Sitting of 22 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER, ETC.) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Monday next.
  NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  PLYMOUTH AND STOREHOUSE GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Great Northern Railway Bill, Standing Order 246 be suspended, and that the Lords' Amendments to the Bill be now considered.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Lords' Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the third time upon Monday next.
  NEWHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  (Queen's Consent signified); Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  (By order); Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question in order to add the words—
  "the promoters of the General Power Distributing Company Bill (H.L.) shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings therein in order to proceed with the same Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament.
  "That not later than three clear days after the next meeting of Parliament, the Bill, the proceedings whereon shall have been suspended as aforesaid, shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office in the form required by the Standing Orders, with a declaration, signed by the Agent, annexed thereto, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been so suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in the House in the present Session.
  812
  "That such Bill, endorsed by one of the clerks in the Private Bill Office as having been duly deposited, with such Declaration annexed, may be laid by one of the clerks of that office upon the Table of the House in the next Session of Parliament.
  "That in respect of the Bill so laid upon the Table, the Petition for the Bill and the order of leave to bring in the same in the present Session shall be read, and thereupon such Petition shall be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for private Bills, who shall by endorsement on such Petitions certify whether or not the promoters have made compliance with the Standing Orders, and upon the Examiners certifying that the Standing Orders have been complied with, the Bill shall be read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time.
  "That all Petitions presented in the present Session against such Bill, within the time prescribed by the Rules and Orders of this House, and which stood referred to the Committee on such Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER (CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS,): The House will observe the notice of Motion standing in my name dealing with this Bill, in which I ask the House to take on this occasion a somewhat unusual course, but not a wholly unprecedented one. I think that I ought to explain to the House the quite exceptional circumstances under which this Bill mow comes before it at so late a period of the Session. With regard to the merits of the Bill of course I shall say nothing. I have no opinion to express, and it would not be desirable on this occasion that I should express any opinions as to the merits of the Bill, even if I had any. It is an important Bill dealing with a large area of country, and also dealing with new principles. When the Lord Chairman of the other House at the beginning of the Session attracted my attention to this Bill, we observed that this and some other Bills were raising some new principles and we thought it was very undesirable that those new principles should be developed piecemeal, and that it would be far better that they should be dealt with altogether, and, as it were, in the lump, so that the new principles which were desired to be put into effect should receive equal consideration. Thereupon at the instigation of the Lord Chairman, the House of Lords approached this House with a view of appointing a

  813
  Joint Committee to inquire into the matter. This Joint Committed was appointed in the month of March and it sat during that month, the month of April, and the month of May, and I think it was not until June that the Committee reported. This Committee was called the Electrical Energy and Generating Stations Supply Committee, and while its proceedings were going on this Bill was of course hung up. As soon as the Committee had reported, the promoters of this Bill—the Bill being a House of Lords Bill—pushed forward their Measure. It was sent to a Committee in the other House and passed through that Committee, but not until after some considerable time had been taken in threshing out the details of the Bill, and not until some Amendments of considerable importance were made in it. The Bill now comes down to this House on the 22nd of July. The time for presenting petitions has not yet even expired, and will not expire until next week. After the petitions are presented it is quite possible that objections may be taken to the locus standi of some of the petitioners, and that would involve the matter being sent to the locus standi referees' court. It is obvious under these circumstances that even if the Bill were to receive the assent of the House on the Second Reading now, it would be the 1st of August at the very earliest date before it would be possible for it to be sent to Committee. I feel, therefore, under those circumstances that it would be absurd to ask the House to appoint a Committee to sit on the 1st of August to consider a Bill of this magnitude, and to consider also the opposition, which, I may say, is likewise of considerable magnitude. Seeing that it was not in any respect the fault of the promoters of the Bill that this delay has occurred, but that it was entirely due to the action of Parliament itself that further proceedings in relation to it were suspended during the greater part of the Session, I thought it was only fair that the promoters should not lose all the costs to which they have been placed, and I think it may fairly be replaced at the commencement of next Session in the same position in which it is now at the present moment. Naturally what I say in regard to the promoters holds equally good with regard to the opponents. The case of the opponents
  814
  will not in any way be damnified by hanging this Bill over until next Session; they also will find themselves in exactly the same position at the beginning of next Session as at the present time, and there is also this to consider—that I think it is a matter of convenience to give the promoters and the opponents a space of six months in which they can come together and see whether terms cannot be arranged. As I said, some considerable alterations have been made in the Bill in another place, which have somewhat affected the positions of some of the parties interested, and I think, therefore, it would be a good thing to give the opponents time to consider the changed aspect which has taken place in regard to this Bill. I shall naturally be asked whether there is any precedent for an action of this kind. The words standing on the Notice Paper are taken almost verbatim and literatim from a similar Motion which was moved in 1871 with regard to certain tramway Bills. Of course there are a few alterations in the words, because in that Motion several Bills were being dealt with, and in this case there is only one. What occurred in 1871 was, I venture to think, an extraordinarily close precedent to what has occurred this Session. After the Tramway Act was passed in 1870 there was a very large crop of tramway Bills, and it was found on the 16th of July—I think that was the exact date—that it was impossible at that period of the Session of 1871 to deal with all those Bills, and thereupon this Motion was made that these Bills should be suspended until the following Session. On that occasion also a Joint Committee of the two Houses was set up to consider the question of tramway Bills, and, oddly enough, that Committee sat for exactly the same time as this Committee has sat this Session;—from March until June. Therefore, as I say, it would be almost impossible to find a precedent which more closely agrees with that which I have followed on this occasion. I do not think that it needs any further words from me to ask the House to assent to my Motion. I conclude by saying, as I began by saying, that it is undoubtedly a very exceptional method of dealing with a Bill, and it is only in consequence of the great pressure of time caused, not by any fault on the part of the promoters, but by the

  815
  action of the House itself, and only for that reason that I am asking the House to deal with this matter in this somewhat exceptional manner. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  MR. MELLOR: After the explanation given by the Chairman of Ways and Means I hope that the House will assent to the motion which he has just moved, because it seems to me to be an extremely reasonable proceeding, and under the circumstances it would be unfair to ask the promoters of this Bill to pay over again all the costs which they have incurred during the present Session of Parliament. I think it is most desirable that this House should wish to save the costs of promoters of private Bills as much as possible, and, for my own part, I should welcome an inquiry into the costs of private Bill legislation with a view to seeding whether these costs could not be very materially reduced. It seems to me that the Chairman has given ample reason for his Motion, and that he has quoted a precedent which is exactly in point, and I think, if it had been necessary to go into the matter at greater length, he would have found that there were several other precedents with regard to this particular matter in which Bills had been dealt with in this identical way. I may say this that the promoters will be at the beginning of next Session in exactly the same position they are in now, and therefore in no sense will they be damnified because none of their money will be thrown away. With regard to the opponents of the Bill—and there are many Members of the House who wish to oppose this Bill—they will be exactly in the same position, with all their rights and powers preserved; and they will have this great advantage in dealing with it in this manner: that, at the beginning of next Session we shall come upon the matter somewhat refreshed by the long vacation and be able to devote a greater amount of energy to the consideration of the very important questions which are raised in this Bill. At the present moment I do not wish to say one single word about the Bill itself, but I entirely agree with what the Chairman has said—namely, that this Bill raises some very important questions, and one,
  816
  at any rate, which, to my mind, is almost entirely novel. Therefore, I think the House ought to have ample time to consider the Bill, and also to consider the objections which are, and may be, urged against it.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEY: The opposition to this Bill is an opposition of great magnitude and of not less weight, and those of us who on behalf of certain municipal corporations are taking a more prominent part in that opposition do not propose to dispute the propriety of the Motion submitted to the House by my right honourable Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means. There are points of view from which one might regret that the question of principle has not been settled swiftly and once for all to-day, and that is the only possible difference which could have arisen between us and the Chairman of Ways and Means. Not having been disposed to take that view to-day, I ventured to suggest to my honourable Friends who are associated with me in opposition to this Bill that we should really have contended against the promoters at a disadvantage had we taken what would not have been a square issue upon the merits of this Bill and had set ourselves in opposition to a proposal, attended as it was with all that weight which necessarily and properly attaches to the proposals of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Under those circumstances we take note of the distinct statement that this Motion does not carry or involve the Second Reading, and that, as regards the Second Reading, our rights at the beginning of next Session will be as full and perfect as they are now, and that the Bill will then come before the House in the same position as it is now, as we think, with all its native imperfections still upon it. We think we might have made a very fair attempt to-day to reject the Bill, but we are conscious of the strength of our case, and, considering as we do that all our rights and privileges are preserved to us, we acquiesce in this Motion, feeling sure that our case will be as strong next year as it is to-day.
  MR. J. STUART: I do not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and I simply say that I entirely object to the Bill. The proposal of the

  817
  Chairman of Committees is a thoroughly just and fair proposal, and it is so because it is the House itself and Parliament itself which has delayed this Bill, and not the promoters of the Bill. The Chairman of Committees has gone back to 1871 for a precedent, but let me remind Members of this House who may be doubtful on this point that the state of circumstances must concur; but now we are upon an individual Bill brought forward, and Parliament itself has determined to deal with the general principle. Sir, this has occurred much more recently than 1871, because in the year 1895, when we had the question of municipalities working their own tramways several Bills were deferred until late in the Session, and then when the Session terminated those Bills were carried on to another Session. And, so to speak, by a chance the question of precedent did not then occur. Sir, whatever may be our view of the Bill, I think we must be desirous of doing fairly by all parties concerned, and while not at all approving of the Bill or the principle upon which it is founded, I feel that it is in proper keeping with the precedents of this House that we should pass the proposition of the Chairman of Committees.
  *MR. J. BRYCE: I have only one word to address to the Members who have examined this matter, and that is, I hope that they have realised the gravity of the question before them. We are accepting the proposal of the Chairman of Committees, and it is hardly possible to over-estimate either the gravity or the novelty of this proposal. Those who try to study the matter will admit that there are great difficulties both ways. But, Sir, a fair course between these difficulties and the precedent alluded to is one which would require a much longer Debate and a much fuller Debate than the House will give it at present. I think it will be understood as the matter leaves us now the House will resume the consideration of so important a Bill early next Session.
  *MR. J. LOWTHER: When I first heard of this Motion I was disposed to view it with considerable misgiving in case it might be drawn into a precedent applicable to public legisla-
  818
  tion, as I do not approve of the policy of hanging up public Bills from one Session to another, which has been from time to time advocated, but think the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees has made it quite patent that no such risk is being incurred on the present occasion. He has made it quite clear that solely on the ground of the very exceptional circumstances with which this particular Bill is surrounded he has adopted his present proposal, and that there is no suggestion of any abandonment of the salutary rule which provides that the Bills of one Session shall not overlap the other. Under the circumstances I think this will rather tend to strengthen than otherwise the general rule which guides the House.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to support this Motion, and I hope the House will adopt the right honourable Gentleman's suggestion and hand the Bill over to next Session, for it is a Bill which requires the very serious and careful consideration of this House and of the Committee.
  Question put—
  "That these words be there inserted."
  Agreed to.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I have now to move, Sir—
  "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."
  If this is not made a Standing Order the House next Session will have no cognisance of this Motion, and in order that the House next Session shall have cognisance of it and deal with it in the way in which the House has just resolved, it is necessary that this Motion should be made a Standing Order of the House.
  MR. BAYLEY: I rise to a point of order. I think we ought to have had notice of that.
  MR. SPEAKER: No point of order arises. That this should be made a Standing Order is consequential upon the Motion which the House has just adopted.
  Question put—
  "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."
  Agreed to.

  FORRES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That Standing Order 235 be suspended in the case of the Forres Water Bill [H.L.], and that the Bill be now read the second time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That Standing Order 73 be suspended in the case of the Mersey Railway Bill [H.L.], and that the Examiners have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
  BURY CORPORATION BILL.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Bury Improvement Bill of Session, 1872, be referred to the Committee on the Bury Corporation Bill of this Session.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  EXETER, TEIGN VALLEY AND CHAGFORD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  KINGSTOWN AND KINGSBRIDGE JUNCTION RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MANCHESTER CARRIAGE AND TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  ST. MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.) Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.—

  MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From York, Bristol, and Middleton; to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Against: From Haddington; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Gainsborough (3); to lie upon the Table.
  SCIENCE AND ART GRANTS.
  For alteration of Law: From the Association of School Boards for England and Wales; to lie upon the Table.
  THAMES CONSERVANCY.
  For alteration of Law: From Berk-hampstead; to lie upon the Table.
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Fraserburgh; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented of Forty-second Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN THE PROVINCES (CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF LOCAL RATES).
  Return presented relative thereto in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 454 of Session 2, 1895) [ordered 8th. March; Sir Albert Rollit]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 312.]
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND).
  Return presented relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 266 of Session 1897) [ordered 4th April; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (ESSEX).
  Copy presented of Order of the County Council of Essex for transferring an area situate in the Urban District of Braintree to the Parish of Stisted and Rural District of Braintree, under Section 57 of the Act as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (SALOP).
  Copy presented of Order of the Local Government Board, altering their Order confirming that of the County Council of Salop, constituting the Urban District of Oakengates and the Parishes of Lilies-hall and Shiffnal, under Section 57 of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented of General Report for the year 1897 by the Chief Inspector of the East Central Division [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented of General Report for the year 1897 by the Senior Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Division [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN BOUNTIES (SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION) (COMMERCIAL, No. 2, 1898).
  Copy presented of further Reports by Her Majesty's Representatives Abroad on Bounties on the Construction and Running of Ships paid by the State in the Countries in which they reside, and Particulars with regard to the granting of Preferential Railway Rates (in continuation of "Commercial, No. 8, 1895," C 7898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES (BRUSSELS CONFERENCE) (COMMERCIAL, No. 6, 1898).
  Copy presented of Correspondence relating to the Conference at Brussels on the question of Sugar Bounties [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  CALEDONIAN CANAL.
  Copy of Ninety-third Report of the Commissioners [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 314.]
  LOSS OF LIFE IN THE NAVY.
  Return ordered "of Loss of Life in the Royal Navy for the year 1897."
  NAVAL WORKS ACTS (CORRESPOND- ENCE).
  Copy ordered "of the Answer of the Admiralty to the request of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Explanations as to the Under Expenditure under the Naval Works Acts."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
BILLS ADVANCED.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 308.]
  SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 309.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  UNION OF BENEFICES BILL,
  without Amendments;
SOUTHAMPTON GAS BILL,

  MALDON WATER BILL.
  with Amendments.
  Amendments to—

ABERDEEN CORPORATION" (TRAMWAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAIL WAY BILL. [H.L.]
    GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
    without Amendment.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
    That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order granted by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, to the Midland Electric Corporation for Power Distribution (Limited) in respect of an area situate in the county of Stafford."
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions of Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 310.]
  NEW BILLS.
    UNIVERSITY DEGREES.
    Bill to regulate the use of certain University Degrees in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Sidebotham, Mr. Carson, Dr. Farquharson, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. MacNeill, and Sir William Priestley; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 1st August, and to be printed. [Bill 311.]
    FIRE BRIGADES.
    Bill to promote the efficiency of Fire Brigades, and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pym, Mr Birrell, Colonel Brookfield, Mr. Clare, Mr. Malcolm, and Lord Alwyne Compton; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 312.]
    TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND).
    Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the election and proceedings of Town Councils in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Dr. Clark, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Robert Wallace (Perth), and Mr. Gordon; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 313.]
  QUESTIONS.

    EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF PRISONERS.
    MR. LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the charge sheets in criminal cases, the degree of the prisoner's education is now notified; and whether, in view of the prevalence of juvenile crime, and the importance of obtaining more accurate information on the subject, he will cause inquiry to be made as to whether the prisoner has been to any elementary school, and, if so, as to the particular school in which he has been trained, and cause such information to be notified on the charge sheet?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,):It must be very unusual, I should think, for the police to notify in the charge sheet the degree of education of an accused person; and it seems to me there would be great difficulties in the way of obtaining accurate information on the points suggested by my honourable Friend. I should be glad, however, to consider any proposal on the subject which he may choose to submit to me.

    PROSECUTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.
    MR. LEIGHTOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House what is the proportion of prosecutions for drunkenness per 100,000 of the population in Scotland, where the public-houses are closed during the whole of Sunday, as compared with England, where they are not closed during the whole of that day?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The proportion of prosecutions for drunkenness per 100,000 of the population is in England and Wales 645, in Scotland 966. I must point out, however, that the Scotch law as to drunkenness and its administration

    827
    differ so much from English law and administration that it is difficult to draw any trustworthy conclusion from a comparison of the figures for the two countries.

    PETTY SESSION'S APPEALS.
    MR. LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the hearing of appeals from petty sessions to quarter sessions, the entire bench of county magistrates, numbering often several hundred persons, have a right to sit and to vote; and whether, in the interests of justice and convenience, the Government will consider the expediency of amending the present system by legislation, or otherwise, so that only a limited number of such magistrates, nominated out of the whole bench every year by the court of quarter sessions, shall sit on appeal cases?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I am afraid that there are great difficulties in the way of legislation, and in any case I propose in the first instance to consult the Society of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions.

    GUN PRACTICE IN MILFORD HAVEN.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether complaints have reached him about the firing from South Hook Fort, in Milford Haven, on 13th July; that during the firing many shots passed over the farm buildings of Skerrybach Farm, near St. Ishmael's; and that other shots passed through a wood close to the house, knocking down trees and blocking a road; whether he is aware that considerable damage was done to the farm by the animals breaking loose during the firing and treading down the crops; and whether he will undertake to stop the firing in this direction in future, as this is the third complaint within four years, and give compensation to the occupier of
    828
    the farm for the damage that has been done?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BBODKICK,): The matter referred to in the Question is being carefully investigated. In the meantime firing from South Hook has been discontinued.
    MR. PHILIPPS: Will it be discontinued until some more satisfactory arrangement has been made? This is the third time it has happened in three years.
    MR. BRODRICK: Yes, the whole subject is now being carefully considered.

    ELECTIONS OF IRISH TOWN COMMISSIONERS.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are Town Commissioners in Ireland whose election takes place on 16th October; whether, after the Local Government (Ireland) Bill becomes law, the election of Town Commissioners in towns referred to will be held in January in the future; and whether all the Commissioners will have to be re-elected then?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): One-third of the Commissioners elected in towns under the Towns Improvement Act, 1854, go out of office annually on the 15th October, their places being filled on that day. Under the Local Government Bill the election of Town Commissioners will be held in January, and those who would have to retire in the ordinary course in October next will hold office until the new Commissioners are elected in January. For the first election after the Bill becomes law the whole body of the Commissioners must be re-elected, and the election, thereafter, of one-third annually (as at present) will continue, unless the triennial system be adopted.
    MR. DALY: May I ask how it is to be decided which of the Commissioners shall go out of office in the first year?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say at present.

    LEAD POISONING.
    MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ascertain what proportion of the 528 women and 63 girls, reported since 1895 as suffering from lead poisoning, occurred in factories where mechanical ventilation was used?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am afraid that, quite apart from any question of the labour entailed by an investigation into the ventilation existing at each factory where the various cases arose, the inquiry suggested by the honourable Member would be of very little use, as it is only in the dry processes that mechanical ventilation is a protection against lead poisoning. It would not be possible accordingly, from mere statistics of cases, either to judge fully of the importance of mechanical ventilation in preventing lead poisoning, or to determine definitely whether particular factories are well or badly ventilated.

    MUZZLING ORDER IN IRELAND.
    MR. LOUGH: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a prosecution, for the worrying of sheep within the Metropolitan district of Stillorgan, recently took place in Kingstown before the Recorder, with
    830
    the result that damages were obtained; and whether he can state if any instructions have been issued to the constabulary and Metropolitan police to endeavour to prevent the injury so caused to stock owners?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The police have instructions to seize all unmuzzled dogs found in a public place, and in the Metropolitan police district alone over 6,000 dogs have been seized during the past two years.

    GAME LICENCES IN IRELAND.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that four respectable game dealers were at Longford Petty Sessions, on Monday last, refused a renewal of their game licences because they would not give an undertaking to keep a book for the entry of the names of persons, goods, and quantities purchased by them, although no section of any Act of Parliament authorises or commands the keeping of such book; whether this fact was admitted by the magistrates, who declared they could impose whatever conditions they like precedent to granting the licences; and can he undertake to have directions given for the issue of these licences forthwith?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): It is a fact that applications for licences to deal in game were made by four persons at the recent Longford Petty Sessions, and that the applications were refused for the reason mentioned in the Question. The justices, in declining to grant the licences, stated they considered they had a right to require the applicants to give an undertaking of this nature with a view to the observance of the law. It is no part of the duties of the Crown

    831
    to issue directions to the justices, as suggested in the last paragraph. If the applicants feel aggrieved by the decision of the justices, it is open to them to take such steps as they may be advised to test its validity.

    BELLEVILLE BOILERS.
    SIR A. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the longest voyage made and the time occupied by one of Her Majesty's ships fitted with Belleville boilers, exceeding 1,500 tons displacement, other than the Powerful and Terrible?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The only vessels in commission above 1,500 tons displacement, fitted with Belleville boilers, other than the Powerful and Terrible, are the Arrogant, Furious, and Diadem, attached to the Channel Squadron. The Arrogant has cruised since January in the same manner as other ships of the Squadron. The Furious and the Diadem have only recently been commissioned, but the latter is about to undergo a series of special trials to which I have previously referred.
    MR. ALLAN: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman, on these trials have all the boilers been in use?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: All?
    MR. ALLAN: Yes, every one of the boilers.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have told the honourable Member that the Arrogant has performed its duties with the Channel Squadron precisely as the other vessels have performed theirs.

    SCOTS GUARDS.
    COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Scots Guards have ever been quartered in Scot-
    832
    land; and whether, in the interests of recruiting, he would consider the advisability of quartering those battalions occasionally in the country from which they take their name?
    MR. BRODRICK: The Scots Guards have not been quartered in Scotland since 1803; it is no doubt desirable in the interest of recruiting to quarter the Scottish regiments from time to time in Scotland, but in the case of the Scots Guards I fear I cannot hold out any immediate hope that such an arrangement could be made.

    MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
    COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War in what manner the supplies for the troops to be engaged in the manœuvres in the south-west of England will be provided; and whether they will be obtained by the commissariat department itself in the county in which the troops will be operating, or whether provided by contractors who will forward the supplies from other parts?
    MR. BRODRICK: The supplies will be drawn from contractors, who, if prices are equal, will doubtless purchase them as near as possible to the scene of operations.
    MAJOR RASCH: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether such an arrangement is calculated to afford the experience which it is the intention of these manœuvres to give?
    MR. BRODRICK: On this occasion it was absolutely necessary that the troops should be provided for by contract.

    NATIONAL LIBRARY OF IRELAND.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain why the Report of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland is presented to the Department of Science and Art

    833
    in January, but does not reach the public until August; and if he will take steps to secure in future that this Report is published within a shorter time of its presentation?
    MR. DALY: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that there is a Committee sitting on this subject upstairs, and that its Report will be issued in a few days?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Report is presented to Parliament by the Science and Art Department, and does not pass through my hands. Perhaps the honourable Baronet will address his Question to my right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council.

    CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to carrying out his promises as regards the customs watchers, he will consider the advisability of restoring the former overtime rate of 8d. per hour, if only to those who had it before 1896, since no cost is thrown upon the Crown; and whether he will draw some distinction between those watchers who have over 10 years' service, and are practically permanent, and those who come and go, as regards the question of uniform, more especially as watchers mix with the public as representatives of the Crown, and that even temporary messengers are given a uniform?
    MR. HANBURY: The present conditions of employment have been carefully considered, and I cannot hold out any expectation that those relating to overtime payment will be altered, except in respect of attendance at 5 a.m. or earlier, for which two hours' overtime will be allowed for disturbance instead of one. The old permanent labourers cannot claim to receive all the benefits of the old system as well as of the new. The Board of Customs do not recognise any necessity for supplying watchers with uniform; and there would be strong objection to supplying it to some and not to others.

    COAL-MINERS' CO-OPERATIVE BROTHERHOOD, LIMITED.
    MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he considers the prosecution of the Coalminers' Co-operative Brotherhood, Limited, by Mr. A. H. Stokes, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of mines, for contravention of the Truck Acts, for which two convictions were obtained at the Swadlincote Petty Sessions on 24th May, 1898, was sanctioned by the Home Office, having regard to the memorandum relating to the Truck Acts issued on 31st December, 1896, for the use of mines and factories inspectors, wherein it is stated that it is not intended that the inspectors shall intervene in cases where it is quite clear that the workpeople are not in any way subject to compulsion and where they are receiving full value for their money; whether he is aware that the members of the Coal-owners' Co-operative Brotherhood, Limited, agree by their rules to the method of payment declared to be a contravention of the Truck Acts and do get full value for their money, the men being partners in the industry; and whether he will take the necessary steps to prevent any further interference with the business of this co-operative society?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The prosecution in question was sanctioned by the Home Office. It was a clear case of violation of the Truck Acts, which could not be passed over, if the men who were paid by store tickets were workmen in receipt of wages. Whether they were workmen receiving wages or partners sharing in profits was a legal question fully argued before the magistrates, who decided that they were workmen receiving wages, and that the payment by store tickets was illegal. If the Co-operative Brotherhood wish to have this question carried to the High Court, I am ready to give facilities for this purpose; but, while the law stands as it does, under the magistrates' decision, I cannot allow a practice to continue which is contrary to the law, and open to serious abuse, and which, so far as I can see, is in no way essential to the carrying on of the mine by a co-operative society.

    BREACHES OF THE VIVISECTION LAW.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the greater frequency of the admitted breaches of the law by vivisectors; whether any prosecutions have been instituted under the provisions of the Act of 1876; and, if so. how many; whether any convictions, and, if so, how many, have been obtained; whether his attention has been directed to the circumstance that in the Return of experiments performed on living animals during the year 1897 Dr. Poore, the inspector, states, on page 5, that illegal experiments, performed admittedly by persons without the necessary licences and certificates, have been recorded as performed by persons holding those licences and certificates; whether Dr. Poore has been asked to give any explanation of this inclusion of illegal experiments in the catalogue of legal experiments; how many inspections of places licensed for the practice of vivisection have been, during the year 1897, severally reported to the Home Secretary by Dr. Poore and Sir James Russell; were these inspections carried on during the performance of experiments, or were the bodies of the vivisected animals subsequently inspected; are there any inspections of experiments by operators with certificates enabling them to vivisect in unregistered places; and how are such inspections, if any, carried out; and whether he will publish the names of the persons who, on the admission of the Report, have performed with impunity illegal experiments on the bodies of living animals?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There were two such cases in each of the years 1894–96, and seven in 1897, but all arose from inadvertence, and were not in my opinion of a serious character, and certainly were not fitting cases for prosecution. There has been only one prosecution under the Act, and in that case the proceedings were dismissed. It is the case that two of the licensees (by what I am satisfied was mere inadvertence) omitted to apply for renewal of their licences. This is stated
    836
    on page 5 of the Report. It is also stated on page 7 that the list of licensees contains the names of these two gentlemen. The licences would certainly have been renewed if the ordinary application had been made. I see no objection to this course having been adopted. Dr. Poore paid 61 visits of inspection to licensed places in 1897, and Sir James Russell 68. Some of these visits took place during the performance of experiments, and many animals that had been experimented upon were seen by the inspector. The only experiments performed elsewhere than at registered, places are inoculation operations in connection with the diseases of cattle, and inspection in such cases is deemed unnecessary and does not take place. With regard to the publication of the names of persons who have performed illegal experiments, I do not think it necessary or right that such publication should take place where the illegality has not been of so serious a nature as to call for the institution of legal proceedings.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right honourable Gentleman take care to give public notice that the Vivisection. Act of 1876 is a dead letter?
    [No Reply.]

    BURMAH COMMISSION.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the dissatisfaction amongst the members of the Burmah Commission by the promotion of Major J. H. Parsons, who has served less than three years in Burmah, to the post of Deputy Commissioner of the third grade over the heads of officers who have served in Burmah since its annexation to the British Crown; whether he is aware that Major Parsons, who came to Burmah as Assistant Commissioner Supernumerary in July, 1884, left that country in December, 1885, and having served in other pursuits elsewhere, declined, in 1890, an offer made to him of returning to the Burmah Commission, when his name disappeared from the

    837
    official list of the Burmah officers; that in April, 1897, Major Parsons, after an absence of 11 and a half years from Burmah, returned to that country and was placed at the bottom of the first grade assistant Commissioners, and was, in the following October, placed at the head of this grade, superseding nine officers who had discharged for years their duties in Burmah with efficiency; whether in June, 1898, Major Parsons was further promoted over the heads of all the fourth grade deputy Commissioners, and over the heads of all but three of the third grade deputy Commissioners; on what grounds an officer with a small experience of the country is put in charge of an important district; and whether representations have reached the Indian Government and the India Office protesting against the exercise of his patronage in the making of this appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor of Burmah?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): No representations or complaints on this subject have reached me, but I will make inquiry, and will communicate with the Government of India on the subject.

    LIGHTS ON THE HADDINGTONSHIRE COAST.
    MR. COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the reasons which have induced the Board of Trade to authorise the erection of a lighthouse at or near Dunbar contrary to the nautical and shipowning opinion of the district, the proposal to erect such a light having been condemned by the Trinity Brethren in 1884 as likely to lead vessels into a position of danger; whether such shipwrecks and loss of life as have occurred on the Haddingtonshire coast were due to storms, and were not such as could have been prevented by a light at or near Dunbar; what are the reasons which have induced the Board of Trade to begin to erect the light at or near Dunbar, instead of proceeding with the light on the Bass Rock, seeing that both lights have been sanctioned, and that the opinion is strongly held
    838
    by the shipowners of the district that the Bass Rock light and syren are urgently wanted; and whether the Government will take into consideration the necessity for bringing in a Bill to amend the constitution of the Lighthouse Boards, so that the shipping interests who pay for and who use the lights shall be represented on these Boards?
    MR. HANBURY: The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses are the authority responsible for the lighting of the Haddingtonshire coast, and the Board of Trade were advised that they would not be justified in refusing their sanction to the erection of a light at Barnes Ness. The shipwrecks on the Haddingtonshire coast during the recent years have been primarily due to storms, but whether they could or could not have been prevented by a light at or near Dunbar is a question involving many considerations. The funds available being insufficient to admit of both the lights mentioned being begun this year, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses decided, in the first instance, to proceed with the erection of that on Barnes Ness. As the honourable Member is aware, an opportunity has been offered to those who object to the light to represent their reasons at an interview with the Board of Trade. Of this offer my right honourable Friend regrets that they have not been able to avail themselves. There is no intention to propose legislation with regard to the constitution of the Lighthouse Boards.

    KINNEGAD MAILS.
    MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the postal authorities have considered the alternative arrangement suggested for the delivery of the mails to Balnabracky and Clonard (county Meath) from Hill of Down Post Office, and with what result; and whether, inasmuch as Hill of Down is nearer to Kinnegad and to Dublin than Killucan, they would make it the office for the reception of the Kinnegad post instead of Killucan, as at present, and thus save

    839
    time and the expense of the mail car plying between Killucan and Kinnegad?
    MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has not yet obtained the information necessary to enable him to consider the alternative arrangement for the delivery of the mails to Balnabracky and Clonard from Hill of Down Post Office. It is not possible to say at present whether Kinnegad could with advantage be served from Hill of Down instead of Killucan.

    FRASERBURGH LIGHT RAILWAY.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when will the scheme for the light railway from Fraserburgh to St. Conals be issued; and what is the cause of the long delay?
    MR. HANBURY: This Order was submitted to the Board of Trade by the Light Railway Commissioners on the 7th of June last; the time for lodging objections expired on the 4th of July, and the meeting to consider the Order was held on the 19th of July. The Order is now with counsel, and, subject to the consideration of one point, will shortly be approved.

    THE BELFAST RIOTS.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, since the Government have not seen their way to insert a retrospective clause in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill to legalise compensation to those members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were injured in the recent Belfast riots, and those of the same force who rendered special service in quelling the disturbances and bringing offenders to justice, he will ask Parliament for a special grant to compensate these most deserving officers?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to this Question is in the negative. It must be obvious to the honourable Member that his suggestion could not be
    840
    entertained without at the same time considering the cases of those members of the police force who were injured on the occasion of previous rioting not only in Belfast, but in Dublin.

    POSTMEN'S APPOINTMENTS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if an assistant postman who previously served in the Militia will have a prior claim to an established appointment before an auxiliary postman who has neither acted as a telegraph messenger nor served in the Army or Navy?
    MR. HANBURY: Under the existing rules, service in the Militia confers no claim to preferment for an established appointment, and a man would not be given priority simply on account of such service. An auxiliary postman who has neither acted as a telegraph messenger nor served in the Army or Navy has not much chance of obtaining an established appointment.

    POSTMEN'S GOOD CONDUCT STRIPES.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what are the regulations governing the granting of good conduct stripes and increments to unestablished postmen doing full time duty, and who are officially known as postmen "blocking" established appointments?
    MR. HANBURY: The regulations under which good conduct stripes are awarded to established postmen apply to unestablished postmen doing a full day's work. One good conduct stripe is given as the reward of each period of five years' unblemished service. Unestablished postmen whose conduct and character are good, and who perform a full duty, as a rule receive an increment every two years up to within one increment from the maximum of the scale of the established postmen working from the same office

    841
    and performing similar duties. Such increments, however, are given as an act of grace, no unestablished postman having a claim to a regular increment.

    BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table the General Order issued by Sir George White, then Commander-in-Chief in India, dated 15th July. 1897, pointing out methods of combating the spread of venereal disease among the European troops in India, and the duty of appealing to the higher instincts of our soldiers to avoid vicious connections?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have no objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the General Order issued by the Commander-in-Chief in India on the 14th July, 1897, regarding the means of checking venereal disease among the British troops in India.

    TAXATION ON RURAL CLERGY.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a notice, sent by the surveyor of taxes, Chelmsford district, to certain clergy of the diocese of St. Albans, stating that they are to be charged with income tax on donations received from the St. Albans poor benefices fund, has his sanction; and, if so, whether, considering the distress which such gifts are intended to relieve, and the inability of the Government to extend to them the relief from taxation provided under the Rating Act, the Government will reconsider the matter, in order that no such additional burden be laid on the rural clergy?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The grants from the St. Albans diocesan fund being made in augmentation of the stipend of the benefice are chargeable with income tax, subject to any relief to which the incumbent for the time being may be entitled by reason of his total income falling below
    842
    the limits within which exemption or abatement is allowed. I cannot specially exempt the clergy who participate in the benefits of this fund from income tax on part of their incomes, but I should think that clergy receiving such grants would in all probability be entitled to the exemptions and abatements applicable to income taxpayers generally.

    FRENCH WAR VESSELS IN BRITISH WATERS.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the frequent visits paid by French men-of-war to the Channel Islands for the purpose of making soundings and surveys and taking ranges within British territorial waters; and whether British men-of-war, in the exercise of a similar privilege, are permitted to take soundings and make surveys within the limits of the ports of Brest, Cherbourg, Bizerta, and other French naval stations and harbours?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: We have no information to the effect that surveys or ranges have been taken in the waters of the Channel Islands. A broad distinction must be drawn between soundings for the purposes of navigation, which may be taken in the neighbourhood of rocky and unfrequented islands, and those of another character, which may be attempted off naval ports and frequented harbours. In the case of the French ports mentioned by the honourable Gentleman the real analogy would be the taking of soundings by foreign men-of-war off Portsmouth or Plymouth.

    RUSSIA AND THE CHINESE NAVY.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Russian Government have demanded that the reorganisation of the Chinese Navy be placed solely under the control of Russian officers; and whether that is in accord-

    843
    ance with the wishes of the Imperial Government of China; if at a time of peace any similar demand has been made by one independent Government to another; and whether, if this demand has been made and is enforced, the Government propose to take any steps to enforce the Resolution passed by this House this Session to maintain the integrity of the Chinese Empire?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that any such demand has been made by the Russian Government.

    ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an additional assistant Under Secretary of State has been appointed or is to be appointed in the Foreign Office; whether a Supplementary Estimate will be introduced to contain the salary; whether the new assistant Under Secretary will have duties confined to Africa; and whether, in any change in the Office, attention will be given to the strengthening of the Commercial Department?
    MR. CURZON: An additional assistant Under Secretary will probably be appointed. It is not yet certain whether a Supplementary Estimate will be required. Should it be so, it will not be presented during the present Session. The duties of the new official will not relate especially to Africa. The work of the Foreign Office has so enormously increased in recent years, and is still increasing; and the pressure upon the existing staff of Under Secretaries, who have not for some time been able, except in cases of illness, to take the regulation amount of leave, is so great, that the Secretary of State has felt it necessary to create this new office, in order to deal more effectively with the general work of the Department, including especially the preparation of the ever-increasing number of papers that are called for by Parliament. At the same time there is
    844
    no truth in the report which has appeared in the Press, that there are any arrears of work in the Foreign Office which require to be discharged. It is not proposed at present to make any other change in the Office.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is this new statesman to sit in this House?
    MR. CURZON: No, Sir; if the honourable Member were better acquainted with Foreign Office procedure, he would know it is not proposed that he should sit in this House. He is a permanent official.

    PAUPER ARMY VETERANS.
    MR. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he has any objection to grant a Return of the number of men who, having served in the British Army, are now inmates of workhouses or in receipt of parish relief in the United Kingdom, distinguishing the numbers in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland, respectively; and, in the case of each of the three kingdoms setting forth the number of such men resident in each of the several counties and poor law unions.
    MR. BRODRICK: The main information for which the honourable Member asks was collected for a night in May, 1896, and was presented to the House last year (Sessional Paper, 1889). As it was thought that a Return for a night in early summer might be too favourable, the same information has been obtained for a night in last December. The resulting Return will be presented next week. The adoption of the form proposed by the honourable Member would involve recasting the Return which it is too late now to do.

    DEATH OF A GERMAN SAILOR AT BELFAST.
    MR. E. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his atten-

    845
    tion has been called to the report of an inquest held in Belfast, on Saturday last, on the body of a German sailor who died of an infectious disease on board a vessel from Savannah to that port; is he aware that it was proved that the vessel on which the man died was brought close to the edge of the quay; and that the jury added to their verdict that a vessel flying the yellow flag should not be permitted to come closer to port than three or four miles; and will anything be done to give effect to this expression of opinion from the jury?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the second paragraph. The cause of death was typhoid fever, and the vessel did not approach the quay until it had been disinfected, and then only within 50 yards. The regulations of the Local Government Board do not apply to cases of enteric fever, and vessels are not compelled to fly the yellow flag unless there is a case of cholera, yellow fever, or plague on board.

    IRISH GOLD ORNAMENTS.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will introduce or will give facilities for the passage during the present Session of an uncontentious Bill having for its sole object the conferring upon the Trustees of the British Museum a discretionary power to return certain Irish gold ornaments now in their custody to the National Museum in Dublin?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My honourable Friend has probably gathered from my answer yesterday that I do not think this a practicable method of dealing with the question.

    COURSE OF BUSINESS.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any day nest week will be devoted to Scottish business, and whether he can
    846
    say now which day, and what business will then be taken?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope to be able to devote next Tuesday to Scottish business. The first Measure will be the local taxation Resolution, the second the Parish Churches Bill, and the third the Measure relating to attendance of children at school.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Perhaps it would be convenient if the right honourable Gentleman would state what he proposes to take on Monday and also on Friday?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I propose to put down as the first order on Monday the London University Bill; the second, the Bill introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Colonial Loans Bill. I propose to devote Thursday and Friday to Supply. It is a matter of indifference to the Government which of those two days is allocated to the Home Office Vote. I had thought Thursday would be most convenient, but I am quite ready to make it Friday.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Will it be the first order?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should desire to take one or two uncontroversial Revenue Votes first, but I imagine that in any case the bulk of the evening will be devoted to the Home Office Vote.
    MR. BRYCE: Has the right honourable Gentleman made arrangements for the Board of Trade Vote?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: There is a general opinion that a day should be given to the Home Office Vote, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will take away nothing from it. It is an important Vote of domestic interest, and has had no time given it yet, although the War Office has had three days.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will say whether, seeing the great changes that have taken place this year with respect to the Army, and the still more important changes likely to occur

    847
    in the near future, as foreshadowed by the Secretary of State for War, he will consider the advisability of affording the House an early opportunity for the consideration of the new policy?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I entirely recognise that the Home Office Vote ought to have really the substantial part of the evening, and it is a mistake to suppose that I ever intended to carve out any part of the sitting for any other controversial Votes. I ought, however, to correct an error into which the right honourable Gentleman has fallen. There has been considerable discussion on the Home Office Vote, but I am aware that circumstances have arisen since that discussion which make it peculiarly necessary that some Parliamentary time should be devoted to their consideration. With regard to the War Office, the desire is to take the Army Estimates first on Friday, but it will not be possible to give more than half the evening to those Estimates. The Post Office must be considered, and the Post Office Votes will come second on that day.
    MR. BAYLEY: On what day is it proposed to take the Third Reading of the Vaccination Bill?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot fix a day at present.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: What about the West India Loan Vote?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It will not be taken next week.
    MR. LOUGH: When will the Teachers' Superannuation Bill be taken?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is down for Monday.
    MR. GEDGE: Can the Vaccination Bill be printed before Third Reading?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think it is usual to reprint a Bill at this stage, nor do I believe that any of the alterations made are of a kind which escape the memory
    848
    of my honourable Friend, or that it would be necessary for him to see them in print in order to give us the benefit of his experience on the Third Reading.

    INFLOW AND OUTFLOW OF THE ARMY.
    CAPTAIN BAGOT: On behalf of the honourable and gallant Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what was the inflow and outflow of men between the 1st April and 1st July, 1898, in the cavalry, horse and field artillery, garrison artillery, guards, and infantry at home, respectively; and what was the number of Reservists under the same heads on 1st July, 1898?
    MR. BRODRICK: The inflow was—cavalry, 782; horse and field artillery, 740; garrison artillery, 668; foot guards, 527; infantry, 5,843. The outflow was—cavalry, 669; horse and field artillery, 585; garrison artillery, 524; foot guards, 362; infantry, 3,624. The net result was a gain in the cavalry of 113, horse and field artillery, 155; garrison artillery, 144; foot guards, 165; and infantry of the Line, 2,219. The general result is a gain of 2,796 men on the arms named. On the 1st July, 1898, the Reservists of the above arms stood as follows: Cavalry, 5,959; horse and field artillery, 6,150; garrison artillery, 5,056; foot guards, 5,226; infantry of the Line, 51,354.

    WEI-HAI-WEI.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the hydrographical survey of Wei-hai-Wei has been completed; and, if not, what is the probable date of its completion; and whether he can state approximately the probable date of the Hydrographer's Department of the Admiralty being in a position to issue a chart which will furnish a detailed plan, according to professional definition, of that port and offing?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The surveying vessel detailed to survey Wei-hai-Wei had to proceed to that place from Tasmania, and has only just arrived. It is not possible to give even an approximate date of the publication of a new plan.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether forces of marines had to be simultaneously employed on shore at Wei-hai-Wei and at the capital of the Corea; could he state for what particular purposes were they so quartered, whether either or both these detachments of marine forces are still serving on shore; and, if so, how are they employed; and whether such detachments were part complements of Her Majesty's ships on the station; and, if so, how were the complement of the ships completed during their absence on shore?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: A small guard of marines has been landed when considered necessary for the protection of the Consulate at Seoul during times of excitement. This guard is furnished from the vessel stationed at Chemulpo. A full official report of the arrangements made by the Commander-in-Chief on taking over Wei-hai-Wei has not yet been received. It is certain that marines would be landed from the Fleet for necessary duty on the island of Leu-kung-Tau. The whole number of seamen and marines landed would not probably exceed the numbers of the supernumeraries in the ships upon the station.

    MILITARY GARRISONS IN SCOTLAND
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether, with reference to Scottish garrison recruiting, consideration, has been given to the fact that only three battalions are now quartered in Scotland, though 10 Scottish territorial regiments are on the Army list; that the number of kilted battalions has been several times increased during the past year, although Scottish recruiting has
    850
    fallen away; that in England there are 11 district commands, in Ireland five, and in Scotland only one; and that the annual military expenditure in Scotland can be estimated in thousands of pounds compared with tens of thousands in Ireland, and hundreds of thousand in England, and will the right honourable Gentleman take further steps to rectify such a situation?
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not think I can reply to the long series of figures which the honourable Member has given, though, no doubt, they are substantially correct. There is only accommodation for three battalions in Scotland out of the 10 or 11 raised there. The question of mobilisation, as well as that of recruiting, has to be considered, and the subject of additional barracks for Scotland will be kept in view by the Secretary of State in connection with any future arrangement of the Army.

    EAST STONEHOUSE INFECTIOUS DISEASES HOSPITAL.
    MR. MENDL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty intend to build an infectious diseases hospital on the eastern portion of the Naval Hospital grounds at East Stonehouse; and whether, having regard to the fact that this site is adjacent to a very densely and poorly populated quarter of the borough of Plymouth, the Admiralty will, in any decision that may be arrived at in the matter, consider the danger to the neighbourhood involved in the erection of a hospital for the treatment of infectious diseases; and whether the Admiralty are prepared to consider the advisability of maintaining hulks in Plymouth Sound for the purpose of isolating and treating infectious diseases, such as are now maintained by the local authorities of Plymouth, Devonport, and. Stonehouse?
    MR. KEARLEY: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a new hospital for the treatment of infectious diseases is about to be erected on the eastern

    851
    portion of the Naval Hospital grounds at East Stonehouse; whether he is aware that this site is situate in a district very densely populated by the poorer classes; and whether, under these circumstances, due consideration will be given to the danger to the surrounding district involved in the construction of an infectious hospital?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): New wards for the treatment of infectious cases are being erected on the site named to replace the existing infectious wards which are unsuitable for the purpose and are required for other cases, owing to the growth of the Fleet. The new wards will be properly isolated in accordance with the rules of the Local Government Board, and will cause no danger to the surrounding district.

  NEW BILL.

    AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, ETC. (ADULTERATION).
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: This Bill is not introduced on any ground of public health or to deal with any question of public health. It is a Bill against adulteration. We believe that the existing Acts at the present moment are adequate. The object of this Bill is to make the law more effectual in preventing the adulteration of certain articles of agricultural and horticultural produce now dealt with under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, and the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. I wish to point out that the present Bill is limited in its operation, and that it deals with food and drugs only, and does not extend to other articles which are included in the scope of the two Acts of Parliament I have referred to, and which must be dealt with on another occasion in a separate Measure. This follows the precedents adopted in existing Acts. This Bill explains its object pretty clearly; it is to make a better provision against the adulteration of certain agricultural and horticultural products. That is an object which no one can fairly object to. The
    852
    question is, how can we accomplish it? What we have to do is to guard against adulteration of those products which come from abroad as well as those which come from home. The Commissioners are empowered to take samples of consignments of imported milk and butter, in accordance with directions from the Treasury, in consultation with the Board of Agriculture. Having taken a sample, the other part is sent to the principal chemist at the laboratory at Somerset House, and it would be his duty to ascertain whether these articles are adulterated within the meaning of the Bill, and whether anything has been extracted from them, or whether any foreign substance has been added so as to injuriously affect the substance and quality. The bulk of the consignment will have already passed on to its destination, and nothing whatever further will happen. For the next twelve months it will be in the power of the Commissioners to detain goods, pending analysis, or otherwise to detain any subsequent consignment coming from the same quarter, as if they were prohibited goods under the Customs Act—that is to say, unless the importer has already given an adequate security to the Commissioners of Customs against the consignment being adulterated within the meaning of the Act. It must be remembered that this can only come into operation in the case of those who have already been proved to have committed an infringement of the law. I come to the question raised by my honourable Friend opposite, namely, the adulteration of the goods at home. Here the chief complaint we have to meet is this, it is that while the existing Acts are adequate to the purposes, if they are efficiently administered, they are altogether inoperative, because the local authorities in some cases will not perform their duties in enforcing the existing Acts. We propose to meet this allegation in this way. We give power to the Board of Agriculture to direct any of their officers to procure and take samples wherever they please which are exposed for sale, and if they are satisfied that they are adulterated, then they are to notify the fact at once to the local authority of the place or district from which the sample comes. On the other hand, if they should continue to be negligent in the performance of their

    853
    duty, then the Board of Agriculture is empowered to take action under the Contagious Diseases Act, 1894—namely, the power to enforce the Acts themselves, and to recover from the offending local authority the costs. In connection with the taking of samples, I may be permitted to remind the House of this, that the Committee which sat on this subject upstairs recommended the creation of a permanent body, which is to be called the Board of Referees, for the purpose of prescribing the standard of quality and purity of all kinds of food. We have always questioned the wisdom of this suggestion. In any case, it appeared to me extremely cumbrous machinery for the purposes of the present Bill, and I propose to substitute this—
    "The Board of Agriculture are empowered, after causing such inquiry as they may think fit … to make regulations for determining what shall or shall not be presumed to be adulteration within the meaning of the Act."
    There have been difficulties on account of the differences of opinion between the local analyst on the one hand and the authorities of the laboratory at Somerset House on the other. These difficulties I hope will be obviated in future by the proposals I have made. I should add, with regard to margarine, that margarine which is imported, and which is not distinctly marked and signed in the form in which the Act of Parliament declares it should be, is liable to detention at the port, and to all the other penalties under section 2 of the Bill to which I have referred. The mode of marking it is also distinctly prescribed, and there is a provision which is not by any means unimportant. The wholesale dealer is required to keep a register of the quantity and the destination of any consignment he may send out from his place of business. This register is to be open to the inspection at any time of the officers of the Board of Agriculture. There are some minor provisions with regard to the sale of milk, with the details of which I need not trouble the House.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I may remind the right honourable Gentleman that the Standing Orders of the House do not permit of more than a brief explanatory statement of the principles of the Bill.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I beg pardon, Sir.
    Bill introduced and read a first time; Second Reading fixed for Monday.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    SUPPLY [17TH ALLOTTED DAY],
    Considered in Committee.

    NAVY ESTIMATES (1898–9).
    (In the Committee.)
    Question put—
    "That a sum not exceeding £1,612,000 be granted to Her Majesty to defray expenses of contract work, shipbuilding, etc."
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Before I submit to the House the supplemental programme which, I believe, is expected, I think honourable Members would wish me to say a word or two with reference to the original programme, and supply them with some in formation which I promised when the Navy Estimates were first introduced. We have been making good progress under the ordinary programme of the year, but I am bound to say that the effects of the labour difficulties still hamper to a certain extent the rapidity of progress which we should desire. All engineering works are now so glutted with orders that they are scarcely able to supply the material. In a certain direction it has been difficult to "fetch up" so much as we had hoped. Still, I may say good progress has been made. For instance, three of our cruisers have now been delivered. The Diadem was delivered on the 19th inst. The Europa and Niobe have been delivered later than was expected, but not in one case later than the contract date. In this case the ship was only six weeks behind the time expected. I recommend

    855
    that to honourable Members who have what I may call a passion for penalties. In these cases no penalties will be incurred. Then the Hannibal and the Illustrious, the two last ships of the Majestic class, have been completely finished. They have gone through all their trials, and are now in commission. This completes what I may call one important stage of construction. It completes a group of nine ships of the Majestic class, which, I think I may say, have commanded universal admiration among all classes of naval critics, and are considered to be almost unrivalled. This group of nine follows on another fine class of ships, the Royal Sovereign class, which is composed of eight ships, and I may add to these the Renown, which is of a slightly different character, but a new and fine ship. That is a total of 18 first class battleships of the most modern type. Besides this there are the Barfleur, the Centurion, the Nile, the Trafalgar, and the Sanspareil—five ships—and six ships of the Admiral class, giving a total of 29 ships of the first class. Then there are building six of the Canopus class, three of the Formidable class, which are improved Majestics, and in my original programme this year three more Formidables were to be laid down. That makes 12 first class ironclads building, which, added to the 29 completed, of which I have spoken, gives us a total of 41 first class battleships built and provided for. That is the position of the original programme, independently of the recent action which has been taken by a certain great Power. The Admiral class are not equal to the others, but, if we have in that list of 41 which I have mentioned six which are not equal to the others, there is a larger number of older ships and inferior ships in the lists of any other two Powers containing first class ironclads. Our numbers are equal to those of any two Powers in first class battleships, taking ships built and building; and I am prepared to maintain that the 41 ships which I have mentioned cannot be matched in power, speed, and efficiency generally by the corresponding fleets of any two Powers. That, I think, can be established, and will be generally admitted. Now, I have said there are three Formidables to be laid down this
    856
    year. Let me record to the Committee the original programme of this year. There were to be three battleships, four cruisers, four armoured cruisers, and four sloops. The three battleships are to be Formidables, and perhaps at this point I ought to say something with regard to the armour question. The Committee will remember certain controversies took place about the armour question. I do not think that it is possible that the armour manufacturing firms can deliver, in the course of the present financial year, more than we anticipated, and we shall be very glad indeed if they come up to the demands which we have made upon them. I myself have visited these firms. They are working day and night. There is not a single hour of the week when any rest takes place. They work in shifts, and what is very satisfactory is that all three of the great Sheffield firms are largely increasing their works, and hope, within a measurable time, to be able to increase their output. Also, there is a fourth firm which is now able to compete with them and bring in a certain amount of armour. I am informed that investigations were made to test the sincerity of my statements with regard to the difficulty of providing armour. Honourable Members and the public will remember that it is not only a question of supplying a certain number of plates of armour, but they must come up to a certain test. Until a firm has passed the test required there is no security as to when the number of plates required can be delivered. For instance, one firm is a year behind the other in being able to provide plates of a certain quality. They vie with each other, and I believe now that all have overcome the difficulties, and that they will be able to set to work continuously and energetically to supply all the armour we require. Of course, we are in a different position to some other Powers, but I trust we shall always be able to produce in this country all the armour we require, while other countries purchase their armour elsewhere. Well, now, it is also forgotten that the armoured cruisers require a considerable amount of armour. That is a new element that must be taken into consideration. However, I trust that the firms may be able to supply the necessary armour in good time for the pro-

    857
    gramme which I have the honour to submit to the Committee. There is one question in connection with battleships which I will touch upon very briefly at this moment—namely, the question of re-constructing and re-arming the older ships. There are two problems which have been put before us on this point—one by my noble Friend the honourable and gallant Member for York [Lord Charles Beresford], to reconstruct some of the older ships, and the other by Lord Hood, that we should bring the Admiral class up to a higher standard by re-armament. This question of re-armouring these old ships has been before successive Boards of Admiralty, before successive comptrollers and successive directors of naval ordnance, and none of them have seen their way to recommend the proposal—certainly not as regards the guns on the main deck. As regards the re-construction, if that is not too wide a word, of the Admiral class, it has been under our recent and most careful consideration, and plans are being worked out for a certain amount of re-construction; but what we have to consider is, with the dockyards fully engaged on new construction, how far it is desirable to interfere with the new construction, in order to take the work of re-construction in hand. There is another argument. If we dealt with these ships we should have to deal with them, at all events, one by one, and I think the reconstruction of each ship as contemplated would take about a year. We are not prepared on a large scale to put six good fighting ships hors de combât for a year, in order to have improved ships at the end of that year. It would be unwise, in the present situation, until the Canopus class, which are coming on, and of which there are six, are complete, to deal in that way with the Admiral class. These are the two problems connected with re-arming and re-construction. I come now to the question of cruisers. There are four sloops ordered. I have nothing to say about them, except that they will be of the Torch class, and will be found perfectly satisfactory for the purpose for which they are intended. The chief interest of the programme, apart from battleships, is centred upon the four armoured cruisers, the descrip-
    858
    tion of which the Committee allowed me to postpone when I first introduced the Estimates, as I was anxious to see the plans more fully worked out. I now proceed to give the Committee some information with regard to these four cruisers. Two of them are of the Cressy class. The other two will be of a different character, and I will give the House their chief dimensions. They will be superior in speed and armament to the Creasy class, and of larger dimensions. The length between perpendiculars will be 500 feet; breadth, extreme, 71 feet; mean draught, 26 feet; displacement, about 14,100 tons; speed, 23 knots; horse-power, 30,000; armament, two 9.2-inch guns with armoured shields, 16 6-inch quick-firing guns in casemates, 14 twelve-pounders, quick-firing, three three-pounders, and two submerged torpedo tubes. The protection to the 9.2-inch and 6-inch quick-firing guns will be equal to that of the Powerful class. The guns will be of the more modern type adopted for the Cressy class, and of considerably greater power than those of any other cruiser. There will be four more 6-inch guns than in the Cressy. Buoyancy and stability will be protected by vertical side armour about six inches thick, associated with strong steel decks. In these features the arrangements will be similar to those of the Cressy class and the Canopus class, but the bows will be more strongly defended. The steel hulls will be unsheathed. The measured-mile speed on an eight hours' trial, with natural draught, will be 23 knots. The continuous sea speed, with smooth water, will be 21 knots. Water-tube boilers will be adopted, and twin screws. The capacity of the coal-bunkers will be 2,500 tons, and 1,250 tons will be carried at the speed trials. I must say something about the motive which induced the Admiralty to produce these mighty cruisers. We have had to consider the cruisers which have been built—I am speaking now of the original programme—by other countries; for instance, one ship, the Jeanne d'Arc, an armoured cruiser of 23 knots. Besides that, there are building a number of armoured cruisers of 21 knots, and a certain number of protected cruisers of 23 knots. Now, our position in this country

    859
    is not precisely the same as that of other countries as regards cruisers. We have to protect our trade routes and food supply, and for this purpose we have to station a large number of cruisers, second and third class cruisers, at many points in the world, and it seems to me of supreme importance that these cruisers, which we have in considerable numbers, and which have to perform the work of protecting these lines, should not be exposed to attack in distant waters from some specially-constructed cruisers, more powerful, and from which they cannot escape. We consider that we must have a limited number of ships built to be able to match the armoured cruisers of 21 knots of other Powers, and which will be equal to a speed of 23 knots. The Cressy class is sufficiently powerful, both in armament and protection, to deal effectively with any foreign cruisers which they may succeed in bringing into action, but we have nothing capable of catching unarmoured vessels of 23 knots and upwards, of which several are built, or are building, by foreign nations. If we consider how large a share of the protection of our commerce would be carried out by second and third class cruisers working singly, as they must do to cover the necessary ground, the Committee will understand how important it is to make absolutely certain that the enemy's armoured vessels of extreme speed should not be allowed to remain at sea long without being brought into action. The essential thing is that we should be able to deal with these cruisers directly they come out, and for that purpose ships superior in armament and protection, and which have, at the same time, unmistakable advantage in speed, are absolutely necessary. If these are provided in sufficient number for this purpose, the unarmoured cruisers would scarcely dare to venture out. I can assure the Committee that this question of the cruisers has given to the Board of Admiralty the most intense anxiety, and that our conclusions have been arrived at with the greatest deliberation, and after considering, as far as we could, every essential fact of the case. Well, that was the original programme of this year. There is, however, one change which I must communi-
    860
    cate to the Committee, and which I think they will heartily approve. It is that one of the cruisers is to be built at Pembroke, instead of the whole four being built by contract, as originally intended. In future, Pembroke will be able to finish ships built at the yard up to a further point than they have hitherto been advanced, and they will also be built with greater rapidity. The ship will not cost more at Pembroke than it would cost if it were placed out to contract. This ship will be laid down in October. The slips have not been used hitherto for the building of a ship of the length of this class, but by piling the upper end of the slipway they can be made suitable without much difficulty or expense. We considered that this programme was sufficient, with the knowledge that we had at the time that the Estimates of the year were submitted. It was based on what I may call the two-Power policy—the principle that we must be superior in power and equal in numbers to the fleets of any other two countries. I will not pause to define the system at the present moment. It has been adopted by successive Governments. It has been attacked as being insufficient. I will only make this remark at the present time, that those who attack its insufficiency omit, in my judgment, the immense advantage possessed by a single Power wielding a single fleet with one system of organisation, with the same signals, and with the confidence inspired by constantly working together—in fact, altogether homogeneous. One Power having an equal number of ships as two allied Powers has got that margin of advantage to which I have alluded. I think that history has shown over and over again that the fleets of two allies have never been considered equal to the one homogeneous fleet of a single Power, provided the single fleet was relatively as large as the allied fleets. I stand by the principle—which we have followed and intend to follow—that we must be equal in number to the fleets of any two Powers. That is the principle, as I say, we have acted upon from the first, and now, in consequence of the action of another Power, the same principle compels us to take further action by a supplemental programme. The Board of Admiralty is acting on its own convictions.

    861
    I can honestly say that we have not added a single ship or a single man to the Navy in consequence of any outside pressure, from whatever quarter it has come. We have followed our own system from the first, and I strongly hope that that may continue to be the policy of successive Boards of Admiralty, and that they will be sustained by the authority of the House of Commons. I do not, however, wish to cast a single reproach on those earnest men who have been pressing the shipbuilding and the manning question upon us. They have been actuated by conscientious motives. All I say is—and I say it honestly and truthfully—that we have followed, and are following, what we believe to be the principles laid down from the first. In stating the supplemental Estimate, I regret that it should be my misfortune to have to introduce the name of any foreign Power, but it is impossible to conceal the fact that it is the action of Russia, and the programme on which she has entered, which is the reason for our strengthening our fleet, and taking parallel action with her. Let it be distinctly understood that what we propose is not aggressive in the slightest degree. Let Europe note that we intend to increase our naval power because we believe that it is absolutely essential to maintain the principle that we have laid down; and I will say more—I do not assume, I will not assume, and I am not entitled to assume, that the action of Russia is simply taken as a menace to this country, or is directed against us. Russia has possessions bordering on other Powers who are increasing their navies very rapidly, and Russia has a perfect right to look to her own interests, and to build such a fleet as she thinks that her position in the world requires. But, deeply as I regret that we should be forced into that position, we must take parallel action ourselves with what other Powers do—parallel action with the action taken by other Powers. The resources of this country, both in shipbuilding and engineering—with our power of manufacturing for ourselves what we require—the rapidity with which we can build ships if we lay them down, as others lay them down, will enable us to keep pace with, if not to outstrip, our neighbours. What,
    862
    then, is the position? We know of six Russian battleships to be laid down this year, including one already commenced. We have now verified where those six ships are being built. Of those, I took two into account in my original Estimate, so that the balance against us is four. Accordingly, I must ask the House to sanction four more battleships beyond my original Estimate From the latest information the new Russian programme provides for four cruisers to be commenced this year, and we propose to commence an equal number of cruisers: that is to say, four cruisers in addition to those provided for already.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: Armoured?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: That has not yet been decided. My supplemental programme also includes 12 torpedo-boat destroyers. This, then, is the proposal which I have to make—four battleships, four cruisers, and 12 torpedo-boat destroyers. The torpedo-boat destroyers ordered by Russia, I believe, are intended to be sent to Eastern waters. I think I should do wrong if I gave to the Committee the expenditure which is involved. The type of cruisers is not yet settled, and that is my answer to my noble and gallant Friend the Member for York. The information which we have received is comparatively recent, and the question of cruisers is an extremely difficult one. I think most of the cruisers to be built under the new programme of Russia are protected and not armoured. But, at all events, I must appeal to the Committee—and I frankly admit it is a considerable appeal—to allow the Board of Admiralty a free hand as regards these four cruisers for the present. The House has shown me the greatest confidence in the past, and I would ask to be allowed to work out our programme for these four new cruisers and to submit the particulars next Session. I am sure that on successive occasions this latitude has been advantageous; and I would further point out that the later we divulge our plans the better we stand in our competition with other powers. If we were now to state our plans for the cruisers we are building, possibly, as we always

    863
    strive to outstrip our neighbours and provide something better, our neighbours might follow our lead, and we should regret afterwards that we had prematurely published our plans. Therefore I again ask the House to give us a free hand in this respect. Well, then, I said I cannot give the Committee any accurate idea of the expenditure, but I will give them a general idea of the liabilities which will be incurred on this supplemental programme. If I take the ships, the armaments, and the ammunition the total liability is about £8,000,000. But I must not minimise. I state it frankly to the House, the liabilities on the original programme—on ships, armaments, and ammunition—amount to £7,000,000. Therefore, taking the two programmes together, the amount of new shipbuilding, beyond the liabilities which were incurred on the 1st of April, and which, of course, it was proposed to spread over a certain number of years, amount to £15,000,000 in sterling. That is, of course, spread over a period of years.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Over how many years?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: That will depend upon the terms we can make with the contractors. The whole of the ships will be commenced as early as possible.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Can the right honourable Gentleman give us a general idea? Will it be two, or three, or four years?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Certainly not more than four. It will depend upon the contractors' terms as to the space of time within which they can build them. But I would prefer to say nothing more beyond what I have stated, not because I want to conceal anything, but because I might mislead the right honourable Gentleman. I should think none of these ships ought to take more than three and a half years to build, but it will, of course, be some months before they can be commenced.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: When the right
    864
    honourable Gentleman speaks of a liability of £7,000,000 on the original programme, I suppose he means £7,000,000 beyond the amount spent up to the 31st of March next?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No. I mean £7,000,000 on the new ships proposed in the original programme of three battleships, four cruisers, and four sloops. We now propose to add four battleships, four cruisers, and 12 torpedo-boat destroyers. Taking the whole group together, they will cost, when they are finished and armed and have their ammunition on board, as they will stand, the sum of £15,000,000. Besides that, of course, we have to discharge the remainder of the instalments on the ships which were under construction on the 1st of April of this year.
    MR. H. LABOUCHERE: Will the right honourable Gentleman say what that amount is?
    *THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY: I am afraid I cannot say that, but it is a large amount. The liabilities, were something like £6,000,000, in fact, more than £6,000,000, for the year 1898–99. I have omitted to state that the four new battleships, will not be of the Formidable class, but will have rather more speed, rather less draught of water, will be more calculated to pass through the Suez Canal without lightening, and will have slightly less armour. They will be designed to meet those ships which they are likely to encounter in the waters to which they are sent.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What waters?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I should have thought that the honourable Member would read between the lines. At all events, I do not think it necessary to emphasise the matter further. That is their design. It has still to be worked out in detail, and some months will pass before the designs for these battleships or the designs for these cruisers are completed, and consequently there is that delay. Then, tenders will have to be invited, and when

    865
    received will have to be examined and accepted. The contractors will have to perform a certain amount of work before they can earn any instalments, and, consequently, it is very unlikely that any large sum will fall upon the present financial year, except in the case of the torpedo-boat destroyers, where, knowing the type, a large amount will be expended. I have consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he agrees with me that, looking to the uncertainty of the amount which may be earned, and also to the fact that in the large shipbuilding programme that we have in hand outside this new programme, there must always be an uncertainty whether the contractors, either for materials or for ships, will be able to earn the whole amount provided in the estimate, it will be best to introduce the necessary supplementary estimate early next Session rather than now, when it would be no guide to the House as to the amount which it will be actually necessary to spend. We consider that this is a business-like proceeding, and I hope the Committee will approve of it. Now I have completed my task. I do not conceal from the House the immense responsibility which I feel is imposed upon the Board of Admiralty by having to submit to the House a programme of this magnitude, involving such immense sums of money. I can assure the Committee that in proposing it we have done no more than, but we have done absolutely as much as we conceive to be our duty under the circumstances.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: I must say that the new proposals of my right honourable Friend, to which we have just listened, to my mind sound most satisfactory. With the permission of the Committee I should just like to criticise some of the statements which my right honourable Friend has made. But, in regard to the first remarks which I venture to address to the Committee, I do think that the suggestion that has been made with regard to battleships and cruisers is most satisfactory. The programme just announced is to some extent larger than the programme published some time ago. That object may or may not have been a wise one or a good one, but my object
    866
    was to promote discussion, for if nobody says anything nobody does anything. Now, I am rather surprised to hear from the First Lord of the Treasury that public opinion has had no effect upon him. I suppose that he is about the only man in this House that public opinion does not affect. Now, what brought forward the last Naval Defence Act? Why, public opinion.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but that is not so. He has asserted that over and over again. He is always asserting that that is the origin of the Naval Defence Act, and we have smiled, because many other persons besides the noble Lord claim to be the authors of the Naval Defence Act. I assure the noble Lord that he has some competitors.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: I do not claim the authorship of that Act, and I do not ask for credit on that score. All that I ever asked, and was anxious for, was that somebody should do something. I wish to be more chivalrous and more generous than the right honourable Gentleman, and I say that the Government cannot go to the country and ask for large sums of money without public opinion is absolutely with them. Those of us who have taken up this question have done so from purely patriotic motives and with the idea of awakening our fellow-countrymen to the state of the navy. And I say that we have suffered very much for it. Personally, I have suffered very much, for I was treated with ignominy over my A.D.C.-ship to her Majesty, and I had my time stopped in the Soudan when no other officer had it stopped who was engaged in the campaign of war service. If the right honourable Gentleman chooses to bring these things up I can say quite as nasty things as my right honourable Friend. But it is not in my line; I prefer to be generous and chivalrous in the remarks which I make. Well, now, Mr. Lowther, there is one point upon which I wish to find fault with the action of the Leader of the House, who is not here, unfortunately. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why he has put this Vote down at this period

    867
    of the Session? I wish, also, to know why Ministers have gone about the country saying that we are going to get into a shocking mess in the near future in our foreign policy? Now, what does the British Empire depend on? Why, it depends upon the strength of our fleet, and even the honourable Member for Northampton will not deny that we keep our Empire by the strength of our fleet. Some 10 years ago I called attention to this fact. Here we have Vote 8 put with other very important Votes, with the Armaments Vote and the Ammunition Vote, all taken in one evening at the end of the Session, when the Governmnt can carry what they like, and when there is no time for the fair criticism that there should be on such an important question. Then, again, all the other Votes depend on Vote 8. The Wages Vote, the Medical Vote, and the Reserve Vote all depend on Vote 8, and here we are, at the end of the Session, asked to come and discuss this Vote, which is of so much importance to the British Empire. There is one more point. Some time ago I put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty. A Minister has always the advantage in such a case, because he can snub the questioner, and the questioner has no right to reply. In this particular instance the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty—although I do not suppose he intended it—snubbed me most severely and viciously for the question I asked as to whether the Naval Lords were satisfied with the shipbuilding programme. I knew then—and the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty must have known then, as he knows now—what Russia was doing. The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have known, as he knows now, what Russia was doing when he presented the country with £1,500,000 for squeezing water out of tobacco.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No; I did not.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: Well, I knew about it; and surely I ought not to know more than the Government. As far back as March I asked the question in
    868
    this House as to the Russian programme, and the First Lord of the Admiralty told me there were only two battleships building; then he said three; on the 12th he said there were four, and now he tells us there were six, which was my original contention.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I said at the time there might be more; but I added, that we were not going to act upon any general information until it was verified, and that we were not bound to take simply newspaper authority. From that time forth we have done all we could to verify the statement. I did not dispute the statement; I simply said that we could not act upon the information which had reached us.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: My right honourable Friend seems to think I get my information always out of the newspapers. I had actual information in this case, and my information has turned out right. That is all I want to argue. But I should like to ask why the right honourable Gentleman always refers to his naval advisers when I ask a question on naval matters?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: When did I refer you to my naval advisers?
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: On two occasions. I asked about the leave for captains and commanders, and other matters. I could give a long list.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: These were professional questions.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: I was very well snubbed then, and now it is my turn. I cannot snub Ministers when I ask a question, but I can do so now. I would remind the House that, when Admiral Sir Arthur Hood was asked before the House of Commons Committee as to the strength of the Fleet, he said that had nothing to do with the naval advisers; it was a political question. Admiral Sir Anthony Hoskins was also asked about the strength of the Fleet, and he said it was very far below what it ought to be. But if the Naval Lords called attention to that fact, it was from motives of patriotism and not of duty. These were the statements made by Admirals Hood and Hoskins, and it

    869
    was in the recollection of these words that I ventured to ask a question the other day. Whatever may have been the opinion of the naval advisers then, they have given very good advice now. But to come to the point of what my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said on March 10th. The right honourable Gentleman said then that he wished to maintain the standard. As I understand it, the standard never was that we should have an equal number of ships to two Powers combined, but that we should have a standard of five to three of two Powers combined. There is another point I should like to bring forward. Those who ask questions of the Admiralty are always told that they (the questioners) manipulate the number of ships. My complaint is that the Admiralty officials manipulate the number of ships. Take the case of the return moved for by the right honourable Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. I believe that return is useless without an analysis. Going as far back as 1888, we find this extraordinary thing—in the return of the effective fighting battleships there were two called the Lord Warden and the Repulse, and in the Navy List of that same month these two vessels were advertised as old iron—that is, they were absolutely useless, and were for sale to any blacksmith who cared to buy them. As far as manipulation goes, the credit belongs to the Front Bench. In the right honourable Baronet's return (1888) the Warrior is put down as a cruiser. But she has since been promoted, for in the Navy List of this month (1898) she is described as a first-class cruiser—that is, she is given rank with the Cressy, one of the best fighting ships in the Navy. How has she, in the years since 1889, developed from a third-class cruiser to a first-class cruiser? I confess I do not understand it. Returning now to the question of proportion, I have mentioned what I thought was necessary, and I adhere to that statement. We have to consider, not the number of ships, but what the Fleet has to do in these modern days of machinery. We ought, I maintain, to be in the position of five to three of two Powers combined. I remember the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition once making a great point of this. He said
    870
    the British men-of-war's men had deteriorated; that they used to fight in the proportion of five to three, but it was the other way about—they were three and the enemy five. No doubt; and they will very likely do the same again when they have a chance. But in these days of steam machinery we ought to be five to three, because the best captains, the best ships, the best machinery are as liable to accident as the worst. Have we got anywhere near the proportion we should have to fight our possible enemies? I do not believe we are in the position we ought to be in to be certain of success. Everything depends upon the success of the Fleet, and we ought to be in a position to be certain of success. We have to keep the sea, to go all over the world, to protect our trade and commerce. We may have to fight at sea for a long time with weary crews and officers, dark instead of bright fires; and we may be off our base when the enemy comes, with fresh crews and bright fires, which makes all the difference, and might result in something happening to the machinery, which would not put us in a position of advantage. My right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty says, "You can make most things out of numbers." Well, I have made out a list of what we shall use if, unfortunately, we should go to war with an enemy, or with two Powers, with modern-armoured ships with modern armament. It is nonsense for people to say that these vessels break down and that accidents happen—we shall win or lose with these modern ships and nothing else. I have included in my list modern ships with modern guns and armament, and have left out obsolete ships. Taking battleships first, Great Britain has 49, France and Russia 57; of armoured cruisers, Great Britain has 17, France and Russia 26—that is, building or projected—and not included in the new programme. I will read the names. The French are: 3 Jenas, 3 Charlemagnes, 1 Henri IV, 4 Carnots, 1 Jenoréguiberry, 1 Brennas, 4 Volmeys, 3 Magentas, 1 Hoche, 2 Formidables, 1 Duperré, 2 Devastations, 4 Caimans, 1 Redoubtable, 1 Furieux, total 32; the Russian list is: 7 Peresivets, 2 Tri Saints, 3 Poltavas, 2 Sissoi Velikis, 1 George Victorious, 1 Navarin, 1 Twelve Apostles, 3 Oushakous, 3 Linopes, 2

    871
    Alexander II.'s, total 25; giving a total for France and Russia of 57. Those are the ships either built or projected, and which are not included in the new programme. Now we come to the return of the right honourable Baronet. We find they have included all the obsolete armoured vessels; and even then the numbers are 105 British against 117 French and Russian. So that the real fact of the case is that in 1888 the return showed that Great Britain had 77 and France and Russia 75; and now, on their own return, we are shown to have really eight less than those two Powers. But still, after all, what I have given to the House is a definite idea; that is to say, I have taken modern ships. Now, there is the Russian programme, which my right honourable Friend has not alluded to. I hope he will give us some information about that; but, as I have it, and from a trustworthy source, the Russian programme appears to be this: it is to extend over seven years' commencing in 1898 and ending in 1904. It includes eight battleships of 12,400 tons, six armoured cruisers, 10 unarmoured cruisers, one torpedo transport, 20 torpedo destroyers, and 30 torpedo-boats. That was the programme I received from a reliable authority some time ago, and I call the attention of the Committee to the answer made when I drew attention to it some time ago. As to the French proposals for new construction, we do not know what they are; but we do know that M. Lockroy is a gentleman who has displayed considerable energy in naval defence all his life. With regard to Germany, there is a proposal for spending 20 millions in naval construction. There, again, the details are not yet out. I have brought out these points because the First Lord certainly told the Committee that we have built, are building, or have projected 41 modern ships as against France and Russia's 41. I am afraid that is hardly correct. The other day I asked that we might have a supplementary programme to begin with, followed by a business-like arrangement extending over five years, and involving an expenditure of 33 millions. The First Lord has done better than that. The only objection I have to my right honourable Friend's suggestion is that it is in
    872
    the nature of a one-year programme for new battleships and cruisers. What I should like to see is a proposal to build at least 12 10,000 ton battleships. We should put down 20 new battleships within the next five years; and I am sorry the First Lord cannot see his way to build those 12 10,000 ton ships. When we go to war the people of this country will want a large, fleet in the Channel. We shall always want the Fleet there, as there would be a panic about invasion which the soldiers would keep going. This fleet would not need to have a large coal capacity. The greater handiness and lighter draught of the smaller vessels will be an advantage, as you would not need to send them away. You do not want an enormous coal consumption, and these vessels would be able to get their coal in the Channel, and would have their base of supply in the forts. I think most men-of-warsmen will agree with me in this, that it is absolutely necessary that we should have a proper fleet of steam colliers laid down to be attached to the Fleet. The trouble with colliers in war time is enormous. On the coal supply solely depends the issue of the next fight. You cannot send fleets of colliers out to the base and back again in war time. Therefore you should have ready a fleet of steam colliers which will go 16 knots, with their derricks and other equipment, and you should make them a sort of workshop. When you have got to coal a ship you have to do it very smartly, and you must take care that these vessels are of the right measurement. Sometimes they are too long, sometimes too short, or their bulwarks are too high; and there you are, coaling for hours and hours, when you might be filling up valuable time in another way. I submit that this is a most important question. Unless you send out a fleet properly equipped you may as well send out an army without artillery and without infantry. There is no doubt that in a short time other nations will be making this provision. Well, now, as to the necessity of a five years' programme, I think it is much fairer to the armour-plate manufacturers, who will know then what their orders may be for a definite period. It will keep them employed and obviate delay, as

    873
    ever since we have had iron-armoured ships the ships have almost invariably been kept waiting for the armourer. It is also fairer to the engine and boiler-makers. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has, metaphorcially, jumped upon me before about this five years' programme; but I say that it is not only fairer to the manufacturers, but fairer to the taxpayer. Everybody knows, in regard to dockyard expenditure, that if there is any surplus there is a most eager desire to spend it. Therefore I say that a five years' programme is a more business-like proposal than the yearly programme. It would stop the repetition of such a disgraceful state of things as occurred in connection with the Majestic and the Magnificent. I have never entered into the consideration of this question as the member of a party. I have regarded it simply and solely as a national question. But I would point out that the Conservative Government went out of office leaving money enough for three ships—the Majestic, the Magnificent, and the Renown. Then the Party opposite came into power and actually put the money—my right honourable Friend will correct me if I am wrong—back into the Consolidated Fund; and the Majestic and Magnificent were not finished for two years after the stipulated time.
    SIB U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: An explanation of the case was given to the House at the time. There were two ships for which a small sum was left by our predecessors. They were not begun within the financial year, as it was thought desirable, in the interests of the country, to hurry on the ships under the Naval Defence Act, and that was done.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: I know that there was a tremendous panic in the country, and the result was that the Board of which the right honourable Baronet was a member had to build seven extra Majestics in obedience to the pressure of public opinion.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I may say that the decision arrived at by the Board was not in consequence of any
    874
    panic. It was in consequence of our own convictions of what was necessary.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: I knew that the right honourable Baronet would say that, but I am sure he will allow me to keep my own opinion. Well, Sir, I go back to the point of the armour and the five years' programme; and I ask my right honourable Friend to answer me this by and by: is it not a fact that the Formidable was laid down in January and her armour was not ordered till the following May? I am strongly of opinion that the armour of all battleships should be ordered directly the design is finished, whereas ships are generally kept waiting for their armour. I hope the miserable business of keeping a ship waiting for six months for it will never be repeated, although I know that the armour intended for another ship has not been ordered yet. There is the Goliath, which has been launched, but her armour is not ordered. There has been considerable discussion going on in the Press relative to our armoured cruisers and about the great firm of Armstrong, to whom we owe so much. I confess, in regard to the O'Higgins, that she is infinitely superior to the Cressy. With regard to the discussion that has been going on with reference to our cruisers I would compare the Cressy and the O'Higgins. I say unhesitatingly—although I confess it is a change of opinion on my part—that the Cressy is infinitely superior to the O'Higgins in regard to fighting capability per ton of displacement. As to the argument about the 8 inch gun with which the O'Higgins is armed, as being a gum between the 6 inch and the 9.2 inch quick-firing guns, my view is that the Admiralty was right to stick to the 6 inch guns and not to the 8 inch guns at all. The 8 inch gun, fired one round for every four of the 6 inch gun. The 8 inch gun weighs 17 tons and throws a shot of 210 lb., whereas the 6 inch gun weighs 7 tons and throws a shot of 100lb., amid in action what we must do is to hit the enemy as often as we can, and four rounds of 100lb. is better than one of 210lb. I have altered my opinion, I admit, but I do say that I think the quick-firing gun is as good as we can have, and I think

    875
    the Admiralty have been most wise in sticking to it. Another point about the armour. There has been a great deal of discussion in the country as to whether our ships were properly armed. I do not think they are all properly armed, because we must remember it will be no use when an officer gets alongside an enemy to say, "I have got greater coaling power and an enormous reserve of ammunition, if the enemy have more gums," if the enemy can knock him into a cocked hat before he can use his ammunition. It is, I know, a very difficult point. The Admiralty have carried out the re-arming of the Nile and Trafalgar in a very clever manner, and I hope that the Admiralty will re-arm more of our ships. Nine years ago I brought forward a Motion to the effect that a certain number of old and obsolete ships should be burned, or sunk, or sold, or in some way got rid of, because they were absolutely useless, but this House kept on giving money to make them perform duty which they were not able to do. There are eight or nine sloops and small ships of this class lying at Chatham, and there are 30 more of the same class in the other dockyards. There is no use you thinking that these ships could be put to action; every one of them has got five men on board to take care of them, and this costs a certain amount of expense. No business firm would keep such ships. I submit to my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty that he should at the earliest possible moment got rid of these vessels that are of no use, and I have some hope that he will do so. There is another point which I can bring on—I should like to speak on this Vote for six hours—will the right honourable Gentleman take into consideration the necessity of abolishing water-tight doors in our battleships and cruisers? I feel very strongly about this. I have spoken to naval architects on the subject, and I want to point out what happened at sea at peace and in war, as unforeseen contingencies, and when the unforeseen happened the doors were generally open even with the most careful captain. Now, we have the case of the Bourgogne—and if that ship had not had water-tight doors she would not have gone down to the
    876
    bottom. You go to enormous expense, you add weight to the ship, and I hope my right honourable Friend will either close a great number of these doors or leave a small bulkhead so that when a ram or torpedo comes along the first rush of water will be stopped, and the ship will not sink at once. I say the safety of the ship is far more important than the convenience of one particular department. Then there is another point that I should like to have my right honourable Friend's opinion on, with reference to the question of the Dreadnought. The Admiralty proposes to spend £40,000 on her, one of the finest ships we have, and yet to leave her with her muzzle-loading guns. That is not business-like, but it is extravagant. As long as she has got those muzzle-loading guns the enemy can hit her, but she cannot hit the enemy, which is not an advantageous position. The question of the re-arming of ships will have to come on on Vote 9, so I would not be in order in discussing that now. I do not see the honourable Member for Northampton here, but I would like to ask him, does not the British Empire depend upon the British Fleet? If so you must have a British Fleet. It has often been brought forward that we spend such a lot of money on our Fleet; well, I have worked out a little calculation for the benefit of the honourable Member for Northampton, and those who are with him in being so severe upon myself who talk about national defence. After all, the Budget for national defence is simply an insurance for the mercantile marine, on which the food supply of the people depends more than that of any other country. I find that in the new Russian programme—it is not quite fair to put that in, but still I have done it—Russia paid £15 15s. per ton on her mercantile marine; France (without her new programme), £9 7s. 11d.; the United States, £5 2s.; Germany, £2 5s. 6d.; and Great Britain, which depends absolutely on her mercantile marine, pays £1 15s. 8d. I hope the honourable Member for Northampton will take that to his constituency. In the remarks I have made to the House I do not at all wish it to be inferred that I find fault with my right honourable Friend, but I do believe the Government will find it easier to let the country see

    877
    what we have to do with regard to keeping our Navy in position. We have to compare our estimate with what others are doing. I was delighted to hear my right honourable Friend's remarks about building four new battleships and four new cruisers. Therefore so far as I am concerned I give very hearty concurrence to the right honourable Gentleman with regard to his new programme. I hope he will take up the question of the water-tight doors of the steam colliers, and of re-arming; and I say that if we go to war at this moment I believe we can hold our own certainly against two, even against three, Powers. But it is the future I fear for. We must go on with organisation, with great additions to the Fleet, for as has been amply exemplified lately by the war between America and Spain you must have absolutely good, efficient, and thorough organisation before you go to war if you think you are going to have any success after you go to war.
    SIR C. DILKE: There are only one or two points in the speech of my noble Friend which I would like to make allusion to before I turn to that of the First Lord of the Admiralty. One of them is almost the only point on which I differ from my noble Friend; and he will perhaps, excuse me for saying I intend to mention the only point in which I differ from him instead of the many points in which I agree with him, because it is a point, I think, which is worthy of the attention of the Committee and of the country generally. He concluded his speech by saying our Government had not put an undue burden upon the existence of the country, because the cost of the Navy bears a much smaller proportion to our mercantile marine than does the navy of other countries. I think the noble Lord rather plays into the hands of opponents of a strong Fleet by making use of that argument, because I confess I have always opposed that argument from whatever quarter it has come, under the belief that it is based upon a certain haziness of perception. Sir, the position of the British Empire is such that if by the maritime policy of other countries our mercantile marine were wholly to disappear, or if it were to disappear as the result of a war in which
    878
    our carrying trade passed, say, to the United States, it would be just as necessary as now for us to have a predominant Fleet. Therefore I am sorry the nobe Lord used that argument in a speech with almost every other portion of which I entirely agree. The only other remark I would make is on the subject which elicited a curious interruption from the gentleman who represents the Admiralty on our side of the House on the Front Bench, and that interruption led to a cheer. The First Lord of the Admiralty on this occasion, as on former occasions, maintained most strongly that he never acted under pressure, that he was outside pressure, and apparently also, for his language was wide enough, that pressure had no effect upon him in one sense or the other. Well, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman who represents the Admiralty on the Front Bench on this side of the House cheered that statement, and when the noble Lord questioned it in the course of his remarks the right honourable Gentleman rose on this side and made almost the same declaration as had been made on the other side by the First Lord of the Admiralty. What a comment it is on that that the First Lord of the Admiralty actually proposed a vote of censure on Lord Spencer's naval policy in this House with the view of exercising that very pressure which he says he never submits to—which the Front Bench on this side say they never submit to. It is something beyond all political conception that pressure should be brought to bear. But it is the old-fashioned view that this House represents the views of the constituencies, and that it exists very much for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear—of bringing what I may call the healthy lay criticism to bear—upon the Admiralty and the high professional advisers which the Admiralty has behind it. Now, Sir, I turn to the speech of the First Lord himself, and perhaps the Committee will forgive me for being a little disconnected in my observations, because I want to follow the points in his speech in the order in which he made them; and though when he stated the facts of his case they appeared to be thoroughly connected, yet when you come to criticise them head by head it becomes somewhat disjointed. The first

    879
    point upon which the First Lord dwelt was, of course, in connection with the last statement which he was emphasising, expanding, before he came to his new programme—the first point upon which he dealt with a certain pardonable pride was as to the delivery of cruisers in or about contract time. May I suggest that we have never had a sufficient explanation of why the contract, time in the case of our cruisers is so long as it is? They have been delivered, he is proud to say, within the contract time; but the contract time is very long. In the most recent contracts that are known to this House—the contracts for cruisers at the Clydebank and the Thames Iron Works—the time of two of the cruisers on the last programme was 33 months, and two of the other cruisers 30 months for delivery; but at the same tame both the Clydebank and Thames Iron Works were building for the Japanese Government larger vessels in contract time of 24 months. Why should we accept 33 and 30 months when 24 is insisted upon by foreign Governments for vessels building at the same yards? My point has nothing to do with strikes, because I am speaking of the last contract made—the time being unduly long. The time when we made contracts for the delivery of cruisers at the Clydebank and Thames Iron Works was for 33 and 30 months, whereas the Japanese Government made contracts with the very same firms for delivery of cruisers in 24 months. Then the First Lord spoke of the ironclads "which will be building." That phrase, I think he will admit, is a slightly loose phrase—"which will be building"—when it applies to ships which are altogether in embryo at the present time. They have laid down their ships in threes, and each three have been kept waiting till the previous three have been launched. At the present time amongst the twelve ironclads "which will be building" he counts the three ships in this year's programme not yet laid; but those ships cannot even be laid down until the three Formidables are launched, and the three Formidables have only just been laid down. I mention this because I wish once more to point out to the Committee that the Admiralty have got into the bad habit of counting the number of ships in their
    880
    programme about twelve months ahead. We count as this year's programme what is next year's, and when something like the recent strike happens practically the whole year's programme disappears. The noble Lord then stated that as regarded his previous programme, the number of first-class battleships, our strength of first-class battleships is equal to that of two Powers. He slipped in the phrase "first-class battleships." But, Sir, that, of course, excludes from comparison the armoured cruisers, which might in some cases be used as battleships, and also coast defending ships belonging to other Powers. Therefore the comparison is not one of much importance. He spoke also of the difficulties of laying down new ships caused by the armour companies in our case and in the case of other companies. I am glad to think, although no allusion was made to it in the First Lord's speech to-night, that steps have been taken, if we are to judge from the statements that have appeared in the public Press, by the Admiralty to secure a more continuous supply of armour. A great many members of the Committee have suggested from time to time that the Government should tell the armour plate manufacturers they will give them a certain amount of contract work if they will lay down sufficient plant to produce the new kinds of armour—sufficient work to justify them in laying down the plant, and I gather to-night that the newspaper statements on this subject have been true, and that the Admiralty have given those assurances to the contractors. In the course, however, of making that statement the First Lord said that we were still and always had been in a somewhat better position than other Powers in this respect, inasmuch as we had the whole of our armour manufactured in this country, and that other Powers were not in that happy position. Well, Sir, he was alluding to, he probably had in his mind, the case of Russia; but Russia is very rapidly gaining upon us in this respect, and I believe the statements in a book published this spring on the Russian Navy are accurate, namely, that Russia will soon be in a position to produce—it shows, of course, very extraordinary progress on her part—the whole of the armour she needs for this enormous

    881
    increase in her fleet. The First Lord also referred to the delivery of the four armoured cruisers, but he did not tell us what I rather hoped he would have been able to announce in his new programme to-night, that the four armoured cruisers would be hastened in construction, because under the former programme of February last those four armoured cruisers of this year's programme were not to be laid down till next year. I had hoped that we might have had, Sir, to-night some assurance of that kind, seeing what is being done abroad.
    *THE FIRST LOED OF THE ADMIRALTYmade an inaudible remark.
    SIR C. DILKE: In the course of this financial year; I am glad to hear they will be begun in the autumn. Of course, Sir, the fact is that other Powers are making very great progress with their armoured cruisers, and some of these armoured cruisers of the French that we are building ships to meet will be ready before we are. The last point of detail in the First Lord's speech to which I should like to refer before I go to the general principles of his speech concerns the question of slips for building ships. He has announced to-night that the arguments which were brought to bear in this House have been so far successful that there is to be an addition to the shipbuilding power, the power of building battleships, by one large slip being lengthened in the Pembroke Dockyard. Sir, I am greatly disappointed that the First Lord was not able to make a similar announcement at least with regard to Devonport. There can be no doubt that the fact that we can rely on only three building slips in our yards has been a source of considerable weakness to us as compared with other Powers; and even now it is only four on which we shall have to rely—a number most insufficient in my opinion in this country as compared with foreign Powers. I had hoped that he would have told us to-night that as regards that dockyard, if not as regards Chatham, he would have considered the possibility of increasing the number of slips. Now, Sir, I desire to go from the details to the principle of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman. He told us he never was able to speak with more
    882
    knowledge of the programme of other Powers than he had possessed in the spring, and he laid down the principle upon which he said successive Governments have run in this matter—that we ought to be equal in number to two other Powers, and superior in power to those Powers. But he said we must remember that our operations will be the operations of a single fleet against an allied fleet in the case of the hypothesis of war. Of course, Sir, when he says we are not paying sufficient attention to the fact he knows very well that we have always admitted that fact, that we have always admitted the great advantage to this country of that position, whether we pay sufficient attention to it and whether he exaggerates the importance of it or not. I am not inclined to deny the enormous disadvantage of carrying on single operations. But when the right honourable Gentleman says that we are equal in numbers and superior in power to other Powers, how far does that superiority of power and equality of numbers merely mean what he put in another way, when he said that our ships must be bigger than the ships of other Powers? That superiority of power I think means superiority in tonnage and in the average resources of our ironclad battleships, and the superiority possessed by this country with regard to coal. Now, what is the principle on which we ought to go with reference to the strength of the ironclad fleet of this country? That is the matter which really lies at the bottom of these Debates, and both Front Benches take what may be called a middle position between what they no doubt consider the exaggerations of myself and the exaggerations in the other direction of my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton. The latest statement we have had of the opinion of the present Government in this matter was contained in the speech of the Secretary to the Colonies in summing up the Debate on the Foreign Office Vote. He alluded to the strength of the Fleet, and the policy of the Government in regard to it was laid down as follows—
    "We ought to have power on the sea superior to any probable combination. So long as we are isolated can we say it is not probable that

    883
    we may have a combination of three Powers against us? Ought we not to have a preponderance, and so keep our Navy on a level with the two naval Powers next to ourselves?
    And then he asked us where was the object of an alliance with a military Power, and whether we should make ourselves safe against a probable combination of three Powers, which he said would add 50 per cent, to our Naval Estimates. I am prepared to deny altogether that we should add 50 per cent, or add anything to our Naval Estimates by thinking of the possibility of having three Powers against us when we are sufficiently strong, as against two. If we have a sufficient margin of strength of one kind or another, if we have a sufficient superiority of strength for real safety as against two Powers, we have, ipso facto, without any increase in our Estimates, a bare superiority as against three. That is the conclusion I wish to put before the Committee. In Europe at the present time, if we were to go to war with two Powers, we should consider the possibility of having a third Power, possibly neutral at first, also on our back. But if we provide ourselves with what ought to be a sufficient superiority as against two, we have by that very fact adequate power to meet three—that is to say, sufficient, power—not of safety, as against three, but sufficient to make three Powers pause before they combined against us. That is a matter worth taking into consideration. A sufficient margin of strength over two would make it unlikely that three Powers would combine to attack us. I am bound to say that if the policy which has been declared by successive Governments were thoroughly carried into effect, if we have sufficient strength against two to give us that real safety, which I think we do not yet possess, and which we shall not have next year, I believe we might sleep quietly at night in the belief that we had sufficient strength to make it unlikely that three Powers would attack us. The right honourable Gentleman told us to-night that he speaks now with knowledge which he did not possess in the spring. My noble Friend has referred to the curious want of knowledge which afflicted the Government at an earlier stage. On the last occasion on which the Budget was discussed in this House
    884
    the facts were exactly as they stand now, and when stated by the noble Lord in this House were not at first accepted by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right honourable Gentleman then said that Russia was building one, or at most two, ships, according to the latest information received, but that there might be more. On the 4th May he made the following statement—
    "On returning to the Admiralty I found that a dispatch had arrived which gives apparently authentic information."
    Then he went on to tell us about the Russian programme which we had read in the newspapers the previous night. I confess I had a most uneasy impression with regard to those circumstances. We have always been obliged to absolutely trust the Admiralty with regard to the position in Russia. Russia is a sealed country as regards information, and it is most difficult to get from correspondents what is passing in that country. As regards France, we know what she is doing as well as we know what we are doing ourselves, but as far as Russia is concerned, we must rely implicitly on the information communicated to us by the Admiralty, and I was a little shocked at that time that the information in the possession of the Admiralty was not in advance of that published by the newspapers. My honourable Friend the Member for Northampton has been very much attacked for what are considered his exaggerated views on one side, as I am supposed to take an exaggerated view on the other. I have stated my view quietly and calmly to the Committee. It is the view that even now we are not making, considering the nation's wealth, sufficient sacrifices for the Navy in order to have what the First Lord of the Admiralty calls a sufficient superiority. When the Leader of the Opposition was defending Lord Spencer's policy against a Vote of Censure, moved by the noble Lord, my right honourable Friend used the phrase, an "overwhelming fleet." He was speaking with regard to two Powers, because it was the policy of the Government then to build with regard to two Powers. My noble Friend referred to what he described as my return—the latest return issued by the Admiralty. At the time that Vote of Censure was

    885
    moved we had a return before the House issued on the same plan as the Return just presented. If we take the ships built, not considering hypothetical ships building, but taking only those ready for service, and compare the two Returns, we find there is a net gain over Russia of one ship. But that net gain will be lost to us within a month, and therefore, substantially, we are in exactly the same position now as regards numbers, as we were when that vote of censure was moved. Was not that pressure?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I would exercise pressure, but would not yield to it.
    SIR C. DILKE: Yes, we thoroughly understand the official view on this question; in other words, if we are strong enough to exercise pressure we can do so, but if not we can only make our protest as independent Members. I will state my position to the honourable Member for Northampton, who has just come in in the nick of time, and between whom and myself there is only this one point of difference. The position he takes up seems to me to be a very sensible position if it were not a matter of life and death to us. His position is that we cannot afford to build up to two other Powers, as they are certain to catch up to us, and that therefore we ought not to continue spending these immense sums on our fleet. The answer to that is, that for us it is a matter of life and death, and not for them. They are Powers with enormous armies; the French army is a frightful drain on France, and the Russian army is larger than the entire armies of the Triple Alliance. Those Powers with these enormous military drains upon them have not the same wealth that we have. We can continue to build if we like, the only question being whether it is necessary. And now I will make a large admission to my honourable Friend. If the pressure of taxation on the poorer classes—if the unrest of the country on this subject were to be so great that it was not possible to make those sacrifices which I for one think it necessary to make, for our very existence—I would sooner give up the whole of the expenditure on the Army than give way upon this naval programme. I believe this country is rich
    886
    enough to make those sacrifices. It is true we might have a more powerful Army at more expense, or an equal Army on a cheaper system. But, however that may be, I think we can bear the two expenses; but if we have to choose between them do not let us pinch both, but let us boldly adopt the policy of the fleet only. This matter of the fleet is vital to our position in the world. The Army is an arguable question. It is being utilised in a scheme of Imperial defence to strengthen our position, but the other question of the fleet is one of life or death. I do not know what policy the honourable Member for Northampton would adopt if he were responsible for the government of the country, but I am certain he would tell the House that he, too, adopted the policy which successive Governments have adopted. Cobden declined to take office in the Government, but although he never had the responsibility of office, he made that declaration, and I believe my honourable Friend would make it too. I have nothing more to add except to make a reservation upon the question of the finance of the present proposals. I am not as well up on that subject as many other Members of the House, and no doubt we shall hear from the front Opposition Bench how far it is constitutionally defensible, how far it is wise to continue to throw programmes a year or a year and a half ahead without considering what can be met by the expenditure of the year. My own impression is somewhat hostile to the financial scheme proposed, and I should not be surprised to hear some criticisms directed to that point.
    *ADMIRAL FIELD: There seems to me to be a general consensus of approval on both sides of the House with the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it will be equally well received in the country. I confess I am agreeably surprised at the extra proposals of the First Lord. I thank the right honourable Baronet for his speech. On these naval matters he always carries naval Members with him, and we look upon him as a valuable supporter in all naval programmes. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord made an amusing observation about not assenting to pressure. I well believe it, because he is so strong a man, and

    887
    the Navy admires him, because he does not yield to popular clamour. But, unfortunately, he was not in office when, as I thoroughly agree with my noble and gallant Friend, it was most necessary to bring pressure to bear on the Government of that time. I allude to 1884 and 1885. I venture to say, without any fear of contradiction, that if it had not been for the outside pressure brought to bear by naval men and the friends of naval men to educate public opinion and the most valuable aid of the Press we would not have had the Naval Defence Act of 1888. It must be within the recollection of many honourable Members that the First Lord of that day actually moved the reduction of the Naval Estimates by £900,000. The noble and gallant Lord was a 'member of the Admiralty at that time. I pitied him. This was not a Party question then, and it is not now, but the country was asleep. The country was to blame, for Parliament reflects the opinion of the country, and when the country is1 asleep the Government is also asleep. Outside pressure was responsible for the Naval Defence Act. The Naval Lords thought it necessary, but they cannot have their way sometimes. They have no voice in this House. I am not always in agreement with my noble and gallant Friend on some points, but I thoroughly agree with him in this matter. I think it is only fair to say that we are indebted to the noble and gallant Lord for halving obtained information from some Russian source with which he seems to have been beforehand with the Admiralty, because he tells us he had information in the early part of May. At all events, he had the information apparently in advance of the Admiralty. If so, I venture to suggest to the noble and gallant Lord that he had better become the Parliamentary representative of the Naval Intelligence Department. He would certainly do a great deal of good, but whether he would be cordially received is another matter. The noble Lord takes exception to the Admiralty not proposing a five years' programme. Well, Sir, a five years' programme has its advantages and its disadvantages, and I presume that past experience has shown that, if we can avoid it, it is better to have free hands and to be free from year
    888
    to year to adopt new improvements and designs. Why was it introduced? Because at that time we felt that we could not be certain that the Radical Party, when it succeeded us, would carry out our programme in detail. But a great change has come over public opinion, and now both Parties are agreed. Surely, under such circumstances, it is better that the hands of the Admiralty should be free, and not tied by a five years' programme. The only thing in favour of it was that we could go on spending on a continuation of policy. I agree that a change is wanted in the financial arrangements, and I wish honourable Members opposite would touch on that point. I maintain that when money voted by Parliament is not expended it ought to be retained in the hands of the Admiralty, and not paid back to the Treasury. That is where reform is needed, and if that policy were carried out I am sure the noble and gallant Lord would not care-twopence about a five years' programme. Let us do our best to press that policy on the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have felt, I think, that he was not justified in asking the House to approve of subsidising tobacco smokers to the extent of one and a quarter millions; if he still approves of that policy he is a sinner without repentance. I disapprove of it, and I ventured to utter my feeble protest against it. What is the result? The Government have now to ask for a large Supplementary Estimate, and all the time they had that one and a quarter millions. For my part, I would sooner see it paid into the Consolidated Fund, where it would have yielded us £25,000 a year. But if the policy which ought to prevail—namely, that money once voted should be retained by the Admiralty, which would be responsible for its proper expenditure, then there would be no necessity for paying the money back into the Consolidated Fund. Money voted for naval purposes should be retained until it is spent, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman opposite will press that point; it is most important. If that policy were adopted we should not want a five years' programme, but one from year to year. My noble and gallant Friend spoke a great deal about steam colliers. With great respect for his opinion I do not approve

    889
    of adding steam colliers to our fleet. We have a splendid mercantile marine, and we could have the pick of the steamers to be utilised as colliers. I think his point could be met by having one steam collier designed, if you like, by Sir William White. Others could then be built by private enterprise, and kept on hire. The Admiralty have not lost sight of this question, and it is very doubtful whether it would be wise to adopt the policy of building steam colliers in sufficient numbers to be of service in war time. Those colliers would be absolutely useless in time of peace, as we have coaling stations all over the world. In my opinion, it would be waste of funds now when money is wanted to bring the active fleet up to the point which naval officers think necessary for Imperial defence. I know it may be said that steam colliers are part of that defence, but I object to see vessels of that class built and then laid up, with their machinery disused and degenerating. I say we can get all the colliers we want from the mercantile marine. Then I must reply to my noble and gallant Friend on the question of guns, on which he will admit that even such a humble individual as myself has some knowledge. He brought forward the Dreadnought, and found fault with her 12½ inch muzzle-loading guns. I venture to tell my noble and gallant Friend that I think the Admiralty have acted wisely in not putting the country to the enormous expense of changing those armaments The 12½ inch muzzle-loading gun is 38 tons, and has a penetrating power of 14 inches in steel armour at 1,000 yards. Take the corresponding breech-loading gun. The nearest corresponding breech-loader is the 12 inch wire gun, or the gun no wired, and the one 45 tons, and the other 46 tons. Take the 46 ton gun. Its penetrating power at 1,000 yards with powder charge is 15.3 inch in steel, a difference of 1 inch, in that particular gun, and yet for tie sake of that 1 inch my honourable Friend will tell the House that these guns ought to be changed, and are useless, because they are muzzle-loaders Well, but the rapidity of fire is more or less identical. I endeavour to keep my self posted up in these matters, and I affirm that the guns the honourable and
    890
    noble Lord is raising a scare about, these heavy, muzzle-loading guns, are yet serviceable weapons, and I think the Admiralty are perfectly right in holding their hand in this matter. I was glad to hear what the First Lord told us about changing the armament of the Admiral class when they have time. To change the armaments of this class of vessel at the present time would make a very great demand on the dockyards, and would mean that our shipbuilding must be arrested. I venture to think that an 8 inch gun is very much needed. I know many clever gunnery men who earnestly desire an 8 inch gun. We always did have the 8 inch in the olden times, and did not jump from 6 inch to 10 inch.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: We want a quick-firer.
    *ADMIRAL FIELD: Yes; there is an 8 inch quick-firer now. Armstrongs have supplied it to the Japanese and other warships, but I presume that the requirements of the Admiralty are such that possibly the present quick-firing 8 inch gun does not come up to the excellence that our Naval advisers require. Only take the question of weight. The modern 6 inch quick-firing gun weighs—
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the honourable and gallant Member that the question of guns must be raised on Vote 9. I have allowed him to make some observations in reply to what has been said, because I thought it right that reply should be permitted.
    *ADMIRAL FIELD: Sir, I will wait till the gun question comes on. I will only say I am thankful to see that these powerful cruisers are to have the 9.2 gun. I think it is a great advantage and a great gain. I presume the Lords of the Admiralty will take adequate steps to get the number of men equal to the demand that will be made by these new ships. Though it does not arise upon this Vote it is a point of great importance. Unless preparations are made in time for enrolling a certain number of men, and officers are to be brought forward, we shall find ourselves on the completion of the programme in the presence of an inadequate number of men and officers to man the ships. I

    891
    think the First Lord may himself be much gratified that his proposals have been so cordially received.
    MR. W. ALLAN: I am rather afraid to-night to approach Naval matters in the guise of a critic, simply for the fact that one is apt to receive the condemnation of the Admiralty authorities for daring to criticise the Navy. Now I, for one, as a critic of the Navy, am not ashamed to sign my name to anything I write, or to give utterance to anything I think in this House or elsewhere. The Admiralty must not expect that the country is going to accept Admiralty dictum as to why a great number of ships are white elephants to us. I am going to express my opinion according to my experience, and, if possible, assist the Government in maintaining the supremacy of the Navy. Some years ago I ventured to assert in this House that the circumstances under which the Admiralty had placed these English so-called first-class cruisers would end in disaster. I am here to-night to say again the same thing, finding that I have been amply justified by the working of cruisers which have been alluded to as being the first cruisers in the world, but which have proved absolute failures. It is a well-known fact that the Powerful is a failure. The last letter I had from Chefoo gives the vessel steaming from eight to 10 knots; and whenever they attempt to go beyond that they cannot do it. Lately the First Lord of the Admiralty went to Gibraltar on the cruiser Terrible—the ship which was designed to go, and which was announced to go, 22 knots; the ship about whose great speed articles in the newspapers were written; she was the finest cruiser in, the world, and unlike anything that Russia or France could produce. The First Lord of the Admiralty went himself to Gibraltar on the Terrible, to test that ship. I am glad he did go. I am sorry he did not think at the time of giving me an invitation. I would have been only too glad to have been of a little assistance to him in determining the actual facts. There is a vessel costing £800,000, designed to go 22 knots, to indicate 25,000 horse-power. I know of no steamer ever built that has received encouragement to do her work like that ship. Yet she failed. Why?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: This trip was part of a series of trials which were to be made at 10,000 horse-power and 15,000 horse-power, but the honourable Gentleman must not assume that in going 17 knots as we did with a certain amount of horse-power she failed to give the speed for which she was designed. It did not enter into the trial at all.
    MR. ALLAN: I am rather sorry for the right honourable Gentleman. In these matters, as I said in the last discussion we had in this House, the First Lord is not a practical man, and consequently is at a disadvantage as against me. I do not want to be too hard upon him, but I want to show the exact position respecting the Terrible, and to show why cruisers which are building will be likewise failures. The Terrible went out, to Gibraltar, going 15 knots at 10,000 horse-power, and was to indicate 15,000 horse-power coming home. She went out right enough, but the moment she attempted to come back her trial was a failure. What was the cause of the failure? I will take the right honourable Gentleman's own words; he said slight defects in the engines. If there were slight defects in the engines, what is she docked for? Why were the engines glowed down?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: She was docked in order to see what the bottom was like; whether during the voyage she had a clean bottom, which of course, affects the speed and would be an element in determining the speed. That is why she was docked; not on account of injury of any kind.
    MR. ALLAN: Generally vessels are docked before they go for their runs, and not after them. But what is the cause? I want to show the Committee exactly how we stand as regards those ships that are built and others that are building. Ever since Belleville boilers were fitted it has been given out that the engines were at fault—they have never1 yet blamed the boilers. The Sharpshooter was never run at her full speed; they could not do it. The Powerful went out to China burning out her sides with coals. Take

    893
    the Terrible. What are the facts? She goes out to Gibraltar, having run at reduced power, and comes back a failure. Where is the fault? The engines again. Nothing about the boilers! Now I stand here as an engineer of far longer experience than any you have connected with the Admiralty, and I say that statement is not correct, and that it is a shame to take refuge behind two of the best engine builders in Great Britain, at Glasgow and Barrow, and say the engines were at fault. It was nothing of the kind. It was the priming of the boilers, and not the cylinders of the engines, that caused the trouble. I say we are concealing the thing. We are not facing the difficulty. That is the exact position you are in at this moment with these boilers, and you see the results in the Terrible. We had the First Lord, at the Mansion House the other day, saying in his speech—
    "nor do I propose to discuss a subject of which my mind is very full, namely, boilers."
    What has filled the right honourable Gentleman's mind with boilers? Has he received evidence that the boilers in these splendid ships for which we are voting money are failures? Take the case of the Diadem. I saw her; she is a1 well-built, fine-looking vessel; but were I to tell the Committee of the condition of the men standing over the fires, where the heat renders the furnace doors red-hot, no one would deny that that is not a ship to fight in war time. You have picked coal, picked men. You cannot burn ordinary coal with these water-tube boilers; that is the reason why you burn Welsh coals, and no other reason. Why were ships designed in that way? Why are they made that way? Why are they not made so that they can burn any kind of coal? Look at what the Americans are doing. I have two nephews with them, and know the facts. They have steam up all day, and day after day, and the moment the enemy come out of port they knock them to bits. Can you do that with our cruisers? You cannot do it. I want really, in the most friendly manner possible, to show the position to the right honourable Gentleman. I am not differing with him about the quantity and number of ships.
    894
    The father of all our engineering, James Watts, had a maxim as follows:—
    "In all things, and preferably in mechanism, the supreme excellency is simplicity."
    Now, I am going to ask the attention of the Committee to certain facts. If that maxim is sound, I ask the right honourable Gentleman why he allowed the officials at the Admiralty to pass away from it and make our fighting ships as complex as possible? I will take what I consider to be the best battleship in the British Navy, and will contrast her with the Terrible. I will take the Jupiter—one of the finest battleships in the world, no one will deny. The Jupiter has eight boilers which employ eight sets of boiler mountings. Now the Terrible has 48 boilers, which employ 48 sets of particular mountings for 25,000 horse-power. The Terrible has absolutely six times the number of boiler mountings for twice the power, and the automatic mountings of the Terrible are of such a delicate mature that the moment the automatic fixed spindle sticks your boiler is gone—the water is out of the boiler at once. This is not a jocular matter. I say that there you have the Jupiter, that magnificent ship, with only eight sets of mountings, and the Terrible with 48 sets of mountings; and besides that, these Belleville boilers you are fitting require special forms of machinery and delicate mechanism, the derangement of which would be disastrous to the vessel and to the whole fleet. What is the position today with our ships? It is this. In the Jupiter you have a vessel of 14,900 tons displacement against the Terrible's 14,200 tons. Now, with 12,500 horse power she goes 18.4 knots. What does that mean? Here is a huge vessel of rather larger displacement than the Terrible, which goes 18.4 knots; and with 10,000 horse-power goes 15.8 knots, and only burns 1½lb. of coal per indicated unit of horse-power per hour. What is the case with the Terrible? The Terrible has 48 boilers. She went out, I believe, with something like 10,000 horse-power, and she went about 16 knots. On the way home, when she attempted to go 19 knots, she failed miserably. Compare that with the Jupiter fitted with ordinary boilers. I confess on that I

    895
    would like to know why it is that our Admiralty officials are pursuing this policy, which is practically ruining our fleet? I do not hesitate about it. You have never yet proved your position before the country, before this House, or satisfied a single disinterested engineer that the Belleville boilers you are putting into these vessels will satisfactorly do their work. I say distinctly that they cannot. Why bind the country to this policy? It is practically that. There is not a single vessel you have sent to sea that has had a fair and honest trial like our merchant ships. What is the use of four hours' or eight hours' trials? You are still in the region of experiment with your great vessels; noble ships with fine guns and fine men, but when you go down to the stoke-hole you cannot satisfy engineers—a disinterested engineer would not be satisfied until he has proved a thing to be correct. We are not going to vote millions here for experiments. You have gone on experimenting with cruisers and battleships, and dare not take full speed out of them when yon want to. I defy all criticism on the ground that I take. I say distinctly, as I have said it for four years, that you have never proved your position, that these boilers are satisfactory. There is not a single disinterested engineer in the country who will say it has been done. Take the case of what the right honourable Gentleman said about the new cruisers to go 23 knots. We have heard of that before. They will never go 23 knots, nor will you ever get your 30,000 horse-power. I tell you you will not get a 40 hours' run. What is the use of coming to this House and saying you can build ships to do this and that, when it cannot be done? I have been told over and over again, "Oh, the French and Russians are doing this and that!" Is that a reason why we should make our ships useless? Well, let us see what the Russians are doing. I have some data which I think will interest the Committee. Take the case of the Brennos. I will just refer the right honourable Gentleman to the engineer's report on these boilers in the ss. Brennos, and if you do not get a thorough condemnation of the boilers there in that Report I am disappointed. This is a vessel with 32 Belleville boilers. Here is what is
    896
    wrong about her. One of the foremost engineering papers of the day in England says:—
    "Lime was put in the boilers to prevent loosening of the tubes made in the Belleville boilers. This lime found its way to the pistons, so that the rings were entirely ruined."
    When there is trouble at the outset there will be trouble to the finish. I will come to the Hoche, a French ship. Here is the case of the Hoche: I quote from the Times—
    "The recent accident to the battleship Hoche will, it has now been found, necessitate two months' repairs, and 200 men are at work on them. The Hoche will be reduced to the second class; her boilers will be taken out, and different boilers put in."
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Are they water-tube boilers?
    MR. ALLAN: I believe they are—yes.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: You are sure of that?
    MR. ALLAN: Yes, they are water-tube boilers. The water-tube boiler is, after all, only an apparatus for heating conservatories. It is not a boiler at all, simply from the fact that it has no combustion chambers to consume the gas given off by the coals. It is merely a heating apparatus. I question if the Belleville boiler is a valid patent, for one or two arrangements of the kind have been in use before; but the patent has been good enough to draw money out of John Bull's pocket. I do not object to the right honourable Gentleman putting down these big and splendid ships. I give him every support. He knows my sentiments well enough upon the necessity of a strong Navy. What I say is this—I am sorry to have to say it again—I protest against these boilers, untried, experimental boilers, still being put into Her Majesty's ships. I protest against our passing money here to do such things; and I would suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that he should appoint a committee of disinterested engine builders, men who are not doing Government work, place a boat in their hands, and let them use that boat under the ordinary conditions of warfare; give it ordinary coals and ordinary

    897
    men, and then you can get data that will either justify the action of these officials or condemn them for all time as the greatest experimentalists and the greatest failures that ever disgraced the annals of our engineering. I believe in a strong Navy. I say again in this House, with all sincerity, that you are not building an effective Navy, but you are building a huge failure.
    SIR A. FORWOOD: I desire to second the appeal of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Gateshead, that before we commit ourselves further in this matter, which appears to me to resolve itself into a mass of experiments, the nation should have one of these vessels fitted with these water-tube boilers properly tried; that she should be subjected to a proper sea-going trial under normal conditions. I know that it is not a pleasant thing to have, year after year, to raise a subject like this, but upon the condition of the machinery and of the boilers with which these ships are fitted depends, more than upon any other circumstance connected with them, the efficacy of these ships in time of war. Five years ago the Admiralty committed itself to a very great experiment, when the Powerful and the Terrible were fitted with no less than 48 elements for generating steam. A protest was lodged against this experiment being entered into without a trial being made, and it was pointed out then that several ships in the mercantile marine had used these boilers, and that was considered sufficient trial for their adoption in these two great vessels. Now, from that day to this the only sea-going trials that we have had are in the case of the Powerful and the Terrible, although since then we have had some 50 ships fitted with these boilers, and to-day we are promised some eight or 10 more vessels fitted with boilers of the same type. We have had now a sea-going trial with one of them. The Powerful proceeds to China—I may say that my information is wholly derived from the public Press, and from what has been stated in this House upon this subject—and upon the only day that she was pressed, upon the quarterly trial day, when she had to make a speed of 15 or 16 knots an hour, she broke down, and
    898
    had to jog along to Hong-kong as best she could. The next ship we hear of is the Terrible. She goes for a sea-going trial, and we have glowing accounts of 20 or 30 hours with picked coal, with picked men, and everything else. She is sent to Gibraltar, and precisely the same defects arise in her case as arose in the case of the Powerful—precisely the same so far as I have to deal with the matter; she broke down when pressed to make 17 knots, and she goes into the dockyard, and she is in the hands of the dockyard people at the present time. Now, one of the reasons why these boilers were recommended to us was that they would stow lower down in the ship, and thus would not be so exposed to the effect of shot or shell. So terrible was the heat in which the men who had to tend them had to live that some means had to be provided in order to minimise its effect, and the very fact of keeping the boilers below the water line was found impracticable by reason of the great heat which, was given off by them. It has been urged in this House over and over again that vessels fitted with these boilers should make a sea-going trial under normal conditions; let them make a voyage to Rio or to Halifax, or to wherever you like, but let it be a seagoing trial instead of the 30 hours' trial which is given, and let us have the right to that trial which we have been denied ever since this matter has been raised in this House. As one who has had to do with steamers for 30 years, I say that no trial of 20 or 30 hours or so can give one any satisfactory result, so far as regards the machinery or boilers with which the vessel is fitted; and when the life of the nation depends upon its fleet and upon the 50 or 60 vessels which we are now building, then surely the least thing we can ask from the Admiralty is that they should have a sea going trial, not with picked coal, picked men, picked officers, and picked everything else, but under normal conditions, and then, if she proves to be a vessel with machinery and boilers such as we desire, nobody would be better pleased than I should, because it could be no longer regarded then as doubtful or experimental. One more word upon this matter, and I have done. These boilers were put into the ship Diadem on the

    899
    ground that they were a quick raiser of steam, and were very economical. All the evidence of economy that we have had is the cost of the boilers in a vessel of 10,000 horse-power; the little saving of weight of these boilers would in the mercantile navy be eaten up in one day. The question of saving of weight is at once dispelled when you place it in contrast with the increased consumption of coal. There is another illustration which I should like to give to this House with regard to these boilers. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Hull I see is in his place. Now, I well remember when it was suggested in this House that there ought to be a proper sea-going trial when the Powerful and the Terrible were built and fitted with these boilers before we committed ourselves to this matter. The honourable Member for Hull said "You may be quite satisfied I have put into my ship, the Ohio, these boilers." I believe the experiment of putting these boilers into the Ohio has been a very costly one to the honourable Member, because I have heard that he has had to take out the Belleville boilers and to put in other cylindric engines. Now, I would like just to express my own satisfaction with the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in connection with the new shipbuilding programme. The right honourable Gentleman has been criticised by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean for not having brought this statement in at an earlier period of the Session, and deferring the consideration of this Vote until this time. For my part, I think the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty is perfectly justified in the course which he has pursued, and that it was far better for him to have an opportunity of seeing what is being done elsewhere before he brought before this House the programme he has laid down. I am glad to see the class of vessels which he proposes to build. I am one of those who have more confidence in the large type of vessels, whether they be battleships or cruisers, than in the small class. I think it is a mistake to reduce our battleships to below 15,000 tons; that having regard to the necessity of a coal supply, we should, as far as possible,
    900
    avoid the use of colliers by the ships carrying as much in their own bottoms as they possibly can. That leads me, Mr. Lowther, to make one observation upon the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for York in reference to colliers. As I understand the noble Lord, he suggested that the Admiralty should build so many colliers of a particular pattern, because of the inconvenience of coaling a war vessel under present conditions; but if they do the war vessels would get their cargo of coal under the same conditions as if they obtained it from a mercantile collier. They would still have to go inside the port alongside the war vessel, and there is such a variety of types of our war vessels that it is perfectly obvious that it would be almost impossible for the Admiralty to provide colliers to suit each of Her Majesty's ships. I quite agree with the honourable Member for Eastbourne that you will get all the coal that you require at the time the necessity arises, and that you had better spend your money in building war vessels than vessels of the collier class. May I say just one word as to water-tight doors? I do not know how the noble Lord proposes to get the coal to the fires if he had no water-tight doors, although I quite agree it would be better to do away with water-tight doors and to make transverse bulkheads between hold and hold; and I quite agree with all that he has said about watertight doors depending upon someone having the presence of mind being upon the spot ready to shut them in the time of emergency. I think they are a danger to the ship in the holds lower down. I rose mainly to emphasise the necessity of the Admiralty acceding to the proposal of the honourable Member for Gateshead for a proper sea-going trial of one of the large vessels fitted with Belleville boilers, which I hope will set at rest a controversy which has now lasted for five years, and which does disturb our minds.
    MR. C. H. WILSON: Mr. Lowther, as I have been referred to by the honourable Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, perhaps it is only right and proper that I should tell the House my own experiences with regard to matters of this kind. When I spoke

    901
    about boilers in this House, and the whole system of cylindrical boilers and water-tube boilers, I did not especially mention the Belleville boiler. It is only right that I should give my own experience. We were approached by Messrs. Maudsley, the eminent firm of engineers, to try one of the Belleville boilers, and we fitted one of them into one of our steamers, the Ohio, That steamer had made several voyages, and the result was not satisfactory, and we have taken those boilers out and put back the old circular boilers, and the result as compared with the Belleville boilers is very satisfactory. They go at a greater speed, with a less consumption of coal and with less difficulty in working the boiler. That is as far as it goes, and, as the honourable Baronet very truly remarked, it has been a very costly experiment. But the honourable Gentleman knows that, unless we make experiments in the mercantile marine, we are very likely to be left in the background, and being in charge of a large fleet, we must run some risk. Upon the other hand, we have adopted another water-tube boiler, not one with a French name or one which is a French patent, and one of the ships fitted with the boiler has been running for five years. She has been running just the same as the rest of the fleet, with neither hand-picked coal nor picked stokers, nor anything of that sort, and she has done her work as well as the others, and, upon the whole, the result has been very satisfactory. We have followed that up in the present year by fitting up three steamers with the same boilers, and as we go on we find, as the Admiralty must and will find, that there are difficulties in the way of working high pressure steam, to give economy. It is likely to affect the working of the engines and the pistons, but if the engineers cannot get over that difficulty I shall feel a very great disappointment. I have no doubt whatever but what my honourable Friend on my left will get over the difficulty. It is the chief difficulty that we find in the working of the water-tube boilers, and no doubt they have very great advantages over the other boilers. Steam can be got up in a comparatively short space of time. If in getting up steam in the ordinary circular boiler you do it too quickly you do it with great risk to the boiler; you
    902
    can do it in a greater time, but the great thing about these water-tube boilers is that if they break away they are easy to get repaired, so much so that if it were not for the trade union rules the engineers themselves would do every repair that is necessary. That is the experience of my firm with regard to water-tube boilers; the first one was the Belleville boiler, which was fitted by Messrs. Maudsley, but it is not fair to take that as an example; we are now using the other boilers with satisfactory results. Going a little further, I may say that I cannot agree with the noble Lord the Member for York that it is to the advantage of the Admiralty to go to the expense of building colliers. I think the mercantile marine is quite competent to stand any strain in that direction, and I think it would be a useless and unnecessary expense. I should like to go a little further, and say, after having been in this House 25 years, I have gone through a great many of these discussions, and through a great many scares with regard to our Navy, and I think perhaps the noble Lord will remember that in 1885 we had one of those scares—at that time he was in the House. I made it my business then to take a contrary view to the view taken by this side of the House, and I then expressed this as being my opinion, that the only result of scares in this country would be to cause a corresponding effect in other countries, and in the result, as we now see, whatever we do only increases the desire of our competitors to do also; and my own opinion of the whole matter is that there is a very great waste of money in labour and other expenses in this country, and also, as a result of our example, of course, in the two countries with whom we are supposed for some reason or other, at some time or other, to be going to war. I think that the Members on this side of the House are rather too reticent in speaking out as they ought to do. For my own part, I am not an admirer of the Jingo spirit, but what usually takes hold of the minds of honourable Members on both sides of the House is the fact that the more money that the Government wish to expend upon naval armaments the more money goes into the pockets of the working classes in the end, and that,

    903
    consequently, the reason that we had in former days for retrenchment in our financial matters has, to a great extent, disappeared, and for many reasons it is not altogether wise, considering the great responsibilities we have in many other ways.
    *MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: As regards all questions of practical engineering, perhaps none are more accurately informed than my honourable Friend the Member for Gateshead, but the illustration upon which my honourable Friend relied this afternoon was not quite accurate. The illustration which he relied on was that the Terrible, coming home from Gibraltar, broke down in her boilers. Now, in common with many honourable Members of this House, I enjoyed a visit, at the invitation of the noble Lord the Member for York, to Portsmouth. While there I took an opportunity of making an examination on board the Terrible while she was in dock for the purpose of ascertaining what had been the cause of her unfortunate and most regrettable breakdown, and I found that the cause was absolutely and entirely confined to the engine. What really did happen was this: a valve admitting steam to the engine from the boiler had become deranged by the fracture of one of its parts, a derangement which, in my experience, has happened in the mercantile marine on several occasions, the result being in every case the same as that of the Terrible, and what had to be done in those ships in the mercantile marine was that the engines had to be slowed down. I merely state that fact as a tribute of justice to the Admiralty. I, as a Member of this House, with some practical knowledge, bear testimony to the fact in order that it shall not be said that any attack upon the Admiralty was founded on such inaccurate statements as those put forward to the Committee this afternoon. I could not help regarding as a most important speech, full of example to the Admiralty, that which this discussion elicited from the honourable Gentleman the Member for Hull. The honourable Gentleman has been exceedingly candid; he has admitted that the water-tube boilers in one of his
    904
    own steamers have been such an utter failure that after practical experience of them and testing them he took them out of his vessel and replaced them by others of the old type. I would certainly suggest that the action of the honourable Member for Hull formed an example of the most emphatic kind for the right honourable Gentleman and the Department which he administers. What are the facts of the case? The facts are these: first of all you have the adoption of a new type of water-tube boiler, and the sending of the boiler to sea under complete sea-going conditions. Then you have the discovery of defects in the type of boiler, and, finally, its being removed from the ship, which in substitution received boilers of the old type. Now, that is practically what the right honourable Baronet has urged in his speech, and that is precisely the policy which has been urged over and over again ad nauseam against the Admiralty until I, for one, am almost ashamed to repeat the suggestion. The policy which they are pursuing is a policy of experiment and danger. It is absolutely necessary that ships should be built, and if they are fitted with boilers so experimental as they are, then it should be seen that they were sufficiently good for the purpose; yet, in spite of the facilities and the opportunities which lay at their hands, the Admiralty has accepted these boilers, and has not taken advantage of testing them under proper sea-going conditions.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I sent the Powerful to China.
    *MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Yes, but under what conditions? Was the captain of that ship told to go on at full speed, was he told to go under the same conditions as if there had been a declaration of war? If the vessel went out under the conditions of stress and emergency, it would have been representative of the conditions in time of war, and then I am completely answered. But, Sir, my position, and the position of other men having some knowledge of the subject, is this, that these boilers, new

    905
    in design, have never been fully tested by long voyages at sea under conditions of extreme development of power which would test them. I am not an advocate of any particular type of boiler. All I desire to see—as I am sure the right honourable Gentleman desires to see—is that the vessels for Her Majesty's Fleet, on which the life of this country must depend, shall be of the very best possible design, and the best capability of endurance. I do not desire in any sense to attack the Administration over which the right honourable Gentleman presides with such remarkable ability, and to the satisfaction of the whole House. It is the duty of the Admiralty to test fully and thoroughly, on the ground of endurance, this novel type of steam generator, before they admit the policy of fitting it on every new vessel.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty will perhaps be glad to hear that, unlike most of the speakers who have addressed the Committee, I am not going to lecture him, or to tender him advice about the boilers, or armaments, or guns, or anything else connected with this business, because I really know nothing about that. For my part, I believe that if we are to have a Navy, and to build a larger number of ships, the best thing we can do is to leave it to the Admiralty. Last February we were told that we were to spend in the next three years £7,000,000 sterling on the Navy. I shuddered then; but I thanked my God that it was not more. What do I find? Only a few months have passed and the right honourable Gentleman comes to the House and says that £7,000,000 is not enough, that he is going to add an additional £8,000,000, making in all £15,000,000 to be spent during the next three years. And what reason does the right honourable Gentleman give for this enormous extra expenditure? He tells us that Russia has built a certain number of ships. Now, Russia is a vast, wealthy country, and Russia may legitimately have a reasonable Navy. Russia has got at present, comparatively speaking, a very small Navy. But even when Russia does build these new ships Russia will not have a Navy to compare in any way with ours. Why are we to be frightened out of our wits because it is
    906
    the intention of Russia to build new ships, because Russia may be allied with some other Power against us? The right honourable Gentleman seems to think that the supposition that we should be equal to two Powers is a sort of divine ordinance come down from heaven. Why are we to do this? Will he tell me, why not three Powers? I have frequently asked this of the House before. I cannot see why it is necessary that our Navy should be on an equality with two Powers, and why, if we are to take that position, we should not assert that it should be on an equality with three Powers. It is practically to say that if any three Powers joined in a war against us we would be absolutely alone. Supposing we were at war with France, and say, Russia, our fate is absolutely in the hands of Germany. Why are we to build ships at the present moment? Has France increased her Navy? Why has Russia increased her Navy? It is because we ourselves commenced this game of bluff and beggar my neighbour. We have colonies, very extensive and wealthy colonies, no doubt, but they have few of our Imperial responsibilities, and do not take any share in the burden of defending them. The only thing we have had was when the Cape Government came forward and promised to build an ironclad. We have heard a great deal of that proposed ironclad, but I do not believe we shall get out of the Cape Government even a torpedo destroyer, or a torpedo boat. Other countries have colonies, and I can easily understand that they object to this dream of ours to have universal empire over the seas, because that puts their colonies and their commerce entirely at our mercy. Their colonies and their commerce may not be so important as ours; but still, whether it be as important, or whether it be less important, they are interested in their commerce, which has taken a great development of late years; they are interested in colonial expansion, and they do not like the idea of their being dependent upon our goodwill. In fact, they build ships because we have built ships; and so long as we build ships they will build ships against us. We know perfectly well what happened in the time of Napoleon. Napoleon wanted to have universal empire, and it produced a combination against him and his desire and intention to have

    907
    universal empire. It is just as injurious to the welfare of the world that there should be an absolute and supreme mastery over the sea by one Power, as it was to have absolute mastery over the land. Therefore the whole tendency of what we do is to unite these Powers against us. We are told that it is desirable to have an ally on whom you can depend. The First Lord of the Admiralty is a practical man, a business man, and I want him or somebody else on that bench—I see there is the Solicitor General, and he looks like a practical man—to tell me how all this is to end. For my own part I think that the two Powers will soon become three Powers. I believe that this programme we are entering into at present, will lead to either France or Germany or Russia building more ships, and that the final result will be that there will be greater navies, and that our comparative strength will remain much the same. Those experienced gentlemen know what they mean by being able to cope with three Powers. The First Lord of the Admiralty said we ought to be on an equality with two Powers. My honourable Friend here thought we ought to be able to cope with two or three, and the noble Lord opposite thought we ought to be equal to five; but if you are going to satisfy all these navy leagues, and all these Service Committees that are in this House, all you do is to encourage them to ask for more. They are never satisfied. They go about the country saying that the Ministry is not to be supported because they will not build more ironclads. They go about the country and simply judge the Government of the day according to the number of ironclads they build. What they say is this, "you ought to support us because we have built more ships than our predecessors." We used to look at foreign nations and compare them with ourselves, and say, "Thank God we are not like them. They spend vast sums of money, and they must be bankrupt if they continue to spend at this rate." Now, we ourselves spend vast sums of money. My right honourable Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean asked me what I should do if I were the Government. I do not think I am likely to be the Government; but if I were the Govern-
    908
    ment I will tell my right honourable Friend what I should do. I should bear in mind that in the year 1850 we spent £10,000,000 upon the Army and Navy. That was a peace expenditure. At present we spend £45,000,000 upon these two services. Now, what I should do would be this. I would send for my First Lord of the Admiralty and for my Secretary of State for War, and I would say, "We did the thing very well then; we spent £10,000,000 a year in 1850. I will admit that we have made a little progress since; I will admit that it is more difficult to defend the Empire now than it was then. Yet I will do the thing handsomely. You shall have £20,000,000 a year, and not a shilling more." And if the First Lord of the Admiralty asked for one shilling more he would not get it. We must look facts in the face; we must cut our coat according to our cloth. What has taken place during the last two or three years? My right honourable Friend the Member for Monmouthshire increased the revenue of the country enormously by the imposition of the Death Duties, and the present Ministry has inherited that. The revenue, luckily for them, has expanded since they were in office. What benefit have we got from it? Nothing. A few doles have been given. Practically the whole thing has been thrown into the vortex of naval and military expenditure. They have done more than that. They have arrested the Sinking Fund. Instead of paying off our debts, as we used to do, we are devoting the whole of the money for the purpose of these armaments. I am in hopes that they have got to the end of their tether. I do not believe that they can go on with this ridiculous expense very much longer without imposing new taxes; and I will tell you that if they impose new taxes for armaments, whether it be for the Army or for the Navy, the whole of the Jingoism of this country will vanish into thin air. When I think of the £20,000,000 which I should like to expend, if I were the First Lord of the Treasury, upon home matters, it really makes my mouth water. Just look at the old age pensions. It is pretty well admitted that one of the reasons why the Government is in power is because they ran about the country saying that poor people would get pen-

    909
    sions in their old age. The First Lord of the Treasury said that he would explain at some other time how they were going to do it. You cannot eat your cake and have it; you cannot spend your money and have enough for a system of old age pensions. The other day the Vice-President of the Council pointed out that we were positively starving education in this country. Why, Sir, we shall starve all domestic matters of this kind so long as we continue in this wild, profligate, and reckless expenditure on armaments. The peculiarity of this expenditure is this. Someone suggested that it was rather a good thing in the interests of poor men that we should spend money on naval armaments, because that would give extra wages. If you spend money in a remunerative manner, it should breed more wealth. Take your £15,000,000. How much do those ships cost? £1,500,000 per annum. Honourable Gentlemen forget that the expenditure does not begin and end with the ships of war which you build. A ship of war requires £100,000 per annum; and therefore the proposals of the right honourable Gentleman are not only expensive in themselves, but they mean a further expenditure of £1,500,000 per annum. There is another point to consider. Ships get out of date in about 10 years. The honourable Member for York proposes that the greater part of our ships should be burnt, and that we should build new ones. The noble Lord expresses a sensible view. It is true that there is no use in having a quantity of those rotten old ships, which required to be renewed every 10 years. Therefore this £15,000,000 will in 10 years disappear, and we shall be called upon to spend more to maintain our Navy. I am one of those who do not believe in a war expenditure in time of peace, and I have a high authority for that. Sir Robert Peel exposed this delusion, and Mr. Gladstone followed in the steps of Sir Robert Peel. Yet we are told that everybody is a traitor who will not accept this notion. You have the First Lord of the Admiralty abused if he does not build this number of new ships; he is abused by his own followers, and he is abused by the Liberals. I should like to stiffen up the First Lord of the Admiralty; I should like him to be able to resist. I think
    910
    on this side of the House we ought to declare that we are opposed to this enormous expenditure. I perfectly understand what all this vast expenditure on armament means. It means that you want to stem the advance of Liberalism in this country. [Laughter.] The right honourable Gentleman laughs. Surely he has to a certain extent read history. This game has been played again and again in the world; whenever there has been any attempt to advance, the ruling Powers have distracted the attention of the country by going into a foreign war. I regard these Jingoes as utter cowards. They go about the world swaggering and bragging, and then they get so afraid of what will be the consequence that they rush away and urge upon the country to spend its money in further defence. Now, the First Lord has said that they do not quite know whether the money will be spent before next year—at any rate, he is not absolutely certain how much will be spent. Well, under those circumstances, what do you do? Do you put down a Vote for £100, on which the principle is raised? It has been done in regard to Dover Harbour; it has been done in regard to a foreign embassy; and I cannot understand why the First Lord did not come down and propose an additional Estimate of £100, in order that the House might have an opportunity of expressing its views on this programme. But he has gone further. He has told us that it is very possible that he will spend some money on this programme before Parliament meets again. Now, I can understand a certain expenditure, if he considers it is absolutely necessary for the nation when Parliament is not sitting; but he deliberately, while Parliament is sitting, and the Navy Estimates are before the House, comes down here, and says, "I am not going to propose an Estimate for money that I very possibly shall spend." I presume he is going to ask us to vote it as a sort of indemnity to him in the next Session. This is the most deliberate and outrageous attack upon the control that Parliament exercises, or rather, ought to exercise, upon the Executive, that I have ever heard of. Sir, I should not have expressed my views on the subject, because I have expressed them so often before, if the First Lord had proposed a

    911
    Vote. I do not know what the views of other honourable Gentlemen may be, but I do not intend that it shall be stated that the programme of the First Lord was assented to without any dissent.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I desire to say a word or two with reference to the extraordinary financial course which the right honourable Gentleman has pursued in this matter. He has had the ambition in former years to reverse the whole of the financial policy of the country with reference to the Navy. He invented that extraordinary system called the Imperial and Naval Defence Plan, which brought the Admiralty into a state of confusion. Since that time, we have been succeeded by another Administration, and they have pursued the ancient, well established, finance system of this country, and have not gone back to those extraordinary and embarrassing finesses in which the right honourable Gentleman was in the habit of indulging. But a system has been introduced to the House of Commons to-night which, in my experience, I never heard of before, except in time of actual war. The Government come forward in the early part of the year, and tell the country that what is wanted for its defence is a sum of £7,000,000; but, in addition to that, on what information we have not been told, upon a mere surmise that some country or other is going to build some vessels, the right honourable Gentleman comes forward with a demand towards the end of the Session, and, as if we were actually at war, for £8,000,000 more. Such a thing has never been heard of before in the financial administration of this country. What is the defence? The noble Lord opposite [Lord Charles Beresford] tells us that Russia is advancing, but the First Lord says, "Oh, no, not at all; we do not think that your information is true." But the Committee are not informed whether the Government know about this advance in shipbuilding or not. The regular financial system would be, if the Government are going to make an Estimate for a large increase in the Navy, to tell the House of Commons what is the ground of their belief, and on what they act, what are the ships
    912
    they are going to build, and what is the defence to this extraordinary proceeding? It is said that they do not know what ships they are going to build. Why? Because they do not know exactly what sort of ships Russia is going to build, and, therefore, in this hurry and haste at the end of the Session, without any information as to what they are going to build against, the Government come forward with this flaming programme, and have no Estimate to submit on the subject because they have not made up their minds what they are going to build. That is the method of administering the finances of the Navy of which there is no example. We ought to be in a position to deal with the £8,000,000, but we are not in a position to decide with reference to this matter until the Government have made up their minds, in the course of six or eight months, whether they will bring forward their Supplementary Estimate at the beginning of next year. That will be the time when we shall have to judge of this programme, or of its justification in the character of the ships, and in the character of the Russian ships, of which it is perfectly obvious that they know nothing at all. It is a sort of hasty, inconsiderate rush for which they denied, until the last few weeks, the necessity altogether. Something has been said about pressure. I remember perfectly well, after the Administration came in, that for two successive years the noble Lord, now Secretary of State for India, declared that the British Navy was absolutely adequate for all that was wanted, but on account of the activity of the noble Lord opposite [Lord C. Beresford], the whole of that attitude was changed, and then was produced the wonderful scheme of the Naval Defence Fund.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIAdissented.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, the noble Lord need not shake his head. It is within my recollection, and, I believe, within the recollection of the majority of the Committee. Well, what is the meaning of this stupendous haste in introducing this programme? Will the right honourable Gentleman deny that in this country we can build ships at least 12 months quicker than the Russians can, or that any country can? Will anyone

    913
    deny that proposition? Why, in accepting the rumour or suggestion that the Russians are going to build some more ships, do you not wait until the Russians build?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: We know what they are going to do.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Give me the date when you knew.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The information has not come in suddenly in one dispatch. It had to be collected with great care and after considerable trouble; but it is obvious that I cannot state all the sources of my information. It has come by degrees, but I know the class of ship, and the general dimensions, which is going to be built. With reference to the time, I will deal with that in my general reply.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: You cannot wait until you know. I understand now from the right honourable Gentleman that he knows the class of ship.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Naturally, the Russian Government does not communicate its plans to us.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: If you know, what is the reason that you have not made up your mind to build the ships you think desirable to meet the Russian programme? Well, Sir, I must say that a proceeding more extraordinary than that of these progressive dispatches, to induce the Government to double its expenditure on the Navy, and bring forward, at the end of the Session, not an Estimate, but what I may call a flaming programme, which no one understands, I have not heard; it is the most irregular financial operation of which I have had any knowledge. The present Government are apparently in the enjoyment of such a number of millions that it seems to be a matter of little moment what they do with them. That is not a safe policy. You have had an immense revenue for three years. Do not be certain that you will have it for ever, and do not play ducks and drakes with £8,000,000, without some more solid
    914
    foundation to go upon. There has been nothing so irregular, nothing so insufficient, so baseless, as the grounds put forward by the right honourable Gentleman for this demand for £8,000,000, which he does not even ask for.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: We cannot spend all the money at once.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: If you know what Russia is going to do, why not make up your mind what you should do, and spend in time? The Government ought to have some respect for the fundamental principles on which the finances of this country have been dealt with for generations. To invent these new methods of dealing with the taxation of the people is, in my opinion, utterly unsafe. I have been present in the House for the last few weeks, and I anticipated that the right honourable Gentleman was going to produce a Supplementary Estimate. I have been asking day after day whether that Supplementary Estimate would be laid before us before we came to discuss the regular Estimates; but I did not expect this hugger-mugger, haphazard method of dealing with this extra £8,000,000, apart from the ordinary forms which attend the finances of this country. I think that is an extremely unfortunate, and likely to be a very dangerous, proceeding. It is quite plain that we cannot deal with this question until that Supplementary Estimate is produced before us. The proper time to consider the question is when the Government have made up their minds what they are going to do. I do not observe the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, but I did observe, when somebody said, "when you gave this remission of taxation in your Budget you must have known of this extra expenditure," the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a very indignant air, replied, "I did not know anything about it." What a condition your finance is in! You are giving away taxation to a very large amount when you are on the brink of bringing forward a Supplemental Estimate to the amount of £8,000,000. What is going to be the financial condition of this country next Spring, when this Supplemental Estimate is going to be brought

    915
    forward, and you have parted with your surplus, and with your taxation? I do not pretend to prophesy what will happen; all I can say is that if I were in the situation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I should be extremely uncomfortable. All I can say with reference to this proceeding is that it is a proceeding absolutely inconsistent with all principles of English finance to which I have always been accustomed, and which I shall always endeavour to maintain.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval,
    *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I have listened, as I always do, with a great deal of attention to the speech which we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, and I have heard the indignation expressed against the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the question which we are now discussing. When I heard that indignation, and listened to that speech, I was forcibly reminded of an incident which occurred when the right honourable Gentleman was the Leader of the House. It will be within the recollection of the House that the right honourable Gentleman made a statement upon one occasion in which he stated that the Navy was ample for the needs of this country. Well, we all know what happened. We know that he very soon after had to withdraw that statement, and he had to climb down from the untenable position which he took up, and he displayed remarkable agility in so doing. Now, I am not one of those who share the alarmist views which have been expressed both inside and outside of this House with regard to the Navy. I quite admit, and everyone who studies the question must admit, that this is a matter for urgent watchfulness on the part of the Admiralty to keep up the present state of efficiency to enable our Navy to cope with any possible combination against us, and I am quite certain that the assistants which the Admiralty Board have under them have most ably devoted their whole attention to the needs of the Navy. The honourable Member for Hull spoke about bringing forward this programme in a panic. I, Sir, quite share his disapproval of any panic programme. The honourable Member for Hull went on to
    916
    say that the effect of increasing our Navy only produces a corresponding activity in other countries to increase their navies. Well, Sir, that remark reminded me of a story that was told of Dean Swift. On one occasion he was travelling in Ireland, and after he had started on his journey he found his servant, who rode behind him, had not cleaned his boots. The Dean inquired the reason of this neglect. The servant replied, "It is no use cleaning your boots here; they will only get dirty again." The Dean accepted this excuse, and they arrived at an hotel for dinner. The Dean had his dinner, and took good care that the servant had none. The servant reminded him of this omission, when the Dean replied, "What is the use of giving you any dinner? You will only get hungry again." Now that is precisely the argument of the honourable Member for Hull, who would not bring the Navy up to the needs of the present day because it would entail further expenditure in other countries. What we have to consider is, what we have to do in view of the vast interests which we have at stake, and we have always to keep up our Navy to the requirements of the nation. As regards the figures which he brought forward respecting the number of our ships, I may point out that figures can be made to prove anything. I have gone carefully into the Reports and Returns moved for by the honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and I am bound to say that I believe our Fleet is up to the requirements, and fully able to cope with any probable combination of ships that are likely to be brought against us; and as regards the future programme, which has just been propounded by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that will keep the Navy in a very high state of efficiency, which I consider is our only safeguard. Several honourable Members have spoken about our Fleet generally, and a certain number of critics have urged that in respect of battleships we are deficient, and they assert that a combination of the French and Russian navies would be too powerful for us. Well, they can only arrive at that conclusion by crediting our foreign rivals with all the ships on their list, whether obsolete

    917
    or not; and, moreover, there is this very important point also, that they have to credit them with their coast defence ships as sea-going battleships, and it is only by that means that even in figures they can be put on anything approaching the level or the strength of our Navy. Those defence ships are useful enough from the point of view of the country which possesses them, but they would be very little use to us, because they could not keep the sea, and therefore they could not be used as a means of attack. But there is another point which I think has not been touched upon by any honourable Member who has yet spoken. In fast cruisers, the "eyes of a fleet," we have a strength of 95 cruisers as against 33 possessed by the two nations which I have just mentioned. When you have a sufficient number of fast cruisers attached to a fleet you enormously increase the power of that fleet to strike a blow where it is most needed, and I think that that face ought not to be lost sight of in any calculations or comparisons as to our relative strength. Our building programme, I believe, will put us upon a very satisfactory footing in the future. Undoubtedly activity was necessary in this department. We know that the Admiralty and the advisers of the Admiralty are carefully watching what takes place abroad, so as to adapt our future programme to the needs of the country. A great deal has been said about the advantages of the Naval Defence Act, but I think the plan of building ships from year to year is much better, and for this reason. I think it is absolutely necessary to lay down and complete ships as fast as they can be completed, and to endeavour to improve on each succeeding ship as far as you can. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know why the country was not informed, and why the House was not told exactly what ships were to be built under this new programme. Well, Sir, I am not in the secrets of the Admiralty, but I can well understand the reasons. It takes time to design a ship, for every single detail has to be worked out, and the weights and proportions have to be calculated most accurately, for if there is one thing more certain than another in naval architecture it is this: that if you try to make any
    918
    alterations in a ship after it has been once commenced building, you will inevitably make her a failure; and for that reason I can well understand that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in a position to state exactly the details of the ships which he proposes to lay down. Now, as regards our war strength, compared with other nations, I will take our fleets in commission in various parts of the nation. Take, firstly, the Channel Squadron: it comprises eight battleships, which are far superior to the ships of any other fleet in the world. You have this enormous advantage: that they are of the same speed, turn in the same circle, and are exactly alike, and can manœuvre to a very much greater nicety than the ships composing any other fleet in the world. That, I contend, is an enormous advantage. Now, I do not desire to take up the time of the Committee unduly, but I wish to make a few remarks with regard to the interest taken by the outside public generally in the state of our naval defences. I think, Sir, that it is a very healthy sign that the naval defences should be carefully watched by the public, and that the public should be educated to see and know the needs of a strong Navy for a country like Great Britain. We know that it has been repeated over and over again that our food supplies upon which our very existence depends, are dependent upon our command of the sea; and that fact cannot be too often brought home to the British public. But sometimes we are apt to go a little too far. Some of the critics argue as if the Admiralty and their naval advisers were ignorant of this fact, or had their eyes shut to it. But what is the state of the case? Why, at the present time, the officers of the Admiralty who are performing the duties of professional advisers to the Admiralty are second to none in our service as regards the reputation which they bear. They are well known, both from the position they occupy in naval circles and the high reputation which they possess, and they are well qualified and capable of expressing a perfectly independent opinion in naval matters, and I am sure that none of them would modify their views with the idea of pleasing the powers that be. I believe they are absolutely independent, and I know they would not modify a

    919
    single opinion, in order to curry favour with their superiors. During the last few years a great change has taken place in the relationship between the Admiralty and the officers under their command. I can remember a time when the Admiralty was looked upon with disfavour; but that is far from being the case now. I can speak with certainty on this matter, because I know for a fact that the officers throughout the Service look upon the Admiralty as their friends. That is important, because, in time of war these are the men who have to command the ships; and they have every confidence that if more ships are required and applied for this House would provide readily whatever may be necessary, if we should happen to be engaged in hostilities. Before I sit down I should like to call attention to what appears to me to be the only lesson that can be learned from the disastrous war that is now going on between Spain and America, and that is the absolute necessity of having the internal fittings of our ships made with non-inflammable material. We know that Admiral Cervera's fleet was destroyed by the explosion of shells between decks, and I do trust that the Admiralty will take this matter into consideration, and see if there is any means to be found of preventing what would cause such a frightful disaster in the event of our being engaged in war, as that which has befallen the Spanish fleet. There is another point: that of the torpedo tubes, which are in some ships above the water line. I hope steps will be taken to guard against what might prove most disastrous, especially in our cruisers, if the torpedo room were struck by a shell. With these few remarks I will conclude; and I desire to congratulate the Admiralty on the programme they have laid down, which I trust will be soon carried to a completion.
    SIR E. GOURLEY: I think that the question which the country has a right to ask the Government is this: what is the cause of this sudden demand for this increase in our Navy? My answer to that is this: in my opinion it is the outcome of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to China. The Members of Her Majesty's Government invited the Russian Government to take an ice-free port in a corner
    920
    of China, and Russia took advantage of that invitation. There was an outcry in this country, on the part of the Jingoes in the House, and the Jingoes outside of the House, and unfortunately the Government yielded to the pressure brought to bear upon them, with regard to this country. And what was the consequence? Why, we were conceded Wei-hai-Wei. But, whilst the Jingoes raised an outcry against Russia, we did nothing whatever with regard to the policy pursued by Germany. Germany, in my opinion, caused Russia to take possession of Port Arthur and Talienwan earlier than she would have done, and we, above all others, disclaimed any intention of seizing Chinese territory as a menace against Russia. Now, we have the answer on the part of Russia, for she proposes—in consequence I hold, of our policy—to build six large ironclads, as well as a large number of cruisers. The Government, scared by this action on the part of Russia, now come down to the House of Commons and ask us to agree to an additional programme to that which we sanctioned in the early part of the Session. I am bound to say that if it be the intention of Russia to increase her Navy in consequence of our policy and our menace, we are bound, also, unfortunately to follow suit; but I object to the programme with regard to these huge ironclads, and I always have objected to them. These huge vessels have been condemned by experience. It is perfectly true that you can get them much steadier in the case of the larger vessels, but that is quite possible with smaller ironclads. Now, our most recent experience with regard to the utility of these large vessels is that of the Victoria. We all know what happened to the Victoria when she was rammed by the Camperdown. We all know that if the weather had been unfavourable, and the sea, instead of being calm, had been rough, not only should we have lost the Victoria, but in all probability we should have lost the Camperdown also, because the ram of the Camperdown was totally incapable of bearing the weight of the Victoria on the ram. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty stated this evening that the object which he had in view—at least I understood him to say so—was that in building these vessels his object was to

    921
    protect our trade routes. Now, it is all very well to talk about protecting our trade routes; but if you are to build a navy merely for the purpose of scattering your ships here and there all over the world, you are not protecting your trade routes at all by building these large ironclads; and I agree with what was advanced by the noble Lord to-night when he stated that he would have liked to have seen a programme comprising something like 10 or 12 smaller ironclads, so that we should have been better able to concentrate our strength in protecting our trade routes. In the event of war, say with France, the main object of the Admiralty must inevitably be—and I say this in accordance with the common-sense view—to protect the ports of the United Kingdom, for, once we lose command of our ports, then, I say, our case is hopeless. I hold that the best thing you can do will be to have swift cruisers to send out along some of our trade routes to meet other cruisers. The main object in all constructions for the Navy ought to be that of concentration. Now, I would like to say one word with regard to the torpedoes. I think some of our torpedoes are extremely unsafe, in fact, they are nothing more nor less than cockle-shells. What happened the other day? Why, an ordinary yacht, manned by volunteers, beat in these torpedo-catchers so much that they were obliged to run ashore in order to avoid it. I look upon these vessels as utterly useless. This much, Sir, with regard to the policy of the Government. Now, I would like to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to a matter to which I have called attention before, and that is the subsidising of our merchant cruisers. I have a notice on the Paper to move the reduction of the Vote by the whole amount of the sum voted for Hong Kong in connection with our cruisers. What I want to ascertain as regards the policy of the Government is this—whether the fittings of these vessels are periodically examined? In the first instance only eight of these vessels were subsidised, but now we have considerably more in addition. Now, may I ask, are these vessels properly fitted with supports on the poop forecastle and are the deck arrangements suitable for the purpose of receiving guns?
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): Yes; that is so.
    SIR E. GOURLEY: Well, I think they are very small guns. I also wish to know if these vessels have ever been examined is to their fitness since they were first subsidised, and are they in a position to be placed in action at a moment's notice? Under the present arrangement it comes to this, that the owners were to have these vessels manned by Reserve men; and I will ask a question with regard to these Naval Reserve men. Are these vessels now carrying, in accordance with he original arrangement, the number of Reserve men specified in the contract? But, Sir, I hold that the money spent in subsidising these vessels is wasted. What night to be done is this—if these vessels are to be of any use, then the Naval Reserve ought to be employed on them. But in all probability they will be manned carelessly and indifferently, and men will be put on them who have never been educated either with regard to the ship or the guns. Well, Sir, I hope that, with regard to subsidising these vessels, either the subsidy will cease or else the system should be made a reality instead of being, as it is at present, a mere sham.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: My right honourable Friend has touched upon a rather large question, and I shall not follow him on that subject, nor shall I follow him on the question of subsidising. Sir, my noble and gallant Friend the Member for York agreeably surprised me and much astonished me when at the end of his speech he told the Committee that he was satisfied with the present condition of the Navy, and that he considered that it was quite equal to undertaking all he duties which it might be called upon to perform. I was agreeably surprised at this announcement, because I thought hat my noble and gallant Friend had rather taken the view for some time that the Navy was considerably below the standard at which it ought to be in order o carry out its duties. Insomuch as my noble and gallant Friend is one of the leading critics of the Admiralty, and my right honourable Friend the member for he Forest of Dean is another leading critic, and that even the right honourable

    923
    Baronet in the course of his speech did not deny that the Navy as at present constituted and the ships built and now ready for sea and afloat were equal to the task they might be called upon to perform, I think we may consider the question is simplified very much by the statements of these two gentlemen, and we may now confine ourselves to the future construction and to what the Navy will be in future years. To my mind this is a marvellous change of opinion from what we have been told for some little time, when my noble Friend and others have seemed to me to tell the country that the Navy was not up to the standard.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: I referred to the future.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: No doubt that is what he conveyed to my mind. Now, the question is very much simplified, and we have only got to consider what the Navy is to be. That is, of course, a much more different and simpler problem than that of considering all the parts of the Navy of the present day. One criticism I have to make on the subject of my noble and gallant Friend's remarks. I do not think that it is quite fair, in the comparison that he makes of our ships with the ships of other countries, to eliminate from consideration altogether those older ships which are only carrying muzzle-loading guns. I want to put it in this way: when he considers these ships with muzzle-loading guns he contrasts them with the ships of that date. I do not think, Mr. Lowther, that you will rule me out of order, although I admit that the Debate has been allowed to stray a little wide. I think, perhaps, you will allow me to criticise my noble and gallant Friend's comparison. If you contrast these muzzle-loading guns, which the First Lord of the Admiralty does not wish to alter, and remember their velocity, you will find that they are about the same. and as to accuracy of aim, they are able to hit the object, and in this respect they are almost equal to breech-loading guns; and I think my noble and gallant Friend, when he considers this more fully, will not ask the Admiralty to cast aside all those ships, because that is a demand
    924
    which, if satisfied, would be somewhat unfair to our existing Fleet, and would be getting rid of ships which would do, I suspect, very valuable service if they were called upon at the present time to fight. Now, Sir, there are other questions. There is the state of our shipbuilding at present, and there are a good many other interesting problems. I rather think that my right honourable Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out that we were more or less in a state of 'transformation in the Navy. That is quite true, and I think it is probably more true now than it has ever been at any time during the last few years. It is especially true now on account of the enormous improvements that have been made in our armour. I do not think I am going outside the mark when I say that within the last five years the resistance of armour to penetration has been increased by something like, at least 30 per cent. The Committee will see at once the extraordinary effect which that has had upon shipbuilding at present. What it means is that it is possible now to place armour over the sides of our cruisers, because the armour is sufficiently light for that purpose, being so much thinner and lighter than it was six or seven years ago. This, of course, is an extremely important question which has been under discussion in this House over and over again, years and years ago, and it is whether we are right in being satisfied with merely having our cruisers protected below deck, or whether we should apply armour to them in order to shield them from the extraordinary danger of explosive shells. I do not think that we can over-estimate the danger and the possibility of danger to the crews of our ships from the bursting of shells amongst them on board. I do not mean only in the loss of life and the number that may be killed or maimed, but also in the danger that is possible of the panic that may be caused by seeing an enormous number of men swept away by one shell. The explosives which are now used are, of course, much more powerful, so that the question whether or not we ought to be satisfied with the cruisers being protected first below water, or whether they ought to have armour, if it is possible to protect them, is one of the highest and utmost importance. Now, the Admiralty have

    925
    recognised this in the large cruisers which they have recently built. My right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty stated earlier in the Session that he proposed to use a new armour to cover the cruisers with, and I think he said it would be about five inches thick. It is an extremely interesting question whether this very important protection can be given to the smaller cruisers. It is a matter which I should think that no man would be ready to express an opinion very hostile to, especially anybody who is not an expert in these matters. Now, to what extent this protection can be given I am not able to say. My right honourable Friend when he speaks later on may be able to tell us whether it is possible, while preserving the other good qualities and powers, to give them the protection of this new armour to protect them against the possibility of shells bursting amongst them, Where that is possible in smaller ships. Perhaps my right honourable Friend will be able to tell us. One other opinion I have formed on good authority is this, that the new armour now being used cannot be made in thicknesses of less than about five inches. I understand that that is the case.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Hear, hear!
    COMMANDER BETHELL: Then my right honourable Friend confirms what I say. Of course that fact is not only an interesting problem in itself, but it leads one to this question: if the armour at present used can be made with an enormous resisting power in thicknesses of five or six inches, in all human probability the progress of science in the course of a comparatively short time may make it quite possible that that same armour may be made in thicknesses of two, three, or four inches. Supposing it be true that you can get this armour with its great resisting power in much thinner layers than it has hitherto been made, it is quite possible you may be able to cover the second-class cruisers with this new armour, and if that is so there will be another great change in our naval construction which will entail considerable expenditure upon this country. That is to say that persons engaged in the naval service, like my noble Friend, will
    926
    probably, if they find that this change can be carried out, come here and say that we have arrived at a time when the second-class cruisers, which hitherto you have been unable to protect against these shells, which may not only maim and kill, but also produce panics, which are almost as destructive to victory as anything that could happen. If it is possible that these cruisers may now be covered with this new armour, for goodness sake set to work to see if you cannot give us some vessels which will save us from the possibility of this great danger. It is this—ought we not to be careful not to build too largely; not to build more than our strict requirements demand; ought we not to rely upon the fact, which I believe to be true, that we have an enormous capacity for building vessels with great rapidity. May it not be that we are wise after all only to bring the Fleet up to that point of absolute necessity, till we see what the future developments may be? The question of whether cruisers should be armoured, or whether we shall be satisfied with the protection they have now, is one of extraordinary importance. It is one upon which I am unable to form an opinion, but I presume it occupies the attention of the Admiralty and their able architects, but do not let us rush too hastily or too madly into a great programme, which, however desirable in itself, may, perhaps, prove in certain respects a mistake. With regard to the programme disclosed to the House this evening by my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, I have not, and I do not think any one in the House has, sufficient knowledge to examine point by point the relative strength of those vessels which are projected by Her Majesty's Government, and by foreign countries. There are too many circumstances likely to intervene between the projection of these vessels and their completion to give an opinion of any value; but, at least, we may say that, so far as we do know, the ships ordered earlier in the Session will have the enormous advantage of being armed with guns of much higher muzzle velocity than any other guns in the service, they will be protected by armour of a resisting capacity 30 or 40 per cent, greater than that of any other ships building, they

    927
    will have very great coaling capacity, and are likely to have very great speed. There is a point in the speech of my noble and gallant Friend the honourable Member for York with which I am in hearty agreement. It is a question I have brought before the Admiralty for many years and to which my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty told me last year the Admiralty had given great consideration and had finally decided that it would not be a benefit to the service. My noble Friend the Member for York suggested what, I think, is required in our service, a larger number of small vessels. That is a change, or rather reaction, to an older description of vessel, which would be very desirable. I have usually given, for this change, very much the same reason as my noble Friend the honourable Member for York gave to-day. Seven or eight years ago the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when we were talking about naval Strategy, said—
    "You may talk about naval strategy as much as you like, and you may take the Fleet from the Channel and put it in some port of observation where the ships of the enemy are, but you will not convince the people of this country that the Channel should be left bare of ships."
    I have always thought that was a sound argument, and, in order that the Channel should not be left clear of ships, it seems to me that we might construct a smaller size of vessel, fulfilling all the purposes of battleships, except that they would not have the same radius of action or the same speed. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty told me last year that this question had been discussed over and over again at the Admiralty, and that he and the naval advisers had come to the conclusion that that policy was a bad policy, and one which the Admiralty of the day declined to institute. But I cannot say that my opinion on the subject has very much changed. It seems to me that the advantages to be derived are considerable, although, of course, I recognise fully the disadvantages, and that in smaller armoured vessels you cannot have all the qualities you want in a first-class battleship. The question is whether you cannot get sufficient for the purpose. I
    928
    indicated when I ventured to quote what the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said some years ago. There is another observation of a general character which I desire to make. In this discussion to-night comparisons have been made between the Fleets of various countries. Formerly the differences were great, but now they have largely disappeared, and for this reason: that within the last seven or eight years discussions between naval architects of different countries, and the exchange of thoughts and ideas, has had the effect of approximating the description of vessels that are being built by different countries. Some years ago a ship built by France would be different in all sorts of ways from a ship built in this country; now they may be constructed practically on an equality; there is no substantial difference. That is a not unimportant point for consideration. The honourable and gallant Member for York remarked to-night that it was all very well to say that our cruisers are better, can go farther, and carry more coal and amunition, but he asked what is the good of that if foreign cruisers have more gun power? Of course, if you take a statement like that and detach it from everything else, it carries weight. But you must not detach it from everything else. A hostile ship is subject to the same conditions, and, allowing for the doctrine of chances, it would be folly to adopt the plan of sacrificing so much to armament that we should not have sufficient coal and ammunition to carry out our duties. Upon this Vote I should like to end my speech as I began it. In my judgment we may be satisfied that our Fleet at present is equal to all that is demanded of it. Twelve years ago it was no doubt necessary to rouse the country to the necessity of strengthening the Navy. Where I differ from my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for York is that it has always seemed to me that the Admiralty of the day, whatever Government was in power, have loyally pursued the policy then laid down, and that no outside pressure has been necessary to induce them to continue that policy, and keep the Fleets up to the standard. I think it may fairly be said that in the 12 years that have elapsed since then every Admiralty, without pressure

    929
    from outside, has loyally considered what was essential for our safety, and, I think, has amply taken steps to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the country. It is ray firm belief that any Admiralty that comes into power, any Government that comes into power for years to come will feel the influence of that time, and will not hesitate to continue and keep up the standard of the Fleet, which is considered to be at least equal to those of the two Powers we have so constantly heard of.
    MR. KEARLEY: We have learned something from the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the expenditure of money upon the Fleet, but we are altogether in the dark with regard to the details. We have not been given the slightest idea what these ships are to be like or where they are to be built.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have said that the vessels of the Formidable class were to be built at Chatham, and the cruisers at Portsmouth.
    MR. KEARLEY: I wish to point out that during the past year the facilities for shipbuilding have been greatly increased at Devonport by extending the slip. I may also point out the equal advantages which would come to other Government yards at very small outlay if the existing slips were made available for larger vessels. It was only last year that Devonport was able to build a first-class battleship—the one that was recently launched—and at the present time the slips can be converted and enlarged so that Devonport, which a few years ago had not facilities for building one battleship can be improved at a small expense so as to build three. If we are going to expand the Navy largely, the Government, in view of the difficulties in private yards, owing to the strike or lockout, should rather strive to make their own yards as independent as it is possible to make them. There are certain things that cannot be made in Government yards, such as armour plates, but there is other work What justly belongs to the Government, and if some consideration
    930
    is given to it, nothing but good will result. I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any inquiries have been carried on lately in Government yards with regard to increased facilities. I have heard that inquiries have been made, not only at Devonport, but at Portsmouth, and I shall be glad if the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will give us a little information on that point. There is only one other question I wish to raise, and that is in relation to a matter discussed by the honourable Member for York as to the necessity of building steam colliers for the Fleet. There is, however, a question more important than that, and that is as to whether the home ports are able to cope with the requirements of the Fleet in the matter of coaling. Last year a competition in coaling took place at Portsmouth, and it was demonstrated that if four more ships had come in next day it would have been impossible to coal them without serious delay. I maintain that there should be at places like Portsmouth an equipment of barges, so that as they come in the ships of the Fleet can be coaled straight away. I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the first Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the inadequate provision of coaling boats and barges at Portsmouth. I am told that the number will be largely increased and that instead of 10 barges there will be 40. It appears to me to be rattier important that the coaling facilities should be adequate and the suggestion of the honourable Member for York that steam colliers should accompany the Fleet is also important.
    *MR. MACARTNEY: The question raised by the honourable Member for Devonport as to the coaling facilities at Portsmouth and other ports is now being considered by the Admiralty. The attention of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has been called to the facilities that now exist and to the arrangements that may be made in the future for improving them. The honourable Member is probably aware that there will be a coaling depôt at Devonport in

    931
    connection with the extension there. The question of increased building facilities at Devonport was also raised by the honourable Member for the Forest of Dean, and so was the question of enlarging the slips, so as to permit of a battleship being put on it. These questions are now under the consideration of the Admiralty, and the general question as to enlarging the building facilities at the various dockyards is also being considered with a view to extension. My honourable Friend the Member for Ormskirk was hardly accurate in stating that economisers on the Diadem were above the water line; they are under the protective deck. The honourable Member also said that in his view the saving which was gained by the use of water - tube boilers was balanced by increased consumption. That is a view which the Admiralty cannot accept. The recent trials of the Diadem have shown that these boilers are as economical, more economical in fact, than the old type of boilers under similar conditions. The Diadem is to make a series of trials of 60 hours at various powers, and the honourable Member for Ormskirk and the honourable Member for Devonport, and other honourable Members who take an interest in this question, will have an opportunity of forming a more mature judgment than is now possible upon the qualities of the ships that are supplied with this particular type of boiler. Every endeavour will be made to make these trials as effective as possible for testing the capacities of these boilers and the merits of the ships so boilered. Sixty hours is a considerable extension of trials on Her Majesty's ships, and we believe that the ships of war of no other nation Slave been subjected to such a test. I think those Members of the Committee who are familiar with the subject will admit the value of the test. The honourable Member for York asked why the Return of the Fleets laid before the House was not accompanied by an analysis. I am bound to say that I think the Admiralty would have been peculiarly indiscreet if they had presented an analysis of that return. I myself have seen no less than three analyses of the return published in various newspapers, and each taking
    932
    different views of the comparative merits of the Fleets of this country and of other nations. I think the honourable Member for York will agree with me that it is quite possible to prepare an analysis upon different premises which would secure different conclusions, and it would be equally possible for himself or any other expert in the House to say that such analysis was misleading and inaccurate. On the whole the course taken by the Admiralty in presenting the Return without any observations was the wisest and fairest to the House and to the nation. The honourable Member for York has asked a question as to the establishment of a collier fleet. That is a question to be considered by the Admiralty. On the first blush it is a question that presents many advantages, but on the whole, when it is examined closely, there tare so many disadvantages connected with it that I think the view which now obtains at the Admiralty is a sound one. At all events until the idea is supported by much stronger evidence in favour of it than any yet presented to us, it is impossible for the Admiralty to take any active steps in regard to it. The honourable Member for York also asked as to the abolition of the water-tight doors. I believe that on the occasion when the question was brought before the naval architects the honourable Member found it hard to get anyone to agree with him.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: They all agreed with me.
    *MR. MACARTNEY: I carried away the impression that my noble Friend was alone in his views. However, we invited the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Squadron, and the commanders on other stations, and only one naval officer suggested any alteration in the present system.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: There are two or three points, which have not been alluded to by previous speakers, and which I should like to bring before the observation of the House. First of all, I do not think the Committee should pass from the Contract Vote without something more being said about the remarkable deficiency which has been revealed by the statement of

    933
    the First Lord of the Admiralty in the results of last year. I do not wish to renew old controversies, but I say that this deficiency of £2,250,000 is directly attributable—to use a neutral term—to what I shall call the dispute in the engineering trade. I have pressed, from time to time, for a declaration from the Admiralty as to how they have dealt with that dispute in the light of the strike clause in the Admiralty contract, and the answer I had from the Secretary to the Admiralty leaves no doubt in my mind that on the facts submitted to them the Admiralty held that the dispute was a strike within the meaning of the strike clause, entitling the contractors to a remission of the strike penalty. That I understand to be the position of the Admiralty. I am not going to refer to the interests of the strike—the interests of the masters or the interests of the men—I propose merely to call the attention of the Committee to the duty of the Admiralty, as the guardian of the Navy, in such cases. With the utmost respect for the opinions of the officials of the Admiralty, and those who advise them, I cannot come to the conclusion that they have acted rightly in this matter. What was the dispute—which is sometimes called a strike, and sometimes a lockout? It was the dismissal, the wholesale dismissal, of men by contractors to the Admiralty, upon no question connected with wages, but solely on the ground that certain things had taken place in other contractors' yards, and, in consequence of those things happening, those contractors to the Admiralty declared that 25 per cent, of their men should go at the end of the week. I shall not trouble the House again with the history of this strike. I am convinced that this successive dismissal of men, without reference to wages, or anything else, was not a strike within the meaning of the strike clause. My view is that what happened here was entirely different, and that this wholesale, unconditional dismissal of men by instalments does not come within the four quarters of the strike clause. That, however, is not so much what I wish to enlarge upon as the duty of the Admiralty in matters of this kind. What is the duty of the Admiralty? I say their first duty was to the Navy, and, that being ad-
    934
    mitted, it Was not right for them to postpone a decision until the other day, when the completion of the contracts took place. If I were dealing with a matter of this kind, holding the views I do, as to the rights and wrongs of the controversy, I should be inclined to say that the proper course was for the Admiralty to tell the contractors, from the beginning of the dispute, that they intended to insist upon their rights, and that, without interfering either on the side of the masters or on the side of the men, they would see that their contracts were completed, and should use all their rights to enforce the terms of the contract. But another answer has been given on this point before the Committee on Public Accounts to the effect that the penalty clauses in the Admiralty contracts are never enforced. I have not got the exact words of the communication to the Public Accounts Committee, but it so minimised the penalty clause that I understand the Privy Council declared it left the clause almost worthless, and might as well be struck out of the Admiralty contracts altogether. That is not a satisfactory position in which to find ourselves placed, and I cannot part with the subject without saying that I have not been satisfied with the answers I have received from the Admiralty; nor am I satisfied that they have duly considered the question from the point of view of the interests committed to their charge. Well, Sir, I should not be in order in alluding to the great deficiency in reference to naval works; but I think that I might be pardoned if I renewed the complaint which I made at an earlier period of the Session, that the right honourable Gentleman, in insisting upon taking the Vote upon his own salary, has deprived us of making criticisms which we otherwise should have made. That is all I have to say about contract work. Well, now, Sir, the next point which I wish to allude to for a few minutes is one which has been discussed at considerable length, but I am sure the right honourable Gentleman will not say at too great a length, in this House; and it is the new programme which he has to-night submitted to the House. On the merits of that programme I am disposed to agree with the views of the right honourable

    935
    Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I am certainly not going to say on the merits of the proposal, or the necessity of it, that I am prepared to vote against it, or in any way oppose the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. That is far from being my view of the matter in anything I have done in opposition, and I have always given my fullest and warmest support to the proposals of the right honourable Gentleman and the Admiralty, which he represents; but while reserving all our rights on this question, one cannot help seeing that the position is becoming more and more formidable, and the prospect more serious for the nation. Now, what have we had to-night? Why, practically a new Vote 8, a new proposal, a new programme, which has been made necessary, we are told, by a development which is about to take place, or which has begun, in a foreign country, and he named Russia. The right honourable Gentleman may be right in the frankness with which he has named that country, but I think it is about the first time that such frankness has been manifested. In former days we concealed the name in reference to the actual country whose action made it necessary to increase our naval programme. I am not finding fault with the right honourable Gentleman, and I am only calling attention to this fact. Now that we all know whose action it is that has made this increase of expenditure necessary on our part, the question becomes more formidable still. Russia is not the only country we have got whose actions we have to take into account; in fact, I do not know that France and Russia are the only two countries which we have to take into account. This new programme, it is said, has been rendered necessary by the action of Russia, and it leaves out of the question altogether the possibility of similar proceedings on the part of France. In the fascinating speech with which the noble and gallant Member for York delighted the House at an earlier period of the evening he gave utterance to one remark, in which he spoke of the ephemeral character of the French Government. Well, I am not inclined to lay much stress upon that argument. I think, however, he will agree with me in this: that the large addition to our Navy, which the action of
    936
    Russia has necessitated, may be followed by another large addition necessitated by an increase of the Navy in France.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: Certainly.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: Well, I say that the prospect is becoming more and more formidable, and it is opening up before us a prospect which will lead me into regions which are not relevant to the technique of the present moment. They depend upon matters different to ships, for they depend upon high matters of foreign policy, which it is not permissible for me further to allude to here; but within a year—within two years—bearing in mind that the cost of this little fleet, and the little fleet that preceded it, and the little fleet that will follow it, it will by no means represent the whole cost. Bearing in mind that all the other ships imply a permanent expenditure in men and victualling, and everything else, I look forward, within a year or two years, to Naval Estimates amounting to £25,000,000 per annum, not including the naval works and other national charges; and I think we are face to face with a naval Vote of something like £30,000,000. Now, that is a sum which I never anticipated would be reached, although I am not going to say that I should oppose it, but that is a prospect which is well worthy of consideration, and it is a prospect which ought to have some weight in influencing and shaping the foreign policy of whatever Government is in charge of the destinies of this country. That is the second observation I desired to make. The third point upon which I wish to touch is the financial procedure which the right honourable Gentleman has thought fit to adopt on this occasion. Now, Sir, he is a great financial authority, and I should be disposed to listen with a great deal of respect to anything he said as a financial critic; but as a financial administrator I cannot help remembering that the ingenuity of the right honourable Gentleman in another office has not tended to the clearness of our financial position. When the right honourable Gentleman was the Chancellor of the Exchequer he introduced novelties which have been an embarrassment to us from that day to this, and it has led to great consequences

    937
    which I should be out of order in referring to now, the last of which was the Local Taxation Vote, which is, I may say, an indirect result of the right honourable Gentleman's financial devices in another office. Therefore the right honourable Gentleman's financial history makes me disposed to distrust any new departure which he may introduce in the office which he now holds, and with the best information at my command I can only say that he is introducing upon this occasion a new departure. Last year I think he went further. He introduced last year a Supplementary Estimate, just about this time—I think on the 27th of July—after his original Vote 8 had been proposed, and I think carried, but I am not quite sure about that; at all events, many months after the deliberate statement to the House that Vote 8, which was submitted, would be sufficient for the necessities of the case. He came down in the month of July with a Supplementary Estimate, based, as now, upon allegations as to what was being done in other parts of the world. Sir, I do not like, and I have never reconciled myself to, this procedure which was adopted last year. I share the distrust of Supplementary Estimates in general, which a, greater financial authority than either of us expressed on more than one occasion. Perhaps the House will permit me to read the evidence given by Mr. Gladstone before the Public Accounts Committee; he said—
    "Though plausible in theory, in practice nothing tended so much to defeat the efficiency of Parliamentary" control, as the easy resort to Supplementary Estimates."
    Now, Sir, if ever there was a case of easy resort to Supplementary Estimates it has been the case of the right honourable Gentleman. Last year he took the precaution to tell us that we might have a Supplementary Estimate. In 1897 he submitted his Vote 8 with a distinct intimation that the Vote originally submitted might be followed before very long in certain eventualities by a Supplementary Estimate. That I call another easy resort to Supplementary Estimates. Then that great financier, Mr. Gladstone, goes on to say—
    "To render Parliamentary control effectual it was necessary that the House of Commons should have the money transactions of the
    938
    year presented to it in one mass and in one account. If Supplementary Estimates were easily resorted to, the House would be obliged in self-defence to appoint a permanent Finance Committee."
    Now, that is a criticism which I venture to apply to the proceedings of last year, and with still greater force apply to the proceedings of the present year. Now, what are the proceedings which we are now engaged in? The right honourable Gentleman has improved upon his precedent which he set us last year. Last year, with due warning, he added to his original Estimate in the month of July. This year he adds to his original Vote brought in at the beginning of the Session, not a Supplementary Estimate, but what is much worse, a supplementary programme. That is what appears to me to be an entirely new departure which the right honourable Gentleman has made, and the rights and wrongs of it I do not even now understand. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will do me the honour of answering the question I am going to put to him now. I ask him, what does he suppose he is going to carry away from this Committee if this Vote is passed, so far as his new programme is concerned? Is he going to take Parliamentary sanction for the execution of his new programme, which is not expressed in the Estimate, and which is far less expressed in the details of the programme which he has placed before us? We have neither a programme of the usual sort nor an Estimate of the usual sort, but we have only a statement from the right honourable Gentleman that some time or other, before the end of the financial year, he is going to bring this new fleet into existence, or going to begin to bring it into existence. He tells us there will not be much of this money spent during the present financial year, but I understand that the circumstances are such that a very small expenditure will be necessary on this new programme during the present financial year. It seems to me that if the expenditure is so small as all that—if there is no need for this financial Estimate—I think the curiosity of the House would have been kept under such restraint that the right honourable Gentleman need not have made the disclosure which he has made at the present

    939
    time. My question is, does he suppose that he is going to get Parliamentary authority to act in the execution of this new programme? For instance, will he hold himself at liberty—I understand what can be done is purely academical, so far as cruisers and possibly battleships are concerned—when he has got this authority to decide and to give orders for these torpedo boat destroyers, or to put down, if he likes, battleships or cruisers? Or does he, in other words, expect to get Parliamentary sanction for this great new programme which he has laid before us to-night? If he means that I hope he will give us some precedent for what he is proposing. My experience has not been so great as his, nor has my responsibility been so great, but I have been trying to recollect, and I cannot recollect any case in which indirect sanction of this kind has been settled in this way, and I am unable to find any precedent for such a proceeding as this. It appears to me that we are going far beyond the doctrine which Mr. Gladstone pointed out in the sentences I have quoted, with regard to the Supplementary Estimates, if the House adopts anything of the kind. Supposing, for instance, I disagreed with the right honourable Gentleman's new programme; I do not, but supposing I did, and I wanted to give effect to my opinion. There is the honourable Member for Northampton, who does not agree. My honourable Friend is a man who does not hesitate at the expression of his opinion, and I will not say whether wisely or not. He takes Parliamentary opportunities of recording his judgment, and I want to know what Parliamentary opportunities he will have of expressing that opinion upon this question. We may assume, but the right honourable Gentleman has no business to assume, that he has Parliamentary authority. The majority of the House may be with him, but that majority can never be known, according to our Parliamentary constitution, until a Division has been taken. Now, I cannot see how a Division can be taken, because the Estimates of this programme will be submitted on another occasion, when Parliamentary sanction will be asked for I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he supposes he is going to-night to get authority to proceed with
    940
    the execution of this new programme. If he is going to act on the new programme, then I hold he is making a breach in our usual Parliamentary procedure, a breach which is open to the greatest and most serious national objection. If, on the other hand, he is taking nothing by his Motion, then I do not see why the subject has been interpolated into the Debate to-night at all. The real discussion must arise on the Supplementary Estimates, which we know will be one of the first-fruits of the next Session of Parliament. Mr. Lowther, I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give some answer to these questions.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I think the honourable and learned Gentleman is entitled to an answer, and so is the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. They have attacked the finance of these proposals and the general mode of procedure. The Leader of the Opposition utilises the occasion, to his own great enjoyment, to make another of those attacks upon my general system of finance to which I am quite accustomed. He has never missed an opportunity of inveighing against me for my action, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I thought it was rather out of place to allude to it in the present connection. But the right honourable Gentleman alluded to the Naval Defence Act, and said the Admiralty were glad to get rid of it. I have a great share of responsibility for the Naval Defence Act, and no Act of Parliament has ever been passed which, in my judgment, was more useful for strengthening the defences of the country and keeping the country generally up to doing what was necessary in behalf of its defences. A whole fleet of ships were put on the sea through the operation of that Act, and I greatly doubt whether any other measures taken on the Estimates would have been so efficacious for that purpose. Does the right honourable Gentleman sympathise with that purpose?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It has not been Followed since.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The right honourable Gentleman said that the Admiralty were glad to

    941
    get rid of it, the complications were so great. I know that there was some opposition on the part of some of the Admiralty, but the Act itself was a success, and the country, I believe, is convinced of its success, and believes that, notwithstanding some confusion of some accounts which it was the right honourable Gentleman's delightful duty to unravel and put right, the result of the Act was wise and good. The honourable and learned Gentleman asks me what impression I shall carry away from the Debate on the supplemental programme to-night. Well, it is this: that there is no Member of the House except the honourable Member for Northampton who has got up and denounced the increase of the Navy. I shall carry away the impression that the House wishes us to take parallel action to that of other Powers, and to maintain our Fleet at a point at which it will be equal in numbers to those of any two other Powers. The honourable and learned Gentleman was extremely careful not to say a word against the programme itself. His leader, if I may say so, shows a little more animus against it. I am perfectly aware, of course, that the right honourable Gentleman, if he were to speak with perfect frankness, would say that he believes the whole action of the Government in this matter is a gigantic mistake, and honourable Members opposite who did not state that view clearly possibly may share it, but I believe the immense majority of the House, and the immense majority in the country, are against the view, which may be held by the Leader of the Oppositon, that it is a mistake to act, and to act promptly, on the present occasion when we see other Powers are developing their naval power. The right honourable Gentleman spoke of shadowy information. What he would wish would be that we should have waited six months, and that six or nine months hence probably we should ask for the sanction of this House. Well, I honestly say the Government were not prepared to wait for nine months; they did not. think it would be their duty in that way to suspend action. We thought and we think that we have ample information now which not only justifies us, but requires us to take action
    942
    Invaluable time would be lost in the construction of ships if we were not to act at the present moment.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Would the right, honourable Gentleman excuse me? That is not the question. Do you consider the proceedings to-night give you Parliamentary authority to spend the public money at the present moment, and six months before you get the Supplemental Estimate? That is the test of your finance.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The right honourable Gentleman is versed enough in Parliamentary matters to be able to devise a method of convincing me that we ought not to proceed as I propose. I have explained that it is uncertain at this moment how-much money we shall be able to spend, and, under those circumstances, to propose a Supplemental Vote would seem, to me to be not the best or most business-like method of procedure. That is our simple answer. We do not know when we shall be able to spend the whole money which has been already voted; it depends, on whether the contractors will be able to earn the amounts for which we have made provision. If they are able to earn them, then it will be necessary to have a Supplemental Estimate, but if they do not earn those amounts, there may be a margin which may go to meet the expenditure which would be required for the new ships which we propose to undertake. I hope I have made that clear. The only, mode that I see that might possibly have been preferable would be that suggested by the honourable Member for Northampton, to have put down some nominal sum in order to get the authority of the House. The right honourable Gentleman himself has repudiated that method; he wants a Supplemental Estimate to be put upon the Table with regard to which we should not have the slightest idea whether it would be too much or too little, because we do not know what the contractors will spend.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Hear, hear!
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: If the right honourable Gentleman sees anything to cheer in that statement, I think he must be somewhat without knowledge as to the way in which contractors earn their instalments. It is impossible for the Admiralty to say how

    943
    much, will be earned in a given period. Now the right honourable Gentleman says—and this is a matter of considerable importance—that this is a shadowy programme, as if we were acting in the dark, and as if we were acting prematurely. We have sufficient information, and I think if it were in the hands of some right honourable and honourable Members opposite, it would induce them to take, the same course as we are taking. If the right honourable Gentleman were in power himself, and he had got the same Board of Admiralty serving under him, they would tell him that it was absolutely indispensable to take these measures. Does the right honourable Gentleman mean to say that we ought not to act at all, or does he really mean to say that he doubts whether we have really sufficient ground far acting? I should like the right honourable Gentleman to come out into the open. Is he against the increase of the Navy? Does he agree with those who think this is simply a competition with other nations, and on that ground is against our following suit? If the right honourable Gentleman held the same view, as I believe is held by a large number of persons, he might have said, "Well, I disapprove of your methods, you ought to have come forward with an estimate, but I agree with the object you have in view, that the Navy of this country ought to be kept up fully to the numbers of any two other foreign Powers. If you have any reliable information that this is necessary, you ought to have adopted other constitutional and financial arrangements, but, on the whole, your policy is right." That would, I think, have been a patriotic course, and one which would have been approved by a, large number of his supporters, I believe, in this House, and certainly by a large number of supporters out of the House. I should like to know where we are on this subject. I think, however, that I do know. I know that the great majority of the House is in favour of our proceeding with our additional shipbuilding programme, and are prepared to face the risk. My noble Friend the Member for York and the right honourable Baronet thought that I had expressed myself too strongly, and that I was not absolutely accurate in what I said with regard to resisting pres-
    944
    sure. The noble Lord spoke of public opinion. Public opinion is not always identical with agitation. You may have deputations—and I have received deputations on the subject—but when a deputation is cross-examined they frequently know absolutely nothing of the subject about which they come. A factitious public opinion may be frequently created by a very small and very energetic number of men; but I am bound to say that I should be thoroughly misunderstood if I said that I am not amenable to outside advice. I should wish to take carefully considered outside advice whenever it is offered to me, and I am glad to consider it; but I said that I have never yielded since I had been at the Admiralty to outside agitation on the great question of the number of ships to be provided, or in the number of men; and to that I adhere. The right honourable Baronet asked, "Why not take the opinion of the House on the matter?" I wish I could. The opinion of the House of Commons would not always be the same as that of the agitators out of doors, and I frankly say that if the opinion of the House of Commons was strongly adverse to the views which we hold at the Admiralty as regards the number of ships and men, on a vital question such as that, I should not be disposed to yield even to public opinion, but I should be content to resign my position into the hands of others who took that view. The matter is too important; and, strong as are the convictions we hold at the Admiralty on these matters, we cannot simply follow the lead. We must, to the best of our judgment, take the responsibility ourselves, but as soon as we feel that we have not the countenance of the House of Commons and the country we ought to resign the position into other hands. The only possible way to conduct a great service such as we have to conduct, and to manage a policy such as is forced upon us, is steadily to adhere to the opinions we have formed as long as we have the confidence of the country behind us. The noble Lord and the right honourable Baronet spoke of the lists of our ships. My honourable Friend and the Secretary to the Admiralty pointed out that analyses are constantly fallacious, and if we have not given analyses it is not because we wish to hide anything; but

    945
    because we believe that if we gave analyses they would not be accepted generally as giving an authoritative decision as to how we classify foreign ships. The noble Lord and the right honourable Baronet said that the French and the Russians have a larger number of excellent, ironclads than we have—a fact which I dispute. I can only say that a speech was made early in the year by M. Lockroy, the French Minister of Marine, in which he reviewed the position of the French Navy. M. Lockroy spoke for two whole days, and he united in that speech what I may call the efforts of the noble Lord, the right honourable Baronet, and the honourable Member for Belfast. He reviewed every subject in the French Navy, and his criticism upon that reminded me, almost, at every turn, of the criticisms which I hear on British ships in this House. The noble Lord gave a list of the French ships, and he mentioned among others two Devastations. Now, M. Lockroy went though the whole of the French ships and criticised them, and what did he say of the Devastations? He said they were obsolete.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: The same was said of the Warrior 20 years ago; now she is a first-class cruiser.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The noble Lord wishes to exclude the Warrior and to include two Devastations, but I want both to be treated on the same footing. He wishes to exclude our indifferent ships, but to include the French and Russian ships, which is not fair. Here are four ships which were put in the first class of the French Navy. M. Lockroy, speaking of these four ships, said—
    "All our armoured coast defenders are so overweighted that the upper edge of the armour is almost on the water line; in some it is actually below it. They must be lightened by placing lighter and, therefore, less powerful guns on board, by reducing their stores, etc., and reducing their radius of action to that of a simple coastguard ship."
    The noble Lord includes these in the list against our Majesties and first-class ironclads. M. Lockroy continues—
    "They all roll fearfully if there is any swell. The guns cannot be used if there is any sea on, and the hydraulic apparatus for moving the guns did not work if the ships are inclined at an angle of more than five to seven degrees."
    946
    I quote these two passages in order to show the misleading nature of rival lists of ships where the knowledge of our own weaknesses exclude a large number of our own ships, whereas the want of knowledge, or the want of appreciation of the weaknesses of foreign ships, leaves them in the list to compete with the best of our ships. I have always been averse to these comparative statements, but I am driven to them. The Press in many parts are constantly praising the foreign ships, constantly saying that foreign Powers have so many more ironclads of more efficiency than we have. I confess that I have never, in speech on the Navy, or in letter, made the defence of individual ships serve as an attack upon the ships of other countries. It is not the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty to do so. It is our duty to defend our ships, but if the process is continually to be repeated till it has eaten into the heart of the country, and the people continually say, "Is it true, as is said by"—well, I will not mention names, but by—"So-and-so, who is a great authority, that our ships are unfit to be sent to sea, that they are obsolete, while the French and Russians have got a larger number?" it becomes almost necessary for once to depart from the wholesome rule I have laid down for myself, and to say there are many obsolete ships and many indifferent ships in other navies besides our own. Let me quote one other instance of this degree of depreciation of our own ships. It was reported in a number of the papers that an American officer spoke of an American strip which he said had 17 inches of armour, which had cost £550,000, and which would be more than a match for any of our first-class ironclads. What was the fact? There was a certain strip of armour of that thickness, but only a strip, and the total amount of armour was not greater than in most of our ships. This ship, without her gun-mountings and armour, and without other expenses which are incurred in our ships, and which ought to be put down to the outlay on the ship, had cost £550,000. But when the armoured gun-mountings and other accessories were added she cost as much as our first-class ironclads, while she was inferior to them in many respects. I only wish by

    947
    these remarks to warn the House against the sensational paragraphs that appear about our ships, and which I am sorry for—not as the First Lord of the Admiralty, because I am not responsible for more than the ships which have been built during my term of office—but because they do cause, in the opinion of the British public, a doubt as to the efficiency of our ships, and lead to a cry sometimes for reform and sometimes for a greater number of ships, which is not justified by the facts of the case, but is produced by the exaggerations of which I speak. There is one fallacy which I Wish to note—viz., that of putting the number of armoured cruisers of other countries against the number of our armoured cruisers. We only began to armour our cruisers when we had got a kind of armour that was efficient for the protection, in our judgment, of these cruisers—namely, the new improved armour which could be put tin to a thickness of six inches. Formerly other Powers had thin armour on their ships, which we did not consider so good as our strong protected decks, with the coal protection which was carefully arranged upon the cruisers; and, in a comparison of ships, you ought not simply to take in any foreign armoured cruisers, however thin their armour, and then exclude all our protected ships, however thick their armour and good their protection. Therefore, it is an entire fallacy to put forward such a classification as the number of armoured ships of foreign Powers against the armoured ships of our own. Now, I have dealt with the more important points which have been raised except that which has regard to water-tube boilers. I have been pressed again to have a committee to whom one of our ships could be handed over for experiments—a committee composed avowedly of men unconnected with the naval service, and with those shipbuilders who provide us with our boilers; in other words, excluding, or including in it only to a very small extent, those people who have most experience of that type of boiler. Among naval officers the water tube boilers have been accepted by our engineers; civil engineers may not have accepted them, but those who are going
    948
    to use them and who have experience of them have confidence in them. Notwithstanding the remarks of the honourable Member for Gateshead, I say that it is an absolute fact that there has bean no trouble with the boilers whatever. Where there has been difficulty it has been due to high-pressure steam acting upon the machinery, and it is held at the Admiralty that it cannot be beyond the power of engineering science and ingenuity to correct those comparatively slight defects, which are at present still affecting the efficiency, not of the boilers, but of the machinery which is driven by them. I am asked to send a ship for a long sea voyage in order to test these boilers. As a matter of fact, the Powerful is at this moment in the China seas, and I am happy to be able to tell the House that the latest information I have respecting her is that she had steamed successfully with 12,000 horsepower, and that she had been directed to proceed progressively with other steam trials, the result of which will in due time be communicated to the House. We will not rest content with the trials that have taken place, but will continue them up to the highest possible point. Another vessel is to go through a trial of 60 hours. It may be asked—"Why 60 hours?" The answer is that if you have one trial of 60 hours, and then another for the same number of hours, you arrive very nearly at the time required for a passage across the Atlantic, which is the test desired by some honourable Members. The Committee will understand that we must be as anxious as anybody can be to sift to the vary bottom all the difficulties that still exist. Now I think I have dealt with all the matters that have been brought before the Committee except that which was raised by the honourable and learned Member for Dundee on the subject of contracts. The honourable and learned Gentleman says that it was our duty to announce to the contractors that all the penalties would be rigidly enforced. But unfortunately we were advised that these penalties could not be enforced. How, then, could it be our duty to make an announcement? It would have been just the reverse of useful, because it would have shown, the contractors that the strike clause could not be enforced. The

    949
    honourable and learned Gentleman has said a great deal about the non-enforcement of penalties. When he was in office penal ties were incurred to the amount of £122,000, and how much did this rigorous exactor of penalties impose? £975. There were 17 cases, and in one only did he enforce the penalty. I think that shows that his rigour is posterior to his tenure of office at the Admiralty He acted precisely as the present Financial Secretary has acted, and if the honourable and learned Gentleman holds that our present system is not entirely satisfactory I would ask him to explain why, out of 17 penalties incurred, he only exacted the amount due in one miserable case? I think the explanation would be instructive, and that the result would be to show that successive Admiralties act very much on the same principles. With reference to the orders for armour, the noble Lord the Member for York is very peremptory, maintaining that as soon as a Ship is laid down the order for the armour ought to be given.
    *LORD C. BERESFORD: No; I said when a ship was designed.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: As soon as a ship is designed! Surely my noble Friend must see that nothing could be worse, when firms are already fully occupied with orders, than to give them fresh orders before there is a probability of their being executed We think it beet to wait and see what firm executes orders best, which is the most rapid, and who is the best contractor, and then to place the order in that particular quarter. I do not think it wise to distribute orders among contractors before you know there is some probability of their being carried out. Now, Sir, I know that I have detained the House at some length, and perhaps on some matters rather unnecessarily; but I felt that I had better take this opportunity of saying some things about our ships which I seldom have the opportunity of saying. At the same time I am perfectly aware of the imperfections that exist in our Navy in many respects; I do not wish to underrate them in the least. I have often said that when you are moving forward at a great rate, and when science is moving forward, there must be a number of imperfections and
    950
    a number of standards which you cannot reach. If I have said something in defence of our ships I do not wish it to be inferred at all that I and my colleagues are not fully alive to the criticisms which may fairly be passed upon us, and sensible that it is our duty to consider those criticisms very carefully. I trust that we may now be allowed to dispose of this Vote.
    MR. LOUGH: I venture to say, Sir, that this Government will be remembered as the Government that has set more bad precedents than any other Government of modern times. This is the most important Estimate of the year, and what is the course taken by the First Lord of the Admiralty? I really think it is our duty to make some protest against it. It is only a few months since we had the Navy Estimates. If anyone wants to realise the importance of the subject, I will ask him to remember what was embodied in the Estimates presented some months ago. The proposals then were for 96 ships at a cost of something like seven millions. Yet the First Lord stands up to-night and proposes a new and additional programme. Now I say there is no speed, no progress, in the Government taking such a course as this, and I think we should make some protest against it, and that we should return to the better methods that used to be followed. I do not think that the right honourable Gentleman himself expects that anything will be done, or can be done, by this supplementary programme except at the expense of the March programme; and, in addition to the fact that it makes no progress, I would point out that it has a very disturbing effect in foreign countries, and all these gigantic efforts have not increased the strength of this country compared with other countries. If we are not improving our relative position, what is the use of our going on with these gigantic efforts? I think we have had a much better discussion in Committee to-night than we have had in recent naval discussions. I was greatly pleased with the speech of the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Member for Torquay. He contended that the Navy as a whole was in a very satisfactory position, and he said he distrusted these hurried panic progirammes.
    *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I referred to the two last programmes.
    MR. LOUGH: I think the Committee will be disposed to agree with the honourable and gallant Gentleman. I cannot sit down without saying that I have regretted to notice in the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty a great lack of what I may call moral fibre. We have never had a speech from him before in which he did not say something about economy. I do not know whether it was out of courtesy to some of us on this side, but to-night he has said nothing about economy; he has said nothing "discreet" at all; he has not expressed any "reluctance to offend Foreign Powers." I will not further detain the Committee, but I regret very much that an Estimate has not been brought in in the usual way, so that we might have had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it.
    MR. DALZIEL: I rise rather in reply to the challenge which was made by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House with regard to the precedent set by the new financial policy he has initiated. In this matter I speak as a supporter of the right honourable Gentleman. My honourable Friend who has just sat down pointed out that, although the right honourable Gentleman has hitherto been regarded as the champion of economy, we have to-night had no mention of economy from him. Well, I am as staunch an advocate of economy as any Member of this House, but I say that if the right honourable Gentleman, in his official position, comes down to this House and, speaking from his knowledge and experience, with a sense of his responsibility, tells us that a certain policy is necessary in the interests of the naval position of this country, no private Member should hesitate to support that policy. The Government have the responsibility, and if they, who are responsible for maintaining our naval supremacy, say that a certain policy is necessary, it only remains for us to support them. All I ask is that we should know something of how the expenditure is going to be raised. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his opinion upon that subject, and how we are to be certain that the expenditure
    952
    is to be placed on the shoulders of those who are best able to bear it. I object altogether to the precedent set by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The House ought not to be satisfied with a vague, general, desultory discussion such as we of necessity have in the absence of a proper Estimate. I think the precedent is a most dangerous one, because it may be followed by the Colonial Office, and by other Departments, and in that way the grip on expenditure will be taken out of the control of this House. Now, before I sit down there is one small, though not unimportant point I desire to raise which affects my constituency, and that is in reference to contracts for the supply of linoleum to the Navy. During the last six years I have more than once raised this question. The right honourable Gentleman may remember that last year on the Report stage of this Vote he undertook to look into the matter, and upon that assurance the Vote was allowed to go without a Division. Now, a great deal of dissatisfaction is felt on this subject, not only in my constituency, but on the part of linoleum manufacturers in other parts of the country, and I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman to make a small concession. The feeling in the linoleum industry is that this contract goes to one particular firm without fair competition. The Schedule is made out in such a manner as to make it impossible for other firms to accept the contract. I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will receive a small deputation—of not more than two, if he desires it—to state the views of the linoleum industry upon this question.
    *MR. MACARTNEY: In reply to the last point raised by the honourable Member, I may say at once that it is not the fact that the linoleum contracts have gone only to one firm. They have gone to different films during the last three years at least. But, if there is any dissatisfaction on the part of any firm in the tirade, I shall have no objection to meeting a representative of that firm, and hearing what he has to say. I have heard of no dissatisfaction except on the part of one firm, and their objection came to this—they considered that the tenders should be framed in the interests, or according to the wishes of

    953
    that particular firm, and not to suit the requirements of Her Majesty's Fleet. Naturally those are not objections which have very great weight with those who advise me in these matters.
    MR. DALZIEL: I may inform the honourable Gentleman that although for several years seven firms have been in the habit of tendering for these contracts, with one single exception the contracts have always gone to one particular firm.
    *MR. MACARTNEY: The honourable Gentleman is in error.
    MR. DALZIEL: I can assure the honourable Gentleman that what I have stated is correct. However, I am obliged to him for stating that he will receive a representative of those who feel that they have some grievance.
    Vote agreed to.
    "£2,971,000, shipbuilding, repairs, maintenance, etc.—Material."
    Agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That a sum not exceeding £2,218,000 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
    Amendment made—
    "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Woods.)
    MR. WOODS: I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £500. The question which I wish to raise is one which has been pointed out on a previous occasion. On. the 11th March last it was my painful duty to raise a very serious complaint against the Admiralty, and I then said that unless the First Lord could give me a satisfactory answer the matter would be raised on the Estimates. The subject I wish to bring before the Committee is the discharge of four workmen from the Portsmouth Dockyard in January last. My reason for moving this reduction is, first of all, because every attempt to
    954
    effect a settlement of this grievance has completely failed. After the discharge of these four men in January last a number of questions were put to the right honourable Gentleman, and the answers by him were entirely unsatisfactory. My second reason is that I am changed by the workmen of Portsmouth with the duty of raising this question formally in this House. I need not go into the details at any very great length, because I think the matter was very fully gone into on the farmer occasion. The first allegation is that these men were discharged because they were what are called unionists. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord denies that, but he is about the only man in the country Who has doubt upon the point. In the second place, the right honourable Gentleman said that these men could not be allowed to do by combination what they could not do individually. That, Sir, cuts at the fundamental principle of trades unionism. It means that two or more men cannot act together to obtain redress of a legitimate grievance. The right honourable Gentleman declared that these men were taking part in a demoralising agitation." This has always been the cry against any movement of reform, and I venture to think it will not, at this time of day, have any weight with this House. On the last occasion I read to the House resolutions passed at the meeting for attending which these men were discharged. The resolutions had no reference to politics; they simply urged on the Government to remove or mitigate a grievance in the matter of piece-work. Surely the right honourable Gentleman is in error in talking of that as a "demoralising agitation." Is it "demoralising" to ask for an inquiry into the system of payment of wages, when these men had been subjected, as they contend, to deductions equal to 35 per cent, of their wages, and also to other grievances? I hold that, if there is any demoralising influence at work, it is in the Department over which the right honourable Gentleman presides. How do the wages paid in this dockyard compare with the wages of similar work in private yards? At Portsmouth the wages are 3s. 4d., 3s. 6d., or 3s. 8d. per day; in the Yarrow yards the wages are 6s. 6d.; in Cleveland, 4s. 10d.; in the

    955
    London district, 5s. and 6s.; in Southampton, 4s. 6d.; in Birkenhead, 5s. and 6s. I contend that these men in our Government dockyards are underpaid to the extent of 35 per cent, as compared with the payment for the same work by private firms. Now, Sir, I do not want to weary the House by going further into details at this late hour, because I think on the previous occasion I laid the facts fully before the House. I think the House must be convinced that these men had been treated most harshly and unfairly, and unless I get a promise that their grievance will be remedied I shall press the Motion for a reduction to a Division.
    A LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not think the honourable Gentleman has added anything material to the case he advanced on behalf of these four men when first the Vote was before the House this Session, and under those circumstances I have not very much to add to the answer Which my right honourable Friend the First Lord then gave. The honourable Member has re-asserted today, without one shadow of proof, or the least attempt at proof, the allegation which he made before, and which was then denied by my right honourable Friend, that these four men had been dismissed because they were trades unionists. My right honouraible Friend stated that it was hardly present to his mind when the men were discharged Whether they had been members of a trades union or not, and that, whether they had been or not, the conduct of which they had been guilty would have resulted in exactly the same punishment. The honourable Member objected very strongly to the phrase used by my right honourable Friend when he said that these men were engaging in a "demoralising agitation." Let me remind the House of exactly what occurred. Certain workmen were discontented with the piece work prices for certain classes of work, and contended that at those prices they could not earn a fair week's wage. The honourable Gentleman stated that they could only earn 8s. or 10s. a week. It is perfectly true that a certain number of workmen employed on the Bellona did
    956
    for a certain time only earn 8s. or 10s. a week—but why? It was necessary to prove that these rates did not permit a man to earn a fair week's wages, and to prove this the men determined that they would not earn it. A man who was brought from another ship and put to precisely similar work on the Bellona at precisely the same prices earned 15s. in three days. Influence was actually brought to bear on that man to make him work more slowly. It was found that some of the men gave in work which they had not done at all. One man charged for 16 rivets when he had driven only a single rivet. For this the man was, of course, suspended. He is one of those who spoke at this meetings. The whole tone of this meeting was in justification of such conduct as thus, it being stated that similar frauds were common, in other Government yards, and were winked at by the authorities. I do not think the Admiralty could be expected to pass over such allegations as that, and we had no alternative but to punish those who took part in what my right honourable Friend properly called a demoralising agitation. And I say that our action, necessary as it was in the interests of the public service, met with the approval of the great mass of the workmen themselves, who resented the allegations of fraud that had been made. As regards the piecework rates, I think the Committee will see from the figures I have given that it is untrue to say that they were such as would not permit the men to earn a fair week's wage. It is true that the scale of rates had been more limited than the scale adopted in some private yards, but a considerable change has now been made. There were only 21 different items under the old scheme, but under the new scheme, which will shortly be in force, between 400 and 500 rates for various of work are given. Sir, as I said when I rose, I can really add nothing to what my right honourable Friend said on the last occasion. I can hold out no hope on the part of the Admiralty that the dismissal of these men will be reconsidered. The action we have taken is, we are confident, in the interests of honest work in our dockyards and in the real interests of the workmen themselves.
    MR. MADDISON: I think the honourable Gentleman has added nothing in justification of the action of the Admiralty to what was stated by the First Lord on the last occasion. It is difficult to properly appreciate the position of men who happen to be working under a system which in itself is faulty, and which I am free to admit has been taken advantage of by some of the men. I have no sort of sympathy with any dishonest dealing on the part of workmen; neither will I defend men who merely loaf about and charge for more work than they have done. It is immoral and against the interests of the public service, and of the men themselves. But I would like to say one word about these false accounts for rivets. When a man has to drive a rivet in a very awkward and difficult spot, and has to spend a long time over it, it is not an uncommon practice to charge for 10 or 12 rivets instead of one. It is the only way in which the man could be properly paid for exceptionally difficult work.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not the custom that a man should charge for more work than he has done. If he has particularly hard work to do and it takes him more than the expected time, he represents this to the proper authorities, who investigate the facts, and allow an extra percentage, or allow day rates for the work.
    MR. MADDISON: The honourable Gentleman does not know everything that goes on in a dockyard. I can guarantee to prove that what I have said is correct. Of course, no public official could sanction even the appearance of evil, but in this particular trade I know that a man who drives one rivet when it takes him as long as it should do to drive 16 is entitled to receive pay for 16 rivets. The only difference is that instead of making representations, as the honourable Gentleman says he ought to have done, to the proper quarter, the man in this instance followed the clumsy system. It may have been irregular, but there was no dishonesty in it at all. As to the case of the man Gould, he was not a riveter at all; he was a shipwright working for daily wages. He had taken no part in the riveters' agitation at all, and it is not alleged that he had any
    958
    part in any irregularities. It happened that he was asked to preside at this public meeting, and he did so. That is his sole offence.
    COLONEL SANDYS: I should like to ask Where this meeting was held.
    MR. MADDISON: It was held outside the dockyard gates. [A laugh.] It is apparently a sin, in the opinion of some honourable Member opposite, that trade unionists should meet at all. Now, Sir, I take exception altogether to the arbitrary punishment of these men, and I think it is wholly unjustifiable. The Admiralty have acted throughout this matter in the most high-handed manner; they have refused these workmen an inquiry which was clearly necessary owing to the revision of the scale, and because these men ventured to take a thoroughly constitutional course in trying to get some remedy for their grievances they are summarily dismissed. I think our protest is quite justified, and I trust my honourable Friend will go to a Division.
    SIR J. BAKER: I think the honourable Gentleman the Civil Lord has not strengthened the case sought to be made out on the former occasion by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that that case in no way justifies the action taken by the officials. In the case of this man Gould the only offence alleged against him is that he had presided over the meeting. He happened to be chairman of the local trades council and a member of other local organisations, and he was asked to take the chair at this meeting—a meeting of free citizens—held outside the boundary of the dockyard. For this he is dismissed. He had done and said nothing to merit this harsh punishment; he is a man of unblemished character and high reputation, and held in great respect by the workpeople of the town. As a matter of fact the board of guardians have since appointed him relieving officer, giving him an increased salary and lighter employment than he had before. Then, with regard to the other men, if it be true that they acted in the manner the honourable Gentleman says, they ought to have been discharged at once, and not allowed to continue in the service. Either the Admiralty have acted with harshness and severity in dismissing

    959
    these four men, or they have acted with ill-advised leniency in retaining the other men who deserved to be dismissed. I cannot help thinking that the Admiralty come very badly out of this unfortunate business.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Surely these recriminations can serve no good purpose. They lead the public out-side to believe that the Government have some feeling against trades unionists. The case is, after all, a very sample one. It seems that the men, discontented with the system of piece-work, indulged in
    Original Question put and negatived.
    practices which were unjustifiable; but consideiring the time that had elapsed and the fact that these men have expiated their offence, surely the Government might show them that generosity which nine out of 10 private employers of labour would show them in similar circumstances.
    Amendment put—
    "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £500."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 101.—(Division List No. 243.)

    961
    "£2,549,200, naval armaments.

    AYES.

    Baker, Sir John

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Brigg, John

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Caldwell, James

    Morton, E. J. C (Devonport)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Doogan, P. C.

    Philipps John Wynford

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Samuel J (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Mr. Woods and Mr.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Maddison.

    NOES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

    Gibbs, Hon.A.G.H. (C. ofLond.)

    Penn, John

    Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

    Godson, Sir A. F.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Gorst, Rt. Hon Sir J. E.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir M.H.(Brist'l)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gretton, John

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Bethell, Commander

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Robinson, Brooke

    Bill, Charles

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Round, James

    Blundell, Col. Henry

    Henderson, Alexander

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bond, Edward

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    KayShuttleworth, RtHonSirU.

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Kemp, George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Kenyon, James

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Talbot,RtHn. J.G. (Oxf'd Uny.)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Warkworth, Lord

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I of W.)

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Milton, Viscount

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Wylie, Alexander

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    *LORD C. BERESFORD: I must protest against an important Vote like this being brought on at this hour of the morning. On many occasions I have suggested that the Government should arm all our ships with quick-firing guns. I know there is a great difference of opinion on this subject, but I think most of my brother naval officers admit that either those ships which are now armed with muzzle loaders should be re-armed, or that they should be struck off the list of effective ships. At the present moment there are 45 ships in the Navy armed with muzzle loading guns, and out of those 12 are on the list of the A Reserve. Those ships will be useless if they meet modern vessels or even ships of an obsolete type armed with quick-firers. In the French Navy they have for years had breech-loading guns, and at this moment there is not a ship in the French Navy that is without them. Besides these 45 ships whose main armament is muzzle-loading guns, there are 65 ships that have no quick-firers at all. I hope the Civil Lords of the Admiralty will tell us exactly what are the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to this important matter of re-armament. Then there is another matter. I want to ask him whether there is any naval officer who is going to succeed Captain Inglis at the gun factory. There are a lot of depôts and ordnance stores to be started at Malta, Gibraltar, Hong-kong, and other places, and I hope naval officers are to be appointed to take charge of those stores. I trust the Admiralty will recognise that the persons to undertake such duties are naval officers, who understand them better than civilians or soldiers can do.
    *MR. MACARTNEY: This question of re-armament has been considered by the Board of Admiralty ever since the muzzle-loading gun was succeeded by the breech-loading gun. It is a question which the present Administration regard as eminently one for the decision of their naval colleagues, and in the position they have taken up they have been influenced by the views of those distinguished officers I imagine that that was also the view
    962
    taken by the Board which preceded the present.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Hear, hear!
    *MR. MACARTNEY: The policy adopted by the present Administration is one which was handed down to them by their predecessors. The question of the reconstruction and re-armament of the older ships was exhaustively considered in 1892. At that time the programme initiated under the Naval Defence Act was approaching completion, and the whole of this matter was exhaustively gone into. First of all, with regard to turret ships there is no question of substituting quick-firing guns; it is merely a question of substituting for the 12.5 muzzle-loader the 10 inch breech-loader. The question of arming the Dreadnought on these lines has been fully considered by the present Board in the light of the experience gained in recent years. The re-armament of the Thunderer cost £69,459, and the re-armament which has been proposed for the Dreadnought will cost £7,000. Of course it is admitted that the breech-loader has probably greater accuracy, and probably there is also with that a saving of weight; but the results of the prize-firing both in the Mediterranean Fleet and the coastguard ships prove that so far as the rate of firing goes the two guns are almost equal. As a matter of fact it has been ascertained that it would be impossible to substitute upon broadside ships the 6 inch quick-fining guns without an enormous amount of reconstruction, and even if that were undertaken it is very doubtful whether the ships could be efficiently fought. That is the position which we have taken up, and it is the position that was taken up by our predecessors; so that I think the noble Lord must admit that naval opinion upon this question is against him. Then, again, in this question we have to consider also the age of the ship and the state of the propelling machinery. The 13 battleships to which my noble Friend referred were all old ships, and their propelling machinery was of an old type. Even if we did re-arm them with 6 inch quick-firing guns, they would not be efficient to act with a modern squadron. Then they have a

    963
    small coal endurance, which, again would make them very poor elements in a modern squadron, however armed. Now, what is the principle that is laid down by the present Board of Admiralty for dealing with these ships? It is this. We accept, as we conceive we are bound, to accept, the original qualities of offence and defence in these ships. We propose to change the upper-deck battery to quick-firing guns, and to restore to complete efficiency the propelling apparatus of ships whose qualities are considered adequate. We shall take in hand a certain number of these ships and deal with each of them on these principles as time and opportunity will allow. Each, vessel is considered separately, as the Dreadnought has been, and I believe in this way the Admiralty has arrived at the best compromise under the circumstances. Then the noble Lord asked me a question as to naval officers being appointed for depôts and ordnance stores. There are some stations where in future naval officers will be placed in command. There are others where, for various reasons, it will probably be best in the interests of economy and efficiency to allow the establishments to remain under the War Office. I believe the War Office are about to apply to the Admiralty to nominate a naval officer as successor to Captain Inglis.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I think I ought to say a word in support of what has fallen from the Civil Lord. This question of re-arming certain vessels which carried old muzzle-loading guns has been exceedingly carefully considered by two previous Boards of Admiralty, as well as by the present Board, and all three, differently constituted, and containing different naval members, arrived at the same conclusion—a conclusion adverse to the view of my noble Friend opposite. I do not intend to go into any argument of the question now, but before sitting down I want to enter my protest against the idea which the noble Lord has done so much to circulate, that ships are obsolete because they carry muzzle-loading guns. The evidence collected by Lord Northbrook's Committee showed that they are quite effective for the purposes for which they are intended—
    964
    namely, to meet ships of the same type and of the same date.
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,491,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
    *ADMIRAL FIELD: For the last three years I have pressed upon the Admiralty that, the Marines ought to have, and ought to have had 20 years ago, the same privileges which soldiers in the Army receive—namely, the full benefit of what is called the free rations grant. I will not repeat the arguments I have urged before in this matter, but I would ask the First Lord whether he cannot now make a concession which has been too long denied.
    Amendment proposed—
    "That Item B (Wages of Artificers), be reduced by £100."—(Captain Norton.)
    CAPTAIN NORTONrose to call attention to the wages of labourers in the Deptford Victualling Yard. There were at that yard 395 men receiving a wage of 22s. a week, or less than 6d. an hour, and some received only 19s. per week. It was a scandal that the Government should pay its employees wages which a private employer would be ashamed to give. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
    *MR. A. MORTON: I regret very much that on the first occasion of my addressing this House I should find myself unable to support the First Lord of the Admiralty, whose administration of naval affairs has been of great service to the nation. But in a very few words I hope to show that there is a real case for the Motion proposed by the honourable and gallant Gentleman. There are in London three great industrial establishments of the Government—the Pimlico clothing factory, the ar-

    965
    senal at Woolwich, and the Royal Victoria victualling yard at Deptford. At each and all of these establishments hired labourers are employed who all do practically the same work, and as all are living in the metropolitan district, are all equally entitled to be paid the same rate of wage. The hired labourers at Woolwich and Pimlico had a rise of one shilling a week conceded to them by the War Office in July, 1897, but a similar rise to the Admiralty labourers at Woolwich and Deptford was then refused. As these men were living under the same conditions, and doing the same work, as the War Office labourers, there was naturally very great discontent, the effect of which was that the First Lord in March of this year raised the wages of the Woolwich labourers to the same level as that paid by the War Office. But he refused, and, I am sorry to say, still refuses, to raise the wages of the Deptford men. This is comparatively, perhaps, a small matter, but it is one on which I feel that the Deptford men have a legitimate grievance, and I earnestly hope that the right honourable Gentleman will be able to promise some redress.
    MR. STEADMANobserved that a great deal had been said about the Government being a model employer of labour, but the fact was that the wages paid to the labourers in the Deptford establishment were lower than the minimum rate of riverside labour which, was secured by the great dock strike. Such was the feeling existing about Government labour that no man would go into a Government establishment if he could get work in private employment on the river.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: When I hear speeches like the one we have last listened to I cannot help wondering how it is that our dockyards are full of contented workmen.
    MR. STEADMAN: The right, honourable Gentleman has had plenty of evidence of discontent. The honourable Member for Deptford who sits on that side of the House said he would support the reduction.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: All I can say is that we are able
    966
    to get all the workmen we require. Notwithstanding the figures that the honourable Members have quoted, it is impossible for me to promise to raise the rate of wages of labour in the Deptford establishment. The comparison is not necessarily or solely with the rates paid by private employers. We must remember that the various Government Departments have establishments all over the country, and we cannot discriminate more than we have done already in favour of the workmen in London against the workmen in Plymouth, or Portsmouth, or Chatham. The labourers in London establishments get a shilling a week more than the labourers in other Government estabments in the provinces, and I think that shilling adequately represents the difference between London and provincial conditions of labour. Further than that it would not be desirable for us to go in increasing the wages of the London men, in justice to the provincial men. As a matter of fact Government employment, so far as regards the London establishments, is 20 per cent. better than employment in private firms, owing to its continuity.
    MR. STEADMAN: It is considerably more than 20 per cent. the other way.
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have the authority of one of the Labour Members for my statement.
    SIR C. DILKEsaid that three years ago, before the rise in wages in the War Office establishments, he came to the conclusion that the men engaged in this particular trade were the worst-paid men in the employment of the Government, except the auxiliary letter carriers. Since that time the position of the latter class had been improved, and the Thames-side labourers now remained the worst paid of any employees of the Government.
    MR. MADDISON: It is not my intention to delay the House, but I would like to add a word on this very important matter. I speak on this matter without any immediate political interest, for it does not affect my own constituency. The First Lord of the Admiralty appears to recognise that the rate paid to these men is a low one, but he justifies it on the ground that if he granted the

    967
    advance asked far he would be overwhelmed with similar demands from the provinces. He says that labourers in the London establishments get a shilling a week more than those employed in the provinces. If he inquires into the matter I am sure he will find that one shilling a week does not at all represent the difference of living between London and the country. The right honourable Gentleman has, at any rate,
    Committee report Progress; to sit again.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    On the Motion for Adjournment—
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Before the House adjourns I wish to say that I believe, from information that has reached me since I made
    received sufficient proof to-night that the present wages paid at Deptford are a subject of grave discontent, and I trust that even if he is obdurate on this occasion, he will further inquire into the matter, and remedy the grievance which I am sure he will find to exist.
    Amendment put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 75,—(Division List No. 244.)

    AYES.

    Bond, Edward

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Brigg, John

    Macaleese, Daniel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Caldwell, James

    Maddison, Fred

    Captain Norton and Mr.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Arthur Morton.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Steadman, William Charles

    NOES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Bagot, Capt. J. F.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Purvis, Robert

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

    Godson, Sir A. F.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St.G'rg's)

    Robinson, Brooke

    Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bethell, Commander

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bill, Charles

    Gretton, John

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Blundell, Col. Henry

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Kemp, George

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn.)

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Warkworth, Lord

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wylie, Alexander

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Maclure, Sir John William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Milton, Viscount

    Sir William Walrond and

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Murray. C. J. (Coventry)

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    the statement at the beginning of business, that it will be more convenient to honourable Members on both sides of the House to take the Home Office Vote on Friday and the War Office Vote on Thursday. I may say also that it is of pressing importance that the Consolidated Fund Bill should be passed at an early date, and I hope we shall have the assistance of honourable Members in passing that Bill.
    House adjourned at 2.40.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his Seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL) POWERS) BILL.
  The Queen's Consent, and the Consent of the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.
  CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  CIRCUIT CLERKS OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER, ETC.) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  MATLOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  NEATH, PONTARDAWE AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NEWHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.) BILL.
  The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  COMMERCIAL.
  I. (No. 2) (1898): Further reports by Her Majesty's representatives abroad, on bounties on the construction and running of ships paid by the State in the countries in which they reside; and particulars with regard to the granting of preferential railway rates;
  II. (No. 6) (1898): Correspondence relating to the conference at Brussels on the question of sugar bounties.

  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS.
  Forty-second Report; with appendix.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
  I. Metropolitan Division: General Report for the year 1897, by the Reverend T. W. Sharpe, C.B., Senior Chief Inspector;
  II. East-Central Division: General Report for the year 1897, by the Reverend C. D. Du Port, Chief Inspector.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Account of receipts under the above Act, and payments under section 25 thereof, during the year ended the 31st of March, 1898: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  PARISH FIRE-ENGINES BILL.
  To be read the second time on Tuesday next. (The Lord Harris.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PUBLIC BILL BUSINESS.

  UGANDA.
  Question put—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government—

  "1. Whether the Report of the inquiry into the causes of the recent troubles in Uganda has been received; and whether it will be laid on the Table of the House before the close of the Session;

  "2. Whether Major Macdonald now holds any post or office in Uganda;

  "3. Whether it is intended that he should be permanently employed in that country;

  "4. Whether the exploring expedition under his command is now prosecuting its work, or has been abandoned."—(Lord Stanmore.)

  LORD STANMORE: In the absence of my noble Friend the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I ask your Lordships' permission to post-pone my question.
  Question, by leave, postponed.

  MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Rending of this Bill. It deals with very humble fisheries compared with those which were not long since before your Lordships' House, but fisheries which require protection. It will surprise your Lordships to hear that upwards of £2,000 was recently paid in one village in Kerry for mussels and other shell-fish. The inhabitants of this district and the surrounding districts have thrown themselves into the industry with such extreme and inconsiderate ardour that there is a strong probability of the whole of these shell-fish being exterminated unless some means are taken for their protection. This Bill, which has been drafted by the Fishery Commissioners, has passed the House of Commons, and its object is to give power to the Commissioners to make by-laws regulating the mussel fisheries, and enabling them to provide a close time. The Bill has the full approval of the Government, it is necessary for the preservation of this important fishery, and I hope your Lordships will assent to the Second Reading.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I beg to endorse all the noble Lord has said. Though this is a small Bill, it is a very useful Bill. After the oyster, the periwinkle is the most luscious bivalve in this country, and probably there is no noble Lord who can forget the delight which he experienced in his youth in consuming the periwinkle with a common pin. This Bill at the present moment is a very necessary one. Owing to the rapid inter-communication by railway between Ireland and England, the people in Ireland are beginning to discover the value of these small shell-fish. There is no country like the west coast of Ireland which is more adapted to the cultivation of these shell-fish, and it is absolutely necessary, in my humble opinion, that notice should be taken of the great demand for them, which will increase year by year, and will result in the destruction of these shell-fish altogether unless they are properly preserved. I therefore think that the provisions of

  771
  this Bill for placing them under the fishery inspectors, and for having a close time, are most necessary, and will tend very much to the prosperity of the poorer class of Irish fishermen, whose daughters and sons gain their livelihood by the collection of these various mussels.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. Unless it becomes law, these shell-fish will disappear entirely. We know that the tendency everywhere is to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, unless some preventive is put upon it, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to give this Bill a Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I have only to say, on behalf of the Irish Government, that this Bill is considered by them a very useful one, and it is hoped your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  The House proceeded with the consideration of the Benefices (No. 2) Bill, as amended.

  CLAUSE 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 20, after 'owner,' insert 'as the advowson, and any person who offers any right of patronage for sale by auction in contravention of this section, or who bids at any such sale, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The words "as the advowson" are only put in to make the clause perfectly plain. The second portion of my Amendment, providing that any person who offers any right of patronage for sale by auction in contravention, of the section, or who bids at such sale, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100,
  772
  is put in to meet the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, who said that there was no penalty in the event of this subsection being broken. I believe the provision of a penalty of £100 on summary conviction has met the noble and learned Lord's views completely.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 7, at the end of clause, insert 'and the bishop shall consider any representation made to him in consequence, provided that any objection therein made have reference to a legal ground of refusal.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Salisbury.)
  *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will be good enough to give full consideration to this little formal Amendment which comes at the end of clause 2. It seems to me that the clause, as it stands at present, rather hangs in the air; no one is told what they are to do or what they may do with regard to this notice which is given in the parishes. Now, the Amendment which I venture to propose suggests that the bishop should be obliged to hear any representation made to him in consequence, provided that any objection therein made have reference to a legal ground of refusal. It seems to me that the general public have a right to powers in regard to institution to a benefice like those that they now possess in regard to ordination. In one way it is much more serious to institute a man to a benefice than it is to ordain him, for if a man is put in legal charge of a parish he cannot be ousted except by process of law. Therefore, it is advisable that there should be no mistake in the beginning of such a connection, and there ought to be full liberty given to everyone who knows of any just cause or impediment against an institution to report it to the bishop, and to insist that the bishop should consider it. I venture to think that we have been all of us a little too slack in this matter of institution to benefices, not only the bishops, but also the patrons and other clergy and parishioners. Testimonials

  773
  have been given much too freely; people have been unwilling to speak because they have been afraid of the charge of libel, and it is on purpose that we may all be a little more strict that we are asked, I suppose, to pass this Bill. We are now going as a nation to turn over a new leaf in this matter of institution to benefices. Would it not be wiser and fairer to the parishioners and others to let them know that this is really the mind of Parliament, and not to leave the clause hanging in the air? In the diocese with which I am familiar, in the last 12 years we have tried this plan, and asked the parishioners if they have any objection to make, and in no case out of some 500 has there been any unfairness or ill-will or disagreeable feeling shown. I venture to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will accept this Amendment or not, and, if not, whether they will tell me, as the law will stand when this Bill is passed, what will be my position in regard to the Queen's Bench, supposing a man came and said, "Here is a valid objection," and I were to say to him, "I will not hear it, because I am not obliged to," and he went to the Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel me? The other question I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government is one which I should like the Lord Chancellor to answer—namely, whether, under the present law, as amended by this Bill, an action for libel would lie against a man, whoever he was, if he made a complaint to the bishop, which the bishop forwarded to the presentee? I venture to ask these two questions, and also that Her Majesty's Government, if they cannot accept the Amendment, will make some definite statement on these two points.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My noble Friend, who is in charge of this Bill, will tell the right reverend prelate whether the Government are willing to accept the Amendment or not, but, for my own part, it sems to me a perfectly useless Amendment. It infers that a bishop requires an actual Statute to compel him to do his duty. I protest against that on behalf of the bishops, although a bishop has proposed this Amendment. As to the other question, I am reluctant to answer an abstract ques-
  774
  tion on a legal point, but, giving the best reply I can to the right reverend prelate, I would say that a parishioner and a bishop have a common interest in unfit persons not being presented to a living, and a communication of the character referred to would be a privileged communication, with the qualification. I must warn the right reverend prelate that no person could avail himself of this privilege for the purpose of indulging in private malice. If a person is actuated by malice, the occasion does not relieve him from the consequences.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government cannot accept this Amendment. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, this appears to be a perfectly useless Amendment, and infers that a, bishop requires an actual Statute to compel him to do his duty.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 9, after 'otherwise,' insert 'sufficient in law.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the Amendment which I now move is introduced in order to meet a criticism of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, who pointed out that it would be a wise precaution to insert words to this effect.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 17, leave out 'appointed by the Lord Chancellor for hearing such causes,' and insert 'who shall be nominated by the Lord Chancellor from time to time for the purpose of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 19, leave out 'instituted,' and insert 'constituted.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, line 9, at the end of the clause insert—
  "(7) The presentee may appeal to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council against the finding of fact by the judge that he is unfit for the discharge of the duties of the benefice by reason that his evil life or conduct since his ordination has caused grave scandal concerning his moral conduct, or in respect of matters of law."—(Earl Fortescue.)
  *EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, happily the Amendment of which I have given notice, and which I now rise to move, requires only a very few words of introduction. It was drawn by that eminent ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Tristram, and has been approved of by the most reverend Primate. From time to time, Dr. Tristram states, some of the judgments given by such eminent judges as Sir H. Jenner Fust, Dr. Lushington, and Sir R. Phillimore in cases of clerical immorality have been reversed on appeal, but, under this Bill, the unhappy presentee will find himself for the first time in quite a different position to that of any other citizen, inasmuch as he will be debarred from appealing to any tribunal except this newly-constituted one. Dr. Tristram added that Dr. Lushington told him those cases cost him great anxiety. I think that the authority of Dr. Tristram, and the approval of the right reverend Primate, will have their just weight with your Lordships, and that your Lordships will agree to my Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am very sorry that Dr. Tristram should have entirely misunderstood what I said. He showed me the clause, and said he understood that
  776
  there was a Peer in the House who would move it. The only remark I made was, "I do not think he will carry it."
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the noble Lord [Earl Fortescue] and the Government on this matter. We think the presentee has been too much, and the parishioners a great deal too little, considered in the past. He appears to think we are effecting a revolution in which the presentee will be too little considered. I agree, my Lords, that we have entrusted a great deal of responsibility to the bishops, but in doing so we have had the unanimous concurrence of all parties in your Lordships' House. Nothing, I think, could have struck your Lordships more than the stress which the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, laid on the responsibility of the bishops during the Second Reading Debate. We have acted on those lines. The responsibility is put upon the bishop in the first instance to make up his mind whether the presentee is a fit person for the cure of souls. He must allege definite reasons for his opinion, if he thinks he is unfit, and an appeal is granted from that refusal to the court constituted under the Bill. That court is formed of the archbishop of the province and a judge of the High Court, and in our opinion that is a tribunal that amply meets all the responsibilities of justice. If that tribunal is not competent to do justice to the presentee, we do not know which one is. To load the Bill by adding an appeal to the Privy Council, would be to defeat absolutely one of the chief endeavours of the Government. In fact, as your Lordships are well aware, Her Majesty's Government do not think the Bill goes far enough in warding off the burden of expenditure which handicaps the bishops sometimes in the performance of their duties. The proposal of the noble Earl is nothing less than to put on the back of

  777
  every bishop, who acted on his responsibility under this Bill, the burden of costs which might accrue to him in the Privy Council. What those costs are the right reverend prelates who sit in this House only too well know, and a case has been quoted in these Debates under the analogous procedure of the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892, where a bishop was mulcted in costs to the amount of £1,600. To accept this Amendment will, in the eyes of the Government, be fatal to the Bill, and I ask your Lordships therefore not to accept it.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived, without a Division.

  CLAUSE 5.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, line 22, leave out 'or,' and insert 'nor.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 7.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, line 41, after 'benefices,' insert 'and to any other benefices or livings that are or may hereafter be in their patronage.'"— (The Lord Bishop of Salisbury.)
  *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is simply to put the other patronage of the universities on the same level as the particular benefices and livings referred to in clause 7. I think your Lordships will agree that it is advisable that the universities should have power to elect by a Committee, and not in the present cumbrous manner. I therefore move my Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot say that I am very familiar with the case the right reverend prelate refers to. I understand that these livings are very few in number, and that this Amendment is considered necessary by the universities. The words of the Amendment will be a great inconvenience, because, at pre-
  778
  sent, the universities have absolutely no way of deciding on the exercise of the patronage except through the cumbrous machinery of the Masters of Arts of those universities. Therefore, I can see no objection to the insertion of these words. But, if it were possible to have a fuller statement of the case from the university authorities, it would be very useful.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, obviously it would be more convenient that some Committee should be appointed with whom this jurisdiction should rest. The summoning of all the masters of arts for the purpose of determining upon an incumbent for a university living, is a very cumbrous method of appointment. If this were not so small a matter it would have been remedied before.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 5, leave out from end of line 9 to 'county,' line 10, and insert 'person who has presided as chairman of the last preceding quarter sessions for the county or division of the county in which the benefice is situated.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This Amendment is to meet a difficulty brought to your Lordships' attention the other day, which would arise where there were several chairmen of quarter sessions or more than one quarter sessions in the same county.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, line 14, before 'any,' insert 'performing.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This, my Lords, is merely a verbal Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, line 18, after 'Act,' insert 'with respect to procedure.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I may say that this Amendment has actually been carried, but was omitted from the print of the Bill by accident.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, line 2, at end of clause, insert as a new sub-section—
  "(5) An incumbent so inhibited shall not be liable to any penalty or forfeiture for non-residence, but section ninety-three of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply as if the incumbent were non-resident, and thereupon section ninety-four of the same Act shall apply, as in the case where the curate's stipend is not less than the whole value of the benefice. The incumbent shall remain liable for repairs, but shall be entitled to retain out of the curate's stipend such amount in respect of repairs during the curate's occupation, and shall be entitled to such facilities for executing repairs as the bishop may, in case of difference, decide to be reasonable."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, one of the difficulties in working the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act of 1885 consists in the fact that in several instances the incumbent has considered himself justified in thwarting the curate that has been put in in every possible way. The result is that the curate is unable to do the work which he is put there to do. A distinction is made in this Bill between inadequate performance of duties for which the incumbent cannot be blamed, and inadequate performance of duty which arises out of the incumbent's negligence, and if it is difficult to work the Act of 1885, it is obvious that it must be still more difficult to work this Bill if the old difficulty remains; and it is important, therefore, that, as the bishop has the power of
  780
  inhibiting the incumbent from continuing to discharge the duties, the curate should be put into the incumbent's place in as full a sense as if, for the time being, he were the incumbent. He has to discharge the incumbent's duties, and has to do exactly what he would have to do if he were the incumbent. It is important that he should occupy the same position in the eyes of the parishioners, and it is important also that the incumbent should go away from the parish. It is not proposed, in the Amendment that I submit to your Lordships, that any compulsion should be used to make him go. The Amendment in the name of the Archbishop of York, which we find in the same page with my own, proposes that the incumbent should not be allowed to reside within 20 miles from the parish church. That has been proposed before, but the more it is considered, the less it seems to be a workable clause. It would be difficult indeed to give good grounds for interfering so seriously with the liberty of the subject. You might almost as well require him not to come into England. It would be, no doubt, better if he would go abroad, and remove all possibility of his troubling us by his interference. At any rate, he ought to vacate the parsonage house and the residence which is intended for the person who discharges the duty, and for that reason this sub-section is submitted to you. The words—
  "An incumbent so inhibited shall not be liable to any penalty or forfeiture for non-residence"—
  give permission for him to go away, and it is hoped he will go away. If he went away without any words of this kind in the Act, the result would be that he would be liable to penalties of various kinds for non-residence. It is proposed to take away that liability, and let him go away if he will. But more than that is wanting. It is very often difficult to find a house in the parish in which the curate can live, if the parish consists mainly of people who are altogether in the lower ranks of life. In those cases it is very often very difficult indeed to find even lodgings. It is necessary that the curate who is put in should absolutely reside in the parish, and therefore it is proposed that, whilst the incumbent is

  781
  allowed to quit the residence and become a non-resident incumbent, the section of the Pluralities Act of 1838 shall be applied, which applies to non-resident incumbents. There it is laid down that if an incumbent be non-resident, the bishop shall have the power to assign to the curate the residence of the incumbent, that he may reside therein, and he has it without payment of rent. The bishop may assign to him, also, four acres of glebe, but there he is required to pay rent for it if it is so assigned to him. This is the wording of section 93, and, further, in the same case, section 94 of the same Act is made applicable. Section 94 puts on the curate, if he resides in the parsonage house, the payment of rates and taxes. It is reasonable that the curate should pay the rates and taxes which would otherwise have to be paid by the incumbent who is not allowed to occupy the house. Further, it is not reasonable that the incumbent, whilst incumbent, should be liable for repairs during the time he is excluded from the house, and, therefore, in accordance with section 92 of the same Act, the incumbent shall have the power of deducting from the curate's stipend a sufficient amount to cover the repairs all through the time of the curate's occupation of the house. I assure you, my Lords, it is really of importance that we should be able to assign the residence to the curate, because, in the first place, it is very often very difficult otherwise to provide that the curate shall reside in the parish; and, in the second place, because, if the incumbent remains in the parish, it is constantly found, where he has been convicted of negligence, that it is highly probable he will continue to interfere largely with the discharge of the duties which the curate is put there to fulfil. I am confident, if you want this Bill to work satisfactorily, the power which I propose ought to be given to the bishops and the responsibility of applying the law should be left with them. I hope your Lordships will be willing to accept the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the Pluralities Act of 1838 provided that, in the case of continuous or recurrent absence from his benefice, an incumbent might have a curate
  782
  appointed to do his duty, and his own louse of residence—the house of residence of the benefice—assigned to that curate for his residence; and careful provisions are included in the sections of that Act for distributing the burden of rates, taxes, repairs, and dilapidations. No doubt the case against a non-resident incumbent as set forth in the Act of 1838 is one of very serious neglect indeed; he must have been guilty of wilful and persistent negligence. Those words were not used in the Act, but I think I shall be carrying your Lordships with me in saying that the incumbent whose case is considered in the present Bill must have been guilty of wilful and persistent negligence. Therefore, my Lords, it does not seem to Her Majesty's Government that the Act of negligence which is being considered in this Bill is of a less serious kind than that set forth under the Act of 1838, but rather the contrary. As the provisions of that Act have apparently been very carefully considered in the Amendment of the most reverend Prelate, and as the section as to the payment of rates and taxes has been applied to the cases foreseen by this Bill, and provision has been made for repairs, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to refuse their assent to this clause. I may say that it would scarcely have been possible to accept a clause like this if it had not been for the constitution of the court under this Bill. It is a very serious thing, after inhibiting an incumbent, however wilful he may have been in his neglect, to assign his residence to the curate who is put in to do his duty, and such a provision would, I think, have been very carefully scrutinised, both in your Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, if there were not ample security that the negligence of the incumbent must have been certified, if necessary, by a judge of the High Court. It stands to reason that a judge of the High Court, in considering a case brought before him, will naturally bear in mind the penalties which attach to negligence. I am, therefore, prepared to assent to this clause.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After clause 9, insert the following new clause—
  "Where, after the commencement of this Act, on the bankruptcy of an incumbent, or in aid of any writ of execution against his property, the benefice of that incumbent is sequestrated within twelve months after his institution, or where such sequestration, if issued after that period, continues for the space of one whole year, or where the incumbent incurs two such sequestrations in the space of two years, the benefice shall, unless the bishop otherwise direct, become void, and section fifty-eight of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply in like manner as if the benefice had become void under that section."—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  *THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I rise to move the insertion of this new clause after clause 9. The proposal is one of some importance, and it was not by any wish of mine that it was not made in Committee. It was postponed until now at the request of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. This clause, I believe, will prove to be one of the most practical, and one of the most useful, clauses that the Bill contains. It is based upon the principle which underlies this attempted legislation throughout—the principle, namely, that those who are entitled to primary consideration are the parishioners, rather than the patron or presentee. Whatever the rights of property that exist, either for the patron or for the incumbent, they are really subordinate to the deeper and larger interests of the parishioners as a whole. We have heard in the course of this Debate of scandals arising from, sometimes the immorality, sometimes the physical inability, or physical disqualification of the incumbent or would-be incumbent, and attention has been rightly drawn to the public harm that does occasionally arise in such cases. I believe that if we could look into it we should find that, taking the Church of England as a whole, more mischief has arisen from insolvent incumbents than from the very rare instances of moral scandal which have occurred. It is to meet this difficulty, if we possibly can, that I ask your Lordships to accept this additional clause. As the law now stands insolvency is followed by sequestration of the incumbent's benefice, and the alienation to other purposes of funds
  784
  originally devoted to the maintenance of spiritual work in the parish. That is a condition of things which I wish, if we can achieve it, to render practically impossible. There are two ways in which it is possible for sequestration to come into force. There are sequestrations issued by the bishop on his own authority, and on his own motion, in which the intention is simply to benefit the parishioners and to use the money for the spiritual good of the parish; as, for example, when a vacancy occurs, or when an incumbent has been inhibited, and so forth. In those cases no private end is served, and all the money is used for the purposes for which it was given. But there is a second class of cases in which the bishop acts simply in an official capacity at the bidding of a court of law, and in such cases the money is not used for the good of the parishioners, but for the payment of the creditors of the incumbent. There are various modern Acts of Parliament under which provision has been made that in such cases there must be enough money reserved to pay a bare stipend to the curate appointed to minister in the parish during sequestration. It may be the incumbent himself who is appointed as curate-in-charge, but the living is in any case sequestrated in order that there may be a balance over the curate's stipend, and that that balance may go to the liquidation of the private debts of the incumbent. Those who are unfamiliar with the facts would be surprised to learn what experiences any bishop could furnish as to how long this unhappy state of things may continue, and how great a calamity may happen to a parish in consequence. I will give your Lordships two instances. I select them, not because they are by any means the most flagrant, but because they are cases with which I have personally had to do. The first instance is one in which a large parish of 8,000 poor people has been under sequestration for some 13 years. About 13 years ago the incumbent was found to be bankrupt, his liabilities amounting to a very large sum indeed, and arising, I am told, simply from reckless speculation on the Stock Exchange, or elsewhere. A large number of sequestrations were issued against him, and for 13 years that has been going on, and thousands of pounds have already been paid to the

  785
  creditors, while 8,000 poor people in the parish have been obliged to put up with the ministry of successive curates, who receive the mere pittance which is allowed to be provided for them out of the sequestration money. So far as I know, that state of things is likely to go on, if the incumbent lives, for another 13 years. This is not an unusual case, and our desire is to make such cases impossible in the future. The other instance, to which I will call your Lordships' attention, is that of a country parish of only 500 people, which was sequestrated 20 years ago. The incumbent has long been absent. He lives, I believe, in Africa, and a considerable sum of money is annually paid over out of the living to the incumbent's personal creditors. For 20 years that has been going on, and the results may be better imagined than described. It would not be difficult to multiply instances in town and country of cases such as the two I have mentioned. It appears to me that the principle which renders such a condition of things possible is radically wrong, and the practice is little less than monstrous. It is absolutely contrary to the intention of Parliament. Long ago, in 1571, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, an Act of Parliament was passed to prevent incumbents from charging their benefices for the good of their creditors outside. These are the words of the Act of Queen Elizabeth—
  "That the livings appointed for ecclesiastical ministers may not by corrupt and indirect dealings be transferred to other uses, be it enacted … that all chargings of such benefices with any pension or with any profit out of the same … shall be utterly void."
  That provision has been practically evaded during many generations past by the practice of sequestrating a benefice, and enabling an incumbent thus to discharge what we may call alien debts to the infinite detriment of the parishioners, and, I think, to the misfortune, in most cases, of the man himself. Happily, during the last 30 years at least, public opinion has been steadily rising to the view that the whole system of sequestration—long-continued sequestration, at all events—for the payment of the debts of an individual incumbent is an iniquity that ought no longer to be borne. It is for that reason that
  786
  I ask your Lordships to accept the clause, which runs as follows—
  "Where, after the commencement of this Act, on the bankruptcy of an incumbent, or in aid of any writ of execution against his property, the benefice of that incumbent is sequestrated within twelve months after his institution, or where such sequestration, if issued after that period, continues for the space of one whole year, or where the incumbent incurs two such sequestrations in the space of two years, the benefice shall, unless the Bishop otherwise direct, become void, and Section 58 of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply in like manner as if the benefice had become void under that section."
  The wording of that clause is not new; it is based upon a clause in the Act of 1838, which dealt with non-resident incumbents. In its original intention it is happily now not much required, nor is it often put into practice, because the scandal of persistent non-residence, which was terribly common in the year 1838, is now virtually come to an end. But, besides that, I am not responsible for the wording of the clause as it stands. It is a clause which was carefully drawn up and inserted in the Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons in the year 1896. In that year, as your Lordships will remember, the Bill passed a Second Reading in the House of Commons, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Law. In that Committee it was discussed clause by clause, and this clause received long and careful consideration. The Bill passed through the Standing Committee on Law, and went back to the House of Commons, though from pressure of business, in the long run, it failed to pass. I commend that fact to your Lordships, as showing what consideration this clause has received at the hands of those best qualified to judge, and I earnestly hope that it may be incorporated in the present Bill. The only objections that I have heard to it are these: some people have said that it will be hard upon the creditors, and others that it will be hard upon the incumbents. How can it be hard upon the creditors? If the clause were to be made retrospective, then I admit that it might be hard upon the creditors. Is it hard upon the creditors of an officer of the Army, or of a civil servant, that he is unable to sequestrate

  787
  the annual sum due to him, in order that certain debts, quite apart from his public work, may be relieved? If the clause were retrospective—if you intended to take away the security upon which creditors have given money, or allowed credit—I quite admit that it would be hard upon the creditors. But it is not so. After this, all that will be necessary for the creditor to do will be to take care lest he give undue credit either by lending money or by allowing Bills to remain unpaid to incumbents over whose benefices he will hold no power—whose livings will not be able to be sequestrated if this clause passes. Then we are told that it is hard upon the incumbents themselves, and on that point I should like to say a few words. In the first place, I believe it will be a genuine benefit to incumbents in straitened circumstances that they should not have the somewhat vague and unlimited credit which the possible power of sequestration seems to give. A man who is not very careful, who is somewhat impecunious, who has large obligations, may be even benefited by the fact that his living cannot be sequestrated to obtain credit, and that it is therefore absolutely out of his power to obtain that credit. It is said there are occasional instances where a man, from no fault of his own—perhaps from having been a trustee—has found himself insolvent; and, that as he is not blameworthy, it would be exceedingly hard that the power of sequestrating his benefice should be taken away. In an argument of this description the story of the Glasgow Bank case does very great service; it has been used over and over again as an instance of the kind of way in which an incumbent might find himself liable, through merely having been trustee, to pay large sums of money. It is true that any such case as that would be very hard upon the incumbent. But is it better that the responsibility of paying those debts should fall upon the parishioners rather than upon the incumbent? If it is hard upon the incumbent to be thus placed in a position of difficulty, it is certainly even harder upon the parishioners, who, at all events, neither directly nor indirectly, either by carelessness or negligence, or anything else, can be regarded as being responsible for the debts thus incurred. That is the first answer I should like to give to those who say that this clause would be
  788
  hard upon the incumbent. If it is hard upon him—and it is no harder upon him than it is upon other men—that he should be unable to anticipate his income by means of sequestration, surely it is equally hard upon the parishioners, who in the long run are the people called upon to suffer. But, besides that, this clause says—
  "The benefice shall, unless the bishop otherwise direct, become void."
  Therefore, it will always be possible for the bishop, in an exceptional case of hardship, where it is felt that there was no fault, and that real gain would result from allowing sequestration to continue and the incumbent to remain in possession, to make such arrangements as are necessary for the protection of an innocent man. This seems to me to be quite a sufficient answer to the complaint that this clause would act harshly upon an incumbent, if it were to become law. But I can appeal on this particular point to an unimpeachable authority. If there is one body in England which is competent and certain to safeguard the interests of the incumbents in England it is the Lower House of Convocation. Whatever may be its shortcomings in other respects, no one will impute to it that it is careless of the interests of the incumbents who vote for its members, and who largely constitute the body. Now, my Lords, this actual clause was introduced by me into the Upper House of Convocation, and was sent down to the Lower House. It was there considered, and without one dissentient voice, the Lower House asked that it might become law. That is a most important point to consider when we hear the allegation that the clause will be hard upon incumbents. The incumbents have spoken by the voice of the Lower House of Convocation, which is their authorised means of speaking, and that House has spoken with public spirit and with wisdom in asking that this clause should become law. I have therefore neither scruple nor hesitation in asking your Lordships to add this clause to the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is no doubt that a case such as the right reverend prelate has so eloquently described is a glaring scandal. I know of a

  789
  case in point which will verify the experience of the right reverend prelate; a teeming population with a large church and a rich living—the incumbent wandering over the globe—the whole living in the hands of creditors, and a small sum rescued from the annual instalment paid to the creditors in order to pay the curate struggling to provide ministration to the spiritual needs of that teeming population. That is only one case of many which could be quoted by the right reverend prelates who sit on that bench, and who have only too extensive an experience of cases of this kind. If that was the only class of case that we had to consider under the head of sequestration, I should be able with the greatest possible satisfaction to accept the right reverend prelate's clause exactly as it stands now. Indeed, I do not see, even apart from the reservation that I shall presently have to make, on what logical basis this law of sequestration stands. Here is a provision being made for the cure of souls in a certain benefice. It certainly never was in the mind of any pious founder that he should enable some future incumbent of that benefice to indulge in such extravagances that the living had to be sequestrated for 10 or 20 years in order to satisfy that incumbent's creditors. It is an entirely indefensible system, but I am afraid that the four corners of this Bill would not suffice for complete revision or abolition of the law of sequestration. It is a very complicated matter. There are, I believe, no less than seven different kinds of sequestrations, one of which, at least, is a necessary and thoroughly right one—I mean the sequestration which follows vacancy. But, my Lords, the case is not absolutely simple. Besides these extravagant incumbents on whose behalf I do not imagine one of your Lordships would raise a word, it is to be remembered that in this time of agricultural depression and general deterioration of the value of livings there are cases of sequestration, and I am afraid a good many of them, which cannot be attributed to any simple fault on the part of the incumbent. He may have been unwise, but he has not been guilty of any speculation or of any extravagant tastes. There are cases, my Lords, where a man has run into debt, and where his living has been sequestrated
  790
  owing to the fact that the value of the living has been continually declining, and he has been really striving unwisely, from the best of principles, beyond his means to support the spiritual needs of the parish; or he has contributed largely to the payment of curates and to other matters of church work, church schools, and so on, without sufficiently realising the dangerous position into which he was getting. There are other cases where a man has really been made a bankrupt, and his living has been sequestrated owing to the sum he has had to pay in respect of dilapidations on entering into his benefice. This is the class of case which is quite of a different character to the case of extravagance or of speculation, and Her Majesty's Government think that such cases must be considered, and that, as this Amendment stands, men who are getting into that position at the present moment, and who, rightly or wrongly, have relied on the income of their benefice to extract them out of the temporary dilemma into which they have arrived, ought to have their cases considered. Further, that it would not be defensible that such men, who are striving to do their utmost to rise above the financial wave, should be liable to complete deprivation. That, I would remind the right reverend prelate, is what his Amendment amounts to, but I say that such men should not be liable to lose their benefices altogether—to lose any chance of recovering their position—and I think should not be liable to see themselves turned out without any benefice, and to see their wives and families ejected from the residence of the living. Therefore, my Lords, what Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do, if the right reverend prelate will alter the form of his Amendment, is to accept this clause if it is made applicable to the case of incumbents presented or collated after the commencement of this Act. That, no doubt, unfortunately, would leave the evil of which we complain in the case of extravagant and speculative incumbents untouched for some time to come, but it will avoid the very great injustice of the possibility of men who have got themselves into this position through neither extravagance nor speculation, being turned out of their benefices, and it will act as a great warning to them in

  791
  the future. It will deprive them of this artifical credit, which, they should remember, was not theirs to use, and it will prove a support and a strength to them in the future. It will, I believe, minimise the possibility of their getting credit which is beyond their means to pay, and will act not as a hardship, but as a safeguard against their getting, in the future, into such a position as I have described. There is one further Amendment that the Government would wish to see. At present the discretion of the bishop is negative—unless he intervenes this clause is to take effect. Her Majesty's Government would like to see the position reversed, and that the clause will not take effect unless the bishop should direct that it should; thus there would be a direct responsibility on the bishop of distinguishing between cases where the incumbent is wholly to blame, and in cases where there may be extenuating circumstances which the bishop could take into account, and which will accordingly go in mitigation of the severity of the sentence he might otherwise think it his duty to pass. If the right reverend Prelate will accept these alterations, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the right reverend Prelate's clause as a very valuable addition to what I believe will be a Bill that will operate very largely to the discipline and efficiency of the Church. The clause would run thus—
  "In the case of incumbents presented or collated after the commencement of this Act, if on bankruptcy, or in aid of any writ of execution against property, the benefice of any such incumbent is sequestrated within twelve months after his institution, or if such sequestration, if issued after that period, continues for the space of one whole year, or if any such incumbent incurs two such sequestrations in the space of two years, the benefice shall, unless the bishop otherwise direct, become void, and section fifty-eight of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply in like manner as if the benefice had become void under that section."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Certainly, as far as my opinion goes, I think that the clause which the noble Earl has signified his willingness to accept, is better than no clause at all; but I am afraid that I do not agree with the basis on which he has founded his argument. He seems to me to consider that this Amendment of the law had
  792
  in view the punishment, as it were, of the clergy; my view is, that the idea of it is to safeguard the interests of the parishioners. No doubt it is right that where you have to pass a law which has for its object the safeguarding of the parishioners, you should consider fairly and reasonably the position in which the incumbent may be placed; but I regard the wish to put an end, or, at any rate, to modify the law of sequestration, as being based entirely upon this: that it is wrong in principle and in practice that money which exists for the purpose of providing for the spiritual needs of the parish, should go to satisfy debts which the clergyman has incurred. I thought that the right reverend Prelate was wise in leaving a discretion to the bishop, because there may be cases undoubtedly where a certain amount of indulgence might be properly allowed, and I do not think you ought to frame the law so that it is necessary for the bishop to take notice of these "hard cases." I feel great sympathy for the clergy who may have found that their incomes are not as large as they anticipated, and therefore they have fallen into difficulties. But, although I feel that sympathy, yet I think that that does not meet the case. They may have expended the money in lavish charities or in adornment of their churches, which are unnecessary. Pray do not misunderstand me. I am speaking from any point of view of ritual. They may have done any of those things, or they may have done other things which they would wisely have abstained from; but because they have done these things I see no reason why they should be exempt entirely from the necessity which, I believe, is felt by all, that the interests of the parish should be first considered. What I feel is that the noble Earl's Amendment will be extremely little followed; because, if you consider what a very long time it would be before any very large number of the clergy would come under the effect of it, I think such a postponement as he recommends would be most unfortunate. I regret that the noble Earl is not able to accept the Amendment which the right reverend Prelate has told us was actually approved of by the Lower House of Convocation, which undoubtedly represents the feelings of the incumbents of livings. I

  793
  think it right to make that observation, but at the same time, I think that a little is better than nothing at all, and that the introduction of the principle into the Bill will be valuable, even though, in practice, it will have very small effect.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should like to ask the noble Earl to reconsider the change which he proposes to make in the latter part of the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. As the original Amendment stands, the clause is to come into operation unless the bishop otherwise directs.
  "The benefice shall, unless the bishop otherwise direct, become void."
  That, of course, leaves with the bishop a discretion; but, unless he sees reason to interfere, the Act is to come into force. Now, my Lords, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill proposes to make the operation act in the very opposite way, and he proposes that the clause shall not come into force unless the bishop says that it is to come into force. Well, that may be right, but I only ask the noble Earl to consider what a very serious duty he is imposing upon the bishop. Think of the amount of appeals that will be made to the bishop! Think how hard it will be for him in one case to say, "Well, yes, I am sorry to say so, but I think in this case I must insist on the law," and in another, "Yes, I think in that case I shall be able to abstain from interfering." It seems to me that the proposed change of the noble Earl throws upon the bishop a very unnecessary hardship, and throws upon him a duty which I think he should not be called upon to undertake. I would just ask him—and I thought that the noble Earl who spoke before me was going to raise that point—whether this is not a point which he should seriously consider before he asks your Lordships to adopt the Amendment in its changed form.
  THE MARQUIS OF LOTHIAN: I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been already made use of, but I feel very strongly that it will be a great mistake if the Amendment, as altered by the noble Earl, is to be given effect to. I very much prefer the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I cannot help think-
  794
  ing that there are a great many Members on this side of the House who are willing to accept the noble Earl's first proposed Amendment, but not the second one. I only rise, my Lords, to say that because I think it would be a great mistake if the second Amendment of the noble Earl to the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate was given effect to.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I do not think that the noble Earl opposite who last spoke has sufficiently considered what the operation of this clause will be if turned into cast-iron machinery from which there is no power of escape.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is not what I proposed. I proposed to leave the latter half of the right reverend Prelate's Amendment as he proposed it, whereby the clause would come into force unless the bishop otherwise directed.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Then I do not think it is worth talking much about, the difference between the two is extremely small. It is merely a question of considering the finer feelings of the bishop, and I do not think it matters much whether the bishop says it is to have effect, or whether it is to take effect unless the bishop says no. I do not think the results are worth the consideration of the House. I should very much demur to anything which would not give a direction in one form or another to the bishop, because you must remember that in cases which happen not unfrequently, where a clergyman goes into a living weighted already with debts incurred at the university, and goes through life weighted with those debts—unhappily a case which is by no means unknown—he becomes the absolute slave of the money-lender, into whose hands he has fallen. If the money-lender is able at his will to bring this machinery of sequestration into effect, that machinery would pretty well destroy the chances of future existence for the clergyman. If the bishop cannot save him, if he thinks right to do so, from the severe operation of the law, the result will be that the clergyman must do whatever the money-lender pleases. The money-lender

  795
  is his master, and it is a slavery from which he cannot escape. I remember a case where a man came into a rich living, heavily burdened with debt. I think he held that rich living, heavily burdened with debt as it was, for more than a quarter of a century, but there was no sequestration from, beginning to end; there was the threat of sequestration hanging over him from first to last, and the whole value of the living came into the moneylenders' hands and the condition of that parish was exceedingly deplorable. I do not see my way out of a difficulty of that kind, excepting by some such Measure as is proposed by the right reverend Prelate, and by leaving to the bishop a kind of paternal power of either enforcing or diminishing the weight and sanction of the law. In that way I hope that this clause may do a great deal of good. I think you will have complaint of hard cases—that due notice has not been given—that you are interfering with the rights of property which are really vested, and which, as the law stands, were rightly vested; but on the whole, I think that the clause, as proposed by the Government, is the safest clause to take, and that it will be a very considerable advance on the state of things that exists at present.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Marquess said in the course of his remarks that he does not think it a matter of grave importance whether it should be left to the bishop to take the enforcement of the clause or whether the clause is left to operate unless the bishop otherwise directs. I think, however, if the noble Marquess were a bishop and had to enforce the clause, he would feel that there was a very considerable difference, and, if the noble Marquess thinks it is a matter of no importance, then surely there can be no reason for altering the clause as it stands. If it is of no great importance, then leave it as it has been proposed. Certainly the bishop would very much rather have it in that form than in any other, and further, there is this to be said: it leaves the incumbent in a state of suspense—in a state of suspended animation. The bishop may delay his decision, he goes on, and the sequestration goes on, and this sort of thing may go on for no one knows how
  796
  long, and the incumbent never knows when the bishop may come down and say, "Now the law must be enforced." If the Government do not think it is a matter of great importance, I hope they will be willing to leave that part of the clause alone. I am not objecting to that part of the clause which postpones the operation of the clause by applying it only to those who are instituted after this Bill has been passed into an Act, although there is a good deal to be said for it, I am sorry for it; but so far as the other alteration is concerned, I really think it would be very much better to leave it alone.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Under the new regulation I had better ask the leave of the Lord Chancellor before I speak again. I wish that the right reverend bench would let us know whether the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate represents their views, because if that is the feeling of the Bench I do not think the Government ought to refuse.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I think that the Bench is entirely unanimous, so far as I know, in this respect, and very much prefer that they should not have to inaugurate the law, but rather that it should be allowed to take its ordinary course. The noble Marquess has spoken about the "finer feelings" of the bishops. I think your Lordships would wish the bishops still to retain those finer feelings. They are one of the few classes of society which possesses them, and anything which would prevent those finer feelings from being seriously outraged would, I think, be a public benefit.
  Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 10.
  "Page 6, line 24, after 'Act,' insert 'and the application thereof for the remuneration of the officials in the registry in respect of such registration and inspection.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That simply provides, my Lords, that the fees derived from registration should be paid to the officials of the registry.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 30, after 'made,' insert—
  "For the purpose of framing rules under this section the judge nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Act shall be added to the said Rule Committee if not already a member thereof.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The insertion of those words is necessary in order to make certain that the judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor shall be members of the Rule Committee.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of clause 10, insert—
  "The fees paid in respect of proceedings in the court under this Act shall be paid over to the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, out of such common fund, defray all the expenses of and incidental to the sittings of the court and the remuneration of its officers, and all expenses which are necessarily incurred in the execution of this Act in such proceedings: Provided that no portion of the fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: One word in this proposed addition has not been printed properly. In the clause on the Amendment Paper it says in the third line from the bottom, at the end of the line, "portion of the," whereas it should be "portion of any." The Amendment would then read—
  "The fees paid in respect of proceedings in the court under this Act shall be paid over to the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, out of such common fund, defray all the expenses of and incidental to the sittings of the court and the remuneration of its officers, and all expenses which are necessarily incurred in the execution of this Act in such proceedings: Provided that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses."
  798
  This Amendment is put down, my Lords, to meet the case of the expenses incurred under this Act—the expenses of the court and other expenses incurred in bringing this Act into operation. A good deal of debate has taken place in the various stages of this Bill on this question, and the Government proposed to throw on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners not only the expense of the court, but also the costs of the bishops. But, on behalf of the bishops, the most reverend prelate expressed his dislike and disapproval of that proposal, and in the Amendment that is now before your Lordships' House that proposal is not renewed, but the Government retain the very strongest conviction that the expenses of this court must be provided for in this Act if this Act is not to be a farce, and in their opinion no fitter fund than the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners can be imagined for such a purpose. It is quite true that the purposes to which that fund are already allotted are of great importance to the Church; but it is difficult to imagine any purpose more important than the proper working of the courts under this Bill. Therefore, I may say, with the consent of the most reverend prelate—that is to say, that he will not oppose the Amendment—this charge of the expenses of the court in all particulars is put upon the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the last words—
  "provided that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses"—
  have been put in to meet the spirit of the criticism of the most reverend prelate. I am perfectly aware that the common fund is not divided into specific portions. I am perfectly aware that the money that is annually voted to the relief of necessitous incumbents is not an ear-marked fund, but on the other hand, bearing in mind the strong appeal of the most reverend prelate the other day, the Government have put in these words as a direction to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that in annually apportioning the common fund they shall remember that any expenses which are charged to the fund under this Act are to be taken from those portions of the apportionment that would not

  799
  otherwise be allotted for necessitous incumbents. It is a direction which expresses clearly the meaning of the Government, and that meaning is meant to meet the appeal of the most reverend Prelate; and if by any chance it does hereafter result in some kind of division of this fund, it might not be an altogether inapt result of the wording of this clause. In order to mitigate as far as possible the expense to be put upon Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it is thought fair that the fees which are paid into court under this Act shall be paid to the common fund, upon which the whole expenses of these courts will henceforth be chargeable.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have no objection to make to the Amendment as a whole, but the last three lines—
  "provided that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses"—
  will, I am afraid, be a little hampering, because, as the noble Earl is aware, the amount that we generally have to distribute at the close of a year is about £150,000. It has been that for two or three years, and will be for a few more, and very likely may go on being that amount, or perhaps it may be a little more; but of this £150,000 no part is allotted or destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents. The allotment is made after we have ascertained two things—first, what is the exact amount that we have to distribute, and, secondly, what are the circumstances of the applications that are made to us to apply the money in one way or another. We go through the cases, we decide that we will allow so much for local claims, we afterwards give relief to poor incumbents, we allow so much for the augmentation of the livings of poor incumbents, and we allow so much for populations without sufficient ministry. But there is no fixed sum for any of these matters—they are allotted for the particular circumstances of a particular year, and I do not see very well how this can work, so as to secure that the portion which is to go to population cases shall be the only part that shall be affected by the clause up to the point where these
  800
  words come in. I think that either the words will have no operation whatever, or else they will be simply hampering, and in that case I would rather have them out. I cannot say that they are so mischievous that I shall vote against the clause as a whole in order to get rid of these few words, but I think it is better that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be quite free in their discretion in applying the money as they have hitherto applied it. If the fees of the court are to be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the amount that remains for the Commissioners to make up will probably not be a very large sum.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The most reverend Prelate is the indirect author of the words by his eloquent and passionate attempt to stamp upon the proposed clause of the Government the reproach of enmity to the poorer cleray, and a tendency to assist the already over-furnished bishop. I do not agree with the most reverend Prelate. Still, if you can attach a sentimental ground of attack to any measure of any kind, you tie a tin kettle to its tail, which may injure it in its future progress. There are places more sentimental even than this House, where I fear such a reproach would have had a terrible effect, and, in order to safeguard the provision from a renewal of that animated and eloquent appeal to which we listened the other night, and from the more decided effects which might follow it elsewhere, I confess I had rather that the clause remained in. I am quite open to the suggestion that it does not mean very much, and that its practical effect will not be very great, but it is one of sentiment and feeling, and those are things which always appeal to a British Parliament.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPON: May I venture to ask whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have any fund which is destined or earmarked for the relief of necessitous incumbents. I think they have a fund for relieving necessitous in-

  801
  cumbents, which is a very different thing indeed?
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is one little word I should like to put in—
  "Page 7, line 16, insert 'all' instead of 'of.'"
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill ordered for Third Rending on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. [No. 175.]

  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
  *LORD BELPER: This is a very small Bill, and deals with a very small point which was overlooked in the Bill brought in last year by the Home Office. That Bill amended a clause in a former Act, and it was afterwards found that it had altered the arrangements with regard to the application of the fines which were applied under a former agreement. That was not intended, and this Bill is merely for the purpose of making it clear that these fines should be applied in the way proposed.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  *LORD BELPER: The Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time this evening is one which proposes an amendment in the law with regard to the treatment of habitual inebriates, who have been convicted either of serious or minor offences caused by drunkenness. The question of the habitual drunkard has been one which has attracted a considerable amount of attention in the country, and more than one Resolution and Bill has been brought before Parliament with regard to this subject. No less than three Committees have dealt with the question. In the first place, there was the Committee which was appointed by the late Home Secretary, Lord Llandaff, which was the Committee on the treatment of inebriates in 1873, and of that Mr. Wharton was Chairman. There was also the Scotch Committee on Habitual Offenders, which was appointed in 1895, and there is the Prison Committee which was appointed in 1895, also dealing with this question, and which confirmed the conclusions which had been come to by the other Committees. It will also, perhaps, be within the recollection of your Lordships that Lord Herschell brought forward a Bill on this question—three years ago—and the only reason that I refer to it is for the purpose of making it quite clear that the present Bill, which I have now the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time, does not, as that Bill did, refer also to the case of inebriates who have not been convicted of any offence. This Bill proposes, as I said, to deal only with those who have brought themselves under the criminal law, and are habitual drunkards, and it proposes a curative treatment, with a sufficiently long detention in a reformatory to give them some chance of being successfully treated. My Lords, I think I may mention, as this is a somewhat new Bill, that it has passed through the House of Commons, not only with the assent, but with the general approval, of both sides of the House, and it did not even give rise to that difference of opinion which so many questions which are to deal with drink are calculated to excite. I think that any of your Lordships who have paid any attention to this question,

  803
  and especially those who have assisted in the administration of justice, especially in courts of summary jurisdiction, will have been well aware how inefficient and unsatisfactory the present law has been; that it has not been successful in deterring these offences of drunkenness from being repeated, and that, in fact, it is a matter of common notoriety that the class of people who are committed for drunken offences will come back repeatedly charged with the same offences. I do not wish to labour the matter at all with regard to the bringing before you of any evidence upon this point, but I think that I ought, perhaps, very shortly to refer you to a few of the facts which have been laid before the Home Office, and also before this House. There was a Memorial presented, I think, to this House some two years ago, and Lord Herschell referred to that in the speech which he made in the introduction of the Bill in 1895. That Memorial contained some very startling facts, but I will only refer to one or two of them. One was this: that out of 33,000 women who were sent to prison for drunkenness, 11,000—not less than 33 per cent.—had 10 convictions recorded against them. In one of the London prisons, at the time that the return in question was being prepared, there were 105 women who had been committed from 40 to 133 times in the course of the year, and there was one woman who had actually had 400 convictions against her, besides which her husband had also paid £200 in fines in connection with the same sort of case. My Lords, it is not only in the very large and populous places like London that these cases seem to occur. We have had, at the Home Office, a large number of requisitions from different parts of the country asking for legislation in this matter—by corporations, by boards of guardians, and by other authorities. I think there were some 50 of such applications in the first two months of this year. In small towns the cases seem to be quite as frequent as they are in other places. In one town, with a population of 12,000, six persons had been convicted of being drunk, who were described by the police as habitual drunkards; against three of these there had been 20 con-
  804
  victions for this sort of offence. In another case, in a town of about 25,000 population, there were 11 such persons convicted, of whom nine had over 20 convictions against them; and in another town of about 30,000 population there were 15 persons, of whom 11 had been convicted 25 times, and one had 76 convictions against him. There is also a rather striking return from a large union in London, in which they stated that 230 persons had been admitted to the insane wards during 1897 who were suffering from alcoholic excess. In all these cases alcohol is said to be the sole cause of the mental disturbance, and in many other cases which are not mentioned it is a contributing cause; and the guardians assert that they have been put to an expense of £1,000 owing to these particular cases. Then, to give you only one more fact, and to put to you the general result, I find that in the police returns for the year 1896 there were 23,300 people who were classed as habitual drunkards; 261 of these were proceeded against for indictable offences, and 23,000 were proceeded against summarily. These figures will give your Lordships some idea of the number of cases which may possibly have to be dealt with under this Measure. That, practically, is the case for the Bill. I think your Lordships will agree that these figures are sufficiently startling to show that the present law is not satisfactory, and that it requires some amendment. I would venture to point out, my Lords, that it is not surprising that the law is not satisfactory, because these people who have been indulging repeatedly in drink are practically in a state that they cannot be said to have any moral responsibility, and they cannot practically control themselves, or resist again indulging in these excesses which so often bring them within the clutches of the law. Now, my Lords, with regard to the proposals in the Bill, I will only, in the first instance, state that its provisions are founded on the Reports of those Committees which took the evidence of expert witnesses upon this matter, and which practically confirmed each other, and came to the same conclusion, that the only possible way of dealing with these cases is detention sufficiently long in a reformatory, under

  805
  some curative treatment. The Bill proposes that there shall be two sorts of reformatories established. In the first place, the Secretary of State may establish inebriate reformatories, which in this Bill are called State inebriate reformatories. These will be for the reception of the most serious case of offenders—those who have been convicted under the first clause of the Act of indictable1 offences, punishable with imprisonment or penal servitude. And with regard to these State inebriate reformatories the Secretary of State will make—
  "regulations for the rule and management of any State inebriate reformatory, and for the classification, treatment, employment, and control of persons sent to it."
  The other class of reformatory is called certified inebriates' reformatories, and they are for the purpose, in the first instance, of dealing with cases of those who are habitual inebriates, and who are convicted of minor offences, and these certified inebriate reformatories may be established either by private means or by councils of counties, or by councils of boroughs, but before they are certified as inebriate reformatories they will have to conform to whatever conditions the Secretary of State thinks it desirable to put upon them. With regard to the two classes that this Bill proposes to deal with, the first class deals with the cases of those who have, upon indictment, been found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment or penal servitude. In the first instance, it will have to be proved that the offence was committed under the influence of drink, or that drunkenness was a contributing cause to the offence; and if the jury find the prisoner guilty of the offence they will also have to find whether he was an habitual drunkard under the description of the Act of 1879. In that case he may, in addition to or in substitution of any other sentence, be detained for a period not exceeding three years in a State inebriate reformatory, or other certified reformatory. The other eases which are dealt with in the second clause are the cases of offenders who are found guilty of any of the offences in the first schedule of this Act. That schedule contains all the ordinary cases of being guilty of drunkenness and dis-
  806
  orderliness, drunk while in charge of any carriage, horse, or steam-engine, failing when drunk to quit licensed premises when requested, being drunk in any street, and being guilty of riotous or indecent behaviour, and other things of that sort. With reference to this class of person, it will have to be proved that the offender is an habitual drunkard, but in addition to that he cannot be convicted under this Bill unless he has, within 12 months preceding the date of the commission of the offence, been convicted summarily at least three times of the same or a similar offence. He will also be charged on indictment unless he himself wishes to be dealt with summarily. My Lords, I think you will see that with regard to both of these clauses there is sufficient security that no man will be put on his trial, and be likely to be subject to this detention for this long period, unless it is absolutely proved that he is an habitual drunkard, and that he has not been reformed within the last 12 months, because, as is provided for in the second clause, he cannot be convicted unless he has been similarly convicted at least three times within that period. With regard to the other provisions of the Bill, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships at any length. With regard to the certified inebriate reformatories, the Bill proposes, by clause 5—
  "The Secretary of State, on the application of the council of any county or borough or of any persons desirous of establishing an inebriate reformatory, may, if satisfied as to the fitness of the reformatory and of the persons proposing to maintain it, certify it as an inebriate reformatory, and thereupon, while the certificate is in force, the reformatory shall be a certified inebriate reformatory within the meaning of this Act."
  There is also a power taken for the Secretary of State being applied to to contribute to the maintenance of the inebriates in certified inebriate reformatories. The Act applies not only to Scotland, where the evidence was quite as strong as it is with regard to England, but also to Ireland. It was not originally intended to refer to Ireland, but it has been made to refer to Ireland on the express and general wish of those representing Irish constituencies in the other House. The only other part of the Bill to which I need

  807
  refer is with reference to clauses introduced for the purpose of making some necessary and desirable amendment of the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, which experience has found can be usefully amended to make it work more smoothly. My Lords, I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships that it is a desirable thing that some attempt should be made to deal with this very serious question. I do not know whether there are any of your Lordships who would be inclined to object to this Bill. I cannot conceive that there is anyone who can consider that the present state of the law is a satisfactory one, and if there is any opposition to a Measure of this sort, I think it can only be on the ground that it is a somewhat novel procedure that is now being proposed. At the same time. I may venture to remind your Lordships that it is on the lines of the Reformatories Act, by which juvenile offenders are treated in a similar way, and kept under detention a sufficiently long time to make them forget the evil courses on which they have embarked, and though this is a Bill dealing with people of more mature age, and not with those of tender years, yet I think it will be at once admitted that if they are repeatedly guilty of such a series of offences as is shown in the cases which I have quoted to your Lordships, and if it is certain that they have no power or control over their own actions as far as drink is concerned, it is not only the right but the duty of the State to protect them from the consequences of their own actions, and also to protect society from these repeated cases of drunkenness and disorder which the present law does not seem to be able to deal with. I hope that you will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is founded, as I have pointed out to your Lordships, on the experience and on the investigations of those who are most qualified to form an opinion upon this difficult subject.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Motion agreed to.
  Read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  "Where a Bill or a part or parts or clause or clauses of a Bill is or are withdrawn under this Act, no further expense shall be incurred by the council or mayor or chairman of the council in or about the promotion of the Bill, or part or parts or clause or clauses so with-drawn; but, subject as aforesaid, all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the council or mayor or chairman in or as incidental to the preparation and promotion of the Bill, up to and inclusive of its deposit in Parliament and withdrawal (if withdrawn), and in or as incidental to the taking of a poll under this Act, shall, when taxed by a taxing officer of me of the Houses of Parliament, or allowed under the Borough Funds Act, 1872, be charged on and payable out of such one or more of the public funds or rates under the control of the council (and if more than one, then in such proportions) as the council, having regard to the nature and objects of the Bill, may determine to be just and proper."—(The Earl of Beauchamp.)
  *LORD AMPTHILL: The noble Earl in charge of this Bill has asked me to move the Amendment which stands in his name. In doing so, perhaps I may be allowed to say two words of explanation, The Amendment which your Lordships we asked to insert in the Bill originally formed part of the Bill, but while the Bill was passing through Standing Committee it was accidentally omitted, owing to circumstances which I need not trouble your Lordships by relating. I understand that the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board is willing to accept the clause, and I trust your Lordships will do so too.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the clause be added to the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered for Third Reading on Monday next.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
  The House went into Committee on the Universities and College Estates Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)in the Chair.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, there are one or two Amendments to this Bill on the Notice Paper.

  CLAUSE 4.
  "Page 2, line 35, leave out from the first 'the' to the first 'the' in line 38, and insert 'annual amount required for the repayment of the money exceeds one-half of the net annual value of the land after deduction therefrom of the rent reserved by the beneficial lease.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  "Page 3, line 4, after 'expedient,' insert 'provided that the aggregate amount required to be repaid or replaced by a university or college in any one year in respect of money so borrowed or applied shall be not less than the average annual amount so repaid or replaced during the five years ending the thirty-first day of December, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill, as amended, reported to the House.

  CIRCUIT CLERKS OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 177.]

  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time on Monday next. (The Lord Belper.) [No. 178.]
  House adjourned at 6.45.