Sitting of 18 March 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
QUESTIONS.

  VENEZUELA.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any progress has been made; towards the resumption of diplomatic relations with Venezuela, and the abolition of the differential duty levied by that Republic upon the British Exports from Trinidad?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): No progress has been made.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement as to explanations from the Government of Venezuela in reference to the recent hauling down of the British flag on British territory and forcible abduction of British police officers and men by Venezuelan armed forces; and whether, in the event of there being no reply as
  1246
  yet from Venezuela, Her Majesty's Government have fixed, or will fix, a specific date after which further measures will be adopted if no satisfactory explanation be given?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot at the present moment add to the answer which I gave last week, but the matter will not be allowed to drop without proper reparation being secured.

  FOREIGN SUBSIDIES AND FREE TRADE.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Wands-sworth, Mr. H. KIMBER, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the German Government are, by granting subsidies to certain steam shipping lines and rebates on railway carriage for German goods for the express purpose of competing with English Free Trade to our own Colonies and South Africa, thus driving many descriptions of English goods out of these markets; and, (2) whether the Government will take steps, by negotiation or otherwise, to prevent action by Foreign Powers which may be hostile to British trade with various parts of the world.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,): The Board of Trade are not aware that English goods are being driven out of the markets of our own Colonies and South Africa from the cause mentioned in the question. As respects the second paragraph of the question, Her Majesty's Government do not believe that negotiations with Foreign Powers would be likely to have the effect desired by the hon. Member, but they do believe that the policy of Free Trade followed by this country is, so far as their own action is concerned, the policy best calculated to promote in the future, as it has promoted in the past, British trading interests throughout the world.

  CO-OPTING GUARDIANS.
  MR. C. BILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is necessary for a board of Guardians, when co-opting Guardians under section 20, sub-section (7) of the Local Government Act, 1894, to ascertain whether any of the magistrates, who had at any time acted as ex-officio Guardians, were willing to serve; and, if so, whether they have

  1247
  a preferential claim to be chosen, although they may not have attended board meetings regularly for the past year or two.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): Any additional members elected by a Board of Guardians from outside their own body must, at the first election, be persons who have actually served as ex-officio or nominated Guardians of the Union, if a sufficient number of these persons are willing to act. No limit of time is prescribed within which a Justice must have served as an ex-officio Guardian of the Union in order to entitle him to be thus elected.

  THE BERRIEW EDUCATION SCHEME.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the opinion of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and Mr. Edwardes Jones, that the Order in Council of 12th December 1894, as to the Berriew Scheme, was made contrary to the Act of Parliament, and whether it will be at once withdrawn?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): I have been furnished by the noble Lord with what is no doubt the essential part of the opinion alluded to. If there is no objection I should be glad to see the case and the opinion. I have mentioned in an earlier answer that the action taken was based, upon precedent, including the case of Dauntsey under the late Government, and that the matter was not referred to me. I propose now to refer the whole matter to the Law Officers, and if it should appear that the practice has been taken in error by this and previous Governments, I will take the best advice as to whether rectification is possible, and, if so, by what means.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEremarked that the time when the Vote on Account was to be taken was very close, and he was afraid it would be impossible for him to forego the opportunity that Vote would afford of raising the question. Would the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he expected the reply of the Law Officers would be given?
  MR. ACLANDsaid he would refer the question to the Law Officers as soon as possible, and he expected they would reply as speedily as they could.

  FACTORY INSPECTORS AND SHUTTLES.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that factory inspectors have expressed different opinions on the question whether the words "machine" and "machinery" in the Factory Acts include shuttles; and whether he will issue instructions that these words, properly interpreted, include shuttles; or, if not, whether he will undertake to provide for the matter by an Amendment to the Factories and Workshops Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,): It is the practice in cases where complaint is made, that shuttles are a source of danger to persons employed, to treat shuttles as coming within the terms of "machine" and "machinery," to take the proceedings which are appropriate to prevent the use of dangerous machinery. There have been nine prosecutions during the last 12 months for not providing shuttle guards, with convictions in each case. So far as we know there is no necessity for issuing any instructions in the matter.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS AND COLOUR BLINDNESS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether it is obligatory on railway companies to subject experienced guards, drivers and signalmen to eyesight tests for colour blindness; (2) whether it has come to his knowledge that a railway company in Scotland has adopted a theoretical test which men have failed to pass who have never mistaken the semaphore arms and flags by day or lamps by night, as practically used in railway working; and that notices of dismissal have been given to a number of old servants of the company, thus causing great uneasiness and alarm amongst the railway employés; and (3) whether this is consequent upon any action of the Government or any order issued by the Board of Trade?
  MR. BRYCE: Railway companies are not legally compellable to subject their servants to eyesight tests for colour blindness. The facts referred to in the second paragraph of my hon. Friend's question have not come to my knowledge. Having no powers, the Board of Trade have made no order, The subject is, however, one of great interest and importance to the companies and the travelling public, whose interests obviously require that adequate tests for colour vision should be applied. In 1892 the Board of Trade communicated to the railway companies the Report of a Committee of the Royal Society on Colour Vision, and corresponded with the companies in order to ascertain what action they had taken or proposed to take to test the colour vision of their servants.

  NIGER PROTECTORATE.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the promised inquiry into the causes of, and remedies for, the recent troubles in the Niger Protectorate will be conducted by some authority invested with powers to summon witnesses and take evidence on oath?
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the inquiry promised by the Government into the Native rising at Brass will be open to the public, and evidence taken on oath, with power to enforce attendance of witnesses?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot yet say what precise form the inquiry will take.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain the quantity of spirits the Royal Niger Company sold for consumption by the natives in the years 1893 and 1894, and the amount of revenue received by the Company from such sales?
  SIR E. GREY: The only revenue for administrative purposes is derived, not from the sale of spirits, but from the duty paid upon spirits when imported either by the company or other traders. In spite of the great increase of general trade since the Charter, the average annual importation of spirits has been only one-fourth of that prior to the
  1250
  Charter, and of the total trade of the company's territories not more than 12 per cent. is done in spirits.

  THE REFORMATORY SHIP "CLARENCE."
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is now able to make any further statement as to the conclusions come to after the inquiry into the condition of the reformatory ship Clarence.
  MR. ASQUITH: The conclusions are substantially that there was a failure on the part of the Committee to visit the reformatory ship Clarence with sufficient frequency and regularity; that with regard to the outbreak of smallpox which occurred in November last, the Secretary of State is of opinion that no blame is attached to the captain for insufficient precautions having been taken; but after carefully considering the Report and evidence, he thinks the responsibility must rest with the medical officer, and he has expressed to the Committee his opinion that they should reinstate the captain in command of the Clarence, and he trusts that steps will be taken by the Committee in future to prevent the recurrence of the condition of things which has necessitated the recent inquiry.

  THE ZETLAND PIER, ADRIGOLE.
  MR. JAMES GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (I) whether he is aware that Mr. Jackson, the county surveyor for the West Riding of the County Cork, visited the Zetland Pier at Adrigole; (2) whether he directed a man to spread gravel over it, and that the man had to desist from doing so owing to the tide rising two feet higher than the pier; and (3) whether, seeing that this is the only landing place from Glengarriffe to Trafrask, with the road leading to it, a distance of 12 miles, and that sand and seaweed belonging to the farmers of the district are frequently being washed off the pier, he will take steps to have this pier raised to a proper height in order that it may be useful to the people of the Adrigole district?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The County Surveyor

  1251
  visited this pier, as stated, and ordered the contractor to replace the gravel which had been washed to the back of the pier. I am informed there are two good harbours for landing sand between the points mentioned in the third paragraph. The County Surveyor will make application at the next road Sessions to have the pier paved.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. J. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been directed to the great delay in proceeding with the scheme for labourers' cottages at Hospital, Kilmallock Union, County Limerick; (2) if it is a fact that an inquiry into this scheme was held nearly four years ago by the Local Government Board, and the scheme has since been sanctioned by the Privy Council; and (3) when will the arbitrator visit Hospital and make an award?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are as stated in the second paragraph of the question. I am informed, however, that the Guardians have not yet taken the necessary steps for the appointment of an arbitrator. I shall make; further inquiry in the matfer.

  CANADIAN CATTLE.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, on or about the 17th December, 1894, a report was received at the Foreign Office from the British Consul at Antwerp, that two shiploads of Canadian cattle, landed at that port a few days previously, had been found to be suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, and that most stringent orders had in consequence been issued that no further cargoes of Canadian cattle should be permitted to land in Belgium; and, if so, whether the Minister of Agriculture was at once informed of the fact?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A report to this effect was received from Acting-Consul Lydcotte on the 29th December, and was at once sent to the Board of Agriculture. I am informed that the Colonial Office also communicated the same information to the Board of Agriculture immediately.

  FROST, AND WATER SUPPLY.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if, having regard to the widespread inconvenience caused in many districts of London by the recent freezing of water pipes and deprivation for several weeks of the supply of water to many houses, he will appoint a small departmental Committee of experts to ascertain by what means such an occurrence can best be prevented in the future, and how it has been met by the several Companies?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I am fully sensible of the inconvenience which has been caused in many districts of London by houses being deprived of water owing to the recent frost; but I feel great difficulty in instituting an inquiry of such a general character as that suggested, especially as there would be no means of enforcing the conclusions arrived at. I must point out, however, that, on the assumption that the failure of the supply of water is due to the fact that the water has been frozen in the companies' mains, and that this has been due to the pipes being laid at an insufficient depth to guard against frost, the Legislature appears to have provided a course which may be adopted by those affected. The Metropolis Water Act, 1852, enacts as follows:—"If at any time complaint as to the quantity or quality of the water supplied by any company for domestic use be made to the Local Government Board by memorial in writing, signed by not less than 20 inhabitant householders paying rents for and supplied with water by the company, it shall be lawful for the Board at any time within one month after the receipt of such complaint to appoint a competent person to inquire into and concerning the ground of such complaint, and to report to the Board thereon. If, after the receipt of such report, it shall appear to the Board that the said complaint is well founded, the Board shall give notice in writing thereof to the company. After the receipt of such notice, the company shall, and they are hereby required within a reasonable time to remove the ground of such complaint." I am advised that the provisions which exempt the water companies from penalties where the failure of a supply of water is due to frost do not affect the

  1253
  provisions above referred to. If, therefore, a complaint is made to me by 20 householders in any district in London, I shall be prepared to entertain it, subject to the opinion of the Law Officers, which in so grave a matter I should think it my duty to take.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTasked, whether a memorial, if addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, would entail any expense on the part of the 20 persons?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the expenses of the person whom the Department would appoint would be paid by the Local Government Board, but the complainants would have to make out their case before the person was appointed.
  MR. J. AIRDasked whether the inquiry would be extended to all other cities where great inconvenience had been felt?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: No; as far as I know, the section I have referred to applies only to London and not to the parishes outside the Metropolis supplied by the London water companies.
  MR. M. BIDDULPHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the allegation that ratepayers in London who had paid their water rates in advance had no remedy against the New River and other Companies which had failed to supply them for 55 days during the late frost, and since, he proposed to take any steps to remedy this state of things?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I think, if the premisses of the hon. Member are accurate, that the question is well worthy of consideration in any future legislation affecting the water companies.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in some, districts of London no water had been supplied for over a period of six weeks, and that intimation had been given that no water need be expected for another month?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I have already dealt with the subject in answer to a previous question.

  JABEZ BALFOUR.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
  1254
  for Foreign Affairs whether the extradition of Jabez Balfour has been granted or decided on, the proceedings at Salta notwithstanding?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Vice-Consul and police officers have gone to Salta in expectation of the surrender of Jabez Balfour. They should arrive there to-day, and will communicate by telegraph.
  MR. DARLINGasked whether the hon. Gentleman had any information as to the probable extradition of Jabez Balfour, or whether his information was limited to the fact that the officers had gone to Salta?
  SIR E. GREYsaid, that the officers had gone to Salta in expectation of the surrender of Jabez Balfour. They would communicate by telegraph from there, and as soon as they did so he would be glad to give the information.

  LUNATICS.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the great increase in the registered numbers of the insane during the five years ending 31st December, 1893, he will grant the Return relating to Lunatic Asylums which stands on the Paper this day?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Lunacy Commissioners will be glad to furnish the Return.

  OCEAN DERELICTS.
  MR. J. C. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 14th instant Captain Taylor reported at Queenstown having sighted the American three-masted schooner Florence J. Allen, with only the lower part of her mizen mast standing, abandoned by all on board, in latitude 36.30 N., longitude 37.38 W., and on the next day sighted another derelict in latitude 36.11 N., longitude 63.25 W., that both these derelicts were drifting in the track of Atlantic steamships, and were most dangerous to navigation; and will the Board of Trade order the Trinity Board to send in search for these dangerous derelicts, or, failing this, arrange with the Liverpool Tug Company, who succeeded recently in finding the derelict Loch Maree

  1255
  and towing her into Belfast Harbour, to do so?
  MR. BRYCE: I have communicated with the Collector of Customs at Queens-town, and find that Captain Taylor, of the ss. Yoxford, who arrived there on the 13th instant, did not report to him having passed any derelicts. I may add that, according to the report published in the London Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of the 14th instant, the, Yoxford only passed one derelict, the name of which is unknown. This was on the 25th ultimo, and in latitude 38.11 N. and longitude 64.25 W., which does not agree with either of the bearings given by the hon. Member. I can scarcely think that the hon. Gentleman is serious in suggesting that the Trinity House should send in search of a derelict which three weeks ago was in the neighbourhood of Bermuda. As to the Liverpool Tug Company, I can only refer him to my reply of the 4th instant.

  CAGE ACCIDENTS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the verdict of the jury in the inquest on the bodies of the seven men who were killed owing to the snapping of the rope of the cage by which they were descending the shaft of the Snailbeach Quartz Mine, Shropshire, on the 6th instant, namely, that the rope had not been properly looked after and had been used too long; whether he is aware that it was given in evidence that the rope had not been changed for eight years, and had not been repaired; and that John Lee, a mining expert of 30 years' experience, swore the rope was very badly corroded internally, and was not capable of carrying its own weight; and if he can state what steps the Home Office propose to take in the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have not yet received the necessary information to enable me to answer my hon. Friend's question, and would be glad if he would put it down again for some other day.

  THE BRISTOL CHANNEL PORTS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what (if
  1256
  any) steps are being taken by the Government to make provision for the protection of the coal ports in the Bristol Channel in the event of war?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): The Bristol Channel has already a powerful defence in batteries and mine-fields, and provision for a new battery in the neighbourhood of Barry Docks appears in the present Estimates. As money becomes available, some of the armaments will be modernised, but other ports are held to be in more immediate need of protection. I may add that the proximity of the strongly-fortified naval base of Milford Haven confers a security on the Bristol Channel which is wanting in other cases. But the importance of the defence of the ports in question is fully recognised.
  MR. J. D. BURNIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the associated Chambers of Commerce at their meeting last week unanimously decided that defensive works are required for the protection of the Bristol Channel coal ports?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No doubt it is essential to have additional protection for the Severn, but the Severn and its estuary are not nearly so exposed to attack as certain other places round the coast to which we are devoting our attention. The Severn will have its turn when its turn comes.

  THE WELSH CHURCH BILL.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended by Clause 6, Sub-section (1) (a), of the Established Church Wales Bill that the amount of £976 6s., given in Return 240 of last Session as being derived by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from ground rents in the parish of Aberdare, is to be vested by the Welsh Commissioners in the Aberdare District Council, or whether it will form part of the central fund, to be applied, in the first instance, towards payment of the expenses of carrying the Act into operation, and subject thereto to purposes for the benefit of Wales generally?
  MR. ASQUITH: The ground rents to which my hon. Friend refers, not being attached to a parochial benefice,

  1257
  will come within the operation of Clause 9, paragraph (b), and therefore will be appropriated in the manner indicated in the second paragraph of his question. I may, however, remind him of the duty imposed upon the Commissioners by Sub-section (2) of Clause 9 to pay due regard to the wants and circumstances of the parish in which the property is situate, and to the circumstances of each particular case.

  COLONEL, MITCHELLS CLAIMS.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he received, about the 22nd November, 1894, a Petition of grace, with a letter, from Colonel Edward Mitchell, R.E., retired, for transmittance to the Queen, humbly praying to be paid certain money alleged to be due to him from the Treasury since January, 1890, and supporting his requests by a Copy of a Certificate, dated 1st June, 1894, from Mr. A. R. Jelf, Q,C., setting forth the facts of the case; will he explain why this petition was kept about five weeks at the Home Office; and then returned to the gallant officer; and, whether he will lay this Petition and the Copy of the Certificate upon the Table of the House, and cause the same to be printed and circulated?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): Petitions have been repeatedly sent by Colonel Edward Mitchell, R.E., to the Home Office. The case has been tried by petition of right in the Queen's Bench, and also on a motion for a mandamus carried to the Court of Appeal. On November 22, 1894, a petition, with several other documents, was sent by Colonel Mitchell to the Home Office, together with a letter requesting that the Petition might not be sent to the War Office. On November 30 a reply was sent to Colonel Mitchell that the Secretary of State could not help him, the matter being one for the War Office, and the Petition was returned to him. He has called several times at the Home Office, and been informed that the matter of recommending his Petition is for the Secretary of State for War, without whose concurrence the
  1258
  Home Secretary cannot undertake to recommend it to Her Majesty. There is no ground for laying the Petition or the Certificate on the Table of the House.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, by the Royal Warrants of 1881 and 1884, a selected number of Majors and Lieutenant-Colonels of the scientific corps of the Army, the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers were compulsorily placed on half-pay at the expiration of five years' service in the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel; whether they were promised in those Warrants compensation for any loss sustained by the operation of later Warrants than that of 1872; whether the principle was applied to all the officers except Colonel Mitchell, Royal Engineers; whether all the officers received full compensation on actuarial valuation, prepared by a War Office official, except Colonel Mitchell; and, why that officer was singled out to receive only part compensation?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can be aware through how many hands the case of Colonel Mitchell has passed. It has been decided and redecided, and has formed the subject of judicial proceedings, and I am not disposed to re-open it. I may add, however, that it is an entire mistake to suppose that Colonel Mitchell's case has been dealt with in an exceptional way.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS IN THE BOER REPUBLIC.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement made in the Johannesburg Times of the 1st February, to the effect that a Boer field-cornet of the name of Bodinstein had cleared out the representatives of the firm of Messrs. E. Harvey from the town of Krugersdorp on the ground that they were Asiatics; whether they were, in fact, natives of India and British subjects; whether the law of the Boer Republic permits the expulsion of peaceable traders on no other ground save that of their nationality; and, whether he will make full inquiry into the circumstances of this case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): If my hon. Friend will forward me the statement to which he refers, and the facts appear to justify inquiry, inquiry shall be made into the matter.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will again inquire into the destitute condition of the people in some of the electoral divisions of the Castletown Berehaven Union, especially those who reside on the seaboard between Glengariffe, who derive no benefit from the fishing industry, but who depend solely on the produce of their small holdings for subsistence?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board's Inspector will again visit this district in the course of a day or two, and report further on the condition of the people.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a Resolution passed by the Ennis Board of Guardians regarding the distress in the vicinity of Ennis; and whether it is intended by the Government to carry out the suggestion of the Guardians by the opening of some relief works?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. Inquiries have been made on various occasions into the condition of the people in the Ennis Union, and, also into the statements contained in the Resolution; but the Local Government Board, upon the information before them, are unable to report that it is at present necessary to open relief works in the district. It is observed that the Resolution of the Guardians refers chiefly to the distress amongst labourers, and these, I understand, are now likely to find employment, as the spring work has commenced.
  MR. J. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will cause inquiries to be made into the condition of the labourers in the district of Skule, Croom Union, County Limerick, where hundreds of families are collected together in less than a square mile of
  1260
  cutaway bog, and are suffering great destitution; and whether it would be possible to provide some employment as a relief work by completing a road through this bog, a portion of which has been approved of at the road session held at Ballyneety?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board inform me that they are not aware of the existence of unusual destitution in this locality, or of the prevalence of distress which cannot be met out of the resources of the ordinary Poor Law. The Croom Union is very well circumstanced, with moderate rates, and a very high valuation per head of the population, and the numbers on outdoor relief is now less than at the corresponding period last year.
  MR. J. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the relief works which have been started in the Benbrack Division, in the Bawnboy Union, a number of labourers from the adjoining division of Cloverhill, in South Leitrim, were refused work because they lived about a quarter of a mile within the boundary of the county of Leitrim; and whether he will give directions to have relief works opened in the electoral divisions of Bawnboy Union, which are situated in South Leitrim, so as to afford employment to the people, who are in a state of acute distress, and willing to work at the low rate of wages paid at the relief works?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that the persons referred to were not refused work because they lived in another county, but because the necessity for their employment was not considered to have arisen. It is, however, intended to employ a number of these people very shortly upon the works in question.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Termon, in Donegal, where he proposes to give employment to the Glenvar fishermen, is 12 miles distant from Glenvar; whether the men are expected to travel that distance daily, or are to be allowed anything for lodging over and above the small weekly pay; whether he can find employment for them nearer their own homes; and whether he is aware that the fishermen, have

  1261
  asked for the erection of a boat-slip in Bunnington Bay, Glenvar, and for the construction of a breakwater at Newbridge, the latter project having the approval of the Congested Districts Board, which Board is, however, unable to undertake the work from want of funds?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I now learn that the relief work at Termon is not conveniently situated for the employment of the Glenvar fishermen, and accordingly a work will be opened for these people nearer their homes. I cannot undertake to say that either of the particular works referred to by my hon. Friend will be selected, but they have been brought under the notice of the engineer in charge.
  Mr. J. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a report from the Local Government Board for Ireland as to the distress in some of the electoral divisions of the Bantry Union; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to alleviate it?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board's Inspector has recently visited the Bantry Union, and made careful inquiries as to the condition of the people. He reports that he has not discovered the existence of any wide spread destitution in the locality, nor has any representation been made to him that abnormal distress prevails; with the milder weather and the improvement in the fishing, the Board have come to the opinion the people in the congested parts of this Union will be able to tide over their present difficulties, but the Inspector will visit the district again very shortly, and will report at once if exceptional measures are required to supplement the resources of the Poor Law.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a report as to distress existing in some portions of the Schull Unions; and whether he will take immediate steps to find work for the people who are destitute.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board's Inspector has frequently visited this Union, and, so recently as the 8th instant, visited the district of Goleen. The Inspector states that the general harvest was a good one, and that
  1262
  the Guardians have not thought it necessary to apply for a seed potato loan, which is, of course, an indication. The Inspector will exercise a careful supervision over this Union, but at present its circumstances are not such as to necessitate the laying out of relief works.

  COLLECTION OF CESS IN COUNTY GALWAY.
  MR. P. J. FOLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government have taken any action in reference to the admitted illegalities of cess collector Mongan, of the barony of Ballinahinch, County Galway, who on recent occasions charged more than 1s. in the £ for expense of distraining for county cess?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Irish Government are in communication with the Grand Jury in the matter referred to.

  CHURCH OF ALL HALLOWS.
  MR. D. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he can state what steps had been taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to remove the human remains interred in the Church of All Hallows the Great, Upper Thames Street, before the sale of the site to the New City of London Brewery Company, for the purpose of extending their brewery; and, whether there is any precedent for the sale of consecrated ground by the Eeclesiastical Commissioners to a brewery company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds): The sale of All Hallows the Great Church, Upper Thames Street, was authorised by Order in Council under the Union of Benefices Act. Proper arrangements were made, with my sanction, for the removal of the human remains. If the relatives wished to make the removal, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to contribute to the cost; in other cases they were to arrange for their removal, under the superintendence of the Medical Officer of Health for the City, to Ilford Cemetery, or to Woking. I have no reason to doubt that these arrangements were duly carried out. There have been 14 cases

  1263
  of similar sales under the same Act. The sale is by auction, and I cannot say to what purpose the sites were afterwards devoted.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' FUND.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what was the net capital of the Irish National Teachers' Fund on the 31st December, 1894?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T.HIBBERT, Oldham): The Fund will be re-valued as from the 31st December, 1895. Until that has been done, it is not possible to state the net capital.

  INSPECTORS OF DRAWING.
  MR. H. Y. B. LOPES: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, what is the number of the inspectors of drawing employed by the Science and Art Department, and the amount of the salaries paid to them?
  MR. ACLAND: If I am right in assuming that, by "inspectors of drawing" the hon. Member refers to inspectors of drawing in elementary schools, I have to state that all the staff of permanent inspectors are employed for some portion of their time in these inspections. That permanent staff consists at present of four senior inspectors, with salaries of £600, rising to £800 a year; 13 inspectors, with salaries of £400, rising to £600; nine sub-inspectors of the first-class, with £300, rising to £500; and 17 of the second-class, with £150 to £300 a year. Besides these, there still remain 40 of the old temporary staff of local inspectors, with about the same number of assistants, who are paid by a fee for each school they inspect—£1 for a school with any number of children up to 200; and 5s. for each additional 100 children.

  THE CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland: (1) whether the Congested Districts Board has recently launched a new steam yacht at a cost of £10,000 for cruising about the west coast of Ireland; (2) what was the sum allowed by the Treasury for a steam cruiser for the west coast of Scotland,
  1264
  and what is the value of the fish caught on these coasts respectively; (3) has he observed the statement in the Board's Reports that the cost of administration of their income of £45,000 a year amounts to close on £9,000 a year; and would he state what is the amount given by the Treasury for defraying the salaries of secretary, assistant secretary, and staff of clerks, and how many of the latter are there; (4) will he furnish a Return of the items of administration as passed by the Auditor General, and especially of the sum of £1,367 5s. 5d. for an expenditure of £1,589 10s. in connection with the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, and of £768 13s. 4d. for an expenditure of £957 10s. 4d. for piers, roads, bridges, &c.; (5) Is it intended to allow the expenditure of £9,000 a year of the Board's income being spent on a stud farm in county Wicklow; (6) is it the case that the Board has given £600 for the improvement of the town of Donegal, which is not in a congested area; (7) will he state the terms of the contracts which have been entered into for the approaches and ironwork of the viaduct over the Gweebara Estuary in County Donegal; (8) are cheques signed by members of the Board; (9) and how are powers of surcharge exercised by the Auditor General?
  MR. J. MORLEY: (1) The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The steamer will be employed on the west coast of Ireland in carrying fish, salt, and other requisites, and will also be made available for marketing fish cured by fishermen at the Board's stations—the remoteness of many of these stations being at present one of the chief obstacles to the development of the fisheries in congested districts on the west coast. (2) I have no information as to the matter referred to in the second paragraph. (3 & 4) The sum voted for defraying the salaries in the current financial year of the secretary, assistant secretary, and 17 clerks amounts to £3,321, details of which will be found in the Estimates. During the year ended 31st March 1894, further sums amounting to £6,955 were paid in respect of local inquiries, inspections, surveys, and engineering expenses, and full information as to the expenditure of this amount will be found in the third Report of the Board presented to

  1265
  Parliament in August last. As regards the items of,£1,367 5s. 5d. and £768 13s. 4d., to which special reference is made, these include the salaries, fees, and travelling expenses of engineers and their assistants in preparing preliminary reports and surveys of a large number of works, on the respective merits of which, without such reports, it was impossible for the Board to form an opinion. These preliminary expenses must necessarily in the early stages of the Board's operations bear a large proportion of the actual outlay on works. (5) The sum expended in the year 1893–4 on the stud farm was £2,473, which includes £1,695, the cost of buildings. The expenditure of £6,349 on horses includes their purchase, transport to congested districts, forage, and grooms' wages. Of this amount the sum of £514 was returned to the Board in the shape of fees. (6) The Board have agreed to contribute annually, for three years, a sum of £200 towards the cost of a bridge and approach road from the railway to Donegal, and before making the grant the Board satisfied themselves that the people in adjoining congested districts would be greatly benefited by these works. (7) A contract for the sum of £4,450 has been entered into with an English firm for the ironwork of the viaduct, and further contracts for £1,750 have been entered into with local contractors in connection with the same undertaking. (8 & 9) The Board's payments are not made by cheque, but by the usual payable order system as arranged by the Treasury. The powers of the Auditor General with regard to the Board's accounts are exercised in the usual manner under the provisions contained in the various Acts of Parliament dealing with the subject. I understand that the Congested District Board have now under their consideration, and will discuss the general question, of the cost of their administration.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has made a grant to Captain Eccles, Moneygold, County Sligo, to start a small weaving industry; how much money, if any, has already been paid by the Board on account of this industry; how many hands are employed, and has the Board received
  1266
  any return on the expenditure; can he state the amount expended by the Board on inspections in North Sligo; is he aware that no public notice was given of the Board's proceedings in North Sligo; and will he see that, in future, when the Board proceeds in any district to discharge its functions, the public will be duly notified of the fact?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Congested Districts Board made a grant of £10 to Mrs. Eccles for providing and maintaining a class room for one year, in which embroidery and other cottage industries might be taught, and a further grant of £50 was sanctioned for the purchase of spinning wheels to be lent to this lady for the development of the weaving industry in the district. The total amount paid for this industry up to the present is £23 6s. 2d. About 30 persons receive instruction, and I may state that, quite apart frem the Board's testimony as to the results, I have received from Mr. Rolleston, the Managing Director of the Irish Industries Association, a letter speaking in the highest terms of the capacity and energy which Mrs. Eccles has shown in promoting the weaving industry and other industrial work in this district, and of the good results which have followed from the instruction afforded by this lady. The amount expended on inspections in North Sligo cannot be stated, as the expenses under this head are not allocated according to districts. Full information as to the Board's proceedings are contained in their published Annual Reports, and, in reply to the last paragraph, the Board, in discharge of its functions in any district, give public notice as the circumstances may require.

  NAVAL AGE PENSION.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a Circular was issued in 1865, signed Clarence Paget, to the effect that if a man has been a pensioner for five years at the age of 55, he shall receive an age pension of 5d. per diem; and also that recruiting bills after 1865 stated that a man should receive 5d. per diem in addition after reaching 55; and whether he will reconsider his decision, and grant an

  1267
  additional pension to these men on attaining the age of 55?
  THE CIVIL LORD OR THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The Circular (signed Clarence Paget) alluded to was addressed and applied only to men who, at that time, were inmates of Greenwich Hospital, and the promises therein contained were strictly carried out. The recruiting bill mentioned, said:—"£76,000 a year is employed to grant eligible pensioners additional pensions of 5d. and 9d. a day on reaching the age of 55 and upwards." This has been more than fulfilled, for, as I pointed out to the hon. Member on the 7th instant, a sum of £100,000 is now devoted to the purpose. I am unable to hold out any prospect of diverting any of the sums, now applied for other purposes of the original foundation of Greenwich Hospital, to farther supplementing the very liberal share now allotted to age pensions.

  NEWSPAPERS FOR PRISONERS.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Deartment, in reference to the supply of newspapers to prisoners awaiting trial, whether he is aware that a copy of Reynolds's Newspaper sent to a man named Michael Barry, awaiting trial in Her Majesty's Prison, Winchester, was sent back to his father at Aldershot, marked "not allowed;" whether the Home Office pointed out to the Governor his mistake in limiting the number of newspapers supplied to Barry to one per week; and whether steps will be taken to prevent in the future any such censorship of the Press in Her Majesty's prisons?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed by the Governor of the prison that Reynolds's Newspaper has never been allowed to be received in Winchester Prison by prisoners awaiting trial. Michael Barry was so informed soon after his admission and directed to inform his friends to that effect. The Governor was informed by the Prison Commissioners that there is no reason why Reynolds's Newspaper should not be received by trial prisoners, and no order to limit the number of newspapers to one a week. The supply of books and newspapers to prisoners awaiting trial is a matter left to the
  1268
  discretion of the Visiting Committee of the prison, and the Secretary of State would be unwilling to interfere in any way with the discretion of the local authorities in this matter.

  GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how soon he hopes to move the appointment of the Select Committee promised last Session on the subject of Government printing contracts; and whether he will consent to include within the reference to the Committee all contracts other than printing under the control of Her Majesty's Stationery Office?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I hope to be in a position to move the appointment of a Select Committee after the Easter holidays. Excepting the contract for Parliamentary reporting, which has lately been the subject of inquiry by a Select Committee, and that for the supply of envelopes, there are practically no running contracts under the Comptroller of the Stationery Office other than those dealing with printing and binding, and I am prepared to enlarge the reference so as to include both these latter subjects.

  CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great benefits which have accrued to the poorer agricultural classes of the community from the operations on the Continent of the Raiffeisen system of co-operative credit, as set forth in the Reports furnished to the Royal Commission on Labour upon Germany and Italy, and of the further fact that the Austrian Provincial Governments have assisted in the development of the said system in Austria, he will appoint a Commission to visit those countries and take evidence on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): I think we shall be able, through our representatives abroad, to get intelligence upon this subject more rapidly than by sending a Commission abroad. We get very satisfactory information from our representatives abroad.

  THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that an opportunity shall be afforded to the House, in considering the Vote on Account, to discuss the policy of the Education Department towards voluntary schools?
  SIR. W. HARCOURT: I cannot make any conditions with respect to any particular subject in the discussion of the Vote on Account.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: When is the Vote on Account likely to be taken?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Shortly before the close of the financial year.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: Will it be taken at a proper time, so as to allow of discussion?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The question is: What is "a proper time"?

  CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL TAXA-TION.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Committee will be appointed in connection with the distribution part of the Probate Duty and of the proceeds of Licences made under the Local Government Act of 1888; and, whether this Committee will deal with the whole question, or only with that portion of it which affected the sum paid to the Metropolis, as compared with the rest of the country?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone this question for a little time, because I should like to consult on the subject with the Secretary of State for India, who is, unfortunately, absent from ill-health.

  BRITISH HONDURAS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if order has now been completely restored in British Honduras; and if steps will be taken to prevent any recurrence of the recent outbreak, and the consequent interruption of trade?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Certain labour riots occurred about Christmastime in British Honduras, and it is not anticipated that there will be any recurrence of the disorder.

  COOKERY INSTRUCTION.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is contemplating any action on the lines indicated by the Deputation on Training Schools of Cookery, lately received by the Secretary of the Education Department; and whether he will be able to secure, in the future, that all persons receiving cookery diplomas shall be examined by persons appointed by the Department, and that no grant of public money on account of instruction in cookery shall be paid to any public elementary school working on a syllabus not framed by the Education Department?
  MR. ACLAND: I am giving the matter my careful consideration, and I will make inquiry in order to ascertain whether, and on what basis, an examinatation of Cookery Teachers can be held by this Department, as desired by the Deputation. This inquiry may, no doubt, occupy some little time. It is already provided in the Code that a list of dishes taught during the school-year, and the record of the instruction given, must be submitted to the Inspector. But I will consider whether a syllabus can be framed by the Department of an extended character, from which school managers may be able to make a selection.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been informed that Bahri Pasha, Governor of Van, in Armenia, is intimidating witnesses who wish to appear before the Commission; and if he will make inquiries, and should those inquiries confirm the above statement, will Her Majesty's Government insist on the immediate suspension from his post of Bahri Pasha?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Her Majesty's Government have received a report that the Governor of Van is unfavourably disposed towards the Armenians and Christian population of his district, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople will be instructed to make a representation on the subject. They had not heard of any proceeding on his part of the nature described, and

  1271
  if he had so acted it is scarcely probable that the fact would not have been reported by Her Majesty's Vice Consul, but they will make inquiry.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to a Reuter's despatch from Constantinople stating that, according to authentic information, the number of clerical and lay Armenians who have been thrown into prison in the various provinces for political reasons is estimated at between 2,500 and 3,000, and enumerating the principal prelates and others who are in prison or exile; and, whether, in view of the large numbers who are undergoing punishment without trial or after mock trials, Her Majesty's Government will make serious representations on the subject to the Porte?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The matter is receiving the close attention of Her Majesty's Government, and, in consequence of information which has been received from British Consular officers, a representation will be made to the Porte.

  SCHOOL INSPECTION.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with regard to the fact that the senior Chief Inspector has now visited the Christ Church Infant School, Lowestoft, and has reported that it is sufficiently lighted, that the marching space is sufficient, that the staffing of the school is within the limits prescribed by the Code, and that the average attendance is within the accommodation recognised by the Department, and has also recommended that the School Managers were entitled to the portion of the grant withheld (£24 10s.), whether the Department has paid the Managers the sum of £24 10s. so withheld, and, if not, for what reason it is still withheld; if he can state who is responsible at the Education Department for the refusal in the first instance to send down the Chief Inspector in response to the appeal of the Managers; whether he has taken or intends to take any action with regard to Her Majesty's Inspector; and, whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps at the Department to prevent a repetition of such
  1272
  circumstances in the case of any voluntary school appealing to the Department against the report of the Inspector?
  MR. ACLAND: The additional grant in question was paid more than a month ago. The appeal referred to (which was not for the visit of the Chief Inspector, but for an unbiassed inspector) was dealt with, like all such requests, on the responsibility of the Department. I do not intend to take any action with regard to Her Majesty's Inspector, whose conscientious discharge of his duties has been much appreciated by many managers in his district. I do not propose to take any further steps.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS IN NORTH UMBERLAND.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has now seen the Report of the special committee appointed by the Newcastle Diocesan Society to assist voluntary schools in the county of Northumberland in resisting pressure from the Department, and particularly to the statement therein that the committee had recovered during the year 1894 the sum of £900 from the Department in respect of arrears in the county of Northumberland, which it is stated had been retained by the Department, and the further statement in the said report that in five school districts in Northumberland the establishment of school boards was imminent, but had been avoided through the action of the committee, and whether he is able to explain the circumstances alluded to so far as the Department is concerned; and whether, in view of the fact that the committee have been able to render the Department valuable assistance in enabling them to understand the local circumstances affecting the voluntary schools in their district, he will invite the formation of similar committees in other parts of the country?
  MR. ACLAND: The report in question is the one which I informed the hon. Member that I had seen when I replied to his question on the 28th February. The circumstances alluded to so far as the Department is concerned may perhaps be best explained in the words of the member of the committee who wrote the article prefixed to this report—
  "What was lacking in each case was a little

  1273
  common sense to help officialism at headquarters to grasp the practical situation. My Lords are quite willing—at least this is our unvarying experience—to treat most courteously with managers who will state their case with patience and clearness. In no one instance have we been met by other than fairness."
  The formation of similar committees in other parts of the country is obviously a matter for local initiative, not for that of the Department.

  ALDERSHOT CAMP.
  BARON FERDINAND DE ROTHSCHILD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has withheld its sanction to the construction of a tramway from Farnborough Station through Aldershot Camp; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the ground on which such sanction has been withheld?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A tramway already exists from Farnborough Station, but its continuation through the central avenue of the camp is a proposal on the expediency of which difference of opinion exists.

  SIERRA LEONE DELIMITATION.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state when further correspondence can be laid upon the Table of the House explaining and containing the arrangement come to for the delimitation of the boundary between the Colony of Sierra Leone and the neighbouring French possessions?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I understand that the agreement has been distributed.

  THE TRAINING SHIP "BRITANNIA."
  SIR H. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give a reassuring account of the sanitary condition of the Britannia training ship, where a serious epidemic has recently broken out and several lives have been lost?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The sanitary condition of the Britannia is at present considered excellent. Frequent inspections of the ship and cadets have been made, and every precaution adopted to insure as perfect a hygienic condition as possible. The origin of the late epidemic is distinctly traceable to a cadet who had been exposed to infection previous
  1274
  to joining the Britannia. Three deaths occurred, one in the person of a colonial cadet from Jamaica, who was undoubtedly affected by the late severe weather; another had been the subject of heart disease, and the third succumbed to severe acute bronchitis. The epidemic may now be regarded as practically at an end.
  SIR H. HOWORTHasked, if it was not the case that the sanatorium arrangements connected with the Britannia were too limited in extent in every way, and that a portion of the difficulty had arisen in consequence of patients having to be removed to a gymnasium where there was no proper accommodation for them.
  MR. ROBERTSONcould not answer from personal knowledge; he would consult the medical authorities.

  UGANDA.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELdesired to ask a question of which he had given private notice. It was whether the attention of the Foreign Office had been directed to the very serious allegation of cruelty made in a telegram from Uganda published in Saturday's papers; whether it was the case that the leaders of the native tribes had protested; and what action the Foreign Office proposed to take?
  SIR E. GREYsaid, he had seen the statement since he received notice of the hon. Member's question. The Government had not previously to that heard of anything of the kind having happened, nor had they had any confirmation of the statement in any way.
  MR. DALZIELasked if any inquiry would be made?
  SIR E. GREYsaid, they could not inquire without knowing the authority on which the statement was founded, but if information was given them which showed it was probable or even conceivable that anything of the kind had occurred, inquiry would be made.
  MR. DALZIELinquired whether the hon. Gentleman could tell the House what was the position of our representative against whom the charge was made?
  SIR E. GREYunderstood from the statement he saw that the charge was made against a British official. Colonel Colvile, who was in charge at the time, would soon be home, and inquiry would

  1275
  be made of him if information was forthcoming.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  In reply to G. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N),
  SIR W. HARCOURThoped the Second Reading of this Bill would be taken on Thursday next.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. MORLEYasked the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to make temporary provision for distress in Ireland, and said a sentence or two would suffice to indicate the purport of the measure. It was a Bill to authorise the Local Government Board, under their sealed orders, to empower Boards of Guardians to give outdoor relief until the month of September of this year to persons who otherwise were disqualified from receiving outdoor relief, and generally to remove the restrictions upon the distribution of fuel and food in Ireland. The Bill contained a clause indemnifying any Board of Guardians who, since the distress began, had relaxed their restrictions, and it also contained a clause which had appeared in all Bills of the kind providing that there should be no electoral disability upon any person who received relief under the provisions of the measure. He hoped the House would give him leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYwas sorry the Bill was brought in without their being able to say a word about it, because it took for granted, in the case of Ireland, an alteration in the law which a Committee upstairs were carefully considering in regard to England, that was, the doing away with disfranchisement for receiving parish relief. There was a considerable amount of distress in England at the present time, and he would not presume to say what ought to be done in respect of it. But the House would be placed in a very peculiar position if it took for granted that that should be done for Ireland which a Committee were carefully considering should be done for England. The Seed Potato Bill was allowed to go through, but this Bill made a very grave alteration in the law, one which the House ought to have
  1276
  some opportunity of considering in reference to the whole of the United Kingdom. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.
  MR. J. MORLEYreminded the hon. Gentleman that the provision to which he had drawn particular attention had been contained in all Bills of this kind. Besides, the Bill would only have effect till the end of August of the present year, therefore it could not have any very serious operation. The hon. Member would have an opportunity of discussing the Bill on the Second Beading.
  MR. BARTLEY: I may say in explanation——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have no alternative but to put the question.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 38.—(Division List, No. 27.)
  Bill presented and read 1°.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES, 1895–6.
    The House went into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates.
    Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.
    (In the Committee.)
    On the Vote for £4,133,500 for wages of officers, seamen and boys, for the Navy, Coastguard and Royal Marines, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896,
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he thought the Government would recognise that there was no disposition on the Opposition side of the House to unduly prolong the discussion on these Votes. The House had been edified by the usual duel between the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. J. Reed) and the hon. Member for North Belfast (Sir E. J. Harland), by the usual afflicting litanies of members representing dockyard constituencies, which made him think the time had arrived when dockyard labourers ought to be deprived of their votes—and, indeed, all public

    1277
    servants—because they only used them for the purpose of raising discussion in the House to get additions to their wages and salaries. He had no desire to embarrass the Government, or, indeed, to do anything else but to assist them by a few suggestions, He was animated by the feeling that it was the business of the House to assist whatever Government was in power to improve that great service—the Navy—on which we so much relied. He acknowledged the great services of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and recognised in him a worthy successor of that other Lord Spencer who, in the time of England's stress and difficulty and danger, so admirably filled the post of the head of the Navy. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had introduced the Estimates with a speech of such frankness and directness, that he was in danger of becoming the spoiled child of the House, and of rivalling in popularity outside the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or even the Prime Minister himself. Turning to the subject of the Vote, he saw the Government was going to spend something like a million of money on removing seamen from hulks and putting them into barracks on shore. This policy was the invention not of the present Government, but of the last Government; but he thought it was entirely wrong. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that the change was made for sanitary and social reasons, and for reasons affecting the comfort of the men. He denied every one of the reasons. He contended that a hulk was very much better for sanitary reasons than the most modern contrivance in the way of drainage on shore. He did not understand what was meant by social reasons. What they should aim at in lodging seamen was to see that they did not cease to be sailors. When a man was put in a hulk he had to learn how to get into and out of a boat, to live in a restricted and confined space, to get used to sleeping in a hammock in 18 inches of space, to knocking his head against unusually low projections, and to walking about without stumbling over ring-bolts. In fact, he got ingrained into him the habits of a sailor. But in a barracks on land he had any amount of space to move about in; he slept in a bed, never got into a boat, and became more of a
    1278
    soldier than a sailor. The new idea—not of the seamen, but of the gunnery officers—was to treat sailors as if they were soldiers; to put the men into barracks where they learned marching and battalion drill, instead of into good, wholesome ships, where they could learn the customs of the sea. It was most important that the men should be able to steer a correct course. But that they were often not able to do. It was most important that they should be able to take a cast of the lead and call the cast. But that they were often not able to do. To his own knowledge many of the sailors were unable to pull a boat, or row a boat, or sail a boat, or tow a boat, or beach a boat. This policy of taking the men from the hulks and putting them into barracks on shore deprived the men of opportunities of learning things which as sailors they ought to know, and which increased their opportunities of becoming seamen. That, in his view, was a mistaken policy. The Admiralty were, in fact, running paper against practice. They were giving up the old English maxim, that practice meant perfect, and they were conveying by their conduct that paper made perfect. They seemed to believe that they could turn out seamen by getting the men to sit on forms and listen to things and write things. He said that on the contrary the only way to make sailors was by standing on the deck and acting. He did not deprecate science, but experimental science, and not theoretic science, was what he demanded. What he wanted was the science which enabled men to handle a boat, to steer, and heave the lead, and to do all the other things required of sailors. But all this practice on board ship was to be set aside for theory on shore and on paper. This policy was advocated by men who had arrived at eminence by paper work. To his mind it was a mischievous and dangerous policy; and he hoped the Admiralty would go back to the old system, whereby men were judged not by what they did on paper, but what they accomplished when they got a job to tackle on board ship. Lord St. Vincent in 1796 wrote—
    "I will not lie here a moment longer than is necessary to put us to rights, because you will know that inaction in the Tagus will make us all cowards."

    1279
    Lord St. Vincent would not have believed that not only did they propose to keep their ships largely in port, but when they had got into port to take the seamen, out of them and put them on shore. That was a dangerous and a very wrong thing, and the matter ought to be reconsidered. As to promotion, if they were going to have a larger number of officers entering the Service it would be necessary to revise the list of admirals, captains, and so forth. He trusted that some attention would be given to the leave grievance, so that officers who came home after serving abroad for three years, and who were entitled to six weeks' leave, being a fortnight for each year of foreign service, should not be immediately ordered away again, and thus prevented taking advantage of the holiday due to them, and see the suppressed leave, instead of being carried to their credit, clean wiped off from the slate. This was a grievance the naval officers felt very much, and he hoped steps would be taken to remedy it. Military officers were almost always on leave, but the working sailor officer could not actually get even the little leave which was due to him. He now came to a point about the men. He had never understood that there was any difficulty in getting boys for the Navy, but, on the contrary, he believed that they could always get more than they wanted for the training ships. He knew that, in his own town of King's Lynn, eligible boys had presented themselves in the ordinary way, and the medical officers had had to invent reasons for rejecting them, because they had more boys than they wanted. He believed that there would be no difficulty in getting boys in the ordinary way. If that was so, what reason was there for providing this wandering ship the Northampton to get boys? Again, he saw that the boys who joined the Northampton were only to have six months' training, but in an ordinary training ship they had fifteen months. He failed to see why, if the longer period was necessary in the one case, it should not be equally necessary in the other. He understood another training ship was to be set up, and undoubtedly the present number was insufficient. This ship, he believed, was to be stationed at Queenstown or Cork. He would point out that this was an entirely new departure. Ever
    1280
    since the mutiny at the Nore it had been the practice not to have a training ship in Ireland and not to take Irish boys, but now they were going to have a training ship in Ireland, which would be supplied entirely by Irish boys. And they were going to put this vessel in the wrong place. They were going to put her near a large town. That was a mistake. A training ship should be at some port which was distant from a large town, and where the boys would not be assailed by the temptations incident to such a town. Falmouth, for example, was an excellent place for a training ship. He did not know whether anything was being done to improve the rating of the signalmen. Their signalmen were insufficient and not good. The signals were the ears and tongue of the Fleet. If the signalmen were not sufficient to, or capable of, making signals or taking them in, the fleet could neither speak nor hear. The Fleet, in such circumstances, might be incapable of being communicated with or of communicating with their commanding officer. He hoped they should hear that something would be done to improve the rating of signalmen and to induce better men to join, and also that their numbers would be increased. In regard to the men, there was another matter to which he wished to allude. He understood that a considerable amount of the increase in the stokers must be held to be due to the larger consumption of coal, and, consequently, the larger number of men to trim the coal and stoke it, required for the Belleville boilers. He thought the Admiralty were making a great and serious experiment with boilers which required more men, and with boilers that had failed entirely in the Mercantile Marine. There was not a single representative of these boilers in the Mercantile Navy at the present day, and whenever they had been tried they had always failed. The Engineer-in-Chief was responsible for introducing these boilers, but the responsibility was shared by the First Lord of the Admiralty, because he had a preponderating voice. If they succeeded, well and good, but if they did not there would be a serious day of reckoning in that House and in the country. The Admiralty were entering upon this large experiment of using boilers without a thorough trial of them having taken

    1281
    taken place. Turning to the question of works, he said the Admiralty were going to make works, not only here but all over the world, to teach their men that they were not to be vigilant sailors, but that they were to turn in, go to sleep and feel comfortable when the enemy was a few miles from their shore. Ho said that was a mistake. It was not the method pursued in the blockade at Toulon, where for two whole years the men were kept constantly on the alert and rowing guard night and day. If they were going to box up their men in Dover, Portland, and Gibraltar, in inaccessible breakwaters where they were to be perfectly safe from attack, they would teach them that they had a right to turn in and sleep and take no care for the enemy. That was wrong. It would be teaching them not to be alert, whereas, all their efforts should be to teach them to be unceasingly vigilant. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss the financial methods by which the Naval programme was to be carried out, when—
    THE CHAIRMANinterposed and pointed out that such a question did not arise on this Vote. When the Annual Loan Bill came on the hon. Member would be able to discuss the financial aspect.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLEShad hoped to have said a few words on the general strategy of the naval operations, because, really and truly, upon their view of Naval stategy depended every farthing they voted, whether for works, or men, or anything else. But he recognised that this was not the time for raising such a question, and he trusted another occasion would be afforded him on which he might present a few considerations to the Government. There was only one other matter to which he desired to allude. Members would have seen from the reports of speeches in the French Chamber, that the increase in men and in English Naval expenditure had aroused the susceptibilities of France. He thought there was no ground for those susceptibilities. Some members of the French Chamber seemed to think their Naval Votes were directed against France. But they should have to take the same Votes and maintain the same strength in their Navy if France did not exist. There was not a
    1282
    man who merited the name of a statesman who did not feel the importance of our maintaining good terms with France and of France maintaining good terms England. It was not against France, but for the carrying out of the destinies which were given to them in this world, and in the maintenance of their trade they sought to make their Navy strong. He and Members sitting on that side were convinced that the Government had not only acted wisely, but had done their bounden duty in coming and asking the House for what it would never refuse—namely, adequate sums for the maintenance of a strong and powerful Navy.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,), replying upon the various points raised during the discussion of the Vote, said, the interval that had elapsed since the Estimates came before the Committee had enabled him to review the comments of hon. Members. These comments had been grouped round three, subjects, and the first was that of works. Upon this he had only to say that in a few days the Loan Bill—to provide the first instalment for works—would be before the House, and that would be a more suitable time for the discussion of questions relating to the items. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kings Lynn he knew the hon. Member's knowledge of Naval matters, and he would bear in mind what he had said when he came to further vindicate the barrack policy of Government. Subjects had also been raised relating to the Shipbuilding Vote. In that he included all questions as to the types of new ships, the great battle of the boilers (in which he contended so unequally with the hon. Member for Gateshead), and other dockyard questions, and hon. Members would permit him to postpone what he had to say upon these matters until the Shipbuilding Vote was before the Committee. But, in answer to the hon. and Learned Member for Plymouth, he would like to say that the apprehension he expressed about petitions had no foundation in fact. He, himself, did not think the men would be prejudiced by the delay in bringing forward the petitions. But some weeks ago the Admiralty caused an order to be disseminated that in future the petitions should be collected at the

    1283
    end of September or October instead of in November as now, that the Admiralty might have an opportunity of seeing them before the Estimates were framed in November. With regard to the question of the Engine-room complement in the Navy, he had already said that during last year some concessions were made to the demands put forward on behalf of the men, after hearing certain hon. Members of the House who were interested in engineering questions. He was sorry, however, to find that what he said had been misunderstood by certain service papers. This was a warning to be cautious about the language one used about the service. It had been represented that the engineering staff of the Navy had votes, and because of this the Admiralty listened to the engineer Members of the House. That was a total delusion. The Admiralty made no discrimination between the engineering and the executive part of the Navy. The hon. Members for Lewis-ham, Battersea and Gateshead would remember perfectly well that they approached the Admiralty, not as political representatives of the engineers of the Navy, but as engineering experts who were deeply interested in the position of Naval engineers, and, with a good sense and patriotism deserving of all admiration, desired to lay their professional views before them, rather than appear to be agitating for advantages to their profession on the floor of the House of Commons. Having already said the Admiralty would not be unwilling to receive their views on another occasion, he hoped he might be allowed to pass away from this engineering grievance. The senior Member for Devonport spoke of the stokers in the Navy. He had asked those responsible for advising the Admiralty whether there was any fault to be found with the quality of the men, and he was assured that it was entirely satisfactory.
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: The hon. Gentleman says certain concessions have been made to the engineers in the Navy. Has he stated what they are?
    MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, I did so in my last speech. That interruption enabled him to correct an unfortunate mistake which had got into the newspapers. The Admiralty were adding
    1284
    £9,000 a year to the pay and pension of engineer officers. The figures appeared in the papers as £90,000. But he was sure no engineer officer had been misled by the mistake, for which he was not responsible. He now came to questions properly raised under the present Vote, and the first was as to the claim put forward, not for the first time, for improvement in the status of the warrant officers. Everybody who spoke seemed to shave the views of the hon. Member for Devonport on the subject, and an hon. and gallant Admiral went so far as to inform the House that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty were of the same opinion. He did not like to discriminate between Naval and Civil Lords, but when it was considered expedient to lay the opinions of the Naval Lords before the Committee it would be done through himself, and not through the hon. and gallant Admiral. But the position of warrant officers was an extremely difficult question which had been a long time before not only the Naval Lords, but the Board of Admiralty and the Manning Committee. The whole matter had taken a new turn, and was at that moment engaging the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. The duties, classification, and position of warrant officers in the service would come up for immediate review by itself. The necessities of the modern warship made it absolutely necessary the whole question should be considered, and until this was settled it would be obviously impossible for him to give any further information. The questions of a possible new rank and more rapid promotion must be suspended until the Admiralty had received the opinion of its professional advisers.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the promotion of warrant officers to quarter-deck rank would be considered.
    MR. ROBERTSONreplied that he could not say at present.
    MR. E. J. C. MORTONasked when the Admiralty would come to a decision.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he was unable to tell.
    MR. H. E. KEAR LEYinquired whether the hon. Gentleman

    1285
    did not make practically the same statement about the warrant officers two years ago.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid, that what he had just stated was not in his mind at all two years ago. Turning to the difference between the allowance given to able-bodied pensioners in the fleet reserve and the dockyard reserve—the former receiving 1s. 6d. and the latter 1s. 1d.—he said he had been asked why this discrimination was made. The fact was the employment of pensioners of the fleet reserve was temporary. This system of temporary employment was coming to an end, and when the numbers of the active service list were brought up to the proper mark it would be ended altogether. The end being temporary, the employment being temporary, the whole institution being temporary, there was naturally a larger allowance made to the men so engaged than there was to the men employed in the dockyard reserve. It might be said that the dockyard men did not get enough; but he would ask the Committee to remember that the dockyard reserve pensioners do not come under anything like ordinary market conditions, but come under a preferential scheme. If he mistook not, they were employed without any serious limit in respect of age; at any rate they had exclusive right to the appointment; nobody else was allowed to come in; and that differentiated their case from that of others. A question had been raised about the allowance to marines going a second time on foreign service; and he was glad to be able to give the hon. Member for Devonport the comfort that his remonstrances had proved effectual, and that a remedy in the direction he desired had been applied. The question about Naval shipwrights he should rather like to leave for the future as one of the dockyard questions, because it came before the department on the petition of the shipwright apprentices. It had been asked why boys from the Northampton training ship were taken on after six months instead of 15 months' training. The Northampton was intended to get hold of boys who could be put into the Navy almost at once in order to avoid the anticipated deficiency of 1,800 men. It was thought that a year could be saved if they could get hold of a class of
    1286
    boys a year older or more, and, therefore, readier for service than ordinary boys were with the best preliminary training that could be given them. It was thought it would be a good thing to send the Northampton to those places on the coast that hitherto had not yielded any boys for the Navy, and, on the whole, the experiment had succeeded wonderfully; it had aroused public interest in the Navy; and almost every member for a place on the sea-board appeared to be anxious for the Northampton to visit his constituency. He would not pretend to say that the experiment was a complete success until the boys obtained had been more fully tested, but still there was room to hope for the best. Other points had been raised which he would take care to represent to the members of the Board of Admiralty specially concerned; and he hoped that now they might be allowed to take Vote I., as they had had ail unusually long discussion.
    SIR W. LAWSONrose to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000. He said that, after the full discussion of the details of the Estimates, he hoped they might be allowed to consider, as a whole, the policy they involved. He did not speak as a pessimist or a croaker, but simply as an independent member who was horrified at the enormous expenditure for warlike purposes. He apologised to the Committee for moving his amendment now; it would have been more appropriate on the vote for the men, but he let the opportunity slip; and such was the languor and lassitude prevailing that nobody seemed to do the right thing at the right time. Ho took the opportunity of raising the question of the policy of these armaments because, in the view of political friends sitting below the gangway, they could not allow this enormous expenditure to pass unchallenged. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh, in an admirable speech on Friday night, said that the prosperity of this country depended upon free trade and an invincible Navy. Yes, but to be invincible, our Navy must be prepared to meet, not only any other two Navies, but all other Navies; and for that purpose the Estimates were too small; while on any other assumption they were too large for all rational purposes. He was not anxious

    1287
    to run any risk; but he agreed with Sir R. Peel, who, long ago, said:—
    "I believe that in time of peace we must by retrenchment consent to incur some risk."
    Those were words of common sense; and it ought to be explained now whether we were preparing to fight the whole world, or were proceeding on a more rational footing. They were all too apt to put responsibility on the Government; and he felt that in this case he could not do that; indeed, responsibility rested on all members, and this was a matter on which they might well speak out. On other matters they were hampered by the fear of what would happen to their measures in another place, but in this matter they were free and responsible only to their constituents. Of course he should be told that all this armament was for defence only. Well, if it were for anything else it would be the most wicked expenditure imaginable, and he thought the tendency of these enormous armaments was to produce danger. A noble lord opposite had carried by a large majority the Second Reading of a Bill based on the assumption that if people walked about with pistols they would be very likely to use them; and if that were true of individuals it was true of nations. If we had these ships and armaments all ready for action there was a great temptation to put them into action. Of course they would hear again the old adage, "If you wish for peace you must prepare for war," but that was like saying that if you wanted to keep dry you must jump into the river, or if you wanted to keep sober you must fly to brandy. Experience showed the folly of the wise saying that was so often quoted. France and Germany, Russia and Turkey, were the four nations that had fallen most completely under militarism, and we know that within living memory all these nations had been involved in disastrous wars.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLrose to a point of order. Was not the hon. Baronet attacking the general policy of Naval Expenditure? Would other Members be allowed to enter upon the general question?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The general question must not be entered upon,
    1288
    except so far as the Vote is concerned. As I understand the hon. Baronet is about to move a reduction of the Vote on the ground that he thinks the number of men asked for is too many.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Then we may follow on the same lines?
    THE CHAIRMAN: There can be no general discussion on the Vote except so far as the Vote itself permits.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Except so far as the hon. Baronet has carried the discussion?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): This is not the Vote for men but for money.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member and others would not be more out of order than himself. Surely, proper reasons should be given why this sum of money should be voted. The Committee were called upon to vote all this money to keep up armaments because it was supposed to be the best way of bringing about a settlement of international disputes. But all these disputes were settled at last by Conference, and all he said was—settle the dispute before the slaughter. Lord Dufferin said, not long since, that if he had his way, whenever war broke out between two nations, he would take the Ambassadors of each and have them hanged in public. Without going so far as that, he would be inclined to proceed somewhat in that way towards Governments who chose war as the means of settlement. There were only two ways of settling disputes—you could settle them by reasoning, or by fighting; and he opposed this Vote because the Government, through making these strenuous efforts to provide great armaments for the settlement of disputes by fighting, had not, so far as he knew, taken any means for settlement by reason. He had been taught from his earliest youth that the policy of the Liberal Party was comprised in the watchwords—"Peace, Retrenchment, Reform:" and the present Government was the nearest approach to a Liberal Government he had seen in his generation, and the nearest approach probably he was likely to see. They could do nothing more likely to make their name honourable and memorable than by taking a course

    1289
    to get, rid of the abominable method of settling disputes by war. But this Liberal Government was out-Jingoing the "Jingoes," and never were there more extravagant Navy Estimates. These ''bloated armaments," as long since they had been called, were growing year by year, and the words used by his hon. Friend (Mr. Robertson) every elector should read—
    ''Ten years ago the Navy Estimates were just over £12,000,000; to-day they are £18,000,000. Ten years ago——"
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet is now going beyond this particular Vote, and touching upon matters germane to a general discussion.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, there were wide limits for discussion in this Vote of £4,000,000, and it was an awful statement that this expenditure on machinery for slaughter had in ten years progressed by leaps and bounds. If this was to go on, what use was there in talking about education and civilisation, what was the use of the Liberal Government, what was the use of Christianity? If this horror continued, it would mean that in another decade other representatives of the Navy would say, "We must have, six millions of money and 30,000 more men.'' There had been experience of how the thing was worked. A vast sum of money was called for by the naval and military authorities, and this being granted, the House was told—
    "Now we are all right, we shall have the finest ships manned by the finest men in the world."
    But in a few years, the money being spent, and the people who benefited by the expenditure being gorged like a boa constrictor after swallowing a sheep, at last began to get hungry again, and more expenditure was called for. The way to get expenditure was to get up a scare, for there was nothing John Bull liked so much as a scare. So then, in a few years, the people would be told that we really had no Navy, that our ships were useless, the money had been thrown away, and we were defenceless. There was an example in a recent Times comment—
    "We doubt if we could put an effective Army Corps in the field, after all the optimist tolk of the War Minister."
    1290
    Newspaper editors would be set to work at the right, time, meetings would be held in the City presided over by the Lord Mayor, who would be supported by aldermen, stockjobbers, and others. Lord Salisbury would perhaps speak, and gallant admirals and generals would pull the British lion's tail and wave the Union Jack, the voice of the Jingo would be heard in the land, and then constructors, contractors, boiler makers, and the rest would be comforted, the Income Tax would go up, and millions would be gathered in to the accompaniment of the Alleluia Chorus from Liberal Dockyard Members. Everybody knew that, as a description of what would take place, everybody knew that when this money was spent there would be this thing over again. A splendid thing this for the constructors and boiler makers and others; but how was it, for the working mass of the population? How would they stand it? There was an old public-house sign, the "Five Alls," meaning the King who governed all, the Lord Chancellor who pleaded for all, the Bishop who prayed for all, the General who fought for all, and the working man who paid for all.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: No; the ploughman.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: That was a working man.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: But a particular class of working man.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, it had been estimated that the working man worked half an hour more daily to maintain these enormous armaments. Think of that, in a country full of poverty, misery, and wretchedness! Thirty-six millions in the year taken for the Army and Navy, taken from reproductive labour, increasing the misery, want, and destitution among the people! Talk of the Eight Hours' movement, he wished that the working men representatives were present to vote with him against these bloated armaments, with the intention of showing how in some measure something could be done to make the lives of the poor brighter. What had been the result among the great military nations? If we followed in the same path we should have the same result as there was in Germany, where militaryism was in the ascendant, and where also were the seeds of

    1291
    sedition, anarchy, and despair; or, as in France, now starting a filibustering expedition almost as bad as any we had carried out ourselves; or, as in Italy, which country, apeing the big armaments of other Powers, had made their land one in which life was scarcely worth living by the working classes. Now England was called upon to play the same miserable role. Against such a policy he would, by voice and vote, protest, because until the Government had tried, and tried effectually, to make arrangements with other nations to settle disputes by reason, they had no right to enter upon this game of beggar my neighbour in the contest of means of slaughter. Published letters from the Continent showed that even now foreign Governments only wanted for some Power to take the initiative to follow the example in reducing such expenditure; and it would be a noble action for England to take that initiative. He did not care for being called a Little Englander. He would have this a peaceful, honest, prosperous England, under rational conditions; and because it was not rational to vote these enormous sums, he would divide against the Vote. He Moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid, that after hearing the speech of the right hon. Baronet he had come to the conclusion that the hon. Member must have been asleep for a great number of years like Rip van Winkle. The hon. Baronet forgot the fact that we were living in an age of iron, steel, and steam. He forgot that one could not build an ironclad in the same rapidity with which men built a 74-gun ship 100 years ago. He forgot the fact that the progress made in science had culminated in the construction of huge vessels. Everything was huge now by comparison with what existed 50 or 100 years ago. The hon. Baronet also forgot that this was an era of high wages and short hours of labour. He forgot that this was an age of steam engines and good boilers, and he ought to know that a line-of-battle ship cost a million of money, for which sum ten 74-gun ships could be put afloat 80 years ago, There was another consideration which the hon. Baronet overlooked. We were an insular nation; if our frontiers had been
    1292
    adjacent to those of other nations we should have had conscription rampant in this land. Every man would have been liable to shoulder a musket, and huge armed camps would have been established in the country. But our bulwark was the sea, in which lay the highways to and fro our home. It became, therefore, an absolute necessity for this nation to be in a condition to hold those highways at all hazards against those who might dare to obstruct them. We must have cheap food for our working men; the days had gone past of dear food for our toilers. In the event of war with a strong naval power, the four-pound loaf must not be increased in price. How was all this to be secured? It could not be secured without a perfect fleet to keep our highways open so that all our food stuffs could be brought in without let or hindrance. We could only make sure of such a position by being free of the sea. No doubt it was painful to spend 20,000,000. Every right-thinking man deplored the necessity, but the expense must be borne for our security. He held the expenditure upon our Navy to be nothing more nor less than the nation's premium in its life insurance-policy. As a Radical he would gladly welcome the dawn of the millennium but as yet there were no signs of universal peace and brotherhood. The aspirations of the poets and other good men were not yet fulfilled, and until they were we must not allow ourselves to grow weak upon the seas. Let them reduce Army expenditure as much as they liked; but they could not reduce the fleet. They might look forward to a still greater expenditure upon the fleet as time went on. Science demanded it. Larger docks and more of them were wanted for warships: docks on the east coast, docks on the west coast, and docks on the Irish coast!
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was now travelling beyond the limits of the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. ALLANsaid that he would conclude by recalling what Sir Walter Raleigh once said in reference to England:—
    "The nation that commands the sea commands the commerce of the world: commanding the commerce of the world you command the riches of the world."
    We were that nation. It was the duty,

    1293
    therefore, of every Briton, worthy of the name to support any and every Government whose policy was based on the principle of always maintaing the strength of the Navy, for upon that policy—he said it fearlessly as a Radical—depended the greatness of the British Empire.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, that when the Civil Lord of the Admiralty Induced the Committee to close the general discussion the other night, there still remained a great many Members who desired to speak on the general question. Those hon. Members would now have to discuss the questions in which they were specially interested on the details of the Estimates. There were points which they must raise in the interests of their constituents and the country, and they must now be raised on the Votes as they were reached, because they could not be raised in the general Debates in consequence of the action of the Civil Lord. He regretted that there was not a Minister of Cabinet rank who was charged with the duty of presenting in that House the Estimates for the greatest of our spending Departments. He had the greatest respect for the abilities and capacity of the Civil Lord, but the admiration for that hon. Member did not make him a Member of the Cabinet. And the fact remained—that they had to discuss these great Naval questions without the assistance of the First Lord of the Admiralty, whose place was elsewhere. One of the results of this state of things was that they were often compelled to discuss at great length matters which could be disposed of comparatively briefly if the First Lord were only present in that House. The Civil Lord that evening had said that to three or four questions which had been asked he could only reply after reference to his Chief. They were supposed now to sanction a large expenditure for officers and seamen before they knew what would be the final policy of the Government respecting the ships which these men were to man. He had consulted a great many eminent Naval experts, who said that there were serious faults in the type of the ships recommended in the programme of the Government. If that programme were amended, there might be a vital and material difference in the number of officers and men and engine-room staff required. Yet they were asked to vote
    1294
    this money for the men in ignorance of the character of the vessels for which they would be wanted. Our past experience showed that the command of the sea depended upon an absolute supremacy in battle-ships; but the present programme of the Admiralty did not provide for a single new battleship. That was a very serious defect in the programme. Complaints had been made with respect to our training ships and some of our dockyards; and as yet no satisfactory explanation had been given. It had been acknowledged that the effort of the Admiralty last year to enlist men into the Navy directly from the Mercantile Marine was a dead failure. Now they heard that a new experiment had been made, and that a ship had been sent to different ports for the purpose of inducing boys to join the Navy. The Civil Lord had not informed the Committee how far the cruise had been a success in relation to the cost of the process. He did not see that by going to the large seaports any security was offered that the boys who were recruited should be boys with sea training, and he thought on this point much more information was desirable before the country was pledged to the expenditure involved. So far as he had observed, the chief appreciation of the visits of the Northampton came from the tradesman and the shopkeeper, who found considerable profit from the presence of a large man-of-war in the port; and he doubted whether this appreciation came from any earnest desire to supply boys to the Navy. He would not say that the hon. Baronet was in any sense a Rip Van Winkle; on the contrary, he was one of the most lively and wide-a-wake representatives of the "Little England" school, and for that reason he was most strenously opposed to the hon. Baronet and all his arguments.
    MR. H. LABOUCHEREreminded the Committee that 12 years ago, speaking roughly, the expenditure on the Army and the Navy was £26,000,000, whereas at present it was about, £40,000,000. Including the expenditure on the Indian Army, the national charge for armaments came to the monstrous sum of £58,000,000. The reason of this perpetually-increasing expenditure was that every now and

    1295
    then there was a scare in the newspapers, and Ministers were very much given to these scares; while Naval gentlemen, naturally desirous that their service should be magnified, did their best to convince the country that our whole Empire was in danger of falling to pieces unless each year we spent additional millions on the Navy. There was no satisfying these gentlemen; whatever Ministers did, and whatever amounts they were ready to spend on the Navy, the Naval experts, and Admirals, and such-like people always were complaining and crying—"More, more!" How did this mania for expenditure originate? It originated in a speech made by the noble Lord the late First Lord of the Admiralty, who laid down the extraordinary doctrine that we ought to have a Fleet equal in strength to that of any two fleets in the whole world. Hon. Gentlemen accepted that; but could they say what had occurred since that most incautious statement was made? Why, other countries were not prepared to admit that we ought to have a Fleet that could sweep off in a moment the fleets of any two nations. As we build ships, they build ships. Therefore, we we were engaged in a game of beggar-my-neighbour—not against one, but against two Powers. Was he to understand that in case of a war we ought to have such a Navy that we should be able to drive off at once any belligerent from the ocean, so that our commercial marine would be enabled to continue their business as though there were no war? The thing was impossible and absurd. One knew perfectly well that the mere chance of an Alabama slipping out of harbour would so raise the premium of insurance on British bottoms as against the premium on neutral bottoms that practically our commerce for the time would go into the hands of some neutral Power. He had seen discussions as to whether we ought to defend the Mediterranean or not. Now it was very obvious we should require a much stronger Navy in the event of war, say with France and Russsia—absit omen—if we were obliged to maintain our flag in the Mediterranean, than if we were to withdraw from the Mediterranean. [Sir C. DILKE: "No."] He should say the less seas we had to defend, the less Navy we required in order to defend
    1296
    them, and it would be infinitely simpler in his judgment, to block the Mediterranean at Gibraltar, and Aden, and Pem, than to seek to defend it. In the Parliament of 1880, under the Ministry of the right hon. Member for Midlothian, he believed there was a Departmental Committee which considered this question, and he had always understood this Committee decided that it would be necessary, in our own interests, to withdraw from the Mediterranean pro tem. instead of remaining merely for the purpose of protecting our coasting trade, and to send everything round by the Cape to India. The hon. Member opposite spoke in a sneering way of "Little Englanders;" but the poor "Little Englanders," it must be remembered, had practically to pay for everything. Who were the so-called "Little Englanders" but the right hon. Member for Midlothian, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There (pointing to the Treasury Bench) sat the "Little Englanders." And what he complained of was that these right hon. Gentlemen would not stand honestly and persistently by the opinions they professed when out of office, but now, when they were in office, they went wasting and squandering money just as if they were Conservatives. Formerly there was a way of stopping, to a certain extent, this vast expenditure upon military armaments. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power they were always prone to spend large sums of money. But they were always attacked by their opponents. Now it seemed to be a competition between the two Parties which should spend the greatest amount of money on the Navy. Thus, when the Civil Lord of the Admiralty made his statement, the late First Lord, instead of protesting that the amount to be spent was not large enough, congratulated the hon. Gentlemen on the proposals he had made. On reading that statement he could not help remembering that it was laid down in former times that the heads of the two great spending Departments should be in the House of Commons. He should not object to his hon. Friend being First Lord of the Admiralty. But he was not; the First Lord was somewhere else.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: He has always been in another place in the case of a Liberal Government.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, if that was so it was a shameful and melancholy thing. It would be admitted that the right hon. Member for Midlothian was himself always against this vast expenditure. He only regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not present, for he was sure he would denounce this wild and reckless expenditure on the part of the Government. He did not himself believe that these large armaments tended to peace. When you had these huge armaments, you next felt that you ought to use them, and you were apt to meddle in matters of foreign policy that did not concern you. He admitted that it was desirable that we should have a Navy sufficient for defence; but he protested against the Navy being swollen to such a degree as to become a menace to every other Power. They were not ashamed to be little Englanders, and would Vote cordially for the reduction of the vote, believing it to be desirable that they should register some protest against this vast advance in the expenditure on the Navy.
    MR. J. H. DALZIELdesired to explain why he could not Vote in support of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, to whom they were indebted for bringing this subject before the House. Many people shared his hon. Friend's view with regard to the increasing expenditure upon the Navy, but the weak point in his hon. Friend's speech was that he did not suggest one single item upon which expenditure was too heavy. Then he did not make any suggestion as to the limitation of expenditure in the future. Looking at the expenditure of the last ten years and to the possibilities of the future, he thought the present situation was one which no Radical, and no Conservative even could view with any degree of favour. But the hon. Baronet contented himself with a quotatation from Sir Robert Peel that we ought to have sufficient retrenchment in time of peace almost to run a risk so far as war was concerned. He did not believe that was the view of the Radicals of the country. He would vote for the Government—if he voted at all—on the
    1298
    present occasion, because they were in a better position than he could be to judge of the necessities of the country. But he desired to know what was the view of the Government as to the future. Did they contemplate that in the next ten years there would be an annual increase such as had taken place in the last 10 years? Did they think that this rivalry between the nations of the world, so far as Naval power was concerned, would continue? France and Russia were building ships year after year. Would it settle the question if we gave up our Navy to-morrow? He understood that his hon. Friend who Moved the Amendment was against the whole expenditure.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I objected to the enormous expenditure. I did not go into details.
    MR. DALZIELasked whether the Government would be any nearer a settlement if they gave up the proposed Estimates for the current year? Had they any guarantee that if this country ceased to build ships, other countries would cease also. He thought the time had come when some arrangement should be arrived at with other nations. Had the Government ever considered the possibility of such an arrangement? He did not see that it ought to be impossible to make such an arrangement on the basis of this country retaining its present superiority. He appealed to the Civil Lord to say whether the Government was prepared to take any steps to bring about a conference of nations in order to see whether some arrangement could not be arrived at which would be acceptable to this country, and which certainly would be in the best interests of all the countries concerned.
    CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, it was very satisfactory to hear a Radical of the extreme type of the hon. Gentleman assert himself so vigorously on the side of those who wished to maintain the Navy of this country. The sums now voted for the Navy, large and increasing though they were, were in proportion to the wealth and commerce of the country and the duty that the Government had to perform, small in comparison to what they were even in the last war. The hon. Member for Northampton asked whether they proposed to sweep away from the seas in case of war, all hostile vessels, and

    1299
    said he believed such an idea to be impossible and absurd. And yet it was by sweeping away almost all hostile vessels in olden times that we did succeed in bringing to a happy conclusion a war which last for very many years. He did not believe that these sums of money, large as they were, expended in increasing the strength of the Navy were wasted now, when, as all the world knew, in the last few years there had been times when the possibilities of war were very close. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had assured the Committee that it was the duty of this country, in case of a war, to shut up the Mediterranean, but such an idea was a mistake, founded, in his belief, upon a misconception of the history of our past wars. Apart from the great damage that would be done to commerce in the Mediterranean itself, he would point out that in almost every war most of our successes were due to the fact that, in our operations in the Mediterranean, we were in the centre of the field where naval operations could be carried on to the distress of the enemy. This fact would inevitably repeat itself in future wars. He believed that those who advocated the closing of the Mediterranean did much damage in pressing such views on the Government of the day. He hoped that the speech they had just listened to was an indication of abiding vigour in faith in the strength of the Navy, which, he believed, existed in Radical as well as Conservative circles. Among the people of this country, during the past few years, there had been a revival in favour of our having a strong, and even a very strong, Navy. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) as well as other Liberals, had taken a strong line on this question, and he thought this might be taken as an indication of a general consensus of opinion throughout the country. They might, therefore, congratulate the Government on the firm line they had taken up in boldly recommending to their followers and the Committee so great an expenditure.
    MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER, while regretting that the Member for Cockermouth and the Member for Northampton had, no doubt unintentionally, misled the Committee, pointed out that it was a delusion to say
    1300
    that there had never been so great an expenditure upon the Navy. [An hon. MEMBER: "In time of peace.''] At a time this country was, it was true, at war, but when there was not a single organised hostile naval squadron in European waters, this country spent £19,000,000 sterling upon her Navy Estimates during the 11 consecutive years 1805–1815. There was then no organised naval force in the world to oppose us; only 5 per cent. of what we ate came over the seas; the cost of a battleship was only one-tenth of what it was now, while the population had since increased four-fold. If the alternative were put before any voter in this country whether he would wipe off the cost of that expenditure or take the assets it represented in the form of our great colonies, what conclusion would he come to? The Committee were really wasting time over this Amendment. He could understand the position of the Member for Cockermouth if he had come down and said that all our expenditure upon the Navy was wrong, and that we ought, in case of any dispute, to resort to arbitration; but he could not understand by what right the hon. Member and the Member for Northampton could say that a particular sum was enough for our naval requirements. If they reduced the expenditure to a point which they did not consider to be enormous, then every single sixpence spent that would not enable the Navy to do its work was absolutely money wasted and cast into the sea. They did not pretend to tell the Committee that they had considered the question of what sum would, in their views, suffice, but they said that the sum now asked was extravagant. He would retort upon those hon. Members that if they succeeded in reducing the expenditure upon the Navy to a point at which the Navy would not do its work properly, it was they who were extravagant, because whatever money was then spent would not enable the Navy to do the work for which it was intended. He, however, sympathised with the hon. Member for Northampton when he complained that this country was paying all the cost of the increase in the Navy. We were, in fact, paying 89–90ths, while the Colonies were getting the benefit of that increased expenditure. There was no

    1301
    contribution from Canada towards the cost of the Navy, while the contribution from our Australian Colonies was ludicrously small. If there was to be economy, it might well come from the Colonies, which shared so largely in the benefits and protection of the Navy. He had addressed audiences of different complexions in politics on the subject of the Navy, and he would undertake to obtain a majority of votes from any constituency in the country on the question of the present Amendment. The Patronage Secretary, it was true, had gone down to a remote corner in Wales and there made a statement which no schoolboy out of the 4th Standard would be allowed to make elsewhere, that the only damage from a great naval war would arise to the great landowners and the dukes, and that all this increased expenditure was being asked to please the landowners and the lords. Could there be anything so preposterous? The miners well knew that they themselves would be great sufferers from a great naval war. He should certainly vote against the Amendment.
    MR. C. H. HOPWOODstrongly supported the Amendment, and as strongly repudiated what had been said by the last speaker. The large additions to the naval expenditure exhibited a consistency worthy of a better cause, and had gone on from year to year. The Civil Lord appealed to the Committee in vigorous language, but with a surrender of all Radical principles that astonished him. They were invited to follow up former extravagance by fresh extravagance, but he could not conceive why they were less safe formerly than they were now. In past times they existed in the belief that they had a good Army and a good Navy. They had endeavoured to mature and improve both, and now they were suddenly told that they were defenceless. It would appear that they were in the position of a man who had so much wealth that he could not defend himself unless he surrounded himself with watchmen, and yielded to daily nervousness and apprehension. The other day there was a debate in the French Chamber, and there it was declared that England possessed a Navy twice the size of the French Navy. Again, they were always
    1302
    making speeches, which must be intolerable, assuming that France, and, indeed, Russia too, would always be against them. Language was used which must be very hurtful to the French people to read. They had got a fleet which they could barely man, and if they were to go on as they were doing they would have to return to the old pressgang, if not their big ships would have to lie up to rot or rust. Their policy was forcing other nations into this contest of shipbuilding, and the mind was appalled at what the future state of the country would be if their resources were to be strained to the uttermost by these heavy armaments. He desired to make his protest against such a policy.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, the first question he should like to ask the hon. Members who had moved and supported this Amendment was—why their attacks on the cost of armaments were made on the naval rather than on the military estimates? [An hon. MEMBER: "Because the Naval Estimates are growing up."] Then they did not attack the Army Estimates only because they were the same as last year. No policy could be conceived more foolish. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was classed as an anti-Jingo, and yet he consented, and willingly consented, to the increase in the Navy Estimates. Was not the presumption that these Estimates were more than justified this year? Was not the presumption the other way as regarded the stationary Army Votes. The hon. Member who had just sat down referred to a speech made recently in the French Chamber showing that the naval strength of this country was overwhelming. Why, that speech was immediately answered by the representative of the French Navy, and the statement was overwhelmingly disproved. In fact, it was shown that that speech was as vague and windy as some of the speeches, if he might say so with respect, made that night in the House. Again, it was said if they continued building largely, the French and other Powers would continue to build up to them. When, for some years, they had no definite programme, France and Russia built rapidly; recently, when England was carrying out its new programme, the French reduced their programme. It was a fact well worthy of notice;

    1303
    but whether it was so or not, a strong fleet was necessary to the existence of this country, and not necessary to the existence of any other country. Their existence was undoubtedly at stake, and it could be no principle of Radicals or any other Party to leave this country, with its heterogeneous land forces, at the mercy of invasion. At any risk of being called alarmists, they could see no answer to this question—that, if they allowed their fleet to sink below a strength capable of holding all the seas against any possible foe, they would be liable to invasion? If they could not hold the seas, they would be brought into competition with the great military nations of the Continent. It was said that they were needlessly alarmed as to an alliance between two Great Powers—but, if one moved, the other would be compelled to move. He happened, recently, to be talking to one who laughed at their fears of invasion. He said to him:—
    "If Russia were to go to war for any reason whatever, would you not be obliged to follow her?"
    The reply was in the affirmative, but to the effect that Russia was most peaceful. Were they certain that nothing would occur between us and either of these two Powers? At this very moment six British battalions, with an equivalent Native force were to be marched towards Chitral, and that step would not be taken unless there was something serious in the situation, in spite of the peaceful relations existing at the present moment. It was asked, if this increase was necessary, had they been defenceless in the past? Well, the increase did not bring them relatively to a higher point than that which they occupied in past. His hon. Friend pointed out that if they wanted to lessen their naval expenditure they could quit the Mediterranean Sea. His hon. Friend, however, had mixed up two things. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton in certain portions of his Mediterranean policy. From the purely naval or military point of view he had never believed in the occupation of Egypt; we should have been stronger without it. But being as it was, the argument rather implied a stronger naval position in the Mediterranean, for it rested on the view that Egypt must
    1304
    follow the command of the seas. His hon. Friend had suggested that in a serious war against any of the great Powers the Mediterranean could not be made use of as a trade route, and that our ships would have to go round the Cape. But it did not follow that if we left the Mediterranean we could carry out our defence more cheaply than at the present time. Although there was a difference of opinion among naval men on this Mediterranean question, he asserted that it had never yet been proved that we could defend ourselves more cheaply on the high seas by masking the Mediterranean from the Atlantic and Red Sea than by holding the Mediterranean itself. It would be much better and safer to have no division at all, but to command all the seas. If they had an enemy's fleet careering about the sea, then the disputed command of the seas could not last long. It must be settled one way or another, and if it was settled against this country we had no shadow of power to defend ourselves here against invasion. He thought, therefore, that undivided command of the seas was necessary to our existence. The hon. Member for Northampton also said that the existence of great armaments tended to war. He doubted, however, whether that was the case, even with regard to the great armaments of the Continent. Although at great cost, peace had been kept for a considerable period in face of those great armaments, and the increase of a peace feeling in so-called military countries of the Continent was a fact which rather told against his hon. Friend. A great British fleet, instead of tending towards war, tended rather towards peace. A fleet was not an aggressive force unless they were preparing it for the purpose of covering a military invasion, and certainly no one could believe that the object of the British fleet was to cover an invasion of a foreign country by means of the British land forces. Unless that was intended, in what sense did a British fleet tend towards war? The people of this country were never so free from those alarms which caused war, whatever their Army might be, as when they knew that they would be able to sleep secure in the possession of an overwhelmingly strong fleet. It was quite true that the

    1305
    contributions from the colonies and from India towards our fleet were not what they ought to be, but whether it was possible to increase them was another matter. At all events, a strong British fleet formed the most real bond of union between this country and its colonies. The colonies might be involved in the consequences of our wars without possessing any voice with regard to them; and in his judgment it was something that this country should be able to offer to them that security which the colonies would undoubtedly obtain from the presence of the British fleet in all portions of the world.
    MR. T. LOUGHasked what evidence had been brought before the House of Commons to show that this great expenditure on the Navy was necessary. During the last 20 years the country had evidence to show that it had got on exceedingly well without the increased naval expenditure of recent years, while he maintained that the tendency in favour of peace had increased. This protest against increased naval expenditure was raised at this time because the Navy Estimates were increasing, and that was the most solid argument which he desired to address to the Committee. Naval expenditure increased by three and a-half millions last year. Why could not the Government wait until they had digested that great meal, and see whether or not the country had obtained value for its money. The late First Lord of the Admiralty increased the expenditure by £2,500,000, and then kept it steady for two or three years, until the country possessed evidence showing that the money had been well spent. In his opinion the Government would have been well advised if they had contented themselves with the great increase of Naval expenditure last year, afterwards waiting two or three years in order to see results before increasing it further this year. The Government did not secure the safety of the Nation by this means, because increased Naval and Military expenditure tended rather to stimulate the rivalry of other Powers. It was generally admitted that since we had begun this aggressive policy with regard to the Navy, the fleets of France and of other Powers had been greatly increased. This was the natural tendency, and he thought it
    1306
    might be worthy of consideration as to whether we could not set an example among the nations in this matter, and certainly we ought to proceed more slowly to the end which was thought eventually to be desirable. Experts were not agreed as to the best means of obtaining the highest result out of this vast expenditure. The hon. Member for Gateshead had shown, for example, in the debate last week, that many of our ships had not sound boilers in them, and he suggested that we could make experiments on a less expensive scale than was at present the practice. The opinion well represented in the House was the opinion of the rich Metropolitan community. On this community the great expenditure did not press very heavily; but on the agricultural districts and on Ireland it fell with ruinous effect. Did the Committee not believe that there was some connection between the famine in Ireland and the great expenditure now going on through these Estimates in a time of profound peace? He was glad his hon. Friend had made a protest. He was not a "Little Englander," neither was he in favour of a weak Navy; but he maintained that we ought to proceed more quietly. To use the language of golf, we had better not "press." It seemed to him that the Government were "pressing," and becoming a little heated and excited.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid there was nothing new in the Estimates which had been challenged by the hon. Member for Cockermouth. All that the Government was doing this year was to carry out the plan laid before the House last year, and which was then unanimously adopted. The Government had fair cause of complaint that this Motion should have been made at this time and in this way. The House had unanimously voted the men asked for; the ships had already been obtained; and in contempt of all this, apparently, the money was to lie denied. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had pointed out, this attack armaments was made against the Navy as distinguished from the Army; and if this discrimination had not been made, the Motion would have found no support. The supremacy of the British Navy was the question involved. That question had been in the forefront of our legislation since the

    1307
    Naval Defence Act. All statesmen of all Parties would admit that. He wished to remind his hon. Friends of the way in which this question was regarded by a man so well worthy of their admiration as Mr. Cobden. Alluding to a certain Power, supposed to be our rival in respect of Naval supremacy, Mr. Cobden said—
    "She has less than one-quarter of our mercantile marine. She has not one-hundredth part of our possessions to defend beyond the seas. She has more than double our military force; and while on land her frontier gives her access to the continent, and thereby to the whole world, we have no means of communication with any other country but by water."
    What was Mr. Cobden's conclusion from those facts?
    "She has, therefore, no necessity for, and no legitimate pretension to, equality with us at sea."
    After suggesting that there should be frank explanation between the different countries on continued—
    "There is no amount of expenditure which this country would not bear to maintain our due superiority at sea."
    All the conditions which Mr. Cobden mentioned at that time—30 years ago—as reasons for a strong Navy had changed since, but they had changed in the direction of demanding a stronger rather than a weaker Navy. In 1833 Mr. Cobden spoke of the mercantile marine of the United States as being not much less than that of the United Kingdom. In 1866 he spoke of the mercantile marine of France as being one-quarter of that of Great Britain. What were the facts now? Including vessels of over 100 tons, and neglecting all others, the mercantile marine of Great Britain was more than one-half of that of the entire world. In steam shipping alone it was 62½ per cent. of the shipping of the entire world. France stood in the relation of 1,050,000 tons to 12,788,000 tons, and the total tonnage of the United States was under 2,000,000 tons. If the argument which Mr. Cobden used was good for a Radical such as he was, surely in the present day, when the excess of our mercantile marine over that of any other country was still greater, the same argument was valid in a much greater degree.
    1308
    He had referred to some of the figures relating to the increase of the last 10 years, and he saw that the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth had been impressed with those figures. The mercantile marine of Great Britain had been added to in the last, 10 years to the extent of 2,000,000 of registered tonnage. The hon. Member for Islington had said that the steady increase in the Vote was the strongest reason for objecting to it. There was another Vote which had doubled in the same period—the Education Vote—and he hoped that that would not be a reason for the hon. Member objecting to that Vote. The hon. Member for Northampton, whose speech he had enjoyed immensely, had referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who was primarily responsible for all the money voted—as if the right hon. Gentleman were an orthodox supporter of the "little Navy" policy. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say last year on this very question, speaking in reply to strong assertions about our naval supremacy from the Opposition side of the House?—
    "Do not for a moment doubt that we mean to maintain the supremacy of the British Navy. We hold, as strongly as you do, or as any man in this House can hold, that the greatness, the might, and the existence of England depend upon her Navy and its supremacy."
    That was the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Naval policy of which these present Estimates were an instalment. It being admitted that our Navy should be at least as strong as the Navies of any two Powers which might combine against us, the rest was a question of technique and calculation upon which the Admiralty must take the best opinion of professional advisers. That had been done, and the Government were acting by the light of that advice. He did not admit or believe that there was one unnecessary cruiser or one superfluous battleship in the programme. A conference with foreign nations had been suggested. The Committee would not expect him to deal with a high Cabinet question of that sort, but he entirely sympathised with the spirit of the suggestion. It was not with light heart that the Government presented Estimates so burdensome, and they deplored, while they strongly

    1309
    affirmed, the necessity for such expenditure.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that the remarkable development of feeling in regard to the Navy on the other side of the House was a most interesting fact. If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had made his speech 10 or 12 years ago, he would have been howled down by by those who sat around him. At the present time, our expenditure of over 18 millions on the Navy amounted to 1·93 per cent. of the total value of our sea-borne commerce. Last year's expenditure in France was 3·9 per cent. of the value of her sea-borne commerce, and that of Russia was 9 per cent. Again, taking as a comparison the value of the mercantile marine, our naval expenditure was 15 per cent., that of France was 105 per cent., and that of Russia was 166 per cent. That was a sufficient answer to those who held that the present expenditure was excessive. Our expenditure was an insurance, and by no means an excessive insurance in view of the great interests to lie maintained.
    MR. W. R. CREMER: Upwards of 8 per cent.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. The naval expenditure was less than two per cent. on the total value of our sea-borne commerce.
    MR. CREMERsaid, he made his statement on the authority of Mr. Maclean, the ex-Conservative Member for Oldham.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Member could easily satisfy himself. The total value of our sea-borne commerce was about £970,000,000, and our Naval Estimates this year amounted to £18,700,000. £18,700,000 to £970,000,000 stood at less than two per cent. The other point to which he wished to refer was the question of the possible abandonment of the Mediterranean in time of war. No more unfortunate idea could get abroad than that our Naval Authorities or our Government proposed to abandon, or even to mask, the Mediterranean in time of war. Such a step would certainly involve the loss of Egypt and a great portion of our commerce which went through the Mediterranean. But there was another
    1310
    and a far more important consideration. In time of a great European war we hoped to have allies. There was a great and friendly nation in the Mediterranean whose naval power entirely existed in that sea, and whom we might expect to have on our side in case we were involved in war with two other Great Powers. The existence of that Great Power, the existence of the Italian Navy and our probable alliance with Italy, would render our abandonment of the Mediterranean impossible. In his opinion, the Naval Estimates proposed this year were demanded by the absolute necessities of the case. At this moment the French and Russian Navies were two or three, battleships stronger than the British Navy, and at the end of 1897, if there was no increase in the British Navy, the French and Russian Navies would be seven or eight battleships stronger than our Navy. In view of the present strength of the Navy, the conclusion they must come to was that the proposals of the Government were by no means excessive, and that the motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth ought to be resisted by every Member who valued the naval strength of the country.
    DR. MACGREGORregretted to have to interpose between hon. Members and their dinner, but he felt he had a duty to discharge in this matter. He was anxious to join in the protest against what he regarded not only as lavish, but reckless expenditure. He protested against the expenditure first of all as a man of peace. To make such gigantic preparation for war was entirely unsound. It would no doubt be said that preparation for war was the best means of insuring peace, but that was nothing more nor less than bunkum. Was there a Member of the House who would say that the existence of vast bodies of men armed to the teeth was not provocative of war? Such men were like fighting-cocks standing up against each other. The least spark thrown in amongst them would blow them up like a powder magazine. We were already overtaxed, and he objected as a Scotchman. If we were to have this vast expenditure on munitions of war, more ought to be spent in Scotland. Why should not some of the arsenals and dockyards be

    1311
    in Scotland? What was wrong with Dundee, for instance, or with Queens-ferry, or Greenock, or Glasgow? Why should they not receive some of the money? As a Scottish representative, he considered a great deal of the money might be better spent in enlarging holdings and stocking holdings for crofters and cottars, in building piers and harbours for the protection of the fishermen, and in constructing light railways to bring, in these depressed times, the produce of the agriculturists to the markets. The proposals had been made lucidly and eloquently by the Civil Lord, but he could not help regretting they had been made through the mouth of a Scotchman and a Scottish representative. He had wondered what the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Dundee would have said if they had heard him rattle off his millions of pounds. Would they not have said, with Dominie Sampson, "Ma conscience"? Depend upon it, when the Civil Lord returned to his constituents Ginx's baby would have something to say on the subject. What were we afraid of? What was this gigantic expenditure for? Were we afraid of France Why, our beloved Queen was at this moment basking in the sunshine of the South of France, and overwhelmed with the greetings of the French people. No; the French were too much interested in peace, just as we were. Were we afraid of France and Russia combined Russia could not go to war without borrowing money from England. Were we afraid of Italy? Italy was bankrupt. Were we afraid of Germany? Germany had enough to do at home in minding its own business. Danger might arise, but not yet. In 20 or 30 years' time our great sea rival would be the sturdy and hardy Jap.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Vote before the Committee is that for money—Vote 1.
    DR. MACGREGORdid not think he would get very far without getting out of order. The Rules of the House appeared to be made on the principle of "how not to do it."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! order!
    DR. MACGREGORsaid he was asking what all this was for. He held that the proposed expenditure meant nothing more nor less than the most
    1312
    rampant Jingoism. He was as much in favour of the defence of the country as anyone in the House, but he regarded the proposed programme of the Government as simply extravagant and unnecessary. At this moment the Jingoes in thousands were dancing for joy, and singing, "We've got the ships, we've got the men, and now we've got the money too." What a parody it was upon our boasted civilization—upon our vaunted Christianity! What had become, he asked, of the party of retrenchment and reform? He had look upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the sturdy and reliable guardian of the national purse. The right hon. Gentleman was not present. Where was he? What had happened to him? Only last year he insisted upon taxing the Scottish national industry.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. T. W. MELLOR): Order! order! That has nothing to do with this Vote.
    DR. MACGREGOR: I wished to ask what he has done with the money. Has he invested it in Consols?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! order!
    DR. MACGREGOR: I pass from that point.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wandering altogether from the subject.
    DR. MACGREGOR: I hold that the tax he put on that industry has been spent on gunpowder.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! order!
    DR. MACGREGORsaid he would conclude by saying that though his sentiments might be unpalatable and unpopular, they were none the less sincere on his part. He might be reminded that he was as a voice crying in the wilderness, but he had the consolation of feeling within a small voice which told him that, in making this protest, he had done his duty, not only to himself, but also to his constituents and his country.
    MR. W. R. CREMER Shoreditch, Haggerston)said, he thanked the hon. Member for Cockermouth for bringing forward his Amendment, and he hoped that, under any circumstances, he would press it to a Division as a protest against the shameful waste of the resources of the country by the proposals of the Government. The hon. Member for West Belfast had spoken very glibly

    1313
    about the extent to which the proposed increase of expenditure on the Navy was approved by the people in every part of the Kingdom; but it was a very remarkable fact that not one single petition had been presented on public meeting anywhere held in support of this increased expenditure on the Navy, whereas, last Session, a very important body of nearly 500 men, who were officers of working class organisations in the country, protested against the proposals then made by the Government to increase the expenditure on the Navy. A great deal had been said about the increased expenditure being necessary to protect our commercial Marine from danger. Seven years ago, when the then Conservative Government surprised the Nation by asking for an increased Vote of £2l,000,000 to build ironclads and strengthen the Navy, the same argument was brought forward. In the House at that time were two hon. Members who had a vast interest in the commerce of the country—the hon. Members for Hull and Jarrow—and they ridiculed the idea of there being any danger to our commercial Marine, and said they were quite satisfied with the then condition of the Navy. But since that time millions had been spent on the Navy, and it had, therefore, been greatly strengthened. Yet the same old argument about danger to our commerce was repeated. From what had been said by the Civil Lord and several hon. Members, it might be imagined that the hon. Member for Cockermouth, and those who supported him, desired to disband the Navy altogether. That was not so; the question with them was whether so many millions more should be spent on a Navy which they thought was already sufficiently strong for all the purposes required. Another argument usually advanced on those occasions was that our Navy ought to be as strong as any two other Powers combined. When the question of the £21,000,000 increase was before the country seven years ago, and when this same argument was brought forward, he remembered stating to the House that only a short time before the demand was made, a Member of the Government, a Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood), actually declared at a meeting in the City of London that our Navy was then equal to the
    1314
    Navies of Russia and France combined, and adduced figures to prove it. Naturally, he asked the Government at the time for the reasons why, in the presence of this statement by one of their colleagues, they had asked for such an enormous increase; but he need hardly say that he had received no answer. But, if that statement was true—and he presumed it was—he wanted to know now, as he did then, what had occurred in the few months between the statement and the making of the demand to cause such a complete change of front on the part of the Government, and whether there was any real danger known to the Government which made the increase of expenditure necessary? The present proposals, however, were only a fulfilment of a prediction which some of them made seven years ago, that, notwithstanding that enormous increase of expenditure, a further demand for increasing the Navy would be made before many years. But it might be said that the Government knew where the real danger lay to our commerce and to the country. If that were so, he thought the Committee would be justified in demanding from the Government some evidence of the fact. He did not say the Government should tell them exactly where the danger was; but the Committee were entitled to ask them whether they had proof that any designs were meditated by any foreign Power against our commercial Marine, or against the shores of the country. Unless some emphatic statement of that kind was made he should support the Amendment in protest against the proposed increased expenditure. But he doubted whether the Government had any evidence of the kind at their disposal. It was an open secret that last year the Government themselves were not united on the question of increased Naval expenditure, and that this year the same differences existed in the Cabinet. No one would say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the minority of the Government who were opposed to this expenditure were less patriotic than, the Jingo element in the Cabinet. If there was any real danger the Government must have been made acquainted with it, and then they would have been united upon the subject, but it was pretty well known that they were not. He was therefore justified in

    1315
    assuming that there was no danger. He admitted that a strong feeling of bitterness and animosity against this country was shown by a section of the French Press; and he found, during some visits he paid to Paris last summer, that this feeling was more or less shared by many French politicians.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: A very good argument for the Vote.
    MR. CREMERsaid that if the hon. Member had waited for another minute he would probably have refrained from making that statement. Well, he was determined to try and discover whether this feeling prevailed amongst the people. He therefore mixed pretty freely amongst the people in the working class quarters of Paris, and at meetings of the people he put the question plainly whether they shared in those feelings of bitterness and animosity towards this country, and in every instance, without a single exception, the idea that the people of France, and especially the working-classes of France, have any ill-feeling against this country was laughed to scorn. He therefore thought he was justified in saying that no danger need be feared from France. He was sorry a much larger reduction in the Vote had not been moved. He, for one, was opposed to the expenditure of a single extra penny on the Navy until some reliable evidence of real danger was produced by the Government. If this extra expenditure was likely to diminish the evil in the slightest degree, he would probably be found supporting it. But he had fully satisfied himself, from the observations of many years, that increased expenditure on the Army and on the Navy tended to aggravate rather than, to diminish the evil, besides, it would give to the French news-paersan opportunity, of which they would not be slow to avail themselves, of saying that those preparations on the part of Great Britain, were intended as a menace to France. During the past few months there had been a great deal of discussion concerning the terrible condition of the unemployed, and it was during such an inopportune time that the Government proposed to expend millions more upon the Navy. One hon. Member of the House, giving evidence before the Committee on the unemployed, suggested
    1316
    that the State should in times of distress vote sums of money.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I think the hon. Member is not now speaking to the Vote.
    MR. CREMERsaid, he bowed to the decision of the Chair, and would content himself with saying that when the hundreds of thousands of people who had been suffering the pangs of hunger during the present winter looked to the House for some means of relief, the doors of the House were closed against them, and it was said it was not the function of Parliament to vote money to relieve distress amongst the people, while at the same time it voted many extra millions for the Navy. In fact, the starving people asked for bread, but instead of bread the Government gave them ironclads.
    MR. W. P. BYLESsaid, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had argued that the extension made in the Naval scheme of the Government was necessary on the best possible advice taken by the Admiralty. But, was not that as much as to say that the policy of the Government was determined, and opinions of Members of the House silenced by permanent officials? The latter were a most estimable and useful class of public servants, against whom he certainly would not say a single word. But the policy of the Government, as regarded Naval expenditure and our relations with foreign nations, ought not to be determined by permanent officials. The Civil Lord further said the command of the sea was necessary to Great Britain. It seemed that the utterances of a few platitudes about England having supremacy at sea was intended to do duty as a reply to arguments from the Radical Benches. It was merely begging the whole question. All admitted that we must have the command of the sea, an adequate Navy, and so forth. The whole question was, What was an adequate Navy? He was appalled at the light-heartedness with which the House of Commons was continually voting increased money for the maintenance of our Imperial defences. Then the Civil Lord said they had chosen the wrong time for the Motion before the Committee; it should have been made on the Vote for men and not for money.

    1317
    The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean said it should have been on the Army and not the Navy. For his own part, he was willing to admit that his hon. Friend might have chosen an inappropriate moment or form of procedure for bringing his Motion before the Committee; but he cared little for the form. It was the spirit of the thing that he cared for, and he thought it had been shown clearly enough that a strong feeling existed that we were going forward too carelessly in the matter of national armaments. It was quite true that they had been wounded in the house of their friends, but he did not think the speeches of the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Gateshead had supplied any forcible arguments in favour of the position taken up by the hon. Member for the Holderness Division. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy seemed to be trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. He began his speech with the usual high-flown remarks about Britain having an efficient Navy and ruling the sea, which drew a good many cheers from the Opposition, and which he hoped he enjoyed. But he said he was against an extension of military and naval expenditure, and asked the Government how soon it would end. He "came to curse and remained to pray." At the beginning of his speech he was running with the hare, and at the end he was hunting with the hounds. The hon. Member for Gateshead, although he proclaimed himself a Radical and a man of peace, supported the whole of this large expenditure. But only two or three days ago, in that very House, he spoke of the expenditure upon the Navy as the squandering of national money.
    MR. W. ALLAN: I referred to the boilers being constructed for the Navy when I spoke of the squandering of money.
    MR. BYLES: The hon. Members words were: "The Government had rendered every ship in the Navy absolutely useless for full speed steaming," and asked the House whether they did not consider that squandering national money.
    MR. ALLAN: That was an allusion to the boilers.
    MR. BYLES: If the Government had been squandering national money——
    MR. ALLAN: On boilers.
    MR. BYLES: If the Government had
    1318
    been squandering national money in its Naval expenditure, and rendering every ship in the Navy useless for full speed steaming, then it justified the position which Radical Members took. It was true that Conservative Members had supported the Naval expenditure of the Government. But it used not to be so. An illustrious Member of this House, the Member for Midlothian (the right hon. W. E. Gladstone) who used to make speeches in favour of economy a few years ago, said:—
    "What I desire from the bottom of my heart is to see the question of economy once more what it was in the first twenty years of my political life—a question in which there was no distinction of Party, in which each Party vied with the other in real and energetic attempts to keep down public expenditure."
    He was afraid there would be few in the Lobby in which he intended to vote, and no representative of the Conservative Party. The days when they joined in the cry of economy wore apparently past. But he trusted the electors would wake up and send men to that House who would insist on the old Liberal policy of retrenchment. An argument which had been common in the Debate was, that the armaments of one country increased in accordance with the increased armaments of another; in other words, we spent more money on the Navy because the French spent more money on theirs, and the French spent more money on their Navy because we spent more on ours; and so the pendulum swung backwards and forwards, till the expenditure of all the nations on warlike preparations had grown so large that the tax-payers of Europe were being weighed down with the burden of taxation, and the countries of Europe were being brought within measurable distance of bankruptcy. The suspicions which were entertained between nation and nation were fostered and encouraged by this expenditure. In the recent Debate in the French Chamber, this suspicion had been expressed against ourselves. That day a Welsh Member had asked a question about fortifications for the Bristol Channel. The Member of the Government who answered him said that there were some other ports that were likely to be raided earlier. Who were the raiders expected to be? Did anyone fear invasion? In France there seemed to be fear on the part of some that we should invade that country.

    1319
    A Deputy had solemnly averred that a Cabinet Council in this country, in November last, discussed the question of the invasion of France. It sounded to us rather absurd; but it was equally absurd and unworthy of us to think that the French contemplated the invasion of England. It might savour of presumption for unofficial Members to discuss the state of the Navy; what they were really doing was to avail themselves of a form of procedure for protesting against the growing expenditure on Imperial defence. If he were personally denied the right to an opinion he would shelter himself behind Lord Randolph Churchill, who, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, on receiving the Army and Navy Estimates, said they were too large, that he was in favour of retrenchment and economy, and that he was convinced, by what he had learned at the Treasury, that such a policy was not only necessary, but perfectly reasonable. All honour to him for sacrificing himself by resigning his office. This was eight years ago, when the total defensive expenditure had suddenly risen by six millions, from a ten years' average of £25,000,000 to £31,000,000. What would Lord Randolph Churchill have said if he had been amongst us now? Why, he would have voted for this proposed reduction. Lord Randolph Churchill also said he could not obtain any satisfactory assurance that the money was properly spent, and that he had a conviction that the reverse was the case; and he spoke of the scandalously defective Commissariat in Egypt, brittle swords, bending bayonets, jamming cartridges, bursting guns, the spending of a million by the Admiralty unknown to the Treasury, and vessels costing over a million proving a failure. Since then we had lost one by the incompetence of the commander—["What vessel?"—The Victoria.]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think any question about the Victoria arises on this Vote.
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: Not by the incompetence of the Commander.
    MR. BYLES: Then by his competence. The vessel went to the bottom, at any rate.
    MR. CREMERasked which Vote they were discussing—that for men, or that for money?
    MR. A. C. MORTON: As a matter of order, cannot we on either Vote discuss every question in connection with the Navy?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. The rule of the House is that the general discussion takes place on the first Vote. Sometimes the two Votes are discussed together. The reason this Amendment is permissible is that Vote 1 applies to the men of the Navy, and it is not in Order to discuss a matter which is not a subject of the Vote.
    MR. CREMER: Is it men or money we are discussing?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The money for the men.
    MR. BYLESthought nothing could be more germane to the subject in hand than the quotations he had made on the increase of naval expenditure by an eminent and brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer, who further said—
    "If the foreign policy of this country is conducted with skill and judgment, the present large and increasing armaments are quite unnecessary, and the taxation they involve perfectly unjustifiable."
    Very little consideration had been given to the people who had to bear this increase of taxation, to be imposed at the very time when a Committee was considering the destitution that arose from non-employment. With regard to the alternative policy, he believed that there was a more excellent way, and it was for the nations to consider together whether mutual, reciprocal, and perhaps, proportional disarmament could not be brought about among the great powers of Europe. There had been evidence during the last six or twelve months, that there was more preparedness than was generally supposed, amongst the statesmen of Europe for such proposals. He looked forward with hope to the day when a statesman would arise who would seek, by diplomatic means, to avoid the necessity for increasing naval and military expenditure.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, the quotation the hon. Member (Mr. Byles) had just made from a speech by the late Lord Randolph Churchill, should be read in conjunction with other speeches by the noble Lord, who was a brilliant and effective Leader of his Party. He was perfectly sure

    1321
    that many quotations would be found to the effect that England must possess an overwhelming Navy. Ho was convinced that no leading Conservative Statesman used more emphatic language in that direction than the late Lord Randolph Churchill. The hon. Member for Haggerston had commented on what he considered the change of attitude of the present Government in respect to Naval expenditure. No doubt the Government would give a good reply to those comments. Of course they could mention, among other things, the increased armaments of France, and the growing understanding between France and Russia. But, without dwelling on these reasons, he ventured to give one reason very much to the point; the marked expression of public opinion in almost all classes of the British people in respect to the strength of the Navy, and to bearing the fiscal burdens necessary to maintain that strength. Most unmistakable had been the manifestations of that public opinion which must be the ultimate arbiter in all Parliamentary affairs.
    MR. CREMER: Will the hon. Baronet say where evidence of that is to be found?
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, the evidence was to be, found in almost every organ of almost every Party, and in the great number of public meetings which were held at the end of 1893, and more especially that held by the London Chamber of Commerce—about the most representative commercial body in the Kingdom.
    MR. CREMER: That was the only meeting held.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasserted the manifestations of public opinion had been unmistakable, and that those who knew the temperament and disposition of their countrymen—not the "Little England" and "Peace-at-any-price" parties, who were limited in number—but all who understood the feelings of Englishmen and Scotchmen, would say that the general opinion was that our Navy must be strong, and the people were willing to bear the burden of strengthening it. Whether that portion of the burden, was great which fell upon the working classes was matter for discussion at another time. The burden would be great upon the upper classes,
    1322
    especially since the passing of the Revenue Act of last year, but that the burden of the Naval expenditure was heavy on the mass of the, people seemed to him a monstrous proposition. Surely we must be powerful, and we were among the most lightly-taxed people on the face of the earth. But let that pass. The hon. Member asked why were there no public meetings in favour of this increased Naval expenditure. Why should there be such meetings when public opinion was satisfied with these proposals of Her Majesty's Government? Nobody was opposed to them except a limited class to which the hon. Member belonged. The vast mass of the people were with the majority in the House, and there was no necessity for public meetings. He hoped the hon. Baronet would divide on his Motion, for there was nothing like a Division to test the littleness of the "Little England" Party. Then would be seen how few Members would vote against the Government. He earnestly hoped the Civil Lord, who had conducted these Debates with so much ability and success, would not, be deterred by the opinion of this small minority—Radicals though they were. But there were Radicals and Radicals; there were some, no doubt, who desired to minimise the importance of the British Empire, and among other means to their object would see the Naval expenditure reduced; but, on the other hand, there were sturdy, strong-minded, patriotic Radicals, who, though they differed on domestic policy, were little, if at all, behind the Conservative Party in desire to maintain the defence of the Empire. He was thankful for that, and he recognised it in some of the speeches delivered by Radical Members. He need not reiterate the assurance that the Government, in doing its duty, would receive the most loyal support from Members on his side of the House. The main reason why he interposed was that he understood the hon. Member for Northampton had recommended that we should abandon the Mediterranean. That he understood was the proposition, for he had had the advantage of hearing the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke), and was glad to hear it, especially after hearing some utterances about the Mediterranean on former occasions which

    1323
    did cause him some slight alarm. He was glad the right hon. Baronet had spoken out, declaring that the Mediterranean must be maintained, for that was the outcome of his argument. In addition to the claims of our great traffic in that inland sea, and of loyalty to our allies, Austria and Italy, there was the argument of the necessity of preserving our prestige in eastern countries. The recommendation of the hon. Member for Northampton would mean the turning of the Mediterranean into a French lake, admitting Russia through the Black Sea and Dardanelles to a comfortable coaling station, on the eastern section, the western and middle sections being entirely French. In such a position we must abandon all command of Egypt and the Suez Canal, for that would be impossible without at least a joint command of the Mediterranean. That was so obvious a proposition that he would not stop to debate it. What he was most anxious to submit to the House was this: The abandonment of the Mediterranean would be a serious blow, he might almost say a deadly blow at our prestige throughout Asia. The Asiatic people were becoming more and more alive to what was going on in Europe by means of the increased intercommunication, and we must regard the effect of an abandonment of the Mediterranean on our prestige throughout Syria, Asia Minor, Arabia, and India. Important was that in India where the people had knowledge of our position in the Mediterranean. We had sent an expedition from Bombay to Malta, and he had the organising of this expedition. Thousands of natives of India of India of influence and intelligence took part in that expedition, and they, returning, had much to say to their countrymen about the Mediterranean, and so the people of India had become aware of what went on in the Mediterranean, and any sympton on our part of caving in, backing out, or scuttling, would create the impression that twelve o'clock had struck for England's greatness, and her great day of empire was approaching an inglorious sunset. It would be construed into a sign of decadence, and our prestige would suffer. Our vast dominion in Asia depended more upon opinion than upon physical force, though, of course, physical force was the basis. But
    1324
    the superstructure depended on opinion or prestige, and that meant the moral effect arising from these considerations. A more deadly blow could not be struck against England's moral dominion over Asiatic people than by the abandonment of the Mediterranean. To ask England to strike that blow herself with suicidal hand was to suppose us capable of more folly than we could be guilty of at the close of the nineteenth century. If we are to maintain the Mediterranean we must look at Gibraltar, but that was a question he would not now touch, for another opportunity would be presented for discussing the work there. In passing, however, he might say that if we are to maintain our hold, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) so well argued we must on the Mediterranean, then we must have at Gibraltar the means of repairing two big ironclads, should they be temporarily disabled. This money was required for an increased number of men necessary, because of the increase in ships; it was the development of Naval resources the country demanded, and he need not labour the point.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid that he was not in favour of peace at any price, but in favour of defending the country in every way that was right and proper. Allusion had been made to the late Lord R. Churchill, and he believed that that statesman was in favour of a peace policy. At any rate, he opposed strongly that wretched fighting policy of ours in Egypt. The hon. Baronet who spoke last had said something about the temper and disposition of the people. Well, the industrial classes—the substantial section of the people—who had made this country what it was, were all opposed to this war policy. He supposed that the hon. Member got his notions from the public-houses. Whether he got them firsthand or second hand was a point on which they had no information. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that they ought to have raised this discussion on the Vote for men, or on the Army Votes. But last week they were appealed to—some of them personally—to allow the Army Votes to go through. It was going too far when Members of the Government appealed to hon. Members as a matter of business and urgency

    1325
    to allow Votes to go through, and afterwards twitted them for their acquiescence. If that was the way business was going to be conducted the Civil Lord and the War Minister might encounter difficulties in getting their Votes through on future occasions. He hoped they would not be treated again as the Civil Lord had treated them that night. The Civil Lord had said that no one protested against the Vote for the increase of the Navy last year. The hon. Member was wrong, for he protested against it. But, because an increase was Voted last year, the Government had no right to say that the House was bound to go on increasing the Vote for ever. Then the Civil Lord said that those who objected to an increase of taxation ought to vote against the increased demands for education. Now, those who always voted, and always had voted, when they dared, against the education Vote were the Jingo Members opposite, who were, however, ever ready to grant money for war purposes. Those who, like himself, had always voted in support of education for the children of all classes, did not like to be told that because they were in favour of devoting still more money to educational purposes, they must, therefore, vote for an increase of the Army and Navy. The policy of the Amendment was that in future there should be arbitration instead of war. Two years ago there was a Debate on the subject, and he wanted to hear what the Government had done in consequence of that Debate. Were they prepared to make a Treaty with the American Government, providing that disputed questions should be submitted to arbitration before war was begun? Had the Government approached the French, German, Russian, and other Governments with a view to entering into Arbitration Treaties? Unless steps were taken to carry out Resolutions passed by that House, it was a farce to pass them. He was convinced that if Arbitration Treaties were made there would practically be no danger of war in the future, for during the time taken to consider the question, disputing countries would have time in which to arrive at a calmer frame of mind. Surely the Radical Party ought to remember the promises which they had made to the people of this country. Possibly one
    1326
    of the reasons why they were losing seats in the country was that they were forgetting their pledges. The Tory Party had apparently nobbled this so-called Radical Government in regard to this Jingo business. They ought to have some respect for their principles, and to remember the promises which they made when in Opposition. Although it might be only a small band that would vote in support of the Amendment that night, the Members who composed it would have the satisfaction of knowing that they were voting in accordance with the policy which their Party advocated before they were returned to power. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy seemed to think that whatever the Government did must be right, and therefore, whilst he sympathised with the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division, he intended to vote with the Government. That was not the way in which the representatives of the people ought to view the Government's management of business. Why should not we endeavour to cultivate good relations with the French, the Germans, the Russians, and any other peoples we had to do business with? Unfortunately, there was a party in this country who lived by war. They were brought up for fighting purposes, and for nothing else. They said it was the only trade or profession that a gentleman could be connected with; he believed that, except in the case of those at the top of the tree, they fought very well when, called upon to do so, and that they were brave men. [An hon. MEMBER: "The Duke of Cambridge."] A right hon. Gentleman said the Duke of Cambridge. For several years he had desired to reduce the Duke of Cambridge's salary out of the way altogether, and he should propose that reduction on another Vote. He objected to fighting people altogether. [A Laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen who laughed should remember that war was, after all, murder. If they read their Bible—as he supposed they did sometimes—they would know that was the Bible view of it. We were told, "Thou shalt not commit murder." Some persons would strike the "not" out altogether. Unfortunately, a Radical Government were always got hold of by somebody. He understood from what he had heard to-night there was a division in

    1327
    the Cabinet in regard to these Jingo matters. He, understood from experts that there was a leakage of at least £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of money on each service absolutely wasted; and he was told a great saving might be made by proper management without any loss of efficiency whatsoever, because things were not conducted in a businesslike way. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean rather sneered at some of them for having made windy speeches. That sort of sneer was directed at everyone who tried to do a little good in the world, but it proved nothing. In regard to this increased expenditure, they had been told something about the Colonies. He knew the Australians paid something towards the cost of the Navy, and that Canada did not. Why? Because Canada would have nothing to do with our foreign war policy. If they wanted Canada to join us, the fighting policy must be given up altogether. Why should Canada trouble about our war policy? Canada had not to thank this country for anything at all. Canada was made by people who were driven out of this country by bad land laws and religious persecution. They did not want our protection at all, and if it came to that——
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER): I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is getting rather away from the Vote. He appears now to be discussing Colonial policy.
    MR. A. C. MORTONwent on to say that if it had not been for the "Little England" policy—the policy of Home Rule—we should not have had a Colony left us at the present time worth having. He had been telling hon. Members some wholesome truths they did not like. He could tell them a good many more; but he wanted to know one thing—Who was going to pay for this increased expenditure? The working classes of this country paid, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit, the bulk of the Imperial taxes. He had no doubt they would try and put something more on the working classes. They had no right to be extravagant with the money of the taxpayers of this country. He did not believe that either economy or efficiency was studied
    1328
    in the management of the Navy. But there was a higher principle still. We professed to be a Christian country, although, he supposed, we were the greatest murderers in all the world. We had got an Established Church with Archbishops, Bishops——
    THE CHAIRMAN (MR. J. W. LOWTHER): Order, order! I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is getting very far away from the Estimate now under discussion, and I must ask him to confine himself more closely to the subject-matter of the Vote, and warn him to be careful.
    MR. A. C. MORTON, in conclusion, had only to say that we professed to be a Christian people, and that we ought to remember our profession, and go in, not for increased expenditure, but for arbitration and peace.
    ADMIRAL FIELDregretted that the Debate had been initiated at all. He would have liked it to go abroad that the House of Commons was unanimous in voting the necessary supplies to maintain our Naval power. He did not take the hon. Member who had just spoken very seriously, but he agreed with his remark that windy speeches did not prove anything.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I did not say that
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he would call the hon. Member's speech a windy speech, which did not prove anything. The hon. Member gloried in the accusation that he belonged to the Little England Party, but he would say that the hon. Member belonged rather to the Party of Icelanders. He would recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the Prime Minister's speech at Sheffield. [Mr. A. C. MORTON: "I have read it."] Then he had not profited by it. The hon. Member said he must have regard for his principles. What were they? [Mr. A. C. MORTON: "Arbitration."] He would not argue that question. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment did not tell the Committee the ground on which he challenged the Vote. It was true this expenditure was for defence, but the best kind of defence was to be prepared for offence. No Government would involve us in war willingly, but the Government he would hang would be that which allowed the country to drift, and its Naval armaments to get into such a

    1329
    deplorable condition as that in which we were placed in 1882. Naval officers were patriotic men, who could have no object but to see their country safe, and he thought they ought to be commended rather than blamed for having done their best to arouse public opinion and to secure that both the late Government and the present did their duty in this matter. If there was any class in this country interested m the maintenance of our sea power it was the working men, for they would suffer most by a miserable cheeseparing policy. If we lost the command of the sea, what was to become of our toiling millions? If the raw material could not come into this country wages could not be earned, and the people must starve. The problem was quite different nowadays to what it was when England was self-sustaining. "Bloated armaments" was a figure of speech without any meaning, unless it was defined. He understood it to mean armaments in excess of the necessities of the country. But no one seriously considered that our armaments were in excess of our Imperial needs. Trade followed the flag, but only so long as it was known that there was a power behind the nag to make it respected in all parts of the world. Prince Bismarck said moral strength must rest upon material force, and in our case the material force was naval. He had listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton; but he could not take him seriously. The hon. Member had stated to him personally that ho was in favour of a strong Navy and would vote anything that was necessary, but that he would take the money away from the Army Vote.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am in favour of what I call a strong Navy, which is what the Navy was 12 years ago.
    ADMIRAL, FIELDsaid he would pin the hon. Member to his words. He would answer the, hon. Member that the Navy of 10 or 12 years ago was a weak Navy, and to say that the Navy at that time was strong was really absurd. He had always looked upon the hon. Member as a friend of the Navy. It was not, however, possible to contemplate the transfer of our commerce to neutral flags; the neutrals had not ships enough. We had £150,000,000 worth of commercial
    1330
    property on the high seas every night, and to contemplate the transfer of all that commerce to a foreign flag was a paltry policy unworthy of a statesman or a Member of the House of Commons. Another hon. Member suggested that this country should increase her armaments if war broke out; but ships did not descend from the clouds ready made. If war broke out, moreover, it would be short, sharp, and decisive, and woe be to us if we were caught napping! The increase in the Navy Vote in excess of the Army Vote was partly due to the transfer of the Naval gun Vote from the Army to the Navy Estimates. He was sorry that the Government had not seen their way to propose a large increase in the Royal Marines, the cheapest force in the country. The hon. Member for the Middleton Division seemed to wish that a portion of the increase in the Navy Vote should be spent on education, but he would remind the hon. Member that it was better to be ignorant and safe than to be educated and in danger. This was not a Party, but a National question, and the Vote ought not to be subjected to carping criticism, but should be passed unanimously. The country had an object-lesson to-day on the advantage of possessing a command of the seas in the victories of Japan over China. If this country were to lose command of the seas, India and our Colonies would be gone. There was no bottom in this agitation. No man worthy of the name of a patriot would indulge in it.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I would venture to ask the Committee to vote now upon the particular Amendment before us. We have a great deal yet to do in Supply, and the Committee of Supply must be closed to-morrow. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the Report of Supply must be taken on Thursday. I will not restate again all that I said in reply to a question the other day. I then stated that the 21st inst. was the latest day upon which it would be possible to take the First Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and I am afraid that, in order to make it safe that we may have Supply finished to-morrow night, I must give notice that I shall tomorrow move to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule. Under the circumstances, I hope that the House will now vote upon the present movement.
    SIR J. E. GORSTsaid, he could not agreee with the right hon. Gentleman in the statement which he had now made—that it was necessary for the Report of Supply to be taken on Thursday. He ventured to say, with great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be ample time if the Report of Supply were taken on Friday, and after the First Reading of the Ways and Means Bill on Friday there would be ample time to complete the arrangements for the financial year by 1st April. He had been waiting there the whole evening with the view of saying a few words on this Estimate. In fact he had given notice to bring before the Committee the case of Lord Charles Beresford, and the refusal to grant the time he had served in Egypt. He had been informed that, having allowed the Vote for men to pass, he had lost his chance, and that on the Vote for the money, the same licence was not permitted. He, therefore, could only give notice that on a future occasion on the Vote for salaries he should fulfil his undertaking to bring the case before the Committee. As to the general discussion, he must congratulate the Member for Northampton on his audacity in bringing it forward as a reproach that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not sit in the House of Commons. That was a complaint which he had made on many occasions when he sat with Lord Randolph Churchill below the Gangway. It was now more than 20 years since his right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's was the Liberal First Lord of the Admiralty, and since that time their Liberal opponents had, whenever they were in power, placed their First Lord of the Admiralty in the House of Lords, where he was entirely withdrawn from the proper control which the House ought to exercise over a great spending Department. The Debate had scarcely been a Naval debate. It had been a Debate on the Defences of the country, and he must say that hon. Members opposite, who plumed themselves on being in an especial degree the representatives of the working classes, showed that in intelligence they were far behind the people they professed to represent. The working men of this country now knew well enough that their food depended on
    1332
    the maintenance of the supremacy of the seas, and they also knew that their industry depended upon it. Some statistics read by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord G. Hamilton) last year showed to what extent raw materials were imported into England. What would the constituents of the hon. Member for Northampton say if there was any risk as to the importation of hides and leather, 83 per cent. of which came from abroad? The facts being so, and the intelligence of the working classes being far above what it was 30 or 40 years ago—knowing as they did that food and labour depended on the maintenance of supremacy at sea—he did not attach the slightest importance to these proposals in favour of "economy," or to denunciations of "bloated armaments." He thought those denunciations worse than useless. No one wanted to spend a single sixpence on the Army or Navy more than was necessary. If anyone could point out where a saving could be effected, he would earn the gratitude of the Committee and his constituents.
    MR. THOMAS SNAPEsaid, a challenge had been thrown out to Members on the Government side of the House who opposed the continuous increase in the expenditure of the Navy to point out some specific way in which the reduction could be effected. He would answer that challenge. The late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton) received a pension of £2,000 a year, and he thought that this money might very easily be saved. [Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W, LOWTHER): The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss any matter except that which arises out of the Vote at the present time.
    SIR J. E. GORST: That is, besides, not in the Navy Estimates.
    MR. SNAPEcontinued by saying that one reason for their action was that if they did not protest when the leaders of their own side yielded to this clamour for increased expenditure, the ground would be taken from them if at any future time they had to protest against a similar increase when the Opposition were in power. The reason for objecting was this. Many hon. Members had pledged themselves to do their utmost

    1333
    to adhere to the old watchwords of the Liberal Party—"Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform." But instead of that policy they found that there was a continual increase of expenditure by the Government of their own side. They were told that it was absolutely necessary to have an overmastering Navy against the combined strength of two other Powers, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had long ago told them that they occupied this position. Why, then, should we go on in this extravagant way, voting the money of those who were suffering severely from industrial and agricultural depression in the country? Owing to the skill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, much of the taxation for the maintenance of these armaments would ultimately fall on the rich; but notwithstanding this, a considerable addition would necessarily be made to the taxation of the industrial classes and of the poor. If the Committee continued year after year to vote these increased sums, hon. Members were to that extent taking away from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to provide a free breakfast table for the working classes of the country. He, therefore, supported the Mover of the Amendment.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURNjoined in the protest of his hon. Friend. His main reason for doing so was that he believed increasing armaments were unnecessary if that course of agreement was entered into with other nations for the purpose of reduction which had been recommended. He did not, moreover, like to see those millions of money voted away with a light heart when there were such grievous needs among the people he represented for the protection of their life and property. The only class now in this country trained to a seafaring life were the fishermen. He therefore wished to enter a claim for the money necessary to make proper harbours for those men. One ironclad would provide good fishery harbours for the whole coast of Scotland. This subject had been brought forward time after time during the last half-century. In one storm alone 100 fishermen were drowned, leaving behind them many widows and orphans. Sir Robert Duff, whose recent
    1334
    loss they all deplored, brought this question before the House 30 years ago; and therefore he felt that in urging measures to be taken to render those increasing armaments unnecessary he was doing his best to enable money to be provided for the purpose of building more and better harbours. A democratic Budget had been passed, and now they desired to see an era of democratic expenditure inaugurated.
    MAJOR RASCHsupported the proposals of the Government. He was no Protectionist, because he knew that the best antidote against Protection was the existence of a strong fleet on the seas. England grew about 9,000,000 quarters of wheat. If the fleet were reduced, how could we ensure the passage over seas of the 22,000,000 quarters of wheat which were not grown in this country, but which were necessary to feed the people? In the event of war breaking out, even if it were successful, the 4lb. loaf would quickly go up to 8d., and, if the war were unsuccessful, the loaf would go up beyond 1s. In the face of these facts, how could it be contended that a strong Navy was in the interests of the squires and parsons? In the county which he represented, there were miles of land out of cultivation, and other land was falling out by parishes. The land did not grow the wheat which it ought to grow, and how was it possible to import what food was required unless the ocean lines from Argentina and the United States were kept clear?
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Shall I be in order, Sir, if I enter a protest against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep us here after 12 o'clock to-morrow?
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER): No. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made any such proposal. He has only given notice that he will make a proposal to-morrow.
    MR. J. G. WEIRsaid, that he should not support the Motion, because he thought that this country ought to have the finest ships, fitted with the finest guns and the best machinery in the world. He considered it of the first importance that our Navy should be maintained at the highest order of efficiency. Of course the expenditure

    1335
    was large, but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find some way of raising the funds other than by imposing increased taxation on the working classes of the country. He should like some of the officers and men included in the Vote to do duty among the Western Islands of Scotland, in looking after those pests to fishermen, the steam trawlers. After much trouble and constant application, he succeeded in getting from the Admiralty one wretched old tub of a gunboat, which could only steam eight knots an hour. The fishermen on the South coast of England could have 19-knot them——
    THE CHAIRMAN Mr. J. W. LOWTHER): The remarks of the hon. Gentleman would come better on the Fishery Vote.
    MR. WEIRsaid, that the Admiralty objected to the coastguard taking any part in looking after steam trawlers off the coasts of the Highlands and islands of Scotland, because they considered it was not dignified work for men engaged in the service. It was, however, singular that in the south of England the chief officers of the coastguard acted as fishery officers; they did so without any loss of dignity.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER): The hon. Member is now dealing with a specific grievance. The object in moving the reduction was to deal with the general question of the Navy; and the hon. Member's remarks would be more applicable when the specific Vote which he challenges monies before the House.
    M.R. WEIRsaid, that he would content himself with asking why the Northampton was not sent round to the islands of Scotland. She was going round the coast of Ireland for boys, and he had urged, time after time, that she should be sent to Stornoway where the finest boys could be obtained.
    SIR E. HARLANDsaid, that before a Division was taken he would like to remind the Committee that in the discussion on Vote A several questions were put to the Civil Lord which had not yet been answered. For instance, questions were asked as to the size of the graving dock it was proposed to construct at Gibraltar, and as to the
    1336
    construction of second-class cruisers much broader and shorter than those of the Talbot class.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER)said, those questions would more properly come up on other Votes—the first on the Works Vote and the second on the Vote for materiel.
    SIR E. HARLAND: May I ask when the answers will be given?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he understood the Civil Lord, at an earlier stage of the discussion, promised an answer to the various questions put by the hon. Member for Dover, and by others. He did not at all press the hon. Gentleman to give an answer not allowed by the Rules of the House, but he would like to know when the replies would be given.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid, the replies would be given when the Loans Bill was before the House, and as soon as the Vote 1 was taken the Resolution which would start the Loans Bill would be moved.
    MR. BALFOUR: Can questions be asked on that Bill?
    MR. ROBERTSONpresumed they could.
    SIR E. HARLANDsaid, it was a most exceptional course for a whole evening to be spent in asking questions, and then for the Civil Lord to give no answers to the questions.
    MR. A. C. MORTONasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give him an answer to the question as to the proceedings connected with arbitration.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he could only repeat that the Government would do everything they could to promote the cause of arbitration. They had shown their sincerity in the matter by their action in respect to the Behring Sea question. Nothing had been wanting on the part of the Government to give effect to that arbitration. It was their desire that all questions of that kind should be settled by arbitration.
    MR. A. C. MORTONremarked, that what he had said had special reference to the making of a treaty with America.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: We are very anxious to promote that, but I am not at liberty to state exactly how the matter stands.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the fact that questions put on Vote A had not been answered was due to an innovation which had crept into the practice of the Committee. The practice had hitherto been to allow the same discussion on the Vote for men as on the Vote for money, that was to say that the discussion permissible on the one was permissible on the other. The other night, after the satisfactory statement of the Civil Lord, the Committee assented to the Vote for men being taken. The Vote for money then stood as the first business to be taken in connection with the Naval Estimates. The understanding, of course, was that when the Vote for wages came up the same discussion would be permitted. That had always been the practice before. To night a different practice had prevailed. If the new practice were to continue it would not, he feared, facilitate the passing of the Vote for men.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER)said, they were now discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Cocker-mouth. It was quite possible that everything hon. Members desired to urge might be in order on the general Vote, bur at present the discussion must be restricted to the Amendment.
    MR. CREMERhoped that the course pursued that night in dividing the Vote would not be accepted as a precedent. Even the Chairman of Committees had made a mistake in saying they were discussing the Vote for men. For when a question was asked him afterwards he stated that the subject under discussion was Money, not Men. It was quite clear from the confusion which had reigned to-night that it would be awkward if the course pursued on the present occasion were pursued on other occasions.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 153.—(Division List No. 28.)
    MR. H. E. KEARLEYsaid, that before the Vote was agreed to, he wished to raise two points. The first dealt with the long-standing question of opening up a new avenue of promotion for warrant officers. The claims of those men were supported by hon. Members without distinction of Party, and the noble Lord the Member for Ealing, who was First Lord of the Admiralty in the late Government, had declared in favour of the proposed concession. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that the question had taken a new turn, and that it was engaging the serious consideration of the Admiralty. But that was practically what had been said last year. The Secretary of the Admiralty then stated that the question was engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and that he hoped that he would he able in a short time to make an announcement in reference to it, which would be regarded as satisfactory. There was another point, also, on which no satisfaction had been given by the Government. That was as to the claim of engine-room artificers for promotion to warrant rank. It was said that Members representing dockyard constituencies brought forward those questions because of the pressure that was brought to bear on them by their constituents. But that was not so. The claims of those men were, supported by hon. Members from all parts of the country. He thought they were entitled to a further statement in regard to them, and, in order to obtain it, he moved the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £100.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he thought the House had carried, as far as the public interest would allow it to go, a discussion on the claims for increased wages and promotion of men engaged in the Naval Service of the country. He did not complain of such questions being raised with regard to men employed in the dockyards, as that was a matter of mere civil administration; but when it came to men in the Naval Service, he

    1339
    must express a doubt as to whether the interests of the Service or the interests of the country were served by those discussions of alleged grievances. At any rate he found himself in the position of being unable to do more than to recapitulate his statement which had been found so unsatisfactory by his hon. Friend. The present status of the warrant officers was the subject of new consideration by the Admiralty, and, until it was concluded, questions as to the creation of a new rank, or as to more rapid promotion within their body, must be left in abeyance. That was really all he could say. As to the engine-room artificers, he had been in hopes that the hon. Member would have acquiesced in the suggestion he had made—that these men should come before them as they did last year, and, in company with hon. Members who were expert engineers, discuss the points as to which they were still unsatisfied. He was not in a position to announce any other decision on the question, or to do more than say that they should be glad to repeat the experiment they had made last year. He hoped therefore the hon. Member would not persevere in moving the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid, he would gladly have acquiesced in the suggestion, were it not for the fact that they had had this performance gone through for the last two years, and had received the same assurance, but after allowing the Vote to go through they had never heard anything more about the matter. A deliberate statement had been made by the Secretary to the Admiralty in reply to a similar complaint, to the effect that a year ago the question was under the serious consideration of the Admiralty. In spite of that, however, they had never heard a word about it until now. With regard to the deputations that had been suggested, he had attended these deputations until he became weary of them. He had been before Lord Spencer on three different occasions, and had found
    1340
    that it was altogether profitless. He persevered, therefore, in moving the reduction of the Vote, because he felt that unless they showed their resentment of this unjust treatment, they would have no chance of obtaining redress.
    SIR J. BAKER, called the attention of the hon. Member to the great advantage which would accrue to the whole body of warrant officers by following the suggestion of the Civil Lord. He had proposed to review their position, and to improve, both in number and status, the whole body. The numbers of warrant officers would also be largely increased. There could be no possible advantage in dividing the House on the question of improvements, the responsibility for which rested on the Admiralty. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, which would unquestionably retard the very work which he had undertaken.
    MR. W. ALLANsaid, the position of the engine-room artificers was intensely unsatisfactory, and the remedy was practically very simple, so far as he could judge from the many letters he had received from these men. What the artificers wanted was that they should be allowed to pass the examination which was now in vogue for the probationary assistant engineers, in order to obtain engineer rank. The next point was that they wanted an increase in their pay, as their pay was miserably small. In fact, they were not paid what was paid in a common collier, and considering the difficulties attending their position, and the responsibilities attaching to their work on board a man-of-war, he thought their pay was utterly inadequate. He, had hoped to see £20,000, or £30,000 included in the Estimates for an increase of pay to the artificers, and he hoped the Civil Lord would satisfy them on these two important points.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that this matter should not be

    1341
    allowed to hang over year after year, but that the Civil Lord would do what he could to obtain some decision on these important points.
    MR. ROBERTSONreplied that these were matters which were not under his control, but he would do his best to meet his hon. Friend's wishes.
    MR. G. WYNDHAMobserved that on Monday last he was allowed to ask a question as to the proposed harbour works at Dover, and on Tuesday he made a speech putting forward the same point, when the Civil Lord bowed his head to him with great courtesy, and he understood the hon. Gentleman was going to reply on the subject. In addition three other definite points were raised by other hon. Members. In times past, it had been usual for the Government to reply to the general discussion, and he expected the same course would have been followed on this occasion, and that hon. Members would have obtained the preliminary information to which they were entitled before they came to the narrower issues raised by particular votes. It was customary after the general discussion, and before they came to the separate votes, that hon. Members should be informed what was to be the general policy of the Government in order that they might determine with their constituents what action they should take. They had been deprived of that privilege on this occasion, and instead of having a reply from the Civil Lord on the various points raised, the whole day had been wasted by antediluvian arguments which interested nobody except the last relics of the Manchester School.
    MR. ROBERTSONobserved that the hon. Member would not be under the smallest disadvantage, and the proceedings to which the discussion he desired to raise would be appropriate would commence the moment Vote 1 was passed. He should take care that the Bill should be put into the hands of
    1342
    hon. Members as speedily as possible, and if the hon. Member for Dover desired any further information beyond that contained in the schedule he should take care to get that information for him, and, if necessary, have it printed.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, there was a large Vote for the men for the Naval Reserve, and he should like the Civil Lord to give them some information with regard to the value of the Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER): If the hon. Member will turn to Vote 7 of the Navy Estimates, he will find that the pay for the Naval Reserve is taken under that Vote, and therefore, any questions he wishes to raise he must raise when Vote 7 is reached, and not before.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERintimated that when the Vote was reached he should point out that they might be reckoning without their host if they expected to get the whole of these men in time of war. He wished to call attention to the desirability of the utilisation of the services in the Navy of the non-professional seamen of this country. It was a matter of history that on every occasion when we had been engaged in maritime war, this country had relied on a source of strength denied to almost every other country in the world, and which we possessed in a prominent degree. There was no doubt whatever that we possessed more non-professional seamen not employed in the Royal Navy or the merchant service than any other nation could boast of, and it was an obvious gap that there should be no provision whatever for the employment of any of these men. The moment that war was declared, thousands of men connected with yachts and pleasure boats would be set free who were better acquainted with the sea than even the sailors of the Royal Navy. There was no case in our history when we had not been forced to rely on the non-professional aid of men who were not seamen. In

    1343
    Elizabethan times our naval successes were won by our non-naval seamen. The suggestion for the utilisation of these non-professional seamen had been prejudiced by the failure of the naval volunteers. They had rightly been disbanded because bluejackets could do their work just as well. But there was work which could be done better by volunteers than by professional seamen. Bluejackets were not trained to any knowledge of territorial and pilotage waters round our coasts. These men might be utilised to man torpedo boats. We had no constituted crews for torpedo boats. These boats were laid up in the dockyards, and men were called away from sea-going complements and put into these boats, being taken away from ships in which they could be well employed. Allowing for the necessary outgoing on a liberal scale, the assistance of torpedo instructors, engine-room artificers, stores, and the cost of maintenance, £250 would be sufficient to supply a crew for a torpedo boat. The Admiralty had lately made liberal changes commended by common sense, and he asked them to make use of the resources to which he had alluded. Non-professional seamen round our coasts were to be numbered by tens of thousands, and they knew the sea as no sailor in the Royal Navy knew it. They went out in heavy weather and were successful competitors with fishermen in the navigation of our narrow channels. It might be said that these men were not amenable to naval discipline, but he had been told by many naval officers that there was a great deal to be said for the view that where men were in independent command, they took away the chief objection based on the absence of absolute control such as was necessary for a sea-going ship in the Navy. What was wanted in a torpedo boat was initiative and capability of performing dangerous actions outside the immediate scope of a fleet, and these were just the qualifications which, what he might call amateur seamen, were able to
    1344
    bring to the work which they had to perform. He asked the Civil Lord to inquire of his advisers whether there was not an opening for the utilisation of the services of these men, who would be available in time of war, when they could not carry on their own avocations.
    MR. A. B. FORWOODsaid, the Committee had been placed at a disadvantage by the way in which questions had been raised on the Second Vote, which should rather have been raised on the First. He had put several questions on matters connected with the Royal Naval Reserve, the training of boys, and the cruise of the Northampton, to which he had received no reply; and there was another important question remaining to be dealt with—that referring to the designs of ships and the machinery for the vessels. He understood from the Civil Lord that the new vessels proposed to be laid down in this year's programme would not be commenced till the House had had an opportunity of discussing Vote 8. The Vote now under discussion provided about £4,000,000, and, according to his calculation, it would enable the Admiralty to go on for three months without coming to the House for another Vote. That would throw the discussion of these matters so late, that it would practically deprive the House of the opportunity of discussing them that it ought to have. He should like an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirming what he had been led to believe that Vote 8 would be submitted early enough to give the House in Committee an opportunity of discussing these serious matters connected with the designs of the ships and their machinery before they were determined upon.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he frankly admitted the fairness of the appeal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman, and he would see what could be done. It was his duty to press upon the House the necessity under which the Government

    1345
    were placed. When the Vote for the money was postponed the other night he certainly hoped and was led to understand that there would not be a protracted Debate on this Vote. The Government really were in very exigeant circumstances, but he would do his best to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could quite understand that the Government should be disappointed by the course of the Debate that night, but certainly the responsibility did not rest with the Opposition side of the House. Let it be understood that, if there had been a larger discussion than was anticipated by the Government, the persons who had taken part in it, had not been for the most part those sitting on the Opposition Benches; but the proposed reductions and most of the speeches had come from their own side of the House. That should be put on record.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he should not like a false impression to go abroad. The right hon. Gentleman had imputed to him rather a different statement from that which he made as to the new shipbuilding and the machinery, and he now asked for a pledge that a commencement would not be made until there had been a debate. What he said more than once was, that the details should be discussed on Vote 8, but he had not given the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine he had given.
    MR. A. B. FORWOODsaid, this was an important qualification. What was the use of putting before the Committee details of vessels to be built when the vessels were commenced? One of the most important matters in connection with the construction of ships was the fitting them with boilers; but if the vessels were laid down according to certain designs, then those designs could not be altered. There was, then, nothing to thank the Admiralty for in offering to put these designs on the Table when
    1346
    the Vote was reached. The Committee could offer no suggestion, for the Government could consider no other proposal. He mistook what the Civil Lord said before, and certainly thought the opportunity was to be given to the Committee. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to offering the desired opportunity. The Committee were asked to take a new departure in the mode of construction and equipment, and especially in regard to the boilers of the new cruisers, which then should have an opportunity of discussing before the actual commencement of the ships.
    SIR E. HARLANDsaid, he could not but look on the reply of the Civil Lord as extremely unsatisfactory, and especially in reference to the second-class cruisers after the Talbot type. One of the reasons for the unsatisfactory nature of the boilers in these vessels was that the vessels were so short that safer and better tried boilers could not be put into them. The second-class cruisers were to be broader and shorter than the Talbot, and it, was actually proposed, in the face of all the mischief that had been caused, to return to the old class of boilers. In the face of recent experience, it would be madness to build the second-class cruisers shorter than before, so that boilers of a safer, better tried kind could not be put in. He regarded this as a serious and most grave intention on the part of the Admiralty. The Committee would be told when the Vote came on that such progress had been made that there was no chance of alteration. The Civil Lord had taken careful notes of the discussion, but he had not answered the questions raised. He did not consider this a proper discussion of the Estimates. Another important matter he should like to refer to was in regard to the coaling of vessels at sea.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. MELLOR)he hon. Member is now discussing the Votes. I understood he was going to ask a question.
    SIR E. HARLANDsaid, he would take this opportunity of reminding the hon. Gentleman of the question.
    MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked,—Was it to be understood that the second-class cruisers would be put in hand before there was any opportunity of discussion, because there was an assurance given the other night that their value was to be taken from the performance of another ship of a similar type, and that would be altogether misleading.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he had not said that; he only explained that he had not gone so far as the right hon. Gentleman had supposed he had. He did not wish to close discussion.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, if the Committee could discuss nothing on this Vote but the actual purposes for which the Vote was asked, the result would be that the money would be used for general purposes upon which there had been no discussion. As he understood, the Admiralty would be entitled, when this vote of £4,000,000 was taken, to spend the money for general Naval purposes, so that the result of restricting the right of discussion would be that discussion would be forbidden on nine out of ten purposes for which the money would be used. This Vote differed from all other Votes, in that it was a very large sum taken at the beginning of the year which could not then be spent for the purpose for which it was taken, but was used for general purposes. With all respect to the Chairman's ruling, the result would be that the Committee would be asked to vote a sum of money without real discussion of the purposes for which it would be applied.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had followed the ruling which had been invariably laid down
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that, as there was a discussion desired of new designs which did not meet with general approval, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance
    1348
    that an opportunity for that discussion should be given.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he would endeavour to make some arrangement that should be fair, but he could not at the moment fix a date.
    Question put; Vote agreed to.

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1894–95.
    £200,000 for personnel, materials, works, buildings, and repairs at home and abroad.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked for information with respect to the appropriation in aid of the Navy made by the Government of India. As he understood, a substantial sum out of this Vote was wanted to make good the deficiency in that appropriation. There was a dispute between the Admiralty and the India Office on the subject.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid that there had been a long standing dispute between the Admiralty and the Government of India as to the contribution that India ought to make. The Admiralty, in their transactions with the Government of India, were annually £57,000 short. The dispute was referred to arbitration, the Prime Minister being the arbitrator. His decision was in general terms, and the effect of it could not at present be stated in money. It was now the subject of communication between India and the Admiralty. He could not say whether the whole of this sum of £57,000 would be paid by India in the future, but certainly a larger amount than had hitherto been paid would be paid.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYasked what was the point referred to the arbitrator.
    MR. ROBERTSONexplained that the arbitrator was asked to determine what was meant by the expression "Vessels for Indian Purposes." He had put an interpretation upon the words "Indian Purposes," but the application of the interpretation was still the subject of

    1349
    correspondence between the Admiralty and the Government of India.
    Vote agreed to; and Progress Reported.

    SUPPLY—REPORT [15th March].
    Resolutions agreed to.

    ARMY ANNUAL BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Bill to provide during Twelve Months for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army.
    Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

  NAVAL WORKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision for the construction of works and acquisition of land in the United Kingdom, and in certain Colonies, for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums not exceeding in the whole £1,000,000 for such purposes.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to borrow, for the purpose of providing money for sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, or for the repayment of sums so issued, by means of terminable annuities, such annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for Naval Services; and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund.—(Sir W. Harcourt.)

  POOR LAW OFFICERS SUPERANNUA- TION BILL.
  Mr. WALTER LONGin moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that under the law as it now stood Poor Law officials were entitled equitably to a pension which in the majority of cases they received, but occasionally Boards of Guardians exercised the right which they possessed to decline to recognise the
  1350
  services of the officer. This Bill proposed to give a statutory right of pension to Poor Law officers. It was provided, however, that the Poor Law Officials should make a contribution similar to that made under the Civil Service Pension Fund, to vary according to the number of years' service. The question had been brought to his notice while at the Local Government Board, as it had also been before the notice of many of his predecessors; and he believed this Bill contained a compromise which could be accepted by the House. If the Bill was passed into law he believed it would remove what had been for more than 20 years a very vexed question; and he was confident that the House would do well to accept it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central)said, that on behalf of the Government he had no hesitation in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. It would require a good deal of consideration in Committee; but, so far as he could understand, its general principle was not unfair to the public.
  MR. J. W. LOGANobjected.
  Mr. A. PEASE, Mr. WARNER and Captain NORTON appealed to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his objection; but he persisted, and the Debate accordingly stood adjourned.

  SIR JOHN CASS'S CHARITY.
  SIR ANDREW R. SCOBLEin rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to withhold Her consent from the Scheme now before Parliament for the management of the foundation known as Sir John Cass's Charity in the parish of Aldgate, &c."
  explained that Sir John Cass was an Alderman of London, who flourished about 200 years ago, and was Alderman for the Ward of Portsoken. In 1709 he made a will, by which he established two schools; first, the one he had already

  1351
  set up in Aldgate, which was an elementary school, and secondly, a more advanced school, to be built upon land which he possessed in Hackney, and which was to form a sort of extension of the Aldgate school, and was to be for the benefit of the same children. In 1718 he intended to make, another will, but he died, after executing only two sheets of that document. There being, consequently, some difficulty in carrying out his intentions with regard to the schools, an attempt was made to obtain an Act of Parliament, but it only passed the House of Lords, and failed to pass the House of Commons. Some years after, in 1743, the matter was brought before the Court of Chancery, and Lord Hardwicke made a decree establishing the first will; but, as it appeared that the testator's freehold estate, which, on inquiry by the Chief Clerk was found to be worth £160 2s. l0d. per annum, was not sufficient to provide for both schools, the Court directed that the income should be devoted to the school in Aldgate. No attempt was made for about 100 years to establish the school in Hackney, but in 1842 the trustees of the Charity brought forward a scheme by which they proposed to spend £10,000 in building the school in Hackney, setting apart at the same time an amount of money for the maintenance of that school. Opposition was, however, offered to that scheme and it was dropped. In 1873 the matter was brought to the attention of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, who proposed a scheme for building upon the founder's estate in Hackney. That scheme also was not proceeded with. Then came the scheme now before the House. The Vestry of Hackney were quite willing and desirous that no attempt should be made to interfere with the school at Aldgate, and to that portion of the scheme no objection was taken. What they did object to was the further proposal of the Charity Commissioners, whereby, instead of spending money available for a school in Hackney, they
  1352
  proposed to spend a very large sum, not so much in the education of children, which was what the testator had in view, but in the establishment of a technical institute in the parish of Aldgate, not for children, but for adults of both sexes. He thought it would be abundantly clear that the intention of the testator was to establish a school in Hackney. It was also perfectly clear, that if such a school was established, it would enure to the benefit of the children of the district; therefore he contended that the best way to carry out the object of the testator was to benefit the children of Hackney as well as the children of Aldgate. At the time of the appeal to the Court of Chancery the annual income available was only £160, but it was now £6,000 a year, the bulk of it coming from Hackney; and he thought he was justified in saying that it was only fair, in dealing with the matter after such a lapse of time, that regard should be had to the needs of the locality from which the funds were derived. What he particularly wished to bring to the notice of the House in regard to the scheme of the Charity Commissioners was this, that not only was there no provision at all in the will of the testator for any such institute as was now contemplated, but it would be an absolute waste of funds if such an institute were established in Aldgate. Aldgate was the next parish to Whitechapel, where there was already a Technical Institute and school perfectly available for any Aldgate boy who wished to go there. On the northern side, in Finsbury, was an admirable Technical Institute established by the City Guilds of London. And in regard to the scheme for a library, which was one of the features proposed, in the next parish, Bishopgate, there had recently been established by the efforts of the Rev. W. Rogers, an admirable library. Therefore, he submitted, the scheme was unfair as regarded Hackney and unnecessary as regarded Aldgate.

  1353
  He only asked that the intentions of Sir John Cass should be carried out, so far as the school at Hackney was concerned, and that the school might be made available now as 200 years ago for the children of Aldgate, by the establishment of foundation scholarships or in any other way that the ingenuity of the Charity Commissioners might devise. Aldgate was at the time of Sir J. Cass's death a part of the City of London, destitute of educational advantages. Hackney was a suburb not built upon, consisting mainly of arable land. There were now more persons living upon the Cass estate in Hackney than there were in the whole parish of Aldgate. If they took the Census Returns, it appeared that the population of the parish of Aldgate now amounted to only some 6,000 persons.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): The population to which the scheme applies is 9,000 or 10,000. It is not for Aldgate only, in any sense.
  SIR A. SCOBLEsaid, that, even taking the right hon. Gentleman's figures, it remained that there were 10,000 people in that part of Hackney alone, which consisted of the Cass estate, while in the whole of Hackney there were 200,000 people. The 10,000 in Aldgate had many opportunities of obtaining this education, but in Hackney there was no institution of the kind; nothing more than an elementary school. It was the duty of hon. Members, as guardians of the public interest, to see that, in a matter of this kind, the best advantage was taken of such a benefaction, which, after being long in abeyance, was to be made fruitful. If the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, as it stood, were adopted, it would be of very little use, and a positive disadvantage to the kindred institutions in the neighbourhood. If, on the other hand, the benefit were extended to Hackney in the way the founder intended, and as the circumstances of the time required, it would be
  1354
  fruitful of much good, and would supply a want which had been severely felt in one of the poorest districts of London. He begged to move.
  MR. G. HOWELLseconded the Motion. With regard to Aldgate, the hon. Member had forgotten to mention another institution in that neighbourhood—the Bishopsgate Institute. Aldgate was now surrounded by such institutions, while Hackney was almost totally destitute of them. In the one case there was a diminishing population, and in the other a constantly increasing population. The Hackney people felt that they had an interest in this matter, and their claim seemed irresistible. It was proposed to hand over to Hackney a sum of £5,000, and what could Hackney do with such a nest-egg? It could start nothing, and if it did start anything, it could complete nothing. The cost of building this institution would be £100,000. When a scheme of this kind was devised for dealing with charitable funds, all those who felt they had an interest ought to be considered, and especially when the fund was to be made available for general public purposes. He did not know what position the Government would take, and did not wish to go into the question at length. This was a new scheme, appropriating money to a new purpose, and, in fact, the claims of Hackney had been recognised to the extent of £5,000, and this showed recognition of the principle he advocated. Hackney had a claim to some portion of the money. Then there was the fact brought forward by the hon. Member that the inhabitants of Hackney were the persons living on the estate furnishing the means for building up this institution, and they ought to be considered. In a few years, if matters proceeded as now, Aldgate would be almost denuded of resident population, and those who did remain there would have a variety of institutions to which they could go, while Hackney would be

  1355
  absolutely without them. He seconded the Motion.
  MR. A. H. D. ACLANDsaid, he did not propose to go into the question how this money, which belonged to the parish of Aldgate, might or might not be spent, and no doubt there were many ways other than in the manner proposed by the scheme. There could be no doubt that the proposed technical institute would be of real value. The population of Aldgate was something between 9,000 and 10,000, and unless the House was prepared to throw over the will of the pious founder altogether—and the tendency had been in the other direction—he did not think the House could reject this scheme. The whole thing turned upon the will of the founder. True the founder left two wills, but it did not matter which was taken, neither the one nor the other left the money to Hackney. In his lifetime the donor founded an elementary school in Aldgate, and in his first will the founder provided for a schoolmaster and 20 poor boys to be selected from the school in Aldgate. Clearly it was for higher education for Aldgate. The second will said nothing of the secondary school, but it said nothing of allotting the money to Hackney. So far as the judgment of Lord Hardwicke went, it confirmed the second will. In no case was a bequest made to Hackney. The trustees, rightly thinking that the fund was too large for an elementary school, proposed, with the concurrence of the Charity Commissioners, to devote part of the money to a technical institute in Aldgate. If they once recognised the fact that in every place where a charitable endowment existed there a school must be placed, they would upset deans, chapters, and colleges in a most extraordinary manner. The Charity Commissioners, recognising that Hackney might have; some claim, provided that a residue not exceeding £500 a year should be given to it for educational purposes. When the scheme came before the Education
  1356
  Department he had interviews with the Governors of the Aldgate cheme and the representatives of Aldgate, and they contended that the scheme unjustly deprived them of advantages and gave them to Hackney. On the other hand, the representatives of Hackney contended that they did not receive enough. In all these schemes a compromise had to be arrived at, and, though Hackney had no legal claim whatever, it was only reasonable to see whether something more could be done for it. Consequently, two additions were made for Hackney—£5,000 if it wished to build a technical institute or a polytechnic; and secondly, besides £500 a year, when the income from the endowment largely exceeded the amount required for the purposes of the Aldgate Scheme, the excess should be applied for a further scheme in which regard should be had to the educational interests of Hackney. What he had meant to say was this, that Hackney had no legal claim at all, and they could not have gone further without justly and fairly annoying the Aldgate people, where, as he had stated, there was a population of over 10,000. On the last occasion when a scheme was before the House, hon. Members rejected it because the views of the pious founder were not properly observed, and because there was too much alienation. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Address now contended that there was not alienation enough; but he hoped the House was not going to reverse the view it took on the previous occasion and insist that Aldgate must give still more, for that would only wreck the scheme and prevent any proposals on behalf of Hackney from being brought forward for many years to come.
  The House divided—Ayes 15; Noes 83.—(Division List No. 29.)
  House adjourned at Fifteen minutes before One o'clock.

Preamble
Private business only.
The House adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before Five o'clock.