Sitting of 29 April 1895

Preamble
The House met at five minutes past Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CHELSEA WATER COMPANY.
  MR. J. STUART MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved:—
  "That the Order (25th February) 'That the Chelsea Water Bill be committed,' be read and discharged."
  The object of the Motion was to have the Chelsea Water Bill sent to the same Select Committee to which all the other London Water Bills were sent. The Bill promoted by the Chelsea Water Company was similar in character to the
  2
  Bills promoted by the other London water companies, being for the increase of its capital, and any Bill promoted by a London water company for the extension of its capital, must, more or less, be affected in the light of the possible purchase of those companies by the London County Council, for which Bills were at present before the House. The objection which had been entered by the London County Council against the Chelsea Water Bill was practically the same as the objection that had been entered against the other London Water Bills. The Council pointed out the undesirability of the water companies in creasing their capital, in view of the possibility of purchase; and as that question would have to be argued out on the Lambeth Bill before the Committee now in the course of being appointed, it was only reasonable and proper that the Chelsea Bill should go before the same Committee.
  *MR. E. BOULNOISsaid, the Chelsea Bill had been read a second time, and referred in the usual way to a Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Shoreditch now proposed the discharge of that reference

  3
  in order to hand the Bill over to a Committee which was sitting to determine the very large question whether the water supply of London should be taken away from the companies and handed over to the London County Council, and also the terms on which that operation of great magnitude should take place. The decision of such an important question would take a very long time. How would the Chelsea Company fare in the meantime if the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch were adopted? They would be unable to raise the additional sum of £50,000 which they required to lay down a new main. The London County Council were continually endeavouring to disparage the London Water Companies. One of the cries of the Council for the past four years had been that the water companies were unable to fulfil their statutory obligations, and then when one of the water companies came to Parliament for powers to increase their capital in order that they might adequately supply the constantly increasing public in their district with water, the Council offered every opposition in their power. There was no Bill for the purchase of the Chelsea Water Company by the County Council before the Committee. Indeed, it was well-known that the County Council had no intention whatever of pressing forward the Bill for the purchase of that water company. He therefore thought it would be a hardship to the water company to refer their Bill to this Select Committee from which it was probable it would never emerge. The Bill would die a natural death: for it would be impossible for the Committee to deal with it. In addition to that, the company would be put to heavy expense, for counsel would have to be briefed and retained until the Bill came before the Committee, when the probability was that it would never reach that stage. He thought this was what he might call a left-handed stroke at the Chelsea Water Company. He did not think the company should be treated in that way. It was unreasonable treatment; and he should add that it was not quite the way that a body like the London County Council should act. If the Council thought it necessary to take such action they should have opposed the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. J. T. BRUNNERsaid, it seemed to him a matter of great importance that when a London water company desired to raise capital, even though the amount were small, the question ought to be dealt with in regard to the larger question of the water supply of London. He had served on the Committee which dealt last year with the Bills of the water companies, and his experience showed him that there would be no great expense or inconvenience put upon the Chelsea Company, for the reason that the settlement of the principle capital being raised by one company settled it in regard to all the other companies; and it was always very easy for the agents for a Bill to ascertain from the Committee in the usual way when the Bill was coming on. He, therefore, thought no hardship would be done to the company by having the Bill referred to that Committee; and he hoped the Motion would be carried.
  *MR. C. A. WHITMOREsaid, that as the representative of a portion of the district supplied by the Chelsea Water Company, he felt bound in the interest of the consumers to appeal to the hon. Member not to press his Motion. Surely the House would see that the question whether the Chelsea Water Company ought to have pecuniary facilities for laying down a main which in their judgment was required by the actual needs of their district, was a totally different question from the infinitely larger and more difficult question of the purchase of the water companies by the London County Council, which was the special question the Hybrid Committee would have to consider. Besides, the Committee could not come to a decision in regard to the question of purchase until about the end of the Session; and it would be most unjustifiable to prevent the water company from laying down a main which they thought a pressing necessity in the interest of their consumers until that decision was arrived at. Public opinion was now directed to the manner in which the water companies were discharging their statutory obligations; and at this moment, when the water companies were practically on their trial, the House was asked to refuse to give powers to one of the companies to enable it to do what

  5
  it deemed absolutely necessary to secure a full and pure water supply to its district. Under those circumstances he trusted the President of the Local Government Board would not assent to this absolutely inconvenient and inexpedient Motion.
  MR. HARRY LAWSONremarked that this was a question of Parliamentary procedure, and the objection raised by the hon. Member for Marylebone was really directed against the policy of this House, followed not for the last year only, but over a long course of years in reference to Water Bills. In 1890, a Hybrid Committee was appointed to consider a great variety of these Bills of which he was himself a member. The two first Bills were Bills of the same character as the London County Council Bills for transferring to them the powers of the Water Companies One was by the City of London to constitute a body to take over the whole water supply of the Metropolis, and another was a Bill of a London Vestry for much the same purpose. In addition there were other Bills of a practical character for extending the powers and widening the areas of existing Water Companies exactly on the same lines as the Chelsea Bill. The Chairman of that Committee was the right hon. Member for Blackpool who presided over the deliberations connected with the whole of the Bills. No difficulty was experienced because the Water Companies who were applying waited until the general case had been considered, and then came on and obtained their Bills in two days. Last year the same course was followed, and this year the Lambeth Bill, which was exactly on all fours with the Chelsea Bill, had been referred to the Committee. He submitted that all these questions must be considered from the standpoint of the water supply as a whole. It would be a violation of the principle Parliament had established in dealing with these cases of water to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite and to refuse to refer this Bill to the Committee already appointed. He asked the House to adopt the course which was followed in 1890, again last year, and also this year, and to accept the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLElooked upon this as a
  6
  question concerning the consumer and also the public health, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would get up and tell them that it was necessary for them to have a better supply of water in the Chelsea District. It was not proposed to raise this money as ordinary capital, but as £50,000 of debenture stock. The Water Company would not waste the money, but would spend it properly in improving the service of water to the consumers, and there was no reason why the London County Council, if they thought fit, should not appear before the Committee and have a clause inserted in the Bill giving them some representation, so that they might see that the money was expended properly. This Water Company had nothing whatever to do with the question of the Water Companies whose cases were coming before the Hybrid Committee. They were on the other side of the Thames, and this was on the Chelsea side. It was of great importance that the people of the district should not be kept waiting for an improvement of their water supply, and he was surprised, after the experience they had had during the recent frost, that hon. Gentlemen should be found opposing such a simple proposal as this. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would tell them what action the Government proposed to take with regard to this most important Bill.
  MR. WALTER LONG, joined with his hon. Friend behind him in expressing surprise that the head of the Local Government Board, which was responsible not only for the Poor Law administration, but for the administration of the laws affecting the public health of London, had not thought fit to say one word for or against the recommendation made for the procedure in regard to this Bill. He was not going to argue whether the circumstances were similar to those preceding cases which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Cirencester, but he wished to point out that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch were adopted and the Bill were referred to the Committee already appointed to inquire into the proposals of the London County Council to purchase the eight Water Companies of London, the practical result would be to postpone the consideration

  7
  of this Bill to another Session. The hon. Member for Shoreditch dissented, but if the whole policy of the purchase of the Water Companies by the London County Council was to be considered by that Committee it would occupy the whole of the time at their disposal during the present Session. The argument was that in considering any proposal for the augmentation of the capital of any existing Company regard ought to be had to the possible purchase of the Company by the London County Council. What was there to prevent any Committee of this House appointed for the consideration of this Bill including, if they thought fit, a clause that if the Committee appointed to deal with the question of purchase reported in favour of purchase, then this augmentation of capital ought not to take place. They could not attack the London Water Companies because they did not carry out their obligations on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, interfere with and curtail the opportunities of the Companies of carrying out their legitimate duties. This proposal of the Chelsea Water Company might be right or it might be wrong, and it rested with the opponents of the measure to prove it was wrong in the Committee.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE,)said, that it had not been his intention to take any part in the discussion. The question was really one as to the best procedure, it did not affect the principle of the Bill, and if he thought the effect of the proposal of the hon. Member would be to defeat the object of the Bill, he should not vote for it.
  MR. WALTER LONGasked the right hon. Gentleman if he contended that the Committee already appointed would have time to discuss the question of the purchase dealt with by the eight Bills, and then have time to discuss this Bill also?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREdid not see any reason why all the Bills should not be disposed of. The question was, whether Bills of this kind should not be referred to the same Committee. This had been the usual course in the past. The hon. Member for Cirencester had told them that, in 1890 and 1894, this course was adopted, and he thought, on the whole, it would be more convenient
  8
  if the same course should be adopted now. As had been pointed out, by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, if this Bill came before a separate Committee, additional expenses would be incurred, for the same questions would have to be argued before the Committee that had already been appointed. He might remind the House that the Lambeth Water Company's Bill had been referred to this very Committee, and all the observations which hon. Members had made with regard to this would apply equally to that Bill. It appeared to him, therefore, it was desirable that the two Bills should be dealt with by the same Committee.
  *MR. HENRY KIMBERprotested against the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that this Motion did not affect the question of the principle. The principle of the Bill was, to give long-suffering consumers of water a little relief from the miseries they had suffered in the winter because of the deficiencies of the Companies. The effect of the Motion would be to prevent the Companies making good the deficiencies, and thus alleviating the miseries complained of. There was a large question underlying this Motion, and it was a fine illustration of the strategy applied by the London County Council upon the water question. It was admitted that the London County Council had more work to do than any body of men could accomplish, and yet they were seeking, by indirect means, to get into their hands work which was about twice as much as that which they already had. What were the tactics they employed? They said: "We will bring in the Transfer Bills." They had those before them. They referred two only of them to the Special Committee, to consider whether these two undertakings should be transferred to the County Council. What they were going to do with the others remained to be seen, but in the meantime the County Council, in effect, said: "Let us hamper, harass, and worry these Companies and consumers all we can." The Chelsea Company came forward with a Bill, and asked for leave to provide new mains, and the County Council said:—
  "Let us prevent them making new mains, and let us force the ratepayers of London into giving us what we want."
  That was the strategy employed by the

  9
  the London County Council. He protested against the idea that this Bill, by which it was sought to provide new mains, for the better supply of the consumers with water, should be referred to the Committee which had before it the question of the acquisition, not of this undertaking in Chelsea, but of two other undertakings. He lived in a district which had in it one of the largest reservoirs of this Company, and one of the greatest outcries was, that the mains of the Water Company had not been able to supply the water they ought to supply. Why should the remedy for that deficiency be delayed one single day? It was in the power of this House, by referring the Bill in the ordinary way to the ordinary committee, to have it passed and the works begun in a month. He contended that a measure of this character ought not to be referred to a Committee which was to consider one of the very largest questions which had ever affected this great Metropolis.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that the President of the Local Government Board had expressed a very confident opinion that the Hybrid Committee would have ample time to deal, not only with the question of purchase, but with that raised in the present Bill. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets moved, a few days ago, in Council, that the Council should not proceed with the whole eight Bills, but with two of them. The Council, of course, were pledged to go on with the eight Bills, but the reason for only taking two was, that there probably would not be time for all the eight this year. The proposal of the hon. Member for Shoreditch would, therefore, tend to delay, and to increase legal expenses, which would ultimately fall on the ratepayers.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, it was monstrous to ask the House to rescind the Order. The Bill having been read a second time, with the assent of the Government, it ought to go on in the ordinary way. The hon. Member for Shoreditch, who moved the Motion, did not represent the County Council in the matter more than any body else, but was merely a private Member. He hoped the House would not stultify itself by agreeing to the Motion, and that
  10
  the Government would not be a party to anything so ridiculous.
  DR. MACGREGORsuggested the desirability of leaving local questions like this to the County Council for settlement and so not taking up the time of the Imperial Parliament.
  The House Divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 129.—(Division List, No. 49.)
  Ordered—That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Lambeth Water (Transfer) Bill, the Southwark and Vauxhall Water (Transfer) Bill, and the Lambeth Water Bill.
  That, subject to the Rules, Orders, and Proceedings of this House, all Petitions against the said Bill be referred to the said Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by them selves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions against the Bill, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in support of the said Bill against such Petitions.

MOTION.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bradford-on-Avon, Caerphilly, Higham Ferrers, Pocklington, Pontypridd, Saint George, South Stoneham, Tavistock, and Upton-upon-Severn.
  Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.—[Bill 218.]

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS AT WEST BAY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why money orders are not obtainable at the Post Office, West Bay, a portion of the borough of Bridport; whether he is aware that great

  11
  inconvenience is caused to the masters and crews of vessels frequenting the port and to visitors in consequence of their having to go to Bridport, two miles off, in order to procure money orders; whether he is aware that, although postal orders can be purchased at West Bay, they cannot be cashed at the post office there; and that, although letters are delivered in other parts of Bridport on Sunday mornings, those for West Boy are kept at the head office until Monday; and whether he will direct that the post office arrangements at West Bay shall be put on the same footing as those at Bridport?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): The question of extending Money Order and Savings Bank business to the sub post office at West Bay was considered last year, and it was found that circumstances did not at that time warrant the extension. Instructions have, however, been give to take fresh returns with the view of ascertaining whether the additional accommodation could now be afforded. Postal orders can only be cashed at money order offices, and cannot therefore, at present be cashed at the West Bay office. West Bay is not situated in the town delivery, but is served by a rural post. There is no Sunday delivery in any part of the rural district at Bridport, nor has the question of a Sunday delivery at West Bay before been raised. An application signed by persons receiving at least two-thirds of the correspondence delivered must be made before the question of granting a Sunday delivery can be favourably considered.

  THE POTATO CROP IN ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the failure of the potato crop in the Loch Broom district of Ross-shire; and, whether he will take stops, if necessary, to provide seed potatoes for the people of this district?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN,): I am informed by the Local Government Board that their most recent reports do not show that there was any
  12
  failure of the potato crop or any exceptional distress in the Loch Broom district of Ross-shire. I have, however, requested the Board to obtain a special report on the matter from their General Superintendent, and I hope to receive it very soon.

  THE POOR RATE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION ACT, 1869.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that many Parish Councils have made efforts to obtain copies of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and have failed to do so by reason of the Act being out of print; and, whether he will give directions for a fresh issue of copies of this Act to be made by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, so that they may be available for such Parish Councils as require them?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,): Acts of Parliament passed before the 1st January 1887 were the private property of the printers, and remain so still, excepting in cases in which the Stationery Office has for special reasons reprinted an Act. The Poor Rate Assessment Act of 1869 is not one which has been reprinted by the Stationery Office, no occasion for such reprint having arisen. Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode have reported that it is not the case that the Act is out of print. They add—
  "Nor has the Act been out of print at any time in our recollection. We reprinted last in January 1894, and have at the present time 820 copies in stock."

  WEST LONDON SCHOOL DISTRICT.
  MR. HAYES FISHER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, owing to the failure of the managers of the West London School District to provide adequate accommodation for the reception and education of the whole of the children chargeable to the parishes and unions comprised in their district, as required under 7 and 8 Vict. c. 101 and the Orders of the Local Government Board, the Fulham Union, being one of the unions comprised in such district, is being put to very serious inconvenience and expense, while a large number of children, who should be under school

  13
  treatment, are retained in the workhouse to their serious injury; and whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to compel the managers of that district to carry out the statutory obligations imposed upon them, and without further delay to obtain the accommodation necessary to enable them to receive all the children for whom they are constituted to provide.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The Guardians of the Fulham Union have represented to the Local Government Board the inconvenience to which they are put owing to the insufficiency of the school accommodation in the West London School District, but the Board have not felt able to press the managers of the school district to provide further accommodation pending the Report of the Departmental Committee, which is now considering the subject of Poor Law Schools. The Board have, however, instructed the Inspector of the district to visit the Fulham Workhouse and ascertain the existing state of things as regards the children there, and afterwards to confer with the Guardians with a view to steps being taken to meet the present difficulty.
  MR. HAYES FISHER: When are we likely to be in possession of that Report?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope i will be in the hands of the Government before very long.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether specific information was supplied last year by four under-masters of Greenwich Hospital School in regard to abuses existing there; and a pledge was given in writing that the information supplied should be privileged, and on the faith of the pledge further information was supplied; whether, at the inquiry held at the school by a committee consisting of two persons, the officials reflected upon were present the whole time; whether three out of the four under-masters were subsequently dismissed, the fourth having meanwhile obtained a better appointment elsewhere; and whether many important alterations since made have so far shown that the information supplied was justified?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Specific statements were made last year by three of the assistant masters of Greenwich Hospital School and a former assistant master, affecting the integrity of certain officers of the school and as to alleged abuses. The letter stating the charges stipulated that they (the assistant masters) were not to suffer in any way for supplying the information provided the truth of their statements was proved to the satisfaction of the Admiralty. With the concurrence of the Education Department, a committee was appointed to inquire into these matters, consisting of Rear-Admiral Rice and the Rev. T. W. Sharpe, Chief Inspector of Schools. The committee reported that the statements affecting the integrity of the officers were reckless, unfounded, and malicious. Upon receiving this report it was found necessary, in the interests of the school, that the services of the assistant masters referred to should not be continued. They received the usual three months' notice to which all masters are subject. The officers of the school who were specially referred to in the statements were present during the inquiry. In the course of the inquiry it was shown that in some matters of minor importance alterations were called for, and the Admiralty have since taken steps to effect improvements.

  SCIENCE AND ART INSPECTORS.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Captain Griffiths, Local Inspector at Glasgow under the Science and Art Department, who has received notice of the termination of his appointment on 31st August next, and to other similar cases; and whether, as these appointments are being terminated for no fault on the part of the present holders, he is able to promise that those who will be affected by the new regulations will be employed in some other work by the Department, or awarded reasonable compensation?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,): This case, together with others of a similar nature,

  15
  has received my full consideration. The employment of some of the local inspectors will cease in August next, and of others in August 1896. All these officers who were under 45 years of age have, with one or two exceptions, been offered, or are to be offered, permanent appointments on the new staff; but it is not possible to hold out hopes of retaining any over that age. The Department has expressed its thanks for the services which have been rendered by these gentlemen, but as the appointments were always most clearly understood to be only from year to year, no claim for compensation or for other employment can arise.

  "TIME-CRIBBING" IN FACTORIES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the increasing prevalence of the evil known as "time-cribbing" in factories; and whether the services of the police could be utilised for the assistance of the inspectorate in putting a stop to that system?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,): There is, I am informed by the Chief Inspector of Factories, no reason for believing that the practice of "time-cribbing" has increased. In several of the towns valuable assistance is given by the police, notably in Liverpool. Whether it is possible for them to give more help is a matter well deserving of consideration.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of issuing a circular calling the attention of Watch Committees to this matter?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that he would consider the point.

  DAMAGE IN THE PARCEL POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, shortly before Christmas last, on a parcel containing lacework of a rare and valuable kind, and posted in Canada, being delivered to the addressee, a lady residing at Milltown Malbay, in Ireland, it was found that the contents had been soaked in Condy's Fluid and spoilt, the vessel from which the Condy's
  16
  Fluid escaped having been placed in the parcels basket at Limerick or Ennis by an employee of the department, who tailed to observe that the vessel was insufficiently corked or secured; and, whether in view of the fact that compensation for the damage thus done has been refused by the Post Office authorities, on the ground that no arrangements have been made for granting compensation in the case of parcels sent to this country from Canada (although such compensation is given in the case of parcels sent from Newfoundland, and 26 other colonies, and 42 foreign countries), he will take the necessary steps to secure the grant of suitable compensation, in all cases, for damage occasioned by the neglect or default of the Department?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: Technically the Post Office is not liable, inasmuch as the Canadian Government has not entered into arrangements with this country for paying compensation in such cases; but I will have inquiry made, and, should it prove beyond all question that the packet was damaged in this country, and through default on the part of the Post Office, the question of compensating the addressee shall be entertained?

  POSTCARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has any objection to state what is the exact amount of the excess over £22,000, which sum is referred to in the Treasury Minute of the 6th August 1894 as being insufficient to cover the loss, which is annually sustained in the distribution, &c., of postcards; what percentage relation does the figure of £22,000 bear to the total prime cost of the cards; and what is the total weight of postcards annually distributed from London throughout the United Kingdom?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: Since the Treasury Minute of 6th August 1894, the introduction of private postcards has so modified the facts that the figures in the Minute are no longer applicable. It is not possible, moreover, to state exactly the expense of distributing &c. postcards.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the number of postcards

  17
  sold each year in single cards at ¾d. each, or at a profit of some 800 per cent. on the prime cost; and whether that profit goes into the revenue of the Post Office or into the pockets of the individual postmaster selling the cards?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: From a recent return, it would appear that only about one official card in 100 is sold singly: and on this basis it is estimated that the total number of postcards sold singly is less than 1,500,000 a year. At the larger offices the proceeds of the sales of these postcards are carried to the Post Office revenue.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1894.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the memorial of the ratepayers of Strood, showing that, by the operation of Section 53 of the Local Government Act, 1894, they have been deprived of the management of their cemeteries and burial-ground provided out of the rates, which is now administered by an outside body; and whether he can suggest any steps which may be taken to obviate the anomaly which has thus arisen?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have seen the memorial referred to, but I have no power to interfere in the matter to which it relates. I can only suggest that the parties interested might consider whether the case could be dealt with under Section 69 of the Local Government Act, 1894, which enables the County Council, where an alteration of area was made by that Act, to issue orders with respect to the areas and constitution of local authorities affected by the alteration.

  THE VACANT HAYMARKET SITE.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what steps he intends to take relative to the site formerly occupied by Her Majesty's Theatre?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: I informed the hon. Member for North Paddington on March 19 last that the delay in utilising the site does not rest with the Crown, but with the parties interested in the lease agreed to be granted. It is not considered necessary to take any
  18
  immediate steps on behalf of the Crown, whose interests are not prejudiced.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, on the 22nd January he replied to the representations of a deputation of telegraph clerks that the Postal Telegraph Departments throughout the United Kingdom must be placed upon a commercial basis; and whether, in view of the fact that the Postal Telegraph Department loses annually over £300,000 by reason of the low-Press rate charged and other causes, Her Majesty's Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee with the object of considering how these losses can be made good and what concessions, if any, compatible with the interests of the public service can be made to the telegraph clerks.
  *MR. W. P. BYLES: I beg to ask whether the alleged loss on Press messages has ever been substantiated by the production of a statement, giving particulars of the proportion of the Departmental charges placed to the account of the newspapers; and whether, when similar allegations as to a supposed loss upon Press messages were made in 1876 by the Postmaster General, the Select Committee, appointed in that year to inquire into the circumstances, reported that the alleged loss had not been proved?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I am aware that a Select Committee sat in 1876, and that an estimate was made by them, but the figures on which that estimate was made have not been made public. With regard to the question on the Paper, I have to say that, in reply to a question in this House, on the 4th ultimo, I stated that I was willing to arrange for an investigation into the loss from Press telegrams if satisfactory assurance were given that the Press would abide by the result, and would undertake not to oppose the necessary legislation for a revision of the charges if it should be shown that they were insufficient. As to the telegraphists, I am not aware that I stated that the Telegraph Department "must be placed upon a commercial basis." What I did say was—that "a great commercial department like the Post Office cannot afford to disregard

  19
  commercial principles;" and I added that I was supported in this view by the Report of the Select Committee on the Revenue Departments in 1888, in which attention was called "to the fact that the Department of the Postmaster General, in all its branches, is a vast Government business, which is most likely to continue to be conducted satisfactorily if it should continue to be conducted with a view to a profit, as one of the revenue-yielding Departments of the State."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether he would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I have said that I am prepared to have a thorough investigation of the question.

  EDINBURGH MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART.
  MR. HERBERT PAUL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Department have received a memorial from the mechanics employed in the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art, praying that they may receive pensions and sick allowance on the same scale as the attendants in the museum; whether the subject has been considered; and when the memorialists may expect a reply?
  MR. ACLAND: This is a difficult matter, and though I have not been able to obtain sanction to an arrangement such as is contemplated in the question, I hope still to be able to submit a further proposal in the matter to the Treasury.

  THE SCOTTISH OFFICE.
  MR. HERBERT PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government have received a memorial from the Edinburgh Merchants' Association, in favour of transferring the headquarters of the Scottish Office from London to Edinburgh; and whether they are prepared to consider the proposal favourably?
  MR. J. CALDWELLalso asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the presence of so many Government Offices in London was complained against by the Vestries of London as a grievance and a loss to the
  20
  local ratepayers, and whether the Government would move the headquarters of the Scottish Office from London, where they were not wanted, to Scotland.
  *SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I do not think that the deduction drawn by my hon. Friend in his supplementary question, from what has taken place in this House, is otherwise than a fair one. The Government have received the memorial from the Edinburgh Merchants' Association. In order to carry on the business of Scotland in Parliament it is necessary that the headquarters of the Scottish Office should be in London.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Why?
  *SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: In order to carry on the business in Parliament.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Will not the right hon. Gentleman, then, move in the direction of transferring the business of Scotland as well as the offices to
  Scotland?
  [No answer was given.]

  WINDING-UP COMPANIES.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will state for what amount credit is taken for dividends on funds invested under Section 16 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, as probable to be issued during the year ending 31st March, 1896; whether he will give instructions to the officers of the courts acting in the winding-up of Companies, when making returns to the Board of Trade under Section 29 of the Act, to give, in a supplementary return, the reasons why the amounts invested under Section 16 have not been distributed; and, whether he will cause copies of such Report, so far as regards each Company to be sent to the creditors of such Company?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,): The estimated receipts amount to £11,000, but this is subject to deduction of interest allowed to Companies under Section 18, which cannot at present be estimated. The reasons for any delay in the distribution of assets are furnished half-yearly to the Board of Trade by liquidators, and steps are taken, as far as possible, to prevent undue delay.

  21
  The liquidator also furnishes explanations with regard to the administration of the Company to creditors and contributories in his statement issued at the close of the liquidation, and the form of the statement requires him to intimate that "further information can be obtained at the office of the liquidator." No further Report appears to be necessary.

  PARISH COUNCIL OFFICERS.
  MR. W. H. MYERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Vice Chairman, the Clerk and the Treasurer of a Parish Council have to be annually elected at the annual meeting of the Parish Council; and, if he can say when the audit of Parish Council accounts, as made up to 31st March last, will take place.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It appears to me that in future years the Vice Chairman of a Parish Council and. also the Clerk and the Treasurer, if they are Members of the Parish Council, will cease to hold office when their term of office as Parish Councillors ceases, and that the appointments should be filled up at the annual meeting. If the Clerk and Treasurer were appointed by the Parish Council from outside their own body, their period of office would depend on the terms of their appointment. The audit of the Parish Council accounts to March 31 last will be held in connection with the accounts of the other local authorities in the union, and will shortly be commenced.

  HAWAII.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any formal investigation was ordered by the Foreign Office into the circumstances preceding and attending the substitution of a republic for the monarchy in Hawaii before official recognition was extended by the British Government to the republic; and, whether there is any precedent for withdrawing such recognition in a case where it has been granted without a full and adequate knowledge of the antecedent facts?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: A formal investigation would not have been necessary or usual. The recognition was given upon the stability of the existing Government of Hawaii being ascertained. I am not aware of any such precedent as that referred to in the last part of the question.

  DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether J. R. Fowell, a cooper employed in the Deptford Victualling Yard, is now (after 36 years' service) about to be retired on a pension calculated on a rate of 26s. a week for 26 years' service: and, whether he is entitled to have his pension calculated at the rate of 30s. a week?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The man in question has been granted a pension of £29 7s. 5d., calculated on his earnings of 26s. a week. He is not entitled to have his pension calculated on 30s. a week.
  MR. DARLING: I should like to ask whether these men have not been led to believe that their pensions would be calculated at the higher rate?
  MR. ROBERTSON: No, Sir. The rule made by the Treasury applied only to men employed in piece work. This man never was employed on piece work.

  THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.
  MR. E. F.VESEYKNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Andrew D. Murray, who was dismissed from the Customs service because his strength was reported as insufficient for the work of boatman, after he had served nine year in the Customs service and seven years in the Post Office service; whether he is aware that the failure of the officer's health was due to the severity of the labour imposed upon him during the last year of his service, when he was often on duty 18 hours out of the 24; and, whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, Mr. Murray will be employed in other work under the Customs Department, such as that of messenger, for which he is physically fitted?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: My attention has been repeatedly called to Mr. Murray's case. I am not aware that the failure of his health was the result of

  23
  unduly severe labour. On the contrary, he had been treated with no little consideration. In the year 1893 he was awarded a retiring gratuity of £42. 16s. 6d., and there is no intention to re-employ him.

  IRISH EVICTION NOTICES.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that on some eviction notices, recently served on the estate of Mr. Stewart Smith in the County Cavan, the address given as that of the landlord was a false one, and that the landlord is believed, if he is alive, to be out of the jurisdiction; (2) whether he is aware that the conduct of a solicitor putting a false address on a writ, in similar circumstances, has been held in England to be improper, and to render the solicitor liable to pay the costs; and (3) whether he will give the aid of the forces of the Crown to support these practices?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed that only one tenant on this property has been served with an eviction notice, and that the address of the landlord and his agent is given in the notice as Dundrum, where the agent resides. I have no information as to the matter referred to in the second paragraph; but upon the point whether a decree for rent or a notice in ejectment can be refused in the absence of proof that the landlord is alive, I am advised that it is open to the solicitor acting for the tenants to cross-examine the witnesses for the landlord, and, if necessary, to summon the agent or relative of the landlord to prove he is dead. If such proof be given, the action is of course stopped, but the Crown have no status in the matter, and any representations which they might make as to the fruitlessness of inquiries made by them to ascertain the whereabouts of the landlord would be of no value. The question is one entirely for the tribunal acting on legal evidence and legal considerations. With regard to the concluding inquiry, no application has yet been made for police protection in the carrying out of the ejectment referred to, but I may observe that the Executive cannot refuse such protection in the execution of
  24
  process on the alleged ground of incorrect address of the landlord, or any other irregularity.

  MONAGHAN AND CAVAN LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspector deputed to inquire into the disciplinary management of the Monaghan and Cavan Lunatic Asylum, will investigate the circumstances under which George King, a warder of less than six months' service who at the meeting of governors in March last pleaded guilty to a serious breach of discipline, has received an increase of pay in preference to 25 senior warders?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: One of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums will inquire at an early date into certain matters affecting the discipline of the Monaghan Asylum. The appointment and dismissal of the staffs of attendants of District Asylums are, however, matter vested under the existing law in the Boards of Governors of these institutions. No charge I am informed has been brought against the attendant named in the question at any meeting of the Governors of the Monaghan Asylum. This attendant entered the service on the 1st November 1894, as a second-class attendant, on the understanding that he should be promoted to the first-class when a vacancy occurred; and was so promoted on the 28th February last. No attendant, so I am informed, has been deprived of promotion on his account.

  IRISH EDUCATION ACT, BELTURBET.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) for what reason the Town Commissioners of Belturbet have been surcharged with the amount of their expenditure under the Education Act of 1892; (2) whether the same course has been adopted in the case of every local authority levying no rate or more than one rate; and (3) what course has been adopted in Belfast?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am informed that the surcharge referred to in the first paragraph was made by the auditor on the ground that there is no town rate in Belturbet, and that the

  25
  Town Commissioners had no legal authority to incur the expenditure in question except out of the local rate. The Local Government Board inform me that they have no information to enable them to reply to the second paragraph; I have, however, requested the Board to ascertain from the various auditors the decisions come to by them in such cases, including the case of Belfast.

  BUNDORAN AND MANORHAMILTON MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the mails from Bundoran to Manorhamilton have been delayed on 19 occasions during the past month by the non-arrival of the northern train in due time at Bundoran; and what steps he proposes to take in order to prevent such delay in the future?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I am sorry that there has been so much irregularity in the service referred to by the hon. Member. On the 1st proximo the summer working of the train conveying the mails to Bundoran will be resumed, and there, will be no longer any risk of delay. The question of providing for a more regular service during the winter season will in the meanwhile be carefully considered.

  THE SEED SUPPLY ACT AND THE ARRAN ISLANDS.
  MR. DAVID SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the different resolutions passed by the Board of Guardians of the Galway Union in reference to the omission or inapplicability of the Seed Supply Act to meet the wants or to supply seed potatoes to some 200 or 300 families in Arran Islands; has Major Rutledge Fair made reports upon the condition of these people early in the season, and, if so, what is the purport; has Mr. Clements, Local Government Board Inspector, visited many of these families, and reported to the Local Government Board that these people had no seed, that they had no means to buy them, and that they could get no security from shopkeepers or others to purchase them, that therefore they were precluded from the benefits of the Seed Supply Act; is
  26
  he aware that the Guardians have repeatedly called the attention of the Local Government Board to this important fact, which prevents the Guardians from giving seed potatoes to these people; is he aware that last week Mr. Guiry, Local Government Board Senior Inspector, reported to the Local Government Board that the Act was totally inapplicable to these families, and suggesting other means of providing them with seed; is he aware that if the lands of these people lie fallow this year they will be in a very serious condition next year; and, seeing that the ratepayers on the island, who are highly valued at some £1,500, must pay taxes and rates to the extent of £500 or £600, and rent up to £2,000, will he state whether the Local Government Board or the Government have any funds at their disposal to enable this large number of families to have their lands sown this season?
  MR. J. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to a resolution passed by the Galway Board of Guardians, in which they state that, as there are about 200 families in Arran Islands who are unable to procure seed potatoes, and that their lands will be barren next year if not provided with seed now; and call the attention of the Local Government Board to the Report of their Inspector and the several resolutions of the Galway Guardians on the same subject; how many reports have been made by Major Rutledge Fair as to the condition of the people in the villages on the north island of Arran; and, what were the recommendations made by Dr. Clements, who was sent specially to report as to their condition?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The Galway Guardians have from time to time passed resolutions drawing attention to the alleged inapplicability of the provisions of the Seed Supply Act to the circumstances of the Arran Islanders. Major Rutledge Fair visited the islands early in the season, and reported that the potato crop was satisfactory, and the correctness of this Report has been evidenced by the fact that considerable quantities of potatoes have recently been sold on the islands and exported to the mainland. Dr. Clements also visited the islands last month. He did not,

  27
  however, report in the terms suggested in the question, though he pointed out to the Guardians that a number of the people were in need of seed, and he requested the Guardians to consider whether they would extend to them the benefits of the Act. The Guardians have been informed by the Local Government Board that security is only necessary in the case of conacre tenants, and the question of the character of the security to be given by such tenants is altogether one for the Guardians. The responsibility for refusing to give seed to the islanders rests, therefore, with the Guardians, who have been offered every facility in the matter by the Local Government Board. I am informed that no such report from Mr. Guiry has been received by the Local Government Board. The Guardians have been informed that if the lands of these people lie uncultivated this year they will be in a very serious condition next year, but the Guardians have stated they could not undertake to supply seed "without the slightest prospect of the loan being repaid." The valuation of the islands is about £1,500, and the poor rate is 4s. 7d. in the £1; but the great majority of the islanders, I am told, pay no poor rates. I regret there are no funds at the disposal of the Government or the Local Government Board out of which to make to the Guardians a free grant for seed.

  PRISON INSPECTION.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in considering the Report of the Departmental Committee on the present prison system of this country, he will consider the advisability of empowering the local authorities in each district to make frequent and regular inspections of the prisons in their districts?
  MR. ASQUITH: Certainly, Sir; this suggestion will receive careful consideration.

  CONVICTS IN IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken to prevent the permanent concentration of convicts in Dublin which was condemned by a
  28
  Royal Commission 10 years ago; whether his attention has been directed to an article in The Pall Mall Gazette of 23rd March last, advocating a system of reclaiming waste lands by means of convict camps; and whether he will consider the desirability of adopting such a scheme in Ireland without interfering with free labour?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am informed by the General Prisons Board that much has been done to prevent the permanent concentration of convicts in Dublin, which was condemned by the Royal Commission. There are at present only 346 convicts in Mountjoy, compared with 646 in 1884, and the convicts now at Mountjoy are fully occupied in useful industries, in necessary prison work, and in building warders' cottages. There are also a number of convicts employed in building works at Cork and Maryborough Prisons. Since 1884 convict labour has been employed in various ways—for instance, the construction of a hospital; additional cells and officers' quarters at Mountjoy; the construction of warders' cottages at Maryborough; and reconstructive and sanitary works at several other prisons. The question of reclaiming waste land by means of convict camps could not now, I am advised, practically arise, as all convicts eligible for such employment are fully occupied in building at Cork, Maryborough, and Mountjoy, and will be so occupied for two or three years to come. The general question of convict camps is a matter requiring grave consideration, there being serious objections to the plan proposed, which would entail arrangements that have been condemned by some of the highest philanthropic authorities.

  ARMY CANTEEN SUPPLIES IN IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the new code of rules, laid down by the General commanding the Cork district, for regulating the supplying of groceries, &c., to the various canteens, contains the condition that all persons tendering must be in a position to supply the articles quoted at the same price and of the same quality to each canteen throughout the district; and whether,

  29
  in view of the fact that this district embraces a large area, and includes 24 military stations, and that such a condition practically excludes small traders from competing, he will recommend the military authorities in Cork to consider the desirability of giving each town in the district the opportunity of catering for its own garrison?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Since I answered questions on this subject, some time ago, I have received fuller information as to the working of the new system. From this, it appears, that, so far from the effect of the change being prejudicial to the traders of the district, it has been directly in their favour, having brought back to the district orders which formerly went elsewhere. Nor has the change, to any great extent, operated against the smaller local tradesmen; but at any rate, I am sure, that the tender of any responsible local tradesman, who may be able to supply any article of equal quality at a lower price than another firm, will receive the immediate attention of the president of any canteen committee.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether an invitation to tender for these contracts will be advertised in the local papers?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say.

  THE CASE OF THOMAS ROGERS.
  MR. REES DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Rogers, who was tried at the Pembrokeshire Assizes, in January last, upon a charge of wounding with intent to murder, and being found guilty, but insane, was ordered by Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure: (2) whether he is aware that the medical evidence showed the wounds inflicted to be of a highly dangerous character, and the life of the prosecutor for some time despaired of; and that Rogers has recently been released and allowed to return to his home in Pembrokeshire, after being detained for less than three months in a criminal lunatic asylum; (3) whether he will state upon what ground his release was
  30
  ordered; and (4) whether, in view of the terror existing in the district at so dangerous a character being at large, he will give instructions for special police supervision over Rogers, so as to prevent a repetition of such grave misconduct?
  MR. ASQUITH: Thomas Rogers was discharged after careful inquiry into the case, the result of which was to convince the Director of Broadmoor and myself that Rogers is not, and was not at the time of the crime, insane, and, consequently, that the verdict was wrong. I may say, that the learned Judge, who presided at the trial, concurred in this view, and agreed with me that, in the circumstances, Rogers ought to be released from further detention in a criminal lunatic asylum. The Chief Constable of Pembrokeshire has been fully informed of the apprehensions referred to in the last paragraph of the question, and has been desired to adopt such measures as may be necessary, with a view to prevent any misconduct or annoyance on the part of Rogers, should he attempt it. I have received a reply from the Chief constable, from which it appears that he had anticipated this request, and had taken all the precautionary steps which the circumstances seem to require.

  EARTHENWARE MEASURES.
  MR. T. W. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that the Lincoln Inspector of Weights and Measures, in the latter part of February 1894, refused to pass a large number of quart earthenware jugs made by Messrs. Poulson Bros, of Ferrybridge, which had been duly stamped and passed by the Inspector of Weights and Measures for the West Riding of Yorkshire, on the ground that the jugs held more than the one ounce allowed by the rules and regulations of the Board of Trade appertaining to Lincolnshire, although they held less and up to the two ounces allowed by the rules and regulations of the Board of Trade in force in Yorks; whether a jug once stamped is always a legal measure; and whether he will, if necessary, consider the advisability, in view of the present vexatious restraints on trade owing to the discrepancies of allowances

  31
  in different parts of the country, of taking steps to create and put in force universal and uniform regulations in the matter of allowances.
  MR. BRYCE: The Board of Trade were made acquainted in February last with the circumstances referred to in the question of the hon. Member, and the Standards Department then placed themselves in communication with the Local Authorities thereon. It is the fact that the amount of error allowed on earthenware measures by the regulations made by the City of Lincoln and the County Council of Lincoln, under the Weights and Measures Acts, is less than the amount of error allowed by the regulations made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire. I agree with the hon. Member that uniformity in this respect is desirable; but the carrying out of the law rests with the local authorities who appoint the Inspectors, and the Board of Trade have no power to compel uniformity of regulations in the matter of allowances. A measure once stamped is a legal measure all over the Kingdom, unless proved to be false or unjust.

  SMALL-POX HOSPITAL FOR BRADFORD.
  MR. W. P. BYLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board has lately sanctioned the proposal of the Corporation of Bradford to purchase Bierley Hall and convert it into a small-pox hospital for cases of small-pox arising within the borough; whether he is aware that Bierley Hall is situated in. a populous neighbourhood outside the borough, and that the people in that neighbourhood and the district council representing them have made the strongest protest against, and are seriously alarmed at the project; will he explain why it was that, although the result of a public official inquiry held on the spot was unfavourable to the proposal, the sanction was subsequently obtained, upon further representations from the Bradford Corporation, without the United Bierley District Council being further heard in the matter; whether the Local Government Board has adopted a minute to the effect that no small-pox hospital should be established within a quarter of a mile
  32
  of a population of 150 to 200 persons, and whether the Department is satisfied that this condition will not be infringed in the present case; and whether, for the satisfaction of public opinion in the locality, he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the medical officer who conducted the public inquiry referred to above, and the Correspondence which has passed between the Department and the Bradford Corporation.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Local Government Board have lately sanctioned a loan to enable the Corporation of Bradford to purchase the Bierley Hall Estate and some adjoining land as a site for a small-pox hospital. I am aware that the site is outside the borough, and that the proposal of the Corporation was opposed by persons in the neighbourhood, and by the North Bierley Urban District Council. After the local inquiry, which was held by one of the Board's medical inspectors, as to the purchase of the Bierley Hall Estate, the Board pointed out to the Corporation certain objections to the erection of a small-pox hospital on this site. The Corporation thereupon undertook to purchase additional land adjoining the estate and to change the position of the building. The objections of the Board were thus removed. They were in possession of the views urged by the North Bierley District Council at the Inquiry, and they did not deem it necessary that the District Council should be further heard on the subject. The Board's Medical Officer has recommended that no small-pox hospital should be established within a quarter of a mile of a population of 150 to 200 persons. Evidence has been laid before the Board showing that this condition will not be infringed here, and the loan has been sanctioned on the understanding that there will be no such infringement. The Reports of the Board's Inspectors in cases of this kind are intended for the Board's information only, and are treated as confidential documents. Hence I could not undertake to lay a copy of the Report on the Table in the present instance. I desire to add that as this is a matter affecting the constituency which I represent, I have been guided exclusively by the advice of the skilled officers of the Department, though I fully admit my responsibility for the decision.

  FIJI.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has observed that on page 9 of the Annual Report on Fiji, published on Tuesday, it is stated that a native newspaper is issued monthly by the Colonial Government; whether this is the publication entitled Na Mata, which formed the subject of complaint in this House as containing matter that was exceedingly offensive to the Catholics of the colony; and whether it is to be understood that the Government of Fiji accept the entire responsibility for the historical views and religious opinions that are expressed in this native newspaper?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The native newspaper referred to is presumably the Na Mata, in reference to which the hon. Gentleman asked a question some little time back. Inquiry was made in regard to this complaint, and it seems that the paragraphs which gave offence appeared during Sir J. Thurston's absence. A Fiji translation and adaptation of "Little Arthur's History of England,'' a history on which many of us were brought up, was published in serial form in the newspaper in question, and certain parts of that so-called history, in dealing with the thorny period of the Reformation, appeared offensively to reflect on the Roman Catholic priesthood, and Roman Catholic teaching. Though it is to be regretted that the paragraphs should have appeared in the form they did; they were inserted through inadvertence, and with no intention of giving offence. Na Mata was established during the administration of Sir Arthur Gordon, and has been published monthly ever since, and no other complaint in regard to it has been made in the Colonial Office.

  THE PRISON COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the taking of evidence before the Departmental Committee he has appointed to consider the importation of prison-made goods will be open to the Press and to the public, as in the case of a Select
  34
  Committee or Royal Commission; if the evidence will be laid upon the Table; and, if in order to prevent delay, he will invite the Committee to sit as continuously as possible, and submit their Report before the Whitsuntide recess?
  MR. BRYCE: As the hon. and gallant Member has, on reconsideration, been good enough to accept the seat on the Committee which I offered him, he will now have a voice in the determination of the points raised in his question. They are points for the Committee to deal with, but I understand the Committee propose to take evidence publicly.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman quite understands that I have only accepted his courteously-expressed invitation to join the Committee in order, if possible, to hasten its deliberations and report in time for legislation this Session, and that I still hold the view, and retain my liberty to express it, that the appointment of a Committee was unnecessary, calculated to cause delay, and in direct contravention of the unanimous decision of the House.
  MR. BRYCE: My hon. Friend retains the largest liberty to influence the deliberations of the Committee.

  THE MILITARY CONTRIBUTION FROM MAURITIUS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the facts that in October, 1894, the Marquis of Ripon ordered Sir Hubert Jerningham, Governor of Mauritius, to impose a land tax, and to propose that the vote of £15,000 a year as a Military Contribution from the Colony should be doubled; that in December, 1894, the Governor replied that the proposed increase of the vote had been rejected by the Legislative Council of the Colony by 13 to 12; that even the official members of Council protested against it, that he endorsed their protest, and declared that it was materially impossible for the Colony to pay more, that there was a heavy deficit, that trade had declined, that the present condition of the silver market prevented any increase of the taxation, which was almost entirely borne by the planters, and that, nevertheless, a hut tax would be introduced; and, in view of the reply

  35
  of the Colonial Office to the effect that the sum asked was the smallest which could be accepted, whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to enforce the payment of the sum demanded, despite the protests of the Governor and the official members, the vote of the Council, and the condition of the Colony; and, whether the Secretary of State did, as promised in the despatch of the 15th January 1895, consult his colleagues in the British Cabinet, and with what result?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The question of the Military contribution from Mauritius, as well as two of the other Eastern contributory Colonies, is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and I can give no definite answer at present to the hon. Member's question. I may observe that it is incorrect to say that the Governor was ordered to impose a land Tax; he was instructed to introduce a Bill imposing direct taxation either in the form of a land tax or otherwise.

  ACCIDENT AT CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Richard Rigden, employed in the smithery at Chatham Dockyard, had both his hands cut off by defective machinery in August 1893; that the machine had been reported on as defective before the accident, and was removed immediately after; whether the Lords of the Admiralty awarded Richard Rigden a pension of 1s. 4d. per diem as compensation for the loss of both hands; and, whether they will consider whether the amount of this pension should be augmented?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This lamentable accident certainly occurred, but not at all under the circumstances stated in the question. The machine was in good working order, and had not been reported as defective, and was not removed until 12 months after the accident, and then only because a more modern machine capable of larger output of work was brought into use. Rigden has been awarded a pension of £41 14s. 3d. a year; of this £20 17s. 1d. was for his service, and £20 17s. 1d. extra on account of his injuries, being the maximum addition which the Trea-
  36
  sury are empowered to grant on account of injury.
  SIR J. GORSTgave notice that he would take an early opportunity of calling attention to the wholly inadequate compensation which this Government allowed for injuries of this kind.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR AND PEMBA.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact, as stated by Sir John Kirk, that in the last ten years the quantity of cloves picked in Zanzibar and Pemba has increased three-fold; what was the number of slaves in the Island of Pemba ten years ago, and what is it now; from whence the slaves introduced into the island in the last ten years have come; whether there is any free labour in the Island of Pemba; whether a code of rules in regard to slaves used as porters in the caravans from the coast inland has recently been published obliging those hiring them to pay 10 rupees per head to the Mahometan Court, to lodge £10 per head, to pay down two months' wages in advance, not to pay any wages to the porters during their absence, and to sign a bond which compels them to bring all porters back; and whether, in the event of the slave dying in the interior, the owner may claim the £10 deposited and all wages accrued, so that the £10 thus forfeited leaves the slave owner a profit on the purchase of the slave?
  *SIR E. GREY: Papers are about to be laid which will give full information as to the position of the slave trade and slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba. No regulations have been drawn up in regard to the employment of slaves as porters. The regulations as to the engagement and treatment of porters contain provisions of the nature indicated. A slave owner has no locus standi under the regulations.

  KENG KONG.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British troops from Burmah have been ordered to occupy Keng Kong, in Siam?
  *SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government have no intention of sending troops to Keng Kong.

  LIQUIDATION OF THE IRISH EXHIBITION.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what progress is being made in the liquidation of the affairs of the Irish Exhibition; and why so long a delay has taken place?
  MR. BRYCE: The liquidation is not under the control of the Board of Trade, being conducted under the Companies' Act of 1862. But from returns made by the Liquidator to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, under Section 15 of the Winding-up Act of 1890, it appears that total assets have been realised since 1889 amounting to £2,988, of which £1,459 has been disbursed mainly for costs. There remained an undistributed balance at 30th September last of £l,528, subject to further claims for costs. The reasons for the delay in dealing with this balance are stated by the Liquidator to be "questions pending as to the right of persons claiming to amend the chief clerk's list of debts and claims."

  NICARAGUA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information as to our dispute with the Nicaraguan Government?
  *SIR E. GREY: A telegram from the Admiral states that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply from the Government of Nicaragua the town was occupied on the 27th of April, that there was no opposition, that the foreign population and natives remain and are on friendly terms, but that the officials have removed from Corinto.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the British Minister was still at Managua, the capital of Nicaragua?
  *SIR E. GREY: I think he is at Guatemala.
  MR. W. P. BYLESasked why Her Majesty's Government declined the offer of the Government of Nicaragua to refer all questions relating to indemnity for alleged personal injuries to an international commission of arbitration?
  *SIR E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Republic of Nicaragua have complied with the demand of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the outrages upon British subjects; and, if care will be taken for some time to come that British trade is in no way placed at the slightest disadvantage by that Government?
  *SIR E. GREY: The Republic of Nicaragua has not yet complied with the demand of Her Majesty's Government. There is no intention of neglecting British interests in Nicaragua.

  THE WRECK OF THE "ELBE."
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at a meeting of smack owners recently held in Lowestoft it was proved to their satisfaction by the masters of fishing smacks that the wreck of the Elbe was most dangerous to the trawlers, and that already a considerable amount of damage has been done to fishing property; whether he is also aware that further application has been made to the Trinity House to place a gas buoy on the spot, the fishing trade in Lowestoft having undertaken to defray the expenses of such buoy after it had been so placed; whether he is aware that the authorities of Trinity House have replied that the wreck does not lie within their jurisdiction, that they have no means available for dealing with it, and that they consequently regret they are unable to comply with the request; and, whether he is aware that the value of the fishing vessels and their gear fishing out of the Port of Lowestoft represents upwards of £200,000; and whether, having regard to the serious injury already inflicted, and to the continued risk to the property of the fishermen, he will take steps, either with the Trinity Brethren or with his department, or by a communication to the Dutch Government, with a view to placing a buoy over the spot where the Elbe foundered, or to the dispersion of the wreck?
  MR. BRYCE: Information regarding the necessity referred to in the question, and as to the statements made at the meeting, has only to-day been received by

  39
  the Board of Trade. If the fishing trade are willing to treat the case of the Elbe as an exception to those of the numerous other wrecks at the bottom of the sea, which may cause damage to trawlers, by undertaking to defray the expenses of providing and maintaining a gas-lighted buoy to define the position of the wreck, I will communicate with the Trinity House on the subject.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great anxiety is evinced on this subject by the fishing industry?
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: Do I understand the answer to be that unless the fishing trade are prepared to place and maintain buoys at their own expense the Department will do nothing?
  MR. BRYCE: The Board of Trade has no power to do anything; if anything was done it would be done by Trinity House. They have been communicated with, but they have no funds available, and do not see their way to do anything.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is the Board of Trade unable to have this wreck blown up and dispersed?
  MR. BRYCE: We have no funds available.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Can you consider the propriety of appropriating to this purpose some part of the Mercantile Marine Fund?
  MR. BRYCE: The Mercantile Marine Fund is disposed of by Act of Parliament, and we have no power to alter the terms of the Act.

  THE OFFICE OF COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the office of Commander-in-Chief, or whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, they intend only to appoint a Commander-in-Chief in the Field?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that it is not usual to decide such questions until the occasion for a decision occurs. I have no doubt that when a vacancy arises the Government of the day will take into consideration the recommendations of the Hartington Commission and I have already expressed
  40
  my opinion that its main recommendation, affecting the office of Commander-in-Chief cannot be ignored. If my hon. Friend has any curiosity as to my own dews in particular he will find them in the Report of that Commission to which my signature is appended, and in the separate memorandum which I wrote and signed. I have since seen no reason to alter these views.

  THE GROUND GAME ACT.
  MR. W. W. B. BEACH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the case of the Earl of Carnarvon v. Clarkson; and whether, when opportunity offers, he will be prepared to amend the Ground Game Act so as to prevent the right of free warren pressing hardly upon tenants?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Yes, Sir. I shall be glad if I can find an opportunity to make such an Amendment as I understand would be necessary.

  PARISH COUNCIL OF EDINKILLIE, ELGINSHIRE.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that at the provisional Parish Council of Edinkillie, Elginshire, held on 11th instant, the Inspector of Poor having read over the names of the parties elected, all of whom were present, requested them to declare in writing their acceptance of the office, and that on one of the councillors refusing to make such a declaration in writing, the Inspector of Poor dissolved the meeting; and whether this action of the Inspector of Poor was taken under instructions from the Local Government Board; if so, will he state what statutory authority exists for demanding that parish councillors shall make such written declarations, and for dissolving the meeting if any parish councillor refuses to do so?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I am informed by the Local Government Board that the Rev. Mr. Anderson, one of the candidates elected, declined to comply with the instructions issued by the Local Government Board that lie should sign an acceptance of office, and

  41
  that the meeting broke up in consequence without doing business. It is not the fact that it was dissolved by the Inspector of Poor. There is no direct requirement in the Act of 1894 that acceptance of office should be declared in writing, but the enactments regulating the Election of County Councillors, which contain such a provision, are applied to the election of Parish Councillors, and in any case it appears to be very convenient and desirable that there should be such an acceptance. I am glad to be able to add that Mr. Anderson now expresses his willingness to sign.

  THE CASE OF DR. HERZ.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the Law Officers of the Crown have considered by what means a trial can take place in the case of Dr. Cornelius Herz, who has now practically been under arrest for over two years; whether the difficulty which now exists could be met by an Amendment of the Extradition Act; and whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate the introduction of a Bill for that purpose; and, if not, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT REID,)replied that the hearing of the case of Dr. Herz at Bournemouth could be possible by Amendment of the Extradition Act, and a Bill for that purpose would be introduced in another place.

  THE COLLIERY EXPLOSION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. W. JACKSasked the Lord Advocate a question of which he said he had given him private notice—namely, whether he had any information with regard to the explosion at Dunipace Denny, near Stirling, and whether he would take steps to have a public inquiry held as to the cause.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,)said he had not received full official reports with regard to this lamentable occurrence, but from what was already known, no doubt the Home Secretary would think it a case in which a public-official inquiry should be held.

  TREES IN EPPING FOREST.
  MAJOR JONES: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, whether his attention has been called to the continued felling of the trees in Epping Forest, and whether such work is in conformity with the Epping Forest Act, having regard to the fact that the people generally are against such felling of the trees; and, whether he will make the necessary request for the publication of the amounts realised by the sale of the timber, together with the names of the purchasers?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have been informed by the City Remembrancer that nothing has been done in Epping Forest except such thinning of the timber as is necessary to preserve the health of the young trees. I have no power to interfere with the exercise of their discretion by the Epping Forest Committee.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked whether the hon. and learned Member had received the opinions of experts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the only information he had received was what he had given to the House.

  ALLEGED MUTINY ON BOARD-SHIP.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, whether he is aware that, at a Naval Court held at Santos on 18th June 1894, the Court held that certain members of the crew of the Jessie Osborne were guilty of mutiny with violence, and all the accused were sent to England for trial; that when the accused arrived at Southampton they were brought before the magistrate, who dismissed the charge because there was no prosecution; and that no further action was taken to investigate the charges; what was the cause of this failure either to exonerate or condemn persons accused of a grave crime; and, whether he can state from what funds the expenses were paid of bringing the said members of the crew of the Jessie Osborne from Santos to England?
  MR. ASQUITH: The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. I am of opinion that though the act of the defendants in putting the captain in irons was in itself subversive of discipline, it

  43
  was, to great extent, caused by the conduct of the captain to the first mate. Unfortunately, there were no means by which criminal proceedings could be instituted against the men, in order to establish the truth of their statements, by the decision of a magistrate in this country, as in the absence of the captain there was no one to give evidence for the prosecution. These expenses were paid by the Board of Trade under Section 689 (5) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and claimed by them from the Treasury.

  THE BERRIEW EDUCATION SCHEME.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he has yet been able to determine the method by which the Order in Council which brought into effect the Berriew Scheme should be withdrawn or superseded?
  MR. ACLANDreplied that he had not yet been able to come to a decision in this matter, but he hoped to do so in the course of a few days.

  AGRICULTURE ROYAL COMMISSION (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented of Report by Mr. R. Henry Rew (Assistant Commissioner), on North Devon [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCHES (CITY OF LONDON).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 2nd August 1894; Mr. Alban Gibbs]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  (1) Charitable Endowments (London)—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 237.]
  (2) Thames Conservancy—General Report and Accounts of the Conservators for 1894 [by Act].

  CYPRUS.
  Address agreed to for—
  Return—(1) Of all sums paid in each year since the year 1879–80 by direction of Her Majesty's Government, out of moneys arising from the Revenues in Cyprus, in discharge of
  44
  the Interest upon the Turkish Loan guaranteed by this Country under the Statute 18 and 19 Vict., c. 99; and (2) of all sums voted by Parliament during the same period in aid of the administration of Cyprus."—(Sir George Baden-Powell.)

  CHARITY COMMISSION (COMMITTEE OF THE TREASURY).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Treasury, 1893 (presided over by Sir Robert Hamilton), to inquire into the Department of the Charity Commission."—(Mr. James William Lowther.)

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  Arthur Viscount Valentia, for the Borough of Oxford.
  Robert Thornhagh Gurdon, esquire, for the County of Norfolk (Mid Division).

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER rose, amidst Ministerial cheers, to move—
  "That for the remainder of the Session Government Business do have priority on Tuesday, that on Friday the House do meet at Two of the Clock; and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Tuesday and the Morning Sitting on Friday."
  He said: Sir,—In rising to make the same Motion which I made on April 9 last year, I do not think it necessary for me to repeat all the reasons for making that Motion, which I made three weeks earlier than in the Session in which we are met to-day. I founded that Motion (which the House was good enough to sanction) upon three reasons. The first reason was the date indicated by the calendar, and the Government make the identical Motion three weeks later than last year. The second reason was founded on the business that had to be transacted, and the third reason was founded on the relation of the Government to that business. I pointed out what is hardly necessary to point out again, that under the Standing Orders the Government have at their disposal for the transaction of business only eight days in each month. I endeavoured last year to draw the attention of the House to the amount and the nature of

  45
  the business the Government had to transact in that period. First of all they have to transact the financial business connected with the Budget, then they have to deal with the Estimates in Supply, and occasionally with administrative business, and what I may call administrative Bills. I pointed out also that there were a number of what might be called neutral and non-controversial Bills, Bills not greatly debated, but which are required from time to time by the public necessity. Then, lastly—the principal category—political and controversial measures which every Government must introduce. I ventured on that occasion to meet an argument which I thought might be raised—that Governments ought not to have any political or controversial measures at all, but should confine themselves altogether to measures which were non-political and non-controversial. But I need not renew that argument because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, entirely agreed, on that occasion, with the observations I made. He said—referring to what I had observed—
  "The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk of Party measures, and appeared to think there were those on this side of the House who objected to bringing forward such measures. If there be such critics I will not rank myself among them. Of course the Government exists for the purpose of bringing forward Party measures, and the Opposition, as an Opposition, exists for the purpose of criticising them."
  That is a fair description of the situation as to Party measures. He continued—
  "I make no complaint of the action of the Government in introducing Party measures, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make no complaint when we proceed to criticise them. What I complain of is that the Government are so long in bring forward their controversial measures."
  That complaint cannot be repeated this year, for measures of that kind have, to a large degree, been brought forward. These are the kinds of business the Government have to deal with; and the position of the Government in recent years—I am not speaking of one Government more than another, but of all Governments—has been very much changed for the worse in respect of time within my Parliamentary recollection. First of all, take the Debate on the
  46
  Address. I recollect when one night more often than not sufficed. Hardly ever did we exceed two nights. Now ten days or a fortnight is considered a most moderate amount to devote to the Address. That was the number of days occupied by the Debate on the Address this year. Then there is the practice, which in former times did not prevail, of extended Debates on the First Reading of Government Bills. Then, Sir, a new burden had arisen, and which, I confess, so far as I am responsible for business, I greatly object to, and that is the constant interjection of private Bills at the beginning of business. All I say is, that it is a new inroad upon the Government time: and I observe that Gentlemen have taken very good care always to put down these Bills which are to be debated on Government nights. That is a very large reduction of the time at the disposal of the Government. There is another thing—Supply takes, in the early part of the Session, a much larger share of time than it used to take in former days. I have a list of the days devoted to Supply before the end of the financial year in former times, and I find that the number is six or seven, or at the most eight. But now we are getting up to as much as 12 days, this year 11 days being given to Supply, and that is very nearly double the time which used to be given a few years ago.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: Does that estimate include the Navy Vote?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes. It includes the Army and Navy votes, and all those votes which it is necessary to take before the close of the financial year. In the last three years there has been more time given to those Votes than in any previous three years under similar circumstances. I am not criticising, I am not condemning, and I am not complaining of it. I am only showing that year by year the time at the disposal of the Government is trenched upon so as to make it increasingly necessary, as the Session proceeds, that the Government should have more time placed at their disposal for the conduct of public business. Of course, I know that there will be renewed against this Motion the objections of the non-official Members, as I described them last year. I was

  47
  told that I ought to have called them "the non-official and ex-official Members,'' and I adopt that corrected definition. I have often heard it stated in the House that non-official Members regard the two Front Benches as their natural enemies. I must protest against that view for both sides of the House, because, after all, the two Front Benches are the creation of the non-official Members. They are their humble servants; they are the instruments to carry out their wishes: and if they are not satisfied with their conduct they can dismiss them any day they please. That is equally true of Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House. They are the creation and creatures of the non-official Members, and the two Front Benches are charged with giving effect to the views, on both sides of the question, of the parties whom they respectively represent. Therefore, to treat them as the natural enemies of the non-official Members is an unnatural view of the case. I will say this to the non-official Members of the House—that it is only through the Members of the Front Bench that they can hope to carry out the policy of which they are the promoters, and which they desire to see carried into effect. It may be that to a great degree they are the pioneers of the principles and the measures of the Government; but when those principles are taken up, and when measures are framed, the non-official Members must depend upon the Government to carry forward those measures and to give them effect. It is only upon that condition that the Government can call upon the non-official Members for their support; and the two ought not to be regarded as antagonistic interests, as if the Government were taking the time of the House for some purpose of their own. That is not so. They take time for the purpose of promoting those principles and measures which they understand the majority by whom they are supported desire to see carried into effect. It is for these reasons that adequate time must, under all circumstances, be given to the Government for transacting the business to which I have already referred. And it is upon these grounds that we respectfully ask the House to give us those facilities which they gave us last year at an earlier period. The House has had
  48
  experience of the result of the concession and of the indulgence which they gave to the Government last year. I believe that the majority of the Gentlemen by whom we are supported are not dissatisfied with the work which the Government did as a result of the time which was placed at their disposal. But it was not only the Government's supporters who were satisfied on that subject; we had independent and outside testimony from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He said:—
  "I do not think that in the history of our legislation for the past 20 years you can find any Parliament in which more has been done—that is, as to the importance of the Bills that have been passed."
  I hope, therefore, that we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's support, because among the principal Measures of the Government are Measures which the right hon. Gentleman himself approves, and under those circumstances we have some right to look for his support. After obtaining from the House the time we asked for last year, it was my duty on July 18, after the Third Reading of the Budget, to state to the House the Measures which we hoped and expected would, in the time which was then before us, be passed by this House. I painfully remember the derision with which that enumeration was received when I read it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite assured me that the Indian Budget could not be brought on until the end of November if the list of Measures I had read was proceeded with. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham criticised rather strongly, and with a good deal of detail, the enumeration of Measures which I then made; and a Motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss the question was made on the 19th. I have always observed that beforehand there is a disposition, in independent quarters of the House especially, to despond as to the amount of business which it is possible for this House to transact when it chooses. I ventured to hope—and I was considered to be almost insanely sanguine—that the business to which I had referred might be transacted before the end of the month of August. The right hon. Gentleman opposite thought that it would be far on in November

  49
  before it was done. But I am bound to say that, with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, my prediction was fulfilled, and the House rose before the end of August, and almost all the Measures which I had enumerated passed through this House, as well as six or eight other Measures which I had not mentioned. That shows that we ought not to be despondent as to the amount of business which the House can do when it likes. I am, perhaps, of a sanguine temperament: but I am encouraged by the experience of last year in thinking that, if the House sets to work, it can get through much more than it is sometimes fancied can be done. I think that the experience of the indulgence and the concession which the House made to us last year is encouraging in that respect. I made a promise on that occasion that, if this indulgence were granted to the Government, they would not abuse it. I claim that we fulfilled that pledge, and that we did not abuse the powers which the House gave to us. Therefore, with great confidence I hope that the House will grant us the same time as last year, three weeks earlier, they granted to us; and I hope that we shall be able to make as good use of that time as we did before. I beg to Move.
  MR. HENRY SETON-KARRsaid that he rose as a nonofficial Member to oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, who had not given the House the slightest notion as to how he proposed to use the time for which he was asking. He opposed this Motion, as a private Member of the Opposition, on two grounds. In the first place, it was an entirely premature, unnecessary, and unjustifiable curtailment of the rights of private Members. In the second place, the additional time asked for by the Government was not, by their own confession, intended to be used for practical legislation, but was to be squandered on a sham electioneering programme, not intended to pass. The policy of "filling up the cup" had been much heard of, and possibly the result of recent bye-elections might throw some light on the way in which the cup had been filled. The right hon. Gentleman had made a most conciliatory and courteous appeal to the House. But the time of private Members was about to be
  50
  taken away, and the effect was the same as if the right hon. Gentleman had made a fighting speech. When a man was going to be executed, it did not much matter to him whether he was led to the scaffold with civility, or whether he was driven there at the point of the bayonet. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not directed to the non-official Members of the House; it was an obvious, but, he hoped, a vain attempt to square the front Opposition Bench. Dealing with the question, in the first place, under the head of private Members, he showed that this was not the first Motion which had been made this Session.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Two Motions were made last year. I referred to the second Motion.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, that at the beginning of the Session a precisely similar Motion was made a few weeks after the Session had opened. In taking this course the Government had broken all previous records, because, though there had been similar Motions before, no Motion had been moved at so early a date in the Session as the present without sufficient grounds. Last Session the first Motion was made in the fifth week of the Session, and in 1893 it was made when the House had been sitting more than a month. It was on these grounds, he thought, that private Members were justified in opposing the premature and unjustifiable infringement of their rights. The Government, however, were so hardened in this species of political crime that of them it might be said facilis descensus Averni; and now they had reached that stage of feeling where they were not inclined to pay any regard to the rights of private Members. There were two classes of Members affected by the Motion—the private Member and those hon. Members who might be described as the official Members, in which class might be included the leaders of parties. There used to be a time when there were only two leaders in the House, but now the number of leaders was a mysterious and uncertain quantity. Including, however, the hon. Member for Northampton, there were no fewer than six leaders in the House, and these helped to form the small minority who might be supposed to look with favour

  51
  on this Motion. But, on the other hand, there was the bulk of the private Members who represented the commonsense and practical sentiments of the House, and he believed they had been in the majority in the past in initiating every good measure that had passed through the House. Some of the majority had stated in terms of undisguised contempt their scorn for the rights of the private Members. For example, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, when a similar Motion was debated last Session on April 9, 1894, said:—
  "Although I am a private Member, I do not stand here as an advocate for their claims, and I may frankly confess that I do not care a brass farthing what becomes of them."
  The hon. Member for Waterford was also a leader of a party, and on that occasion the hon. Gentleman used somewhat similar language. But if these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could speak in terms of such contempt of the rights of private Members, how could they justify the solemn farce that occurred at the beginning of every Session, when several hundreds of Members ballotted for Bills and Motions on the faith that the understanding would be carried out? He would probably be told that private Members made very bad use of their time, and that they did not deserve to retain it. That was an argument derogatory to the dignity of this House. The senior Member for Northampton, at the commencement of this Session, wrote himself down, should he say, an asinine quantity. Luckily for the character of the House, the number of the hon. Member's followers was small; but it would be something like a scandal if the large majority of private Members were to resort to elaborate argument in order to justify them in the assertion of their just rights. There never, indeed, was a Session when private Members made a better use of their time. In the first part of the Session there were two Tuesdays, and only two, which private Members had possession of. On the first Tuesday there was a Motion by the hon. Member for Sheffield on the subject of prison-made goods, which was unanimously accepted by the House and the Government. On the second Tuesday there was a Motion by the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk
  52
  with regard to the Bimetallic Conference which was also unanimously accepted by her Majesty's Government. Whether that was a willing assent or whether it was squeezed out of them was a question on which he would not offer an opinion. These facts, however, were sufficient to point his argument that private Members had made good use of their time. The fact was under the system by which the Government were constantly taking the time of the House private Members were rapidly being turned into voting machines. In support of that view he would quote from an article written in the Saturday Review by one of the Government's own supporters, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, which was the more interesting because the hon. Member was a silent Cicero who only broke out when he desired to differ from his own leader.
  "My eye was caught by an article in the Nineteenth Century for this month, by Mr. Sidney Low, the well-known and able editor of the St. James's Gazette, entitled 'The Decline of the House of Commons,' and thinking such a disquisition might possibly be in keeping with my sad surroundings I read it through there and then. I am glad I did, and I hereby heartily advise my fellow-legislators to go and do likewise on their return here. It will do them good, though it may not make them happy. For what Mr. Low says is that the House of Commons withers and the Cabinet is more and more. The Cabinet, he tells us, no matter what party is in power, is swallowing up us rank-and-filesmen, after the manner of Aaron's rod, or the late cannibalistic boa-constrictor of the 'Zoo.' To myself there is no news in all this. I have been saying the same thing in speech and print for two or three years past, not so impressively, I am afraid, as Mr. Low, but still in a way; and what is more, I have put down a Motion on the order-book of the House to have the Cabinet, as salaried Ministers of the Crown, practically chosen and dismissed by ourselves. That seems to me, as a Democrat, though not, I hope, a rule-of-thumb one, to be the true democratic solution of the problem and defence against the danger. I know I shall not be able to bring that Motion on, because the Cabinet will demand, and we shall have to give them, the whole time of the House, thereby, however, providing another proof of the tendency of which Mr. Low, in the article I providentially discovered, warns us, and which in my humble way I seek to arrest."
  The extract was extremely pertinent to the question. He failed to see the necessity for this Motion, and if hon. Members opposite would only combine with him the alleged necessity would at once vanish. His second point was, that the Government were going to utilise, or rather squander,

  53
  the time in attempting to carry out a non-practical programme. He need not argue that point: they had it from their own lips. If it was intended to devote the time to a practical measure like the Factories and Workshops Bill, he should probably take a different view of the proposal; but that Bill had been relegated to a Grand Committee, thus excluding the great majority of Members from expressing their views with regard to it. The programme of the Government was a sham programme, and he should, as the Speaker had told him that his Amendment amounted simply to a negative, not move it, but vote against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman, in making this Motion, said that he made it on two grounds. In the first place, he said that he had had a similar concession made to him before, and in the second place he said he had made excellent use of it; and he then proceeded to prove the second of these statements by a reference, not for the 1st or 2nd or 10th or 20th time, to a quotation from a speech of mine—a quotation which we are told has been published in millions of copies all over the country. He seems to think it has had the favourable effect on the fortunes of the Government which might have been expected. That quotation, separated as usual from the context, has been twisted into a meaning that was never intended, and it does not bear out the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I said on the occasion to which he refers—and I am prepared to repeat it—that, as far as I know, no Government in recent times has forced through the House of Commons in a single Session so many measures of the first class. ["Passed, passed!"] No Government had passed through the House of Commons—for they were not passed through the House of Lords—so many measures of first-rate importance in a single Session. I repeat that; but that does not go so far as to say anything in favour of the character of those measures or of the means by which they were passed. As to the character of those measures, that is a matter of opinion between the two sides of the House. Those who sit on this side of the
  54
  House may think those measures would have been worthy to receive statutory sanction, but we do not think so. As regards the means of passing those measures through this House I hope there will be less difference of opinion, and I venture to say those means were discreditable to the Government and the Party which supports them. Is it a testimonial to the Government—they are thankful for small mercies—to say that by means of the gag and the closure they forced more measures through the House of Commons than any previous Government in the same period? Other Governments have tried to persuade; they have endeavoured to coerce. I make them a present of all they can get out of that statement. What they may fairly complain of is not that they passed so many measures, but that they did not pass twice as many as they did pass. If they had only employed the same means with a little extra vigour they might as easily have passed 40 Bills as 20. On a former occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that circumstances were changed, and the Government, repudiating ancient precedents, would make precedents for themselves. Yes, they have made precedents for themselves and for those who will succeed them. Do not let the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagine that I complain because the Government have, for the first time, established rules which give greater authority to the Government and to the majority. In the present circumstances in which the Opposition find themselves, and having regard to the future, I do not think it is our duty to object to these precedents—not, at all events, on Party grounds. It seems to me that it is not the Party which supports the Government that will have the advantage of these precedents for the longest time; but I would like the House to consider what is the nature of the precedents which have been taken. As the hon. Member who has just sat down has said, you must not look merely to the present Resolution: it is part of a system; you must take it in concert with all the other opportunities which the Government have of facilitating business. This is only a Resolution by which the Government propose to obtain abnormal and exceptional advantages

  55
  as to the time of the House. Reference has been made to the private Members I am not a defender of what is called the rights of private Members so long as the business is so arranged that those Motion come to the front in which the House takes the slightest possible interest. If the private Members who support the Government now to the number of four or five or six, or whatever their majority may be—if they would give effect to their opinion they would prevent this Motion from being carried; but we know that having made their protest, having deplored this grievous encroachment on their rights, they will go and vote for the encroachment. Under these circumstances, it is not for them that I plead. I only wish to put on record as useful in the future the nature of the change which the proceedings of the House of Commons is undergoing. It is not that the Government propose to take all this time; they have also materially altered the custom with regard to Supply. The discussion on Supply, particularly on the Civil Service Estimates, gave the House at large an opportunity of raising questions outside the Government programme of great importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that a larger number of days has been devoted to Supply in the first part of the Session than usual. That is perfectly true. Why? Hardly because the two great Votes have assumed exceptional importance, but principally because the Government have postponed Supply till a time when it cannot be properly discussed; and therefore we have to take the opportunity of raising matters on the Supplementary Votes. That is the reason why a discussion which used to take 5 or 6 days now takes 10 or 12. The practice of the Government is to put off Supply to a time when it is absolutely impossible to secure the proper attention of the House or to obtain a proper attendance of Members. This, coupled with the fact that the Government are taking the time of private Members, and because they are using the closure and the gag in a way that it has never been used before, alters the position of the Government to the House at large. In former times what was the position of the Government1? It was obliged to consult the minority. It was
  56
  not obliged to yield in important principles to the minority, but it was obliged to make important concessions. But now the Government is in a position to bring in a Bill and to carry it word for word and line by line without accepting a single Amendment; and this has made them more unreasonable and less willing to yield to the Opposition than any Government which has preceded them. I do not say—it is not my present purpose to argue—whether it is right or wrong; but this I do say that it is not in human nature to leave to one Government—I do not say this Government alone, but to any Government—the whole advantage of such changes as this, and to suppose that the other Party will not, in its turn, use the weapons of which advantage has already been taken by its predecessors. I warn private Members on this side of the House who intend to vote for this Motion that they will have no reason to complain hereafter of any similar proceedings, and that we shall be entitled to refer to their vote now as justifying those proceedings. I do not object to the proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. From that point of view I have no reason for opposing the Motion which he has made. He asks for practically and substantially the whole time of the House for the rest of the Session. What use is he going to make of it? We all know he does not want it for non-contentious and non-Party measures. There are Bills which the Government have brought in—useful Bills which have been welcomed by both sides of the House, and which can be passed into law after small discussion, perhaps with Amendment, but without delay. It is not for them that this Motion is proposed; but it is, in the first place, to any Bills of the most contentious character, which are essentially Party Bills in this sense—that they could not be passed at all, even through this House of Commons, if the most stringent measures were not taken. It is, in the second place, to carry Bills by a very small majority—a majority smaller than has ever before carried Bills of this character. The time is required, in the hard place, to carry Bills through this House—if it can be done—which the Government themselves have declared have no chance of being carried into

  57
  law in the present Session. And, lastly, it is to carry Bills which the majority in the country do not approve and for which their sanction has not been asked. I do not feel inclined, as far as I have any power in the matter, to grant time which might be better employed in other business merely to discuss Bills which are not wanted and which are not intended to pass into law. But then, Sir, I have said that the policy of the Government is not approved in the country. That is an open secret. This Government is going on dealing in this arbitrary way in the House of Commons with the full knowledge in the mind of every man who sits on the Bench (the Treasury Bench) that they are in a minority in the country. [Loud cheers, and some cries of "Oh!"] Such a position would be intolerable to proud men. This is not a proud Government. They suffer humiliation after humiliation, and they show that they can accept it without exhibiting any of the ordinary feelings of humanity under such circumstances. Sir, I congratulate them. They have confidence in their slender and diminishing majority. They have, I daresay, confidence in themselves. But they have no confidence in the people of this country, to whom they must ultimately appeal. If they like to cling to Office without power, that is their affair. But as far as we are concerned I do not think it is our business to give them any assistance in this burlesque of Parliamentary procedure, or to aid them in their waste of time in dealing with Bills which are not wanted, and which are not intended to pass into law.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESremarked that the tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing this Motion was coaxing and caressing, and even persuasive. He must say he preferred that style to the right hon. Gentleman's heroic tones, or to the rollicking tone which he adopted when he was dealing with such matters as agricultural distress or starving men. He desired to point out the great injury which this Motion would inflict on private Members on the right hon. Gentleman's own side. He was the advocate of private Members' time. Private Members should have the
  58
  first claim, and place-men the second. He believed that the legislation that would result from private Members' time would be much approved. Referring only to the matters now awaiting discussion on Tuesdays and Fridays, he believed that one hon. Member proposed to deal with the Liquor Traffic; another with the Mombasa Railway; a third, with Old Age Pensions; and a fourth, with the Occupation of Egypt. Discussion upon all these matters was to be stopped because the Chancellor of the Exchequer required their time for purposes which he would characterise later on. Last year the Government occupied 100 out of the 113 days upon which the House sat; and out of that number 53 were stolen Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Every year the House of Commons went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and every year it fell among—Ministers! who stripped it of its raiment, and wounded it and departed leaving it half dead. The Priests and the Levites, the Front Opposition Bench, always passed by on the other side, expecting, as they did, in their turn, similar assistance from the occupants of the Front Bench opposite; and it was left to the despised Samaritans of the Back Benches to take compassion upon private Members. A month ago, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for extra time, a good deal was to be said in his favour, as financial considerations were then pressing. Even now, if the right hon. Gentleman asked for the extra time in order to devote it to finance he would not oppose the Motion, and would even give the right hon. Gentleman more than he now asked. The time usually devoted to the Estimates was much too short. Finance was not, however, the main object of the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion. The main object was to devote it to measures. But what measures? The Prime Minister, speaking at Cardiff in January of the present year, referred to the duty of the Government in these words:—
  "What we have to do is to lay before Parliament a list of measures which we think ought to, and should be, passed in the coming Session. To do more than this is to confuse public issues."

  59
  And, speaking at Bradford, Lord Rosebery also said:—
  "Some five years ago … at a great Liberal Conference in Scotland … I had to tell them that their Programme was a foolish one, because it omitted the one question which must take precedence of the realisation of all their projects, and that was a drastic dealing with the House of Lords."
  Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to deal with the time now asked for by bringing in a drastic measure for dealing with the House of Lords? If not, he proposed to apply it to what Lord Rosebery had told him was "a foolish programme." Ministers had said that the House of Lords was an obstacle to legislation, and he could understand time being taken for the yet undisclosed but famous Resolution which was to remove that obstacle. But the House had heard of no such proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to leave the obstacle where it was, and to take the time of private Members merely to continue running his head against the obstacle. He was not going to attack that great subject without which his own chief has told him that all his Programme was nonsense and foolishness. He could not understand such conduct. This taking of the time of private Members was but the beginning of the evil. Once the Government had all the time of the House they would have all the power of the House as well; and when the right hon. Gentleman had the time and the power he would put the gag upon them and would treat them as Parliamentary slaves. If the demand were made for such an object as the Premier foreshadowed he could understand it, but to make It merely for the purpose of occupying the time of the House in discussing measures which were not intended to pass, and never could pass, was both unreasonable and mischievous.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid, that several hon. Members had given their reasons why the Government should not take away the time of private Members. As a reply to them one ounce of fact was better than a ton of theory; and the fact in this case was, that on the very last day at the disposal of private Members, there was a countout. That was a test of the real feeling on the matter, for hon. Members on the
  60
  Opposition side would not go to that trouble even of keeping a House on the occasion. He should be willing to join in the effort to secure the rights of private Members if the time at their disposal was devoted to real Parliamentary work, but not if it was sought merely to afford amusement for hon. Members opposite.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the circumstances, so far as he was concerned, were not of an ordinary character, and what he felt he had to consider was not so much the mere demand of the Government as the question what they proposed to do with the time of private Members when they got it. Now, inasmuch as the Government proposed to deal with a Bill in which the people of Ireland were profoundly interested—the Land Bill—he had to consider what might possibly be the effect of his refusing, by his vote, to give them the facilities they demanded. It appeared to him, in the circumstances, that he might as well vote against the Second Reading of that Bill as to refuse to grant the request the Government now made.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid, he felt a sort of melancholy amusement in listening to Debates of this kind, for on both sides the speeches were invariably a repetition of those that had many times preceded them on similar occasions. Whatever Government were in power, the Government of the day alleged both special and general reasons for taking the time of private Members, and the Opposition invariably denied that such reasons existed, or that they applied to that particular Session. After hearing the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham he was curious to know how he would vote, notwithstanding the reasons he had urged against the demand of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he was not in favour of the rights of private Members. He seemed to regard himself as an official Member, whether he was in the Government or not; that only official Members should be listened to, and that all that private Members had to do was simply to come to the House and vote for or against the official views of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, although he protested against the demand of the Government, had

  61
  pointed out, by way of warning, that it would be open to his own Party when they came into power in the next Parliament to adopt a similar course to press forward their own measures. He was not afraid of that, however. Conservative or Unionist Governments were not in favour of legislation. It devolved on the Radical Party to propose and press forward legislation. Conservative Governments, as a rule, were only too well pleased when they could make the excuse of Radical obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the demand of the Government because he said they used their time badly. Well, the Government would use it partly in pushing forward the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. The right hon. Gentleman voted in favour of the Second Reading of that Bill, and now he would refuse them the time to complete it. That course of action appeared to him to be something like hunting with the hare and running with the hounds. The right hon. Gentleman, it seemed, would be content to give the Government the time of the House if they would consent to bring in Bills that were not contentiöus—in other words Bills to which he was not himself opposed. But it was the duty of a Government to bring in contentious Bills, and to carry them by their Party majority if they could. The right hon. Gentleman had also talked about the country being on the side of the Opposition. He had often heard that sort of claptrap; it was commonly indulged in by both sides when in Opposition; he had resorted to it over and over again himself, and very little importance was to be attached to it. He agreed with an hon. Member opposite that the private Member was not well treated in the House; there was a disposition to crush him out. In past times private Members had far greater opportunities of taking part in the work of legislation than now. Moreover, they had the opportunity of raising important questions in Committee of Supply, but, as had been pointed out, Supply was now put off until the end of the Session, and even this opportunity also of bringing forward grievances was thus practically denied to them. But when the hon. Gentleman opposite came forward with an Amendment which
  62
  he called an expanded negative, whatever that might mean—he himself thought it meant bad language—and told the House that the Government ought not to take the time of the House until they had entirely altered the Standing Orders in order to secure to private Members their rights, the hon. Gentleman was talking nonsense. It appeared to him that the Government were responsible for the business of the House, and had a perfect right to say how it should be disposed of; they still gave Friday evenings to private Members, and it must be remembered that on Fridays they had a division of time. Really, it was very much the same thing whether they had the whole Friday or only the evening, and he had observed that there was more likely to be a count-out when they had the whole than when they had half of the Friday. It was true that there had been counts-out during the present Session, but that would always be the case until the Standing Order was altered, and the count-out only applied to the particular Resolution or Bill before the House—a change which he would be very glad to see take place. Looking at the difficulties that the Government had got into, and at their great anxiety to legislate on so very many matters, and the hopes that were eternal in their breasts, that they would be able to pass their measures, he was at least grateful for small mercies, and thanked the Government for having given them Friday evenings for the rest of the Session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree very much with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; but I do agree with him in this, that there are certain grievances, or alleged grievances, invariably trotted out upon these occasions and invariably supported by the same kind of arguments, whether on the Gladstonian or the Unionist side of the House. The hon. Gentleman has very frankly told us that he himself without conviction, but with immense reiteration, has employed the argument which has been used on the present occasion. I, for my own part, have great sympathy with the private Member: sympathy not going the whole length of some of the arguments used in his favour, but sympathy which I should always be glad to give practical expression to.

  63
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has represented himself to us to-night in the position, I think, of a humble servant of the House—the humble servant of the majority of the House. Sir, I do not know a gentleman in this House to whom the epithet of humility is less obviously adequate; nevertheless, though I do not give him credit for having that Christian virtue in excess or out of balance or proportion with the other Christian virtues, I did believe that under ordinary circumstances he would be glad to give the private Members a legitimate opportunity of dealing with questions which interest them and, no doubt, their constituents; and the way in which, in my judgment, the Government can best satisfy the legitimate demands of private Members is, not so much by leaving them a large number of nights in the week in which a private Member's Motion has precedence over a Government Motion, as in giving them an opportunity of discussing questions in Supply. I think that point was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis; he, by the way, was as humble as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and described himself as a despised Samaritan. The despised Samaritan has a real grievance, I think, if Supply be treated in the way the Government this Session apparently are determined to treat it. I make this admission to the House—the temptation is almost irresistible in modern days for a Government to defer the great mass and bulk of discussions in Supply to a time when Members are too hot and too tired to spend many hours over them. But I never knew a Government—I have not looked out dates and am trusting to memory—who deferred Supply as long as the Government have deferred it in the present Session. I do not believe we have entered on the Civil Service Estimates at all; is there any precedent or parallel for that? Doubtless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has looked out the dates; can he supply us with any case of a Government, meeting Parliament at the ordinary time, having no special crisis to deal with, having no special strain upon their resources, and absolutely deferring the beginning of the Civil Service Estimates until after a late Easter, and until they had entered upon
  64
  the month of May? I doubt if there is such a precedent; and even if there were a precedent, I question whether it ought to be followed. With regard to these private Members' nights, in the ordinary sense of the word, I cannot go the whole length that my hon. Friend does who moved the rejection of the Government proposal. I do not think the time spent on those evenings is always well spent. Certainly, when I look back upon the eccentricities of private Members' Resolutions in the present Session, and remember the way in which the three hours on Friday nights are spent, I do not know that I should greatly regret it if those three hours were curtailed by the Government. But as a matter of fact, the Government are so pleased at the way in which those Friday evenings are spent that they do not propose to take them. All I can say is, that if Friday evenings had meant more than a Debate and a Division, and had carried any consequences inside or outside the House, or had promoted the development of public opinion, or had had any legislative or administrative force, as the exertion of private Members during the course of this Session have been directed to passing Resolutions for paying themselves, for cutting up the United Kingdom into small fragments, and in favour of a second ballot—the total result of all these efforts would have been to leave but very small fragments of the British Constitution standing upright. The truth is, Sir, what is wanted is not so much an opportunity of ventilating private Members' crotchets as an opportunity of giving private Members a chance of criticising the administrative action of the Government, and the general course which the Government are pursuing. Those are the opportunities which the House on both sides has a right to demand, and it is those opportunities which the peculiar action of the Government with regard to Supply have deprived us of in the present Session. Well, Sir, it may, perhaps, be asked, if I take this view, a view not now expressed for the first time, with regard to what is ordinarily called private Members' privileges, why it is I mean to vote for my hon. Friend when he goes, as I doubt not he will go, to a Division in opposition to the Government's proposal. I base my vote upon words which occurred

  65
  at the end of my hon. Friend's Resolution—words not put by you, Mr. Speaker, because I understand you did not think the Amendment differed substantially from a direct negative, but which seemed to me to have a special bearing on the present occasion. My hon. Friend suggests that the special circumstances of this Session justify us in refusing the Government what many previous Governments have asked for, and not asked for in vain, and what, I think, under ordinary circumstances might, without any great breach of Parliamentary convenience, be granted to the Government responsible for the conduct of our business. The reason that I object to these privileges now is that I regard the whole of our proceedings during the present Session as not undertaken in a serious spirit, by serious politicians, or for any serious or legitimate object. The whole thing is an elaborate practical joke, and, though nobody likes a joke more than I do, I do not think that jokes should be unduly prolonged. The essence of that kind of wit, as of every kind of wit, is brevity, and brevity is the one thing which the Government sense of legislative humour does not appear to possess. I have no desire to weary the House, and I have no wish to go over ground we have traversed before with regard to the objects of the Government; but we have never received a satisfactory reply from the right lion. Gentlemen opposite; perhaps he is going to give us that satisfactory reply to-night. But in summary we all know what their policy is; it has been given a name that I suppose will stick to it—it is the policy of "filling up the cup." Well, Sir, there is something convivial about that, there is something jovial and cheerful about it; and for my own part I am perfect ready to treat it in that spirit, and I am perfectly ready to go through the labours of this Session with the utmost good humour, and without taking things more seriously than they ought to be taken, provided that the Government really are conducting the show for our amusement, and do not make the five acts of their comedy unduly tedious and prolonged. If we meet for business, then buckle on; let us sacrifice our private evenings, let us work the labouring oar with such energy as we possess; but when, after all, we are, by common agreement of all Parties
  66
  and all sides of the House, not meeting here for legislative work at all, I do really think that the Government should spare us the lash, that they should not drive us as slaves are driven, but should permit us to come down more or less at our ease to deal in a genial spirit with proposals which are not intended to come to any very great effect, but which are quite adequate to pass decently and respectably the time of an ordinary Parliamentary Session. That is my objection to the Government proposal. If we were brought here for work I should be ready to work, depend upon it: but we are not brought here to work—we are brought here to play. Well, then, let us play; do not let us go through all the external appearance of immense exertion for objects which are never to be attained, which the Government know are never to be attained, and which their followers know are never to be attained. I suppose that, beyond the object of passing our time respectably, the Government may have this further object in bringing their proposals forward—they may be anxious to inform an expectant country of the kind of policy which they are anxious to further, and (I do not wish to use the word in any offensive sense) to advertise their good intentions with a view to some electoral contest. But advertising is an expensive matter when it does not succeed, and those who spend much capital upon that undertaking, unless they choose their ground very successfully, may very likely ruin themselves in the proceeding. That is the Government's affair after all, not ours; and 1 have no objection whatever to their bringing forward any number of proposals and discussing them on Second Reading, and so giving themselves an opportunity of detailing their inestimable merits, and giving us an opportunity of showing what their effect would be. But, after all, this scheme could be carried out at far less cost of time and labour to the House than the Government propose to exact. As my right hon. Friend the Member for west Birmingham has pointed out, you cannot revolutionise the institutions of your country with a majority which has amounted sometimes to 30, and has gone down to 8, 10, and 11. [Cries of "One."] Yes, to one; but I do not follow the minute details of these statistics. The Government must

  67
  know that their existence depends upon Parliamentary accidents from day to day. If they think it worth while to keep in Office we are the last persons to blame them for so doing. But I venture to repeat that, with an uncertain and wavering majority, you cannot seriously maintain that you can revolutionise the institutions of the country. You cannot do it any more than you could conquer England with a stage army from Drury Lane. You may have brilliant reviews, you may have reconnaissances in force and all the display of legislation; but every Member of the Government knows, all the same, that you cannot carry your measures. No doubt every Minister who brings forward a Bill thinks that his is a measure which will effect a permanent amelioration in the condition of his fellow-subjects. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary may think that the best way to promote religion is to rob a religious institution. I do not question his sincerity on the point, but I do question his own belief that his excellent intentions can be given practical effect to. Then there is the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who has introduced a Bill which contains some good and some bad things. My hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone, who is going to support the Government on this occasion will admit that if the Irish Land Bill is in danger it is because of the superfluous, controversial, and extraneous matter which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has introduced into that measure. Why has the right hon. Gentlemen introduced that matter? Did he do so with the object of facilitating the passing of the Bill? On the contrary, it will prevent its passing. It has been introduced with the object of affording an opportunity for a display of Parliamentary dialectics and of conveying the impression that the particular friend of the Irish farmer sits on that Bench. And so I might go through all the measures of the Government. My point is that the Government have brought forward a revolutionary Programme without having the force necessary to carry it into effect. In these circumstances it would be absurd, in my view, to give them the whole time of the House, which means quadrupling our labours. The object of the Government
  68
  could be most completely and satisfactorily met were they to content themselves with the amount of time which the Standing Orders of the House confer upon them.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 230.—(Division List No. 50.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved: "That this House do immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not propose to oppose the Motion, but simply wished to take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman what were the views of the Government with regard to the course of Business generally, and in particular to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that before the Division just taken he had not ventured to dispose of Tuesday. Having now become possessed of that day, he would state what he thought would be the best way of filling up the time. First of all, the President of the Local Government Board would ask leave to introduce a Bill with reference to Plural Voting. He proposed that afterwards they should go on with the Conciliation of Trades Disputes Bill, and, if there was no objection taken to that measure, with the Light Railways Bill and the Truck Act Amendment Bill. There was also a Fishery Act Amendment Bill. [Mr. BARTLEY: "All for Tuesday?"] Well, they would be put on the paper. It would depend upon how much time hon. Gentlemen thought it necessary to take on the earlier Bills whether all the Bills were taken. Thursday was fixed for the Budget, and on Friday morning they would take the Naval Works (Loan) Bill. To-night it was intended to take Navy Vote 8, on which the hon. Member for Ormskirk was anxious to raise a question with respect to boilers.
  MR. SETON-KARRasked when it was intended to proceed with the Coal Mines Regulation Bill?
  MR. ASQUITHremarked that, in consequence of representations made to him by hon. Gentlemen particularly interested in the coal industry, and in order to give the House and the country full opportunity of considering the

  69
  details of the measure, it would not be taken for a week.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that on Thursday the Leader of the House said he hoped the Naval Works Bill would be taken as the first Order to-day. When he heard that announcement he went away and prepared himself for naval works. But on Saturday, when the papers came into his hands, he found that the Naval Works Bill was to be disestablished, and to-night they were to go on with Vote 8. He did not possess that versatility of mind which enabled him to jump from high considerations of naval strategy to questions concerning the construction of naval boilers. It was very inconvenient this alteration in the course of business should be made, and he had not heard any reason why it should be made.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEYasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would afford reasonable time for the discussion of Vote 8, or whether he intended to closure it to-night.
  MR. G. T. KENYONinquired if the right hon. Gentleman was able to definitely fix a day for the Committee Stage of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Welsh Church Bill would not be taken this week, and he could not say definitely when it would be taken. In reply to the hon. Member for Devonport he had to say that he did not contemplate applying the closure to the discussion on Vote 8: indeed, he could not charge himself with having, since he had had charge of the Business of the House, resorted to the closure more than he could possibly help.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked if the Naval Works Bill would be taken to-night.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that Bill would not be taken to-night, but he would certainly place it in the first Order on Friday.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYinquired when the ordinary Supply was to be taken. As yet this Session they had had no Supply.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas afraid that at present he could not go beyond the statement with reference to Business he had just made.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would intimate that the Vote for National Education in Ireland would not be taken without due notice to the Irish Members.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid that that was so important a Vote he could certainly give the undertaking asked.
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES, 1895–96.
  The House went into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  On the Vote for £3,463,000 for Shipbuilding, Repairs, and Maintenance,—
  *MR. A. B. FORWOOD*MR. A. B. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk) rose to move to reduce Vote 8, Section III., Subhead A (Contract Work—Propelling Machinery), by £100,000, the cost of the Belleville boilers in new first and second cruisers. The right hon. Gentleman said: I feel sure that I need make no apology to the Committee for occupying its time—it may be at some length—upon a matter which is possibly one more for the consideration of the technical expert than a Committee of the House. The sufficiency and efficiency of the boilers of our ships of war is, however, a subject of such vital moment to the protection of the interests of the Empire that I believe the Committee will regard a discussion on the matter as by no means time ill spent. No matter how liberal may be our grants for the Navy, they are wasted unless our ships are provided with good motive power. I freely acknowledge the difficult position of the Board of Admiralty when they are called upon to decide questions of a technical nature, when they have to weigh the evidence put before them by experts. The fault I have to find in the present instance is, that they have adopted, without sufficient evidence, an experiment on too extended a scale. It will be my endeavour to avoid technicalities as much as possible, for two reasons: I am not an expert, and therefore not able to place the subject before the

  71
  Committee with the authority of one acquainted with the theory of boiler construction, and few Members of the House can be regarded as having professional experience. My knowledge of the boilers and machinery of vessels has simply been acquired by practical experience extending over a great many years, and by having to pay largely out of my own pocket for mistakes and failures. In addition, the six years that I spent at the Admiralty gave me an opportunity of appreciating the mode in which matters connected with the machinery and boilers of vessels are conducted. It is impossible to exaggerate the immense responsibility imposed upon the Director of Naval Construction. Should his designs be faulty and found wanting in time of emergency, the lives of our men and the safety of our Empire would be at stake. Therefore, before dealing with the merits of the several class of boilers to which I wish to direct the attention of the Committee. I desire to trace briefly the procedure adopted in designing vessels, especially with regard to the relative positions at the Admiralty of the Naval Designer and the Engineering Chief. From time immemorial, the Naval Designer has not been an engineer, either by training or experience. His attention has been devoted to the form and strength of the vessels, the best position for her armour, and the accommodation for her crew. So far as the machinery is concerned he, by calculations based on previous results, can, and does, determine what power is required to propel the vessel he designs at a given rate of speed. The Engineering Chief and his Department have always been subordinate to that of the Chief Constructor, who, to-day, holds the position of Assistant Controller of the Navy. In any remarks I may make, I wish it to be clearly understood that they are intended to reflect in no way whatever upon that distinguished officer and man of science who, to-day, holds the position of Chief Constructor, Sir William White, or to his subordinate, the present Engineer-in-Chief of the Navy, Mr. Durston. I merely wish to emphasise this fact—that, whilst machinery has yearly advanced in importance to a vessel of war, no change has been made in the relative status of the Head of the
  72
  Engineering Department to that of the Chief Constructor. Both officers ought to have co-ordinate authority, subject to the Controller of the Navy. The speed which a vessel of war attains on her trials is, unfortunately, regarded as the proof of her success. The temptation on the part of the designer is, therefore, to press upon his subordinate to provide machinery that will occupy as little space as possible in the vessel, and which shall also be as light in construction as possible, so that the lines of the vessel may be made finer, and good results be obtained as compared with his foreign competitor. Were the Engineering Chief co-ordinate in authority with that of the Chief Constructor he would be in a stronger position to remonstrate, when asked to design engines of too light a type, than he can whilst he remains responsible to the Chief Constructor. This system has another disadvantage. The Naval designer, in the event of a failure, is not personally responsible. The engineering staff, on the other hand, can urge that they followed out the wishes of the Chief Constructor, and thus the Admiralty do not get that direct personal responsibility which is so essential to secure efficiency. In confirmation of my opinion on the present unsatisfactory position of the Engineering Chief to the Designing Department, I ask to be allowed to read from a letter from one of the largest shipbuilders in the country, and who has had great experience in constructing vessels for the Admiralty. He says:—
  "If we were asked by a shipowner to draw up specifications and make designs for engines and boilers to develop a given power in a merchant vessel we should require to considerably increase the dimensions of various parts of the engines and allow greater boiler power than is permitted in present Admiralty practice. In our opinion the margin of safety in the various parts of the engine and the margin for steam in an emergency are far short of what they should be, and without recommending that the machinery in Her Majesty's Ships should be made in every respect equal to that in the Mercantile Marine, we do think that the modifications suggested should be carried out and the necessary weight allowed for in the machinery. It appears to us that the Engineering Staff at Whitehall in designing machinery for new vessels are limited by the constructors to a maximum weight which we have shewn is insufficient to admit of the machinery of the necessary strength and endurance. This has been proved by the numerous failures that have occurred during the manœuvres, and which would be most disastrous if occurring during operations against a hostile

  73
  fleet. We are strongly of opinion that the capability of the machinery is sacrificed to the hulls and armament and it seems to us if this is the case that the Engineering Staff is not sufficiently represented at the Admiralty Board, and that those responsible for the hulls and armament have a preponderating influence on the sufficiency of such a vital part of a war vessel as is the machinery. We would suggest that if the Engineering Chief objects to the weight allowed for the machinery his ideas should be given effect to, and if disputed should be referred to a competent consultative Board, consisting of engineers only who have had great experience in designing and carrying their designs into execution, and who combine theory with practice."
  It may be said that if such were my views on the matter why didn't I take some steps to give them effect? I confess that the system of a Public Department cannot be changed in a day, nor can you easily alter the status of officers now holding appointments; but the desirability, under such circumstances, of a discussion of designs is greater. About the year 1884 forced draught, as it is called, became all the rage. The demand for fast ships, and, therefore, vessels of fine lines, compelled the Engineering Department to apply the system of forced draught to boilers of all sizes and descriptions before adequate experience had been obtained. Forced draught in consequence of many failures of vessels obtained a bad name; but this, it is contended, was due not to the principle, but to its method of application, and to the design of boiler to which it was applied. In other words, had the engineers gradually made their experiments on a slowly ascending scale of ships and power they would have attained a success with the system instead of having to condemn it. The forced draught of that day was obtained by closed stokeholds into which the air was driven like into a diving bell when under water. Whenever the fire doors were opened there was an excess inrush of cold air which injured the internal parts of the boilers and the tubes. The boilers, for the sake of lightness, had only single combustion chambers. They were also deficient in strength. For example, had the boilers of the Blake type been fitted in a merchant ship, the Board of Trade would have restricted their working pressure to 114 lbs. to the square inch, whilst by Admiralty rules a working pressure of 155 lbs. was allowed. When this discrepancy between Admiralty
  74
  practice and Mercantile usage was brought to the notice of the Engineering Department, the idea of regulating the strength of Naval boilers by Mercantile practice was deemed a reflection upon the competency of the Engineering Department at the Admiralty. They claimed that instead of the Admiralty principle of Construction being too light, the Board of Trade and Lloyds' usage was too heavy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the inefficiency of the boilers of the Blake and other larger vessels constructed at that time, and the present large prospective demand for re-boilering these vessels, is a proof of the failure of the Department to provide boilers equal to the necessities of the Navy. I have called the attention of Committee to this point as regards forced draught, because I believe it has an important bearing upon the present proposal to adopt tubulous boilers. There is the same impulsive haste to-day as regards adopting tubulous boilers as there was from 1885 to 1889 in applying forced draught without sufficient previous experience. So strong was the prejudice on the part of the Admiralty against following, even at a remote distance, Mercantileusage with regard to boiler construction, that contracts for the first Naval Defence ships were made, and the vessels designed, with a provision for boiler power little in excess of that provided for the vessels which were then proving comparative failures. It was only after the contracts were made that the Authorities were induced to increase the size of the boilers, and then the increase had to be limited, not by the necessities of the vessel, but by the space available in the designs that had been settled. Speaking of these vessels, improved as they were by the change of boilers, the engineering firm whom I have already quoted, wrote that the specification was sufficient for the machinery to give on trial the power stipulated to be obtained under the contracts laid down, but if anything approaching the trial power was to be maintained for any lengthened period, the results showed that considerable modifications in the engines ought to be made, and that more boiler power must be allowed, and they went on to add that—
  "whilst machinery might on trial give the indicated power desired, it may be so constructed

  75
  that, when in a rough sea, it may prove to be insufficient in strength, and that the engines of Her Majesty's ships should be so constructed that they would proceed at their utmost power in moderately rough weather for any length of time without showing signs of weakness, and that boilers should be large enough to supply the engines with plenty of steam at that power."
  In support of this contention, I may say that a fair example of the value to be placed on the horse power shown in the Navy Estimates would be 10,000 I.H.P. on trial, obtained with clean boilers, clean bottom, good stokers, picked coal, and smooth water, and only for four hours with forced draught. Under the same circumstances, with natural draught and for a period not exceeding 12 hours, she would indicate 6,600 H.P., but if required to proceed for 24 hours, the maximum expected from her engines was 4,000 H.P. I have felt compelled to give these details, so that the Committee, and especially those Members with a knowledge of shipping, may clearly understand the value of official figures representing the speed and coal endurance of our ships. I will now turn to the proposals in regard to the fitting of the vessels included in the Naval Programme for the coming year with Belleville boilers. I wish, at the outset, that it should be understood that I am far from averse to the Admiralty experimenting with this new arrangement of boilers or machinery, that promise fair results. My sole objection is to their risking the future efficiency of the Navy upon machinery as to which they have not had sufficient practical experience. The Civil Lord, in replying to criticisms of the hon. Member for Gateshead and myself on tubulous boilers, whilst expressing a wish that they had been able to give a longer trial to the Belleville boilers, said, that the Admiralty felt justified, in supplying the two great cruisers Powerful and Terrible with these boilers, and applying the same description of steam generators to the eleven cruisers that are to be laid down this year on the following grounds:—(1) The exhaustive trial of the system on board the Sharpshooter; (2) the favourable report from the engineer who made a voyage in a French mercantile vessel using these boilers; (3) their adoption in the French and Russian Navies; (4) the advice of the Boiler Committee appointed in 1889 that these
  76
  boilers should be adopted for the new cruisers; (5) that out of the boilers at present designed they did not get enough results; and (6) that certain torpedo boats between' 85 and' 91 had been fitted with water-tube boilers. I propose to examine the value which can be attached to these several pieces of evidence. As regards the Sharpshooter trials, I cannot conceive anyone accepting the results obtained by this vessel as justifying an extended use of the boiler in other cruisers, and so far from having influenced the adoption of the Bellevelle boilers, she had not been tried when the contracts for the Powerful and Terrible were made. The Civil Lord told the House that this vessel had been under steam on 13 different occasions, the longest continuous run being for 30 hours; that during that period she consumed 74 tons of coal, developing 2,326 H.P., or a consumption of 2¼lbs, per hour for every unit of horse power developed—a most wasteful consumption of coal, and sufficient to condemn the use of the boilers, whatever other advantages they may possess. Apart from this, the extent of the trials on the Sharpshooter were of such an insignificant character as to be worthless as any indication of the merits of her boilers. If any expert were to examine Mr. Durston's table of this ship's performance with these boilers, compared with sister ships, he would have no doubt of their unsatisfactory character as regards consumption. The second argument adduced in favour of the adoption of Belleville boilers was the report of their engineer who made a voyage on a French Mercantile vessel using the boilers. As to this I have only to turn to the interesting letter written by Mr. Samson (who is the managing partner of the firm in England who have the privilege of manufacturing these boilers), which appeared in The Times some days ago. In it he says that—
  "no engineer who knows anything of the subject would think of fitting the Sharpshooter's Belleville boilers upon a vessel of the Mercantile Marine."
  With this evidence of the maker before us, how can it be urged that any value is to be attached to a trip in a Mercantile vessel using Belleville boilers, which are quite dissimilar to those to be used in

  77
  the British Navy, as providing any justification for the Admiralty in determining the use of such steam generators in our great cruisers? As regards the experience obtained of the use of these boilers in the French and Russian Navies, I believe I am correct in saying that out of the 13 French vessels which are said to be fitted with them, only one has been tried, and that for no great distance or time. The experience of Russia may be disregarded. A boiler on this system was tried at a very low-pressure and with a very old-fashioned pair of horizontal engines. Under such conditions no reliable data are afforded. The Civil Lord placed reliance upon the Report of the Boiler Committee presented in 1893, and said they recommended the adoption of tubulous boilers for the new cruisers. I think there is a very grave error in the complexion given by the Civil Lord to the Committee's recommendation. On page 7 of this Report they—
  "recommend the fitting of tubulous boilers in two vessels for experimental purposes so that data may be obtained for guidance as to the adoption or otherwise of this type of boiler."
  I cannot conceive it possible that the suggestion of the Committee can be construed to mean that experiments should be made in two vessels of the enormous size and cost of the Powerful and Terrible. The context of their Report—
  "That one, at least, of any new cruisers should be arranged to receive tubulous boilers should the trials prove satisfactory"
  is a clear indication that they meant the experiment to be conducted on a moderate scale, and that whilst a new cruiser should be arranged to receive tubulous boilers, yet they should not be fitted until proof had been afforded of their success in smaller vessels. The next reason put forward by the Civil Lord for this wholesale adoption of Belleville boilers was that—
  "out the boilers at present designed they did not get enough results."
  I am not surprised at this remark, seeing how persistently the Admiralty have failed to follow the best mercantile practice, and I think I shall, before I have concluded, be able to show the Committee that they could get even better results out of cylindrical boilers,
  78
  both as to power and economy, than can be obtained from the Belleville boiler. In recent Debates in the House a sufficient distinction has not been drawn between the various types of tubulous boilers. In torpedo-boats the tubes of water which are exposed to the flame of the furnace are of very small diameter, not inore than 1 or 1¼ inches. They are very thin and many in number. The Belleville boiler, which is also tubulous, is quite distinct in character, the tubes or pipes carrying the water varying from 4½ to 5½ inches in diameter as compared with the 1-inche pipe of the torpedo-boat destroyer. I am not standing here to condemn the Bellevile boiler, for I do not know enough about it to presume to do that; but there are some points connected with these boilers on which I can give such information as should induce the Admiralty to pause before they proceed with this huge expenditure. Touching first upon the question of coal consumption. I will give a few comparisons between the Belleville boiler and the recent type of cylindrical boiler used in the Mercantile Marine. On the Sharpshooter's trial of 30 hours she developed 30 per cent. less power than she did on her contractor's trial, and she burnt 2¼ lbs. of coal per hour for each unit of indicated horse power. I can give you my own experience of a vessel built two years ago, having a cylindrical boiler using a pressure of 180 lbs., which, on a series of voyages covering 70,000 knots in twelve months, has an average consumption of 1¼ lbs. per hour per unit of horse power developed, or 40 per cent. less than the Sharpshooter. I am not alone in this experience, for at the Institute of Civil Engineers particulars were given of modern merchant vessels voyaging out to Australia and home with a coal consumption of less than 1⅓ lbs. Apply this comparison to the Terrible and assume the possibility of her maintaining her full power of 25,000 horses on a long run. She would steam 528 knots in 24 hours, about the speed of the fastest Atlantic boats, and would burn 600 tons per day, or 265 tons more per day than on the basis of the ships I have quoted. Steaming from Portsmouth to Gibraltar she would therefore consume 530 tons more coal, and if the voyage was continued to Alexandria the excess

  79
  would be more than 1,300 tons, whilst the total consumption from Portsmouth to Alexandria would be 3,000 tons, or nearly double her coal capacity. Well might it be said that she would have to carry a coal mine with her.
  SIR EDWARD REED: Was the speed of the hon. Member's own vessel a high speed?
  MR. FORWOOD: It is not a question of speed. It is a question of the amount of horse-power to be developed per pound of coal. A vessel developing 3,000 horse-power would be more efficient than a vessel developing a 1,000 horse-power. But I know the reply will be that a full-powered run to Gibraltar or Alexandria would never be required, and that the full power will only be wanted for spurts in action. With every deference to naval opinion, I demur to this comfortable conclusion.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: My hon. Friend has not quite completed his comparison. Are the ships which he compares supposed to be steaming at the same high rate of speed?
  MR. FORWOOD: The really important factor in the question is the power development.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: Is it not the case that the consumption at high speed is greater than at moderate speed?
  *MR. FORWOOD: The quantity of coal burnt per horse power is constant.
  SIR EDWARD REED: Does the hon. Member ask us to believe that there is no greater consumption of coal when you are driving a ship at a high speed?
  *Mr. FORWOOD: Not if you have sufficient boiler power. Before I leave this question of the Terrible I wish to say that I have no reason to suppose that the Belleville boilers are more dangerous when properly attended to than other boilers. As far as I understand, the question of safety only comes in connection with the feeding of the boilers. Now, Sir, what alternative designs are there? As regards torpedo boats, there is the locomotive boiler, but that is unsatisfactory, though the fault is not so much in the boilers themselves as in the forced draught and in their construction. These boilers have been built by marine-boiler makers instead of by locomotive-boiler makers, and from all I can gather, the unsatisfactory result from these boilers
  80
  has been due rather to faulty construction and the closed stokehole. Serious accidents have occurred with some of these boilers, fitted or being fitted. It is just, however, to such makers as Messrs. Yarrow and Laird and Messrs. Thorneycroft, who have had larger experience than any other makers of this description of work, to state that (so far as I am aware) no accident of moment has occurred to any of the boilers fitted by them. It must be borne in mind, however, that the experience of these boilers has been limited to trial trips, and not to constant wear and tear. I think the Admiralty were wrong in ordering over 40 vessels to be fitted with these boilers before a much better test of their efficiency had been had than has yet been obtained. Now, Sir, I would like to say one word on a point that I know will be urged, namely, that you must not compare a warship in this matter of boilers with a mercantile vessel, because the circumstances under which they work are very different. I think that is an entire mistake. Our cruisers are built to protect our commerce. What are the ships that will act as commerce destroyers? Such of the fast mailships as are possessed by France, Germany, Russia, and other countries, that can keep and maintain a speed of from 20 to 22 knots an hour continuously, through all weathers, for 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 miles, all being provided with quick-firing guns. What use then is there in building cruisers with Belleville boilers that can only stay for three, four, or perhaps six hours? No, Sir, the cruisers to be of any use must have staying power. They must be able to keep the sea and pick up improvised warships taken out of the mercantile fleets of other nations. But I think also that, from the point of view of naval strategy, it will be required that our cruisers should be fast and have great staying powers. I believe that among other purposes, our Fleet ought to be built for blockade purposes, and that will require vessels of immense coal endurance and stability and strength. It is well to remind the Committee what is meant by blockade. It is not impossible that such continuous services might be required from our modern fleets as were required by the fleets of 90 years ago. What that demand was may be judged by the reply to an inquiry I made of that distinguished

  81
  naval historian, Professor Laughton, who writes me that the blockade of Brest lasted from 18th May 1803 to 13th December 1805, practically without a break; and the Villa de Paris, on which Cornwallis hoisted his flag on 9th July 1803, did not come in till Christmas day, or 170 days, and again from 12th January 1804 to 20th March 1805, when Cornwallis' health gave way—which is 434 days. It is claimed that the weights of boilers on the water tube system are so much lighter than the cylindrical, that a small increase in the consumption of coal would be met. This is a fallacy, and I will compare the type of boiler placed on the latest Cunard ship, the Sylvania, with the proposed boilers in the Powerful, and the result as given on the trial trip of that vessel. The weight of boilers and accessories in the Powerful will be, I believe, about 1,200 tons. For a similar power on the Sylvania's principle the weight would be less than 900 tons; but the boilers in the Powerful will only contain 64 tons of water, whilst those in the Sylvania will require 348 tons. Taking boilers and water together, the saving in weight of the Sylvania's system would be less. There is no doubt greater safety in cylindrical boilers in case of an irregular supply of water. I feel bound to add that the result in the Sylvania is most remarkable, and much ahead of any previous mercantile experience. The boilers in this vessel are double the efficiency of those in the Admiral class, and more than 40 per cent. more effective than the boilers of the Naval Defence ships. I therefore repeat again that in coming to a conclusion in favour of Belleville boilers, the Admiralty had not the best information before them. In point of floor space, the Belleville boilers will occupy 30 per cent. more room, proportionately, than those of the cylindrical type in the Sylvania. Two advantages will I know be claimed for the Belleville boiler. One is the quick raising of steam, and the other is that they can be placed below the water line. No doubt steam can be raised in the Belleville in less than two hours, whilst six hours would be required for the cylindrical type. But when it comes to be a question of war, I do not think our ships are going to be caught napping with their fires out. Any admiral who allows his
  82
  fires to go out in such circumstances would, I should expect, go up to the nearest yard-arm. A good officer would keep his boilers under banked fires, and with banked fires he would be able to raise steam in less than two hours. The question of the quick raising of steam is comparatively of much less importance than we have hitherto been led to believe; and this is I think the only substantial element proved in favour of the Belleville boiler. The quick raising of steam is undoubtedly a great gain in torpedo boats, but in large cruisers it is of much less importance. The next point urged in favour of the Belleville is that it is placed below water. The height of the Belleville is eight or nine feet and that of the boilers in the Mercantile Marine 16 feet; therefore the difference is five or six feet; but with our present large vessels of war both types of boiler will be below the water line, and, therefore equally protected from projectiles. Therefore, there is no gain in this respect with the Belleville. The boilers adopted for the Powerful and Terrible are even a greater experiment than may at first sight appear. The pressure to be maintained in these boilers is higher than that so far used, but what is of greater moment in dealing with water-tube boilers is the pressure of the steam as it passes to the engine, which is to be much higher than any hitherto used. As this class of boiler has a tendency to "prime," which is a source of great danger and injury to the machinery, I think the proposal may almost be designated as rash when applied to such vessels. We know that boilers of this description generate what is called wet steam. If this steam enter into the cylinder, smash go your engines. Therefore, you have to take every precaution that the steam shall enter dry. To effect that it is necessary that the high pressure you generate in the boiler shall be reduced considerably on its entering the engine. For that reason it has to pass through a vessel in which the water is separated from the steam, so that the steam passes on to the engine and the water returns to the boiler. Therefore, it is a matter of serious importance to determine the pressure at which the steam from the boiler enters the engine. Now the Admiralty are making a rash experiment,

  83
  because in this matter they are going far ahead of any experience we have to guide us. I do not think we should do this by so great a leap; we should do it gradually and slowly by steps. We have engines of a certain type; we did not spring from engines of 1,000 H.P. to engines of 10,000 H.P.; but we went from 1,000 to l,500, and progressed slowly and surely. This is the principle I want to press upon the Admiralty. We are dealing with a very involved and technical question; but the country has a great issue at stake in the construction of its Navy, in the provision of ships with proper, sufficient, and safe motive power, an issue so enormous that it cannot be exaggerated. I ask the Committee and the Admiralty to pause and consider again and again before they run the risk involved in this enormous experiment. It may turn out well; if it does it will redound to their credit; I do not say it will not; but I say it is rash. All experience of past attempts to make progress warn us to proceed much more cautiously, and it is for this I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name, which is to reduce the Vote by a sum less than the extraordinary cost of the Belleville boilers over those of the ordinary type. I do it because I desire in a spirit of caution to ask the Admiralty to proceed quietly, steadily, and carefully rather than rashly, as I believe they are doing.
  *SIR EDWARD HARLANDsaid, that he wished to congratulate his right hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk Division on the admirable statement he had made in regard to the question of the Belleville boilers. With every word of that statement he agreed. As to the advice which the Admiralty had received from their Boiler Committee, he was glad that the House had been put in possession of some really authentic information on the subject. He understood that the Boiler Committee, while recommending two classes of tubulous boilers as worthy of serious experiment—one of them being the Belleville boiler—also recommended that, before either was finally adopted, a very full and exhaustive series of experiments at sea should be made. He insisted that they should have these boilers tested in rough weather, and it
  84
  was only after such that they could arrive at a decision as to the new class of boilers. It was to the absence of satisfactory experiments that he and others entertained so strong an objection. The results arrived at were partial and doubtful, and there was still an amount of speculation which, he was convinced, no steam shipping company would think of entertaining. Then it was said that the matter must be settled at once, but whether the order was given to-day or three months hence made little matter. There was an immense amount of work in these ships, the boilers were about the last thing to go on board, and they might have been left for two or three months longer before a final decision was arrived at. It was in these enormous cruisers that it was intended to fix this new-type boilers, and it was from these cruisers that they expected the best results. He had no prejudice whatever in the matter, or as to these tubulous boilers. His firm in 1880 had fitted a steamer of their own with the Perkins boiler at 500 lbs. pressure, and subjected it to the test of practical service, as a trading steamer for 1¾ years, after which they found that they had to fit the vessel with engines and boilers of the type now generally accepted in the Mercantile Marine. Since then they had been endeavouring to arrive at something satisfactory as to tubulous boilers, but up to the present they did not see that a really satisfactory tubulous boiler had been produced which they would be justified in recommending. He was not referring to torpedo-boats or small craft. In recent years marvellous strides had been made in tubulous boilers for such craft, but, so far as large cruisers were concerned, he was not aware that any such tubulous boilers had been produced which he should put in one of his own ships. He mentioned the Britannic and Germanic, which had been running for 20 years with the same set of boilers. Each had made about 300 round voyages to New York, equal to 1¾ millions of miles, in the heaviest weather to be found in the ocean; and it must be remembered that a trading company sought to have the benefit of the best class of boilers for the work before them. He thought such evidence should not lightly be put on one side. He disclaimed all idea of throwing cold

  85
  water on the progress or development of the tubulous boiler. The space set apart by the designers of the hulls for the engines and boilers was too limited, and here, he was convinced, was the source of great mischief. The consequence was that the engineering department of the Admiralty was tied to a ton or two where the horse power was 10,000, or more. Take the two splendid cruisers referred to. If they were made 10ft. or 12ft. longer, that would give sufficient additional displacement to enable the engineers and boilermakers to put in adequately and properly-designed engines and boilers, not tapered down to the lowest possible point, running great risk of breakage and fracture at sea, so rarely the case in the Merchant Service and so frequently the case in the Navy. They would have much better working engines and a superior class of boilers on board their ships. He was still further disappointed to find that two or three other cruisers were about to be built of the Talbot type, but shorter and broader. If they had more power they must have more coal; but where was the coal to go? They would be at least 50ft. too short. It was when we were called upon, as at the present time, for example, in Central America, to send our warships across the Atlantic that the want of coal capacity was found out. If a warship was wanted abroad, she was wanted as quickly as possible, and it was necessary for our warships to be able to go long distances at full speed. This they could not do unless they had ample coal endurance. In addition to coal bunkers they ought to have coal-holes. He would undertake to say that not one of the ships of Her Majesty's Navy was fitted with coalholes. It was a most difficult thing to get the coal out of their bunkers. It took more men to get the coal on to the stoke-hole plates than into the boilers. Nine out of ten of the qualities required for the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine were common to the two services. and it was very blind on the part of the Admiralty to shut their eyes to the qualities which made the Mercantile Marine what it was. Our possessions abroad were of great importance; the war between China and Japan had shown this. The Suez Canal might be closed, and our vessels, even our battleships,
  86
  might have to go round the Cape. Where, he would ask, was there one of them that could reach the Cape without coaling two or three times, or by going at only nine knots, in which latter case they might as well not go at all? The designs of the ships were very much at fault in their want of length, and he was satisfied that if the designers of the ships of the Royal Navy went more completely into that branch of the question they would find that, not only should they be able to satisfy the fair demands of the engine room, but also to give us ships capable of carrying a very much butter supply of coal, as well as obtaining a much steadier gun-platform, and with the further advantage that they would be very much better sea boats. He quite admitted that the longer the vessel the larger the circle necessary for her to turn in, but this was the only drawback to the increased length of the vessels in the Royal Navy. In the Merchant Navy they had much longer vessels, and officers of the Royal Navy would hardly attempt to manœuvre such vessels in the same space as was constantly done by officers of the Mercantile Marine. He regretted to find from the newspapers of the last few days, that the three new cruisers which were to be built would be positively shorter than the Powerful class of cruisers in proportion to their beam, and he would like to hear the reason for this. The hon. Baronet was proceeding to call attention to the absence of rams from all the naval programmes put forward since 1889, when
  THE CHAIRMAN, interposing, pointed out that this did not arise on the Amendment which had been moved, and which was entirely confined to engines and boilers.
  *MR. C. H. WILSONsaid, that it had been found necessary to have higher pressure than formerly, and to get this very large cylindrical boilers were necessary, and these had to be made of excessively thick plates of modern steel, and hydraulic power had to be resorted to in order to rivet them together. But, even then, they could hardly be said to have done their work in a satisfactory manner. His experience as a shipowner

  87
  confirmed the last speaker's view that the old boiler of 20 years ago still did its work at sea; but then those were worked at a much lower pressure of, say, 70lb. to 90lb., and even with that pressure great difficulties had been experienced. As the pressure required got higher and higher, the difficulties had proportionately increased, and attention was called to trials of water-tube boilers at sea. Experiments were made with those boilers in a particular ship by his firm on the understanding that the firm who supplied the boilers should take them out if they did not prove a success. The vessel had been at work since 1893, and the firm—an English firm—had not yet been called upon to remove the boilers. Other experiments had been made, but the matter assumed much greater importance when they came to consider this question of water-tube boilers in connection with larger vessels, and especially the immense ships of the Navy. He thought the remarks of the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division contained very severe reflection on the system of management at the Admiralty. It was a serious state of things when they were told that such a vessel as the Blake, though of 10,000 indicated horse-power, was not able to use more than 4,000 in a trial trip of 24 hours. The Committee had also been told there was not the accord that there ought to be between the constructors of Her Majesty's ships and the designers of the engines—that the former had precedence to the serious disadvantage of the latter. It was urged that the engine machinery had often to give way, to a dangerous extent, to the piling on of unnecessary weight upon the hull by armour-plating and in other ways. That was a very serious matter for consideration. Where was the remedy for it? It appeared to him that a stronger argument could not have been brought forward in favour of the adoption of water-tube boilers in the Navy than the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on that part of the subject. It seemed not to be generally known that the saving of weight in the use of the tubular boiler was a point of great importance. And not only would weight be saved, but engine designers would not be so pinched for space in the construction of the machinery. There were
  88
  yet other advantages connected with the water-tube boiler. Steam could be got up in very much less time than with the present boiler, and that in case of emergency was a fact of vital importance. The water-tube boiler, moreover, could be easily repaired; a few extra tubes meant a new boiler, and the tubes could be replaced, and the work of repair done, by the men on board. The saving of trouble and expense, that could be thus effected, as against the cost, and trouble, and inconvenience of repairing the present form of boiler, was very considerable. It would be found almost impossible to obtain the speed desired in our ships with the old form of cylindrical boilers, especially in ships of the torpedo-destroyer class. He looked upon the water-tube boiler as a great step in advance. Doubtless there were many interests affected by it and opposed to it; but this should be no hindrance to progress, for there was opposition to every new advance. Personally he had every reason to believe, from their experiments, that the Admiralty were proceeding in the right direction. It appeared impossible for them to get their machinery strong enough, and their boilers efficient enough, unless they adopted the water-tube boilers, which would limit the water carried to about one-tenth part of what was carried in the ordinary cylindrical boilers. At present there might possibly be some want of economy in the water-tube boilers, but a great many firms were bringing out fresh patents, and they would, no doubt, be improved. He had very little doubt that from its economy of weight, and of coal, its facility for getting up speed, and its safety, the water-tube boiler was the boiler of the future.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid, he could himself testify to the facts given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he concurred in the views of the hon. Member for Belfast. He was not without a certain admiration for the defence made by the hon. Member for Hull of the water-tube boiler, but unfortunately he was not an engineer, nor had he much experience of the water-tube boiler. A small boat called the Nero, belonging to the hon. Member, had, he believed, done fairly well, but she was a little boat of only

  89
  about 450 H.P.; and that was the only datum the hon. Member could give with regard to these water-tube boilers. He admired his willingness to adopt a new thing: but, after all, what were the data for this great and hazardous experiment which the Admiralty were making? The Messageries Maritimes Company and the Belleville boilers were instanced, but the results given were inadequate. The points that an engineer required to know before he could justify such an expenditure of the national money were: What was the running of a vessel with such a boiler, the amount of her stoppages, the cost of her repairing, and the amount of her consumption? The Sharpshooter had been mentioned in The Times and other newspapers, and she had been marked down as a cause of anxiety and expense to the Government, and so she was. With regard to the Sharpshooter, it was stated by the Chief Constructor of the Navy that she would run 18 knots under 2,500 H.P., and 20 knots under: 3,500 H.P., but had she ever done it? No, they had never taken that horse power out of her boilers; and why had that not been done? That power was what they had paid for, and what they expected to get. There was another point which had been entirely overlooked by those who had spoken. He wished to approach the question in a calm and dispassionate spirit, as an engineer who wanted the best ships and the best machinery in the Navy. He wished the House to understand clearly that water-tube boilers could not go at full speed without a flaming at the chimney-tops like that of a blast furnace, which, by night would make the ships steaming on the ocean like moving lighthouses. He had himself seen them, and a little while ago a vessel of the Messageries Maritimes Company, which raced a P. & O. steamship, arrived in Sydney with her funnel red hot. The same was the case with torpedo boats, whose course would be marked by night by their flaming chimneys, which could be seen by an enemy. Several hon. Members had spoken of the advantages arising from being able to get up steam quickly, but he thought this was one of the biggest disadvantages that these boilers possessed. It showed that there was little water in the boiler, and the less water there was the
  90
  greater was the danger. The fact was, they would have to manufacture their engineers as well as their boilers if they were to use this system. The data he had given were all the data that the Admiralty had; and, he asked, would any engineer or shipowner in Great Britain spend the nation's money on such flimsy data? The procedure of the Admiralty in this respect was unworthy of them. He would ask, had there been no method by which our Admiralty officials could have obtained the same results without such an expenditure of money, and even better results in regard to consumption and steaming facilities in our ships? He had received a pamphlet the other day, and he had made inquiries in London, Glasgow, and Liverpool into the matter, which clearly showed that there was a system of forced draught which had been adopted in 400 of the steamers which performed the longest voyages, like those of the P. & O. Company, without the slightest leakage of the tubes. But our Admiralty officials had never sent a single man on board those ships to see the working of that system of forced draught. Was that the encouragement which British engineers should get from the Admiralty? He had no interest whatever in the system, and had never fitted a ship with it, but here was a system which, if it had been adopted, might have saved the country hundreds of thousands of pounds. A challenge had been thrown out to Messrs. Maudslay by a firm of British engineers to make Belleville boilers which would compete with other boilers on the points of evaporation, pace, economy of fuel, consumption, and weight; and that challenge had not been accepted because, if Messrs. Maudslay were beaten, the Admiralty would be beaten also. If the Belleville boilers were all that had been represented of them, why had not the challenge been accepted? That was the encouragement which the Admiralty gave to British engineers. Then as regarded forced draughts, the mistake that the Admiralty made was to force cold instead of hot air into the furnaces, and thus they altogether wasted the hot air which was sent up the funnels instead of being made use of. Large sums of money were being expended upon these untried boilers. He should like to see the data upon which the Admiralty had

  91
  acted in regard to those Belleville boilers. They never accepted statements in the North unless they were accompanied by the data on which they professed to be founded. He believed that the expenditure to which the House and the country had been committed in connection with boilers like those which had been placed in the Powerful and the Terrible ought not to have been undertaken before that system of boiler had been thoroughly tried. Would any sane man or any competent engineer, who was worthy of the name, have recommended putting these untried boilers into two large and costly vessels like the Powerful and the Terrible, unless those vessels had been expressly designed for them. The House knew his views on the subject pretty well by this time, and he could only repeat that, before the country had been committed to this heavy expenditure, trials of these boilers ought to have been made on a smaller scale. He challenged the Admiralty to send the Powerful and the Terrible across the Atlantic and back again at full speed. The fact was, that the Admiralty only looked to the full maximum speed trials at the measured mile—a sort of drawing-room performance, instead of to the ordinary cruising speed of a vessel in all kinds of weather. He thoroughly endorsed the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forwood) opposite, and if the right hon. Gentleman went to a Division on this subject, which he hoped he would do, he should certainly support him as a protest against the unnecessary, unwarranted, and risky expenditure of the nation's money in such a manner that, if the vessels he had named were; run at full speed, as they ought to be, it would some day be proved to be a "Powerful" blunder and a "Terrible" mistake.
  SIR EDWARD REEDremarked that, on a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forwood) had spoken on this question as though the lives of Her Majesty's seamen were going to be endangered by the adoption of these boilers, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman head altered his tone in that respect. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had talked as though some perfectly novel and hitherto unknown experiment on a colossal scale was about to be tried in Her Majesty's Navy, and an uninstructed
  92
  person listening to them might well suppose that water-tube boilers arose only a few weeks or months ago. It was true the experiment with these boilers afloat was limited, and so had been the experience of every good thing afloat when it was first adopted. He was surprised that anybody should have made it necessary for him to remind the Committee of that obvious circumstance. Mr. Babcock, of the firm of Babcock and Wilcox, had stated—
  "We make about 600 of our water-tube boilers annually at our works in this country, and the American house make also about the same number in their works at New York."
  So that they were dealing with a type and character of boiler of which one single firm turned out, for various land purposes mainly, 600 a year in this country and an equal number in the United States. That fact disposed of the idea that the Admiralty were going to experiment with unknown boilers. Nobody had ever stated in the House that the dangers to be incurred or the evils to be feared were the consequence of adopting in ships largely employed land boilers. [Mr. ALLAN: "The conditions are totally different."] His hon. Friend was an engineer, also an orator and a poet; but there was not an hon. Member who was not almost as capable as the hon. Gentleman of judging whether a boiler that had been largely tried and approved most valuable on land was going to be a source of danger and injury and alarm to the House and the country if tried afloat. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject put the case upon the ground of the large amount of money which was to be expended on these boilers. He spoke as if the money would not be expended if it were not expended on these boilers. The money, or the principal part of it must be spent on some sort of boilers. His right hon. Friend started with a sentence or two which rather showed he intended to point out some enormous difference between the Belleville boiler to be adopted in the Powerful and the Terrible and other water-tube boilers to be adopted in other vessels. The only difference was that the tubes of the Belleville boiler were somewhat larger than the tubes of other boilers. What was the fundamental change which was so assailed in the

  93
  House? It was that, instead of putting the water round the tubes and passing the fire through the tubes, the water was put in the tubes and the fire put round them. They were asked by a right hon. Gentleman of great experience, a gentleman who ought to speak with almost commanding authority, seeing that he had had six years' experience as Secretary to the Admiralty, not to spend the sum proposed because the Admiralty proposed, in the case of some ships, to put water inside instead of outside the tubes. It would be a strange phenomenon if the House of Commons withdrew the programme of the Government because they proposed to put water where they had previously put fire, and fire where they had previously put water. He did not know what it was that had attracted the noble Lord, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, to the House to-night. One thing he trusted had not formed any part of the attraction, and that was the severe and crushing censures, by implication, which the late Secretary to the Admiralty had invited the Committee to cast upon the Admiralty of to-day. Responsible as he was to nobody but his constituents, he would have been half-ashamed had he said that the Admiralty doctored their reports, cooked their representations, or, as the right hon. Gentleman put it—no doubt in choicer and better phraseology—put the best leg forward in the representations which they made as to the work of the Admiralty. But if he had been six years Secretary to the Admiralty, and if he bore the title by which they were so pleased to address the right hon. Gentleman, he would not like to get up and say, after he had left the Admiralty, what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and still less imply what the right hon. Gentleman had implied. If what the late Secretary to the Admiralty alleged about the composition of the Board, about the want of information on the part of the engineer, about the allowance by the engineer of sufficient weight for the machinery of the ships, be true, why did not the right hon. Gentleman himself alter all that? The noble Lord the Member for Ealing, who had distinguished himself as First Lord of the Admiralty in the late Government, for the admirable manner in which he discharged his duties seemed to have given the most careful consideration to the question of the
  94
  allowance of weight, for in printed documents presented to the House, he had said that, to meet unforeseen contingencies, he had always insisted on an allowance of five per cent. being made for displacement. He challenged the noble Lord to get up in his place and say that when he allowed that five per cent. he did it with a knowledge that the engines and boilers had not nearly enough of weight presented for them in the designs. He thought this was a serious matter. He thought it a terrible thing that high authorities like the hon. Member for Ormskirk should say things in the House which were calculated to shake the confidence of the House in Admiralty efficiency, unless they were absolutely certain of their truth. He did not profess to know what went on inside the Admiralty now; but he would be surprised to learn that when the hon. Member for Ormskirk sat at the Board of Admiralty as its Secretary, and the noble Lord the Member for Ealing sat as its First Lord, any representations made by the Engineer-in-Chief, as to insufficient amounts of weight being allowed in machinery, did not receive proper attention from the Board. He was, perhaps, a credulous man, and too ready to believe good of the Admiralty; but he believed that under the late Government all persons concerned in the designing of ships were fully and freely consulted, and that when designs of new vessels were put forward they were put forward with the approbation of the First Lord and the Secretary and of every member of the Board. He felt rather shy of dealing with the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Belfast, because on former occasions he had been represented as having attacked his hon. Friend when really all he had done was, in an humble manner, to make some defence of the Admiralty against the onslaught of his hon. Friend, which went to the very foundation of Admiralty efficiency. The hon. Baronet had said that if the Admiralty only added ten feet to the length of the vessels in the middle, they would have displacement enough for the extra boiler power which he thought was required. His hon. Friend was a naval architect of the very highest class, and he doubted that he ever adopted so crude an operation as to cut a design in two and add to its

  95
  length amidships in order to get extra displacement.
  SIR EDWARD HARLAND: I have done it scores of times. I have done it twice in the same model.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid that only showed how necessary it was to correct the opinions of even the most eminent men. He could only say for himself that, in dealing with the designs of fast cruisers, he had never indulged in such schoolboy draughtsmanship. What was the merit of design? It was to make every foot of the length of a ship tell, and to improve its form so that the utmost speed could be got out of it. But there was another consideration. He could not help imagining the hon. Baronet in the position of adviser to the Board of Admiralty; and he was sure that if in that position the hon. Baronet recommended that a design should have 50 feet added to its length amidships, increasing correspondingly the cost of construction, the noble Lord the Member for Ealing, if the First Lord of the Admiralty, would be the first person to tell him not to be trifling with the Board in such a way. He did not think it was right to discuss this question in anything like great minuteness. But his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead had brought the level of the Debate to a low point when in his forcible and eloquent speech he demanded why another person's boilers—Mr Howden's—had not been adopted by the Admiralty instead of the boilers that had been adopted.
  MR. W. ALLAN: Howden is nobody at all. It is a system.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid he was perfectly familiar with the system. He had a very high opinion of it for certain purposes; but when he gave it a thorough consideration to see whether it was capable of being adapted to a design he had in hand, he found its excessive weight was so great that he could not use it. His hon. Friend was singularly at fault when he stated that the Admiralty would not look at Mr. Howden's boilers, for those boilers were
  96
  inspected by the Admiralty five years ago. The hon. Member for Gateshead was most inconsequential and illogical on the question of getting up steam. In the first place he said if they adopted the Belleville boiler they would have flaming funnels, and then he admitted that on one occasion he himself had charge of engines, the power for which was supplied by ordinary boilers, and which on that occasion produced a flaming funnel. This proved that there was a danger of a flaming funnel before the Belleville type of boiler was introduced. He could assure the hon. Member that the Admiralty knew their business too well to introduce a system of boiler which necessarily produced a flaming funnel in every ship to which it was applied. On the occasion of the last Debate, the hon. Member told him he should be ruining his reputation, or that it was ruined, by the remarks he had made. Let him, in turn, caution the hon. Member against ruining his reputation. He (Sir E. Reed) had sat in that House for 21 years, and he had come to the conclusion that the House had the skill and discernment to see the difference between the thing said and the way in which the thing was said. He knew that political men cultivated much persuasiveness of demeanour and manner of speaking, and thereby produced much effect, but stormy and violent expression of opinion would not prevail if the things themselves were wrong, and if the spirit in which they were delivered was ungenerous and inconsiderate to the Department criticised. The hon. Member for Belfast said he could not understand why the Admiralty limited the length of their longest ships as they did. Had the hon. Member ever considered that one of the most solemn responsibilities that rested upon the Admiralty in connection with the designs of ships was the question as to what extent they could be accommodated in foreign docks? The Board of Admiralty would look very unwise indeed if they were found to be building ships too long to go into any one of a certain number of foreign docks to which they

  97
  might be dispatched. The Admiralty had also other things to consider, and he had sufficient confidence in them to recognise that they had good ground for the course they took, especially when, unfettered by any conditions, they designed ships which were markedly different in character to those the hon. Member indicated. In these circumstances, they ought not to pester the Admiralty with their own particular views as to whether a ship should be shorter or longer, but should conclude that there was ample justification for the proposals which the Naval Authorities placed before them. He must say a word or two about the suggestion of his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Forwood) as to the great reduction of power on a voyage and long passages of Her Majesty's ships, as compared with the power on the trial trip of a measured mile. He wished he could, once for all, get into the minds of Members of the Committee that whatever a ship could do on the measured mile, and on the six hours' run, she could do for ever afterwards, provided only she was put under the same conditions. The causes of a falling off in speed hereafter had nothing to do with the engine or boiler; whatever they could do in the test trip they could do for all time, if the men were pressed to the same extent that they were when it was desired to prove the power and capacity of the ship. It was an easy thing to appeal to the prejudices of the Committee, and talk about trial speed and voyage speed. If the difference arose from any other causes than those he had mentioned, it would be a serious thing. Let him ask the right hon. Gentleman if he had ever proposed to do away with the measured mile test? It was by that trial that they could judge of what was the ultimate and greatest speed of a ship. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of the vessel being sent on this trip in smooth waters, with new engines, good coal, and so on, and had suggested that these tests should
  98
  not be made under such favourable conditions, but should be undertaken when the tides were running, or when there were waves, and with bad coal. But if they introduced any element of uncertainty into it, then they did not perform a trial they could use as a standard, but merely plunged into a mass of ignorance from which they would never afterwards be able always to extricate themselves. If this had been a Debate having for its object some practical and useful object, he should have been prepared to join with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in making some appeal and suggestions as to modifications, but when he found the Committee invited to overthrow the Programme of the Admiralty, and to remove £100,000 from the Vote in order to obstruct the efforts of the Admiralty to bring in boilers adapted to the modern circumstances of the time, then he could only express his surprise that such a Motion should have emanated from such a source.
  MR. JOHN PENNwas of opinion that the question came very much down to one of the endurance of these boilers. On that question he did not think they had sufficient data available. He ventured to make, with all humility, the suggestion that, to allay any well-founded anxiety as to these boilers, the Admiralty should consent to have the Sharpshooter run as hard as she could run, and keep filling her up with coal as long as they could find coal for six months, if possible, and then see in what condition her boilers would be at the end of that time. It was quite possible that the quantity of coal quoted by the right hon. Member for Ormskirk, 2¼ lb., might have been expended when the boiler was tried by people who were not fully accustomed to its manipulation.
  SIR EDWARD REED: In the later trials the expenditure of fuel came down to 1·7 lb.
  *MR. FORWOOD: For what period?
  SIR EDWARD REED: During the trial.
  *MR. FORWOOD: How many hours was the trial?
  SIR EDWARD REED: That has nothing to do with it at all.
  MR. PENNwent on to point out that it was not quite fair to take the coal consumption of a man-of-war and that of a merchant ship being on all fours. An owner of a merchant ship knew roughly what power he would require to exert to run her from here to Australia, but in the case of a man-of-war a large number of differences came into play that did not apply in a merchant ship, and the comparison was not quite fair to the man-of-war, whether her boilers were Belleville or of the ordinary kind. The fact that the French Admiralty had been using the water-tube boiler for 18 years, went far to show that the boiler was one that could be relied on, or they would not continue to place it in their ships to that large extent. But he still thought our Admiralty had not sufficient data to justify their adoption of it on the very large scale proposed, and therefore he thought the suggestion he had made would put them in a position to say whether the Belleville boiler, as fitted to the Sharpshooter, was one which could with confidence be introduced into Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought he might leave this highly technical Debate, so far as the technical parts of it were concerned, to the discussion that had already taken place between the experts. But, as regarded the attack of the right hon. Member for Ormskirk, he might almost rest the defence of the Admiralty upon the admissions made in that long, carefully prepared, and almost written speech. The right hon. Member admitted that the House was not the proper arena for the discussion of such a question. There was the professional Institute of Civil Engineers, where this question had been raised, and where his right hon. Friend did not appear to make the objections he made to-night.
  *MR. FORWOOD: I am not a member.
  MR. ROBERTSONwas quite sure objection would not be taken on that ground to any criticism that a responsible ex-official of the Admiralty might wish to make. There was the hon. Member for Gateshead, who, no doubt, was a member, and he was not present. But there were other members there quite competent, and when the question was started at the last meeting of the Institute, practically the Belleville boiler passed unchallenged.
  SIR EDWARD HARLANDsaid, that he was a member of the society, and was not present on the occasion referred to. He was of opinion that the subject under discussion was a proper subject for consideration in that House. Millions of money were involved. Members were entitled to explain their views on such a subject, and had a right to clear and explicit answers.
  MR. ROBERTSONremarked, that the hon. Member misunderstood him. He was supporting the proposition of the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division, that in regard to technical questions of this kind the House, not being a technically educated Assembly, could not do more than the Government and the Admiralty did—namely, rely upon the advice of experts. Another of the admissions of the hon. Member for Ormskirk Division was, that he did not condemn the Belleville boiler; and, in respect of the question of danger, he abandoned the whole case upon which the hon. Member for Gateshead founded his tremendous attack on a former occasion. That attack was founded solely in considerations of safety; and terrible stories of dangers, of bursting boilers, of men killed, were unfolded to the House. But to-night the hon. Member opposite expressly stated that he had no reason to suppose that the Belleville boilers were unsafe. Finally, the right hon. Member, adopting the tone of the leading article in The Times, where almost

  101
  identical words occurred, declared that the question was how this great experiment would turn out, and that if it turned out well it would redound to the credit of the Admiralty. The speech of the right hon. Member, containing all these admissions, might almost be said to answer itself. As he had said, the allegation of danger had been abandoned that night: but not long ago the hon. Member for Gateshead had renewed it in a question to the President of the Board of Trade. That question brought to the knowledge of the House the second of the two deplorable accidents which served as a foundation for his wild and exaggerated statements. The accident at Barrow the hon. Member had not again referred to. That deplorable accident, he believed, was not due to the type of boiler concerned, which, by the way, was not a Belleville boiler, but to certain defects in the copper tubes. The second accident was the sad accident in Glasgow, where one or two men were killed and another seriously injured. This was an accident to another type of water-tube boiler, which was being fitted up in a company's works, and was not to be adopted by the Admiralty unless the experiment was successful. In the course of the experiment was a man pulled out one of the tubes from a portion of the machinery, leaving an aperture which was not filled up properly, but plugged with a piece of iron; and at the low pressure of only 75 this plug was blown out like a cork from a soda-water bottle. The accident had therefore nothing to do with the boiler itself. It was highly satisfactory that the wild and alarming statements which to some extent affected the House, and which would have affected the country, unfortunately, if they had not been contradicted, had not been repeated that evening, and that it was now recognised that the charge of exceptional danger was not a charge that could be brought against these boilers. In fact, safety was one of the merits which the Admiralty ascribed to them. He wished now to tell the House
  102
  something more about the history of the Belleville boilers. The attention of the Admiralty was first called to it by two distinguished naval attachés—Captain Sir Cecil Domville and Captain May, the captain of the flagship in the Mediterranean. These gentlemen drew attention to the subject in their Reports in 1891 and 1892. Subsequently an engineer officer of Her Majesty's Navy was instructed to report upon the boiler, and he took voyages in the vessels of the Messageries Maritimes in order to collect information. Then the Engineer-in-Chief, who was the official mainly responsible for the adoption of the boilers, expressed his approval of it, although at first his feeling was opposed to it. He had fallen into some confusion in speaking of a Boiler Committee. There were two Committees—one was a Boiler Committee, which made suggestions; and the other was a Committee of Reference, which expressed its satisfaction that it was proposed to proceed with water-tube boilers. [Mr. FORWOOD asked whether the Committee of Reference was wholly composed of Admiralty officers?] He believed that was so. The next step was the fitting up of these boilers in the Sharpshooter. The Messageries Maritimes boats were practically, as he understood, fitted with the same boilers, slightly smaller, that it was proposed to put into the Powerful and the Terrible. That was the history of the water-tube boilers at the Admiralty; it was on these suggestions, by these steps, and on this evidence that the First Lord last year, and not now, for the first time, announced that the Admiralty were adopting Belleville boilers in the Powerful and the Terrible. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of taking a leap in the dark; but, if it were one, it was first taken by the noble Lord opposite when he introduced a water-tube boiler for torpedo destroyers. [Lord G. HAMILTON: "In one only."] He gave the noble Lord credit for originality and independence of judgment in taking the first step, which was a greater change

  103
  than taking the second. Whether the noble Lord took that step in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman he did not know; but it was to be observed that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely cautious in the scope of his Motion, in which he spoke specifically of Belleville boilers, and did not attack any other water tube boilers. That, therefore, would place him in opposition to the hon. Member for Gateshead, who condemned them all round, whether small or large, whether in torpedo-boats or in cruisers. The engineer and others who reported to the Admiralty pointed out certain specific advantages which water-tube boilers, and the Belleville boilers in particular, appeared to possess. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken vaguely of weak points, and had made the most of the magnitude of the step involved in passing from the Sharpshooter to the Powerful, which, he said, could not be justified. Much had been heard from engineers and shipbuilders; but nothing had been heard from Naval officers. Members might like to know what naval opinion was on the points raised; and after all the Board of Admiralty contained a majority of naval officers, the most distinguished men in the profession. He would read a short summary not of all the advantages of the Belleville boilers—not of the economical, because, after all, they should be secondary—but of what he might call the tactical advantages. There was a great difference in many respects between a merchant ship and a warship; and the discussion had ignored all those considerations that were special to ships of war. The first advantage mentioned in the statement before him was that steam could be raised from coal up to 250lb. pressure in one hour, against from six to 12 hours required with cylindrical boilers. The importance of that could not be overestimated. That alone was sufficient to justify the action of the Admiralty. Another point was this—a point which had never been
  104
  mentioned before—the engines could be suddenly stopped at full speed without steam pressure rising or injury to the boiler, as the control over the steam pressure was greater than in the boilers of the cylindrical type. Further, if a boiler was damaged in action the danger to the stokers and the ship was far less than in the cylindrical boiler, because the water capacity of the boiler was only 1–15th to l–30th of that of the cylindrical boiler. Again, with the water-tube boilers, instantly on anchoring, the fires could be drawn, the grates cleaned, the tubes swept, and the ship ready to start again with clean boilers in three hours, which was impossible with the cylindrical type. Lastly, the water-tube boilers could be renewed without wrecking the ship as was necessary with the cylindrical boiler. The ordinary repairs were of a much lighter nature, and every part was very accessible for cleaning and examination from the stoke-hole. He thought all these were points of technical advantage, and that the Committee would consider them strictly relevant to the discussion. He wanted also to show that there were other advantages which had been more or less dwelt on by other speakers, but taking the war advantages alone, the Admiralty held that they were justified in doing, and were bound to do what their technical experts recommended them to do, in adopting the Belleville boilers even for the largest war cruisers that had yet been built. Those were the circumstances in which the boilers came to the notice of the Admiralty. He had mentioned the experience of the Messageries Maritimes. Seven of their finest and largest vessels were fitted with the water-tube boilers, and he would not say more about them than this—that he had been furnished with a copy of a recent letter from the chief engineer in charge of one of those vessels, written on the completion of her 13th voyage to Australia, he said:—
  "We have just had a splendid trip, and engines and boilers have worked to my entire

  105
  satisfaction. I cannot give better praise to the boilers than to say that on our arrival in Marseilles we could have gone back at once to Australia."
  He would not say anything about the experience on torpedo-boat destroyers; but so far as the boilers of the Sharpshooter were concerned he believed they had given perfect satisfaction, and he would willingly hand to any hon. Member an elaborate diary of the engineer that contained every detail in respect to them. The most practical suggestion that had been made in the course of the Debate, was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, who suggested that the Sharpshooter should be tested as much as it was possible to test her. She would soon be ready for sea again, and he thought he would be justified in promising that no objection would be raised to the Sharpshooter being kept for testing in the way suggested, that she should be continuously used for testing purposes, in order to ascertain thoroughly the working of these boilers. Whatever reasonable test could be devised ought, it seemed to him, to be allowed. There was also the experience of the French and the Russian Navy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk had provided himself with a formidable batch of information on this question, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's correspondents had posted him up as to the use of the Belleville boilers in the French Navy. He believed that the majority of new warships in the French Navy were being fitted with these boilers. A striking thing was that a first class French cruiser had just arrived in the China seas boilered with Belleville boilers, and it had performed the voyage to China with every success. The right hon. Member for Ormskirk had talked about the Russian Navy. But the Russian Government had done precisely what the Admiralty proposed to do as to the use of the Belleville boilers. The hon. Member for Gateshead made a good deal about certain American lake steamers,
  106
  the North-West and the North Land (which was to be a sister ship), and alleged that the failure of the Belleville boiler in the North- West was so complete that it had been abandoned for the North Land. But the engineer responsible stated that the Belleville boilers for the North Land had been in active construction since October last, and that the Belleville boilers in the North-West had given entire satisfaction to all concerned. The Admiralty had not bounded up from a small inch tube of a torpedo-boat destroyer to a 5-inch tube, but had simply taken one of the boilers which had been tested satisfactorily in the Sharpshooter and multiplied that by 48, and put it in a ship that required it; and they believed the result would be satisfactory. If they failed they would be damaged. They might succeed; then they would be glorified. With the experience they had he submitted that they had not done a new or rash thing in their application of Belleville boilers. He must say something about the somewhat astonishing tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks with reference to the Admiralty. Those observations would not have been made in the House unless the right hon. Gentleman had believed them to be founded on knowledge; and what knowledge could he have, but that derived from his experience as Secretary to the Admiralty? In denouncing the Admiralty for doctoring its reports, and closing its eyes to what went on in the world, the right hon. Gentleman must be speaking from his own experience. He made the most serious charges as to the relations between the engineering staff and the head of the constructing staff.
  *MR. FORWOODsaid that he had referred to the relative status of the two departments, and not to the relations of the individuals.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that the Engineer-in-Chief had to submit to the Director of Naval Construction, and had to accept

  107
  lower weights than he would otherwise have demanded.
  *MR. FORWOODsaid that what he alleged was not that the Engineer-in-Chief had to accept lower maximum weights, but that, owing to the relative status of the two officers—the one being subordinate to the other—the Engineer-in-Chief had not a fair chance of representing the facts, if he found the weights insufficient in his judgment. It made him take a risk which he would not otherwise take.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid that he would accept that statement, though it seemed to him to be new. But at any rate it did not conform with the experience of the present Board. The Engineer-in-Chief was not subordinate to the Director of Naval Construction; he was responsible to the Controller. It must he understood that the censure pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman upon the constitution and practice of the Board of Admiralty, if true at all, was only true while the right hon. Gentleman was a responsible Member of the Admiralty administration, and was not to be accepted as true of the present Board. Finally, the Admiralty was not committed—and he wished everybody who had doubts to note his assurance—to the Belleville boiler or to any kind of water-tube boiler; nor would it close its eyes to any type of boiler which could be proved to give satisfactory results. He wished to thank his hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff, for the great assistance he had given him in these controversies. The House had learnt with great regret that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to renew his Membership of that House. He had always admired his hon. Friend's great technical skill and debating power, but he valued more highly than all his hon. Friend's generous appreciation of the work and achievements of younger men.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTONconsidered that the
  108
  introduction of this subject—though it was doubtless technical—had led to a most interesting and valuable debate, which was in part due to the masterly speech of the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division. Of all the questions which the Admiralty had to deal with, none was so difficult as that which related to boilers. Difficulties in regard to ships, guns, and engines, and men, were not to be compared to the difficulty of boilers. Of all the dangers which they had to confront there was nothing to be compared to the dangers as to the boilers. Just think what it meant. Practically on their boilers depended their supremacy. The mobility of their fleet depended on the boilers. If the boilers failed to give the necessary power the ships failed to develop the necessary speed, and combinations of the utmost importance were impossible. A ship was unable to develop steam, and she would thus hamper all the movements of her sister-ships. He was not exaggerating when he said that of all the questions which came before the Admiralty this was the most difficult to deal with from time to time. It was a very technical question. Naval Lords who were responsible for naval affairs might be experts as to the requirements of armaments and armour, they might be authorities upon all questions of supply of food, &c., but the moment they came to the question of boilers their knowledge ceased. What they wanted to have in the Navy was a boiler that would in times of emergency develop the greatest amount of power and speed, and therefore it behoved them to recall what their past experience had been. When the Naval Defence Act was under consideration officers of experience were got to go through every design, and to make suggestions and improvements. But when the question of machinery and boilers was arrived at it was seen that there was not at the Admiralty the ability to check the proposals of the Engineer-in-chief. It was

  109
  too much for one man, and a committee of three practical engineers was, with the consent of the chief constructor, appointed to look into the specifications and to say whether the boiler power was sufficient to drive the machinery for a certain time at a certain speed, and they at once advised a large increase of boiler-power, which, however, could only be obtained by absorbing a considerable amount of weight and space. He found that the older vessels, the Blake and the Blenheim, for example, could not develop the necessary horse-power because the boilers in them were not capable of doing this, and, therefore, those vessels were carrying all over the world an unnecessary weight. As to the torpedo-catchers, as Messrs. Thorneycroft gave a guarantee to construct a water-tube boiler with a three years' guarantee and a promise to replace it with another kind of boiler if not found satisfactory, he had thought it right to introduce water-tube boilers into the Navy, and he was obliged to do so on his own responsibility. They succeeded admirably so far as small vessels were concerned, and his right hon. Friend did not blame the Admiralty for introducing the principle, but for its wholesale adoption. The hon. Gentleman who had spoken on behalf of the Admiralty had, in a very plausible manner, stated the reasons for approving the water-tube boiler; but the vital point, on which he gave no information, was whether the water-tube boiler would enable a large vessel to continuously steam in a sea as well as the cylindrical boiler. That was really the question at issue. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that experimental tests had been made with a number of vessels abroad, but he did not say that any tests were made with large vessels at home. So that they were in this position—they were suddenly jumping from experiments in small vessels of about 800 tons to experiments with large vessels of 15,000, 11,000, and 8,000 tons. That, he thought, was a little too rash. The chief points they had to consider in this
  110
  matter were the safety of the country and the efficiency of the Navy; and it seemed to him to be rather risky to rush into these wholesale experiments without first fully testing the new system with smaller classes of vessel. He desired to pay his personal tribute of confidence to the Engineer-in-Chief of the Navy, Mr. Durston, who succeeded to the post at a critical time, and inherited a great legacy of difficulty from his predecessor. But Mr. Durston had faced that difficulty in a manly way. He was, therefore, disposed to place very great reliance on the judgment and ability of Mr. Durstou, but, at the same time, he did not think that the whole responsibility of this change should be placed on the shoulders of one man. The peculiar feature of the treatment of that House by the present Admiralty was that they gave hon. Members but little information. If hon. Members looked at the Estimates for this year, for the last year, or the preceding year, they would find placed opposite the statement of a vessel being built simply the words "designs not completed." That was practically all the information given. The question of the boilers involved a tremendous change, and information ought certainly to be laid before the House respecting it. Mr. Durston had read a most valuable paper on the subject before the Institute of Naval Architects, and he had suggested that the Admiralty should publish it as a Parliamentary Paper. The Secretary to the Admiralty, however, had replied that the opinions expressed in that paper were simply the private opinions of Mr. Durston, and that the Admiralty could not make themselves responsible for the opinions of a private official. But he had found that the acts and figures stated by Mr. Durston were official, and consequently they must have been before the Admiralty. What he would suggest, therefore, was that the technical advisers of the Admiralty should prepare a paper and lay before the House the facts upon which they had based their

  111
  conclusions, and the reasons for approving the change in the system of boilers. He could not help thinking that one of the reasons why we had got into such difficulty as regarded our boilers in the past was, that the Admiralty had not sufficiently consulted outside opinion. He did not say that in any spirit of censure, but he remembered the immense improvement which his right hon. Friend Mr. Stanhope made at the War Office by increasing the Ordnance Committee. So long as the manufacture of guns in this country was confined to Woolwich the guns would undoubtedly be inferior to those of other countries. Although we were the greatest iron and steel producing country, France had gone ahead of us in the quality of her productions, the reason being that she had utilised persons of inventive talent and genius, whom she kept for a time in her employ. When Mr. Stanhope largely increased the Ordnance Committee, he brought in outsiders, and amongst others Sir Benjamin Baker, the most distinguished civil engineer in this country; and from the time the Committee was so enlarged, and outside opinion consulted, we had gone ahead. But we were also the greatest marine-engineering country, and he could not help thinking it might be possible to organise a small Committee, resembling the Ordnance Committee at the War Office, when the Admiralty were about to undertake any change such as that which they were now discussing; and he believed it would give great satisfaction to the House and to the country. It would in no sense diminish the personal responsibility of the Engineer-in-Chief, but it would associate with any change well-known outside names, and so the House and the country would have a guarantee that when any new idea was adopted wholesale it would only be after thorough examination not only by the naval experts, but by those outside who had the highest knowledge and experience.
  *MR. FORWOODsaid, the Debate had been not without interest and object, and he was glad to hear from the Civil Lord that he accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lewisham to have the Sharpshooter thoroughly and effectually tested with these boilers on board, and he believed good information would in that way be obtained.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid, he had received a letter showing that the French Government were not at all wedded to water-tube boilers. The letter stated—
  "We may inform you that we have received an order for 40 circular furnaces for the boilers of the French cruiser Etreeastenx."
  This letter clearly showed that the French Government were not satisfied with the Belleville boiler.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked if the agreement to the Vote would close No. 8 Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; only Section 3.
  Vote agreed to.
  Progress reported.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (EXPENSES).
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION BILL.
  As amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
  Amendment, Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end add "as amended by The Tenants' Compensation Act, 1890."—(Colonel Long.) Put and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 1, line 12, leave out "it is agreed in writing that."—(Mr. Lambert.)
  COLONEL LONGhoped the hon. Member would not insist on the Amendment, which struck a blow at the very principle of the Bill.
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGtrusted his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERTinsisted, and accordingly the consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock.