Sitting of 15 May 1896

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, etc., have leave to sit this day until Four of the clock, not with standing the Sitting of the House.—(Sir James Fergusson.)
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  FOYLE COLLEGE AND LONDONDERRY ACADEMICAL INSTITUTES (AMALGA- MATION) BILL.
  On the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill,
  MR. EDWIN LAWRENCEexplained that he was requested by the promoters of the Bill, by the Irish Society, to state that no objection would be raised against the locus standi of the Diocesan Council if they should think fit to petition against the Bill in the House of Lords; and further, that no advantage would be taken of the circumstance that they had not petitioned against the Bill in the House of Commons.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, that it had been his intention to move the rejection of the Bill, to explain the origin of Foyle College, and the position which it occupied in relation to the Church of Ireland, and to read the memorial of the Diocesan Council, setting forth their objections to the Bill, which objections were shared by the Bishop of Derry. As, however, the Irish Society had now agreed to concede a locus standi to the Diocesan Council in the House of Lords, he did not propose to trouble the House with the matter.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  SALE OF MILITARY COLOURS.
  MR. GORDON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the "King's Colours" of the 72nd (Seaforth) Highlanders, of the year 1815, were, on the 6th instant, bought and sold by auction in London for £35; and whether the War Office will discover the present owner with a view of recovering, by purchase, or otherwise, this national trophy for the regimental district?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK SURREY,): Regimental colours when they have been in use the prescribed period or have become unserviceable, are disposed of as the commanding officer may direct. The colours shown as those of particular regiments are not in every case genuine. The esprit de corps of the regiments concerned almost invariably secures a fitting resting-place for the colours, and Lord Lansdowne thinks it desirable to leave the question to the feeling of the regiment, who can judge best of the circumstances and the genuineness of the colours.

  CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Camberwell, Peckham (Mr. BANBURY): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that certain Second Class Examining Officers of Customs of approved character, with over 17 years' service in that grade, have been debarred from attending an examination for promotion instituted by Customs General Order 86/'94, under the provision of Treasury Minute of 24th of March 1891; and, whether, in view of the terms of their appointment to the service, namely, that the highest positions in the outdoor department were open to them, the Government will favourably consider the case of these officials?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Up to 1891 the system of promotion from

  1423
  the Second to the First Class of Examining Officers of Customs was by selection. It was in that year altered to one of examination, partly written, partly viva voce. It was then found that some of the older and best officers who were well fitted for promotion by their experience and practical knowledge were not fitted to pass a written examination, and such men under the General Order of 1894 were allowed to qualify by a viva, voce examination only. All others are of course still allowed to compete in the ordinary examination, and the higher positions are thus open to them.

  COMPTROLLER OF PRISON INDUSTRIES.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether a Comptroller of Prison Industries has been appointed; and, in such case, who the new functionary is, and what his salary, and if he has been given distinctly to understand that he must be careful to make no attempt to utilise his forced labour to undersell or otherwise compete in the outside market in this country with the productions of free labour?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): In accordance with the strong recommendation of the Prisons Committee, a Comptroller of prison industries has been appointed by me. The comptroller is Mr. James Duncan, who had, as store accountant in the prison department, been engaged in duties of a similar nature previous to his appointment, and his salary is on a scale rising from £700 to £800. The Comptroller will have no power to make arrangements for utilising prison labour without first obtaining the approval of the Prison Commissioners, and the Commissioners will be guided in their action by Section 11 of the Act of 1877, which provides that due regard shall be had to the avoidance of undue pressure on or competition with any particular trade or industry.

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been called
  1424
  to the increase by nearly 3,000 of the pauper aliens arriving at eastern ports for sojourn in this country in the first third of the present year compared to last year: and, whether he will introduce and press forward the Measure in contemplation with regard to the immigration of aliens without further delay?
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEasked whether it was not a fact that the aliens who appeared in the monthly Board of Trade Returns under the heading of those "not stated to be en route to America" included a large number of sailors and others, who almost immediately proceeded to other countries; and whether it was not a fact that at many of the eastern ports, such as at the Tyne ports, nearly every alien who arrived was reengaged as a sailor or proceeded to America or elsewhere?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): My hon. and gallant Friend refers in his Question to "pauper" aliens. No returns of the Board of Trade deal with paupers as such; they give the total number of aliens, the gross increase in which is as stated in the Question, but the number of sailors included among aliens not stated to be en route to America was 3,431 as compared with 2,316 in the first four mouths of 1895. With reference to the last portion of the Question, I cannot add anything to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the subject.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been drawn to the serious matter of the importation of these alien sailors who take berths on British ships?
  MR. RITCHIE: Attention has been drawn more than once in the House of Commons to the fact that a good many foreign sailors are engaged for manning the mercantile marine.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I must ask whether the right hon. gentleman can give us any hope of the Bill being speedily introduced? Its mention in the Queen's Speech is calculated to draw these people to this country in greater numbers.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid I can give no further answer. I confess I

  1425
  have not much hope of being able to introduce the Bill.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked, whether the Government would give time for the Bill which had been introduced.
  MR. RITCHIE: My hon. and gallant Friend has a Bill before the House.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: No, Sir, I have not. [Laughter."]

  TRIAL OF MAJOR LOTHAIRE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Major Lothaire has been tried and acquitted at Boma by a tribunal which had been recognised by Her Majesty's local representative as a court of competent jurisdiction; whether there is any foundation for the report that attempts are being made to place Major Lothaire a second time upon his trial; and, whether it is in conformity with the criminal procedure of any civilised State that a person should be tried twice for the same offence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Major Lothaire has been tried and acquitted at Boma by the Court of the Congo State, at which Her Majesty's Vice Consul was present in his official capacity. We have as yet, however, no knowledge of the nature of the proceedings, and cannot receive the official Report for some weeks. The law of the Congo State under which the trial was held provides for an appeal, notice of which must be lodged within two months of the judgment. Her Majesty's Vice Consul has been instructed to see that this notice is given in order to prevent the right lapsing by default; but no opinion can be offered as to the prosecution of the appeal until the Report has been received.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Am I to understand that the law of the Congo State contemplates what I refer to?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir; an appeal is provided for by the penal code of the Congo State.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Does that law prevail in any other civilised State, if the Congo is one?
  MR. CURZON: I have no information upon that point.

  EDUCATION EXPENDITURE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, in reference to a statement to the effect that the expenditure of the English public on education is £14,000,000 a year, whether it is known to the Education Department what is the extent of public expenditure in the United States upon similar services, and whether it is the case that as long ago as 1889 that expenditure was estimated at £28,000,000, and is now, for elementary schools alone, vastly higher?
  MR. HANBURY (for Sir J. GOHST): From the Report of the United States Commissioner of Education, it appears that the total expenditure on "common schools," which are defined as including public day schools of elementary and secondary grade—i.e., public primary, grammar, and high schools—was in 1889–90 (taking a dollar as 4s.) £28,622,043, or £3 8s. 10d. per scholar in average attendance; and in 1892–3, £32,668,655, or £3 13s. 9½d. per scholar in average attendance.

  MILISTARY CANTEEN (LONGFORD).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to complaints that, whilst publicans in Long ford are compelled by statute to close their shops and not to sell drink except to bona fide travellers, the Military canteen is kept open for such sale and free admission granted to all civilians who apply, with the result that several convictions for drunkenness on Sundays have recently been obtained by the police; and, whether he will cause such representations to be made to the War Department as will prevent this competition between an unlicensed canteen and a licensed publican, and also prevent the violation of law which the Sunday Closing Act was designed to enact?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed that it is not the fact, as alleged in the Question, that several convictions for drunkenness on Sundays have recently been obtained by the police at Longford, because of drink supplied in the Military canteen

  1427
  there. A few months ago a man under the influence of drink was observed coming from the direction of the military barrack on Sunday and a conviction was obtained against him, but this appears to be the only recent case, and there was no evidence that this man got the drink at the canteen. The presence of civilians in the canteen is absolutely for bidden both on Sundays and other days. No representations on the subject have been made to the War Office, but if the practice exists it will be promptly stopped.

  GALWAY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. J. PINKERTON), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland - (1) whether he is a ware that Mr. W. E. Ellis, Local Government Board Inspector, surcharged the Chairman of the Galway Board of Guardians in the sum of £1 2s. 6d. for relief given to a family, three members of which were lying in scarlet fever, and which was given by order of Dr. Golding, Medical Officer of the Union; and that the same inspector also surcharged another guardian for signing a relief ticket for a man who had no property whatever, and, upon these gentlemen refusing to pay, caused summonses to be issued against them; (2) whether he is aware that, at the hearing of the summonses at Galway Petty Sessions, on the 27th April, the magistrates (including Mr. Gardiner, R. M.) declared that, while compelled by law to convict, the demand was unfair and unjust, and refused to give costs; and (3) under these circumstances, will steps be taken to remit the fines?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Auditor states he did surcharge the sum mentioned to the Chairman of the Galway Guardians for outdoor relief given on the Chairman's order to the holder of three acres of land. Section 2 of the 25 and 26 Vict. Cap. 83 enacts that any person who shall be in occupation of land to a greater extent than a quarter of a statute acre, and who shall be considered by the Guardians to require relief, shall be relieved in the workhouse, and not otherwise. The Auditor did
  1428
  not surcharge any Guardian for signing a relief ticket, but probably the hon. Member has in his mind a case in which the Auditor disallowed outdoor relief given to a man rated for a small holding, there being no evidence that he was not in occupation of this holding for which he was rated. I have no information as to the statement in the second paragraph, but am making inquiry. The Auditor states he would have been inclined to stretch a point if this had been an isolated case, but that, the Galway Guardians having so frequently contravened the law in this respect and remonstrances having hitherto failed to influence their action, he felt obliged to make and enforce the surcharge referred to.

  TELEGRAMS TO SPAIN.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what proportions of the 4d. per word paid for telegrams to Spain from this country are assigned to the British Government, the Spanish Government, and the Cable Companies respectively; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the existing contract or contracts on the subject?
  MR. HANBURY: The "conventional" charge for a telegram sent by cable to Spain is 40 centimes a word, and the proportion assignable to Spain under Paragraph XXIV. of the International Regulations, agreed upon at the Conference of Paris is 10 centimes. The balance belongs to the company by whose cable the telegram is sent. If any service is performed by the Post Office in connection with the telegram, the payment for such service is regulated by the general Agreements between the Department and the Companies. I scarcely think it necessary to lay these old Agreements on the Table of the House. There are no specific contracts on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

  BELLEVILLE BOILERS (STEAMSHIP OHIO),
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether

  1429
  a Board of Trade certificate has yet been given to the Ohio steamer of Hull, the same having been withheld pending the result of a trial voyage with the Belleville boilers with which the vessel was fitted under the inspection of the Board of Trade; if the certificate has not been granted, what are the reasons for its refusal; and, have the Board of Trade so far granted a passenger certificate to any vessel fitted with boilers of that make?
  MR. RITCHIE: A Board of Trade passenger certificate has not been issued for the steamship Ohio of Hull, no application for one having been made by her owners since the trial voyage referred to in the Question. So far, the Board of Trade have not granted a passenger certificate to any vessel fitted with the Belleville boilers. Only one application for the survey of a vessel with boilers of this type has been received, and the case is still under survey.
  MR. W. ALLAN: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that an explosion occurred on board the vessel during her last voyage?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; I am not aware of that, but I will get the information for the hon. Gentleman if he desires to have it.
  MR. ALLAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the matter, and to give us the official report on that explosion?
  MR. RITCHIEwas understood to signify his assent.

  GLYN VALLEY TRAMWAY.
  MR. F. GORELL BARNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a line of rails is laid (as in the case of the Glyn Valley Tramway), some part of which is on the property of a company or of private individuals, and the rest of it on the property of the road authority, how is it determined whether the line is to be taxed upon its passengers or upon its passenger carriages; and, does this depend on the quantitative proportion which the one property bears to the other?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Almost the whole of the Glyn Valley Tramway is laid on a public road, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were advised that it could not be regarded as liable to Passenger Duty. In such cases, the question whether Railway Passenger Duty is or is not to be charged can only be determined by reference to the particular circumstances of each undertaking. No doubt the proportion of the line which is laid on private property to that which is laid on the road is taken into consideration.

  ARMY PENSION.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the case of pensioner, Thomas Bryson, Newtowngore, South Leitrim, late of the Royal Engineers, whose pension of 1s. per diem is unable to support him owing to his enfeebled condition from the diseases he contracted on active service; and whether he is prepared to inquire into this case, and recommend some increase of pension?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL - WILLIAMS,): The case of pensioner Thomas Bryson is at present under the consideration of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.

  FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. MAURICE HEALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether it is the fact that applications to have a fair rent fixed for a second statutory term, lodged with the Land Commission, have now been listed for hearing by Sub Commissioners in the ordinary way: and, (2) whether the undertaking of Mr. Justice Bewley, that the decision in such cases would be postponed until after the passing of the Land Bill, will be carried out; if not, will he explain no what grounds?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Only 457 of such applications had been lodged with the Land

  1431
  Commissioners up to the 13th inst., although there are probably some 30,000 cases in which such applications could have been lodged. The Sub-Commissioners have, on application made to them, full power to postpone the hearing of any such case if they consider the interests of justice so require. Mr. Justice Bewley did not, as I have repeatedly pointed out, give any such undertaking as that attributed to-him in the second paragraph. He merely expressed his view as to a course that might be adopted under certain circumstances. ["Hear, hear!"]

  ARMY ALLOWANCE (WIFE DESERTION).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether cases have been brought to his notice showing the inadequacy of the allowance of 6d. a day deductable from the pay of non-commissioned officers above the rank of sergeant for the support of a deserted wife and family; whether the advisability of amending Sec. 145 of the Army Act in that respect will be considered, so as to provide for a larger deduction than 6d. in any case where the Secretary of State thought larger alimony desirable; whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the case of a Sergeant Major Engineer's Clerk, of the Royal Engineers, at Devonport, in receipt of £2 10s. a week, who refuses to allow more than the statutable 6d. a day to his wife and family in Cork, from whom he is separated in consequence of his cruelty and infidelity; and, whether the circumstances connected with this case are such as to call for some special action by the War Department?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Complaints as to the inadequacy of the stoppage have been very infrequent, and it has not been thought advisable to amend the Army Act in regard to it. The case referred to in the Question has been brought before the War Office; but, as the wife in the first instant left her husband, it has not been considered necessary to place him under compulsory stoppages. He has, however, consented to a voluntary stoppage. It is a matrimonial quarrel in which the Secretary of State does not think it desirable to interfere.

  BIGAMY (QUEENSTOWN.)
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether Sergeant Dunton, convicted at the last Cork Assizes of bigamy, committed while at Queenstown, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude, and who has been since released, has been permitted to continue in Her Majesty's service; and, whether it is usual that a soldier convicted of felony is permitted to continue in the service; if not, why and at whose instance Sergeant Dunton has been treated in an exceptional manner?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Dunton has been continued in the service; but he has been reduced to the rank of private. The offence of a soldier is taken into consideration in determining the question whether or not he shall be retained in the army, and in this case there were mitigating circumstances.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for retaining in Her Majesty's service a soldier who has been convicted of felony?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir, I think there are precedents to that effect. Of course the offence of felony is varying in its character and in cases where it is not of a heinous character the soldier has been allowed to retain his position.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is there any precedent for retaining in Her Majesty's service a soldier who has been sentenced to three years' penal servitude?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid he would require to have notice of that Question.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can now state the circumstances connected with the release of Sergeant Dunton, convicted of bigamy under aggravated circumstances at the recent Cork Spring Assizes, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude, and who was released from prison before the close of the Assizes; and, whether he can state whether Mr. Justice O'Brien, who tried the prisoner, recommended his release; and, if so, on what grounds?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: At the recent Cork Assizes, Sergeant Dunton

  1433
  pleaded guilty to a charge of bigamy and was sentenced by Mr. Justice O'Brien as stated. The Judge, however, on further consideration arrived at the conclusion that the sentence should not be enforced and so communicated to the Lords Justices, and it was on his report and at his instance that the sentence was remitted.

  CORK PRISON.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that the governor, deputy governor, clerk, storekeeper, and two-thirds of the entire staff of the Cork male prison are non-Roman Catholics, though 85 per cent. of the persons under their control are Roman Catholics; and, (2) whether the Prisons Board will endeavour to secure that at least one person holding a position of authority in the Cork prison is a Roman Catholic?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that about 85 per cent. of the prisoners confined in Cork prison are Roman Catholics; and, as regards the prison staffs consisting in all of 25 persons, thirteen of these are Protestants and twelve Roman Catholics. The allocation of officials in the Prisons Service is not regulated by considerations of religion.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would answer the second paragraph of his question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that he saw no reason to depart from the practice which had hitherto obtained, which as far as he was aware had not given any adequate grounds for complaint.

  CHANNEL FLEET.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the summer cruise of the Channel Fleet will include a visit to Lerwick; and, if this is not already arranged, will he instruct the Admiral to bring the Fleet to Lerwick after leaving Kirkwall?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Channel Squadron will visit Queens-town Harbour during the present summer?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The present cruise does not include a visit to Lerwick or Queenstown.

  ARREST OF GERMAN MAIL STEAMER OFFICERS.
  MR. EDWARD MOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the officers of the German mail steamer who were recently sentenced for entering forts at Hong Kong with photographic apparatus, had, prior to their arrest, taken any photographs of, or in connection with, any of the forts; and, if so, whether such photographs were impounded?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Governor has reported by telegram that no photographs of the forts were taken by the German officers in question, whose original sentence of imprisonment with hard labour was commuted after a rehearing to a fine of 100 dollars. ["Hear, hear!"]

  CHINESE SHIPPING IN FORMOSA.
  MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Japanese Government has accorded to the Chinese greater entering facilities in Formosa for their ships than heretofore; and, whether such additional facilities will be also available for English ships?
  MR. CURZON: We have no information of any such facilities having been granted to China. British shipping would undoubtedly participate in any benefits secured to the shipping of China.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Government intend to carry into effect the recomdations of the Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the present appliances of Her Majesty's Dockyard at Haulbowline, set out in their Report issued as necessary to complete its fitness

  1435
  as an emergency dock in time of war and for repairing ships on station in time of peace; and, if so, when will the works be commenced?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): The Admiralty intend to carry into effect such of the recommendations of the Committee as will render the dockyard at Haulbowline available as an emergency dock in time of war, and Her Majesty's ships will be repaired there, when convenient and practicable, in time of peace. Provision has been made in the current Navy Estimates for purchasing the machinery recommended by the Committee. A large portion has been already ordered, and is expected to be delivered by the time the buildings and foundations are ready to receive the machines. Provision, of £15,000 (part of £34,000) is made in Vote 10, 1896–7, for commencing the work, which will be proceeded with as soon as the Vote is passed.

  COUNCIL DRAFTS (INDIA).
  MR. C. L. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has any intention of appointing a Departmental Committee, as suggested by the late Secretary of State for India in September 1895, to inquire into the present method of selling Council drafts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have no present intention of appointing a Committee, but any practical suggestion, shall have my careful attention.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware of the strong desire which exists in London in favour of substituting the Parliamentary Divisions for the present School Board electoral divisions; and, whether he can give effect to this desire by a suitable provision in the Education Bill?
  MR. HANBURYNo representation has been actually made to the Committee of Council on the subject by any official body. The Government are afraid that
  1436
  it is impossible to embody a reform Bill for School Board elections in London in the present Education Bill.

  TUBERCULOSIS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he can announce the names of the Commissioners and the terms of the reference of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, the reappointment of which was on 3rd March declared by the House of Commons to be expedient?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The Local Government Board, and not the Home Office, is the Department really concerned in the appointment of this Commission. I have not yet received for submission to Her Majesty either the names of the Commissioners or the terms of reference.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY DEPARTMENT (DUBLIN).
  MR. W. FIELD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin County, N. (Mr. CLANCY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the fact that to obtain a half-holiday on Saturday the employés of the Ordnance Survey Department, Phœnix Park, Dublin, are obliged to work an additional half hour on other days of the week during the summer months, whether there is any precedent for such a regulation; and, in any case, whether he will consider the propriety of giving a half-holiday on Saturday without any condition such as that mentioned?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies given by me to the Questions put by him on this subject on the 22nd August last. As I then stated, the aggregate hours worked per week in the Ordnance Survey Office at Dublin during the summer months are 44 for the engravers, and 41 for the civil assistants. These hours do not seem to me to be excessive, and I do not feel that I should be justified in proposing their reduction. I am informed that the arrangement under which the civil

  1437
  assistants work for 7½ hours on each of the first five days of the week and for 3½, hours on the Saturday is made at the request of the majority of the assistants themselves.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Ministers, in advising Her to grant to Mr. Beit, with others, a charter with large powers of administration over a portion of the British Empire, were aware of his then being a German subject; whether there is any precedent for such devolution of sovereign powers to any alien by Her Majesty; and whether Mr. Beit has since then become a naturalised British subject; and whether, if not, in view of recent events, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of advising the Chartered Company of South Africa to procure his resignation as a director of that Company?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I am unable to answer the second part of the Question; but, of course many aliens have been employed in offices of trust by Her Majesty and her predecessors. Mr. Beit has not been naturalised as a British subject, but there is no necessity to take the course suggested in the concluding part of the Question, as Mr. Beit has already voluntarily tendered his resignation to his colleagues. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BAYLEYasked whether Mr. Beit's resignation had been accepted?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information upon the point.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (IRELAND).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have under consideration the immediate necessity of establishing a Board of Agriculture for Ireland; and whether a select Committee will be appointed to expedite the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already stated in reply to Questions addressed to me that the introduction this
  1438
  Session of a Bill dealing with the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in Ireland must depend upon the condition of public business. I do not think the appointment of a Select Committee would expedite the matter.

  VETERINARY COLLEGE (DUBLIN).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will introduce the Bill to provide the promised grant of not less than £15,000 for the establishment of a Veterinary College in Dublin, before Whitsuntide?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give the undertaking required by the hon. Member.

  TROOPS FOR THE SOUDAN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether any portion of the Royal Artillery has been ordered to Africa; and, if so, whether it is intended for active operations in the Soudan campaign, or for what other purpose?
  MR. BRODRICK: The only Royal Artillery proceeding to Africa are the drafts required to complete batteries already there. No fresh batteries have been ordered to Egypt or the Cape.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (MONAGHAN).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that a representation for the erection of a cottage, under the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Act, duly signed by thirteen ratepayers, was forwarded to the Monaghan Board of Guardians by a labourer, named Owen M'Manus, and that the Board passed a resolution shelving the consideration of the question for twelve months; and, is he aware that M'Manus recently made a fresh representation, duly signed by the requisite number of ratepayers, and that the Guardians declined to entertain that fresh representation; and, if so, will he order a Local Government Inquiry to ascertain the validity, or otherwise, of this labourer's claim to a cottage under the Act of Parliament?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already replied to two Questions relative to this man's application for a cottage. The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member, but the case does not appear to be one in which the Local Government Board should hold an Inquiry as suggested.

  PRETORIA TRIALS.
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if it is a fact that four British subjects, recently convicted of high treason in the Transvaal and sentenced to death, have been reprieved by President Kruger; can he state the terms on which the death sentences were commuted; and, can he inform the House if the present prison treatment of these four convicts is similar to that accorded to ordinary malefactors undergoing terms of imprisonment in the Transvaal?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Four gentlemen were condemned to death as stated in the Question, and I believe that three of them were British subjects. I have not yet learned what punishment is to be substituted for the death penalty. I have no official information as to their present treatment, but the newspapers report that they and the other 59 political prisoners enjoy certain indulgences. ["Hear, hear!"]

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the official Report of the evidence given before the Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishment is accessible to Members of the House of Commons; whether proofs of the evidence are submitted to witnesses before being finally printed; and was a proof of Mr. Lewin Hill's evidence submitted to and altered by him; whether the attention of the Postmaster General has been drawn to the report of Mr. Hill's evidence as printed verbatim in The Postman's Gazette, and to the passage in it reflecting on Irish candidates; whether Mr. Hill was correct in stating in his evidence that the appointment of postmen was a matter within
  1440
  the scope of his duties; and, what officials Mr. Hill purported to speak for when he said they would often much rather have an Englishman or Scotchman who could not pass the examination than the Irishman who could?
  MR. HANBURY: I have no doubt that if any Member of the House of Commons is desirous of seeing a copy of the printed evidence given on any particular occasion, and will apply to the Secretary of Lord Tweed mouth's Committee, a copy will be supplied to him. As the hon. Member is aware, it is the usual practice with Parliamentary and other Committees for the evidence to be submitted to the witnesses for correction, and this practice has been observed by Lord Tweed mouth's Committee, Mr. Lewin Hill, in common with all the witnesses, having corrected his evidence when in print. The attention of the Postmaster General has not been drawn to the report of Mr. Hill's evidence in. The Postman's Gazette. I am informed that Mr. Hill denies the accuracy of the report in question, and that he did not state that the appointment of postmen was a matter within the scope of his duties. He did not speak for any officials.

  RABIES (IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the increase of rabies in Ireland from 353 cases in 1890 to 771 cases in 1895, as stated in the Bluebook recently issued by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, and of the fact that barely half of the Unions in Ireland have enforced muzzling orders, he will request the Lord Lieutenant to issue a general order for the whole of Ireland as a means of stamping out the dreadful disease of hydrophobia?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the somewhat similar Question which he put to me on the 17th April. A Departmental Committee on which the Irish Veterinary Department is represented has been appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into the working of the laws relating to dogs, and when the Report of this Committee shall have been issued

  1441
  the question of taking further measures with a view to the stamping out of rabies will be considered.

  IRISH TREASON FELONY PRISONERS.
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Government have yet considered the petition recently presented to this House by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Dublin, in favour of an amnesty of the Irish treason-felony prisoners, now undergoing penal servitude in English gaols; if the petition has not yet been considered, can he say when it is likely to receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and, will he be good enough to impress upon the Government the desirability of giving the petition an early and favourable consideration?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: It is my duty to give careful consideration to any petition addressed to the Crown for the exercise of the prerogative; but the petition in question was addressed to this House, and is one, therefore, for the consideration of the House.
  MR. W. FIELDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would feel it his duty to bring this matter before the House?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir, it is not my duty to bring it before the House.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BOARD.
  CAPTAIN McCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Report of the Congested Districts (Ireland) Board for 1895–6 will be issued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Report is now being prepared, but I am afraid it will be some considerable time before it can be issued.

  SPRAYING POTATOES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1)—whether his attention has been called to the fact
  1442
  that the Irish Land Commission have, in a circular widely distributed by them describing the advantages of spraying potatoes with "Bordeaux mixture," drawn attention in particular to one variety of it manufactured by a Mr. Strawson; (2) what their reason for this singling out one English manufacturer in this way is; (3) whether he is aware that in the recent report of the Land Commission as to the experiments in spraying potatoes made by them, they stated that besides Mr. Strawson's preparation they also used two others, viz., Harrington's powder and Harrington's paste, made by a Cork firm, and that no advantage could be traced to the use of any of these preparations as compared with the other, and that the Cork preparations were cheaper; and (4), whether under these circumstances, he will request the Land Commission either to withdraw the circular in question or to amend it by putting all manufacturers on an equal footing?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, might I ask him if it is not the fact that Mr. Strawson's mixture was recommended to the Irish Land Commission by the late Chief Secretary the Member for Montrose (Mr. John Morley) and tried very successfully for three years, and whether the other mixture was not tried for the first time last year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The circular referred to was first issued by the Land Commissioners in May 1895, and before the preparations of the Messrs. Harrington of Cork were placed upon the market. The Commissioners, in this circular, directed attention to the powder known as "Strawsonite" for the reasons indicated in the circular, and because at that time they were not aware that any other similar specific preparation which had been submitted to practical test by agriculturists was generally procurable by the public. In their Report, recently presented to Parliament and largely circulated otherwise, the Commissioners referred to Messrs. Harrington's powder in the terms mentioned in the the third paragraph. It is now too late to act on the suggestion contained in the last paragraph, but the Commissioners, in the event of the issue of similar circulars or

  1443
  Reports hereafter are of opinion it would probably be undesirable to refer specifically to any of the various compounds which may be offered for sale.

  EDUCATION FEE GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has now received any communication from the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, relating to the publication of their statement on the subject of the Education Fee Grant as a Parliamentary Paper; and, whether he can state what course he intends to take in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A communication has been received from the Commissioners and has been forwarded by the Irish Government to the Treasury for consideration.

  INDIAN TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, in view of his statement of 2nd March, he can now tell the House whether India is to boar any part of the charge for the expenses of the Indian force recently sent to Mombasa?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: As regards the cost of the employment of Indian troops at Mombasa, Her Majesty's Government do not propose that any charge shall, in connection with their services there, be made on the revenues of India, and therefore, according both to law and precedent, no resolution is necessary to authorise their employment beyond the external frontiers of India. Her Majesty's Government propose that the ordinary pay and allowances of the Indian native troops under orders for Suakin, should continue to be borne by the revenues of Indian, and I will, therefore, give notice of my intention to move a Resolution, in accordance with precedent, to give effect to that decision.
  MR. BUCHANAN: When will the motion be put upon the Paper?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Very shortly.
  SIR C. DILKE: Are we to understand that the ordinary pay is to be borne otherwise than by India?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No; there is no charge upon the revenues of India in connection with the employment of that force outside India.
  SIR C. DILKE: I understood that; but does that mean that the ordinary pay of the troops is not to fall upon India?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes.

  MARRIAGES IN MALTA.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I think I ought to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for asking him the question I have put upon the Paper. I have only done so in consequence of the misrepresentations which have been so industriously circulated. [Cries of "Order!"] I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether Sir George Errington, who is now in Rome, has been charged by the Government with a secret mission to the Vatican, in connection with the subject of marriages in Malta?
  MR. VESEY KNOX: On a point of order, is it not the fact that an hon. Member cannot ask any questions unless he vouches for the accuracy of the facts he states?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood that the hon. Member was not stating facts, but was merely asking for information. [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There is no truth in the report to which my hon. Friend refers.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I thought not, Sir. [Laughter.]

  SUPPLY.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I should like to ask you, Sir, whether it would be consistent with the printing of the Papers for the House, if a Statement was put down every Friday stating the number of days which have already elapsed of the 20 which the House has resolved to appropriate to Supply. I think it would add very much to the convenience of Members if you would sanction the printing of that Statement either upon the Notices of Motion or upon the Votes, so that we may know how far we have gone towards the desired goal?
  MR. SPEAKER: I see no objection to that course, if it meets with the general approval of the House.

  JUDICIAL TRUSTEES BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 187.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed.—[No. 187.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Monday 1st June, and to be printed.—[Bill 237.]

  TRAMWAYS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Bill to facilitate the working of Tramways by Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Schwann, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Henry J. Wilson, and Mr. Channing; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday nexts, and to be printed.—[Bill 238.]
  TITHE REDEMPTION (No. 2).
  Bill for the purposes of Tithe Redemption, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Channing, Mr. Hobhouse, Colonel Lockwood, and Mr. Lambert; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 239.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND) LOANS.
  Bill to amend The Local Authorities (Scotland) Loans Act, 1891, and The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Haldane, and Mr. Orr-Ewing; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday 8th June, and to be printed.—[Bill 210.]

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid, he desired to direct the attention of Mr. Speaker to an erroneous report in the Votes and Proceedings of an incident which had occurred in Committee.
  MR. SPEAKERreferred the hon. Member to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who immediately afterwards took the Chair.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHcalled the attention of the Chairman of Ways and Means to the fact that, during the course of the discussion on the Agricultural Rating Bill on the previous night, the right hon. Member in charge of that Bill rose twice in his place and asked leave that the question be then put, while in the official account of the proceedings it appeared that he only did so once. He would, therefore, ask that some direction might be given to make the official account correspond with what actually took place.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman did not move the closure twice. He moved it on the first occasion, in the proper form, and I then declined to accept the Motion. Subsequently, the right hon. Gentleman exhibited indications—[much laughter]— of a desire to renew that Motion; and as, I suppose, he gathered from my appearance that I was not prepared to accept the Motion, he did not get as far as moving the exact words. Therefore, I directed the Clerk at the Table not to enter it.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman did not rise in his place. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The right hon. Member certainly rose in his place,

  1447
  and that was what I intended by saying that he exhibited indications, but he did not make the Motion.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  1. £2,543,200, Naval Arnaments,—
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOODexpressed his great regret at the order in which the Votes were put down. The Vote which the Committee took the greatest interest in was Vote 8, dealing with shipbuilding and contract work, which had not yet been discussed. He should like to have an assurance from the First Lord of the Admiralty that he would take an early opportunity of placing that Vote before the Committee, otherwise it might be brought on at the end of the Session, or after the 20 days had expired, and they would not, in that event, have had the opportunity of discussing a matter which was of vital interest to the nation.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, he gathered that it was the general opinion the Vote should not be taken to-day. It would be taken shortly after Whitsuntide.
  MR. W. ALLANexpressed his satisfaction with this arrangement.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLdrew attention to the fact that the Committee had very little information given to it about ordnance. There was just now a great transformation going on. They knew little indeed about the new guns. They did not know their velocity, their charges—in fact, they knew nothing about them. They knew little, also, about their ammunition. He urged his right hon. Friend to give some full details of these guns, so that the Committee might form an opinion about them. A few days ago he asked his right hon. Friend if the Admiralty had fully apprehended the unfortunate explosion on the Admiral Duperré. It appeared a cartridge exploded owing to heat development; he did not know the facts, but it seemed to be a matter of the utmost gravity. He did not know whether high explosives were being supplied to the Navy. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman, could say whether screens were likely to be useful.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEthought that the conclusion to be drawn from the explosion on the Admiral Duperré was that one high explosive when it exploded did not explode the others. If the Admiralty could give them information on the subject of the use of high explosives, it would be a source of satisfaction to the Committee. They all knew that the most progressive school in the French Navy had got their way in the use of high explosives in place of powder, and that they were being carried on the French ships to all parts of the world, and no danger seemed to have resulted. Our supply of these was very defective. He complained that the Royal Naval Reserve were still being drilled with old guns. They had just spent £350,000 on the refit of two ships which still had the old muzzle-loaders. We lagged behind other nations. A great many of our ships still on the list were armed with the old-fashioned muzzle-loading guns, because, it was said, there was great difficulty in supplying them with new armament. It seemed to him the Committee could reasonably ask that more rapid progress should be made in turning out sufficiently large ordnance for our ships and for all our needs.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, he was unable to give any information as to the explosion to which reference had been made. If there had been delay in the supply of high explosives, it had been owing to the absolute necessity of proceeding with the greatest caution. The necessary examination was now complete, and in the present Estimates provision was made for the supply of a very large number of high explosive shells within the present year. That supply would put us on an equality in the matter of explosive shells with any other naval Power He asked the Committee not to require the Government to state the number of shells which had been ordered, though if they wished to have the information he would give it; he hoped they would be satisfied with the assurance that the number was very large. As to ammunition generally, he could not pledge himself as to details. He would go into the question fully and see what information could be given. With regard to the supply of guns, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the

  1449
  Forest of Dean had stated that we were behind any other Power. One reason, no doubt, was that when a new gun was invented we had an enormously larger force of ships to supply than any other single Power. The total amount the Admiralty asked for this year was £2,500,000, and therefore he hoped the Committee would admit they were making a great effort to overtake the arrears.
  ADMIRAL FIELDagreed with what had been said as to the lack of information, and said the wire gun had produced a revolution in the armaments of our ships. That gun had brought about an enormous improvement. It was questionable whether cordite was the best ammunition we could have, and as to the armament of the torpedo-boat destroyers, he remarked that competent authorities had condemned the 12-pounder guns and recommended the use of 6-pounders in their stead. He would be glad to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman had been advised that that change could be carried out not only in the new destroyers but in the present boats. Another great defect in the destroyers was that they had only got one torpedotube. As it was impossible to say on which side an attack would be made, such an arrangement was absurd and wrong. The system of one-tube torpedoes, making it necessary for the weapon to be shifted from one side to the other, was absurd and unpractical, and he hoped the point would not be lost sight of officially. It was only on an occasion like this that hon. Members who were interested in naval matters had an opportunity of making suggestions and obtaining reliable information, and insisting on changes which the officers who had to command the ships—and, after all, the opinions of the men who would have to fight them were deserving of some consideration—thought to be necessary. [''Hear, hear!"] Then, with regard to the torpedo-school at Portsmouth, he thought the arrangement of placing the two instruction ships side by side was inconvenient; the vessels should be moored end on so as to secure the most light, freedom of movement, and the greatest safety. He would repeat that he hoped the Admiralty would not lose sight of the points he
  1450
  had referred to, especially with regard to the use of the non-erosive ammunition.
  SIR E. GOURLEYwas understood to say that, the old muzzle - loading guns having become obsolete—valuable only as old iron—the machine-gun had become a necessity, and for the safety of the country we must consent to whatever expenditure was necessary to equip our fleet and ports with the newest and best form of armament. In this regard he wished especially to draw the attention of the Admiralty to the necessity of fully arming our cruisers with the most effective weapon, and especially those vessels in the Mercantile Marine which were subsidised as cruisers for use in time of war. In the event of hostilities breaking out, those vessels might be dispersed over all parts of the world. It was obvious, therefore, that it was of supreme importance that those vessels should be equipped for immediate service, and that not only in our arsenals at home but at all our naval stations abroad there should be an ample reserve of quick-firing guns of modern pattern and of the necessary ammunition. Unless steps in this direction were taken, much of the money asked for would be absolutely wasted. The question of the whole equipment and manning of those vessels was so important that he was extremely desirous the Admiralty should give attention to it. The Admiralty seemed to be somewhat reticent about the question of explosive ammunition, and although he recognised that it might be impolitic to give precise information, yet it appeared strange that they should have information of what was being done by the French, Germans, and Americans on these matters. But the point on which he desired to be satisfied was that the Admiralty were making efforts to place the country in a proper position in those matters.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have already said so. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR E. GOURLEYsaid, he was glad to receive the assurance. Passing to another point, he said he thought the sum of £23,000 put down for the conveyance of guns from one point to another in the country was excessive, and that economy might be exercised in this direction by utilising the many

  1451
  steam tugs belonging to the Service. An equally important point was that of training and exercising the men of the Naval Reserve with modern guns instead of with the obsolete weapons that were now used in many cases, and he urged the First Lord of the Admiralty to give particular attention to this matter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, he congratulated the Admiralty on the amount they had asked for and proposed to devote to the expenditure and supply of explosive ammunition. But the point to which he particularly wished to direct the attention of the Admiralty was that of the under-arming of our ships, and especially our cruisers. There was a very general feeling that some of our cruisers were much under-armed, though he admitted that an important step had been taken of more heavily arming vessels of the Renown class. Practical experience had shown that the best and most powerfully armed vessel had the best chance of success in action. Efficient arming took preference of coal endurance, and even of power of protection. It was said that you could not have coal capacity, power of protection, and full armament together; that to some extent one must be sacrificed to the others. It was the view of practical men that power of armament was the last condition that should be sacrificed—["Hear, hear!"]—and he was bound to confess that he had seen foreign cruisers of equal displacement and coal endurance as our own, yet much more heavily armed. There was, he believed, an absolute consensus of opinion that they were sacrificing the effective gun-power of their ships to other qualities. They were always in the position of people who had to force actions, while foreign navies were not in that position, and it would be most serious for, their naval officers if they found, as they would find over and over again, when they had to go into action with their existing cruisers against ships nominally of the same class, that they were out-classed in the number of guns. He therefore pressed this matter on the right hon. Gentleman. He should like to say a word with regard to the obsolete armament of the Monarch. That splendid vessel was now armed with the worst gun in the Navy—the old 25-ton muzzle-loader, which was
  1452
  never a good gun, and which was now in a much worse condition than when it was first placed. He believed it was contended that the stability of the ship would be interfered with if the new guns were put no board, but the opinion of those engaged in the construction and completion of the ship was in absolute contradiction of the statement that it could not be re-armed with modern guns without interfering with its stability. He believed the problem could be solved, and he would ask the First Lord whether he would not invite some further expression of opinion as to the possibility of doing so. He thought the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland—the supply of guns to the cruisers—demanded some attention. He knew what those guns were, and that information made him aware of the fact that a great many of the guns were not what they ought to be, and that they were not in places where they ought to be. He thought the 4·7 guns could, with the very greatest ease, be carried in the holds of these ships without interfering with their ballast, and they could be placed on board in a short time in case of need. They were not carried on board, and in a great many cases they were not put in spots where they could be utilised when the ships were called upon to take up their commissions. There was one further very essential matter A great many of these subsidised vessels did not even carry the fittings they would require when they were called upon to take up their commission, and it would be very inconvenient that they should have, wherever the ships might be, to call upon artisans and smiths to undertake the whole of this work and to do at the last moment what ought to be done now. This was a small practical reform which might engage the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, he was not satisfied with the present arrangements in regard to the subsidised cruisers. [''Hear, hear!"] He should be very glad if some improved arrangement could be made by which more guns could be put upon those ships. He was bound to say that the situation in regard to the number of guns signed to the merchant cruisers was unsatisfactory. They were able to arm all the fastest and best cruisers with the 4·7

  1453
  guns. They had 104 of these guns ready for these cruisers. They had eight sets of these guns at Devonport; four sets of a somewhat inferior breech-loading gun at Hong Kong; a certain number of sets at Portsmouth, some at Sydney, and some at Woolwich. This was a matter which certainly would not escape the attention of the Admiralty. As regarded the Monarch, he did not think his hon. Friend would expect him to give a precise answer without first consulting his advisers. Generally with regard to those old ships and their armament, it was a question of how far the value of the improved armament was worth the immense cost of reconstructing the ships. In the case of the Monarch, he, understood, the ship would have to be taken to pieces. The expense would be very great indeed, and that, of course, applied to many of the old ships. His own personal opinion was that these old ships would probably prove a most useful reserve in the end, and would come into play and have a great part to perform if, after a very severe war, the finer ships had been disabled in part. He thought that, though their guns were obsolete as compared with the modern guns, there was still a good deal of value in them for subsidiary purposes in certain circumstances. In coming to a decision on this matter they should do their utmost to balance, carefully the value of the ship and the value of the guns and examine, whether or not it was worth while to deal with them if they had to reconstruct the whole ship. The hon. Member for Belfast, speaking of the number of guns on their ships generally, expressed the opinion that they were under-gunned. There was no question that gave rise to more controversy than this. His hon. Friend said he had been proved to be right in a great many cases. He would not dispute that, and he would not speak with any kind of official or personal dogmatism on the matter, because he was aware that both in the House and out of it many differences of opinion existed on all these questions, on which there must be some compromise. There was one consideration to which he was sure every one must attach the greatest importance, and that was that their ships should carry sufficient ammunition as well as sufficient guns. Their sea-going power
  1454
  must be great enough to force an attack, and they must be able to carry the necessary amount of ammunition, as they would not be able to replenish at home ports. They must be got to where the action was to be fought with very great speed, and consequently they must carry more coal than their adversaries. It was one of the drawbacks imposed on their ships that they must have a full coal supply, and it would be a daring policy to sacrifice to any great extent that which was of first necessity in getting their ships to the place where they were to fight. Then, in addition to the question of the necessary amount of ammunition and the necessary amount of guns, there was also the question of the arrangements by which the ammunition would be brought safely to the guns while under attack. That was a point to which possibly some, of their naval constructors attached more importance than some, of their foreign rivals. They had thought it necessary, and one of the most essential matters in naval warfare, that the, ammunition should be safely and quickly conducted to the guns. That involved a certain amount of room, and the number of guns had to be adjusted in connection with that most important question. Then there was the question of the protection of the guns. They could not have as many guns in casemates as they could have guns without casemates, and the question was whether on the whole the advantage would not lie with the, ship with fewer guns with casemates and which was able to fight longer, both because the guns and the ammunition supply were protected as they were not in other ships. But he did not wish to dogmatise on the matter. He always looked with the greatest interest to see what really could be done in the matter of multiplying the number of guns on their ships. A good deal had been done in that direction. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend also spoke of the first-class cruisers not having sufficient guns, and instanced the case of the Renown. The six-inch quickfiring gun was a gun which was considered of the greatest advantage, and it was thought it would be better to have more guns of the six-inch type than a few of the nine-inch type. He could assure the Committee that every effort, was being made to increase the number

  1455
  of guns. Attention had been called to the question of the exclusive use of high explosives. On that point he had to say that there were eminent authorities who held that high explosives ought not to be carried exclusively on our ships, and the Admiralty did not intend that such explosive should displace wholly other kinds of ammunition. Of the behaviour of our torpedo-destroyers he had received very satisfactory accounts.
  MR. ALLANsaid, that he had listened with very great interest to what had been said with reference to high explosives. Great risks were run in storing these explosives in men-of-war, and they must always be handled with the greatest care. They were composed of very treacherous material, and he trusted that the question of their use would always be approached in this country with deliberation and caution. With regard to the remarks that had been made as to the insufficiency of the armament of our cruisers, he would remind the Committee that the question of the number of guns that could be put upon a ship was determined by the design of the ship. The number of guns which a ship was designed to carry could not be exceeded. When comparison was made between the number and character of the guns carried on a British ship and the number carried on a foreign vessel with the intention of showing that the latter carried more and greater guns, the comparison was generally faulty in this respect—that the ships compared were not of the same class. The armament of the Monarch and similar ships had been referred to. The question of re-arming these ships must be considered from a business point of view. A vessel built 10, 15, or 20 years ago was practically an obsolete ship, and it might cost much more money to alter that ship so that guns of the most recent design might be put upon her than would be required to build a cruiser of respectable dimensions. These old vessels were bound to go to the hammer sooner or later; in the meantime they could be used for coast defence and subsidiary purposes of that kind. He was very glad that the Admiralty took such a practical view in regard to the armament of the Monarch and her sister ships.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHhad no criticism to offer on the replies which the First Lord of the Admiralty had given to the various questions that had been addressed to him. He wished, however, to supplement what the right hon. Gentlemen had said as to the inexpendiency of incurring the enormous expense that would be necessary if old ships like the Monarch and the Sultan were to be rendered capable of carrying modern big guns. The expense of altering the Sultan so as to enable her to carry big modern breech loading guns was considered by the Board of Admiralty of which he was a member, as well as by the Board which preceded it, to be absolutely prohibitive. The problem which presenter itself to the late Government was which of three coursed should be adopted. The old ships might have been condemned as absolutely obsolete, and not worth spending any money upon; or they might have been partially reconstructed, fitted with quick firing guns, and thus given a good secondary armament so that they might take their place in the second or third line of defence and be useful which other ships had played their part; or at enormous expense, as advocated by many people outside, they might have been re-constructed so as to replace the old guns with modern big guns. The third course would have rendered necessary such totally different arrangements from those existing in the ships, that it was difficult to convey an idea of the enormous expenditure that would have had to be incurred in reconstruction in order to make the ships serviceable. On the whole it was deemed best not to adopt either of the two extreme courses and he was quite satisfied that the middle course was the most prudent in the circumstances. With regard to the amount of information furnished on certain subheads he had felt since he left office that, while with respect to ships it went almost beyond what was necessary with regard to armament it was very meagre.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, it was desirable they should know whether the guns for Canada were really in existence. [Mr. GOSCHEN said they were.] Many naval

  1457
  officers had called his attention to the urgency of recognising the importance of screening as a defence against quick-firing small guns, by which so much execution had been done in the naval war between China and Japan. He congratulated the Committee on the fuller consideration that had been given to the arming of the mercantile cruisers, because one of our greatest sources of strength would be the granting of temporary commissions to merchantmen. We ought to be prepared not only with crews but also with armament ready at hand if commissions were sent by telegram; and if it were possible mail steamers in the Pacific should have armament stored in the hold.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid the statement of the First Lord was extremely satisfactory. As regarded cruisers, it was somewhat of a surprise that matters had gone so far. The sum spent upon the refitting of the older ships was a large one, and it was doubtful whether, if you had to alter the armament and supply them with quick-firing guns, it was worth spending upon them so much as £200,000 each. It seemed a very large sum to spend on a ship which would only be of secondary utility; and in case of a war lasting we should manifestly rely upon torpedo destroyers rather than upon obsolete ships of this kind. One point on which explanation was not quite satisfactory was the armament on the ships used for exercising the men of the Royal Naval Reserve, for, although important additions had been made, some men never saw a shot fired from a modern gun, and others never saw a shell fired at all. This made the drilling a very imperfect preparation few service in war.
  SIR J. COLOMBasked whether, after searching inquiry, the Admiralty were satisfied as to the suitability of Esquimalt as a naval base. He also wished to know who would be responsible for the guns when placed there, and whether the surrounding, and works were satisfactory in the minds of the authorities.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked whether the distribution of Lee-Metford rifles in the Navy had been completed? Experience seemed to show that for the special purposes of the Navy the Lee-Metford
  1458
  rifle was not satisfactory. Although it was wise to have guns on cruisers, he did not think much reliance could be placed on armed cruisers for the needs of the Navy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,)replied that the doubts that formerly existed as to the suitability of the Lee-Metford rifle for the needs of the Navy had disappeared. With regard to Esquimalt, the Admiralty were not responsible for the supply either of guns or ammunition. The War Office supplied these by arrangement with the Canadian Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, with regard to the new powder brought before the Austrian Government, that, unless it was shown that there could be an improvement in the powder now possessed, it would be a serious thing to take up a new powder for introduction in the service.
  MR. T. LOUGHpointed out that the chief increase in the Vote was £800,000 for the production of ordnance. For artificers and labourers' wages there was only an increase of £300,000 or £400,000. He supposed that the reason wages formed such a small part of the Vote was that the guns were obtained from the War Department, and the Committee only dealt with the extra amount paid, and the Admiralty were not responsible. The wages of 1,100 or 1,200 artificers were in the Vote, and 400 of these were employed at Woolwich. He complained that the recognised minimum wages for ordinary labourers were not paid at Woolwich Dockyard. The late Government gave the men 1s. or 2s. per week extra, but he believed that even now their wages only averaged 22s. 6d. a week, whereas 24s. were the average wages of ordinary labourers. He also wished to know whether the eight hours day initiated by the late Government had proved satisfactory.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYexplained that the number of artificers who came under the Vote was so small compared with the bulk of the labourers employed, that it would be more convenient to discuss the points raised by the hon. Member under the Vote for labour. The great bulk of the

  1459
  expenditure under this Vote went either to the War Office or the trade, and the employment of workmen was not relevant.
  Vote agreed to.
  2. £618,400, works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad,—
  SIR ARTHUR FORWOODobserved that there was a considerable change made in. the aspect of the Vote by reason of the large works contemplated last year now being provided for out of the capital account. They had relieved the Vote of a very large charge that would have appeared upon it for many years to come, and he was inclined to think that those who administered the Department at the Admiralty had rather sought out a means of expending the money so saved by discharging the capital account with probably not always the same eye to economy that was shown in previous days. For instance, at Plymouth he found it was proposed to construct a new boiler shop at a cost of £45,000, while the machinery to be placed in it would only cost £6,000. His experience of the works under the Admiralty was that there was an inclination to expend an unnecessarily large sum of money for the buildings that were to house the plant. At Keyham a very large sum had been practically wasted in building houses for a comparatively moderate amount of machinery. No private firm would ever think of spending such a sum as was indicated in this Vote merely for housing £6,000 worth of machinery. He hoped that the Civil Lord would be able to tell them that care had been exercised in providing this protection for machinery, and that no unnecessary expense would be incurred. ["Hear, hear!"] He observed that at Devonport a new machine shop was to be erected at a cost of £12,500, to cover machinery which was apparently only to cost £3,000. These sums for the buildings seemed very large, having regard to the purposes for which they were to be devoted, and he should be glad if the Civil Lord would give them some explanation. He also noticed that at Southampton there was to be an expenditure on the part of the Admiralty, for boom defences, of
  1460
  £21,700. He should like to know whether this expenditure was being incurred by the Admiralty of their own action or by the War Office, which of the two Departments was responsible for the defence of Southampton, and what class of attack this was proposed to provide against?
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDalthough he did not intend to move any reduction of the Vote, would like to call the attention of the Admiralty to the item relating to Haul-bowline Dock. At Cork harbour millions of money had already been spent on the defences, but the authorities had dawdled over the dock for years and years. Very little had been expended on the dock, but what had been so expended had been practically thrown away. He meant by that that the dock was absolutely useless at the present moment for any practical purpose, as they had neither the plant nor the people to do any repairs. This he regarded as a matter of first-rate importance. This harbour and dock were the furthest to the west and north-west of any part of those islands. He thought it was generally admitted that one of the most important factors in the next naval war would be the power of coaling their ships as well as of preparing them, and there was no means of coaling vessels at Haulbowline. If they were not going to make it a dockyard for repairing ships, it should at least be made a coaling station where ships, instead of having to go up the English Channel, could take on board a coal supply to enable them to keep at sea for another fort night or three weeks after their own supply had been burned out in action. He trusted the Admiralty authorities would give some consideration to this most important question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDobserved that it was quite true that this year a certain amount of money was set apart in the Estimates to be spent at Haulbowline, but the sum was altogether inadequate, and he thought the Admiralty would find in the long run it would be more economical, as well as more satisfactory all round, if they dealt with this dockyard at once in a liberal and generous way instead of proceeding by their present methods. He commented on the fact that of the amount

  1461
  annually voted in the Navy Estimates very little was spent in Ireland, which was a circumstance giving rise to much dissatisfaction. In regard to Haulbowline, it was clearly in the interest of the service and of the Admiralty that the dockyard should be put in an efficient state of repair, so that employment might be given locally, and some indication conveyed to the Irish people that there was a desire to act fairly in the matter. He had over and over again protested against the way in which Ireland was treated in regard to this expenditure. He had on the Paper to-day several Amendments; he had frequently divided on previous occasions against various items with a view to emphasise his protest, and although he did not intend to divide the Committee on the Amendments he had put down, he wished once more to reiterate his complaint as to the unfair way Ireland was treated in this matter.
  GENERAL LAURIEcongratulated the First Lord of the Admiralty no the announcement with regard to Haulbowline—namely, that he proposed to carry out the expenditure in connection with Haulbowline as recommended in the Committee's Report, and so to make that yard an emergency yard, which would be of great value in time of war, and a repairing yard in time of peace. He had always contended that it was most desirable that there should be one or more yards on the west coast of the United Kingdom. At present, all the repairing yards were east of the Land's End, although the next great fight was certain to take place west of that point; and it seemed to him most important that the yards should be in the locality where the fighting would take place. Haulbowline and Pembroke were essentially the two yards that should be improved, and he was glad to think that the former was to receive consideration. At the same time he much regretted that a larger amount of consideration was not to be given to Pembroke. It seemed to him that a dockyard without a dock was hardly sufficient there. It was essential to have a yard there in which vessels could be made ready for sea again after being damaged in action. Considering the small amount of dock accommodation
  1462
  there was, and that money was to be spent on increased accommodation at the eastern ports, was it not fair to ask that something should be spent in improving the yard that would be most useful in time of war? He did not ask for more now, but he hoped that in the next Naval Works Bill this matter might be considered.
  CAPTAIN DONELANwas extremely glad to hear the appeals made on behalf of Haulbowline by his hon. Friend opposite and by his hon. Friend near him, and he desired most cordially to support him. He rose, however, to ask a few questions in connection with the Report of the Committee which had just been issued. The recommendations of that Committee went far beyond the outlay sanctioned in their Vote; but he would confine his inquiries to items which were stated in the Report to be essential to make Haulbowline efficient even as a repairing yard. He wished, therefore, to ask the First Lord whether the various recommendations of the report, including electric lighting, were covered by their Vote; and, further, whether the offer of the Queenstown Commissioners to supply Haulbowline with fresh water had been accepted? He would also like to know what sum it was proposed to allocate annually to the maintenance of Haulbowline, and whether the recommendations of the Committee as to strengthening the permanent staff would be adopted? He would further suggest that a general statement as to the future intentions of the Admiralty with regard to this yard was extremely desirable. He would also call attention to the vital necessity of carrying out the works promptly and expeditiously. Delay was quite as injurious to the interests of this country as to those of Ireland. Replying to a Question of his the other day, the Civil Lord stated that while no definite pledge could be given as to the total amount of their Vote being expended within the present financial year, the works would be carried out as rapidly as possible. He wished to urge that they should be commenced as speedily as possible, because until Haulbowline was properly equipped England was deprived of an admirable harbour of refuge, and in the present unsettled state of foreign affairs, no one could deny that such an addition

  1463
  to the naval resources of the country would be of great value. He trusted, therefore, that some assurance; would be given that the utmost dispatch would be used in beginning and completing these works.
  MR. MACARTNEYthought that this would be a convenient time at which to reply to the various questions that had been put. He wished to assure his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the Admiralty was fully alive to the great advantages presented by Queenstown. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the condition of our foreign coaling stations should have the most careful attention of the Admiralty, who would see that they were so kept up that they would be efficient for the purpose of coaling Her Majesty's ships in time of war. With regard to the money which it was proposed to spend upon Haulbowline dockyard, he might say, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Clare and the hon. and gallant Member for Cork, that the money was proposed to be so expended in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee on Dockyard Accommodation, which was a very efficient Committee. That Committee included several gentlemen of the greatest experience, and they had carried out their work in an admirable manner. Any one who had read the Report of that Committee would see that no pains had been spared by them to lay all necessary information in relation to the matters they had to inquire into before the Admiralty. The Admiralty were taking steps to make Haulbowline an efficient emergency dockyard in time of war. He could not state at that moment what was proposed to be done in the way of electric lighting and similar matters at that dockyard, because the Admiralty had as yet not arrived at a definite decision with regard to them. The Admiralty, however, fully endorsed the views which had been put forward with so much ability by the Committee on Dockyard Accommodation, the importance of which they recognised.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid, that, in his view, there was nothing in connection with this Vote which required prolonged discussion. He
  1464
  should like, however, to express his concurrence in the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with reference to the value of the labours of the Committee on Dockyard Accommodation, the Chairman of which had done his work with great ability and sagacity. He was not aware, of course, whether the Admiralty intended to carry out the whole, or which of the recommendations of that Committee, but he had no doubt that those recommendations would receive careful consideration. With regard to some of the suggestions which had been made, there was nothing more noticeable that occurred during the recent General Election than the constant attempts at various seaport towns to make political capital out of proposals to spend large sums upon our dockyards. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Admiralty would set his back against proposals of that kind from whatever quarter they might come.
  MR. GORELL BARNESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken into consideration the great advantages that would result from lengthening one of the docks at Sheerness which would be of extreme advantage in time of war. He did not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily; but he felt strongly the necessity of bringing the question forward in the hope that the matter would be carefully considered by the Admiralty.
  MR. REES DAVIESpointed out that Pembroke Dockyard was situated in one of the finest natural harbours in the world, steps should be taken to improve that dockyard, and that money could be found for that purpose.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, in his opinion, it was a pity that hon. Member after hon. Member should get up and attempt to turn the discussion on the Navy Estimates into a means of making political capital. He had never proposed that King's Lynn should be turned into a Government dockyard, although, perhaps, he might have had fairly good grounds for doing so. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would concern himself solely with matters that concerned the welfare of the

  1465
  Navy, and would not pay the slightest attention to any suggestions which hon. Members might make in favour of their particular localities. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any intention to give superintendents of works any gratuities or percentages in respect of the large extra works now to be carried out?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I can tell the hon. Gentleman there is no such intention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he was glad to hear that that was the case, because he should have been bound to have brought such a matter forward if it had come to his knowledge. With regard to Jamaica he thought that it was useless for dockyard purposes, but he thought that it might be of some value as a coaling station. He wished to know why £17,000 was going to be expended on the water supply of that island. He had already reminded the House that the Admiral on the station reported against the maintenance of Jamaica as a dockyard. A local committee had been appointed, he supposed to carry out the recommendation of the Admiral, and if there was any defence to be made for Jamaica as a dockyard he should be glad to hear it. He should also be very glad to hear why this very large expenditure of, £17,000 was being incurred for the water supply.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said that the hon. Member for King's Lynn was not, he thought, altogether correct in interpreting the effect of the Report of the Admiral on the station. The present Board had given the most careful attention to the question of Jamaica, and had come to the conclusion that it would be a great mistake to do away with the dockyard there. In the opinion of their expert advisers the position of Jamaica was one of very great strategic importance. At present the water supply of the dockyard was not sufficient, and was procured in a very costly and unsatisfactory way by means of water-tank vessels. This expenditure on water supply had for its object the bringing of a permanent supply of spring water in pipes to the dockyard, the result of which would be, he was
  1466
  convinced, a saving in the annual expense.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked if the springs were in the Blue Mountains?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was afraid he could not answer that question, but they wore getting the same water as was now being used. It was proposed to bring it by pipes.
  MR. ROBERTSON: Across the harbour?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought so. The subsidies to various docks were for dock extensions which were in contemplation, and by means of which, owing to private interprise, the Admiralty would be spared expense.
  MR. ROBERTSON: Where are they?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid Colombo was a case in point. With regard to the items for Portsmouth and Devonport he pointed out that the sum of money which appeared on the Estimate for Machinery did not represent the whole machinery which was to be put into the new buildings, as there would be transfers of machinery from existing buildings. The boom defences at Southampton would be erected by the Admiralty.
  MR. ALLANasked for an explanation of the following entries:—A new shed for slabs at Sheerness, £6,000; a new electric shop at Sheerness, £15,000; a new machine shop at Devonport, £12,500; a new boiler shop at Gibraltar, £22,000; and a new coppersmiths' shop at Malta, £2,900. He should like to know what kind of shops these were for which such large sums were asked. Then there was a still more startling entry under the head of Portland:—coaling arrangements, £87,960. What were these arrangements?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that money had been nearly all spent. All they were asking for in that case was £500 to complete the works.
  MR. ALLANsaid he was very glad to hear that that was the case, but he should like an elucidation of the other items he had referred to.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, he had visited on behalf of the Government every harbour in the West Indies, and

  1467
  although he did not speak from the export side, having considered the matter from the financial point of view, he was able to say in favour of Jamaica that it was the only harbour in those parts which was out of the usual track of hurricanes, and for this, and other reasons, it was useful not only as a coaling station, but as a dockyard. If the harbour had been removed to a different position as they had suggested, this large expense for water supply would have been obviated. There was a large item for reclaiming land for coal stores at the Cape of Good Hope, he presumed that was in Simon's Bay. It was followed by a Vote for survey and preliminary expenses for docks, and he would like to ask whether the Admiralty had fully considered the site of Simon's Bay for these purposes. To his mind sufficient importance was not attached to Table Bay, as just as they no longer used Torbay, but went to Portsmouth, so they ought to use Table Bay, instead of Simon's Bay, as the headquarters; and a short distance north of Table Bay there was one of the finest harbours round the whole coast. He observed one item for magazine accommodation at Sierra Leone, which was a much neglected place. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped there would be a grant of money which would make it a very strong naval station. He asked where the magazine was to be placed. He had recently been there, and the naval authorities were quite convinced as to where it should be placed.
  SIR J. COLOMBagreed as to the extreme importance, of Sierra Leone, for any one who had studied the question at all had forced upon him this conclusion. He saw at page 122 that money was provided for guns at Ascension, and he wanted to know if that was not rather a new departure. Hitherto armaments on shore were in the hands of the War Office, but he should be glad if the new departure was extended further. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the Admiralty was starting a policy of having control of the minor naval bases. He could not agree with what had been said by the Member for King's Lynn as to Jamaica. From his own experience down to recent times, it proved to be of the greatest value, and every one who noticed the change of routes and the general course of
  1468
  trade, must admit that the importance of Jamaica was rather increased than decreased. He was exceedingly glad that the Admiralty was spending what was necessary on the water supply, and he hoped there would be a pure and ample supply at the naval station at Port? loyal As to the Cape, he urged that they should have further information as to the survey, and he asked whether the £5,000 was for a survey within any particular territorial limits. Was it to be a general survey in Simon's Bay and elsewhere, or was it to be confined to a limited portion of the region? The Admiralty in Simon's Bay, or any of the waters of the Cape, had no local control, and he believed they could not get any statutory powers without the consent of the Colony. He instanced in support of this the case of Admiral Heneage in Canadian waters, where an action was brought and damages recovered. The Government of the Dominion of Canada had now given the Admiralty these powers, and there the Admiral, in those waters, had the actual jurisdiction which an admiral ought to have on every naval station and in all waters that were British. ["Hear, hear!"] He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could give the Committee an assurance that this matter had not been overlooked, and that before spending Imperial money he would see that the control of the Admiralty was absolutely secured, and that the Admiral on the station had that paramount power which he had at home. He would like to receive an assurance that although the Admiralty had come to the conclusion that dock accommodation was much needed in South Africa, he hoped they had not lost sight of the Falkland Islands. The same circumstances which would give increased importance to the Cape would give increased importance to the route round the Horn.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid he had often insisted upon the importance of Sierra Leone as a coaling station. It was difficult to discuss the question of our position at Sierra Leone because it arose on so many different Votes. It arose on this Vote in connection with new works. The importance of Sierra Leone was universally admitted. At one time it was suggested that that station should be abandoned, but now there was no difference of opinion as to the importance

  1469
  of the place. He asked that the Defence Committee of the Cabinet would turn their attention to the whole question of the position of Sierra Leone, both as to the works that had to be established there and as to the way the place was to be garrisoned and protected in view of a possible attack upon it.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the Admiralty whether they would have a Report made as to the necessity of providing a boat slip on the Tramore, County Waterford. There was a large coastguard there, and if the work of the men was to be properly performed a boat slip was absolutely necessary?
  ADMIRAL FIELDdesired to echo everything that had been said as to the importance of the Cape. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth had raised a point which was entirely new to him. In his youth he served on that station for a considerable time, and he knew it never occurred to the Admiral or to anybody else that there was a doubt as to jurisdiction. If there was any doubt in the matter the sooner it was cleared up the better. He did not share the alarmist view as to Simon's Bay being open to attack As long as there was an adequate force there, there was no fear of any attack. Simon's Bay, however, did deserve to receive more attention from the Admiralty than it had yet received, and it would be better to have a dock there under difficulties than not to have a dock at all. He rejoiced to see that £5,000 was to be taken for preliminary surveys with regard to the dock. He trusted a similar sum would be taken for a like survey at the Mauritius. At both stations a dock was required; we were sorely in need of docks. He now came to items of less importance, and yet they were important. There was a reference in the Vote to the torpedo range, and he would like to know whether it was in contemplation to remove the torpedo school from Portsmouth to Portland; £2,300 was set down for a cottage hospital at Forton. He did not grudge anything for the marines, but it struck him as remarkable that they should want to put up a cottage hospital when there was a hospital 1½ mile away. There was a sum to be taken for schools at Forton. He always thought that the schools at the barracks
  1470
  were ample. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee why the money was wanted? Under the head of Keyham there was a sum of £4,000 for an engineer students' recreation ground. He suggested the desirableness of a private arrangement being made with Lord Mount Edgcumbe, who would be glad, on doubt, to grant some acres of land for a recreation ground. He next called attention to Sheerness and the gunnery school, pointing out that a rifle range was a great want here. He found that once a fortnight a batch of Marines were being brought from Devonport to Gosport Barracks, in order to carry out their rifle practice. That arrangement could not be carried out under £50 a trip, and he suggested whether arrangements for rifle practice could not be made at Devonport, without moving the men about in this way.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY,dealing generally with the Vote, assured the Committee that no Vote had been subjected to a closer criticism and examination before it was placed in the Estimates. The question of Keyham recreation ground had given rise to a considerable amount of trouble and annoyance, and it was not yet settled. Hon. Members were no doubt aware of the extreme difficulty of securing any good ground in this neighbourhood. The authorities had been in negotiations, but so far they had not resulted in anything decisive. It might be necessary for the Admiralty to resort to their compulsory powers in order to secure a recreation ground, which must be obtained for the exercise of the students, and the Department would not shrink from exercising those powers if it was impossible to obtain the desired end otherwise. The question which had been raised as to the torpedo range had nothing to do with the school of torpedoes; it was a range for testing the torpedoes; and, though they regretted that it should be necessary to propose a Vote of this kind, yet it was a matter of great importance and could not be over looked. As to rifle ranges, he stated that his predecessors and the War Office found great difficulty in securing such ranges, owing to the extreme expense. Great delay and annoyance had been created, but the Admiralty and the War Office were

  1471
  doing their best to secure the necessary rifle-ranges with the increased distance to which rifles carried. The political and strategical question raised by the larger questions of hon. Members was of very grave importance. The right hon. Baronet opposite was correct in saying that the question of Sierra Leone was one to which the Defence Committee must give its attention. Much progress had been made during later years in joint consultation between the naval and military authorities, and the question of Sierra Leone had been looked into by the joint Naval and Military Committee—a committee of experts. But constant difficulties arose with regard to the garrison of a place like Sierra Leone; and the Government itself would have to settle some of the questions which still remained, to a certain extent, open. Ascension had been handed over entirely to the Admiralty, and they were responsible for the land defences as well. An hon. Member argued that it would be a good plan if the Navy undertook the land defences of the naval stations in other places as well; but how far ought they to put a strain like this on the Navy itself? The naval authorities were generally averse from having anything to do with land defence. In the first place, they thought that they were not so competent to undertake that work as the military authorities; and, in the next place, what force ought to be put aside for the purpose? The use of Marines had been suggested; but the Navy was not anxious to lock up any body of Marines in Sierra Leone, or in any other naval station. This view had been consistently held by the Admiralty, and the authorities were rather inclined still to maintain that view against other authorities. It was a matter, however, upon which the military and naval authorities were at this moment more or less in friendly contest As to Simon's Bay, hon. Members were of opinion that the question of jurisdiction should be brought to an issue. The point relating to jurisdiction in time of peace as well as war was unquestionably an important one, and much might be said on both sides. But there appeared to be every disposition on the part of the colony to facilitate the desire of the Imperial authority with regard to the construction of a dock, and he hoped a satisfactory settlement would
  1472
  finally be arrived at. The question involved, however, was an urgent one, and the Admiralty were anxious that there should be no delay in carrying out the preliminary survey necessary to ascertain the best point, strategically and otherwise, at which the dock should be constructed. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew there was a difference of opinion on the matter, as to both the necessity and position of the proposed dock, but naval authorities generally expressed the strongest conviction that further dock accommodation at some point connected with the Cape was absolutely necessary, and that no consideration should be allowed to delay its construction. By passing the present Vote the House would not commit itself to the adoption of any particular site, but only to the fact that it was desirable that steps should be taken which, through obtaining ample information and expert judgment, would enable the Admiralty to fix upon the best site for a dock. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the importance of Falkland Islands as a coaling station, he might assure his hon. and gallant Friend that the matter had not escaped the attention of the Admiralty. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he heartily concurred with the view that it would be unwise to lock up any portion of our naval forces at the naval stations. That was the opinion of the late Board of Admiralty; indeed, there seemed to be a consensus of naval opinion against such a policy which in time of war would tie any part of the naval forces to the ports. ["Hear, hear!"] The duty of the Navy was on the sea; garrison
  duty on land should be discharged by the Army. ["Hear, hear!"] The matter of providing proper recreation grounds for the naval students at Devonport and elsewhere was one of very great importance. Up to the present time the acquisition of land for many purposes had been attended with difficulties, due to the extravagant demands of local landowners, and it was with much pleasure that he heard the right hon. Gentleman hint that the Government would resort to the compulsory powers they new possessed if the necessary land could not otherwise be obtained. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, that other countries recognised the responsibility of their navies for the defence of the naval bases. He hoped the Admiralty would give the point serious consideration.
  SIR J. COLOMBsaid, no doubt there was a great deal of difficulty about the garrisoning of Sierra Leone, but the matter was a very important one, and it ought to be settled as soon as possible. The Army authorities, on the one hand, did not want to send a regiment there, for the climate was bad for white men, and on the other hand, the Naval authorities naturally objected to locking up a force of Marines there which might be urgently needed in time of sudden emergency. It was clear that some special arrangements must be made by the Government for the manning and defence of the station, and he did not see why it might not be possible to create a special force of black troops for the purpose. Some portion of a white force would, of course, be necessary, but it might be kept to a minimum. At the same time it could not be denied that the pressure of keeping a force at Sierra Leone came from the Navy, and in whatever special arrangements were made the Naval authorities must have a strong voice in them. In the circumstances, therefore, he believed the only way to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement would be by concurrence between the naval and military departments. He fully agreed with the opinion that the duties and work of the Navy were on the sea, and that it would be of the utmost importance, in case of emergency, that our fleets should be left perfectly free and not hampered in any way by garrison defence. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR E. GOURLEYasked for an explanation of the item "purchase and erection of new coastguard buildings and purchase of sites." In his opinion the policy indicated by this item was quite obsolete now that smuggling was a thing of the past, and he contended that the great bulk of the men in the coastguard service would be much better employed on board ship than in marching round the island night and day.
  ADMIRAL FIELDpressed for an answer to his question about the £2,000 for the new schools at Forton.
  MR. LOUGHasked how it was that Portsmouth and Devonport were dealt with in two different places in the Votes, and whether in another year the expenditure could not be given under one head and fuller details furnished.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdid not think it would tend to the better understanding of the Estimates if he were to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member. The cottage hospital at Forton had been much pressed upon the Admiralty as being most desirable in the interests of the health of the Navy, the present infirmary not being satisfactory. The charge for new schools was put down in order to meet the requirements of the Education Department.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISwished to know whether the sum of £5,000 to be devoted to Pembroke Dockyard was to be regarded as an earnest of the work that was to be done there, and whether it was to be understood that the construction of a dry dock at Pembroke was contemplated in the future.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, the Admiralty were not prepared, as at present advised, to make a dry dock at Pembroke Dockyard. The money was taken for a jetty, but he did not wish to give the impression that any great changes were contemplated at Pembroke Dockyard.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISdeclared that in the statement just made the right hon. Gentleman had receded considerably from the position taken up by the present Secretary of State for India, and the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY,who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, who regretted that he was not able to be present at the moment, had assured him most positively that that was not what he meant, and that, quite unintentionally, the hon. Member had misrepresented what he had said.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid, that as a matter of fact, he did not go one single word beyond the official report of the Debate, in which the noble Lord was reported to have said, referring to Pembroke Dock, "that it was the finest

  1475
  harbour, he supposed, in the United Kingdom. That being so, surely it was advisable that the naval dockyard there should be so constituted that in time of war it would be able to undertake the repair of every vessel that had to come into the harbour." The words were not susceptible of misrepresentation. The right hon. Gentleman had fairly said that, whether the noble Lord meant it or not, that at all events was not the present intention of Her Majesty's Government. Then he said the Government had receded.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, the Government had not receded at all. He was responsible for these Estimates, and he accepted the responsibility for the decision they had made. What the noble Lord said at that time had no bearing on the policy of Her Majesty's Government when it succeeded to Office.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid, it had just this bearing that, on the eve of a General Election, when a statement was made from that box by the official spokesman of the Opposition, did the right hon. Gentleman mean to contend for a single moment that that had no moral binding force upon the Government which came into power almost immediately afterwards, and of which, when in Opposition, the noble Lord, who had himself been at the head of the Admiralty, was the spokesman. He approached this matter not as a political question, but on the grounds simply of national and naval policy, and on those grounds he said that Pembroke was entitled to have a repairing dock. He would draw attention to the argument by which the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool supported the position he took up last year. He said, with regard to Pembroke, that:—
  "Naval authorities agree that for the purposes of construction, finishing and repairing of vessels, the dockyard was of the highest importance,"
  and he went on to refer to the fact that Pembroke was a most important strategical point, and that it was most, important that they should have a policy by which Pembroke might be placed in a naval position with other dockyards. The hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne took the same view upon that question, and he ventured to appeal
  1476
  again to the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Government on this question to at all events promise that he would give this matter more favourable consideration than had been extended to it hitherto. He would ask him whether it was not the duty of the Government to carry out the promise they made last year.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid he did not at all agree with the contention of his hon. Friend, but he thought it right to explain what took place last year on this proposal with regard to Pembroke that arose on the Naval Works Bill. On that occasion the noble Lord, who was now the Secretary of State for India was understood to be the official spokesman of the Conservative Opposition, and they certainly understood on their side of the House, and the House understood, and Pembroke certainly understood what he meant by this proposal. He ventured to put to the Secretary to the Admiralty—he regretted the First Lord was not now in his place—that their proposals this year did not go beyond the proposals which were made last year—possibly not so far, but he would not press that. On the Naval Works Bill, they were met with this contention by Members for Wales, and on the part of the noble Lord, that Pembroke should be made a first class yard. He understood the noble Lord to be repeating a proposal which had been time and again made to the Admiralty and rejected by him. He thought it a matter of much importance that he, speaking officially as the Admiralty representative of the Opposition, should come down to the House and propose plans for the development of Pembroke which he, when in Office, rejected times without number. He did not say anything about it then, as they were anxious to get their Naval Works Bill. His recollection was that the noble Lord put on the Paper an Amendment to the Naval Works Bill, making the very proposal which hon. Members for Wales were now making, and though he did not move it, he supported Mr. Egerton Allen, who was then the Member for Pembroke, and spoke in favour of his Motion. If there was a Division upon the present proposal, he should be obliged to vote against his hon. Friends, but he had thought it right to state his recollection of what took place last year.

  1477
  There had been a serious misconception about the matter, but the statement which was made was taken, and was intended to be taken, in that part of the country as a promise.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY,who had re-entered the House during the closing sentences of the hon. Member's speech, said he, could not fancy that any responsible Member would come to the conclusion which the hon. Member stated. He seemed to think—he was aware that the hon. Member below the Gangway also thought—that the fact that a private Member, even a private Member in the position which the noble Lord occupied, made a statement with regard to a dock, compelled the succeeding Government, whether or not they thought it right, to spend public money for the purpose of some particular Measure.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he repudiated the notion that this was a promise binding on the present Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid that he would withdraw what he had said.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that they were now to understand that the Government did not hold themselves bound by their pledges made when in Opposition. There appeared on the Estimates an item of £5,000 for Pembroke Dock. A promise had been given, this Session by the Admiralty that a sum of £100,000 was to be spent on a jetty at Pembroke Dock; and he should like to know whether the £5,000 was for a survey or was merely the first instalment of the larger sum promised. In the latter case it was rather inadequate.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, that the £5,000 was inserted before the Committee had reported on the subject. Now that the Committee had come to the conclusion that the jetty was to be built, there would be no delay in carrying out the work.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether £5,000 was all that Parliament would be asked for in the present year?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes, unless there is a Supplementary Estimate. But that is not necessary, because the savings from other Votes can be devoted to this work.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTHwas convinced that great economy for the Admiralty would be effected by the construction of this jetty, and the more quickly the work was carried out, the better.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £1,369,000 Victualling and Clothing for the Navy,—
  MR. C. J. DARLINGcalled attention to the wages paid to the men in the victualling yard. The views of the dockyard constituencies had been placed very fully before the First Lord at a conference recently held; and various petitions had been presented to the Admiralty by the men asking for a larger rate of pay for the work, or for a change in the pension system. He wished to know whether any of these changes had been resolved upon, and particularly whether the remuneration of the coopers in the yard was to be raised in accordance with the scale submitted by them to the Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid that he should prefer to discuss this important question on Vote 8. But he could assure the hon. Member that there would be no further delay in coming to a decision on the petitions which had been presented. Within the last fortnight some important decisions had been reached, but they must be reduced to writing; and he could not make any specific statement at that moment.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTHurged that this was another reason why an early day should be given by the Government for the discussion of Vote 8. He hoped that on the pension question the First Lord would be successful in his negotiations with the Treasury.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that he had only just discovered a great grievance in connection with the victualling of the Marines which he was sure the House would not allow to continue. It had always been the policy that the Marines and soldiers of the line should be on the same footing when on shore. Lately the soldier of the line was given free rations daily, but the same concession was not given to the marine on shore.

  1479
  He did, indeed, get an additional allowance of 1d. per day for beer, but he had 4½d. deducted for bread and meat which was not deducted from the soldier's pay. The Marines were a splendid body of men, who were, more or less, the backbone of the service, for they were all long-service men, and the House would not care to see them unjustly treated. Unless the grievance were remedied, the House should ring with it. He did not want the usual official answer that the matter should be looked into.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid that the grievance alleged by the hon. and gallant Member in regard to the Royal Marines, whose services were highly appreciated, would be carefully examined into by him, and he hoped on Report to be able to give a satisfactory answer.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid he knew, as a matter of fact, that the subject had been repeatedly referred to by previous Adjutants General of Marines. It had been burked, but it would be burked no longer.
  Vote agreed to.
  1. £156,200, Medical Services and Establishments,—
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
  ADMIRAL FIELDcomplained that there was no head nursing sister at Malta, one of their most important hospitals. The nursing sisters formed one of the most delightful improvements introduced into the naval hospital system, and he hoped the deficiency at Malta would be supplied. He also complained of the toll charged at the bridge leading to Haslar hospital. He hoped that the Admiralty would consider the advisability of getting rid of this burning grievance, and that the iron would not be allowed to enter any longer the souls of the people visiting the hospital.
  MR. MACARTNEYquite concurred in the remarks of the gallant Admiral as to the valuable services rendered by the nursing sisters, but he understood there was a head nurse at Malta hospital. As to the toll-bridge at Haslar, he was prepared to consider any representations that might be made, and, if there was any possibility of arriving at a settlement of the grievance, it would be done.
  Vote agreed to.
  5. £10,600, Martial Law, etc.—agreed to.
  Motion made and Question proposed:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £81,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897,"—
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsuggested that the Vote should be postponed to a later date.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  6. £63,300, Scientific Services,—
  CAPTAIN BETHELLdrew attention to the Surveying Department, the men engaged in which, he said, received no extra pay for their extremely severe work. It was work, too, of a distressingly monotonous character, and, although he had several times pressed the claim of this branch of the service to more favourable treatment, he had never yet persuaded the Admiralty to take that view. He believed that there was great difficulty in getting officers for the surveying service, the reason being that they did not receive their fair share of promotion. In order to increase the popularity of this branch of the Navy, the Admiralty some years ago decided to give certain promotions, but these advantages had been taken away in recent years, and there was now so little chance of promotion that young officers would not go into the surveying service at all. This particular service accomplished work of the greatest importance all over the world, and the officers and men engaged in it ought to receive their fair share of promotion and other advantages, especially considering the arduous nature of their duties. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYobserved that this matter had not been brought under his notice since he had been at the Admiralty, but he would make inquiry into the matter. He was quite aware of the importance and great value of the services rendered by the surveying staff. It was just one of those duties which they seemed to perform to the advantage of the rest of the world, duties which increased their Navy Estimates, which were not performed for

  1481
  themselves alone, but which were of advantage to all countries that had navies or maritime interests. He should be extremely sorry if the great advantages which had been derived from the services rendered to navigation in every part of the world by the surveying officers were not properly recognised. ["Hear, hear!"] He quite admitted they should do their best to secure admirable crews and officers for their surveying ships, and he would with pleasure make inquiries such as had been suggested, to see whether there were any drawbacks to this particular branch of the service. ["Hear, hear!"] In Rear Admiral Wharton, the head of the Hydrographic Department, they had a most capable and zealous officer, and he was aware how well the surveying service was performed. With regard to promotions, he was under the impression that there had been some quite recently in the surveying service, and he should be very sorry that any devotion to this scientific branch of the Navy generally should be held in any way to diminish an officer's chances of advancement in his profession. He would give every attention to the question the hon. and gallant Gentleman had raised. ["Hear, hear!"]
  ADMIRAL FIELD,from his own knowledge of the service, stated that the custom used to be to give an annual promotion of a Commander's rank to the Survey Department. In the Report on Admiralty Surveys, by Rear Admiral Wharton, the Hydrographer, issued that day, it was stated:—
  "Requests for surveys of a more modern character continue to be received, and are undoubtedly necessary to meet the requirements of the numerous large steam vessels which visit nearly every corner of the globe; and the increasing traffic caused by expansion of trade, in waters where, but a few years ago, hardly a vessel was to be met, demands, in many cases, detailed surveys on a large scale."
  When the Conservative Government was in Office, from 1886 to 1892, he drew attention to this question. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness that this branch of the service was not properly looked after. Its members worked quietly and unobserved; they did their duty silently, honestly and zealously. He believed that instead of being strengthened, the service had been cut down in recent years, the present
  1482
  number of officers and men not being adequate for the duties thrown upon them. The statement he had quoted from the Hydrographer implied that that gallant officer was unable to meet the demands for surveys that were constantly made to him. He would urge that the old system of having an annual promotion to a Commander's rank should be reverted to in regard to this service, and every encouragement given to its members.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid that on August 9th an eclipse of the sun was appointed to take place—[laughter]—and the Royal Society were fitting out an expedition for the observation of that important event. At the instance of one of the members of that society, he appealed to the First Lord of the Admiralty to see whether he could in any way help in this expedition by sending one of the ships of the Navy to the spot where the observation was proposed to be made.
  MR. LOUGHasked for an explanation of recent changes in the staff at Greenwich Observatory. There were now two chief assistants instead of one, and four additional "computers" were employed. The expenses of drawing and engraving charts was £1,250 more this year than last; £19,000 a year was spent in preparing charts, and only about £10,000 a year seemed to be realised by their sale. The amounts should correspond more closely.
  MR. J. BRIGGdrew the attention of the Committee to the heavy annual cost of the Naval Museum at Greenwich, pointing out that the Controller of the models had £100 per annum, besides a pension of £150; that the wages of the modeller and attendants, with the uniforms, cost £519, while stores and cleaning involved a further outlay of £105, making a total of £724 per annum. The hon. Member asked whether the museum connected with the Royal Naval Hospital at Greenwich could not be removed to London, so as to be more accessible to visitors from the provinces. It should also be free of charge. The museum of the Royal United Service Institution in Whitehall was much appreciated by country visitors.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid it would not be expedient to disconnect the

  1483
  museum of the Naval Hospital at Greenwich from the history and traditions of the Navy with which Greenwich was associated. People from the country who desired to visit the museum had no difficulty in going there. In reply to the hon. Member for West Islington, he had to state that the staff of the Royal Observatory had been rearranged on suggestions made by the Astronomer Royal. One of the chief assistants had been appointed from outside for reasons which would commend themselves to anyone responsible for the work of this national institution.
  MR. LOUGHasked what the qualifications were of the gentleman who had been appointed from outside. He was suspicious of recent changes at the Observatory, where he considered the work was not as well done as it should be, seeing the position the institution occupied among the Observatories of the world.
  MR. MACARTNEYstated that the additional chief assistant obtained the highest honours in scientific, subjects obtainable at Cambridge, and the greatest care was taken to appoint a really competent person for the duties.
  Vote agreed to.
  7. £229,800, Royal Naval Reserves,—
  MR. ALLANsaid, that in reading the Vote, he was very much disappointed to find that it did not contain anything about what he would call the necessary requirements for the efficiency of the Navy. There was an entry of 300 senior and assistant engineers, but immediately following that entry there was this sentence: "Not required to drill"; and again, there was not money allowed for these senior and assistant engineers. It was all very well to make up an Estimate in the way this was made up; but the mere fact of not having in it a proportionate number of the men absolutely required for the efficiency of the reserve, seemed to him a blunder of the most negligent kind. He would ask, why were these senior and assistant engineers not required to drill? They had never been on board a man-of-war, and the country knew, that at this moment there was a deficiency of engineers; yet in the Estimates for 1896–7 no allowance was
  1484
  made under that head, and no effort was made to increase the reserve of engineers. This was a grave blunder, and therefore he begged to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to it, and to ask him why more engineers were not provided for under this Vote, and why these 300 men were not required to drill?
  CAPTAIS BETHELLremarked that as each year went on the question of the Naval Reserve became more important. We were largely increasing the number of our ships, and the Admiralty could not expect to have a sufficient number of men on the active list to man these ships at all times; indeed, it would be unreasonable for the House of Commons to expect them to do so. The question, therefore, arose, what number of men of the nominal Naval Reserve could the Admiralty lay their hands on in time of war, and what was their value? Various estimates of the number had been made, and he believed that the most trustworthy one was that there might be something like 10,000. Then came the question whether these men were sufficiently drilled. Upon that he had some doubt. He doubted whether the 28 days they were supposed to have every year was sufficient to fit them fully for the complicated duties they would have to perform. It seemed to him that before long some new system would have to be started. It seemed to him that what was wanted was some such plan as that which, he believed, was adopted in the French Navy, where a reserve was obtained by passing a number of men through the active service for two or three years. Of course he knew very well that his right hon. Friend had been very carefully considering the question of the Naval Reserve and might not yet have made up his mind on the plan to be adopted; but the Committee would see, he thought, that some new plan would have to be followed if a satisfactory and reliable Reserve was to be obtained. He would not elaborate the subject any further, as he only wanted to draw public attention to it. He wanted, if possible to get his right hon. Friend to tell them in the House of Commons that he was giving his attention closely to the subject, and whether the steps he would take would be in the direction of trying to elaborate the system of short service which the

  1485
  the right hon. Gentleman opposite had endeavoured to introduce.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYthought he need hardly say his attention had been specially directed to the matter of the Reserve, inasmuch as anything that would increase the efficiency of that branch of the service would be of infinite advantage to the Navy. But the matter was surrounded by special difficulties, and any system that was adopted ought to fit in with the general habits of the maritime population and attract the men. The question to which his hon. and gallant Friend chiefly alluded was that of having a short service by which a large number of men might be passed through the Royal Navy. He quite admitted that if that could be realised it would greatly strengthen the Reserve; but he would not, for his own part, sacrifice the present system of long service for the sake of being able to add a certain number of men to the Reserve.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, he did not mean to suggest that the present system of training boys should be swept away.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid he quite understood what his hon. Friend meant. He was only stating the condition on which he would consider the proposal, and that was that any such system should only be introduced as a superstructure upon or side by side with the present system of long service. It was becoming a matter of more and more importance that we should keep our men in the Navy as long as possible. The hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the two sources we had for recruiting for the Navy, one being the Mercantile Marine and the other being the boys. He was afraid that recruiting from the Mercantile Marine had been a failure, and that we ought to rely more and more upon obtaining our blue jackets by training up boys for the Service. The Northampton had been a great success, and the Admiralty proposed to still further develop the system by employing an additional vessel for the purpose of training boys for the Service. It was intended to increase the number of boys and to take them at a later age so that they might more rapidly be passed into the Navy. ["Hear, hear!"]
  1486
  He was glad to have had that opportunity of making that statement, and he might say that the additional training ship would be commissioned at once. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to our Naval Reserve, he had good grounds for believing that, out of 22,000 or 23,000 men it included, a large proportion would be available when called upon, although, of course, it would be impossible to put our hands upon the whole of them in the case of a sudden emergency. Nevertheless, it was to be anticipated that the whole of the Reserve would gradually come in and discharge their duty. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee, however, ought to form an opinion as to whether the Reserve were available or not, otherwise they would be deluding themselves by putting confidence in a force which practically did not exist. He himself was in favour of increasing the Reserve, providing that it was not a paper force, but was one which was worth our while to train as well as we possibly could. ["Hear, hear!"] He agreed with the proposal that the Reserve should receive a longer annual training provided their employers would consent to spare them for a greater number of days than they did at present. He was anxious that every Reserve man who was placed upon the Estimates should be a real Reserve man, otherwise the public would he deluding themselves with the belief that we had a Reserve which we did not possess. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the Committee would support the Government.
  MR. ALLANasked if the right hon. Gentleman considered 300 engineers was a sufficient reserve?
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, this question, so far as it rose on this Vote, was very largely one for expert naval opinion, and one on which the opinion of civilians like himself could not be of much value. They could only look at the number of ships which would he commissioned in time of war, at the increase of the Fleet, and at the undoubted deficiency which existed in the war competence of the Fleet. The figures showed that we had not a sufficient fighting material of officers, engineers, and blue jackets, to make up that deficiency. The proper mode of making up that deficiency must be left, of course, to the naval advisers of

  1487
  the Admiralty. The second-class Reserve men—and the First Lord had rightly laid stress upon the point—were no doubt a real reserve, being composed of fishermen, and people of that type round the coast, but the first-class Reserve largely consisted of men who were wanted in two places at the same time. They were counting on a portion of these men to take their places in the Navy in time of war, and they would also be wanted on board the fast steamers which employed them, for the country could not afford to let these fast steamers lie up in time of war. The first-class men were very largely in those ships, and therefore, although they would no doubt be deserters if they did not present themselves in time of war, still the Admiralty might not be able to employ them on men-of-war for the reason he had given. The mere addition of 5,000 men to the Navy last year, and possibly another 5,000 next year, would not keep pace with the deficiency, and to do this they would have, he believed, to increase the number of British merchant sailors in the world. He was sorry to learn that the Report of Sir Edward Reed's Committee, which was now in print, did not, as he understood, meet this difficulty at all. This was a question which the Government would consider no doubt between now and next Feburary. They had nothing at present to meet the very large and rapid waste which there would be in case of a serious war.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid, that an ordinary marine engineer was, in the proper sense of the term, no more fitted to go from a merchant vessel's engine room into that of a man-of-war, and take charge of the engines, than was a bluejacket. The question was one of discipline and command of men as much as simple engineering; and a marine engineer should be sent to sea on board a man-of-war, and trained just as bluejackets were trained, or else they would, in regard to their engineers, be relying on a paper reserve. Moreover, 300 was not a sufficient number, nor would even 400 or 500 be sufficient. Then, again, the same deficiency applied in regard to the stokers. Instead of having fewer reserve stokers than reserve bluejackets, they should have more, as when they came to active service there would be a
  1488
  great deal more wastage in the stoke-hole than on deck. The number of these men ought to be largely increased, and, if necessary, greater inducements ought to be held out to men to serve.
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTSsaid, that reserve engineers ought to be instructed in the management of torpedo and hydraulic machinery. When they came from merchant ships that machinery on board Her Majesty's vessels was strange to them. He also held that the Reserve of engineers should be doubled. The Reserve of seamen upon whom we must chiefly rely was the second or fishermen class. There were no better seamen than those supplied by our fishing population, and, speaking from personal knowledge, he knew them to be generally efficient, hardy, temperate, and well disciplined. All they wanted was practice afloat, and it would be a great advantage to the Reserve if those men could be drilled for certain periods on board men-of-war instead of in batteries. The present distinction between first and second class Reserve men ought to be abolished. The distinction between men in the Reserve ought to depend only on their respective degrees of efficiency in drill; it ought not to depend on the circumstance of service in a sea-going ship or of service in a fishing boat. If every fisherman was allowed to qualify for the first class, as many men as were wanted for the Reserve would rapidly be obtained. These men could be trained for more than 28 days in a year. If it should be thought desirable they could be trained for six weeks or two months, and in the event of war they would be at hand. He believed that the same spirit animated them as animated their comrades in the Royal Navy, and that in an emergency they would turn out to a man. Any of them who failed to do so would be scouted by their class.
  SIR J. COLOMBthought that his hon. and gallant Friend behind him, in so strongly recommending a short service for the Navy, overlooked the important fact that no real parallel could be drawn between the Army and the Navy in this matter. The soldier's was not a marketable trade, but a seaman's was, and for the State to undertake the work of training a particular section of the population in a marketable trade

  1489
  would very likely lead to very considerable difficulties. These were days, it should he remembered, when all trades formed amalgamated associations. There were dangers in the course proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend which he thought had not presented themselves to his mind. He supported what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down upon the subject of the Second Class Naval Reserve. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that the true source from which to obtain an efficient Naval Reserve was the source to which he had referred. The circumstances of a fisherman's calling rendered it possible for him at certain seasons of the year to devote more time to drill than could be devoted to it by men in the Mercantile Marine. The most important quality in every branch of the personnel of a ship was discipline, and engineers and stokers, whether in the Reserve or in the Royal Navy, ought to have a thorough grounding in it. He doubted whether sufficient attention was paid to discipline in their case at the present time. Some arrangement ought to be made to bring the Naval Reserve into closer contact with the Admiralty, through the agency of some senior officer in that service. The existing arrangement by which the Registrar General of Seamen was the connecting link between the Admiralty and the Reserve was rather an anomaly. The Registrar General of Seamen should, as far as possible, not act as this link, because the Naval Reserve felt they had no one to keep the Admiralty in touch with them. He entirely agreed with what the right hon. Baronet had said with regard to counting the First Class Reserve twice.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, he was anxious to be permitted to say a few words upon the question of the Royal Naval Reserve. It had been truly said that our Navy existed to defend our shores and our commerce; but if, when war broke out, we had to obtain men from our commercial ships, it could hardly
  1490
  be said the Navy was to defend our commerce. He had had intercourse with seafaring men and he was ready to admit that successive Governments had succeeded in removing a great many grievances from which the Naval Reserve suffered, but there was still a very important question for consideration, and that was how we were not only to supply our Navy, but our merchantmen, with enough men in time of war. If war broke out, no doubt the big steamships would be able to fight their own way by means of temporary commissions, but they would have to enrol more seamen than they now carried. He put it to the First Lord of the Admiralty that there were certain classes of sea-faring men of the best character and type that could be drawn upon; he referred to the men who manned the smaller coasters and the barges trading upon our estuaries and rivers. With a slight alteration of the regulations those men could be made available. He was confident, too, that many good men could be found from amongst yachtsmen. Yacht clubs had been given certain privileges, and he was sure one and all would be willing to assist in supplying the Reserve, not only with men, but with vessels. He sympathised with the proposal that the dual control of the Board of Trade and the Admiralty respecting the Naval Reserve, should be done away with. Amongst the officers there was much dissatisfaction with the present system. Hitherto, the officers and men in the steamers which carried on our commerce in distant seas had found themselves hampered by all sorts of regulations as to receipt of pay and coming home, if they wished to join the Reserve. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would see to the removal of all those disabilities.
  MR. JOHN PENNsaid, it was with great pleasure he found the views he had so often expressed in the House on this question were now endorsed by so many hon. Gentlemen. Three hundred engineers in the Reserve would

  1491
  be altogether inadequate in time of war. It would be found that the men serving as engineers in the Mercantile Marine would inevitably be employed in the fast-running steamers. Those steamers would take up the greater portion of the skilled engineers, the men who could be intrusted with the driving of man-of-war machinery. It would be absolutely impossible for men who had been in an ordinary merchant steamer to take charge of anything like a torpedo-boat destroyer. If that be the case, the Admiralty must either increase the ordinary force of naval engineers or depend entirely upon those men who had been used to trading in fast-running merchant ships. There were few if any of the ordinary merchant ships which approached the speed of the Navy ships, and therefore the engineers who had served in them would be all at sea if they were put in the Navy ships. Again, there was the question of boilers. The men of our merchantmen had absolutely no experience of the new-fashioned boilers, and therefore they could not suddenly be put in charge of ships with such boilers. He suggested that it should be made worth men's while to train in ships of the Royal Navy in order that they might get that experience which they inevitably must have before they could be of real use in time of war.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, that one of the effects produced on his mind in listening to the Debate was that the first-class reserve ought to be abolished, and that we ought to rest entirely on the second-class reserve, as being more trustworthy than the first class. From that point of view the Admiralty was already considering the subject, and suggestions had been made in the direction of indicating whether, if any increase was to be made, it should not be made in the second class instead of the first-class reserve. In opposition to the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, he did not wish to be optimistic, but he was anxious to ex-
  1492
  amine the question fairly and without that element of pessimism which characterised a great many of the critics of our present system. The kind of fallacy which seemed to underlie the general question of reserve men was illustrated in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham with reference to engineers. How could they take a man without previous training and put him in a torpedo catcher? It would be impossible. They were not going to put reserve men in those ships which needed the highest possible training. On first-class battleships and other ships like torpedo destroyers, where there was considerable complication of work and machinery which had to be learned, and novelties in boilers, the manning would be by means of trained men, and only the smallest fraction of naval reserve men would be employed on those ships. That system was all worked out; the reserve men would not be put at once to the most difficult work, but would be put to the more simple work like that connected with dispatch vessels and tugs and other ships with which the ordinary naval man was fairly familiar, and the management of which they would be able to undertake in a few weeks. The reserve men were simply the complement of the others. Their first duty would be to do the most simple work, and they would be supported by able officers and engineers who were thoroughly accustomed to their work. An idea appeared to prevail that there was not a sufficient number of engineers in the Navy, and that the Admiralty ought to increase the engineer reserve. Since the later-Debates on this question he had cross-examined every ship captain and admiral in command he had seen, and he had put to them the question as to the numbers and efficiency of their engine-room staff. One and all stated that there were no complaints, that they were satisfied with their engine-room complements, and they considered that in time of war they would be able to stand the strain which naval opera-

  1493
  tions would put upon them. He assured the Committee that there would be no relaxation of the efforts to increase efficiency, and that the question of the naval reserve would receive the attention of the Admiralty, a determination being at the same time shown to eliminate any weaknesses. The Department would not shrink from any radical changes that were necessary.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid that much of the pessimism which had been expressed by the Committee arose no doubt from the necessity the Admiralty were under not to publish their full arrangements. There were, as hon. Members might understand, certain reasons against full details being published by the Department, and of course a certain amount of disadvantage must attend this fact in debating the Estimates. The Committee could hardly realise the importance of preserving a certain balance between the number of reserve men and the number of men actually serving in commission. If arrangements were not carefully made to preserve the balance on lines deliberately laid down—if the reserves were increased too largely in proportion to the effective force or—if on the other hand the mistake were made of trying to keep up in peace an active list sufficient fully to man every ship—mischievous results must follow. A balance had to be kept between the two extremes, and he could assure the Committee that the matter had been the subject of the most careful and scientific consideration by the Admiralty, and he was satisfied that the existing arrangements had been wisely drawn up. ["Hear, hear!"] He had been extremely glad to hear that the Northampton had now been proved to be a great success for it was undertaken very much in the dark as an experiment. He was delighted also to learn that it was intended to apply another vessel to the same valuable purpose of training boys of a rather greater age. He believed the success
  1494
  that had attended the Northampton was largely due to the Captain, who was an able and experienced officer. Indeed, he attached the very greatest importance to the selection of the Commanding Officers in such a case, and he had no doubt the utmost care would be exercised in selecting the Captain of the second vessel which was to be devoted to the training of these boys. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ALLANwas not at all satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the reserves, and especially in regard to the reserve of engineers. He had listened to the apologetic tones of the late Secretary to the Admiralty when he said that the relative proportion of the reserves of seamen should always be in keeping with the number of men in commission. If that axiom was to hold good he would ask the late Secretary to the Admiralty, and the present First Lord also, what ought to be the proportion of engineers in reserve compared with those in commission? ["Hear, hear!"] He had not heard anything even approaching a satisfactory answer to the question he had put as to why the reserve of engineers should not be more than 300. For what reason was the number so ridiculously limited? ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] A reserve of only 300 engineers for the entire Navy was absurdly insufficient; the fact had been again and again pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, and yet he had expressed no intention of increasing the number. He put the matter to the Committee as practical, as sensible men. How would it be possible to meet the waste and sacrifices of war with such a small reserve? It was ridiculous to suppose that an engineer in an ordinary merchant ship could be made efficient in a fortnight or three weeks to work the intricate machinery of a man-of-war. The machinery in the two ships was entirely different. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought the matter was treated much too lightly, and he was

  1495
  sometimes inclined to doubt whether right hon. Gentlemen fully realised its importance. He pressed for a more satisfactory answer on the point, and he felt so strongly upon it that he was much inclined to move a reduction of the Vote as a protest against the manner in which this question had been dealt with. It was a question of national importance, and one altogether above Party politics, and he regarded it wholly in the light of the best interests of the country. [Cheers.] He feared that unless the number of reserve engineers was largely increased, and the engineers drilled them into some acquaintance with the engines in use in the Navy, the country would be put in a perilous position if war broke out. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. C. MACDONAsaid, the Thames watermen and lightermen, who represented a body of 10,000 experienced men, complained of the treatment they had received at the hands of the Government. Those men were quite willing to give their services as Volunteers in time of war, and he thought they ought to receive some encouragement. Surely some arrangement might be made by which the services of the men might be readily utilised in case of need. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman wanted the House of Commons to be firm on the subject that we had a real Naval Reserve force, but if the House was to entertain that confidence they must have more detailed information than had yet been vouchsafed. Why had they nothing in the Estimate about what these men receive? For then they would be able to form an idea as to whether there was any reality whatever in the force for defensive purposes. Various statements had been made of a disquieting character. Was it the case that all the First Class Reserve men were practically afloat? Because if so, it was impossible for the House to put any confidence in the reality of their being now available if their
  1496
  services should be required. Was the drill absolutely essential for all men, and was a certain drill insisted upon, and how many men were called upon to perform 14 days' drill, and how many 28 days? As to the second class men he thought their pay was inadequate.
  MR. MACARTNEYstated that the difference between the 14 and 28 days' drill was this, that on joining the men did 28 days' drill until they had passed a certain class, and then they were only called upon to do 14 days' drill. If they did not drill they did not qualify for any retaining fee. The figures for last year showed that as far as instruction was concerned the force was in a fairly efficient state. There had not only been a gradual increase in the numbers voted, but also in the expenditure in the Royal Naval Reserve, and a larger number of the Reserve annually presenting themselves for drill. The grant to the seamen pensioners was paid in respect of the annual course for which these men came up. With regard to the matter raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, he would like to point out that the number of the Reserves was increased by one-third in the present Estimates, and the hon. Member could hardly think it reasonable that, in the very short time the Admiralty were in office before producing the Estimates, it would have been possible for them to arrive at a conclusion as to the great question he had laid before the Committee, considering the other large and important questions they had to decide. He hoped he would rest satisfied with the assurance of the First Lord that this question was occupying his attention, and that he realised the importance of the statements made in regard to it.
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTShoped his right hon. Friend would take into consideration before the next financial year the case of the second-class Reserve men, with a view to enabling them to qualify for first-class Reserve men.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, he was afraid he could not undertake to do that. He did not think it would do to take the second-class Reserve and raise them to the same pay and privileges as the first-class Reserve, in view of the different demands made on the two classes. He rather agreed with the general idea of not increasing the first-class Reserve, but he could assure his hon. Friend that there wore vast numbers of men who were anxious on the present terms to enter the second-class Reserve. He did not think it necessary to improve those conditions in order to attract a larger number of men—conditions which they believed to be at present satisfactory.
  Vote agreed to.
  £189,200, Miscellaneous Effective Services,—
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked whether the hon. Gentleman could explain the decrease in the item of semaphores, and could tell him whether the Warner Lightship was connected by telegraph in the same way as all the other lightships?
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was not able to give his hon. Friend the information he desired, but he would make the necessary inquiries.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid, he desired to draw attention to the item for contributions in aid of sailors' homes situated at or in the neighbourhood of naval stations, and also to the item of £4,500 for allowances to ministers of religion for services in Her Majesty's ships and at establishments on shore, at home and abroad, and for accommodation in churches, chapels, etc., not including naval chaplains attached to the establishments. He had had a great deal of correspondence since the previous discussion about two months ago from ministers of religion in different parts of the world, explaining the extraordinary way in which the Catholic priests were treated on some of the stations abroad.
  1498
  He would give two instances. One was the case of a French Catholic priest who resided at the chief station on the British North American coast, and he was in sole charge of the sailors of four or five men-of-war who resorted to that station. He was the only English-speaking priest along the whole Pacific station. This priest could not afford to live at the port, and was obliged to reside at a distance of seven or 10 miles, and his allowance was about £25 a year. That was a public outrage. When he brought this question up some time ago, the First Lord of the Admiralty said that the only difficulty of treating Catholic chaplains on terms of perfect equality was that of finding room for them. Why not make a beginning by treating these Catholic chaplains on the outlying stations with tolerable decency. There was another case of an Irish priest stopping at Nice; when several warships came in, and the priest obtained permission to visit the Catholic sailors, of whom there were a large number on board, the Admiralty actually allowed this priest, who was a poor man, to remain several pounds out of pocket by his ministrations. He claimed at the hands of the Admiralty that without further delay they should place such Catholic chaplains as were already retained at naval stations in a position of perfect equality in respect of rank and emoluments with the Protestant chaplains; and further, that at those distant stations to which the fleets resorted there should be Catholic chaplains appointed with tolerable remuneration for their services. What advance had been made with the Inquiry promised as to the possibility of putting Catholic chaplains on the flagships of the squadrons? Twenty years ago Mr. W. H. Smith promised consideration of this question.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that the allowances made to ministers of religion for their services to seamen in the Navy were upon the same scale for each denomination. If any special case of

  1499
  hardship could be brought to his notice, he should be glad to investigate it. But the hon. Member had gone into a larger question. The percentage of seamen in the Navy who did not belong to the Church of England was only 15, and of those who belonged to the Church of Rome only seven. It was impossible to agree in the proposition that on every station the Admiralty should at once establish clergymen belonging to the various denominations, when the services of some of them might never be required for long periods of time. As the ships paid casual visits only to some stations, to ask that chaplains should be permanently appointed to such stations was to make a demand on the Admiralty which was opposed to the necessities of the case. The Admiralty were always willing to entertain cases of unusual hardship. When such cases of hardship existed they always reached the Admiralty through the usual channels, and as no complaints had reached them in regard to the grievances referred to by the hon. Gentleman, he presumed there was little or no hardship in the matter.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the demand for placing Roman Catholic chaplains in the squadrons was made 20 years ago, and an inquiry was promised. He would like to know whether such an inquiry was held, and if so what was the result. The hon. Gentleman had not quite correctly interpreted his case. The hon. Gentleman must know that there were stations at which three or four warships were constantly present; there were other stations where the Fleet was constantly calling, and it was to those stations he asked to have Roman Catholic chaplains appointed. Besides, there was the question of the status of Roman Catholic chaplains at such places as Portsmouth and Plymouth. Why should they be placed in a position of inferiority to chaplains of the Established Church? He hoped, too, to have a more satisfactory reply from the Admiralty to the demand for the appoint-
  1500
  ment of Catholic chaplains on board the Fleet.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, that in the Navy the chaplains of all religions were, with one exception, treated equally. The exception was the Church of England which, by law established, was assumed to be the religion of the Fleet, and, indeed, the religion of the United Kingdom. [Laughter.] But it was neither the one nor the other. ["Hear, hear!"] He had not the slightest intention of supporting the claim of the hon. Member for Mayo for the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains to the Fleet. The Wesleyans and the Presbyterians were each, at least, quite as large a percentage of the Fleet as the Roman Catholics, and they would, therefore, be entitled to make a similar claim if the claims of the Roman Catholics were allowed. A complaint he was entitled to make was that one sect which happened to be established by law in one portion of Great Britain was treated exceptionally. He believed the whole chaplain service in the Navy was a mistake. In so far as the hon. Member for Mayo demanded fair play he was with him; but he understood the hon. Member to ask for something more.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he asked for fair play in proportion to the number of Roman Catholics. Of course, if the Wesleyans made a similar claim it ought to be conceded.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, that the hon. Members were not speaking of fair play in the same sense. The hon. Member for Mayo wished that there should be priests and means of holding service provided by the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee wished for the abolition of all chaplains; what he called fair play was denying everything to everybody. [Laughter.] For himself he was more in sympathy with the hon. Member for Mayo; and he wished as far as possible to meet the wishes of all

  1501
  sailors in regard to the performance of their religious services. But the hon. Member would see that you could not carry in the flagship a priest, a Wesleyan minister, and a Presbyterian minister. ["Why not?"] Because the accommodation was limited. If there was a priest, there must be a chapel for service; and if like facilities for worship were to be granted to all, that would be an impossible solution to the difficulty. He had not neglected the wishes that had been made to him by many persons influentially connected with the Catholic religion in England as well as in Ireland. The Committee would see the infinite number of subjects with which the Admiralty had to deal, and he must honestly say that, in the few months he had been there, it had been impossible for him to go so fully into the question of religious ministrations for Wesleyans, Catholics, and others as he wished and intended to do. He was anxious to give to all as much administrative assistance as possible.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, that Catholics were upon all fours with Protestant sects because the members of these had no objection to attend each other's services, but Catholics objected to attend Protestant services of any kind; and therefore Catholics were entitled to special consideration. He had put a number of questions to the Front Bench with reference to the chaplain at Malta. For the benefit of our sailors he ought to be an Englishman or an Irishman, but he was a Maltese, and therefore could not render all the assistance our sailors desired from him.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the salary of the Maltese chaplain was not borne on this Vote, and it would not be in order to discuss his position separately.
  9. £749,000, Half-pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay—
  ADMIRAL FIELDdrew attention to the evils resulting from the system of commuting retired pay. If the First Lord of the Admiralty knew, as he did, the misery that it had brought about he would regret that the system was ever introduced. Officers of high rank having commuted their retired pay, entered upon business they did not understand, lost all their money, and they and their
  1502
  families were almost brought to the workhouse.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he was well aware of the evils of the system and the ruin it sometimes caused. The matter was an important one, and if it was the general feeling in the Navy that the privilege of commuting retired pay should be withdrawn it should be considered.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £236,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, there were important subjects to be discussed in connection with this Vote, and he therefore suggested that it should be postponed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  10. £1,030,100, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances—Agreed to.
  11. £324,400, Civil Pensions and Gratuities—Agreed to.
  12. £60,300, Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters—Agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMEND- MENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR. LOUGHexpressed the hope that some explanation would be given as to the objects of the Bill. He thought the arrangement was that Fridays would be devoted altogether to Supply and no other business taken.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)was understood to say that he had already stated to the House that the Bill affected a very small question. Its object was to enable Volunteer corps under proper safeguards to borrow money for the provision of ranges and the erection of necessary buildings, and it carried out the recommendations of a Committee appointed by both sides of the House.
  MR. J. CALDWELLwas of opinion that the Bill went much further than the hon. Gentleman had indicated. Its whole object, indeed, was to confer upon County Councils the power of providing money for the purposes of these Volunteers and at the expense, necessarily, of local ratepayers. One of the provisions of the Bill stated that the Council of a county borough might, at the request of one or more Volunteer corps, alter or enlarge any building or permanent work, and power was given to the local authority to borrow money for the purpose of the erection of any building or permanent work. They did not object to Volunteers having drill halls and rifle ranges, which were necessary for their efficiency, but it was questionable whether they ought to go so far as was proposed by this Bill. He, of course, did not object to the provision of drill halls and rifle ranges for Volunteers, but he held that localities ought not to be made to pay for providing them.
  MR. BRODRICKpointed out that the Bill was merely a Bill to amend the Act of 1892.
  MR. CALDWELLcontended that the present Measure extended the powers conferred by that Act. The expenditure under this Bill should be provided for out of Imperial funds, and localities ought not to be burdened with it. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS,in seconding the Amendment, said that it was clear that the powers which would be conferred under Clause 2 of the Bill
  1504
  were very wide. This clause sanctioned the borrowing of money by localities for the erection, alteration or enlargement of any building or permanent work required for the purposes of a Volunteer corps. The powers proposed to be given were of a very wide and extensive character. The purposes for which this expenditure was said to be necessary were Imperial purposes, and the forces in respect of which the expenditure was to be incurred were really Imperial and not local. Therefore, a burden of this kind ought to be charged on Imperial funds. There were many hon. Members who took considerable interest in this Bill, who were not present on that occasion. This Motion for the Second Reading had come upon the House as a surprise, for hon. Members had been under the impression that Fridays were to be reserved for Supply up to midnight. He did not think that the House would do right in committing itself to the Second Reading of this Bill in the absence of so many Members who took special interest in the subject. The Measure involved the adoption of a new principle. What precedent was there in legislation for treating Volunteer corps as regiments that for certain purposes might be regarded as merely local forces? He objected strongly to the very general words used in the 2nd clause of the Bill.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  EDINBURGH GENERAL REGISTER HOUSE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  CABS (LONDON) BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  [Mr. STUART-WORTLEY in the Chair.]
  Progress, Clause 3, 14th May.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4,—

  MEANING OF CABS.
  In this Act the expression "cab" shall mean any hackney carriage within the meaning of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH MR. P. A. M'HUGH (Leitrim, N.) moved that progress be reported.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,)hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to report progress. This was a Measure that affected some 12,000 of the most respectable and hard working men in London, and they much regretted the opposition that had been made to this Bill. The only anxiety on the part of the Government in this matter was to any out their pledges and to relieve these 12,000 working men from unjust disabilities under which they lay. As there was no objection on the part of any section of the House to the principle of the Bill, he hoped that the opposition to the Measure would not be continued.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether it was not the fact that this Bill was really originated by the Liberal Party, and that it had only been taken up by the Government in order
  1506
  to make a bid for the vote of the working classes. This Bill having been originally conceived by the Liberal Party, has been taken under the wing of the Government, who had so often committed themselves to pledges and had then broken them. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward a plea admisericordiam, in favour of a large class of the working classes of London, and he had appealed to hon. Members to withdraw their opposition to this Bill on the ground that the Measure affected that large class of working men. Of course, they must take the sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed for the working man cum grano salis.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGHsaid, that he must decline to withdraw his Motion for reporting progress. If the Government really believed that this Bill would be such a boon to a large class of working men, why did not they bring forward this stage of the Bill at a time when it could be properly discussed?
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) RE-COMMITTED BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [10th April] further adjourned till Friday 19th June.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PRISONERS' EVIDENCE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central) moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Labourers (Ireland) Acts 1883 to 1892.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that before the leave the right hon. Gentleman asked for was given, the right hon. Gentleman ought to make some statements in explanation of the objects and scope of the Measure, as was usual in the case of the introduction of Government Bills. He had given his attention to this subject for a considerable number of years, and he did not think it right that this Bill should be introduced at that hour of the night without some idea being given of its nature.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the object of the Bill was to amend as far as possible the defects in the existing law which arose from many causes, and occasioned much delay. The right hon. Gentleman enumerated the various causes of delay which it was intended to obviate, but these remarks were not clearly heard in the reporters' gallery. They had not, he continued, attempted to deal with one supposed cause of delay—namely, the nature of the appellate tribunal, which was at present the Privy Council. He thought it would be undesirable to substitute the Local Government Board for the Privy Council, as this would be to make the Local Government Board an appellate tribunal against itself. As a matter of fact the statistics did not bear out the allegation that it was the nature of the appellate tribunal which caused delay in these cases. During the last five years there were 134 Provisional Orders made for
  1508
  3,814 cottages, and of these, 66 Orders were appealed against, the number of cottages affected by the Bill being only 261. Of the 66 Orders which were appealed against, in only 4 cases were the whole of the Provisional Orders opposed, so that the remaining 62 were really unnecessarily delayed in respect of the cottages which were actually objected to under those Orders. This Bill proposed that where a Provisional Order was only objected to in respect to certain cottages that the erection of the cottages not objected to should be at once proceeded with, and if this alteration in the law was introduced the appeal would practically be reduced to nothing, and of course the expense would be correspondingly reduced.
  Bill to amend the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 2nd June, and to be printed.—[Bill 241.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion "That this House do now adjourn,"
  MR. LOUGHasked whether the House would meet next Friday, and, if so, what Estimates would be taken.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir WILLIAM WALROND,)said the House would certainly meet on Friday, but he did not know at what hour, or what business would be taken.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (APPROPRIATION OF SITES).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report the manner in which the sites available for the erection of the new buildings required for Government Offices may best be appropriated for that purpose.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  Adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  FOYLE COLLEGE AND LONDONDERRY ACADEMICAL INSTITUTION (AMAL- GAMATION) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  CANAL RATES, TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further Order.—[No. 93.]
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Bill (on Motion) (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  HOUSE TAX (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate enactments relating to the duties upon inhabited houses. Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 94.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SEWERS AND DRAINS) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read, and discharged.
  LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Consideration of Third Report of the Select Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.
  GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  The Earl of Morley added to the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the power and authority of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  On the Order for the Report of Amendments to this Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)said, he had put on the Paper a considerable number of Amendments to this Bill. He had been in communication with the Secretary for Scotland on the subject, and he believed he was in a position to say that the noble Lord entirely approved of those Amendments. He had not, of course, dealt in any way with the questions of policy contained in the Bill; and his Amendments were simply introduced with the view of improving the drafting, and making the Bill as intelligible as possible. The first of the Amendments

  1415
  was in Clause 4, Sub-section 2, page 3, lines 31 and 32, to leave out "both inclusive."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY moved in the same clause, line 33, to leave out—
  "With the necessary modifications," and at the end of the sub-section to add, "and in the said sections for the purpose of such incorporation, 'the company' shall mean the local authority or the county council, as the ease may be; 'the railway' or the railway and works,' shall mean any works constructed under the powers of this Act; 'the construction of the railway' shall mean and include the construction of any works under this Act, or the acquisition of rights and powers to make sewers or to use any sewer; and 'lands taken or used for the purposes of the railway,' shall mean and include lands, buildings, engines, materials, or apparatus purchased, taken on lease, or used for the purposes of this Act."
  "(3.) The expression in this Act 'in terms of the Lands Clauses Acts,' or any similar expression, shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean in terms of the Lands Clauses Acts (except the provisions thereof relating to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement), and of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, as incorporated in this Act."
  The noble Earl said that the foregoing Amendment was of more importance and required a word of explanation. Curiously enough the Scotch Lands Clauses Act did not contain a clause such as the English Act contained, giving compensation for lands which are not taken but are injuriously affected. But Section 6 of the Railway Clauses (Scotland) Act gives such compensation for land injuriously affected when so affected by the construction of a railway. Now to bring Section 6 into this Bill it was necessary that the Railway Clauses Act should be read with certain modifications, but the sub-section under consideration, as it was drawn, left that somewhat vague. The object of the Amendment was to make it quite clear what was meant by incorporating the Railway Clauses (Scotland) Act with the Bill. That was the first part of the Amendment. The second part added a defininition to the words "in terms of the Lands Clauses Acts."
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR)said he was not going to oppose the Amendment, in
  1416
  fact, the insertion which the noble Lord proposed carried with it what had always been understood by the word "modification." The reason why it was not changed in this Bill was because it was a consolidation as well as an Amendment Bill, and in some places, at any rate, where this change occurred, had been the law since 1867, and had not caused any inconvenience, although he did not deny the fuller interpretation now proposed might be an advantage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Earl of MORLEY, the following Amendments were also agreed to:—
  Clause 101, page 45, line 9, leave out ("presently").
  Clause 101, sub-section (1), page 51, line 12, leave out ("water and").
  Clause 120, sub-section (1), page 51, line 13, leave out ("thereto") and insert ("to take water or any servitude of water").
  Clause 120, sub-section (1), page 51, line 15, after, ("Parliament") insert ("or empowered by Provisional Order."
  Clause 137, page 60, line 23, leave out ("otherwise") and insert ("compulsion"), and leave out the first ("or") and insert ("any lands within or without their district and may by agreement").
  Clause 137, page 60, line 24, leave out ("whether situated").
  Clause 138, sub-section (1), page 60, line 35, leave out ("putting") and insert ("applying to the Board for an Order empowering them to put") and leave out ("any of").
  Clause 138, sub-section (1), page 60, line 36, after ("land") insert ("otherwise than by agreement").
  Clause 138, sub-section (1), page 61, line 4, after ("works") insert ("and of the lands which may be taken and a book of reference to such plan").
  Clause 138, sub-section (1), page 61, line 20, after sub-section (1) insert the following new sub-section:—
  "Every such plan shall be drawn on a scale of not less than four inches to a mile, and the book of reference shall contain the names of the owners, and lessees or reputed owners and lessees and of the occupiers of the lands which may be taken."
  Clause 138, (sub-section (4), page 62, line 12, after ("land") insert ("or any part of the land").
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcalled the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to a matter which had been brought under his notice. As the Bill stood there would be power in the local authority to take any existing private supply of water. Of course that was not intended, but he could find nothing in the Bill to prevent that being done. Now, if he was correct he proposed to move an Amendment on the Third Reading saving any existing water supply for domestic, agricultural or commercial purposes. Probably the best place for doing it would be on Clause 17 b.
  LORD BALFOURwas obliged the noble Lord for giving him notice of his Amendment, which he would undertake carefully to consider.
  On the Motion of THE EARL OF MORLEY, the following further Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 138, sub-section (4), line 14, leave out from "agreement'' in line 14 to "such'' in line 16, and insert, "and may make;" line 17, leave out "to make;" line 19, leave out "and it" and insert "provision shall be made by such order for the incorporation therein of the Lands Clauses Acts and (with the necessary modifications) of Sections 6 and 70 to 78 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845. It"; line 25, leave out "one month,'' and insert "two months;" Sub-section (6), page 62, line 32, leave out from "Scotland" in line 32 to "it" in line 36; lines 36 and 37, leave out "the Secretary for Scotland" and insert "him"; line 38, leave out "obtain such" and insert "submit such order to Parliament for" and leave out "the Act confirming" and insert "any Act passed to confirm.''
  Clause 138, Sub-section (7), line 40, leave out "such Confirmation Bill,'' and insert "Bill for confirming any such Order;" page 63, line 1, leave out from "Joint Committee" to the end of the subsection.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in moving, in Sub-section 8, page 63, line 7, to leave out from "witnesses" to the end of the sub-section, said that the sub-section provided that not more than one expert witness should be called on each side. In dealing with large water, sewage, and infectious hospital schemes, he thought it hardly safe to lay down such a regulation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY moved:— Clause 138, Sub-section 9, page 63, line 13, leave out from "memorial'' to the end of the sub-section.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY moved:— Clause 138, page 64, after Sub-section (14) insert the following new sub-section:—
  "In this part of this Act the word 'land' includes any rights or powers to be exercised in connection with land, and rights and servitudes of water.''
  He said that it was not quite clear, unless such words were added, whether the order of the Secretary for Scotland would include some of the rights which were required to be given to the local authorities under the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcalled attention to Sub-section 11 of the clause, relative to compensation proceedings. As the clause stood, in a question of arbitration, if the parties did not agree on an arbitrator, one was to be appointed by the Local Government Board. When property to a large extent was being taken, he saw no reason why the ordinary procedure under the Lands Clauses Act should not be followed, as there was not the same reason, as in the case of allotments, for keeping the expenses to the lowest point.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that there was a good reason for the subsection. The procedure under the Lands Clauses Act was not now had recourse to. Of recent years the procedure adopted in the subsection was almost universally adopted voluntarily by the parties to arbitrations.
  THE EARL OF CAMPER DOWNasked whether it was the existing custom for the Local Government Board to appoint an arbitrator where private property was taken for public purposes? That was the point.
  LORD BALFOURsaid he, would look into that question before the Third Reading.
  THE EARL OF CAMPER DOWNcalled attention to Sub-section 12, which provides that in arbitrations under the section, counsel are not to be heard except with the consent of the Local Government Board. He pointed out again that the property concerned might be of great value, and it might be very desirable and even more expeditious, to employ counsel.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that an Amendment to the effect suggested by the noble Earl would have appeared on the Paper in his (Lord Balfour's) name if the House had sat on Thursday. But he would give notice of the Amendment at once, and move it after the Third Reading.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended.—[No. 95.]

  DISPENSARY COMMITTEES (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee according to Order. Bill reported without amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL [H.L.]
  LORD TEYNHAM,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that its purpose was to prohibit chimney sweepers from shouting or crying in the streets in the pursuit of their employment. A Bill was passed in 1894 to prevent them from ringing a bell; and as the Bill came from the Commons it contained a provision similar to that in
  1420
  the present Bill, but that provision was struck out in Committee. The absence of it had proved a hardship, for chimney sweepers who, through age or infirmity, could not cry in the streets were seriously handicapped in their business. The Bill was promoted by the London Chimney Sweepers' Association, who estimated that 75 per cent. of the class died in the workhouse; and they attributed this fact largely to the custom of "crying" in the streets, which made it impossible for those sweepers who could not "cry" to make a living.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I do not see any noble Lord here who represents the Home Office, and I should like to hear the views of the Home Office, on the subject of this Bill. It seems to me to be carrying legislation too far. [Laughter.] It is rather grandmotherly legislation, which in my opinion had better be left alone. [Laughter.]
  LORD TEYNHAM: The first Bill which left the House of Commons in the last Parliament and contained this provision received the approval of the Home Office of that day.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to ask why these people are to be allowed to shout in Scotland? [Laughter.] In England or Ireland they may not be allowed to shout, but Scotland is excluded from the Bill. [Laughter.]
  LORD TEYNHAM: Neither the Act of 1875 nor the Act of 1894 applies to Scotland, and this Bill is to be read with those two Acts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I should like to know why chimney-sweepers alone should be selected for this treatment. [Laughter.] I do not see why they should be made the only pariahs of our civilisation. [Laughter.] There are many other nuisances of the same kind, and I do not see why chimneysweepers should be selected. The noble lord would do well to move the adjournment of the Debate as there is no representative of the Home Office here. Otherwise I am afraid he will not be able to get the Second Reading.
  Further Debate adjourned sine die.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.