would do away with any advantage they would derive."
  And he adds—
  "If you make the bluejackets lieutenants, what about the engineers, stokers, and carpenters?"
  The warrant officers do not wish for this change. It is proof of the general contentment that we can maintain a higher state of discipline than is maintained anywhere else without the slightest trouble, and at the present time the heaviest punishment you can inflict upon a man is to discharge him from the Service. I think before we make so fundamental a change as altering the whole rank of warrant officers, some more sufficient reason must be shown than has yet been advanced.
  MR. GOURLEY: I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has brought this question before the House, and for my part I do not see why a similar system should not govern promotion from the ranks in the Naval as in the Military Service. In the Army a "ranker" or private soldier has the opportunity of rising from the ranks to the highest position of "General." I would not have the promotions limited to honorary rank. I think there should be a system of substantive promotions from the ranks for a specified number of seamen. I hold the opinion that the whole system of officering the Navy requires reform. The special system of education on board the Britannia is no longer required for naval officers. The progress made in the

  1985
  education of the great masses of the people is such that the men who now fill the ranks of the Service are very different in education and qualifications to the seamen of 30 years ago. The exclusiveness of the Britannia system ought to be abolished. That opinion was expressed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer many years ago and in that sense the present Under Secretary for India brought forward a Resolution in 1880, which I then seconded. I quite agree with the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer years ago that the Britannia system might be abolished and, under a specified curriculum, in our public schools and colleges boys should be prepared for naval examination, then enrolled as cadets, be taught seamanship and navigation in sailing vessels, and then be transferred to our men-of-war for the study of gunnery and other matters. The question as raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport comes to this, that if men pass a certain examination they shall be promoted from the position of warrant officers. There have, as the hon. and gallant Member has said, been only two promotions to the rank of lieutenant, and a warrant officer retiring with the rank of lieutenant does not receive anything like the pension awarded to an ordinary lieutenant. The Admiralty should lay down a system under which a certain number of boys should be under certain examinations and qualifications as to seamanship and navigation, and such matters, entered for the position of warrant officers, and be entitled to be promoted to the substantive rank of lieutenant. The honorary rank of lieutenant is no encouragement to a boy to exert himself and qualify himself to rise in his profession. Promotion from the ranks would, in my opinion, be a real benefit to the Service, and would increase esprit de corps in the Navy. I hope the Admiralty may see fit to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport.

  CONTROL OF PORTS AND COALING STATIONS.
  SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY: The Motion which I ventured to put before the House is in the following terms:—
  1986
  "That the Ports and Coaling Stations held for naval purposes should be under naval and not military control."
  Some days after I had placed that notice on the Paper, the interesting statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty was distributed, and at the end of that statement I find the following passage:—
  "There are officers of both Services who believe that measures should at once be taken by which the Navy should immediately undertake the defence of the great naval ports, and be, in time of war, responsible for the safety of the base of their own operations."
  "I admit," continues the noble Lord,
  "that if such a change could be carried out, it would tend to secure unity of action and responsibility, and would, in an emergency, secure at the great naval ports the rapid utilisation of all available resources, for whatever movement the exigency of the moment might require."
  Well, that seems a powerful argument in favour of the Motion I had put upon the Paper; but immediately after wards the noble Lord goes on—
  "But it is a proposal that involves so immense a charge that it is not under any conditions practicable in the immediate future."
  Now, this question has been for some time before Parliament and the country. The Hartington Commission in 1888 dealt with it conclusively, and in the Report of the Commission to which the noble Lord (Lord Hartington) himself made reference the other night the Commissioners take a very different view from the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the expediency or possibility of dealing with the subject at once. The Report of the Commission carries such authority that I venture to quote a passage—
  "Two Departments are engaged in two branches of what is, or ought to be, one duty and one combined work. The first point which strikes us in the consideration of the organisation of these two great Departments is that, while in action they must be to a large extent dependent on each other, and while in some of the arrangements necessary as a preparation for war they are absolutely dependent on the assistance of each other, little or no attempt has ever been made to establish settled or regular intercommunication or relations between them, or to secure that the establishments of one Service should be determined with any reference to the requirements of the other. As illustrating the dependence of the Army on the co-operation of the Navy, it may be pointed out that a large part of the duty of the Army in time of war would be the defence of distant possessions and dependencies, such as India and the colonies. No perfection of military organisation, no completeness of military establishments, could

  1987
  enable the Army to discharge this function unless the Navy were, on its part, in a position to undertake the safe transport of reinforcements and of the necessary armaments and stores. The scope of action of the Navy in distant waters must mainly depend on the amount of confidence with which it can calculate on the power of self-defence of the principal coaling stations and reckon on finding there the necessary supplies. It has been stated in evidence before us that no combined plan of operations for the defence of the Empire in any given contingency has ever been worked out or decided upon by the two Departments; and some of the questions connected with the defence of military ports abroad, and even of those at home, are still, after much departmental correspondence, in an unsettled condition, and that the best mode of garrisoning some of the distant coaling stations is also undecided. In all these subjects a question of principle is involved, which no attempt has been made to solve by a final and definite decision."
  No wonder the Commission summed up all this by calling it a "dangerous condition of affairs." That was in 1888. What have we heard this year from the Chairman of that Commission? Speaking on the 23rd of last month on the Army Estimates, the noble Lord (Lord Hartington) took occasion to repeat the warning, and it is evident he does not share the opinion of the First Lord that these reforms should be indefinitely delayed. The noble Lord referred to the want of a combined naval and military plan for the defence of the Empire, and to the fact that the best mode of garrisoning the coaling stations was still undecided, and he added—
  "Thus, some of the most vital questions are still left in a dangerously uncertain condition."
  The reply of the Secretary of State for War to some extent resembles the words I have quoted from the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "When the Report of the Commission was brought before the country the Government watched to see the general drift of opinion with reference to the changes proposed.…. As to the transfer (of the coaling stations and fortifications to the Navy), it was a question of enormous importance, which could not be carried out until the lapse of a considerable number of years."
  Thus the two Members of the Cabinet most concerned concur in saying that a considerable period must elapse before the necessary reforms can be carried out Now, what is the actual condition of affairs witnessed by those who have for some years resided at these coaling
  1988
  stations? I remember that at one particular coaling station the Governor received a telegram from Her Majesty's Government asking to be immediately supplied with a Report as to the state of the submarine defences. The Governor accordingly wrote to the officer commanding the troops, and then accompanied him to the harbour to confer with the officer having charge of these submarine mines. On embarking for the fort the general-in-command makes an apology to the Governor: "I am sorry they are so clumsy; but, in point of fact, the soldiers are not accustomed to the oars." The General and the Governor are conveyed across the harbour to the fort where the Engineer officer is. On arriving there, the Governor asks the Engineer officer, "How many hours will it take you to lay out the whole of the submarine mines?" The Engineer officer says, "Well, Sir; unfortunately the chart I have is rather an old chart, and some of the officers of Her Majesty's ship so-and-so, told me when they were recently in harbour, that the coral reefs have increased. The soundings have altered, there is now a current in another direction, and on the whole, I am afraid I cannot tell you within 36 hours or three days when I can lay out the submarine mines." Of course, the House will understand that this military man cannot be blamed. He is put in charge of purely naval work, and is not a naval man. Who is responsible for this? Her Majesty's Government. Now, to take another coaling station. Hong Kong is described as a coaling station of first-class importance. I remember there that it was the duty of the Governor to have a conference with the General-in-command and the Admiral during a Russian scare. The Admiral decided to take his ships to sea and there attack the Russian Fleet. The General said that would not do; the Admiral must not leave us defenceless. I was appealed to, and I ventured to express the opinion that it must be left to the Admiral to decide what to do with his Fleet. Next day the Admiral left, and not many hours elapsed before I got a telegram from London to the effect that at the War Office a very alarming message was received from the Commanding Officer, who had telegraphed openly that the Admiral had taken

  1989
  away the whole Fleet, and "Hong Kong was absolutely defenceless." Within an hour of the sending off of the telegram by the General its contents were known to the Russian Consul and telegraphed on to Europe. Her Majesty's Government instructed me to inform the General that in future he should send his telegrams through the Governor, who had the Foreign Office cipher. Accordingly, that was done; but, in fact, the colony had not been left so entirely defenceless as the officer in command of the troops supposed, for the Commodore who remained in charge of the Naval Yard acted cordially with me in improvising an efficient torpedo defence. Similar misunderstandings were constantly cropping up between the Military and Naval Authorities. I mention this as an illustration of the difficulty which is created by the Government itself in maintaining a divided responsibility in the defence of coaling stations. Now, Sir, Her Majesty's Government are no doubt aware that there are Reports in the possession of every Government on the Continent of Europe from the officers of the Foreign Intelligence Department, and that those Reports, referring to the defence of the ports and coaling stations of the British Empire, are all to the effect that the scheme of defence is radically defective. Our allies on the Continent do not always confide to us these Reports of experts on our shortcomings. But I assert that such Reports exist, that they are all in one direction, and that they are unanimous in saying that our system of coast and coaling station defence is on a wrong basis, and imperils the safety of the British Empire. Fortunately, the United States recently published the Report of Lieutenant Colwell, of their Intelligence Department. It entirely supports the views we have heard expressed this Session by Lord Hartington. Writing to the United States Government in June, 1888, Lieutenant Colwell says—
  "The coast defence of Great Britain is notably the most inefficient of any of the great European Powers. Owing to the divided control, lack of co-operation, absence of digested schemes for mutual support, and the mixing of naval and military duties, the defence is unwieldly in its administration, unprepared for sudden work, and labours under the disadvantage of placing military men outside their legitimate sphere of action."
  1990
  We have already heard indications tonight from both sides that the House does not agree with Her Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), though he is not in the habit of saying much in support of what are called the Services, did say to-night that he was very anxious to see the coaling stations of England adequately defended, and he added that in his opinion the money laid out on the Navy was generally better laid out than on the Army. The coaling stations are not adequately defended. They are established solely for naval purposes. The Secretary of State for War himself, in addressing the Colonial Conference in 1867, called them "the Amiralty coaling stations." They are intended to resist a naval attack only, but they are garrisoned by the military, and are under the War Office instead of being under the Admiralty. If I may dare to touch again on the more or less trivial experience of an individual, I remember a case in which it became necessary for me to inspect some of the look-out points of one of our coaling stations. The men entrusted with the looking out were all soldiers. I asked one of them whether, when ships come above the horizon, he could distinguish the difference between a German cruiser and an English man-of-war? "Oh no, sir," he said; "not until the flag goes up I could not tell any difference." I need hardly say that a sailor could tell the difference of rig many miles off. I am, unfortunately, old enough to remember—and I suppose nobody present is in the same predicament, unless perhaps it is the hon. Baronet on my left (Sir W. Lawson)—the great Debates which occurred 30 years ago when Lord Palmerston proposed a costly scheme of fortification and military defence. I voted against it, mainly because I saw that it was opposed by the best naval opinions of the day. It was a contest between the Military and Naval Authorities. In a small minority of 39, I then voted for the naval as opposed to the military defence of our coasts. But the two Front Benches, and practically both sides of the House, voted an expenditure of many millions, now admitted to have been mostly wasted. Parliament yielded to the military

  1991
  opinion in 1860; and a common phrase accurately describes what occurred as regards the military works at Alderney—the £1,500,000 were "flung into the sea." The expenditure was absolutely useless; and at least £500,000 was similarly "flung into the sea" at Bermuda. The Navy was consulted too late. The real custodians of the waterways of the Empire were not consulted in time. The Secretary for War thought my proposal would involve increased expense. On the contrary, it would be true economy. If the Navy Estimates grew larger, the Army Estimates would be reduced in proportion. As to the increase of personnel and cost of administration at Whitehall, a trifling addition to Marine Staff at the Admiralty would suffice. The Public Works Department at the Admiralty was quite capable of looking after the forts. What said General Sir William Jervois, who had had more to do with our fortifications and coast defences than, perhaps, any other officer in Her Majesty's service?—
  "I am confident that its adoption would be productive of economy through its intrinsic values of unity and simplicity. Nothing, it is well known, is more conducive to extravagance than the uncertain allotment of duty, division of responsibility, and departmental friction, evils from which the two Services have long been and still are suffering, to the prejudice of their own efficiency and the detriment of the British taxpayer. The truest economy consists in obtaining the best possible return for a given outlay."
  Another eminent military expert, General Sir Andrew Clarke, when occupying the responsible position of Inspector General of Fortifications and Director of Works, recorded his views in February, 1883, in favour of a Marine defence for our colonies. In discussing a paper of the hon. Member opposite (Sir John Colomb) on our Marine Forces, Sir Andrew Clarke said—
  "In our smaller colonies, especially taking those colonies most valuable to us, and at the same time most difficult for us to control and defend—the whole of our colonies to the Far East, reaching up to China—I have always advocated and would advocate still that the garrisons should be entirely Marines. Regiments of the Line, constituted as they are, are not the most effective agents now for Colonial Defence, and they are most expensive in those positions, requiring, as they do, large Civil Departmental Corps to be attached to them to make them at all efficient. On the other hand, you can move the Marines at 12 hours' notice,
  1992
  or less than that, without all the necessary departmental arrangements which are involved in moving a regiment of the Line. That in the defence of the colonies is a point of great economic value. Their organisation offers another very great justification for their being employed in such a way. An Admiral, knowing every place where they are, on difficulties arising, whether amongst the civil population or by the approach of an enemy's fleet, could at any moment reduce his other garrisons and increase his forces at the menaced point. In our separate commands correspondence must take place, the case must be proved, and valuable time is lost before you can move any portion of the regiments, especially in parts of the world I have just spoken of. If there was one homogeneous command over the Marines stretching round the China Seas under one General or one Admiral, you would secure for the Empire a very efficient service, far more economical than the present one, and one which would especially meet the requirements of our Colonial Service. To me, at the present moment, having the responsibility of advising the Government in reference to the question not only of the defence of our commercial ports in England, because I can see the application of this very question of the Reserve of Marines to assist in the organisation of the defence of our commercial harbours as well as of our military harbours, but also in the question of the defence of our coaling stations abroad, I believe the Marine organisation offers a satisfactory solution of that question."
  The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Treasury is as anxious as any man to see the public money properly spent; therefore I would earnestly commend to his attention not the last sentence I read from the Memorandum of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), but the preceding sentences, and I would ask him and the Government to consider whether the time has not come, not for carrying out the whole of this great scheme, but for trying the experiment of beginning with the coaling stations on the China Sea. If the Government would do this they would have an opportunity at once of placing their coaling stations in that part of the world under the Admiral in command. They would then have an opportunity of practically testing the Motion that I put before them. I have no doubt that they would see that both in Hong Kong and in Singapore the Admiral-in-command would be able to raise a marine force, which would materially assist in securing a better defence for these coaling stations. And on this subject I would like to say to the noble Lord the First Lord of the

  1993
  Admiralty and to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that Her Majesty's Navy is very popular in the colonies. Whatever the cause may be the Army is not so popular. And of all the branches of that popular Service—the Navy, I believe the Marines are themselves the most popular. The Marines can be recruited in many of the colonies as well as the Marine Artillery. If you were to garrison coaling stations with the Marines and the Marine Artillery, you would have a body of men easily transferred from station to station, a body of men inexpensively relieved, and ready, if necessary, to cooperate with the fleet in an active attack. Suppose the Admiral, under existing arrangements, came to the conclusion that the best way to save Hong Kong was to attack Vladivostock. Suppose he should say to the military commanders of Singapore and Hong Kong—"I desire to make an attack on Vladivostock, for it is undermanned and I can now occupy it; but to do so I must take away the troops from Hong Kong and Singapore." What would be the answer of the military men? I have never known a question of that kind arise without there being a difference, and an irreconcilable difference, between the Military and Naval Authorities. For my part, I should be perfectly content if Her Majesty's Government would try the experiment I advocate on the China Sea by garrisoning those Eastern outposts with Marines, and placing the zone of defence under the Navy.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I think that all naval and military men—certainly all naval men—who read the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and who speaks with such great authority on this subject, will be deeply grateful to him for his observations. No one can speak with greater knowledge and authority than the hon. Gentleman who has so recently returned from those distant parts; and he has left us naval men nothing to say. He has exhausted the arguments. The hon. Member gives us a most humorous description of the miserable state of things which existed for years at our coaling stations before the present Government came into power. At the time of the Russian scare if we had gone
  1994
  to war with Russia all our coaling stations might have been captured, unless ships of war had been detached to protect them. I had occasion to look into this question when I went on a trip to Australia a few years back, and I am firmly of the opinion expressed by the hon. Member. He only presses the Government to try an experiment. The noble Lord alluded to this particular question, and it is perfectly easy to read between the lines of the memorandum and see that he is very much exercised about it. The noble Lord I believe desires to grapple with it in the direction favoured by naval opinion, but he is more or less powerless unless supported by opinion in this House to strengthen his hands. We naval men generally are modest men, and we do not want the Government to do great things at the beginning. We only urge that an experiment should be made. It would be a huge folly for us to take possession of every naval station. We do not want anything to do with the great fortresses like Gibraltar and Malta; but the outstanding stations are the important points, and if the noble Lord can only see his way to put on the Estimates an increase to the Marine Force, the thing can be done in a month. There are many advantages in such a reform, and they are so obvious that it is needless to waste words in explaining them. They must be apparent to the poorest mind, however little acquainted with naval and military affairs. If a Marine detachment were placed in charge of the defensive works of places like Hong Kong and Singapore the Admiral will know the force he has to rely upon, and his wishes will be scrupulously regarded; there will be no conflict of authority, and he can, if necessary, go on a distant expedition after detaching a ship to guard what he leaves behind. Again, in the event of sickness breaking out in a garrison, nothing will be easier than for the Admiral to change the whole of the men, and give the sick a three months' cruise. That cannot be done with soldiers. The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley for having first directed attention to this matter. A Commission afterwards sat, and from that day to this the question has been occupying the attention of the country. The present

  1995
  Government have done a great deal in providing guns for our coaling stations, but it must not be forgotten that, though we have the guns, we want garrisons and barracks, and that sufficient money has not been taken for these. The question still sleeps. We want pressure from behind, and I think we have that in the Motion and the speech of the hon. Member opposite. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for taking up this question and trying to rivet public attention upon it.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: As a civilian, I am reluctant to intrude in this interesting discussion, but I regret that I find myself unable to concur with the two speakers who preceded me. I had the honour of being a member of a Committee which sat at the War Office for a considerable period, the result of our deliberations being that the House was pleased to vote a considerable sum of money to strengthen the military ports of this country and the coaling stations. Therefore, since that time I have taken considerable interest in these questions. I listened with the deepest attention to what fell from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and it seemed to me that in quoting the case of Hong Kong, as he did, he really gave himself away. The lesson which I should draw from the case of Hong Kong, as cited by the hon. Member, is that it is absolutely necessary that the fortifications, so far from being placed under a naval commander, should be left in the hands of the Military Authorities. What did he tell us occurred? Why, that when it was possible that war might break out, the naval commander at once took away all his ships and all his men, and left the harbour defenceless. In order that a harbour should not be defenceless, the fortifications should be complete and the mine-field ready to be laid down by persons on the spot, and not by men under the Naval Authority. Sir Astley Cooper Key's words on this point are very instructive—
  "Nothing has pleased me more than to know that foreign countries intrust the defence of their ports to the Navy. We may thus be assured that many of their best officers will be shut up in their ports, and must be withdrawn from the strength of the Navy in time of war."
  It seems to me that the defence
  1996
  of a port resolves itself into two parts —the active defence and the passive defence. The active defence would naturally be taken charge of by the Admiral in command; but it seems absolutely necessary there should be on the spot a passive defence in the event of sudden attack upon the port; and that that passive defence should be in the hands of the Military Authorities, because it is pretty certain the Naval Authorities would take very good care to take away every available man and gun for the purpose of active defence. The gallant Admiral at my side (Admiral Field) says he would leave the Marines behind; but I am by no means sure that he would not do exactly as was done in the case quoted by the hon. Member opposite, if he had the means of transport, and take away every available man. It seems to me, therefore, that the question ought to be left as it is. It seems to me that there is another side to this question, and I do not wish the erroneous impression to go forth that the House shares unanimously the views which the two hon. Members have put forward.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: I think the hon. Member for Kilkenny has certainly brought before the House a most difficult question affecting military and naval administration, and one well worthy the attention both of the House and the Services. The hon. Member has put a correct interpretation on the language I used in my Memorandum. It is true that I am not satisfied. On the other hand, I feel the difficulties are enormously great, and I want the House and the Services fully to appreciate what the change advocated really means. I can quite understand the idea of making the Army responsible for everything relating to the land, and the Navy for everything relating to the sea. But the peculiarity of the passive defence to which my hon. Friend has referred is that every year it is taking more and more an aquatic shape. As science develops and the range of guns increases, the passive defence becomes more and more an aquatic defence. That being so, what is the position of any officer who is intrusted with the defence of a station? He needs gun boats, torpedo boats, submarine mines,

  1997
  and under-water communications. All that necessitates that there should be a certain appropriation of naval force for the purpose of participating in what is called passive defence. My attention was drawn to the matter some years back, and I went into it to see what it would cost. I want to show that any such change as is now proposed must involve a good deal of difficulty and a large increase of expenditure, and, moveover, if you once enter upon it you will not find it very easy to stop. I, for one, never would consent to any arrangement under which a naval force should be placed at isolated stations of an unhealthy character if they were not also to have charge of the more healthy stations; and if this were so it is estimated that to garrison in time of war all our coaling stations abroad, including Gibraltar and Malta, would require 35,000 men, who would need a reserve of 15,000 men at home, so that the transfer of the control of the coaling stations from the Army to the Navy would involve a transfer of something like 50,000 men from one Service to the other. That question itself is, therefore, a very grave one, because it would revolutionise the Force, would load to great alterations in the system of administration, and would make it very difficult to carry on the regimental system in many cases. In addition to the financial and administrative difficulties, a very large number of experienced naval and military officers are opposed to the change, among them nearly all my naval advisers. What they say is that if this change is made it will attach a large land force to the Navy. I want the House to appreciate the enormous difficulty of attempting any change of the sort; but speaking my own individual opinion, which is not that of my naval advisers, the present system is one of difficulty in time of peace, and might be dangerous in time of war. I have seen it worked under the most favourable conditions, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, who has done so much to benefit the Army, has occupied himself more than any of his predecessors with the interests of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman was the first man who was impressed with the necessity of armed forts for the purpose of protecting the
  1998
  bases of naval operations, and in many other instances he has cordially worked with the Navy, and the same spirit animates both the Naval and the Military Boards. There is, therefore, complete co-operation between the two Departments as far as is possible when two Services are placed in a position which I do not think they ought to occupy towards each other. The Army is called upon in time of war to protect the permanent bases of operations, a duty which everyone knows is always unpopular in time of war, because those who have to perform this irksome duty naturally desire to go to the front. But when a duty is put upon one Service which ought to be put upon another the difficulty is enormously increased. The hon. Member for Northampton has said that he did not object so much to the expenditure on the Navy, but he wanted to see that on the Army much reduced. Let us suppose that the Party of the hon. Member comes into power. They have already promised to squeeze the Army Estimates, but in the process of squeezing the those Estimates they would eliminate all the provision that ought to be made for the protection of the naval bases of operation. Military men would say, having already a difficulty in providing for the primary wants of the Military Service, that the secondary task in connection with the Navy must be subordinated. That is the difficulty in time of peace. Now, what would be the difficulty in time of war? Would anybody pretend that it was a right system to intrust all that relates to defensive operations to one man, one Service, and to one Department, and all that relates to offensive operations to another man, another Service, and another Department? The very anxiety which each officer of each Service would display in trying to carry out his part of the duty would make co-operation almost impossible. The House must recollect, too, that in the Army different trains of thought exist from those which exist in the Navy. The naval view is that at the outbreak of war the best protection to the commerce of the country would be to assume the offensive. I can understand that circumstances might occur when the naval authority might wish to take alt his available forces of men and material for offensive operations, and that the

  1999
  success of those operations might, to a certain extent, depend on his being able to do so. The fact is, the duty of the Navy is to prevent an attack being made, while the duty of the Army is to repel that attack when it is made; and what we ought to aim at is to get the two Services in such a position that the one which has to perform a secondary duty should not endeavour to impose impossible conditions on the other which has to carry out a primary duty. The question has been under the consideration of the Government for some time past. The Secretary for War would be only too glad to be relieved of this anxiety, but he cannot assent to any proposal which would largely increase expenditure without some corresponding benefit accruing. It will not do to say that the increase in the Navy would be counterbalanced by a decrease in the Army. The expenditure is certain; but the saving, especially where there are a number of officers and men with claims to pension and emolument is problematical. Now, in the Statement which I have laid before the House, I have pointed out that we shall shortly have to establish a new station in the South Pacific, probably the Falklands, and we shall make an experiment there on a small scale. That will be garrisoned by Marines. I shall look into the question as to whether it is possible to try the experiment further; if it is, the next place will be the China stations. I will further undertake that no change is made of a character which would increase the impediments or the obstacles to a transfer. I wish that the question could be discussed in no spirit of jealousy or rivalry between the Services; and I may add that the matter which at first made the most impression upon me was that the country did not get its full benefit from that magnificent force, the Royal Marines. With regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport—that of promotion from the ranks—every one will sympathise with the object which he has in view, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has quite faced many of the difficulties which such a proposal involves. In the Army the system is possible, and has worked well; but every essential condition, relating either to entrance, to pay, or to promotion, which exists in the Army is
  2000
  absent in the Navy. In the Army as a man rises from the ranks through the various grades of a non-commissioned officer to a commission, his pay continuously rises; but in the Navy warrant officers receive considerably higher pay than cadets, midshipmen, or sublieutenants. Therefore, it is not possible to promote from the ranks except by passing over a considerable number of commissioned officers who have entered in the regular way and who have complied with conditions which those put over them could not comply with. Then there is the difficulty of retirement. A warrant officer, as a rule, is 8 or 10 years older than a lieutenant on entering, so that at the age of retirement the State would get eight years' less work out of the former than out of the latter. There is also the difficulty of half-pay. I have a little personal experience of these difficulties. In 1887, which was the year we promoted the most capable warrant officers to the rank of lieutenants, I had the greatest difficulty in finding appointments for them which would not put too heavy a strain on their financial resources. As regards the social difficulty, I do not think it exists. Naval officers always welcome men of ability who are promoted to associate with them on terms of equality. Where the social difficulty does arise is in the standard of living. You cannot avoid that; therefore, I do not believe it would be to the benefit of the persons proposed for promotion or to the interest of the Service that anything like a wholesale promotion should be made from the ranks. But I sympathise with the wishes which my hon. Friend has expressed. There are naval men of great authority who think that if promotions were made for seamen, they should be made from smart petty officers, who could go to the lowest ranks of commissioned officers at an early age. If you promoted petty officers over the heads of warrant officers, you certainly would create a great difficulty. On the whole, I certainly think it better to leave well alone. Sailors, after all, form only part of the number on board ship. You have stokers and others; and there is no reason why a stoker should not become an engineer; and there is no

  2001
  reason why, according to that, if yon dispense with examinations, a steward should not become a doctor; so you could go right through the roll, with the result that you would land yourself in troubles from which extrication would be very difficult. I have answered all the questions put to me, and I hope the Speaker will now be allowed to leave the Chair, especially as hon. Members will have an opportunity of discussing these matters on Vote A and Vote 1.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, I think the hon. Member for Kilkenny ought, on the whole, to be satisfied with the discussion. For my part, I am perfectly satisfied with the limited promise which the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) has made. I understand the noble Lord is prepared, in respect of the Falkland Islands [Lord G. HAMILTON indicated assent], and other naval stations to which the hon. Member for Kilkenny adverted, to try this experiment. My hon. Friend did not at all contemplate its application at present to Gibraltar and other large and important stations, because there might be grave difficulties to such a scheme. But in the case of coaling stations of no great magnitude, I think the experiment might fairly be made, and I cannot doubt it would be attended with great success. It does not seem to me that any additional expense need be incurred, inasmuch as there would be about the same number of men to support, and it would be merely the transference of the duty from, the one Service to the other. I think the difficulty of that transference is one of the evidences of the want of harmony between the Services, and indicates that there is something wrong in the present system. The real fact is that a transaction of this kind ought not to be attended with an increase of expenditure. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, in any change which he makes, will do his best to prevent any increase of expenditure. That there is difficulty in time of peace, and danger in time of war, under the present system no one can doubt. Nobody who has read the evidence taken by the Royal Commission presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, and the Report of that Commission, can doubt that for a moment. I think, therefore, that at the earliest possible moment some
  2002
  experiment in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend should be made by the Government. For my part, I am satisfied with the statement of the noble Lord, and I hope the experiment will be made very shortly, and that every effort will be made to give it a good start. With regard to the other question referred to by the noble Lord, I cannot but think that it would be wise, having regard to the general condition of the Service, to give the warrant officers greater hope of promotion. I do not understand the noble Lord to raise objections to the principle, but merely to the details. He seemed to throw cold water on the subject, and said on the whole it would be better to leave well alone. I think, however, that it would be wise if some action were taken—not, of course, anything like wholesale promotion, but still sufficient to raise the hope of warrant officers that they would have an opportunity of rising in the Service. (8.25.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1891–2.
  1. 71,000, Men and Boys.
  MR. DUFF: I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of a general discussion to congratulate the Board of Admiralty upon the energy with which they have persevered with the new programme. I think that the manner in which the new vessels have been turned out is very creditable to the Board and speaks well for its business capacity. But I feel that more might have been done in the direction of refitting and repairing some of our older ironclads. The hulls of many of these vessels are in good order, and it is the opinion of many competent naval officers that the Northumberland, Minotaur, Alexandra, and other vessels of that class might be rendered very useful at a cost of from £150,000 to £200,000. In fact, they might he made as good as the Admiral class, costing three-quarters of a million. I therefore quite approve of the policy of thus taking these ships in hand. With regard to the re-armament of the vessels of the Devastation class, I am glad to see by the statement that in all cases, with the exception of the

  2003
  Rupert, the work has been satisfactorily undertaken. I may say with regard to the Rupert that if you are going to spend so much money on a vessel capable of going 14½ knots you might give her some better armament than a 10-inch muzzle-loader capable of penetrating 11 inches, whereas a modern breech-loader of the same weight would penetrate twice that thickness. And so with regard to the Hercules, Achilles, and Superb, and similar vessels. I do not think it worth while spending a large sum of money on them, unless you give them better armaments than the old muzzle-loader. It is very desirable that modern breech-loading guns should be substituted for the old muzzle-loaders on the ships still armed with these. I fear that there is still an insufficiency of heavy breech-loading guns at the disposal of the Admiralty; but it would be more charitable to suppose perhaps they think it right to wait for the perfecting of the new smokeless powder before they supply additional breech-loaders. I do not quite approve the official programme as to repairs. For example, I doubt whether it is wise to spend money upon the Swiftsure and Satellite and some of the other ships classed with her. When I come to the Wrangler, the Racer, and the Starling, I confess I do not at all understand the proposals of the Admiralty. The Wrangler, the Racer, and the Starling belong to about the most inefficient and obsolete class in the Navy List. The Wrangler and Starling are vessels that can only be depended to go about nine knots. They are hopelessly slow, and no money spent on them will repay the outlay. I do not think the so-called Racer ever steamed more than 11 knots, and I doubt if you can get nine knots out of her now, and yet on this vessel you propose to spend £6,447. The Admiralty are only going to spend £307 on her propelling power and machinery, so you cannot make her much faster. I should like to know what service you propose to employ her on. I cannot find in the Estimates what amount you intend to lay out on the Wrangler and Starling; but, assuming it to be about the same as on the Racer, you will be throwing away on this obsolete class some £20,000. In 1889, when the First Lord made his
  2004
  statement, he certainly led the Committee to believe that as the new ships were completed we would get rid of a number of the obsolete vessels which now encumber the Navy List. The torpedo cruisers and the Pheasant class were, it was understood, to take the place of the obsolete gunboats of the Wrangler class. But if the Admiralty intend, as seems to be the case, to retain on the Navy List the older and obsolete class, in addition to the new vessels they are building, then I say they are not dealing fairly with the House and the country. In his statement the First Lord said that he had some difficulty at the time of the mobilisation of the Fleet in officering and manning all the ships, and that to meet this he was endeavouring to reduce the number of officers and men in our non-fighting ships. But if this is his policy, then I am entitled to ask, What is the use of lumbering the Estimates with charges for the repair of the vessels I have been referring to—wretched, obsolete gunboats, too weak to fight, and too slow to run away? Unless some reason, not apparent in the Estimates, is given for this expenditure, I shall certainly move its reduction when we come to the Shipbuilding Vote. Passing from the shipbuilding programme to the Ordnance Department, I am very glad to see that the Admiralty are steadily moving in the direction I have so frequently urged in the House, namely, that the Admiralty should assume the entire control and custody of all naval ordnance stores. When I brought forward a Motion urging this course two years ago, it was rejected on the advice of the Secretary for War and the First Lord by a majority of two to one. I am glad to find that since then wiser counsels have prevailed, and, except on one important point, as I understand the present arrangements, they have practically conceded all I then asked for. The point I refer to is in regard to the ordering of the guns. This, I understand is still to be done through the War Office. The reason assigned for this is the necessity for interchangeability between the two Services; but this is a totally insufficient reason. Interchangeability can be perfectly well secured if the Admiralty order their own guns direct from Woolwich, or from a private firm. It is the Ordnance Committee

  2005
  that insure interchangeability. I have never proposed to relieve the Committee of this responsibility. The Committee consists of military officers and engineers, and the Admiralty are represented by a naval officer. A gun is agreed upon suitable for forts and ships. The pattern of the gun and the charges are the same whether the gun goes to a man-of-war or to one of the forts at Malta. Therefore, so long as you retain the Ordnance Committee as designers of a gun adapted for both Services interchangeability is secured. Let me remind the House what the present system is, and I think they will see it is somewhat complicated. The Admiralty take the money for naval guns; they order and are responsible for their own gun mountings. They are in future to have the custody and charge of their own ammunition, but the Admiralty decline the responsibility for the gun itself. There is no doubt about this. The First Lord, in his statement last year, said—
  "The Navy speak on ordnance questions as users of the article supplied, but they are not responsible for the design or the manufacture of the weapon with which they are armed, except so far as gun mountings and torpedoes are concerned."
  But if the Admiralty are not answerable for the gun, do the War Office accept the responsibility? On this point General Alderson, the Director of Artillery, is quite as explicit as the First Lord, because, in his evidence before Sir James Stephen's Commission, he said—
  "The Ordnance Committee are responsible for the design; but the Admiralty, not being obliged to accept a design of which they do not approve, become also responsible."
  It thus appears that neither the Admiralty, War Office, nor the Ordnance Committee accept the responsibility for the design of a naval gun. Supposing the Admiralty insist on arming our ships with 110-ton guns. They are not satisfied with the present service qualities of that weapon, and they ask the Ordnance Committee to design them another pattern. The Committee may think, as most people now do, that a gun of this enormous size is not suitable for naval purposes. The Admiralty may reply that they, and not the Committee, are the best judges of this. The gun proves a complete failure. I am only putting
  2006
  a hypothetical case. Have the Admiralty no responsibility? It would be absurd to make the War Office responsible in such a case. If the Admiralty ordered their own guns, subject always to designs approved by the Ordnance Committee, they would relieve the War Office of a duty with which they have no right to be saddled; they would bring the Admiralty into direct communication with the manufacturer in all questions concerning gun mountings, and they are many; they would save a deal of useless correspondence now passing on this subject through the War Office; they would thus accelerate the delivery of guns, and they would limit the responsibility, at any rate, to the Ordnance Committee and the Admiralty. I should like to say one word about the supply of guns. In his statement the First Lord takes his usual optimistic view of the supply of guns, and he informs the Committee that "the satisfactory rate of progress has been maintained. "He also dwells at some length on the number of breech-loading guns that have been delivered. Now the supply of guns between 4in. and 6in. in diameter has, I believe, been satisfactory enough; no complaint, so far as I know, has been made about them. It is in reference to the larger guns—over 9in. in diameter—that the great delay has occurred. Of these guns I maintain that we are still short. The noble Lord in his statement says that we have 1,410 breech-loading guns afloat. To hon. Gentlemen who have not looked closely into this subject, and no doubt to the general public, this may seem a very satisfactory statement; but, in regard to recent shortcomings in the delay of delivery of guns, it is not one which will bear a very close investigation. Out of the 1,410 breech-loading guns I can only make out 122 above 9in. in diameter. The first naval breechloader was delivered in 1883. Up to the 31st of March, 1889, the latest Return I have been able to get, we had only in the whole Navy 68 breechloaders of the class I am dealing with. In the year 1890 the First Lord took credit for 27 guns, and he takes credit for an equal number this year, making 122. In his statement last year the First Lord told us that we wanted, to complete the old and new programme, 112 guns.

  2007
  Well, if we go on at the present rate of delivery we shall not get the 112 guns required till the middle of 1894, and I understand most of the ships are to be ready in 1893. No doubt I shall be told that the rate of delivery will be accelerated; but I have heard this so often that I am getting a little sceptical on the subject, especially when I contrast our accomplished achievements in this respect with the promises which have been held out. It is always difficult to extract from right hon. Gentlemen opposite what their calculated output of guns is to be in the year. After a certain amount of pressure, the First Lord told me in August, 1888, that 45 guns above 9in. in diameter would be delivered by the end of the financial year—that was by March 31, 1889. Last year, after the close of the Session, I got the Return I had moved for, which it took the War Office six months to produce, enabling me to verify the accuracy of the First Lord's forecast. How many out of the 45 guns promised were actually delivered? Only 17! In 1889 the Secretary of State for War told us that up to the end of the financial year he expected to deliver 81 guns over 22 tons in weight. But on the 17th of last March he had a very different story to tell the House. Only 67 guns had been delivered, but these were not 22-ton guns, but guns over 6in. in diameter, and we have yet to learn how many of these were 22-ton guns. I should be glad to have the information. I think that the War Office have not kept faith with regard to these guns. There is one matter of considerable importance about which in his statement the First Lord has maintained a complete silence, and about which the country is getting very anxious, namely, the question of the 110-ton guns. After the repeated failure of the Sans Pareil's guns I should like to ask the Government what their policy is concerning these guns? The Sans Pareil guns were ordered as far back as 1886; they were promised in 1888, and now in 1891 the Sans Pareil, which has cost £800,000, is practically unarmed, as she has not got her principal armament. That is, in my opinion, a scandalous state of things. So far back as 1886, when I went to the Admiralty, there was a strong opinion in
  2008
  naval circles against these guns. The preponderating opinion of naval members of the Board was opposed to them. It may be asked, if that was the case, why we did not stop them. To that I have to reply that the time of the Board was then a good deal occupied about the Collingwood guns, and besides that when Lord Ripon came to the Admiralty he was not at all satisfied with the organisation of the Naval Ordnance Department, and he appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into it. That Departmental Committee was sitting at the time the present Admiralty came into office, and we did not like to settle the large question of the 110-ton gun, until the large matter of the organisation of the Naval Ordnance Department had been settled. So impressed was I with the opinion of my naval colleagues in 1886 that as far back as 1887 I pressed the First Lord of the Admiralty to give up the 110-ton guns on board both the Victoria and the Sans Pareil. My reason was that the then Controller, Sir William Graham, had impressed me with the impolicy of putting those guns on board a ship, and I urged the First Lord very strongly to give up the 110-ton guns, and to substitute for them 67-ton guns.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Did you ascertain what it would cost?
  MR. DUFF: I remember the noble Lord replied that the 110-ton guns were ordered, and to counter-order them and to alter the fittings of the ships would be a very costly process; but, for my own part, I think that the course persevered in will turn out in the end the more costly of the two. I am perfectly willing to admit that the position of the First Lord has been an embarrassing one; and two things have happened since, which, had they been known at the time, might have influenced his opinion, and caused him to arrive at a different decision. The first of these is that experience has proved the 67-ton gun to be a most efficient weapon, and the second is that further experience has proved the 110-ton gun most unreliable. But what I want to know now is what the Admiralty intend doing in the future. Would it not be better even now to replace the 110-ton gun with the 67-ton gun? I am not prepared to say what the cost of the change would be; but if you are

  2009
  going to spend £800,000 on what is really a gun carriage, it would be cheaper to spend £100,000 than to have guns which are of no use to you. Nothing can be more extravagant than to spend £800,000 on a ship, and then put in guns you are afraid to fire.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: May I ask the hon. Member on what authority he makes the statement that we are afraid to fire these guns? It is rather an important matter, and statements have appeared in the Press on the subject.
  MR. DUFF: I simply want to say this: You have fired the guns on board the Benbow, but you have not been able to reproduce those guns, and you have not a gun you can put on board the Sans Pareil that you can fire with any confidence It is public property. Everyone has read the published accounts of the trials. But even if you can fire these guns, I am prepared to say that even on the First Lord's own showing the 67-ton gun is a better weapon. For my own part, I contend that even now, in spite of the expense, it would be far better to put 67-ton guns on board these vessels than to go on with the 110-ton guns. In his Statement this year the First Lord tells us that the Trafalgar fired four rounds from her 67-ton guns in nine minutes and a half. I doubt whether the 110-ton guns after the first shot could fire two rounds in 10 minutes; and certainly it could not go on at that rate. The 67-ton gun in the four rounds would throw projectiles weighing 5,0001b.; whereas the two shots from the 110-ton gun would only represent 3,600lb. It is true that the 110-ton gun is capable of penetrating 33 inches of iron and the 67-ton gun only 27 inches at 1,000 yards, but as no ship afloat, I believe, carries more than 23 inches of iron, the 67-ton gun would do all we require. These guns need not be wasted if they are handed over to the Secretary for War. In his large schemes of Imperial defence the right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be able to find a more suitable place for them than on board one of Her Majesty's ships. I see that Admiral Sir George Elliot has an article in one of the magazines, advocating the fortification of the Scilly Isles. That in many respects would be a suitable place for the 110-ton guns, and there would be lots of sea-room for practice.
  2010
  But, in any event, you ought to get rid of these guns out of the Navy. You are saddled with them in the Benbow, but you ought to get rid of them elsewhere. If you have got the guns for the Sans Pareil why do you not put them on board the ship, and let the gunners try to fire them? I have not heard much about the Victoria guns. It is our business in Committee to look into these questions, and there appears to me to have been a scandalous waste of public money after keeping ships waiting for their armaments. After all that has happened, I think we are entitled to some explanation on these points. As to the promotion of warrant officers to the quarterdeck, that is a very difficult and delicate subject. I do not think any commanding officer would care to trust the safety of his ship to a navigating lieutenant who had never had any practical experience in navigating. I do not see how, at the present time, you can open promotion to warrant officers to the rank of captain. With every desire to assist warrant officers and to do what might be a popular thing, we must give the first consideration to the interests of the Service. Having said that, I must confess I think it is unfortunate that we have not at the present time any connection between the quarterdeck and the forecastle. Warrant officers used to get their sons educated at Greenwich School and passed into the Navy as masters'-assistants mates, from which rank they were promoted to the quarterdeck. I think the Admiralty would do well to revive Greenwich School as a school for warrant officers' sons, and in that way establish a connection between the quarterdeck and the forecastle. I do, not gather that that would satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and indeed his recommendations were not very definite, but I commend this suggestion, to the attention, of the Admiralty. I am sorry to have detained the Committee at some length, but I hope I have touched upon matters that deserve explanation, especially in reference to the 110-ton guns.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: It is with considerable diffidence and hesitation that I follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The main part of his speech was an attack upon the Government in respect to matters for which they are

  2011
  not responsible, and for deficiencies due to the Government of which the hon. Gentleman himself was a Member.
  MR. DUFF: Long before I had anything to do with the Admiralty.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Everyone is aware of the miserable condition in which things were left by that Government, not only as regards the Navy, but the coaling stations; and it is rather hard for the hon. Gentleman to present an embodiment of virgin purity on behalf of his late colleagues to attack the present Board of Admiralty. It is notorious, the country knows it, the Press of the Kingdom has rung with it, articles upon articles have shown how six line-of-battle ships were kept waiting for their guns by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the hardihood to speak with righteous indignation of the misdoings of a wicked Tory Government, and accuses them for deficiencies for which the colleagues of the hon. Gentleman are really responsible. The hon. Member found fault with the Admiralty and the War Office because the Admiralty have not got an absolute control of the milking of the guns. The hon. Member assisted myself and others in a work that has been of some service—the transfer of the Vote for Naval Ordnance to the Navy Estimates. Year after year we endeavoured to bring about this transfer. In 1886 the Vote for guns was transferred from the Army to the Navy Estimates, and that transfer involved changes of very great magnitude and difficulty. I fail to see why the Admiralty should not get their guns from the War Office if they got them as good there as elsewhere. It was a great responsibility for the Department to take over the control of this one and a quarter millions of money. It is well, surely, to provide our Woolwich operatives with plenty of work if we can get good guns from the War Department; but it is equally open to the Admiralty to avail themselves of the Armstrong firm, Whitworths, and others. As to the 110-ton gun, we none of us like it, but I believe it was ordered by the late Government. But having the ships ready and the gun carriages, surely it would be the height of folly not to use them out and then have no more of them. But I will not further
  2012
  follow in the path pursued by the hon. Gentleman. I turn to matters in the Memorandum issued by the noble Lord, in which naval men take deep interest. I do not like the First Lord's statements in the Memorandum as to the manning of the Fleet. It seems to me the Admiralty are almost afraid to face the question of the increase in the personnel of the Navy, and are taking refuge in an untried Naval Reserve. The noble Lord says—
  "An investigation into the actual duties which engage the Naval Service shows how large a proportion of officers and men are locked up in training establishments and educational courses, and in performing subsidiary work, such as surveying and transport of troops, &c."
  Well, I do not consider this is subsidiary work. Surveying has ever been an important work in the Service, and I hope will continue to be, and the transport of troops is work in which Her Majesty's ships may be usefully occupied in time of peace, and I hope it will not be changed. Then the noble Lord goes on to say—
  "At the time when the ships in commission were insufficient to give adequate work and training to the officers and men of the Fleet, such employment was judicious; but when the number of fighting vessels is so increased as to be more than able to employ and train the peace establishments, the employment of very highly trained and instructed men in work of so secondary a nature is a waste of power."
  I do not call it work of a secondary nature or a waste of power. Further, the noble Lord says—
  "I am, therefore, taking steps to reduce as far as I can the number of officers, men, and boys afloat in non-fighting vessels,"—
  all very right, so far as it goes. Ships in harbour, I suppose, are meant—
  "and at the same time, to shorten the general course of study for officers at the Naval College, and of gunnery and torpedo instruction for all but those who show special aptitude and ability."
  I hope I do not read in this an intention to shorten the course of study. The words may cover much or little. Of course, I do not want men to go on studying gun and torpedo service when they will not be in that branch of the Service. Then I come to the words in which the First Lord seems to contemplate an addition to the personnel of the Service, and yet seems afraid to face it—

  2013
  "In looking ahead to the increased demands which the gradual completion of the new shipbuilding programme will make upon our manning resources, I have endeavoured to keep in view and combine certain definite objects. It seemed to me to be quite unreasonable to expect that the whole of the extra force required to man, three years hence, our greatly increased Fleet should exclusively consist of officers and men on the permanent establishments of the Navy, of continuous service, and entitled to pension. I was, therefore, anxious to associate the increase of the permanent establishments with a steady growth in the numbers and efficiency of the Royal Naval Reserve. The additions which have been made to the personnel of the Navy since the Naval Defence Act was passed have been large. Vote A stood at 62,600 in March, 1889. It has now reached 68,800, and I propose to raise it to 71,000 this year, and gradually to work up in subsequent years to a total of 75,000."
  Now, no time is fixed for the increase to the maximum of 75,000. If we are to wait until the ships are built, then I reply the men will not be ready for the ships. You cannot make seamen in two years. The noble Lord is very properly going to establish a new training ship, but you cannot, I say, make seamen in two or three years. Therefore, it seems to me from the attention I have been able to give to this Memorandum, that the Admiralty have not faced this question of an increase in the personnel, but are relying too much on the Naval Reserve, as to whom there is this paragraph in the Memorandum—
  "The sufficiency of my proposals entirely depends upon how far the Royal Naval Reserve is a reliable auxiliary force upon which the Naval Authorities can in emergency lay their hands with confidence."
  But are we to wait until war breaks out until we discover whether reliance is to be placed on the Reserve? Will the noble Lord do as his predecessor did in 1869 when the Reserves were called out by notice? The retention or abolition of the Reserves depended upon the result of that call, and the result was most praiseworthy. I forget the percentage, but the men of the Royal Naval Reserve responded to the call in very large numbers, practically all we may say who were in the country, and went afloat in the reserve squadron, and upon a rare occasion the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) flew the Admiralty flag. The call was a success then. If the noble Lord has any doubt now, let him repeat the experiment. Let him call out the Reserves
  2014
  this summer, and with a proper proportion of men-of-wars men let them man the ships if they rally to the call. But if there is any doubt, do not let us place a reliance where we may meet with failure in the hour of trial. The noble Lord is bound to test whether we can have confidence in the Reserves or not. The additions to the number of men and boys this year are satisfactory so far as they go, but I am sorry no addition is proposed to the force of Marines. I trust that steps will be taken to secure proper training for stokers. I am glad to see that there is to be an increase of Naval Reserve officers. With the claim of warrant officers for promotion I have no sympathy. I do not want to say anything about it, and I am sorry it was started; but, being started, I am glad it has met with the reception it has received. It is, I think, an unwise proposal, and would be of no advantage to the Service. The changes on the South African station will, I think, be viewed with gratification by naval men. I shall be glad to hear from the noble Lord as to the chief petty officers, who have had no increase of pension in proportion to their increase of pay. It is perhaps a small matter, but it has been promised that it shall be considered. I have seen a report in the papers that the Admiralty have granted it, but the petty officers themselves are uncertain. There is another small grievance on the part of majors of the Royal Marines and the Marine Artillery. They claim that they should be put in the same position as majors in the Sister Service. There is at present a difference of a year in the period after which extra pay is allowed; in the Army it is two years, in the Marines it is three years. Then I must refer to the dock accommodation, or want of it, at Bombay. For years past I have called attention to this subject—ever since I visited Bombay and saw the necessity for a dock there. And then when I saw a flagship for the Indian Station coming from Bombay to be docked at Malta, I said I would be unceasing in my efforts to get such a gross scandal remedied. We have been three years at it, and at last the Admiralty seem willing enough to undertake the work. I do not think the Admiralty are now to blame; I understand that the

  2015
  objection comes from the Treasury. But the Admiralty have no right to claim credit for the dock accommodation now provided at Bombay. It is no information to naval men. We have been aware of it for some time, and I may say that naval men do not approve of the dimensions of the dock. In any case, it is not the Imperial Government that can claim any credit for it, but the Bombay Trust, and they have done fairly well with the means at their disposal. I am very glad, indeed, to find that communication is to be made between the Admiralty and signal stations round the coast. If that were the only result from the late manœuvres, the expenditure would have been quite justified. One more question I should like to ask, and that is, "When will the dock at Malta be finished?" (Dock No. 4). This closes the subjects on which I have to speak at the moment. Some of them may seem of small importance; but they are of importance to naval men. I do not intend to now go into larger questions, upon which a great deal more might be said.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I wish to say a few words on the finances of the Navy. Last year I pointed out that the Estimates as they stood for the Army and Navy were utterly unreliable, and that they gave no real indication of what the expenditure would be. My statement that the expenditure would be £6,000,000 more than appeared on the Estimates was denied at the time by the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty and by the Secretary of State for War. But a Return subsequently laid on the Table of the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that I had understated the figures. The estimates for the two Services provided for £31,000,000; but the expenditure, under various subterfuges, shifts, and devices, reached £38,320,000, a difference of £7,000,000. When I come to the present year I find very much the same thing. We have an additional cause of confusion arising from a Supplementary Estimate. I have no hesitation in saying that this Supplementary Vote is for the purpose of relieving the Vote of the present year. It cannot be supposed that last year there was an under estimate of £350,000. I have no doubt that the purchase of armour plates and other materials has been hastened in
  2016
  order to relieve the Estimates of the coming year. In my experience that course was never permitted by the Treasury, and Supplementary Estimates were only allowed in the case of some unforeseen work having to be undertaken. The actual expenditure contemplated in the Estimates for the coming year upon the Navy is £14,215,000, but in addition to this there will be an expenditure under the Naval Defence Act of £3,400,000, and out of unexpended balances £140,000, and I understand a further expenditure out of the unexpended balances of previous years of about £300,000 more. When I come to the Army I find much the same state of things. The expenditure on the Army under the Estimates will be £17,897,000; but beyond this there would be an expenditure of £600,000 on fortifications, £300,000 on armaments under the Imperial Defence Act, whilst the Financial Secretary to the War Office told me he thought it probable that the expenditure under the Barracks Act would be between £400,000 and £600,000. Adding these various sums together, I find that the total expenditure on the two Services in the coming year will amount to no less a sum than £37,800,000, out of which only £32,000,000 appear on the Estimates of the year, £1,400,000 will be provided by the Consolidated Fund, £700,000 will come under the Imperial Defence Act, £600,000 under the Barracks Act, £3,440,000 under the Naval Defence Act for ships building by contract, and £500,000, I believe, out of the unexpended balances of former years. I say that, by providing for the expenditure in this variety of ways, you altogether destroy anything like financial control, and make the Estimates of the two Services absolutely unreliable as an index of what the expenditure within any financial, year will be. I should like to call attention to what the real increase of expenditure has been in the two Services as compared with past years. I find that the average for the 10 years ending 1884 in the two Services was £25,000,000 a year. In 1884 it rose to £26,700,000; in 1889 it rose to £29,790,000; and in the coming year the amount will be £32,000,000 on the ordinary Estimates, and, besides that, there will be an

  2017
  expenditure provided for in the course of the last three or four years under the Naval Defence Act, the Imperial Defence Act—for fortifications, armaments, barracks, and ships—of £17,000,000. Therefore, there has been an increase on the ordinary Estimates within the last four or five years of £5,500,000, and a further and extraordinary expenditure provided for amounting to no less than £17,000,000. That appears to me to be a serious increase, and the only way to check it in future, in my opinion, is to insist on the payment of the expenditure for the year within the year. It is only in that way that the increase in the expenditure can be continually brought home to the House and the country. In 1879 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) made a most vehement protest against the addition of extraordinary to ordinary expenditure. He said—
  "The cause of economy was unpopular enough at all times. Even when increased expenditure meant increased taxation it was difficult enough for its advocates to make way; but when increased expenditure did not mean increased taxation, but only the accumulation of burdens in the future, where, he should like to know, would be the cause of economy? The payment of taxes acted as a sobering force on our national policy. It sobered those who had to impose the taxes and those who had to pay them."
  It seems to me that those words of the right hon. Gentleman are exactly applicable to the present state of things and to the expenditure which the Government is now incurring. The general effect of the Naval Defence Act, the Imperial Defence Act, and the Barracks Act has been to postpone payments which ought to come within the financial year and to throw the burden on the future. It seems to me that the main object of all these transactions has been, in the first place, whilst expending considerable sums of money on the Army and Navy, not to increase the apparent burdens of the country; and, in the second place, to conceal the real expenditure of the country, and at the same time to claim credit for not largely increasing the Estimates, and to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to claim a surplus when there has really been no surplus. I believe that if in the current year you had provided sufficient money to meet the expenditure within the year there
  2018
  would have been not a surplus, but a deficit. What the position in the coming year may be I do not know, but I think that in all probability there will be very little surplus, even taking into account all these payments. If they were made within the year, not only would there be no surplus, but there would be a large deficit. These considerations appear to me to be very weighty ones, as bearing on the continually growing expenditure of the country. My belief is that that expenditure will always grow unless we lay down as a matter of principle that the expenditure for the year is to be borne by the taxation of the year. That is the only real check that can be imposed on expenditure of this kind. With regard to the actual proposals of the Government for the year, I find that the increase on the Votes is about £350,000, after making certain deductions. Of this, £126,000 is due to the Wages Vote; but there would have been a still greater increase of payment under the Wages Vote if it had not been that there are for the first time considerable payments made to the credit of the Vote out of the contract with the Australian Colonies, and also payments coming from the Indian Government. Taking these two items into account, there would have been a further increase of no less than £130,000. I am unable to trace to what this large increase on the Wages Vote is due. No doubt there is an increase of 2,200 men to the Navy, but that only accounts for £80,000. I may here remark that I do not consider it at all satisfactory that this increase in the number does not include a single able seaman, but is composed of 900 boys, 412 pensioners, and 764 who are engineer-men. To my mind, it is open to objection that an addition should be made to the number of pensioners employed in active service. I know that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the head of the Admiralty it was his policy to discourage very much the entry of pensioners into the Service. By that system you have side by side men performing similar duties, some of whom receive pensions for length of service in addition to their pay, whilst the others receive only their pay. And, after all, these 412 pensioners are no real addition to the strength of the Navy, because under any circumstances they

  2019
  would be bound to serve in time of war, and form, in fact, a kind of reserve. This addition really means a calling up of men from the Reserve to act as seamen in the Fleet, and I do not think that a desirable process. What is the cause of the increase in the number of men which has been going on for some years? Ten years ago it was not thought desirable to add to the number, as there were so many men at the home ports. I take it that the increase in the personnel is due to the increased number of ships on the foreign stations. I have no objection to the increase which has been made on certain stations in respect to very powerful vessels; but what I do think is open to consideration is whether, when we are making these additions to our foreign squadrons, we should not reduce the number of the smaller class of vessels which are really of no great use for war purposes. We have many of the latter class—vessels which steam at a small rate of speed, and which in time of war would not add to our strength, but would fall an easy prey to the enemy. On this point I would like to quote from one of the ablest writers on naval subjects in France. M. Weyl, in his work on La Marine Francaise, says—
  "The Colonial Powers, and England more than any others, have numerous ships maintained for the empty purpose of exhibiting the national flag in distant seas, which are useless in a fighting sense Such vessels may inspire the negro with awe, and gratify Englishmen by displaying their flag in foreign ports, but on the first alarm of war they must disappear from the seas."
  Again, my noble Friend Lord Brassey, with reference to the withdrawal of vessels from our foreign squadrons, says—
  "The policy should be to replace as far as may be the permanent squadrons abroad by flying squadrons, and to keep in commission a less number of ships of an efficient type in lieu of the inefficient ships hitherto maintained. An occasional visit to foreign ports by an effective foreign squadron always makes a telling impression."
  Without going the length of saying that all our foreign squadrons should be replaced by flying squadrons, yet I cannot but think that the demand for seamen might have been met to a considerable extent by reducing the number of very small vessels on the foreign stations—vessels which are practically of no
  2020
  great use for war purposes, and which really seem only to be used for the purpose of showing our flag in the manner described by M. Weyl. I should like to ask the noble Lord to state at some greater length what is the real nature of the operation he is going to perform in respect of the squadrons on the West Coast of Africa and the North-East Coast of America. Perhaps the noble Lord will also inform the Committee whether St. Helena will be the new station on the West Coast of Africa, and also whether it is proposed to make any addition to the number of ships employed in that squadron. The noble Lord states in his Memorandum that Ascension Island will be the centre of the new station. Last year I brought under the notice of the House the subject of Ascension Island, showing to the best of my ability from high authorities that St. Helena is a far better station than Ascension; and I propose, at a later stage of the Estimates, to raise the question again this year. The subject was discussed late one night at the end of last Session, and the House will recollect, perhaps, that the discussion came to an end through an extraordinarily irrelevant speech made by an hon. Member, which induced the Deputy Speaker to allow the Closure to be moved as a means of putting an end to that speech. I shall propose to bring the subject on again when the Victualling Vote is before the Committee. In the meantime, I would merely ask the noble Lord to say what the increased establishment on the island will be, and whether there will be an addition made to the vessels on that station, and also what the cost of making a new station in that part of the world will be? In conclusion, I would only repeat that, in my opinion, the continual increase of expenditure both on the Army and the Navy can only be checked by bringing the burden of that expenditure on the taxpayers within the year.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,: If I might venture to offer a suggestion as to the best mode of keeping down the expenditure of the Army and the Navy—certainly of the Navy—it would be to follow a directly contrary policy to that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken when

  2021
  he was Secretary to the Admiralty. In the three years during which the right hon. Gentleman occupied that responsible position the expenditure on new construction fell to about the lowest ever known in recent years. The result of allowing the expenditure in any year to fall so far below that which is necessary to maintain the Fleet—
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I would remind the hon. Member that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the head of the Admiralty at that time.
  MR. FORWOOD: Whoever was at the head of the Admiralty during those three years, the fact remains that an abnormally low rate of expenditure involves an increased expenditure in future years, and disturbs all calculations either as to taxes to be laid or as to the condition at which the Navy ought to be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that our Estimates are unreliable as to the total expenditure, and that we are providing the money by devices and subterfuges. The devices and subterfuges are Acts passed by Parliament, and every sixpence we have spent has been based upon proposals approved by the House. The right hon. Gentleman says it is clear to his mind that the Supplementary Vote is taken for the purpose of relieving next year's Estimates. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is nothing of the sort. The Supplementary Vote of £350,000 is required for the expenditure of this year. I will explain shortly the reason of it. We are administering the programme of new construction under an Act of Parliament that very properly is very rigid, but at the same time very difficult. In interpreting that Act in connection with the preparation of last year's Estimates, we anticipated that certain sums, savings that had been paid into the bank, would have been placed at our disposal during the past year. But they were not; and in lieu of those savings the Admiralty have to ask the House for the Supplementary Vote of £350,000. Whilst we ask for that sum, the House will see that we have a considerable sum of money at our credit. Whilst we ask the House for £350,000, we have no less than £540,000 at our disposal in the Bank of England, available, under the Act, for expenditure
  2022
  in future years. I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in his figures, seeing that he mixes the Army and Navy expenditure together. I am here to answer for naval administration, and for expenditure under the Naval Defence Act. I think it will be seen that we have kept very closely in our expenditure to the Estimates we have laid before the House. I will give one or two figures to show what have been our performances compared with the statements contained in our Estimate. We estimated that in our statement of March 1889–90 our expenditure would be £1,290,000 on the new programme; whereas we have really expended £1,183,000. We estimated for 1890–91 that we might spend £2,394,000; whereas we really expended £2,386,000. It was estimated that the expenditure for the coming year would be £2,560,000; whereas, in fact, the amount actually provided for in the Estimates is £2,524,000. In order to complete the new programme, it is estimated that for the next two years the expenditure will amount to £2,390,000; whereas it will amount to £3,300,000, or an excess of £1,000,000. Of this over £300,000 is due to the cost of unexpected alterations and improvements which had to be made in vessels under construction, leaving the sum of only £600,000 in excess of the original Estimate of the cost of ships and armaments under the new programme of contract and dockyard work. This excess I claim to be a very small one on an original Estimate of £22,000,000 for the construction of new ships and armaments, and it certainly compares very favourably with the excess on the estimated expenditure under the programme of 1885 of £8,000,000 of money when the excess was something like £750,000. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has twitted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with not having provided the funds necessary for carrying out the programme year by year. Now, as regards the shipbuilding programme, the full cost of the ships built in the dockyards has been provided year by year out of the Revenue as acquired, and by the end of the present year we shall have spent in carrying out our programme something like £7,800,000, or at the rate of £2,600,000

  2023
  per annum for three years. Therefore, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite can only be made applicable to the case of the contract ships, which are regarded as being outside the normal building Vote. These were required to make up the strength of the Fleet to the necessary point which in previous years a false economy has allowed to fall below the actual requirements. Of the £10,000,000 required for the construction of vessels by contract within the period allowed, no less than £7,000,000 will be provided in the five years, leaving a little over £2,000,000 to be provided from the Revenue of the two following years, so that out of the £22,500,000 to be expended under the Naval Defence Act for the construction of new ships and armaments, no less than £20,500,000 will have been provided for out of the taxation of the current years. I claim, therefore, that I have thus shown that the provisions of the Act have been well and wisely administered, and that Her Majesty's Government are not open to the charge either of not having kept within their promises as to their programme of expenditure, or of having constructed a large fleet of ships without paying for them out of the taxation of the country. The hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Banff (Mr. Duff) and the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed) have congratulated the Admiralty on the progress they have made in carrying out their programme, and their remarks have emboldened me to make the statement I have just made with regard to the work we have done. Both those hon. Members have pointed out very properly that the rate at which Her Majesty's Government have pushed on the construction of the various new vessels has been of material benefit in reducing the cost of the ships; comparing their cost and the estimates made of them to the cost of the ships built under the former system, I think it will be seen that a great saving has been effected, and that whereas formerly the cost was about 20 or 30 per cent. over the Estimates, as a normal state of things it does not now exceed 3 per cent. The hon. Member for Banffshire alluded more especially to guns and ships of the old ironclad type. I may state that we have within the last two years done much
  2024
  towards making the old ironclads fit to take their place, in case of emergency, in the second line of Naval Defence. Some of these vessels which naval officers have thought worth the cost, have been re-engined, re-boilered, and re-armed, while those which are not quite so up to modern requirements have had new boilers put into them, and no doubt will serve as excellent vessels for defence around the coasts of this country. The hon. Gentleman opposite stated with regard to the armament of the old ships that we were not re-arming the Rupert. The fact is, however, that she is to be armed with breech-loading guns. The hon. Gentleman added that he regarded this as a proof that we were short of heavy breech-loading guns, and he stated that although my noble Friend takes credit for having over 1,400 breech-loading guns, the majority of those guns are the 4·7 inch and 6 inch guns. Undoubtedly, Sir, guns of these calibres must be the majority, because where a ship now carries two, or, at the most, four, heavy guns, she will have, in addition, from 10 to 16 guns of a smaller calibre. I think the hon. Member said there are only 67 nine-inch guns.
  MR. DUFF: I said there were only 68 nine-inch guns in 1889, but that since then 27 were added last year, and an almost equal number this year, making altogether 122 guns of the nine-inch calibre.
  MR. FORWOOD: But that statement refers to a period some time back. What I say is, that we have now already delivered, mounted, or in reserve, 163 guns of eight-inch calibre and upwards.
  MR. DUFF: I referred to guns of over nine-inches diameter.
  MR. FORWOOD: The hon. Gentleman spoke of two years ago, and I was dealing with the figures given by the noble Lord the head of the Admiralty. I can assure the hon. Member that the construction of the heavier guns for the ships in the programme is proceeding as rapidly as possible. The hon. Member also dealt with the 110-gun, and suggested that we should condemn that gun. Does the hon. Member realise the fact that in condemning that gun we shall be condemning all the fittings for the gun and the gun-carriage itself, which, in point of fact, is the ship which

  2025
  carries it. In doing this we should be wasting a very large sum of money. I doubt if the hon. Member is aware of the cost involved in the alteration of one of the new ships from its adaptation to the 110-ton gun to that of say two 67-ton guns. According to the information we have on this point this could not be done for a much less cost than £200,000, inasmuch as it would involve almost a complete reconstruction of the vessel in all its fittings, carriages, and everything else which adapts it to its intended purpose, besides which it would take at least two years to make the new guns, and to re-construct and re-fit the ships. I can hardly think the hon. Member is prepared to suggest that the three ships which carry these heavy guns should be re-fitted with other guns at a cost of £600,000. We maintain that the 110-ton guns are good and efficient weapons, and those who are able to form the best opinion on the subject say there is nothing to impugn their safety or power of penetration. We have the Victoria and the Benbow with these guns on board, and so far no complaints have been made. With respect to the armament of the Sans Pareil, one gun had been proved and fitted and another is in the course of proof. But even supposing that one of the 110-ton guns of the Sans Pareil does not pass proof, two more are to be delivered nest month, either of which can be placed on the Sans Pareil. Although the Admiralty admit that the 67-ton guns are the better, it would be a mistake to displace the 110-ton guns already mounted; and, as a matter of fact, these 110-ton guns were not first adopted when the present Government was in office, but by its predecessor. We have endeavoured loyally to carry out the policy assigned to us, and we have placed on the ships those guns intended for them. As regards smaller vessels, no one could be more opposed to the multiplication of small vessels than the First Lord of the Admiralty. The policy of the Board has been to replace smaller with larger vessels whenever practicable; but a certain number are needed for the demands of the Service, and so the Racer, a well-armed vessel, was launched in 1884. She has breech-loading guns on board, and is fit for many purposes. It
  2026
  is better, moreover, to spend money in refitting the two other small gunboats which had been referred to for the services they are required to perform than to spend a greater sum in building new vessels at an extra cost. I trust I have now answered all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR E. J. REED: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman took so much to heart the observations of my right hon. Friend, who spoke of the subterfuges by which the actual expenditure has been brought down to a nominal point; because everybody must know that the old form which was adopted for the purpose of making public the great increase of the Navy, and involving the inclusion in the aggregate amount of the current expenditure of the following five years, was in itself a colossal subterfuge, though fortunately one we all clearly understand. If the Government, when they proposed the scheme for adding to the Navy, had put it before the country in two parts, one as relating to mere normal expenditure sanctioned by Parliament, and the other as an excess of expenditure to constitute an actual increase over and above the normal expenditure, it would not have been open to the objection that has been raised. I am bound to say that there is a very great deal of force in what my right hon. Friend has held as to this House of Commons losing control over the expenditure because of its being brought in so many forms in excess of the Estimates for the year. I am satisfied that a few years hence it will be difficult to trace the present progress of the expenditure on shipbuilding, and it will be found, owing to the present system, almost impossible to extricate it from its confusion. At the same time, I must say that I, for one, care less about the form of these things than about the substance. As I have already stated, I think the redeeming feature of the Admiralty policy with regard to excess expenditure has been that they are doing their very utmost, and with marked success, to carry out the promise which they made to the House. That is, after all, a great point. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has made reference to the enormous saving resulting from that

  2027
  policy—an actual saving in outlay upon the ships, which results from a quicker and more energetic construction, and the saving of the interest during the progress of construction upon capital that would lie idle while awaiting the adoption of a policy. From whichever side of the House that policy has come, it is deserving of the utmost credit. With regard to the suggestion of my hon Friend the Member for Banffshire that 68-ton guns must be substituted for 110-ton guns on certain ships, I was annoyed to hear the Secretary to the Admiralty say that the cost of the change of guns would amount to £200,000 per ship. It seems to me an impossible amount, seeing that the weight of the armament proposed to be substituted is less than that to be unshipped. I should like to see how that estimate is made out. I do not think it can be altogether satisfactory. The Secretary to the Admiralty has made a statement with reference to the progress of ships now building. I must say that this is a feature of Admiralty administration which I am disposed to watch with the greatest closeness. I think it would be a very extravagant thing indeed to interfere with ships during their progress by amending the plans or making alterations in the designs which are not beneficial, and might be the source of incalculable expenditure. As far as the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty goes, I acknowledge readily that the changes made have been for good. The changes that have been made consist mainly of raising and lengthening the forecastles of the fast steamships, and mounting guns upon the elevated forecastle, with the result of improving the capability of the vessel in chasing an enemy. Consequently, I am not disposed to take exception to the course the Admiralty have taken. I rose to congratulate the First Lord on having published a preliminary Statement. It has had the effect of making the Debates in this House much more satisfactory than they could otherwise have possibly been, while it discourages anything like captious criticism. The Statement shows that matters of the greatest possible importance are engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and but for that knowledge the Debates might have very much
  2028
  extended, for during the past year there has been much to criticise. Take, for instance, the numerous trials of ships which have resulted in distinct failure. Had this fact been extracted in Debate the criticism would probably have been much keener; but the First Lord has dealt with the matter very fairly in his Statement. The noble Lord has been very wise to change his first intention with regard to many of these vessels, and to enlarge their boiler power instead of depending on forced draught. It is all very well to look to forced draught for steam service, but I hold that nothing can compensate for deficiency of boiler power. That fact seems to have been fully recognised by the Admiralty. There is one feature of the Estimates with which I am not satisfied—that is, the manner in which this scheme is being dealt with as regards the engineering of the Fleet. It must be known that the greatest calls are made upon, and the greatest responsibility falls upon, naval officers of the engineer class. I am astonished that in the days of a Steam Navy so little consideration should be given to the engineering management of the Navy. I have put together hastily the figures which are proposed this year to be expended on non-engineer officers. I find that the sum of £400,000 is to be paid to officers who are in no way capable of dealing with actual difficulties should they arise in connection with the machinery of a vessel. I remember very well the case of a trial with ships in the Channel Squadron, when a 13 knot vessel left entirely behind a 14 knot vessel which kept company as a matter of fact with an 11 knot vessel. I was asked for an explanation of the fact, and I suggested that the Board of Admiralty had better inquire of the captain. That gentleman was accordingly sent for, and he said that he had given the signal for full speed, and did nothing else, believing that he had completely executed his duty. I took a somewhat different view, and so, I am glad to say, did the Board of Admiralty. I want to know why we are to spend £400,000 a year on officers who do not understand steam machinery, and who are not charged with the responsibility of its management, while we only pay £153,000 a year to the Engineering Staff. Having regard to

  2029
  the great expenditure upon steam machinery, and the responsibility and importance connected therewith, I cannot understand why there is no representative of the engineering class on the Board of Admiralty. Why are there three Naval Lords and not one single representative for the vast concerns of the Machinery Department? But how is the engineering interest dealt with within the Admiralty? I say the system of representation is antiquated to the last degree. Will it be believed that this very year, when the amount of money to be expended upon steam machinery is £750,000, the gentleman responsible for the design and construction of this great mass of machinery receives £1,000 a year? I do not believe there is any man connected with a large mechanical enterprise in this country who would for a single moment defend such an arrangement as this. I think it shows a want of consideration and of appreciation of the circumstances on the part of the Admiralty. And my objection to it is, not that it is wrong in itself, but it injures confidence in the Admiralty. I can assure the First Lord there is a widespread want of confidence in Admiralty administration—and I am not speaking now of the Engineering Department—but it is looked upon with the greatest contempt by men totally unconnected with the Service. I do not understand why the Admiralty do not make some improvement in that respect. With regard to the engineer officers, their case is one which must be brought forward on another occasion. I can only say that at present the Navy is not properly supplied with engineer officers, and this is a subject which must receive early attention. Before I sit down I should like to say that I think the form of the Estimates and the additional figures which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford has laid before the Committee will make it necessary to ask the Government to put the expenditure on the Army and Navy into a more compact form, so that the House may really know what they are dealing with. I should like to ask the First Lord whether, in view of the Debate and the criticisms made, he can next year present the figures relating to naval expenditure in such a form as to be available for comparative uses?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has moved for a Return corresponding to that produced last year, and I believe that this Return will give all the information required. If not, I shall be glad to supplement it with further information. As to the remuneration of engineers, it is well known that technical ability is not too highly paid either in Her Majesty's Service or in other Departments. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for reasons for the proposed increase in the number of men. Before the number of men is fixed there is a special estimate of all the men that are required to man the ships for which there are guns; and it has been part of the policy of the Admiralty to increase the personnel of the Navy so as to make it adequate to the increasing number of ships. The additional number of ships that has been brought into commission lately have been big ships, and there were now fewer small ships than there have been for many years past. This is a policy that will be continued. In my judgment, one cruiser showing the flag is worth two or three gunboats. The gunboats will be concentrated on the stations where they will be useful. With regard to the reduction of the standard in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East bourne has asked a question, my belief is that it is now too high for everybody, and I have substituted a lower standard for the gunboats; but, of course, those who show special aptitude can go higher—a change which I believe will be beneficial to teachers as well as to the taught. The hon. Member for Banff has made a violent attack on the 110-ton gun; and I must protest against the hon. Member's annual speech of one hour's duration.
  MR. DUFF: I never spoke an hour in my life.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member censured me because I did not condemn everything done by the former Government. Personally I had nothing to do with the 110-ton gun; and I assume that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues when they introduced it took every care that it was likely to be useful to the Service. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of these guns as the laughing stock of the world. The Italians have

  2031
  a powerful Navy, and every ironclad is armed with the 110-ton gun, which have given the Italians no trouble. Yet their Navy certainly cannot be said to be the laughing stock of the world. Out of their twenty 110-ton guns none have given them trouble. But of the nine guns we have ordered two have given serious trouble. One was rejected and sent back, and the other is still under proof. I am surprised the hon. Gentleman should say we are afraid to fire it while it is still under proof. For this statement the hon. Member has no authority; but I will now road an opinion from one whose name will carry weight. Sir Benjamin Baker is probably of all engineers alive the man who has had the greatest experience of the strength and tensile power of steel, and he has made a most careful examination of this gun. It must be remembered that this is the worst of the guns delivered. We have been told that it has split from top to bottom, that it will burst next time, and that it has deflected so that it is utterly untrustworthy and cannot be fired. I have had a Report drawn up upon this gun, because I wished to know what the exact state of things is, and the following is the paragraph relating to this particular gun, endorsed by Sir Benjamin Baker after careful examination:—
  "Some of the 110-ton guns on being tested exhibited defects which, although not affecting the power of penetration or the safety of the gun, pointed to the necessity of modification of designs, which has since been carried out, with the result of bringing them to the required level."
  Therefore, the opinion of one of the first engineers in the country is that this defect neither affects the safety nor the power of penetration of the gun. I have seen every officer who has been in command of a vessel where the 110-ton gun has been placed, and I have never heard one single word of complaint from any naval officer who has had the handling of them. Some may have objected to the calibre, but all have expressed themselves contented as to the safety and accuracy of fire. Therefore, I hope that Members of Parliament will not catch up any gossip or anonymous paragraphs they see in the newspapers, and give currency to rumours which are absolutely untrue. I should like to inform the House what the effect is of circulating these rumours.
  2032
  A Government which has previously got its guns in this country has refused to get the guns for a ship any longer in this country, on the ground that Members of Parliament are constantly finding fault with the guns made in this country, and those guns have been made elsewhere, though I maintain that they will be inferior to the guns which would have been made in this country. All that I have done is, on finding that gun settled upon by my predecessor, to see that it has fair play. The hon. Member says that somebody told him that it was a bad gun, and he recommended that we should take it out and put in 67-ton guns. That would mean a cost of £100,000 or £200,000 in every ship, besides laying up the ships for a long time. The 110-ton gun penetrates 37in. of iron at a close range, and although no ship may carry that amount of armour, with the 110-ton gun there is the probability of the shot penetrating armour even when the blow is an oblique one. I maintain that we have made a most careful examination of the question, and have taken care that no gun in any way unsafe has been put on board any of Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Do I understand the noble Lord to say there will be no increase in the West Coast Squadron?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: None.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: May I ask whether St. Helena will be within the ambit of the new squadron?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot answer that question offhand. It is just upon the line, and my impression is that it is just outside the ambit.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will the noble Lord lay on the Table of the House a comparative statement of the ships on Foreign Stations as compared with the number six years ago? I think it is desirable we should know what change has been made.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I will consider that.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: There is another question I should like to ask. Why is the contribution of the Island of Ceylon not included in this Vote? Formerly the Island used to pay £4,500 a year for naval purposes. Has that contribution ceased? I hope on some future occasion the noble Lord will give

  2033
  us some reason why that contribution has ceased—if that be the case.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I wish to impress upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the importance of having one or two ocean despatch boats capable of steaming at the rate of 25 knots per hour continuously for six days without stopping to coal, thus steaming at the rate of 600 knots per 24 hours; and thereby carrying a despatch from England to the Cape of Good Hope in six days. These despatch boats might require a double or even a treble set of boilers, to enable one set to be cleaned during the passage; but there is no good reason why such a vessel should not be built, considering there already exist steamers which are capable of steaming at the rate of 27 knots per hour for short distances. In the case of an European war there is little doubt that the Suez Canal would be immediately closed to our men-of-war and despatch boats. It is, therefore, all-important that we should be able to communicate with the Cape quicker than any other nation, for it must be borne in mind that immediately war is declared it invariably happens that the submarine cables are broken or become disabled. During the Russian difficulty in 1885 the Cape was without telegraphic communication with Europe for many weeks. Such a despatch boat would be capable of carrying at least two long-range guns and a sufficient number of rapid-firing machine guns for self-defence, if surprised. One of these despatch vessels should always be in readiness in England, another at the Cape, and a third should be stationed either in Ceylon or at Singapore. They would be of enormous importance not only in time of war in protecting our commerce, but in preventing war when any complications had arisen with foreign Powers. I would ask the Admiralty whether they cannot see their way to laying down, at all events, one of these ocean despatch boats in the present year.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: The First Lord of the Admiralty and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff shire (Mr. Duff) have been exchanging shots on the biggest bores in the Service. I am going to challenge the noble Lord on the smallest bore. I trust that by continually pegging
  2034
  away I shall be able to instil into the minds of the noble Lord and his colleagues that the magazine rifle does not possess all the excellent qualities with which they credit it. It seems to me very remarkable that though so much has been heard about the re-arming of the Army with the new magazine rifle, not a word has been said by the First Lord of the Admiralty as to re-arming our sailors and marines. I should like to know what is to be the policy of the Admiralty with regard to this matter? Our sailors and marines are quite as frequently called into action as the Army, and it is very desirable that, as they are often employed side by side, they should be armed, if not with identically the same weapon as the Army, at any rate with a rifle of the same bore and using the same cartridges. Does the Admiralty approve the new magazine rifle? If not that is a strong argument against its adoption for the Army. If the Admiralty do approve it, why is it not proposed to distribute it to the sailors and marines? I would advise the First Lord and his advisers at the Admiralty not to look at this new magazine rifle with the same rose-coloured spectacles as the War Office. I would like to give two instances that have occurred during the last few days of the way in which the rifle is viewed in the Army itself. An hon. and gallant Member, a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, told me that he had asked several of his Service friends what they thought of the weapon, and that they only smiled and said, "We had rather not say anything about it; we do not want to be quoted;" and the commanding officer of one of the regiments of Foot Guards told me that upon the command to "order arms" it is no longer possible to judge of the smartness with which it is obeyed by the simultaneity of the sharp rap of the rifles on the ground, as this has been abandoned owing to its being considered that the mechanism of the weapon will not stand the blow on the ground. I would remind the noble Lord of the unfavourable Reports which were sent in by the Naval Authorities to whom the rifle was in 1888 forwarded for trial.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Might I say one word. We are taking no Vote for the magazine rifle.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: That is just my point. If I am out of Order, I have no doubt the Chairman will call me to Order. My point is that, if this weapon is as good as it is represented to be at the War Office, it is a monstrous shame that the Navy should not have it. It is because it is not included in these Estimates that I am finding fault.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to find fault with the Navy for not adopting the rifle if he is prepared to advocate its adoption, but not otherwise.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I am prepared to advocate the adoption of a different rifle to the one now in use in the Navy, and I am endeavouring to show the reason why, though a different rifle should be adopted, the Admiralty should not adopt the weapon recently adopted by the War Office. I want to show that the Reports received from the various ships bear out my view, and justify the noble Lord in taking the line I am about to suggest. The officers of H.M.S. Excellent, in reporting on the weapon, said:—"The mechanism appears too weak to stand the usage of active service," and similar Reports were received from other ships.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not in Order in adducing evidence against a rifle which the Vote does not refer to.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I wish to know whether the noble Lord thinks it a desirable thing that the Army should be armed with a weapon of one calibre and carrying one sort of cartridge, and the Navy with another weapon carrying another sort of cartridge. We know perfectly well what took place on the expedition across the desert to Khartoum. In a single square, consisting of 1,120 men, there were no less than five sorts of ammunition in use, and the consequence naturally was the greatest confusion. I want to know whether the Admiralty think the Navy should be armed with the Martini-Henry, with a bore of 450, and the Army with a rifle having the bore of the magazine rifle. Then I want to know why, if it is necessary for our Army to have a magazine rifle, it is not necessary for our Nary; why should our Blue Jackets
  2036
  and Marines be placed on a different footing to our soldiers?
  MR. DUFF: I am bound to make one or two remarks in reply to the noble Lord. The noble Lord went out of his way to attack me, and I appeal to the Committee whether he was justified in that attack. There were several Motions on the Paper on going into Committee of Supply. Upon one or two of those Motions I was prepared to speak, but I refrained from speaking on any of them to facilitate the progress of public business. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) asked me if I would make my remarks on the Vote, and I consented to do so. When we got into Committee I made what I thought was a rather conciliatory speech. I congratulated the Admiralty upon the progress they had made in the building of ships. In regard to the 110-ton gun. I said I did not blame the First Lord and his Board. But the First Lord has made a very violent attack upon me. He said I am in the habit of speaking for an hour and making the same speech every year. I have not said a word about the 110-ton gun since 1887. In that year I did appeal to the noble Lord not to put such guns on board the Victoria and Sans Pareil—we could not help ourselves with regard to the Benbow—and I am satisfied that if the advice which I then gave had been taken, the country would have been saved a great deal of money. An hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Field) has said to-night that the insufficiency of guns for the Navy is the result of the policy of the Liberal Government in letting down the Navy. From that I altogether dissent. I assert that the reason of the insufficiency will be found in the action of the present Government who reduced the Estimates in 1887–88 by £793,000, and in 1888–89 by £905,000, making £1,698,000 in two years. Nothing could exceed the vacillation of the Government in their naval policy, for after making these reductions they came to the House and said "we want £21,000,000." Before resuming my seat, I wish to ask what the Admiralty intend to do with regard to the two small vessels which have been sent to the Zambesi. I understand that the rate of

  2037
  mortality amongst the crews is very heavy owing to the unhealthiness of the climate, and that the vessels can only do useful work for three months in the year, the water during the other nine months being too shallow for them to operate.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The position of the Admiralty as to the magazine rifle is this:—They tried the magazine rifle, and one of the Reports was not entirely favourable, but the other was that the weapon was a great improvement on the heavy Martini-Henry rifle. There is no hurry for the magazine rifle in the Navy. It is well that the two Services should have the same weapon, but the duties of the sailors vary very much from those of the soldiers, and there is not as much necessity for the Navy to have the new rifle as for the Army. The Admiralty do not propose to order any this year, and I hope that the result of postponing the orders will be that we will not only get the rifle much cheaper, but that the improvements indicated will be perfected. The hon. Member for Banff has complained of my remarks concerning him. I thought those remarks were harmless; but if they have given him any offence, I retract them. The vessels in the Zambesi will be there for some time. Certain parts of the Zambesi are healthy; and as these vessels have a draught of l½ only, they can go anywhere. We have not heard from the officer for some little time, but the last Report was that the vessels were doing excellent work. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) I have to say that by some arrangement with the Treasury the appropriation in aid lapsed this year. If the right hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper in regard to the matter, I will answer it.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I do not in the least say that because the Army is to have the magazine rifle the Navy, therefore, must have the same weapon, but I maintain that all small arms should have the same calibre and carry the same cartridge.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,404,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of wages, &c., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892."
  (11.53.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Channing.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H SMITH,: I appeal to the hon. Member not to press this Motion. If this Vote is not taken now I shall be compelled to ask for the time of private Members next week.
  SIR E. J. REED: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a promise that the general Debate may be taken on the next Vote?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will endeavour to meet the reasonable wishes of the hon. Gentleman on that point. I hope the Report of this particular Vote may be taken at an early hour. If we cannot take the Report at an early hour I will undertake that an opportunity for discussion will be afforded on the next Vote.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I presume that if this Vote is taken to-night the Government will not take private Member's nights next week.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall be glad if there is no necessity to take private Members' nights next week; but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we must have certain Votes by the 16th of March.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I hope that if the Vote is taken now a further opportunity will be afforded for a general discussion of Navy questions, so that hon. Members who desire to do so can range over the whole question of Navy expenditure.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We are in the hands of the Chairman, but, so far as the Government are concerned, they will raise no objection to such discussion.
  MR. DUFF: May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if it would be in order to take a general discussion on a subsequent Vote?
  THE CHAIRMAN: A general discussion has been allowed upon the Victualling Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

ARMY SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 211.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: I hope the House will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading. Its purpose is simply to put Army schools in the same position as other schools under the Elementary Education Act, enabling such to earn the Government grant.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.—(No. 192.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I do not know if the House will be content to treat this Bill in the same manner. The Bill is of a simple character. It proposes to reduce the minimum term of penal servitude to three years, and to make some minor changes with regard to penal servitude and the prevention of crimes. I propose that it shall be referred to the Law Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Matthews.)
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I presume the right hon. Gentleman will allow an interval to elapse before putting down the Bill for the Committee stage?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is my intention to move that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask does the Bill extend to Ireland?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly, that is the intention.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

ELECTORS REGISTRATION (ACCELERATION) BILL—(No. 147.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Causton.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in the Motion. The Bill, I believe, has general approbation. County Councils have again and again urged us to introduce it and they have stated that unless the Bill is passed they do not see any possibility of carrying out the elections on November 2nd with anything like satisfaction or accuracy, that the number of elections is very large, and that the time for revising and printing under the existing law will not allow of the register being made up in time for the forthcoming County Council elections. It is a matter of urgency, and we have introduced the Bill at the request of the County Councils.
  MR. CAUSTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot have examined the Amendments on the Paper to this Bill. They are Amendments of a very serious character and I do not think it is reasonable to ask the Committee to proceed with the discussion at such a time. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make progress with the Bill he must take the discussion earlier in the evening. I cannot waive my objection.
  MR. RITCHIE: Surely the hon. Member will allow us to proceed to the first Amendment? It is clear that unless the Bill passes before Easter it will be useless and must be withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have certain financial

  2041
  business that must now be proceeded with, and this is simply a Bill for the readjustment and acceleration of the registration machinery.
  MR. CAUSTON: I am not opposed to the principle of the Bill but I must maintain my objection to proceeding with, it without discussion.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The House should bear in mind that County Councils hare pressed upon individual Members the desirability and urgency of passing the measure. It must be obvious that when hon. Members opposite give notice of Amendments which widen the scope of the Bill and convert it into something else, it will be a reasonable inference that their object is to defeat the measure by a side wind. I hope Her Majesty's Government will insist on passing the Bill, and if necessary devote a Morning Sitting to the purpose.
  MR. HENEAGE: The desirability of passing the Bill is generally acknowledged. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his Motion. If the Bill is not passed the result must be that a large number of electors will be disfranchised so far as the next County Council elections are concerned. When County Councils were established it was recognised as one of the advantages that County Councils might make useful suggestions to this House, and here is the first practical suggestion, the value of which is acknowledged. 1 hope the Government will stand by their Bill, and if necessary name a day for the Committee to report the Bill to the House.
  MR. STANSFELD: It is desirable that we should understand each other. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied if we get as far as the first Amendment?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, not satisfied at all.
  MR. STANSFELD: I suppose there is no suggestion that any of us are desirous of defeating the Bill? I am not aware that there is any such desire. But we claim time for the discussion of Amendments which appear on the Paper. To proceed through Committee to-night would not be reasonable; but I think there is no objection to making some progress, and, under the circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw?
  MR. CAUSTON: No, Sir.
  MR. RITCHIE: We are extremely anxious to pass the Bill, because we have a great regard for the wishes and representations of the County Council as to the enormous difficulties they will have to encounter if the Bill does not pass. The Government have placed on the Paper certain Amendments in order to carry out their undertakings. The other Amendments deal not with matters of mere machinery for registration, but with questions of franchise, and these the Government cannot accept Therefore, it is entirely in the hands of the House whether the Bill shall pass or not.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should revert to the old practice of committing the Bill pro formâ, when the Government Amendments could be inserted? It is most difficult to see how the Government Amendments will work, and the anxiety is in regard to Parliamentary registration. Many Members are of opinion that as the Bill stands it is a disfranchising measure. I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but I am quite sure the Government Amendments will help to clear up many points, and if these were inserted pro formâ we should be better able to judge of the effect.
  MR. RITCHIE: Very well. The Government Amendments are few, though important; and I will adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman if the Bill will be forwarded by that course.
  MR. DE LISLE: Sharing the strong feeling that the Bill should be proceeded with, and yet admitting the force of the objection to the Bill being proceeded with at this time of night, I venture to suggest to the Government that they should take a Morning Sitting for the Bill. Time has been wasted on Friday nights recently, Members not availing themselves of the opportunity afforded them for Motions of which they have given notice, and a Morning Sitting on Friday might be usefully devoted to the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion I will formally move the insertion of my Amendments.
  MR. CAUSTON: I really cannot agree to the proposition. It is now nearly half-past 12. Members who have Amendments on the Paper are not here, not expecting the Bill to come on. I have no desire to stop the acceleration of the register; indeed, the nearer the register upon which an election is taken the better for the Liberal Party. Nothing is further from my intention than to disfranchise any elector, but it is unreasonable, under the circumstances, to proceed with the Bill, and I must persist in my objection.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER; Let me assure my hon. Friend that the proposal is to take a merely formal stage, and the rights of himself and others to move Amendments will remain intact. It is, in fact, merely a reprinting stage. We shall have the convenience of having the Bill in the shape in which the Government desire it to proceed through Committee in the usual way, and subject to other Amendments.
  MR. CAUSTON: On this understanding, and in deference to the right hon. Gentleman, I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  Bill reported; to be reprinted, as amended [Bill 234]; recommitted for Thursday.

  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL [LORDS]—(No. 177.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  ASSESSMENT OF TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL—(No. 221.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 91.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time and passed.

  LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 151.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I beg to move that Progress be reported. I agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill inasmuch as the Bill was one tending in the direction of an ultimate development of the local administration of the Bankruptcy Law. I said, however, the principle must be safeguarded in its operation. The Bill deals with an extremely technical subject, and its details require careful consideration, and in some respects revision, to bring them into harmony with existing legislation on the subject, and to safeguard its operation. I would ask the hon. Member to postpone this stage until after Easter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. SEXTON: I confess I am considerably surprised and disappointed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I speak within the memory of many hon. Members when I say that he assented to the Second Reading on the ground that the discretion rested in the Lord Lieutenant to provide a sufficient safeguard.
  MR. MADDEN: I do not make the Motion in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. I stated on the Second Reading that I should never have assented to that stage if the Bill had not contained the safeguard referred to, but I never said, or implied, that I was satisfied with the Bill in its present form. My only desire is that the Bill shall be carefully considered by those well versed in bankruptcy law and proceedings. There is no intention of impeding the progress of the Bill, after Easter, I merely wish to insure it being a safe and useful measure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 13th April.

  MARRIAGES OF NONCONFORMISTS (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.—(No. 144.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 17.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 40.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I object.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: I think the object of the Bill is well known and approved by all friends of education. Nearly every County Council is interested in the matter. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his objection.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I am not sure that all persons interested in education do agree with the Bill in its present form.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I hope my hon. Friend will allow the Bill to
  2046
  proceed. The subject does very much exercise the minds of County Councils.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

CORN SALES BILL.—(No. 131.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: This is a matter which Her Majesty's Government must reserve the right of dealing with. I think my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture may possibly have something to say to a Bill which compels all corn to be sold by weight, while at present it may be sold by measure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.

MOTION.

  PUBLIC BODIES (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Tomlinson, Bill to remove doubts as to the powers of Public Bodies in reference to Provisional Orders Bills under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tomlinson, Sir Richard Paget, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Hunter, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Barclay, Mr. Lafone, and Mr. Woodall.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 233.]
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for codifying the law relating to the sale of goods—Was presented by the Lord Herschell; real 1a; and to be printed (No. 48).
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 22.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill for abating smoke in the Metropolis, and I shall not detain the House by any formal or extended statement on the subject. I happen to be myself a victim to the fogs, for the abatement of which the Bill proposes to operate; and, having been unable to attend the House at all last week, am still incapable of speaking for more than a few minutes. Let me mention here that I have to-day received a communication from the noble Duke who owns so much of London, and whose interest in and zeal on the subject are so well known, that he is unable to attend this evening to support the Bill on account of a similar impediment. In any case, it might not have been necessary, or even desirable, to enter into any train of reasoning to-night upon the question. In substance, this Bill has been read a second time on four occasions by your Lordships—the first time after a Debate and a Division; the second time without any opposition; the third time unanimously, with an intimation that it should be referred to a Select Committee; the fourth time unanimously also. Another ground for avoiding a lengthened explanation at this moment is that should the Bill be read a second time and passed through Committee, of which, at last, this year there is some prospect, its opponents—and it has one or two opponents—may, on the Third Reading, think it proper to come forward and resist it. At that time argument will be required which now would be superfluous and wasted. There
  1902
  is only one point which I am bound to mention to your Lordships. It is that this Bill differs so far from the former ones that the interference or action of the Home Office is not in any way entailed in it; and as it stands, the Vestries will at once be armed with the power to act against the evil now so generally recognised and so widely felt. By that slight alteration it meets an objection which was uttered by that noble and learned Lord who, in 1886, for a short time occupied the Woolsack. Its substance is unaltered; it is directed, as before, against the emission of smoke from private houses, which it is ascertained by experts forms four-fifths of all the smoke in the Metropolis. There is only one further point that I am particularly anxious to press upon the House—it is that every year the case, as one may term it, in favour of the Second Reading is spontaneously increasing. Every year adds to the number of mechanical inventions and facilities for grappling with the smoke nuisance. Many might he mentioned now which could not have been even suggested when I last brought forward the subject before the House two years ago. Each year more mechanical inventions are brought out, and every year it will he easier for householders to act upon the provisions of the Bill when it is carried. But again, every year the evil to be resisted or mitigated is in itself advancing in extent, because every year (to understate it) 20,000 houses are known to be added to the number in the Capital. I shall urge nothing more because I am particularly anxious that those two facts should be remembered by your Lordships, and I therefore simply move that the Bill he read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether any one else will call attention to this Bill, but I think your Lordships ought not to give it a Second Reading without well examining the nature of it. I suppose there will be no difference of opinion that the smoke of London is an intolerable nuisance—everybody agrees in that; and that when combined with fogs the nuisance is still more grievous; but it

  1903
  does not therefore follow that your Lordships should assent to the Second Reading of this Bill when, as I think, I can show your Lordships the effect of it would not be to establish a state of things which could be worked, and would not remove the grievance. First of all I wish to say in answer to what the noble Lord said about the Bill having passed—that is Bills for abating smoke nuisance—four times, a few words in regard to what took place last year. What took place was this: The noble Lord brought in a Bill on this subject, and it was referred to one of the Standing Committees of which I had the honour to be a member. The noble Lord, in spite of our having given him full notice of the time for the Bill being taken into consideration, did not do us the honour of attending the Committee. The Committee was then adjourned, thinking that possibly the noble Lord might not have known the hour of meeting; but, notwithstanding the opportunity thus given him, the noble Lord never appeared to explain to us the wording of his own Bill. The Committee, not with standing it was under the disadvantage of not having the advice and assistance of the noble Lord, went at considerable length into the subject, and produced a Bill which might or might not have been approved by the House, but which had, at all events, received very careful examination. Even then, however, the noble Lord did not take the necessary steps to prevent the whole matter falling through, the consequence being that the work of the Standing Committee was rendered entirely useless, and the Bill was abandoned. Now the noble Lord wishes to bring in a different Bill, and I will, with your Lordships' permission, briefly call attention to its provisions. The gist of it is contained in a few words. In future, if this Bill passes, there is to be a penalty imposed in the case of all dwelling-houses—I suppose hotels, clubs and eating-houses might be called dwelling-houses—from which opaque smoke is allowed to issue from chimneys. Of course the question arises immediately, "What is opaque smoke"? I suppose all smoke is more or less opaque. But we are not left entirely to conjecture. There is a definition given of "opaque smoke," and it states that that expression is to mean "Smoke of such volume or
  1904
  density as unnecessarily to impair the atmosphere." I am afraid I must confess I am not skilled in legal knowledge, but I should be exceedingly amused to see a court in this country engaged in the task of endeavouring to determine exactly what "volume of smoke" would "unnecessarily impair the atmosphere." Surely that is not a definition sufficiently accurate to enable a penalty to be imposed upon a man for allowing such smoke to issue from a chimney. Then there is a provision which apparently is intended to guard against unnecessary hardship. In the 6th clause, which provides for the infliction of penalties, there is this further proviso—
  "That where any person is summoned before any Court in respect of an offence against this Act the Court shall dismiss the complaint if it is satisfied that the person so summoned has adopted all reasonable measures, regard being had to his means and condition in life, and has used due diligence and care to prevent as far as possible the emission of opaque smoke."
  It seems to me that it would be very difficult to determine exactly the means and condition in life of every person who might be summoned under this Bill, and his power or use of due diligence in stopping smoke. Then there is a provision in the last clause which unfortunately seems to be rather premature. It says that—
  "The London County Council may from time to time make, and when made, alter and repeal bye-laws for requiring any fireplace or furnace intended to be used in any building to be constructed after the passing of this Act, to be so constructed as to consume, burn, or otherwise prevent as far as possible all smoke arising therefrom."
  Now, I apprehend the difficulty is that unfortunately hitherto no fireplace has been invented for a private house which will consume its own smoke; therefore, the London County Council is not in a position to make these contemplated bye-laws. I will only add that I have not made these remarks from a desire to discourage anyone in a laudable endeavour to prevent, if possible, this smoke nuisance which we all concur is grievous, but because I do not think it is of much use to pass legislation which has not been sufficiently considered. Whether your Lordships may think it desirable to give it a Second Reading or not I do not know, but if a Second Reading is given to it, I do hope that when the Bill goes into

  1905
  Committee, both, when it is before the Standing Committee and also before the Committee of the whole House, the noble Lord will attend and give us full explanations as to the working of the Bill, and that afterwards he will not abandon it but will carry it through the House.
  LORD NORTON: With reference to what has fallen from the noble Earl, it seems to me all that is wanted is not new legislation, but the power to apply existing legislation to what may be called domestic fires. Statutes have been already enacted in respect of smoke from manufactories. In those Acts all the terms employed are well known, and have stood the brunt of legal discussion. I think the phrase there is not "opaque smoke" but "black smoke." At all events there is some phrase of that kind in the existing Acts which is intelligible and has stood legal criticism. I happen to know something of those Acts, because they emanated from the Report of a Royal Commission of which I was Chairman some years ago, and from which I may say all Acts connected with sanitary legislation have been taken since. I know the difficulties of the existing law from having tried to enforce it in a large town, Birmingham, in the neighbourhood of which I reside. The great difficulty is that the Magistrates are themselves the nuisance makers, and they will not enforce the Acts for suppressing it. What is wanted, I think, is more power in the Local Government Board to compel the Local Authorities to act, because so long as you entrust the smoke makers—that is to say the manufacturers, to inflict penalties upon themselves the law will be nugatory. What is wanted, in fact, is to comprise domestic smoke within the provisions as to factory smoke, and give central power to enforce local action, and there is no doubt that can be done, for it is done at this moment by a Local Act at Bradford, and there can be no reason why the same thing should not be done as regards London. I think the noble Earl is wrong in saying that there has been no invention to make it possible that domestic fires shall consume their own smoke. There is one invention of very great simplicity which would entail no great expense, and which would make an enormous saving in fuel, resulting in
  1906
  great economy to everybody using it, besides improving the state of the atmosphere for the rest of the public. I think the object which this Bill attempts to meet ought to be carried out by legislation for the use in future of some such inventions. I am almost afraid to say what many manufacturers have told me with regard to the economy which would be effected by ensuring the consumption of smoke, and the very small expense of carrying it out in comparison with the value of the immense quantity of fuel that is now wasted throughout the country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, if we go upon the principle of passing the Second Reading of all Bills with the intention and object of which we sympathise, I think we shall give a Second Reading to this Bill, but my support of it cannot go much further than that. It is one of the most painfully drawn Bills I ever saw. It says that—
  "The expression 'opaque smoke' means smoke of such volume or density as unnecessarily to impair the atmosphere."
  This is an interpretation clause which, I think, would give infinite pleasure, amusement, and occupation to Her Majesty's Courts of Justice. The expression "means smoke of such volume or density as unnecessarily to impair the atmosphere." So that there may be smoke with no density at all; it may be absolutely translucent; but yet if there be sufficient "volume" to unnecessarily impair the atmosphere, it becomes opaque smoke. Then, what is meant by impairing the atmosphere, in the first instance, and what is meant by doing so unnecessarily? Does not that go to the whole policy of the Bill, leaving it entirely to the Judges to determine whether it is so or not, and whether Parliament had that in view in passing the Statute whether wisely or not? Then, the Court is to decide according to the "means and condition" of people in life. Does that mean that a Duke may make more smoke than a Baron? I think it is a most extraordinary position to adopt. The clause relating to penalties says that the Court is to dismiss a complaint if it is satisfied that the person summoned has adopted all reasonable measures, regard being had to

  1907
  his means and condition in life, and has used due diligence and care to prevent as far as possible the emission of opaque smoke. But my great objection to the Bill is that it attacks the small offenders and lets the great offenders pass. No doubt the private dwelling houses are great sinners in this respect, but they are not nearly so great sinners as the manufactories. The title of the Bill and the preamble refer to "furnaces and fireplaces within the Metropolis," but there is not a word about furnaces in the body of the Bill. It is quite true that during the last 30 years Parliament has been legislating against smoke from manufactories, and I imagine the result of the Parliamentary efforts made has been very much to leave matters as they were when Parliament began legislating, and that it has been found impossible to offer any serious check to the practice of producing smoke. At all events, if that is not so it is very difficult to explain the blackened and dirty condition of our manufacturing towns. Unless legislation of this kind can be enforced as against manufactories, I do not see how there is any hope of its being carried out as against private houses. Public opinion would support the sending of Inspectors to factories, because there is a general feeling that we are bound to carry out the requirements of the Local Authorities in matters affecting the public health; but if you take to sending Inspectors to private houses it is probable that before an Inspector could go through two streets he would have his head broken. There does not appear to be the least chance that in the present state of public opinion such a law could be carried out. I believe it is the intention of the Home Office to allow the Bill to be read a second time, but I hope the House will consider very carefully before it allows these extraordinary provisions to pass into law.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I would venture to submit one or two considerations to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill. Everybody, of course, sympathises with the object in view, and everybody who has suffered from the fogs which have prevailed lately must feel a very special sympathy with it, indeed, under the circumstances. On the other hand never probably has a Bill been introduced into this House which so
  1908
  directly affects so many of Her Majesty's subjects, because this Bill will create an obligation upon every freeholder as soon as it passes. Unless, therefore, the householders sympathise with the object of the measure, it is calculated to arouse an enormous amount of opposition; and what I would submit for the consideration of the noble Lord is this: whether, seeing that it is a Bill which directly affects every householder, it would not be better to leave the initiation of such a measure to the other House in which those householders are directly represented rather than that such legislation should be initiated here. No doubt if in the other House where householders are directly represented any measure for dealing with this nuisance were carried and sent to your Lordships' House, it would receive most favourable consideration, and there would be every desire to pass it into law; but I would venture to ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is likely that any measure initiated here, and which has not obtained a strong backing from the householders of the country, would have a chance of passing in the other House? I would, therefore, suggest that he should allow a measure with this object to be brought forward in the other House where the people affected are directly represented, unless he can ascertain that it will receive a very large share of support from the general public.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I regret exceedingly that the turn which the discussion has taken should impose upon me the necessity of answering when, as I have stated to the House, I am not very well qualified to address your Lordships. But I will just say a word—indeed, I am bound to do so—in reference to what took place in the Standing Committee. I avoided that topic purely because in this House I wish as far as possible to avoid all acrimonious discussions as regards the Standing Committees. In that regard I am wholly irreproachable, and if I allude to it at all I should do so in the tone of an accuser. The noble Earl who first spoke is utterly inaccurate in his statement of what took place, and he would, I think, have shown greater wisdom if he had avoided the topic altogether. In the first place, it was not last year at all. That will give your

  1909
  Lordships a measure of the noble Earl's precision; it was the year before last.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: So it was; the noble Lord is quite right.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I appeared in obedience to the summons, and a late Member of your Lordships' House who is much lamented, Lord Carnarvon, requested me to allow the consideration of the Bill to stand over for another week, and as the tribunal was then entirely new I was not disposed to face at once that new organisation, my friends and supporters being absent also. Then the next week no summons to attend reached me, with the accustomed irregularity of those most extraordinary bodies which your Lordships have now had the wisdom to put an end to. In my absence—a proceeding which I think was most unjustifiable—the opponents of the Bill were allowed to discuss and mutilate it; to withdraw the proposition which formed its essence and its principle; and to abrogate entirely the Second Reading which your Lordships had repeatedly acceded to. The principle of the Bill has always been to operate against smoke being emitted from private houses, and the course pursued by the Standing Committee was to withdraw everything by which private houses would be affected. Then, let me go on to state the reason for the apparent delay on the Third Reading, the only occasion on which I could appear. I did my utmost to defend the remnant and wreck of the Bill, and I was present when this statement from some one who represented the Opposition to the measure was made, that "the Bill could only be endorsed by the Standing Committee if" (the expression was utterly ridiculous) "every thing would be eliminated which related to the smoke from private houses." The conduct of the Standing Committee, therefore, ruined the measure, and I have always thought that if I were called upon to take part in the re-arrangement of the Orders as to Standing Committees I could not do better than simply report to your Lordships what took place on that occasion as a final condemnation of those bodies. The Standing Committee literally took upon itself to repeal the Second Reading; and as the Standing Committee, who were empowered and instructed merely to amend the clauses of a Bill of
  1910
  which your Lordships had thought proper to pass the Second Reading two weeks before, took upon itself to eliminate its essence and its principle, I was no longer concerned in the fate of the Bill. I cannot but say again that I think the noble Earl would have been wise in avoiding that topic altogether. Then what else fell from the noble Earl? He said that there are no mechanical inventions for consuming smoke in private houses. What does that establish? It only establishes the utter ignorance of the noble Earl upon the subject. He is, no doubt, well-versed in many topics, and is not bound to be conversant with the later inventions upon this subject, which has greatly occupied me. It is, therefore, no reproach for him to be unaware that mechanical inventions abound on the subject. At the different stages of these Bills during the last few years, I have enumerated before your Lordships no less than a dozen contrivances by which smoke might be restricted. The noble Marquess, able master as we know he is of gibes, witticisms, jocularities, and sarcasms, is, no doubt, competent to turn any definitions into ridicule; and it is no proof whatever that these definitions are ridiculous or imperfect that the noble Marquess should be able to draw a laugh at my expense. But he went on to speak about smoke in factories. Is he really unaware that for 20 years past we have had legislation on the subject? He alluded to the action of Parliament in this matter, as if he was unaware that Lord Palmerston in 1853 and 1856 introduced those Acts by which the smoke of factories may be restrained. It is quite true that the smoke from factories has not been restrained as it ought to have been. That shows merely that the law is not enforced. If the law had been enforced, and that had been the result, no doubt everybody would agree with the noble Marquess; but it is one of the many arguments which have been brought forward in favour of this measure which I bring before your Lordships, asking you to restrain the smoke from private houses—that to restrain the smoke from factories has been found impossible. Now I come to what was suggested by the noble and learned Lord who occupied the Woolsack for a short time in 1886.

  1911
  What was his main remark? It was that a Bill of this sort is not likely to reach the Statute Book unless it were supported by a great wave of popular opinion. I perfectly agree with him, and I say this measure is supported by a strong tide of popular opinion. I will merely mention one fact to justify that statement: during the last five years not one London journal has opposed this proposition, but, on the contrary, in great variety they have favoured it. Let me put this point to the House: suppose this Bill, which is altogether Metropolitan and urban, had reference to some other town, say Bristol—that it was to restrain smoke being emitted from buildings within the limits of that town, and that all the local public journals supported the measure, would not your Lordships think it a matter for very grave consideration before you would throw out a Bill upon Second Reading under those circumstances? But those are exactly the circumstances which confront us here. You can only learn what is the state of local or of the Metropolitan opinion to which the noble Earl alluded, through the journals of the given city, and though I am far from saying that all the journals of the Metropolis have thought it worth their while to utter an opinion upon this measure, all those who have done so have given an opinion in its favour. The noble and learned Lord went on to tell us that we had better wait until a Bill comes up from the other House of Parliament. Will the noble and learned Lord give us any guarantee that such a measure is likely to come to us from that House?—
  "Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnis."
  We have at the present moment a Bill in our possession, we have a Bill here to send down to the other House. I am perfectly aware that it is open to the Select Committee to amend it, or to the Standing Committee, and that it is open on Third Reading for the House to amend it; but I do entreat, as the opinion of your Lordships is not, I think, antagonistic to it, at this stage to avoid a course which would bring considerable obloquy upon your House, at the same time that it would prolong the fogs and add to the smoke nuisance which now afflict this Metropolis.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I cannot be at all surprised that the question with which the Bill of the noble Lord deals, should have been brought by aim before your Lordships; indeed, I had expected that at an earlier period of the Session than this some Member of the Government would have risen in his place to announce that Her Majesty's Administration intended to take some steps to deal with this most important subject. We are still passing—or rather I trust have passed—through a winter not only of exceptional severity but of exceptional gloom and darkness, the full effect of which upon the public health and upon trade, we are not, perhaps, yet able entirely to realise. Nobody who has given any attention to this subject can have failed to remark the gradual increase of fog which has been going on for many years past, not only in the Metropolis but in our most important centres of industry. Some very interesting experiments have been made during the present year by the Meteorological branch of the Board of Trade who have stations in London for making observations, in the East in Bunhill Row and in the West somewhere in the neighbourhood of Victoria Street. The result of their investigations has been, I understand, to prove that the greater part of the darkness from which we have suffered during the last four months has been caused not by smoke emanating from the large manufactories but by the smoke emanating from house-fires. That of course, as far as the factories are concerned, is as it should be, because there is no doubt that the larger manufactories ought to, and many of them do, consume the greater portion of their own coal smoke; but it is impossible at the rate at which London is increasing that the enormous volume of coal smoke poured forth into the air from domestic fires should not produce the most dangerous effects. Now I happen to have acquired on this subject some little experience because I had the honour for two years to sit on a Royal Commission presided over by Lord Aberdare (Lord Percy and Lord Egerton were also members of it), to inquire into the presence of noxious acids and gases emitted into the atmosphere, and as to the best mode of preventing their emission. We were stopped by the

  1913
  terms of the reference from going directly into the effect of coal smoke and how it might be prevented from escaping into the atmosphere; but incidentally a very large amount of evidence came before us on that point also. One thing was perfectly clear throughout, and that was that the increase of works or the increase of population added enormously to the amount of smoke emitted into the air, and that in consequence such smoke or gases, as the case might be, were carried much farther afield than they had been in previous years. We had evidence with regard to districts in Lancashire, places in which five or six years before the effects of acids, gases, or coal smoke had not been felt at all, but which now suffer terribly. We had distinct evidence that so much had the volume of smoke increased, and so much had the volume of gases increased at the same time, that, whereas the effects of smoke were perceptible previously only five, six, or seven miles from the centres of population whence they emanated, they are now carried in certain, states of the wind 10, 11, or 12 miles. I find that the state of things as regards the Metropolis now stands on all fours with the evidence which was presented to us then. I may say that I am a constant traveller on the South Western Railway, and my own experience is that in coming up to town we now meet the fog four or five miles further from London than we did previously; and not only that, but I am in a position to state from a series of chemical analyses which have been entered upon by a neighbour of mine, residing 35 miles from London, that even at that distance and with a range of hills intervening between that district and the Metropolis you can, in certain states of the wind, trace coal smoke, acids, and gases distinctly from the mist which is scraped from the surface of a window. Not only so but every year it becomes more difficult to grow certain flowers and plants within any reasonable distance of the Metropolis. Taking Wimbledon, the centre of a district which I once had the honour to represent in another place 20 years ago, there were several plants and several kinds of flowers which there was no difficulty whatever in growing and bringing to perfection there, which now cannot be grown at all, or if they
  1914
  can be grown to some extent they are stunted in growth and deficient in colour. Those are palpable distinct facts; and now comes the question, if this is the state of things existing, what is the remedy? That, of course, is a much more difficult question to answer. But here, again, I was fortunate enough, 35 years ago, in company with a partner in one of the largest breweries established in the East End of London, to go over the premises, and he showed me at that time the furnace in actual work consuming the whole of its own smoke, and at the same time saving the firm considerable cost in fuel, long before legislation had interfered to compel them to adopt means for doing so. A sum of £2,000 a year was mentioned to me as the amount of the saving in the works, partly by the more perfect combustion afforded by the process adopted, and partly by the cheaper description of fuel which it was possible to use with the furnace which had been adopted. I asked one of the partners in that same concern a year ago whether he found the effect was still the same, and he said, as regards the process of consuming the smoke, decidedly so; but that, as regards the price of fuel, other people have found out how beneficial a process it is, and the consequence is that the demand for that particular kind of fuel has been to a considerable extent increased, and they are not able now to economise on that account as we were then; but there is still a substantial economy, in addition to the fact that they were now complying with the law, though they had carried out what the law now enjoins long before the law was passed. However, I do not mean to say for a moment that it is equally easy to apply to the domestic hearth a process which we can carry out with comparative ease and cheapness in a large factory; but this I do mean to say, that there are ways and means by which it is possible to diminish the amount of coal smoke poured into the air by an ordinary hearth, if not to prevent it altogether. I know there are ways and means by which this may be done without entailing any very serious expense. If this matter had been taken in hand 25 or 30 years ago, and some such obligatory measure as that now proposed by the noble Lord

  1915
  opposite had been passed prohibiting the construction of hearths in future in large centres of population and industry which would not consume their own smoke, the whole question would now be in a fair way of solution.; but as it is, matters are now going on from bad to worse, for the nuisance is one which has enormously increased, and is increasing, and one which I believe, in the opinion of your Lordships' House, ought to be avoided. But, my Lords, I am not very, sanguine as to the possibility of dealing with it by any Bill which may be introduced by a private Member. Still I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord opposite has made the attempt, and I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to tell the House that even if they do not feel themselves to be in a position at the present moment to propose any legislation on this difficult question, they are willing to assent to the appointment of a Royal Commission which may, within a comparatively short period, make recommendations which will tend to check this growing evil. One thing did come out of the Commission to which I have already alluded, and that is that wherever legislation has been passed judiciously and in accordance with public opinion to stimulate better means of manufacture being employed, science has invariably responded to the call and a way has been found out of the difficulty, the existence of which had often been previously little anticipated. There is one special reason why I would press upon your Lordships the importance of legislation in this direction, and that is that it is the poorest class of the community who are principally affected by this terrible evil. The richer portion of the community have the opportunity of escape under the worst circumstances from the evil effects of coal smoke, and even where that is not the case they are not the persons to whom this particular evil comes home most closely. Many of the working classes are prevented from following their daily occupations when a dense fog comes on; many more of them have to carry on their work under circumstances which are not only difficult but absolutely dangerous to themselves; and many more, again, who have not the advantage of medical treatment and proper nourishment, suffer terribly
  1916
  from the after effects of being exposed for days and weeks together during such weather as we have had lately to a tainted atmosphere which undermines their health and prevents them altogether from earning their living. In appealing, therefore, for an early consideration of this subject, I am speaking not so much for those who are able to take care of themselves, but on behalf of those who have nobody but Parliament to look to—who, if Parliament does not take them under its wing, have no other quarter to look to for that protection which they so much need, and to which they are entitled.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, I do not know that I should have troubled the House after the remarks of the noble Marquess, had it not been for an observation or two made by the noble Lord who has just spoken, in which he rather inferred that this matter has been lost sight of to some extent by the Departments whose duty it is to watch over the public health. But that is by no means the case. I would remind your Lordships that a Select Committee sat in 1887. There were only five witnesses called before that Committee, and there was no Report made by it; but since that time the matter has been considered again and again. Of course, there can be no doubt that, owing to the dense fogs which we have had this winter, public opinion has been very much exercised in this matter. The Government, as the noble Marquess has informed your Lordships, propose to refer the Bill now before us to a Select Committee, and although the noble Lord who has just spoken has talked about a Royal Commission, it is to be hoped that on consideration he will consider the proposal made by the noble Marquess more expedient than the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Government have had under their consideration the question of the administration of the existing Acts, and their proposals on this head will be known as soon as the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill which has been read a first time is printed. There are various defects in this Bill which the noble Lord has moved. I cannot conceive that it is at all likely that any Government would allow these inquisitorial powers in regard to private dwellings which he has rather suggested, to

  1917
  pass, but these are all matters which, if the House approves of the course proposed, will be dealt with by the Committee. I hope the noble Lord who spoke last will by no means think this most important subject has escaped attention, or that he has any monopoly in the wish for measures to be passed for the benefit of those whose interests he has advocated.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord to the substance of what he is proposing, with the view of suggesting to him, if he has any plan in his mind by which the object in which we are all interested can be carried out, that he should give the Select Committee an opportunity of knowing what it is they are to deliberate upon. I cannot help thinking that the Bill is merely a skeleton measure as it stands. If it only involved provisions in reference to fog and smoke I believe he would have the unanimous consent of everybody, but he purports to do something new by legislation. I must say that I do appeal to your Lordships, as an act of common humanity to Her Majesty's Judges, not to pass a Bill—a document—of this sort into law. I do not know what the noble Lord means, and I listened with great attention to his reply, to see if he would throw any light upon what is the real difficulty in my mind. The language of the Bill is very general. I want to know what is the meaning in this connection of the words "necessary" or "unnecessary?" Necessity is a relative term. Necessary in respect to what? Is it necessary in respect to whether a man has a large or a small dinner to cook? If it is a large one, it may require more fire, and therefore more smoke will be produced. If it means a minimum of opaque smoke, to use the language which he has used himself in the Bill in regard to it, is it with reference to some scientific possibility of reducing it to a minimum? Is that what the noble Lord means? I do not know in the least. There is no guide whatever given by the noble Lord on the face of his Bill. I do not want to go into a scientific discussion as to what is "necessary" or "unnecessary" to impair the atmosphere. No one, I suppose, could say what is the
  1918
  standard of necessity. What is it as to which a Judge is to direct a jury or himself upon the question whether or not there has been an "unnecessary impairing of the atmosphere?" The impairing of the atmosphere is in itself a relative term. I suppose no atmosphere is absolutely pure. I will not discuss scientifically what gases the atmosphere contains, but, I would ask the noble Lord, is this "impairing" to be more than chemists would consider to be the normal proportion of the constituent element in the atmosphere, or, if a larger proportion than some chemists would fix, how much should it be? The whole of this is left at large in the Bill—the mode in which this is to be ascertained is left entirely at large. But assume that we have got over that initial difficulty, I confess I do not know what the noble Lord means by the London County Council making bye-laws for requiring any fireplace or furnace intended to be used in any building, to be constructed in future, "to be so constructed as to consume, burn, or otherwise prevent as far as possible, all smoke arising therefrom." There, again, is another term which requires exposition. I gather from what the noble Lord said that he thinks invention has so far proceeded at present that there are means by which it is quite possible to make fireplaces consume their own smoke; but if so, that is not what he enacts—it is only "as far as possible." And there, again, what guide is there to anybody? If it means as far as possible in a literal sense—that is, as far as a skilled chemist by his own processes is able to consume it—what reasonable prospect is there of that being ever attained in ordinary cases? What I object to is a skeleton Bill propounding questions of abstruse chemistry, which are left by it to be solved as they may be, leaving words which are so ambiguous and of application so uncertain that really no definite line or guide is to be found by anybody for the administration of the Act. The reason I have risen to make these few remarks was that I thought it advisable to suggest that the noble Lord, if he has any plan in his mind, might think it right to withdraw his Bill for the present, so that he may have the opportunity of putting

  1919
  into it such machinery as would be appropriate; in which case the Select Committee might be able to take evidence and consider whether the plan he proposes is one which is capable of being put into operation. But at present, if this Bill is referred to any Committee, I should like to know how they would begin to try to find out what the meaning of the noble Lord is, and whether they should begin by calling chemists, or witnesses of any other description, to point out the legal machinery which he desires to put into operation.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I have no right to again address the House, but I would ask permission to say a few words. I cannot answer the technical objections which have been put by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but at the next stage of going into Committee I shall be quite prepared to do so. Perhaps, he will permit me to remind him that all he has said to-night might have been said on the four previous occasions when he assented to the measure. I may also be allowed to say, with regard to the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord who has previously spoken, that the Bill does not provide for inquisitorial or domiciliary visits. There is no such power proposed to be given. If your Lordships will now read the Bill a second time, I will, before it goes into Committee, try to the best of my poor endeavour to meet the objections of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  On Question agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I understand that the proposal is to send the Bill to a Select Committee, but I would suggest that there should be a general reference of the matter to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred—not merely referring this Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the proposal of the noble Lord is that we should have a general reference to the Select Committee of the whole subject—that it be referred to them for consideration.

FLASHING SIGNALS—ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEY, in rising—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government how it is that since the 9th February, when they stated, 'that the return ordered to be printed on the 5th August on Admiral Colomb's flashing signals, had been delayed owing to a letter of Admiral Colomb's not having been received before the 12th October, but was in the hands of the printers and would at once be distributed,' other letters have been written included in the return, one by the Treasury on the 13th February and one by the Admiralty on the 21st February, which traverse the whole question, and necessarily caused further delay of three weeks in the issue of the papers,"
  said: My Lords, since I gave notice of this question I find that the Return to which it relates has been distributed; it will, therefore, be necessary for me to somewhat alter the question, and I would ask how it is that certain letters have been included in this Return not withstanding the answer I received on the 9th February? This question, although it may seem a somewhat simple one, is, I apprehend, a serious matter, because it involves to a great extent the privileges of your Lordships' House. You will remember that on the 5th August last a Return was moved for and at the time, owing to certain causes to be alluded to, a letter which was expected from Admiral Colomb was asked to be included in the Return. Perhaps I may explain that the reason of that was simply this: that although the discussion on the question took place in May it was the 26th June before Lord Elphinstone stated in this House that the Admiralty proposed to offer Admiral Colomb £2,000. Unfortunately, there was a delay at the Admiralty, and that offer was not made until the 29th July. It was, therefore, mutually agreed between us that the Return moved for on the 5th August should include that letter. When the House met at the beginning of this Session, I made particular inquiries, and I was assured it would be issued at once. On the 9th February I asked the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, as representative of the Admiralty, whether he could tell me how soon it would be issued. He then informed me there had been some little difficulty owing to Admiral

  1921
  Colomb's letter not having been received at the Admiralty until the 12th October (but as of course there had been four months' interval that was no excuse), and he went on to say that the Papers should be issued forthwith. Now, a very serious thing has happened. I found out about a fortnight afterwards that this statement of my noble Friend was hardly the case. I do not wish to use unpleasant language, and I am sure my noble Friend had not the slightest idea that when he gave your Lordships that reason for the delay in making this Return, it was a statement which could hardly be said to be a true statement. What actually happened was this: I found that subsequent to that answer—four days afterwards—a letter was written by the Treasury traversing the whole question, and putting an entirely new aspect upon the whole matter, and not only was that done, but a further letter was written on the 21st February—afort-night afterwards—from the Admiralty. Therefore the real answer would have been that the Return was being kept back in order that certain further letters should be delivered, and that, therefore, there would be further delay. That answer of Lord Ephinstone's was given me three weeks ago, and the Return has only been issued today. But, my Lords, is there not here a question of the privileges of your Lordships' House? I understand that when a Return is moved for in this House, in order to be printed, it is stated definitely up to what date those letters or those papers should go. It is not only unusual and unprecedented, but it is absolutely wrong, that other letters of a far later date should be included. Many of your Lordships have been in this House a great deal longer than I have. So far as I remember, the proceedings in the other House, it certainly would never have been allowed—that seven months should have been permitted to elapse before such a simple Return as this should have been distributed to the House. This question of privilege is, I think, a somewhat serious matter, because it is quite evident that, however simple this particular case may be, if your Lordships pass it over on this occasion, how are you to be certain that other Returns which your Lordships may order to be printed will not be kept back for further impotant
  1922
  terms to be added to it? But, apart from the question of privilege, there is a personal aspect of the matter as regards myself which I should like to mention. When I moved for this Return I did so at the instigation of several Gentlemen in the other House, who explained that they were anxious to bring forward the question respecting the treatment which Admiral Colomb has received, and that if I would move for this Return that Motion in the other House should be made directly the House met this Session. When the House met there was no Return. My noble Friend Lord Elphinstone gave a certain answer which turned out to be most erroneous, and here we are, now close to Easter, and the Return is only just issued; so that practically the whole matter is put off until Easter. I would also say this—that I think the course taken by the Admiralty is somewhat uncourteous. It is now nearly two years since a Deputation of Members of this and the other House waited upon Lord George Hamilton. We went thoroughly into the question, and we were told to move, in July, 1889, that the Admiralty would at once deal with this question, which, I may say, had been delayed over and over again. But last Session, in May, 1890, finding that nothing had been done, the question was brought forward in your Lordships' House. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and every one of the Admirals who held commands in the Fleet, or nearly all, stated their view very strongly that it was a matter which ought at once to be dealt with, and that practically it was unfair to the Navy not to bring the matter to a settlement. Since that date the Treasury have offered the paltry sum of £2,000. I will not go now into the merits of the questioon, but what I wish to point out to your Lordships is this: that although I have endeavoured to meet the Admiralty in every possible way, I have been met by every possible effort to avoid the question being thoroughly dealt with. The whole matter has been treated in so paltry a manner, although it is one which in the interests of the Navy ought to have been dealt with in a large way, that it is very unfortunate it has not been so dealt with. There has been delay after delay, and now the question is being

  1923
  dealt with in a manner which is utterly without precedent. I am sorry the noble Lord (Lord Elphinstone) is unable to be in the House to-night, but as he has informed me that another noble Lord will answer the question, he will not think it discourteous of me that I have not further postponed it.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I regret very much that the noble Lord (Lord Elphinstone) who I had hoped until this morning would be able to be present to-night to answer the question of the noble Lord, has been unable to leave his house, having been unwell for several days. I think, under the circumstances, that possibly the noble Lord, knowing that anybody else to whom the question might be put must be very imperfectly aware of the facts, would have done better in putting it not to have brought a charge of incorrectness as he has done against Lord Elphinstone, in his absence, and also to have made a rather vehement attack upon the Admiralty. All I am able to say now, not anticipating from the notice of the noble Lord's question that he intended to go into this matter, is that on the 1st December Admiral Colomb addressed a letter to the Admiralty to be forwarded to the Treasury. That letter was forwarded on the 5th December. On the 14th February the Treasury's reply was received, and forwarded to Admiral Colomb, that the Papers were complete, and were on the point of being circulated. There is no doubt that those letters have been included, in addition, in the Return which is now on your Lordships' Table. The noble Lord says it was a great irregularity to present those letters in addition to those which were moved for on the 1st July; but he will remember that he himself expressed a hope that the Return would, if necessary, be delayed for the purpose of including Admiral Colomb's reply. Well, Admiral Colomb's reply to the letter of the 29th July was not written until the 11th October last. The noble Lord complains of delay on the part of the Admiralty, but it appears to me there was a very considerable delay on Admiral Colomb's own part in not answering the letter of the 29th July until the 11th October; and, therefore, I do not think it can be said that all the delay has been on one side. All
  1924
  that I can say is that the Papers are now before your Lordships' House, and they include all the correspondence which has taken place up to the present date. It was no doubt, I imagine, considered that as the noble Lord had in one instance asked that the Return should be delayed for the purpose of including a letter of Admiral Colomb's, which was not received for more than two months after the date of the letter to which it was an answer, it would be desirable to make some further delay in order that the Return should be as complete as possible. I regret that it should have fallen to me, in the place of my noble Friend, to answer this question. I had not anticipated the statement which the noble Lord was going to make, and I have not been prepared with any official information regarding it. I am only sorry he has not been answered, on account of ill-health, by my noble Friend himself, who I am quite sure will, at the earliest opportunity, answer the statement the noble Lord has made—that on the 9th February he made a statement to this House which was incorrect.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I will say nothing as to Lord Elphinstone, except that I am very sorry he has not been able to be present; but with regard to the Return itself, it is certainly an inconvenient practice that after a Return has been moved for, its presentation to the House should not have been made for some months in order that further letters should be presented with it. It seems to me that it would have been far better if the Return had been presented at an earlier period and then the two other letters could have been presented afterwards whenever it was thought desirable. I do not in the least bring any accusation against the Admiralty in a matter which I am not acquainted with, but I thought it right to say this in reference to the statement that a Return has been delayed for the purpose of introducing a further correspondence, and I think that is not a desirable course.
  LORD SUDELEY: I hope your Lordships will allow me to explain one matter. The noble Lord stated just now inadvertently, no doubt, that I have been discourteous to Lord Elphinstone and

  1925
  himself in not giving notice of the statement I have made, and in not postponing the question; but I think he will not say so when I remind him of the facts. I put down this question last Friday, but I put it off owing to the fact that Lord Elphinstone was ill. I went to see Lord Elphinstone yesterday, and told him exactly how the matter stood, and he promised to write fully on the subject to Lord George Hamilton, so that no question might arise as to what I was going to bring forward. I told him that I was perfectly prepared to put the matter off as long as he desired, but he did not desire it, and I have since got a message from him: "Have written to Limerick to arrange reply." I can only make that answer to the noble Lord's statement.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.