Sitting of 10 March 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WESTMINSTER BRIDGE AND EMBANKMENT TRAMWAYS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday, 1st April.
  PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday, 25th March.
  GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till after the other Private Business.
  LONDON BUILDING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday, 1st April.

  RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL.
  To extend the municipal and police boundaries of the burgh of Renfrew; to authorise the construction of a tidal dock or basin, and other works, at the harhour; and for other purposes; Read the first time; to be read a second time.
  Ordered—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Board of Agriculture, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order.
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power in respect of each such Provisional Order, to inquire and Report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether, with or without modification, and, in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Board of Agriculture.
  "That the Committee do consist of twelve Members, seven to be nominated by the House and five by the Committee of Selection.
  "That Mr. Bucknill, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Paulton, and Mr. Taylor be Members of the Committee.
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  "That five be the quorum."—(Sir William Walrond.)

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question Proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: Sir, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time upon this day six months. The object of this Bill is to consolidate and convert the capital of the

  1193
  Gas Light and Coke Company, and if this were the only proposal, I should regard it very much in the light of a matter affecting the shareholders alone, and not affecting the public position. But what I object to in this Bill is the watering of the stock, and if the House will kindly grant me just a few minutes I will state, as briefly as possible, what are my objections to the Bill. In the first place, the House will see that this is not a small Bill, but that the interests affected are very enormous. When I say that the stock which it is proposed to convert by this Bill amounts in the aggregate to close upon £12,000,000 sterling in nominal value, the House will see that, as I have said, it is not a small matter with which it is called upon to deal. It will, however, be convenient if, in explaining the effect of this Bill, I confine my attention to the ordinary stock of the company, which amounts to upwards of £6,000,000. It is not necessary that I should go further back in the history of the company than to the Act of 1876. By that Act, a Parliamentary bargain was made between the company on the one hand, and the consumers on the other. The relation which was to exist between the dividends which were to be paid and the prices which were to be charged for the gas was regulated by what is known as the sliding scale; that is to say, there was to be a 10 per cent. dividend on the ordinary stock, because I believe the dividend then payable was taken as the standard of dividend, and the then price of gas—3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet—was taken as the standard price of gas, and it was stipulated that for every penny charged in any year in diminution or in excess of the standard price, the standard rate of dividend should be reduced or increased for that year by one quarter per cent. Further, by that Act the interests of the public were protected by what is called the "auction clause"; that is to say, it was stipulated that any stock thereafter issued should be submitted to auction at the best price that the market could afford, so that the permanent advantage should not go to the shareholders, but that it should be appropriated to the purposes of the undertaking, and in this way accrue indirectly for the benefit of the consumers. Now, Sir, I say that the principle of the auction clause was to
  1194
  support and strengthen the sliding scale, and that the general effect of this clause was to provide that the shareholders should not from 1876 always receive any additional advantage without some corresponding advantage accruing to the consumer. Under the settlement of 1876, both the shareholders and the consumers have benefited. The price of gas offered by the company is now 2s. 10d. per 1,000 feet, and the dividend on the ordinary stock is 12¾ per cent. But the company is not satisfied. The company say—and I desire to put their case as fairly as possible—that £100 worth of stock nominal, with a dividend of 12¾ per cent., which runs up the Stock Exchange price to something between £200 and £300, is not so saleable as £100 worth of stock, with a 4 per cent. dividend, and commanding a premium of, perhaps, £15 or £20. And so the company bring forward this Bill, in which they ask the House to allow them to convert their ordinary stock, with a standard rate of dividend of 10 per cent., into a stock two and a half times in nominal amount greater, but having a standard rate of dividend of only 4 per cent. Now this conversion, as I will presently show, will bestow great advantage upon the company, but the effect upon the community will be very mischievous. In the first place, the effect of the Bill will be to conceal from the eye of the public the real state of facts in relation to the company. The company is now paying 12¾ per cent. upon its ordinary stock, but if this Bill passes it will then only pay about 5 per cent. Now, I submit that it is contrary to public policy that the company, having statutory powers and dealing under those statutory powers in a monopoly, should seem to be paying only 5 per cent., when, indeed, and in faith, it is paying a dividend of 12¾ per cent. This is my first objection. My second objection is that it is proposed by this Bill to rip up the Parliamentary bargain made in 1876 between this company and the consumers in London, and to do that in the interests of one of two parties only—namely, the company. It makes a present to the shareholders in this company in the shape of an enormous addition to the Stock Exchange value of the undertaking, whereas there is nothing in the nature of any particular advantage accruing to the consumer. I

  1195
  understand that it will be said that there is some advantage to the consumer in this way, that he will receive a compensation through the operation of the auction clause upon that portion of the authorised capital of the undertaking which remains as yet unissued. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is sufficent to knock the bottom out of that argument to merely state what the amount of the unissued capital really is. The total existing stocks are very nearly twelve million pounds, and the only portion which remains unissued amounts to £175,000. That, of course, is a mere bagatelle, and it is obvious that, while the company receives an enormous advantage, the advantage to the consumer through the operation of the auction clause on the unissued capital—namely, £175,000—is absolutely inappreciable. In the third place, I object to the Bill because the public will be prejudiced by its effect if at any future time the public should propose to acquire the property of the company. It is admitted that the effect of this Bill will be to increase the Stock Exchange value of the undertaking. The degree of enhancement of value is, of course, a matter of dispute. Indeed, it is denied that the precise amount of the enhancement of value can possibly be fairly stated; but no one can seriously deny that the enhancement of value must be very considerable, and will probably be enormous. We are not without precedent to guide us in this matter. In the case of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, where the stock was treated in a similar manner in 1896, under circumstances to which I will in a moment refer, the Chairman of the company estimated the probable increase of Stock Exchange value at £90,000, the Controller of the London County Council put the figure at £250,000; but they were both wrong, for, in fact, the enhancement of value has proved to be the enormous sum of £900,000. Now, I believe it will be argued on the other side that the enhancement of the Stock Exchange value of the undertaking will not affect the price to be paid in the event of purchase by the public. I anticipate that that will be said on the other side. It will be said, I presume, that the arbitrator will estimate the price not upon the Stock Exchange value, but upon the basis of divisible property. But I will leave that
  1196
  argument to be judged by the candour and common sense of the House, and for this reason that I think it will be difficult to persuade hon. Members that the market is not a possible basis that a company may put before an arbitrator. We must remember that an arbitrator does not give his reasons. We cannot possibly understand or know what motives are operating at the back of the mind of the arbitrator. But I do say there is a risk—I will not put it stronger than that—a very serious risk, which I think no man would willingly incur in the case of his own private concerns, that the Stock Exchange value will have no inconsiderable influence in the primary deductions of the arbitrator. Now a word with regard to precedents. I understand that my hon. Friends who oppose me will rely upon precedents, and I should like to say just a word with reference to them. There are I believe, four or five legitimate precedents in favour of the course which the promoters of the Bill desire to take. But all these precedents, with one exception to which I will refer, were agreed Bills; that is to say, the local authority which was entitled to oppose the Bill considered that in one shape or another it had received a quid pro quo. The one exceptional case is the case of the South Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, and that Bill, Mr. Speaker, had a very significant history. The Bill was originally introduced in 1895, and it was referred to a Committee, and that Committee threw out the Bill, and made a lengthy report. The Committee considered that the subject of the conversion of stock was of so far-reaching and important a character that it ought to be dealt with by a Committee especially appointed to consider it, the same as was done in the case of the water companies, and the Chairman of that Committee, at any rate, does not sit on this side of the House. The South Metropolitan Gas Bill, having been thrown out by a Committee in 1895, was re-introduced in 1896. It was referred to another Committee, and it passed into law. In the first place, in regard to the Bill, it may perhaps be worth while to mention that there were some provisions in it which seemed to have influenced some members of the County Council in its favour, and may possibly have obtained the support

  1197
  of some Members of our own Committee. These provisions were those relating to giving to the employees of that company some representation in the management of the company. But I do not rely very much upon that. I have, I think, a much stronger ground when I say that this House is no more to be influenced by the decision of one Committee than it is by the decision of the other Committee, and, as it is quite clear that the Committees differed, this is not a question which can be determined by the taking and considering of evidence. It is distinctly a question of policy, and I say that, if it were referred to two different Committees of this House, those Committees would arrive at exactly opposite conclusions. It is, indeed, precisely one of those matters which the House ought to decide for itself, and it is upon the merits of the Bill that the issue is now raised without any reference to what has gone before. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, what is the feeling of the local authorities, whose duty it is to protect the public in this matter? That, I think, is a very important thing for the House to consider. The London County Council, the Holborn Board of Works, the Islington Vestry—which is, I believe, the largest in London—and other local bodies, have passed resolutions hostile to this Bill. The action of the London County Council is particularly significant. It was not treated there in any way as a Party question. Leading members of the Moderate Party denounced this Bill in language even more vigorous than that which was used by my Progressive friends; and as a matter of fact, the London County Council was nearly absolutely unanimous—indeed, quite unanimous for all practical purposes, for the voting was: For the Resolution against the Bill 101, in favour of the Bill 4; and I am told that of the four in its favour two were tellers, so that you have the London County Council substantially unanimous against this Bill. I think, Sir, that this is not exactly the time when this company is entitled to come to this House, and ask for indulgences. The company has just given notice to raise the price of gas per thousand feet from 2s. 10s. to 3s. It is freely said by the local bodies to whom I have referred that this state of things is due to bad management and
  1198
  over-capitalisation. It may possibly be said on the other side that raising the price of gas will not, under the sliding scale, benefit the shareholders in the company. I would like to say one word about that. No doubt, the effect of a rise of 2d. in the price of gas per thousand feet will necessitate the reduction of the dividends by one-half per cent., but there can be no doubt that the object of the company in making the rise in price is to prevent a still heavier fall, which would happen unless they were able to put their hands in the pockets of the consumers, and take out this additional twopence. Sir, I have endeavoured to put this case fairly before the House. I have not intentionally omitted anything which would apply either in favour of the Bill on the one hand or against it on the other. I think I have stated as concisely as I can the serious objections which the representative authorities of London have to this Bill, and ask the House to reject this Bill. There is no urgency for it. It is only at the very best a financial juggle. Let the House throw out the Bill this year and leave the Company free to satisfy the representative authorities of London, so that new arrangements, if necessary, can be made. But that new arrangement should be one which would be equitable to both sides of the bargain, which was made in 1876.
  MR. J. DILLONformally seconded the Amendment.
  *MR. F. G. BANBURY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member who has just sat down has advanced us a reason for asking this House to reject the Bill, the statement that the consumer will gain no benefit, and that any public body who may desire to purchase this Company will lose should this Bill become law. Now, the hon. Member says that the value of the Stock Exchange price will be increased, and that, no doubt, is true. But I venture to say that that will be equally a benefit to the consumer as it will be to the Company; and, in any case, I think that the increase in value cannot be held to affect the question of purchase by a local authority. I do not believe that any water-works or gas company has ever been purchased upon the basis of the Stock Exchange

  1199
  value. I believe that every such undertaking has always been bought upon revenue and not upon the capital. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the capital value was introduced into a purchase of this kind, because there would be nothing to prevent a number of persons combining to enhance the price upon the Stock Exchange, whereas it is a very difficult thing to attempt to tamper with the dividend, which can always be easily ascertained, while the actual price on the Stock Exchange is a thing that can be arranged by people buying and selling. Then the hon. Member says he would not object to the Bill provided it were only for the purpose of consolidating the Preference Debenture Stock. He objects only because the Ordinary Stock is going to be divided. I may point out that if he only objects to one clause, he might let the Bill go to a Committee, and allow the matter to be threshed out there. I object myself to one of the clauses—the 13th Clause—but I do not purpose to ask the House to reject the Bill on that ground. Now, as regards the watering of stock, the stock is increased, but at the same time the dividends are equally diminished, and, therefore, it is not a question of watering stock; it is simply a question of amount, because the dividend is reduced at the same time. The shareholders will gain nothing whatever by this Bill, beyond, perhaps, an increased value on the Stock Exchange; but the consumer will gain in this way, that, if it is necessary to raise more capital, it will be able to be raised on better terms if this Bill is passed.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The unissued capital is only £175,000.
  *MR. BANBURY: But there is nothing to prevent the Company from coming to Parliament for powers to raise more capital. I would say that every large railway company has come to Parliament and consolidated their Preference and Debenture Stock, because they found the Company was much the better for doing so, and that they were able to borrow money on better terms. The same thing applies here, and I maintain that what tends to the
  1200
  benefit of the shareholder tends also to the benefit of the consumer. The hon. Member has alluded to the objection of the County Council, but I think that that objection arose from the fact that the Bill really was not quite understood. I confess that it does seem to me to be rather a large Bill, but, as a matter of fact, there is little in it at all. It will not in any way hurt the consumer, and it will not in any way benefit the shareholder, except by slightly enhancing the price of the Stock in the market; but it must benefit the consumer, because it will enable the Company to raise money on better terms. I hope that the House will, at any rate, let the Bill go before a Committee.
  MR. H. KIMBER: The arguments, Sir, we have heard on the other side are well-known, old friends, having been brought to the notice of this House, and also used in Committees upstairs, not merely four or five times, but not less than 10 times, in the presence of representatives of 10 large towns, including the Metropolis. This matter is really res judicatur, and I think that the time of the House ought not to be taken up with the reiteration of arguments upon matters which have already been decided. The argument as to the South Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill a year ago is the very argument raised before the Committee by one of the most distinguished counsel at the Parliamentary Bar—Mr. Worsley Taylor—that if the Committee passed a Bill with this principle in it, it would be a precedent to follow. And, notwithstanding that, the Committee passed it, and this House endorsed it, and I submit, therefore, that the thing has not been passed, as the hon. Member said, without consideration, but that it is a thing which, has been adjudicated upon after argument. Now I will draw attention to another inaccuracy, not, of course, intentional, which was put before the House. The hon. Member said that every £100 worth of Stock which carries a dividend of 10 per cent., but which is really 12¾ per cent., is proposed to be watered—be calls it so; I call it sub-divided into two certificates, each carrying four per cent., and I always learned that two-and-a-half times four amounted to 10, and therefore the Company

  1201
  and the public are not paying one penny more. But the hon. Member put it to the House that this £250, which is to be what he called a "financial juggle," and a "watering of stock," is not more than, as he would have us believe, but a great deal less than the present price in the market at which this stock can be sold. The present price of a £100 stock is about £320—I am told it is £280, but, at all events, it is considerably more than £250. This cannot be said to be a juggle nor that the Stock Exchange has deliberately put the price of Stock at such a rate that they can get a great deal more than this so-called juggled amount of £250. Now, the argument of my hon. Friend opposite was that people would be mystified, and that the real price of Stock would be concealed, when they came to the local authority or the local authority went to them and wanted to buy them, and that so much more would have to be paid because the price of stock had been raised in the market. But suppose that were so, I do not see that that is an argument against the Bill. It ought to be competent for every joint stock company, well managed as this undoubtedly is, so to manage their entirely domestic affairs as they please so long as the interests of the public are not affected; and I submit that the interests of the public are not affected in this case. Besides the argument which has been put before the House, and which I will not repeat, there is this to be said. We wall take a case. Supposing that the division of the stock were coupled with the unification which is a very important part of this Bill—and the more the people see of unification the better they will understand it—there is a larger market, and where there is a larger number of buyers and seller—it must surely be better for everyone concerned. But supposing the price of stock, instead of being £280, was by this arrangement made £300, and after that the public authorities wanted to buy it. It would naturally be valued according to what the Stock Exchange showed. But the market price of a thing is operated upon by a variety of circumstances, and a hundred different things affect, and tell upon it. But no reasonable local authority in discussing the amount they should pay for a thing of this kind would go into the extrinsic, but the intrinsic, value of it.
  1202
  What would they look at? Why, the return they would get per annum on the amount of public money they would invest. I maintain that if they did their duty they would disregard any question of extrinsic market price. The hon. Member cited the case of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, but that is another inaccuracy. He said that in the case of this company the enhancement in value was put down by them at about £90,000, and by the officer of the London County Council at £250,000. I maintain that it has arisen from a great many other causes, for money has gone down in value. Another point which the hon. Member raised was this: that they were putting up the price of gas. If ever any gas company could be said to be doing a good thing for themselves and a bad thing for the public by raising the price of gas, they have only to consider what the sliding scale is. If they put up the price of gas, down goes the dividend. The question of putting up the price of gas is determined by many other considerations relating to the finances of the company, and the cost of the production of gas. I make these observations impartially, as I have no interest whatever in the matter myself, and I hope the Bill will pass.
  MR. SYDNEY C. BUXTON: I have listened to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, but I do not think they have made out a sufficient case that this Bill should go to a Committee, because it seems to me that any portion of a Parliamentary bargain on the part of a monopoly like this ought not in any sense to be permitted to be departed from, unless there are very strong reasons for it. The only argument urged by my hon. Friend opposite, and by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, was that the price of the gas stock would be increased. My hon. Friend who has just spoken said that, in his opinion, the price of the stock might be increased in the market if this Bill was carried through. My hon. Friend cast considerable doubt upon the question as to whether the intrinsic value of the stock would be increased in the market if this Bill were passed, and that was the only argument that I heard him urge. I think the House ought to hesitate before they pass this Bill. As

  1203
  representing the consumers and the ratepayers, we want to know what is the possible advantage to the consumer if this Bill is passed. I do not see in any remote degree whatsoever what the consumers' advantage would be by the passing of this Bill. My hon. Friend opposite said that if this Bill was passed—and it is stated in the memoranda—it would increase the value of the stock, and that, therefore, if the Company wanted to raise further capital they would be able to obtain that capital at a lower rate of interest, and it would be a disadvantage to the consumer. With regard to the increase, I think the figures stated by my hon. Friend behind me are quite conclusive, because we know that, with the increase in the use of electricity throughout London, it is not likely that the gas companies will be able to extend their operations, and it is not at least likely that they will have to come to this House for any extension of powers. They have already spent something like £12,000,000, and their unspent capital is about £175,000. I therefore oppose this Bill on the ground that when you have a company of this sort representing a monopoly in certain parts of London, when that company has obtained these powers which enable them to pay an enormous dividend of 12¾ per cent on the present price of gas, I do not think that this House ought to allow a bargain of that description merely in order to increase the market value of this particular company's stock. As regards the question of purchase, I do not think that there is any time in which the local authority would be likely to purchase, or any likelihood of their doing so, in view of the development of electric lighting. The only precedent we have in London of the taking over of one of these monopolies is the case of a water company; and, upon the question as to whether it was advantageous, it was distinctly based on the market value of the stock. I think the argument of the gentleman opposite that the market price would not affect the purchase is really the stumbling-block, for I think it would be one of the elements in the question of purchase. I do not wish to dispute that, because, as far as my recollection goes, it was founded upon the market price at the moment. I do not think the local authority would like to purchase. There
  1204
  was one point in connection with the speech of the hon. Member who spoke last, in which he said that we ought to allow this Bill to go through, because other gas companies in other towns have been enabled to carry out practically the same proposal. I think my hon. Friend behind me pointed out a conclusive answer to that, namely, that in all these other cases it has been a question in which there has been an agreement between the gas company and the local authority, and there has in every case been some quid pro quo on the part of the consumers. It is because the consumer obtains no advantage, and because the local authority has not been consulted, that I am opposed to it. If the gas company would come to some agreement of the nature I have alluded to, then I would certainly not oppose this Bill, but so long as they have not even endeavoured to come to any such arrrangement with the consumers and the ratepayers I think the House should reject the Bill on this principle.
  *MR. H. H. MARKS: I wish to remind the House that this Bill was discussed by the late London County Council, which consisted of about one-half of Moderates and the other half Progressives, and only two members of the Moderate Party were found to be in favour of it. More than 100 members of the Council condemned it, and the Council decided to oppose it. I would also call the attention of the House to the fact that no explanation is given or offered of the action of the company in raising the price of gas, and the House can form its own judgment as to the object of that move, and as to whether due consideration has been paid to the consumers, or whether the raising of the price of gas is intended to prepare the way for the equalisation of dividends on the increased stock. To pass this Bill would be to establish a very mischievous precedent in the case of other companies supplying gas or water. For my own part, the mere fact that no explanation has been given as to the raising of the price of the gas itself will induce me to oppose the Second Reading.
  SIR JAMES JOICEY: I support this Bill because its effect is practically nothing more nor

  1205
  less than a consolidation of the capital. That principle has been applied in the past by this House dozens of times in connection with railway companies and with regard to the South Metropolitan Gas Company, and I think if the same privilege of dealing with their own affairs in this case were refused it would be most unjust. I have heard an allusion made to the question of the advance in the price of gas. Well, that is simply an advance in connection with the arrangement made by the sliding scale, and when the price goes up there is a reduced dividend. That sliding scale since it has been introduced has been of immense value to the consumers of gas in the City of London. I can quite understand all consumers finding fault with the price of gas going up. So long as we do not purchase, we are, glad to see the price as low as possible. Well, we in the North of England would like to see the price of coal higher in London instead of lower, and we should like to have a much higher price for coal, even at the expense of the consumers of gas. With regard to the advantage given to the consumer by this Bill, I am bound to admit that it is a very trifling one, but it is also a trifling advantage that the company gets. You must understand that every penny of capital that has been raised for many years under the auction laws—that is, if they, wanted to raise £10,000 of capital, it is put in the auction room, and commands the full market price. The result is that, although my right hon. Friend said that the gas companies are paying something like 12¾ per cent. interest, as a matter of fact they are only getting that on practically one-third of each £100 of stock, for every purchaser of stock for many years has had to pay about £250 for each £100. I think it will be much simpler, and it will be an advantage not, only to the company but to the consumer, to have the capital consolidated in this company, as it has been in other companies, and on these grounds I support this Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM WOODALL: I am glad that this question has been approached on both sides without any feeling. There are, however, many points that can only be justly considered by a Committee of this House. It seems to
  1206
  me impossible for Members sitting as we do here to realise the operation of the sliding scale or to discuss the dividends of gas companies and the rise and fall in the price of gas; nor is it easy for us to understand—although Gentlemen opposite have explained it very clearly to us. Inasmuch as the whole policy for a quarter of a century is involved in the opposition to this Bill, I hope it will be referred to the Committee.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I wish to point out that the reason why the London County Council opposed this Bill was that there were certain clauses in it with which they did not agree, and to support a Bill you have to support it in all its clauses. This is a Bill which ought to go before the Committee upstairs to be dealt with, for there are clauses in it which will come out very different. With regard to the question of floating this Stock, I am one of those who believe that it is better for the shares of these large Companies to be as small as possible, and not in the large Stock that they now are. This Bill, with certain alterations which can be made upstairs, is a most vital Measure. As I said before, it was rejected by the London County Council, not because of Party considerations, by the Party with which I am connected, but because there were certain clauses which we could not accept.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE(Camber-not going in imitate what has taken place on the Front Benches opposite. Evidently, the Government see certain difficulties in their way, and they leave the matter to hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that this Bill is a sort of conspiracy between the producers of coal and the sellers of gas to exploit the people of London. I do not think the Company is so popular at this moment that this House should favourably receive this proposal. The hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East suggested that the Company had given no reason for the rise in the price of gas. But the case is worse than this; they say that it is because cause of the high rates charged by the rating authority that they have raised the price. You are told that it is purely a question of the sliding scale, but the price to the consumer does not go down

  1207
  so much as the profit to the seller goes up. No addition has been made to the moderate argument of the Member for Peckham, who put the merits of the Bill very low. Promoters of Private Bills should not treat this House as if it were a Committee of the Stock Exchange. It cannot understand the precise merits of this question of consolidated Stock. Bills should only be brought in here when promoters want to get leave to do some work. I think, considering the unpopularity of the Company at present, it would be very injudicious for the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House divided.—Ayes 171; Noes 89.
  Bill read a second time and committed.

PETITIONS.
  CORN SALES BILL.
  From Darlington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From the United Presbyterian Synod, against; to lie upon the Table.
  FOOD ADULTERATION.
  From Darlington, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour—From Hull, Highbury, Horsham, Hythe, Otley, and Rockferry (2); to lie upon the Table.
REPORTS AND RETURNS.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy presented of Return for the month of October, 1897 (by command); to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (RECOMMENDATIONS OF DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented of statement by the Prison Commissioners of the action which has been taken, up to January, 1898, to carry out the recommendations in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Prisons, 1895 (by command); to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES), 1896–7.
  Copy presented of statement of the sum required to be voted in order to make good excesses on certain grants for the year ended 31st March, 1897 (by command): Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 106.]

  LOCAL LOANS FUND.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
  Accounts of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt in respect of the Capital and Income of the Local Loans Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1897; with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon (by Act); to be printed. [No. 107.]

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  William Charles Steadman, esquire, for the Tower Hamlets (Stepney Division).

  MUSEUMS OF THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  Ordered, That the Report and Evidence of the Select Committee on

  1209
  Museums of the Science and Art Department, Session 1897, be referred to the Select Committee on Museums of the Science and Art Department.—(Mr. Woodall.)

  CANALS PROTECTION (LONDON) BILL
  Second Reading deferred from to-morrow till Thursday next.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have come to the following Resolutions, namely:—

  ELECTRICAL ENERGY (GENERATING STATIONS AND SUPPLY).
  That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report—

  1. Whether, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, powers should be given in any cases for acquiring land compulsorily for generating stations; and, if so, under what conditions as respects liability for nuisance, notices to surrounding owners, and otherwise;

  2. Whether compulsory powers of acquiring land for generating stations, if proper to be given in any case, should be given where the proposed site is not within the area of supply;

  3. Whether, in case of a generating station, however acquired, not being situate within the area of supply, power should be given for the breaking-up of streets between the generating station and the boundary of the area of supply;

  4. Whether powers should be given in any case for the supply of electrical energy over an area including districts of numerous local authorities, involving plant of exceptional dimensions and high voltage; and, if such powers may properly be given, whether any, and what, conditions should be imposed:

  (a) With respect to system and plant, and to the construction and location
  1210
  of generating stations, in view of the powers of purchase conferred upon local authorities by sections two and three of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888;

  (b) With respect to the relations of the promoters to other undertakers

  and to local authorities within parts of the area;

  5. Under what conditions (if any) ought powers to be conferred upon promoters seeking to supply electrical energy to other undertakers, and not directly to consumers.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  That it is desirable that all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
QUESTIONS.

  THE TRAINING OF RESERVES.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the Reserves are never called up for training, and consequently not fit for the first line in war, arrangements can be made to enable a limited number so volunteering to keep up their Military and musketry training with volunteer corps, as supernumeraries to the establishment, the Government either defraying the cost of their uniform, or giving £1 a year towards it if they were certified as having attended not less than twelve drills and fired their class?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): It is not admitted that men who have had seven years with the Colours are not fit to take their places in the first line, when mobilised.

  1211
  The Secretary of State has, however, under consideration the subject of training those men whose service in the Reserve exceeds five years.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are any vessels in the "A" Division of the Fleet Reserve whose main armament is composed of muzzle-loading guns; and, if so, how many vessels; and whether he can inform the House if there are any vessels in the fleets of European Powers armed with muzzle-loading guns; and, if so, how many vessels and to what fleets do they belong?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. G. E. MACARTNEY,): There are 10 ships in the "A" Division of the Fleet Reserve whose main armament consists of muzzle-loading guns. There are some vessels similarly armed in European navies, but the noble Lord may assume these are not ships of any importance, with perhaps one exception.

  CASE OF JOHN E. TANNER.
  GENERAL J. W. LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of John E. Tanner, a British subject, mate of the British schooner Ida, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, who is stated to have been forcibly taken off his vessel by an armed boat's crew from the Spanish warship Criolla, on the 5th May, 1897, at Vajardo, Porto Rico, on a charge of having injured a lighterman named Manuel Santana, and to have been then detained without any trial or examination until the 2nd July, when he was set at liberty; and if his attention has been called to it, and the matter has been investigated, and the facts are as stated, whether any claim has been made on the Spanish Government for compensation for this wrongful treatment; and whether
  1212
  Messrs. George Mitchell and Son, the owners of the schooner Ida, have submitted a claim for expenses incurred in endeavouring to obtain the release of said John Tanner, also for detention of their vessel at Vajardo for 17 days, and for damages for loss of market through detention of vessel; and, if so, whether a settlement of these claims is being pressed for by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): This case has been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office. Her Majesty's Consul at Porto Rico was instructed to make inquiry into the circumstances, and directed to render such assistance as he properly could. The Consul's dispatch received in reply shows that the facts are generally as stated in the Question. He also reported that he had taken measures to secure proper treatment for Tanner while in prison, and had made repeated endeavours to have the trial brought on as soon as possible. He finally obtained Tanner's provisional release on himself depositing a guarantee for the sum of £50. There were, however, certain discrepancies between the Consul's account and that contained in a statutory declaration made by the Master of the Ida, and the former was instructed to report further on these points. To that instruction no reply has yet been received. Messrs. George Mitchell and Son have submitted a claim, but pending the arrival of an answer, it has not yet been put forward.
  GENERAL LAURIE: When is an answer likely to be obtained?
  MR. CURZON: That really depends on the post.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Not on the Consul?
  MR. CURZON: Well, on both.

  THE DÆDALUS.
  ADMIRAL E. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the 4-inch and 6-inch breech-loading guns supplied to the

  1213
  Dœdalus, Royal Naval Reserve drill ship at Bristol in September, 1895, and January, 1896, respectively, are still lying on her main deck unmounted, as was the case on 22nd September, 1897, when a Member of this House visited the ship; and whether any other of the drill ships are in the same unsatisfactory condition in respect of facilities for instructing the seamen of the Royal Naval Reserve in the working of such guns?
  MR. MACARTNEY: The guns specified in the Question are now mounted. Some delay was occasioned by the fact that it was contemplated to relieve the Dœdalus by a modern cruiser, but this has not yet been carried out. All the guns belonging to other drill ships are mounted.

  ATTACK ON A BRITISH VICE-CONSUL NEAR SEBASTOPOL.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the men who recently so violently assaulted and robbed our Vice-Consul, C. J. Cooke, Esq., outside Sebastopol were Russian seamen wearing the uniform of the Imperial Navy; whether the offenders have been arrested, and whether any representation has been made to the Russian authorities upon the subject; and whether the Russian servant of the Vice-Consul, who was also grievously hurt in defending his master on the occasion, will be suitably rewarded for his gallant conduct?
  MR. CURZON: The men who committed the assault on Vice-Consul Cooke were, as stated, seamen of the Russian Imperial Navy, and were at the time in uniform. The local authorities at once effected the arrest of the culprits, who will be tried before a Court Martial. Her Majesty's Ambassador has received from the Russian Government an expression of sincere regret for this assault upon a British Consular Officer. The case of the Russian servant must depend upon any recommendations that may be made by Her Majesty's Consul.

  DEE STREET NATIONAL SCHOOL, BELFAST.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that the teachers in the Dee Street National School, Belfast, have not received any salary for the three quarters ending 31st December, 1897, although the work of the school has been carried on as usual; (2) what is the reason of the withholding of the salaries; (3) and when will the teachers be paid.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The difficulty in this case arises out of a question concerning the managership of the school, and the head inspector of the National Board of Education, who recently held an inquiry into the whole matter, has made to the Board a report which will be under consideration at their meeting on Tuesday next, when the question of the staff to be recognised and paid will be determined.

  SICK LEAVE IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. F. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the details of the regulations governing sick leave in the Post Office, which have recently been revised, have been withheld from the staff; whether an absence on sick leave of 18 days in two years brings an officer within the operations of the pension regulations; and whether he can see his way to publish to the staff the regulations now in force?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The regulations regarding sick leave in the staff of the Post Office have been communicated by Circular from time to time to the Surveyors and Heads of Departments, and there is no desire that they should be withheld from the staff. In consequence of the excessive sick absence in some branches of the Service, to which the attention of the Postmaster General was recently directed

  1215
  by the Treasury, the Postmaster General decided that when an officer was absent in two consecutive years for more than the average sick absence of the whole staff, or of the staff of the office in which he was serving (whichever was the highest), the Medical Officer should be asked to state whether in his opinion there was any reason why the officer concerned was not likely to render regular and useful service to the Department in the future. There is no desire, however, on the part of the Postmaster General to refuse sick absence in any case where the circumstances require it, or to call on any officer to take his pension whose health enables him to discharge the duties of his office.

  COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what is the answer to the complaint of the Comptroller and Auditor General, dated 6th January, 1898, as to six destroyers on which £191,000 had been spent before 31st March, 1897, and which, though ordered early in 1894, had not been delivered in January, 1898?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Of the six destroyers specified, the Zebra has been delivered since the date named in the Question, having finally fulfilled the conditions of the contract as regards speed, etc. No penalty will be inflicted. Repeated trials showed that the large locomotive boilers in the Fervent and Zephyr would not develop the necessary power to attain the contract speed. Fresh arrangements have been entered into with the contractors to remove these boilers and instal approved water-tube boilers. This work is now in hand. The Conflict, Teazer, and Wizard have been delayed by difficulties in obtaining the contract speed, and by accidents which occurred on the steam trial. No instalment beyond the 8th, which has been earned on each of the vessels, has been paid. The question of waiving or inflicting penalties does not arise until the vessels are satisfactorily completed and delivered.

  WAR MEDALS FOR INDIAN CAMPAIGN.
  SIR CHARLES W. CAYZER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it is the case that some of the European and Native troops have not yet received their medals for the Chitral Campaign which took place three years ago; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay in issuing them; and, whether a special medal will be issued to the troops which took part in the recent campaigns on the North-West Frontier in place of the clasp to the medal granted to those troops who were engaged in the former Frontier wars?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): My hon. Friend will allow me to reply to this Question. The medals for the Chitral Campaign were issued in the first half of last year. If my hon. Friend will inform me of any cases in which the medals have not yet been received, I will cause inquiry to be made as to the delay. Nothing, as yet, has been decided as to the issue of a medal for the recent campaigns in India.

  REGISTER OF PATENT AGENT RULES.
  MR. F. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Register of Patent Agent Rules, made by the Board of Trade in 1889, are general rules, under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 to 1888; and, if so, were they repealed on the 31st March, 1890, by the then President of the Board of Trade; and, has the Register of Patent Agent Rules, 1889, been laid before Parliament since 31st March, 1890, or in any way made effective since that date; and, if so, how?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Rules referred to are General Rules, and they have not been repealed. They were amended by the Rules of 1891, which were presented to Parliament.

  COLONIAL AND FOREIGN LIGHTS.
  *SIR CHARLES CAYZER: In putting this Question to the President of the Board of Trade, I venture to say that the House is pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place again. I beg to ask him whether he will state the amounts of the existing balance standing in the accounts kept by the Board of Trade with respect to Colonial and foreign lights, the sums payable on accounts of money secured on the Colonial dues, and the amount of the contribution by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the lighthouse at Cape Spartel, Morocco?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I thank the hon. Member for his kind remark. In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the only lighthouses abroad, on account of which balances are held by the Board of Trade, are those known as the Basses and Minicoy Lights. The balances held on account of these lights on the 31st March, 1897, as shown in the Account presented to the House of Commons, on the 16th ultimo (No. 66), were as follows:—Consols, 2¾ per cent., £20,000 stock; Consols, 2½ per cent., £22,529 stock; cash, £4,044 stock. There is no outstanding debt or loan chargeable on this fund. Her Majesty's Government contribute the equivalent of 1,500 francs (about £60) annually towards the maintenance of Cape Spartel Lighthouse.

  LIGHTING ON FOREIGN COASTS.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Governments of France, Russia, Germany, Italy, and Portugal maintain the lighting of their respective coasts out of the Imperial funds; and if he can state what European countries make a charge on merchant shipping for lights, with the amount of charge in each case?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade have no recent information as to the funds out of which the cost of the lighting of the coasts of European countries is defrayed. From a Report of the United States Commissioners
  1218
  for the year 1885 it appeared that at that time tonnage dues were levied in nearly all countries, and that these dues, though not called light dues, were applied to the maintenance of lights as well as to other Purposes. The Board of Trade have no information as to the amount of charges made by particular countries.

  JOHNSTOWN MAILS.
  MR. P. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what steps, if any, have been taken to meet the requisition which was sent last year from the inhabitants of Johnstown, county Kilkenny, requesting that the mails which arrive at Kilkenny at 9.15 a.m. might be delivered in that district at 1 p.m. instead of 6 p.m., which takes place at present; and for what reasons the mails which arrive in Kilkenny at 9.15 a.m. are allowed to remain there till 3 p.m.?
  MR. HANBURY: No definite steps have yet been taken to meet the request of the inhabitants of Johnstown. That request refers to the second mail (the day mail) from Dublin. The letters for Johnstown by that mail are conveyed by a car working from Urlingford viâ Johnstown to Kilkenny in the morning, and back to Urlingford by the same road in the evening; and as the car, which is run chiefly for passenger purposes, only leaves Kilkenny on its return journey at 3 p.m., it has hitherto been impossible to despatch the mails from Kilkenny before that hour as the correspondence is not sufficient to justify the establishment of a car for the mails alone. The Postmaster General, however, has not lost sight of the case, and he may yet be able to effect some improvement.

  CLIFDEN UNION.
  MR. W. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Local Government Board Inspector has ordered the dismissal of the

  1219
  assistant relieving officer for the Clifden Union on the grounds that he allowed a certain number of men to receive employment on the labour test relief works, while such men were the owners of some live stock and such small property as boats, &c.; and whether it is a necessary condition that recipients of such relief must be absolutely destitute of all goods and chattels before they obtain relief?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have recently required a temporary relieving officer in the Clifden Union to resign that position on the grounds of inefficiency. This officer was an old man in bad health, and, evidently, physically unequal to his duties. He failed to enter on his relief lists the names of the persons on the relief works, and, owing either to his want of knowledge of his duties or to his inability to make sufficient inquiries, he was in the habit of certifying persons to be destitute who were earning money, and were possessed of means, and who were not proper cases to be supported by the ratepayers. The special relief measures this year are intended for the occupiers of small holdings, who, owing to the failure of the potato crop, might, if not relieved on the works, have to come into the workhouse; but, beyond submitting this general condition for the guidance of Boards of Guardians, the Local Government Board do not limit their discretion as to the eligibility of individual applicants for relief.

  HOSPITAL NURSES AT CLIFDEN WORKHOUSE.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on the 5th of January the Local Government Board Inspector assisted at the election of two hospital assistant nurses for the Clifden Workhouse, and that he recommended the election of two resident paupers, although he was informed by the clerk of the union at the time that neither of them could read or write; and whether the Local Government Board has sanctioned the appointment of these illiterate nurses?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The paid attendants referred to are not employed in nursing the sick, but on work of a menial character such as scrubbing and keeping the wards tidy. Both of these persons were recommended for the position by the medical officer of the workhouse, and the Local Government Board, who have sanctioned their employment, do not consider it indispensable that persons engaged in the capacity mentioned should be able to read and write. The duties of nurse at the workhouse are performed by a trained official.

  CLONES MAGISTRATES' BENCH.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, out of the ten magistrates entitled to adjudicate in the Clones, county Monaghan, petty sessions district, two only are Catholics, and whether two Protestant magistrates have been recently appointed, one of whom has neither residence nor property of any kind in the district, and lives in an adjoining county; and if steps will be taken to remedy the disparity between Protestant and Catholic magistrates in this petty sessions district, where Catholics are largely in the majority over all other denominations?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that three of the magistrates in the Clones Petty Sessions district are Roman Catholics. The two gentlemen recently appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the county are, I believe, Protestants, and one of them is not actually resident in the county, although he appears to live very near the border of the county. The Lieutenant of the county is always ready to consider the names of any gentleman recommended to him for appointment to the Commission, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill will be introduced;

  1221
  whether a memorandum will be issued to Members explaining the steps to be taken by them for the purpose of inserting additional names at the Public Bill Office; and whether the Bill will be drafted in such a form as to admit of an amendment being moved in Committee with the object of abolishing the property qualification of Land Tax Commissioners?
  MR. HANBURY: The Bill will be introduced before Easter. A circular is being issued to the clerks to the Commissioners of Land Tax instructing them as to the steps to be taken for preparing a list of additional names. The clerks will in due course transmit their lists to the Members of Parliament for the county, division, or place in which the proposed new Commissioners reside, with a request that if the Members do not disapprove of the names they will sign and deliver such lists at the Public Bill Office. Other copies of this circular will be sent to the clerks for transmission to the Members concerned. The Bill will be drawn in the usual form.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the lists handed in previously stand good?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, so far as the names are not disapproved.
  MR. STEVENSON: I did not quite catch the answer to the third paragraph. Was it in the negative?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not propose introduce the Bill in a form which will admit of more amendment that I can help.

  MURDER OF AN ARMENIAN RELIEF AGENT.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have preferred upon the Turkish Government a specific claim, in the name and on behalf of the Armenian Relief Committee, for the sum of £500 which was stolen from Yussuf Yunan at Sairt, and has formed the subject of consular inquiry?
  MR. CURZON: Without some direct evidence or tangible proof of connivance in the crime on the part of any Turkish official, Her Majesty's Government would not be justified in preferring a specific claim against the Porte. No such proof has been forthcoming, and Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Bitlis reported on 25th November that, with regard to the occurrence itself and the behaviour of the local officials, no negligence could, in his opinion, be justly imputed either to the police or the judicial authorities.

  BURY POST OFFICE.
  MR. J. KENYON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can proceed at once with the building of the new post office at Bury, Lancashire, as grave dissatisfaction is being expressed with the present arrangements?
  MR. HANBURY: The plans of the new post office at Bury were received from the Office of Works a few days ago, and are now under consideration. No reason is seen why the new building should not be begun shortly.

  MUZZLING ORDERS IN THE MIDLANDS.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture Whether the Board of Agriculture can now say how much longer the muzzling order is likely to continue in force in the counties of Worcester, Warwick, and Stafford; and whether he is aware that resolutions asking for the withdrawal of the order have been passed by the county councils of all these counties?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): It is not possible for me as yet to fix any date for the withdrawal of the muzzling orders in force in the counties named, but my hon. Friend may be sure that I shill be glad to take this step at the earliest possible moment

  1223
  at which I can do so without endangering the success of our operations for the extirpation of rabies. The reply to the second inquiry is in the affirmative.

  COOLIE IMMIGRATION INTO REUNION.
  SIR H. SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any agreement has been entered into with the French Government for the reopening of the immigration of Indian Coolies into Réunion; whether it provides for the residence in Réunion of a British protector of immigrants; and whether he will lay a copy of the Agreement with the French Government upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: A convention for the reopening of Indian immigration into Réunion has been signed, but is not yet ratified. It does not provide for the residence of a British protector in Réunion. There, as elsewhere, the protector will be an officer of the Colonial Government, but under the convention his position will be greatly improved. The immigrants can also invoke the assistance of the British Consul. As soon as the convention is ratified, it will be laid on the Table of the House.

  ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT IN INDIA.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether from 1875 to 1891 majors of Royal Artillery holding appointments in the Ordnance Department in India, and not in receipt of consolidated salaries, were not allowed to receive the regimental pay and allowances of their rank in addition to staff pay, whereas all officers of the Royal Artillery serving in the Indian Ordnance Department, other than majors and officers receiving consolidated salaries, have received regimental pay in addition to staff salaries since the Department was started, and what was the reason, if any, for this discrimination against the majors; whether all officers serving in the Indian Ordnance Department, majors not excepted, were obliged to subscribe to the Royal Artillery regimental
  1224
  band at Woolwich, and whether they would have been obliged to do so by the Regulations had the Indian Ordnance Department not been considered a department connected with the regiment; whether in 1891 the Secretary of State sanctioned a regulation which, from 1st July in that year, placed majors of the Royal Artillery in the Indian Ordnance Department on the same footing as lieutenant-colonels, captains, and subalterns by sanctioning payment to them of the regimental pay and allowances of their rank in addition to staff pay, and whether any compensation was afforded to officers who had been serving in that Department previous to 1st July, 1891, and had been under the circumstances stated deprived of the privilege enjoyed by lieutenant-colonels, captains, and subalterns in the same service of the regimental pay and allowances of their rank; with respect to the case of Lieutenant-Colonel and Colonel Vincent Carne Fisher of the Royal Bengal Artillery, who has appealed to the Secretary of State to recoup him the amount of which he was deprived by the fact that, from the 1st May, 1880, when he was promoted to the rank of major Royal Artillery while serving in the Ordnance Department, he was not paid the regimental pay of that rank in addition to staff salary, but only Staff Corps pay plus staff salary, though he was during the same period obliged to contribute to the Woolwich band fund as serving in a department connected with the regiment and in which the other officers were receiving regimental pay, will he state whether this claim was reported on by the Commander-in-Chief of Madras as worthy of consideration; and, whether his claim has been rejected; if so, whether the decision will be reconsidered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The facts are as stated in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question. The grounds for restricting majors of Artillery in the Indian Ordnance Department to the Staff Corps pay of that rank were, that the grade of major was reintroduced into the Royal Artillery for reasons connected with the command of batteries, and that these reasons were not applicable to the Ordnance Department, in which, except in the highest position, the actual rank of the officer

  1225
  was unimportant, while there never had been any question as to the adequacy of the pay for the duties to be performed. In 1891, on the representations of the Government of India, that this rule was, in their opinion, justly looked on as a grievance by the officers of the Ordnance Department, the Secretary of State modified the previous decision, and allowed these officers the regimental pay of their rank in addition to staff pay. In 1892 Colonel Fisher applied for the difference between regimental and Staff Corps pay for the period he served in the Ordnance Department as a major from May, 1880, to December, 1888. His claim was considered by the Commander-in-Chief, Madras, worthy of consideration, but was rejected by the Government of India as inadmissible, the decision of 1891 not having retrospective effect. In 1893 Colonel Fisher sent to the Secretary of State a memorial on the same subject, which was not supported by the Government of India, and was rejected by my predecessor. I see no valid reason for reconsidering that decision.

  KHYBER RIFLES AT LUNDI KOTAL.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can give any further explanation than is contained in the Blue Book of the reasons why the Khyber Rifles at Lundi Kotal last August were, in a manner described by Lord Roberts as quite incomprehensible, deprived of the support of their British officer at the time when it was most needed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: As I stated the other day, the military authorities on the spot decided that troops from Peshawar could not be sent up the Khyber Pass, and Sir R. Udny, with this knowledge, recalled Captain Barton from Lundi Kotal, in the belief that the Khyber Rifles were not sufficiently strong or reliable to repel an attack, if made in force, upon them, and that Captain Barton's presence at Lundi Kotal would precipitate and aggravate the contemplated attack.

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN LOAN TO CHINA.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Russian Chargé d'Affaires has lodged a formal protest against the Anglo-German Loan, and demanded compensation for his Government; and, if so, what the compensation demanded is; what the conditions are under which the Trans-Manchurian Railway is to be constructed; whether any boundaries have been assigned to the area described in the arrangements made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of China as the Yangtsze Valley; and, if not, in what manner it is to be distinguished from the other portion of the Chinese Empire; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has undertaken, or proposes undertaking, any obligation on the part of this country in connection with the said arrangements?
  MR. CURZON: We have received no information of any formal protest against the Loan to China arranged by the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank acting for itself and a syndicate of German Bankers. The conditions of the Agreement between the Chinese Government and the Russo-Chinese Bank relative to the construction and maintenance of the Manchurian Railway were published in the Russian Official Gazette of December 11th and 23rd, 1896. I am afraid they are too long, occupying as they do some pages of print, to be stated in reply to a question, but I shall be very glad to show a copy to any hon. Member who desires to see them. The undertaking of the Chinese Government applies to the Yangtsze region—i.e., to the territory of the provinces adjoining the Yangtsze river. The Chinese Government having given the assurance in question, Her Majesty's Government will naturally hold them responsible for its observance.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to laying the conditions of Agreement on the Table of the House?
  MR. CURZON: I do not know that there would be any advantage in doing so, but I am quite prepared to consider the matter.

  DEFALCATIONS OF A CESS COLLECTOR, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that, at Monaghan Assizes last week, a reassessment of nearly £2,000 was ordered to cover the defalcations of a collector who appropriated the money to his own use; how would cesspayers in England be treated in similar circumstances; and, will he provide a safeguard in the Local Government Bill against the recurrence of such a case, by making it compulsory on County and Urban Councils to have the security for collectors of a guarantee society in addition to solvent personal sureties?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that a sum of £2,613, being the amount of the defalcations of two Barony cess collectors, was represented at the county at large at the recent Monaghan Assizes. The grand jury brought the matter before the Judge of Assize, who, after argument, fiated the presentment. I have no information as to the second paragraph, and with regard to the inquiry in the third paragraph, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Section 55, Sub-Section 3, of the Local Government Bill.

  SMITHBOROUGH RURAL MESSENGERS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how many rural messengers are attached to the Smithborough, County Monaghan, sub-postal district; how many of these have been appointed, and by whom, within the past six months; and how many of them are Roman Catholics?
  MR. HANBURY: There is only one established postman connected with the Smithborough sub-office—viz., the Monagran to Smithborough postman—and he was appointed as long ago as 1882. There are no means of ascertaining without a reference to Ireland, which would take time, how many auxiliary postmen may have been appointed within the last six
  1228
  months, as the selection of these is entrusted to the District Surveyor, and no record of them is kept at headquarters. The Postmaster General has no knowledge as to how many are Roman Catholics, and he does not consider it desirable to inquire.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES BOARD.
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government will provide a steam launch or other steam boat for the use of the North Eastern Fisheries Board, as has been done in the case of the Scotch Fisheries Board?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to do so. The Committee of the North Eastern Sea Fisheries District is a Joint Committee of several County and Borough Councils; and, as such, the expenses it may incur are payable by those Councils. The expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland are paid by the Exchequer, and the cases are, consequently, not analogous.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction is felt by the County Councils and ratepayers in the area of contribution at the amount of the levy for this Board? Will he undertake to give his consideration to the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I do not suppose that any one ever pays taxes quite willingly. I am afraid I cannot interfere in this case, as what is done is in accordance with the law as it stands.

  WALKER, THE AFRIDIS' PRISONER.
  MR. D. H. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Colour-Sergeant Walker, of the Royal Scots Fusiliers, who was kept a prisoner by the Afridis for six weeks, was tried by court martial on

  1229
  his return to his regiment for being absent without leave; and whether he was ordered to lose his pay for the time he was away?
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement that Colour-Sergeant Walker, of the Royal Scots Fusiliers, who was recently captured, and during six weeks held prisoner, by the Afridis, has been tried by court martial on a charge of having been absent without leave, and, though acquitted, has been ordered to lose his pay for the time of his enforced absence; and whether the facts are as stated; if so, whether the Secretary of State will take steps to secure to Colour-Sergeant Walker the restoration of his pay?
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Colour-Sergeant Walker, of the Royal Scots Fusiliers, who was kept prisoner by the Afridis for six weeks, was tried by court martial on rejoining his regiment for being absent without leave, and ordered to lose his pay during the period of his absence; and whether such loss of pay will be refunded to him?
  MR. BRODRICK: No report on this subject has been received from India. I may, however, say that the inquiry held was only that which, under the Queen's regulations for the Army, is held on every returned prisoner of war; and, under the warrant, a man is not entitled to pay for the period of his absence as a prisoner of war. If, however, the result of the inquiry is satisfactory, the pay is restored by the Secretary of State.

  MANCHURIA.
  MR. W. JONES: On behalf of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Manchuria is an integral part of China, or whether it is a separate territory under the rule of the Emperor of China?
  MR. CURZON: Manchuria is not one of the 18 Provinces of China proper, but is certainly an integral part of the Emperor's dominions.

  HOP CULTIVATION IN THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the latest official information the Board possesses as to the acreage and yield of hops in the United States is derived from the Census Bulletin, published in Washington on 12th November, 1891; and whether, in view of the importance that English hop growers attach to having the latest intelligence on questions of this kind, he will take steps to obtain, either from official or from some other reliable sources, the most recent available information as to the state of American hop cultivation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: On inquiry of the United States Department of Agriculture earlier in the year, we were informed by the Government Statistician that no more recent official information exists with regard to the acreage and yield of hops than that to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The officer in question was, however, good enough to supply a memorandum which contains estimates from unofficial sources as to the acreage and yield in California, Washington, and Oregon, and we propose to make this information public in the Journal of the Board of Agriculture for the present month.

  CALLIOPE DRY DOCK.
  MR. H. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government are prepared to consider the propriety of availing themselves of the Calliope Dry Dock accommodation now in existence at Auckland, New Zealand, especially in view of the fact that the present available docking and repairing accommodation for the Australian fleet is situated 1,200 miles westerly therefrom; whether they have valuable land adjoining the dock, where economical buildings could be erected and machinery supplied for undertaking repairs to Her Majesty's ships in cases of emergency; and whether the Government would be willing to make a complete statement upon the subject when the Works Vote No. 10 comes before the House, or when Vote 8 for supply of yard machinery comes up for consideration?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Question is now under consideration. I will communicate with the hon. Member when a decision is reached.

  RUSSIAN DEMANDS ON CHINA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have confirmation of the statements which have been reported from Pekin: that Russia has demanded the cession of Port Arthur and Talienwan; that Russia has demanded the right to make a railway across Manchuria to Mukden and Port Arthur, with power to send Russian troops to the railway stations on this line; that Russia is actively opposing the conclusion of the Anglo-German loan to China; that Russia has demanded the dismissal of British engineers on Chinese railways; and that Russia has obtained from Korea the cession of Deer Island, opposite Fusam?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has been informed by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs that Russia is negotiating with China for the lease for a certain number of years of Port Arthur and Talienwan, as well as for the construction of a railway to Talienwan or Port Arthur on the same conditions as the Manchurian railway; the Russian Government have made no demand for sovereign rights over those ports, nor have they threatened to send troops into Manchuria. The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs further stated that Talienwan, if leased to Russia, would be opened to foreign trade like other Chinese ports. Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin has confirmed the existence of these negotiations, but he states that there is no indication of anything in the shape of an ultimatum; neither, so far as he is aware, has any time limit been given for a reply, as represented in the Press. We have no information to the effect that the Russian Government are opposing the loan to China concluded by the Anglo-German Banks, which, I understand, is on the
  1232
  point of being issued. Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin reported in October last, that endeavours had been made by the Russian Chargé d'Affaires to obtain the removal of Mr. Kinder, the chief engineer on the Northern line from Tientsin to Kirin, on the ground of a promise by the Chinese Government that, if this line were extended, they would, in the first instance, address themselves to Russian engineers and Russian capital. Sir C. Macdonald obtained a promise from the Tsung-li-Yamen that Mr. Kinder should not be removed. We have received no information confirming the alleged cession of Deer Island to Russia.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state with regard to the railway, as to which he answered in a previous Question, whether the existing agreement contains the right to send Russian troops to the stations along the line?
  MR. CURZON: NO, Sir, it does not contain any such stipulation. The only provisions in the agreement about the Manchurian railway relating to the safeguarding of the line are as follows: The Chinese Government undertakes to adopt measures for securing the safety of the railway and its employees against extraneous attacks; and the preservation of order on the lands assigned to the railway is entrusted to police agents, appointed by the Company, who are empowered to frame regulations for that purpose.

  SUICIDE IN DERRY PRISON.
  MR. J. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, in the case of the late suicide in Derry Prison, the doctor of the accused wrote to Sir William Millar, medical superintendent of the prison, stating that the prisoner had been for some time previous predisposed to melancholia, and requesting that he should be given active employment and allowed the use of tobacco; and, if he can explain why, under the circumstances, the request was not complied with?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sir William Millar received from the private medical attendant on the prisoner referred to a letter simply stating that the prisoner had been used to an open-air life, and that he smoked. He made no mention of the prisoner being predisposed to melancholia, nor did he allude to his mental state, but only asked the prison doctor to see whether a moderate use of tobacco would help to keep the prisoner in health. His health being perfectly good, the prison doctor did not consider it necessary to give him tobacco.

  SERVICE IN SIERRA LEONE AND ON THE GOLD COAST.
  MR. GERALD LODER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can state the total number of British Civil officials in Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast respectively; how many deaths occurred amongst them in each Colony in 1896 and in 1897, to the date of the latest available information; and, whether he will consider the possibility of establishing 12 months as the maximum period of service required before leave can be claimed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The number of British Civil officials in the two Colonies is about 30 and 125 respectively, and the number of deaths among them was in 1896 five and 14, and in 1897 two and five. A comparison based upon a longer period appears, however, to show that the Gold Coast is more unhealthy than Sierra Leone. As regards the third Question I must refer the hon. Member to the answers already given on the same subject on March 12th and July 22nd, 1897.

  UNEXPENDED BALANCES.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the rule that any portion of an unexpended grant remaining in the hands
  1234
  of the accounting officer on the 31st March is returnable to the Exchequer is based upon statutory provision; and, if not, upon what is it based; and, whether the exception to the above ride in the case of the particular forms of grants called grants-in-aid is permitted by statutory authority?
  MR. HANBURY: Under Section 24 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, the only sums chargeable against grants are those which have actually come in course of payment during the year to which the grants relate. The accounting officer of the Department to which the grant is made must produce to the Comptroller and Auditor General vouchers or proofs of payment to show that the money expended by him has been applied to the purpose for which it was intended to provide. Any portion of the grant, in respect of which such vouchers are not forthcoming, remains in the hands of the accounting officer at the end of the financial year, and, his authority to expend it having expired, it must be surrendered to the Exchequer. There is no difference in this respect between an ordinary grant and a grant-in-aid. In both cases any money remaining in the hands of the accounting officer at the end of the year must be surrendered. The expenditure by the grantee must, however, be distinguished from the expenditure or payment to him by the accounting officer. Payment by the accounting officer to the grantee is the only payment for which vouchers are required to be produced to the Comptroller and Auditor General. But, in practice, the Treasury, under powers conferred on it by Section 33 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to follow up the expenditure in detail by the grantee in all cases where the contrary is not stated on the face of the Estimate. This does not, however, mean that the expenditure by the grantee should necessarily take place during the financial year.
  MR. MCKENNA: He is required to follow up the sum?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, he follows it up to see that it is expended.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does not the Comptroller and Auditor General take an entirely different view from that held by the Treasury?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir.

  MACROOM UNION ACCOUNTS.
  DR. C. K. D. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board in Ireland are cognisant of the many irregularities disclosed in the accounts of the Macroom Union, from which it appears that rates were returned as irrecoverable that were actually paid; that houses were returned as vacant that were occupied and for which the rates were paid; that there is £280 of seed rate not accounted for, some of which has been collected; and that a sum of £188 is found to be not accounted for; whether he is also aware that a considerable amount of arrears at the end of each financial year are returned as collectable, but are not collected; and, if an inquiry has been or will be instituted by the Local Government Board authorities in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have been in communication with the Guardians of the Macroom Union in reference to certain irregularities in the accounts of one of the poor-rate collectors. The Board, having regard to the facts disclosed at the last audit of the union accounts, requested the Guardians to call upon this rate collector to tender his resignation; but subsequently, in deference to the unanimously expressed wish of the Guardians, they stated they would not insist upon his resignation on the present occasion, though, in the event of the recurrence of similar irregularities on his part, they would remove him by sealed order.

  THREATENED FAMINE AT BALLYVOURNEY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to
  1236
  the threatened famine in the Ballyvourney district, and, whether, in connection with the great distress prevalent in this and the contingent Kilnamartyra and Clondrohid districts, he could consider whether some public work or works could be undertaken, such as a light railway to Ballyvourney, and afford immediate relief?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Upon the information at present before me I have no reason to believe that there is any abnormal destitution among any portion of the people in the districts referred to, or any destitution of such character and extent as cannot be dealt with by the Guardians out of the rates of the Union. In this connection, I may point out that there is a considerable decrease in the numbers now in receipt of outdoor relief as compared with the corresponding period of last year.

  LABOURERS' HOLDINGS IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say in how many instances an acre of land has been granted to a labourer under the Labourers Act since the passing of that Act; and whether he will give the result in the four provinces of Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Since the passing of the Labourers Act of 1892, which extended the maximum garden allotment from one-half to a statute acre, orders have been made authorising the erection of 1,097 cottages with acre allotments. Of these 607 are in Leinster, 475 in Munster, 13 in Connaught, and 2 in Ulster. During the same period orders have been made sanctioning the taking of an additional half-acre in the case of 363 cottages which had already been built—namely, 316 in Munster, 45 in Leinster, and 2 in Connaught.

  NIGER SURVEYS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether any reliable survey and soundings

  1237
  have been taken on the River Niger between Lokoja and Liaba; and, if so, when; and if a report of same can be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. CURZON: This information for which the hon. Member asks is not in the possession of Her Majesty's Government.

  ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any communications have, as suggested by the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the administration of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, passed between the Board of Trade and the Committee of Management of the Institution and the Committee of Lloyd's relative to property salvage services rendered by the crews of the Institution's lifeboats; and, if so, whether he can state the result of such communications?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir. In consequence of the suggestion made by the Select Committee, conferences have been held at the Board of Trade between representatives of the Board, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the Committee of Lloyd's. At the invitation of the Board of Trade the President of the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice was also kind enough to attend these conferences. After having fully considered the representations made at these Conferences, the Board of Trade have addressed a letter to the Committee of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, stating that they find themselves unable to make any suggestion to the Committee.

  IRISH LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has he seen a copy of a resolution, passed by the Grand Jury of the county Monaghan, requesting the
  1238
  Government to take over the Irish Lunatic Asylums in the way they have taken over the prisons, and maintain them at the public cost as an Imperial charge; and, will he give this matter his favourable consideration?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the resolution in question. The proposals of the Government with regard to Lunatic Asylums are embodied in the Local Government Bill for Ireland, and I can hold out no hope that the entire cost of the maintenance of these institutions will be borne out of Imperial funds.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, why the recommendation made in the Report of Lord Morley's Committee, to the effect that the Head of the Ordnance Factories should be a military man, serving under a military chief at the War Office, has never been carried out; and why, in direct opposition to the recommendation in the Report, a civilian has been appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of the Ordnance Factories?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The first recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee was that a Superintendent of the Ordnance Factories should be appointed. The late Secretary of State, Mr. Stanhope, in appointing Dr. Anderson, did not, for reasons which he gave to the House at the time, accept the view of the majority of the Committee that the Superintendent should be a military man, but chose one whom he thought to be the best available candidate—and experience has fully justified the selection made. The second recommendation of the Committee was that, subordinate to the Superintendent, a chief mechanical engineer should be appointed, under whom the three separate branches of the factory might be amalgamated. This recommendation has been followed in the appointment of Mr. Donaldson.

  LABOUR TESTS (IRELAND).
  SIR JOHN MACLURE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the amount of relief given under the present scheme in the county of Mayo by the Boards of Guardians practically amounts to under 2d. a day per head for the individuals relieved; (2) and whether, in this relief, the head of the family is compelled to do work which is only imposed on able-bodied men in England who are known to be capable of earning their living if they would do so?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The maximum amount of outdoor relief authorised to be given by Boards of Guardians to persons engaged on the works organised as labour tests is six shillings a week, and this would work out at the figure stated in the first paragraph, on the assumption that a family represented on the works by one of its members consists of five persons. The current rate of wages for labourers in the distressed districts in ordinary years would be about seven shillings a week. In order to secure that only those who are actually in need of relief are afforded it at the expense of the Government and ratepayers, a task of work is required for one member of every family in all cases in which the Guardians wish to obtain the Government contribution. The relief afforded to these people in return for their labour is not intended to represent the wages which might be earned by an able-bodied man working on his own account, but is only supposed to enable him to procure the necessaries of life for himself and those dependent upon him, and thus prevent the family from coming into the workhouse. The granting of the relief is not contingent on everyone performing a task of work which would be done by an able-bodied man, and no one is taxed above his physical ability.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if, in the case of a family in which there is no able bodied man or woman, whether old or young are compelled to do the work?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, one member of the family is always called on to do it.
  MR. DILLON: I think that that is most scandalous.

  SATURDAY NIGHT MAIL FOR BELFAST.
  MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can see his way to have a special mail bag made up of all letters posted in London before 4.30 for Belfast forwarded by the Euston express train leaving at 5.30, arriving in Liverpool in time to catch the steamer leaving for Belfast at 10.30, and arriving there at 6 o'clock a.m. Sunday morning, when letters could be sorted and ready for delivery to callers at post office between the hours of 8 to 10 o'clock a.m.?
  MR. HANBURY: A bag for Belfast is already forwarded by the train leaving Euston at 5.30 p.m. on Saturday, as on every other week-day, for transmission to Belfast by the steamer viâ Fleetwood, which is due at Belfast about 6 a.m. The letters arriving on Sunday morning are delivered to callers at the Post Office between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. The Liverpool steamer, which is not used by the Post Office, is not due at Belfast until 8.30 a.m.

  DEATHS FROM EXPOSURE AMONG RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the finding and recommendation of a coroner's jury, who sat in the case of the death of a platelayer named Thomas Clarke, who died in the service of the London and North Western Railway Company whilst engaged in watching a landslip near Twyford Mill, namely, that the death was caused by exposure, and recommended the railway company should pay greater regard to the men employed on night duty especially during severe winter; whether he has noticed the death of five workmen on the Mallaig and Inverary Railway recently from exposure; and if he will use his influence with the railway

  1241
  companies concerned, and other railway companies, to protect the lives of their employees when working in winter in exposed positions?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The London and North Western Railway Company inform me that the man in question was on duty temporarily as night watchman, and that some time during the night he was seized with illness, and was discovered by the ganger in the morning. A conveyance was procured as quickly as possible, and the man was taken home, but died. A hut was provided for him, and he was supplied with a bucket suitable for a fire, plenty of fuel, and an overcoat. I have also received a letter from the Secretary to the West Highland Railway Company, which I shall be happy to show the hon. Member. I gather that when the men, who are contractors' servants, on leaving their work require refreshment, they have to go some miles to obtain it, which results in exposure to the weather. The contractors have, however, now opened a canteen at the works, where refreshments can be obtained. I will cause a copy of the hon. Member's Question and the reply to be furnished to the Railway Association.

  BURDENS ON IRISH AGRICULTURAL LAND.
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total amount of poor rate and the total amount of county cess paid out of agricultural land in Ireland in the year 1896–7?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The estimated total amount levied on account of local rates on agricultural land in Ireland during the "standard" year 1896–7 was in respect of poor rate about £615,000, and in respect of county cess about £924,000. The hon. Member must understand that these are merely approximate figures.

  DISTRIBUTION OF IRISH AGRICULTURAL GRANT.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lientenant of Ireland if he can state the average annual value per acre of agricultural land in Ireland, the average amount of rate in the pound on such land, and what is the proportion of the proposed new grant of £730,000 that will be distributed to holdings of over £15 per year annual rental?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: According to the Census Return the total area of agricultural land in Ireland outside the towns is approximately 18,536,000 acres, and the rateable value of land, deducting the towns, is £8,932,000. On these figures the rateable valuation per acre works out to nine shillings and sixpence. The average rate in the pound is approximately three shillings and fivepence. I have no means of giving the information as regards the allocation of the agricultural grant to holdings rented at over £15 per year.

  OMNIBUS TRAFFIC IN LONDON.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the congestion of traffic, caused in the streets of London by the large number of omnibuses plying in the daytime, and to the inconvenience caused by the lack of omnibuses at night-time, and more particularly after midnight; whether there is any limit to the number of omnibuses that may be licensed to ply in the daytime; and whether any conditions are made as to the hours during which such omnibuses shall ply; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of making regulations with a view to providing for a reasonable number of omnibuses to ply regularly for the convenience of theatre-goers and others after midnight?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE-RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): My attention has been called to the

  1243
  congestion of the traffic caused in certain streets by the large number of omnibuses plying in those streets, and the matter is now under my consideration. There is no power to limit the number which ply. As regards the other part of the hon. Member's Question, my information is that very few omnibuses are withdrawn from the streets until quite late; but, however, that may be, I should not feel justified in imposing conditions as to the hours during which omnibuses are to ply.

  RESERVE MEN.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether any Reserve men, offering themselves for re-engagement, have been rejected as medically unfit; and, whether such men will be deprived of their Reserve pay, or whether men who have been certified as unfit to serve in a battalion at home during peace time will be retained on the strength of the Reserve and receive pay as qualified for active service in the event of war?
  MR. BRODRICK: The returns of men rejected have not yet been received. Each, case will be considered on its merits.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Reservists may re-engage at any period of their Reserve service, or only during the first year after leaving the Colours?
  MR. BRODRICK: The only restriction as to service is that the Reservist must still have two years to serve.

  THE CUBAN QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to telegraphic reports as to alleged communications on the Cuban Question between the British Ambassador at Washington and the United States Government; and whether there is any truth in those reports?
  MR. CURZON: There is no truth in the reports. No communications on the Cuban Question have passed between the British and United States Governments.

  RECRUITING STATISTICS.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, as it appears from the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War relating to the Army Estimates, 1898–9, that the total number of recruits raised during 1897 for the regular Army was 35,015, and as it appears from the Return presented to the House on the 28th February that 28,903 men under one year's service were serving on the 1st January, 1898, if he can state the causes that have led to the disappearance of over 6,000 men who enlisted in 1897 and were not serving on 1st January, 1898?
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of soldiers of less than one year's service on the 1st January given in the Return quoted was 29,657, and not 28,903 as stated. Of the 35,015 enlisted during 1897, 1,293 were recruits for Colonial Corps, who were not included in the 29,657. All the returns as to the other casualties have not been received, but it is estimated that 3,150 left within three months of enlistment by purchase of discharge, discharged as unfit, etc., and that 915 deserted. This accounts for the difference between the totals.

  THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, although vacancies in the list of major-generals in the Royal Artillery occurred by the retirement of Major-General Caldicott on 1st October, 1897, and the death of Major-General Yeatman-Biggs on the 4th January, 1898, yet during the intervening months no appointment has been made; and inasmuch as by Royal Warrant, Section 47, V., it is laid down that while supernumerary major-generals exist, only every second vacancy is to be absorbed, why in the cases referred to the warrant is not carried into effect?
  MR. BRODRICK: Several points as to the promotion to the rank of major-general had to be considered before the promotion could be approved. These having been disposed of, the promotion will be shortly gazetted.

  IRISH LIGHT STORES AT KINGSTOWN.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can ascertain whether the position of book-keeper in the Stores of the Commissioners of Irish Lights at Kingstown is now vacant, but under the provisions and, if so, do the Commissioners of Irish Lights intend to fill the vacancy by open competitive Civil Service examination; and, if not, will they state the nature of their objection to the open competition, and describe the method of appointment which they propose to adopt; and, will he, in the event of the Irish Lights Commissioners proposing to adopt their usual system of limited competition for clerical appointments, recommend to them the desirability of nominating such a large minimum number of candidates as will ensure the appointment of a thoroughly qualified officer to fill the vacancy?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I understand that the position of book-keeper in the Stores of the Commissioners of Irish Lights at Kingstown is now vacant or about to become vacant; of the Order in Council the Board of Trade have no power to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioners with regard to the vacancy.

  TENTS FOR BRITISH TROOPS IN THE SOUDAN.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to a description by the Daily News correspondent of the tents provided for the British regiments in the Soudan as ragged and wholly unsuitable for the climate; and whether suitable tents will be provided?
  MR. BRODRICK: No complaint has been received as to the tents issued to the British regiments in the Soudan. They are of the Indian pattern, obtained direct from Bombay, and are considered suitable for a hot climate.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. J. MCKILLOP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the hardships often incurred by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in consequence of the charge made upon them for the removal or alterations of telegraph wires owing to change of residence; and, whether anything can be done to remedy this grievance?
  MR. HANBURY: Attention was called to this matter, in which my hon. Friend has taken so much interest, at the Conference which certain officers of the Post Office had with the Postmaster General and myself in August last, and instructions have been given that the cost of the removal or alteration of telegraph wires owing to a change of residence is to be borne by the Department in every case in which there is not some good and special reason for charging it to the sub-postmaster, such, for instance, as a vexatious and capricious removal occurring immediately after one already carried out at the expense of the Department. The new rule is to take effect as from the 1st April last.

  IRISH SALMON FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has he seen a resolution passed by the Clones Town Commissioners asking that the Local Government Bill should contain a provision to reform the constitution of the Irish Salmon Fishery Boards at present possessing an undue proportion of ex-officio members; also asking that the Royal Irish Constabulary be required to patrol all breeding streams during the

  1247
  close season; and can he give any assurance that these suggestions shall have attention?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Representations have been made to the effect stated in the Question, but I can only repeat what I have already stated, that the matter would appear to be one proper to be discussed when the Local Government Bill is under consideration by the House, and that I am not prepared, at present, to make any statement upon it.

  SERVING CHILDREN IN PUBLIC-HOUSES.
  MR. H. V. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if licensing magistrates have powers under the existing law to prevent licence-holders serving children under thirteen years of age with intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There is no statutory provision expressly giving justices the power to prevent such serving; but it is, of course, open to them, when the question of the grant or renewal of a licence is before them, to consider any abuses which are likely to result in connection with the serving of children under 13.

  MAXIM GUNS FOR VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can give some financial assistance to Volunteer rifle battalions anxious to provide themselves with a Maxim gun?
  MR. BRODRICK: Several Volunteer corps have provided themselves with machine guns; but it has not been thought necessary to give financial assistance for this special purpose.

  SALE OF OPIUM IN INDIA.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he would grant, as an unopposed Return, a copy of the regulations relating to the manufacture and sale of opium in India as set forth on to-day's Paper?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I shall be glad to lay on the Table such Papers as are in my possession if the hon. Baronet will confer with me as to the form of the Return.

  THE COUNCIL OF DEFENCE.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Council of Defence ever meet; if so, whether he can inform the House of the date of its last meeting?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my noble Friend I have to say that the Committee to which he refers is a Committee of the Cabinet, and it is not usual, and it would not, I think, be convenient, to give statistics as to the meetings of either the Cabinet or its Committees.

  ROYAL RESIDENCE FOR IRELAND.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government can see their way to recommend the establishment of a Royal Residence in Ireland?
  MR. DILLON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the Irish people have not the slightest desire for a Royal residence in that country; and whether, under these circumstances, he can see his way to recommend the Government to set aside for the relief of the starving poor in the west of Ireland—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not at all aware of the fact alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite;

  1249
  but, as far as the Question on the Paper is concerned, I think my noble Friend will see that this is a matter which concerns the domestic arrangements of the Royal Family, and can hardly be said to come within the sphere of the Government.
  MR. DILLON: Hear, hear! We shall hear no more of it.

  WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT.
  MR. G. DRAGE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the expenses to be incurred under the Workmen's Compensation Act are set down in the Estimate under two different heads—namely, the Home Office (Class 2, page 89) and the Registry of Friendly Societies (Class 2, page 139); and whether he will consider the advisability of placing both Votes under one head, and making one Minister responsible for the whole administration of the Act?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The course adopted is, I understand, that which has universally been pursued on the Estimates when money has to be spent by two public Departments. I think my hon. Friend will see that it would be quite impossible to make any Minister responsible for the expenditure of any Department not under his control.

  THE "PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
  CAPTAIN C. W. NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it has been brought to his notice that, in connection with the reports of Debates usually furnished to Members, the custom of supplying the replies given by Ministers to Members' Questions has been discontinued this Session owing to the fact that the cost to the contractor for postage amounts to about £2 per week, and that, according to the conditions of his contract, he is not bound to supply answers to Questions;
  1250
  and whether he will take steps to have the practice formerly in vogue reverted to, as Members are thereby saved considerable labour and inconvenience when replying to communications from their constituents?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am informed that the contractor, though not bound by his contract, has expressed his willingness to meet what appears to be the commonly expressed wish of the House by supplying hon. Gentlemen with copies of Questions and answers as well.

  CHIEF OFFICER EMERY.
  MR. W. LUCAS-SHADWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if any decision has yet been come to as to granting a pension to the widow of Chief Officer Emery, of Haddock's Station, Fairlight, who died through over-exertion in the course of his duty?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that a pension has been awarded.

  THE RIOTS IN BOMBAY.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India a Question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can give the House any recent information as to the recent disturbances in the city of Bombay?
  MR. DILLON: I desire to ask the noble Lord whether he can give any explanation of his statement in the House on Tuesday that any statement that there was exceptional agitation amongst the Mahomedan population in Bombay was false?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I do not think the hon. Gentleman opposite is quite accurate in his statement of what I said. I was asked by a friend of his, with scarcely any notice, if I had any confirmation of certain rumours in the newspapers, and I replied that I had telegraphed to the Governor of Bombay, and that I had

  1251
  received no reply. He further asked me if I could make any statement as to the state of things in Bombay, and I told him that the latest telegram which I had—which was some days old—from the Governor of Bombay was to the effect that rumours of unrest among the Mahomedans should not be credited. In reply to the question of my right hon. Friend—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose will allow me to answer his Question at the same time—I have to say that I have only received two telegrams from the Governor of Bombay in connection with the riots. They both came yesterday, and they are no doubt waiting until the close of to-day to report the condition of Bombay as it now is. The telegrams do not give any fresh information, but they may interest the House, as they confirm what has appeared in the public Press. The first telegram is as follows—
  "From Governor, Bombay, 9th March, 1898. No disturbance till to-day. Have just heard serious riot took place this morning in Bombay city on account of attempted removal of plague patient to hospital. Four men killed, three very seriously injured; three police officers injured, one very seriously. Mr. Dastur, a Parsee, one of the Presidency magistrates, injured. Riot over for the present. Military sent for."
  This is the second telegram—
  "From Governor, Bombay, 9th March, 1898. In continuation of my telegram. Commissioner of Police is now with me. He says there was an additional outbreak in adjoining part of town. Two rioters killed by fire. Promiscuous rioting in several streets; two British soldiers were killed, and another seriously injured; five more European police officers injured; several private Europeans were attacked and injured. No rioting since about 4 p.m. Principal streets and hospitals guarded by European and native troops. Rioting commenced in quarter inhabited by Julais, a sect of fanatical Mahomedans. Have asked the general officer commanding Poona for some cavalry."
  There is no official information beyond these telegrams. Investigation into the causes of a widespread disturbance in a large city like Bombay must necessarily take some time, but I am in daily communication with the Governor, and shall no doubt receive further information either this evening or to-morrow. I am confident that the disturbance is not the result of any excessive or unnecessary severity in the regulations or in their administration,
  1252
  and I feel sure that when order is restored—as is probably already the case—the work of combating the plague will proceed, every endeavour being made to give no avoidable offence to the customs or beliefs of the people, and to induce native gentlemen of position and influence to co-operate with the Government in the performance of this humanitarian duty.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: Will the noble Lord give the House any information he receives before the adjournment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Certainly, Sir.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the noble Lord if he was aware that he was reported as follows:—"On Tuesday, in the House of Commons, Lord George Hamilton read a telegram"—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is irregular for the hon. Member to refer without notice to an answer given to a question on a previous day.
  DR. TANNER: Then I shall put it down for to-morrow.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is the noble Lord in a position to state how many persons have been arrested in Bombay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No, Sir; I have given the House all the information I have received.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for Committee of the Navy Estimates."
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St, George's,): I rise to ask

  1253
  this House to grant a colossal sum for the Navy Estimates. That sum is £23,780,000. But that does not represent the total projected expenditure on Naval services. To that must be added £1,775,000 which will be spent under the Naval Works Act. Thus the total sum which we have to administer will amount to £25,555,000. The House will, I hope, appreciate the sense of responsibility under which I propose these Estimates at this time. I have no doubt of the readiness of this House to grant these sums. In fact, if I have any doubt it is whether in some quarters they will think that I have not asked enough. But, however that may be, this is the sum which the representatives of the taxpayers of this country are asked to grant, and the taxpayers of the country are entitled to know that they have full value for their money. I trust the Board of Admiralty may be able to give such an account, in the Debates which are going to take place, of the present position of the Navy as may satisfy the public that we are doing our very best. On this occasion I propose rather, if I may say so, to speak to the House in general and to the public in general than to those experts and specialists who take a particular interest in the items of our programme They will have an opportunity of administering, in due time, their able and searching interrogations, and I shall be prepared to go into any detail they may wish. To-night I would rather give a broader and more general view of the situation as revealed by these Estimates. I wish, if possible, to avoid what is called official optimism. We are sometimes decoyed into optimism by the extravagance of the pessimists. But I am anxious to place the truth before the House. I think the truth, though still revealing a situation in which nothing is perfect, shows, at all events, that great progress has been made. I wish to remind the House once more that we are in a transitional state, and many of the deficiencies—the admitted deficiencies—of the Navy are due to this transitional condition. This transitional condition is accompanied by a series of improvements which we are anxious to introduce even while we are expanding, and if we have to increase the number of our ships, the number of men,
  1254
  the size of our dockyards, and the manufacture of our guns, and if we are at the same time to improve the guns, to improve the ships, and to carry out reforms in almost every branch, the task, as the House will acknowledge, becomes still more complicated. The very improvements that we are making seem to throw all that has been done before into the shade. New guns have been introduced. We have so large a fleet that the introduction of new guns, if they are to be introduced everywhere, is an operation of time, and so it happens that, while we are furnishing our new vessels with new and more powerful guns, vessels which a few years ago were considered excellently armed are now considered to be armed obsoletely, or, as an hon. Friend of mine expressed it, are armed with nothing more than old ironmongery. We are going forward in every branch. I can illustrate the difficulties of this expansion by our dockyards. We have to refit and repair in proportion to the number of ships in commission, so that there may easily be a congestion, not only in our dockyards at home, but sometimes also in our dockyards abroad. Take the case of the Mediterranean. In that squadron we have now 40 ships of all kinds. A very few years ago we had 20 ships. But the dockyards must rise to the occasion, and, if possible, deal with the repairs, those constant repairs, of these 40 ships, which hon. Members know must inevitably occur in the case of every fleet. We cannot fit out or commission more ships than the dockyards can deal with. Consequently, as I said, during this process of expansion we must be prepared to find imperfections in many directions. Many Members of the House will remember the splendid display in July last, when they saw a magnificent gathering of British ships. At the Admiralty we were not dazzled by that display. We did not think that it meant that we had done enough. It did not seem to us to mean that we had reached a state of perfection. It was great, but we want to do more. It was satisfactory, but it did not reach the ideal standard, if ever that standard could be reached, which every Board of Admiralty desires to reach. To show the enormous advance that has been made, and the immense increase of that which

  1255
  we have to administer, let us for one moment give a glimpse into a rather distant past. In the year 1872 I stood at this Table as First Lord of the Admiralty, and I then proposed Estimates of which the total was £9,500,000. To-day I ask for over £23,000,000. At that time I asked for 61,000 men and boys. To-day I ask for 106,000. I asked them for money to commission 124 fighting ships. To-day we ask for money which will commission 258 fighting ships. I admit the contrast covers a long interval, but, after all, it is no longer than the administrative phase in the life of a Member of Parliament. Let me take a much shorter period. Let us take a glance at how matters stood only ten years ago. Then we had 139 fighting ships in commission, with 24,800 men. To-day we have 258 fighting ships in commission, with 50,300 men. That is to say, we have in commission ships holding twice the number of crews which we had only ten years ago. Where are they? Those who are with me know precisely where those ships are, but it will be interesting to the general public to hear how our ships are distributed. In the first place, there is the Channel Squadron, more powerful than any Channel Squadron we ever before had in commission; and that Channel Squadron is not confined to that area which its name would seem to imply. The Channel Squadron was a few days ago off the western shores of the Mediterranean and we have in the Mediterranean itself a number of ships. The Channel Squadron has an offensive, as well as a defensive, intention in time of war; and the closer defence of our shores and the seas around these islands in time of war will be intrusted to reserve ships which are now kept in commission; therefore it must not be supposed that the Channel Squadron is simply a squadron which operates in the Channel. Then we have the Mediterranean Squadron, of which I need say no more; a squadron on the North American Station, on the South American Station, on the Western shores of the American Continent, and in all these regions we alone, with the exception of France, which keeps a small squadron for the protection of the Newfoundland fisheries—we alone have squadrons where other nations have isolated
  1256
  ships. I do not include, of course, those nations who have their homes on the American continent. Then we have the Australian Squadron, the East India Squadron, the Cape Squadron, the China Squadron, and, let me remind the House, that with the exception of the Channel Squadron all these squadrons remained at their stations when that great naval mobilisation took place last year; the ships which took part in that mobilisation were those which remained over after the squadrons were left at their various stations. Then we have another resource. A system baa been introduced, and I think it is a good system, that when we have to reinforce or relieve our foreign squadrons we do not send out crews in freight ships or troop ships; we send out a fully-commissioned, fully-manned man-of-war, so that at all times, besides our squadrons at the stations, we have traversing the seas a certain number of ships in commission ready for war if war should arise at any time. I will illustrate this by reference to what happened recently, though there was no war, and I hope there will be no war. The Edgar was going out carrying relief crews for the China Squadron. It was thought desirable that that vessel should remain on the China Station, and that ship remained at the station in the natural course of administration to reinforce the China Squadron. Another instance was that of the Orlando; she was coming home from Australia and was detained at Singapore, and if need arose this was a further strengthening of the squadron. I mention this to show how we stand as regards our squadrons, and how ships from the East India Squadron, from Australia, and the Pacific can, if necessary, be called upon to strengthen our squadron in the Far East and in the China Seas. I think I need not say that I have by no means exhausted the enumeration of the ships afloat that we have to administer. We have training ships and surveying ships, and ships of other classes, and demands are made upon the Admiralty from all quarters. Australia is clamouring for a survey of her coasts in every direction, and we do what we can; but our surveying ships must be limited in number, because we cannot spare more than a certain number of

  1257
  officers competent to deal with that duty. We are anxious to keep up with the demands of our fellow-subjects, but they are numerous, and we are not always able to comply with their desires. Both England, Scotland, and Ireland have recently urged us to undertake the duty in connection with protecting fisheries against trawling around the shores of these islands. I have spoken of the general distribution of our squadrons. We have reinforced the China Squadron. I have told the House one means by which that squadron has been reinforced by the Edgar and the Orlando. We have also sent two ships from the Mediterranean, the Bar-fleur and the Victorious, and I am able to say that these two ships will be replaced in the Mediterranean by the Illustrious and the Hannibal, which will be ready in a few weeks. All this has been done quietly and unostentatiously. We prefer to celebrate the home-coming of ships rather than their send-off. But I can speak, however, of one gallant send off, and that was the start of the Bar-fleur. This ship had been in commission three years, and was due to come home; the crew were to be relieved in the ordinary course by the crew going out. The captain of the ship, officers, and men petitioned that they should be left with their ship, and amid ringing cheers, forgetting their long absence from home, forgetting they had been away three years, and forgetting their desire to return, asked to be allowed another spell of duty on foreign service. That is the kind of start I think that British opinion appreciates and prefers. I trust, and I believe I judge the Navy aright, that the men are not yet infected with the ostentatious sensationalism which is becoming somewhat the fashion of modern times, but prefer the quieter, simpler traditions of the service. Now, as regards the Victorious. She passed through the Suez Carnal with perfect ease and safety, and, as I think has been stated at this Table before, the accident that unfortunately happened to her had absolutely nothing to do with the passage through the Suez Canal. "But how was it," it may be asked, "we were never told before that ships of the Victorious class could pass the Canal? Well, I do not think it is necessary for the Admiralty to speak in advance of all
  1258
  its resources. We knew that we had nine ships of a class that could pass through the Suez Canal, but we did not announce this from the house-tops. We were told we could send no assistance, that we were left with the Renown as the only ship that could pass through the Canal, and a question, put by an hon. Member of this House surely must have been prompted by a practical joker, "Why not send a ship of the Canopus class?" when it must have been perfectly well known that no ships of this class are completed. We have ships which can pass through the Canal; and I say now, with an emphasis I hope the House will pardon, I hope we shall never be pushed by questions in the direction of saying prematurely what we can do, where we shall send our ships, what stations we shall reinforce, or how we shall distribute our ships. If times should grow darker than now they are, if timidity is shown in this or that direction, and we are pressed to say, "Will you defend this point or that point, will you strengthen this squadron?"—then I hope we shall have such confidence given to us by the House of Commons and the public that we shall be allowed to hold our peace and steadily do our duty. To my references to these general considerations I may be permitted to add one more general observation. It is, I know, sometimes considered that we act without system at the Admiralty, that we have no system in our combinations, in the number of our ships of different classes that we construct, and that we have no strategic plans if war should break out. I do not know on what facts such a view is founded, except the fact that we do not much report upon our schemes, or talk about the system we are adopting; and, there, again, I hope it may not be necessary for us to do so. But I can assure the House, standing here as Minister, that the distribution of our cruisers is very carefully considered as regards every trade route and every route by which our food supplies arrive. There is no haphazard in the number and class of cruisers we build, and we modify our plans as we observe new elements coming forward in the situation we have to deal with. The charge is that we have no system. We have our system, and work upon it, though, let me assure the House, there

  1259
  is no tendency to official optimism. Every day new factors enter into our strategic considerations. The balance of power varies; navies vary in the rate of increase; new fleets are created. For instance, the Japanese fleet is a new factor in strategic considerations, and there are naval developments by Germany and other nations. All these matters must continually modify our plans, and we do not wish simply to say, "We must ask the House of Commons for a few more ships in order to satisfy the public demand," without knowing at the time why we ask for them and what we have in view in making the demand. I would now submit to the House some points connected with the personnel of the Navy. As the House will have seen from my statement, there is an increase of 6,340 men of various ratings. We asked for a similar number last year, and it was granted, and I am glad to be able to assure the House, as it will see from the statements before it, that we had no difficulty whatever in securing the 6,300 men that we asked for. There is a constant misapprehension upon this point, which it is very difficult to eradicate, and that is that we cannot get enough, boys to be trained into seamen. That is an entire mistake. As a matter of fact, we have offers from various localities, saying, if we would only send a ship to such and such a port, they would find us as many recruits as we require. Not only can we get sufficient boys, to fill the gaps that we desire, but we have enough to enable us to pick and choose and to eliminate those whom it is undesirable to have or who are below the standard. I do not think we take more than one boy out of eight of those who present themselves; therefore, we have no difficulty whatever about finding boys. We ask for an increase of 6,300, but that is not the whole amount we have to find in the course of the year, because, besides that number, we have to supply others to provide for the waste, which is about 10,000 on our 100,000 men, or about 10 per cent., so that we have to find as many as 15,000 or 16,000 entries in the course of the year. In the course of last year we not only raised 6,000 men, but we raised 6,000 men and boys besides the numbers necessary to provide for the waste of the year. When we increase the Navy in this way we do
  1260
  not, of course, in the first month or two recruit the whole. It would be most injudicious to do so. There are some persons who will say, "You want more men, why not take them all at the same time?" But if we did so we should not be able to keep up the standard; we should disorganise the general recruiting service; and those connected with the Army as well as the Navy know that a regular system of recruiting is infinitely better than spasmodic recruiting. You are better able by degrees to secure the men whom you want, and that is the only reasonable way to distribute the recruiting, both for boys and marines, over the whole of the year. I may say, in passing, that we have the same system on the Northampton, under which recruits of somewhat older age than those who go into the ordinary training ships are engaged round our coasts, and it has been very successful, and the boys are well reported of in all the squadrons in which they are serving. One new additional training ship has been established—namely, the Black Prince. She is perfectly fitted up for her duty of training boys at Queenstown. Hon. Members will see in the statement which I have circulated that we have appointed a Recruiting Committee, and that Committee is doing good work. What we are anxious to do is to spread recruiting all round the coasts and all over the country, not to take too many men from one locality, but to open up the whole country for our recruiting purposes; and it is with that intent we are endeavouring to improve our recruiting system. As regards stokers, I may say that our recruiting has been improved very much during the last few months. The paucity of men, naturally, constantly forms a prominent part of the debate as to the condition of the Navy, as will be seen from my statements. When, on the occasion of the Jubilee, we had all those ships mobilised, some 37,000 men were manning that mobilised fleet. Those ships were all fully manned—manned like ships commissioned for war. But, nevertheless, it was said in a leading organ of public opinion it was well known that these ships were undermanned to the extent of 30 or 40 per cent. Such a statement ought never to have been made; it was absolutely untrue. They were not undermanned at all. Well, it,

  1261
  was because of that statement, that two statements were made, which I may perperhaps notice. One came from France, and it was this—
  "That so difficult had it been to man the ships during the Jubilee manœuvres that I had gone down personally 19 times to Portsmouth in order to hasten the manning of the ships."
  Another statement, which came from Germany, was that we had 20,000 foreigners in the British Navy, and that if these foreigners were withdrawn we should be unable to send our ships properly to sea. There are a few foreigners in the Navy, apart from the Maltese and Kroomen, but they are mainly confined to bandsmen and domestics of various classes and so on. Possibly in consequence of that statement, I had a letter from a gentleman in high office in one of the Colonies, who wrote that, as we had so many foreigners in the Navy, it would be wise on our part to attempt to recruit in the district in which he was. I have thought it right to call the attention of the House to these exaggerations to show that if by stamping on the ground I could at once produce another 10,000 fully-trained men, although I should rejoice to have them, I should not know where to put them. We cannot, and we will not, enter more men or boys than we can properly train, administer, house, and send to sea. We have gone forward steadily every year, and this year another 6,300 is required. We have proceeded systematically upon these lines, and we do hope that the House and the public will not hurry us into any measures which would give us only the numbers without having the trained and efficient numbers. As my hon. Friend behind me intends to raise the question of training, I will not say more on the subject of our personnel except this—no doubt we are short of officers, but I would point out to those who object to the changes we are making in the Britannia that, under the present system, we shall turn out 60 more officers every year than we turned out before. If they were of a worse quality the increased number would not be an entire advantage; but as we shall be able, we believe, to turn out 180 cadets as good as the 120 turned out before, everybody will admit that the 60 additional officers thus supplied every year is a great advantage and an important step, looking
  1262
  to the acknowledged paucity of officers. I now come to the question of the Naval Reserve, and I will confine what I have to say to a very few words on that point. The House may remember that we made a change last year in a direction which was approved of, I think, by almost everyone who took part in the discussion, but it was doubted whether it would succeed. That change was that in future we would only have in our Reserve men who would submit to six months' training on board a man-of-war. Well, I admit the experiment was one with reference to which doubt could be entertained whether the men would submit to six months' training. Of course, this was done partly in order to secure the fishermen around our coasts. It was thought they were a strong body of men, who could be induced to join the Reserve, but it was felt they must have some training on a man-of-war. That was the reason we imposed these conditions. For the first few months, I admit, I was exceedingly anxious with reference to the result of this experiment. The men came forward slowly. I inquired the reasons, and I found they were based on human nature. They said we had fixed the age rather too high; that fishermen married young, and would not leave their wives for so long a spell as six months. They also said they did not like the dress on board men-of-war; that they were accustomed to comforters and clothes which protected all their limbs, and that the attractive costume of the British bluejacket would not agree with fishermen. There were other reasons of that kind. Under the advice of the Registrar-General of Seamen, we reduced the age by one year, and the effect was almost instantaneous. Men who would not come because they were older would come when we took them before their affections had been engaged. Now, we have 600 good volunteers for this service, and I hope it will be a success. I will now call the attention of the House to the matériel of the Navy. In regard to shipbuilding, my statement shows in some detail the way in which labour strikes have disappointed our hopes. It is a deplorable circumstance. The House will be able to understand the intense anxiety with which we watched the strike week after week. There is one postponement, however,

  1263
  which is chronicled which was not due to the labour war, but to another circumstance. This is a somewhat more technical point than those which I have dealt with. You will observe that before the commencement of the battleships of the Formidable class, and the commencement of the four ships of the Crescent class—armoured cruisers—which the House allowed me to order in July last, there has been considerable delay. Yes, there has been delay, and we deplore it, and I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman cannot but admit that there were some grounds for it. The principal cause of the delay in preparing the designs of the Formidable class and the cruisers of the Cressy class was due to the experiments necessary to develop the designs of the new 12in., 6in., and 9.2in. guns. These guns being of greater weight, longer, and giving a much higher velocity than the previous patterns of guns, required stronger mountings, and involved increase of weight in many directions, so that the design of the ship could not be completed until the design of the guns and their mountings had been approved. You may lay it down generally that armament dominates design, it affects the stability of the ship, it affects the dimensions, the displacement, the space of ammunition—it affects the ship in every direction. These new guns were much more powerful than the guns which we had before in our ships, and the Ordnance Committee had to make out the details, the guns had to be tried, and various processes had to be undertaken. We were in this dilemma: Should we wait a few weeks, or a month or two if necessary, until we had secured the best guns, or should we immediately put in hand the ships with a certainty that when they were completed it might be said we had floated our newest and largest ships with guns which were already superseded? I felt it was a very difficult question to decide, but it was the full and unanimous opinion of my colleagues and advisers that it would be unwise to proceed at once with the construction of these ships until we had got the designs for the guns completed. To have commenced the ships earlier would have involved accepting the old pattern
  1264
  of gun, and, therefore, it was well worth while to sacrifice the few weeks which were necessary to obtain the new design. For my part, I am perfectly convinced that we followed the right course. However that deals only with a portion of our programme, that portion which involved the commencement of these ships; but the real delay—the terible delay—has been the delay in the ships under construction, and the ships that were in dockyards for various reasons, but mainly the ships under contract. There are two aspects from which this has to be considered—the retarded completion of the ships and the effect upon finance. Of course, the whole finance of the firms has been disarranged, but the completion of the ships to us is the more important point. We have been thrown back—and I ask the House to realise this—a whole seven months in our construction of men-of-war. I am glad to say now that the men are working with a will. I understand, from all quarters, they have gone back to their work, and that work has been resumed with a good spirit on both sides, and it is hoped that now, with renewed energies they will be able to push on with the orders they have in hand, and to retrieve, to a certain extent, the arrears. It is a serious thing to disarrange the construction of a man-of-war. In my statement I gave the particulars as to each ship, but I will now give the House the general result of the postponement, irrespective of some of the details in the dockyards. The ships which would have been on the sea, and many of them in commission to-day but for the strike, are as follows:—one first-class battleship, three first-class cruisers, two second-class cruisers, and six third-class cruisers, in all 12 vessels, the latest and best examples of their classes in the Royal Navy. Besides, this squadron, it is practically certain that, instead of 25 30-knot destroyers having been completed by the end of the present financial year, 45 vessels of that class would have been ready for service. Well, now, I know the view which has been taken by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. He considers that if the Government had intervened by enforcing penalties on all the firms who were in arrear, we might have averted some of the worst effects of the strike.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have never expressed any opinion of that kind.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am delighted to hear it. I thought, from questions which the hon. and learned Member put in me, and the statement that he was going to call attention to the subject of the exaction of penalties on the Estimates—I thought, and still think, on the whole, that the hon. and learned Member was in favour of that course.
  MR. ROBERTSON: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I was simply asking for information. It depends on the information I receive whether I shall take that course.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I can conceive no more reasonable course; the hon. and learned Member is absolutely reasonable. But I am sorry that the paper which supports the hon. and learned Gentleman generally has made a violent attack on me, I am told, for this very reason. They say they hold me responsible for a portion of the results of the labour war, because we did not interfere by enforcing penalties. I quite understand that the hon. and learned Member would have a natural reluctance to introduce this point, because to enforce the penalties as suggested would have been an illegal step, as the decisions of the Courts have gone. As I understand those decisions, we should have had no right to enforce those penalties, and I indicated in the reply I gave that it would be, under any circumstances, an extremely difficult thing to exact penalties where a shipbuilding firm had not delivered in time, when the delay was caused by another firm—where there had been partly a lock-out and partly a strike—not delivering machinery in time. To penalise a firm in that way, or to take any course of that kind, would have outraged the sense of equity of the whole House. But I am glad to say that, while there has been postponement in every direction, it does not follow that the ships will be behind their contract times in all cases, because contractors often put in a date in order to secure themselves, with the full intention, and often with the full capacity, to deliver ships before
  1266
  the contract dates. That, of course, gives a certain margin, and although the ships will not be delivered as it was expected, nevertheless, they may, in many cases, I hope, be delivered within the contract dates. The sum which has not been spent in consequence of the delay is £2,270,000. I will not say that that sum has been entirely unspent, because a certain portion of it has been utilised. For instance, we have anticipated some of the demands for 1898–99 as regards armaments by granting a considerable sum out of this unspent money, we have hastened on repairs to a certain extent, and dealt with some of the expenses connected with the greater mobilisation of ships, the greater number of ships in commission, and the greater consumption of coal in the financial year. But, generally speaking, we have short-spent on new construction £2,270,000. Well, of that the instalments are all disarranged. We have not been able to get on with certain ships because the armour was not delivered and because the gun mountings were not delivered. Now, let the House thoroughly understand the situation. It may be asked why we have not spent more, and why we have not put it all on the coming year. That is a point I shall be able to explain in a very few words. When once a contract is fixed, the function of the Admiralty is simply to pay the instalments as the work proceeds; therefore, on ships under contract we cannot increase or decrease our expenditure if we wish to do so. So much is due to the contractors as they can earn, but not more. For such ships, therefore, we do not ask more than the proposed instalments to be earned in the year; that was the basis on which we framed the Estimates. Well, now, I wish the House to understand this, that the liability for ships under construction, without laying down a single new ship, on April 1st, including arrears of £1,400,000, is a sum between £7,000,000 and £7,100,000. If we carry on work in the dockyards, as we intend to do, these are the liabilities in which there is really no elasticity whatever. As regards the dockyards, I omitted to make this statement: we cannot largely increase the expenditure in our dockyards profitably, even if we wish to do so. We intend to keep up the strength of our workmen in the dockyards precisely as

  1267
  it stands now. We have kept the dockyards at full power during the whole of the year. If men were taken on for an emergency and subsequently discharged there would be discontent, and one of the charms of the Government service in the dockyards is its continuity. The contentment thus produced can only be secured by our not being tempted at any particular moment largely to increase the numbers at the yards, or to reduce them at other times. Therefore, I look upon work in the dockyards as rather a fixed quantity during this period of expansion of the Navy, and the elasticity, when it is desired, can only take place in laying down more ships to be built under contract. That brings me now to the point of the new ships we propose to lay down in the present year. Let me remind the House how we shall stand on April 1st, not only as regards finances, but as regards ships under construction. We shall have nine first-class battleships, 12 first-class cruisers, six second-class cruisers, 10 third-class cruisers, two sloops, four gunboats, and 41 torpedo boat destroyers. That will be the programme inherited by 1898–99 from 1897–98. That is the gigantic work on which the contractors and dockyards will be engaged. I cannot set down the value of these ships at a lower figure than £23,000,000 sterling. I am told that our programme for this year is a modest one, but that programme has to be grafted on to this other programme, which has to be carried out with all the energy which the contractors can put into the work and all the energy which the dockyards can put into it. I must say here, in regard to the dockyards, that while there has been local trouble here and there, generally, during this trying year, the temper of the men in the dockyards has been admirable and the work they have performed has been excellent. There has been splendid emulation between the different dockyards as to the speed and excellence with which they have produced their work. Well, then, these ships of which I have spoken hitherto are already under contract, or building in the dockyards. As regards our new programme, it is three battleships, four armoured cruisers, and
  1268
  four sloops. I offer the House no justification whatever for asking to be allowed to commence these ships. If I am challenged in regard to them I expect that it will be from a small section on the other side of the House, while there will be many speakers prepared to state why it is necessary that we should build those ships. I ought to add that this is not the whole programme really for 1898–99, because the House will remember that there were four armoured cruisers authorised in July last, in anticipation of the programme of 1898–99, so that we really have eight armoured cruisers and four sloops which belong to the new programme. And now as regards battleships. We have considered that three is the proper number of battleships to propose for the Navy, after a careful study of what has been done by others. We wish to maintain the standard at which we have been trying to arrive for so long, and we wish to exceed that standard if it were possible. But at present the general tendency in shipbuilding of some of our rivals—I do not know by what other name to call them, and I certainly do not call them foes—for power on the sea has been transferred rather to cruisers than to battleships, and it is to cruisers accordingly that we are directing our main attention. With reference to the battleships, and the cruisers which are to be commenced in the course of this year, I must ask once more for the indulgence of the House in requesting them to allow me to put off any statement as to their nature to the very latest date possible in the course of this Session. If they are not to be begun early in the financial year is it wise for us to state precisely the style of ship we intend to build? One thing I will say, and that is that I am afraid they will be very costly ships, but they will also be very powerful ships. We secure much advantage by the commencement of ships by other Powers in ascertaining precisely the class of ship—its speed, shape, and armament—which we may possibly have to meet, but I am unwilling to give them a corresponding advantage so long as the House of Commons will trust us to put off to a later period of the Session—if necessary to when Vote 8 is taken—the discussion of

  1269
  the description and speed of these special ships which we propose to build. We have received so much courtesy at the hands of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in this respect that I hope they will give me that confidence again. One word, and an important one, upon the reasons why it would not be possible, why we could not with advantage lay down more ships in the course of the coming financial year. I am now addressing myself to those who think we are not doing enough. I would point out that it is no good to lay down ships, and no one will dispute it, I am sure, unless you can calculate that the material for them will be delivered pari passu with the labour on them. For instance, it would be unwise to check their progress for want of armour. Rapid construction is economical; but to begin ships and not to be able to finish them—taking the men off and putting them on other work until you get the armour—is a process which we cannot really recommend. Now let the House remember that formidable list of ships I have just mentioned. There are nine battleships, and of the 12 first-class cruisers four are armoured ships, so that we have 13 armoured ships requiring armour in the course of the coming year; and we do not think that we could rely on such an output of armour as would justify us in hastening the construction of armoured ships early in the coming financial year. The output of armour has been thrown back partly owing to the labour difficulty to which I have already referred, but it has also been thrown back by the introduction of new processes of manufacture by which better results can be obtained, but which have required a rearrangement of machinery. It has been suggested that we should ourselves construct works where armour could be manufactured, but I do not think the House generally would be inclined to encourage us in such a task. We have, indeed, enough upon our hands, and our establishments are large enough without undertaking new great Government works of this kind. It is a safe rule to lay down, that if you can fairly secure the article to be manufactured by private enterprise it is unwise to check the development of the enterprise by the Government undertaking
  1270
  the work themselves. At all events, it would be a long and costly process, and I do not think it would be wise to undertake it. Well, then, we have got, as I have said before, a liability already of £7,000,000 on April 1st irrespective of any new ship, and now we have the additional liability pulaced upon us of laying down three battleships, four cruisers, and some small ships. I do not wish to mortgage 1899–1900 further than it is mortgaged by this programme, but rather to keep it for the House of Commons, and the Admiralty, to judge in about a year's time how we can best utilise any further resources we can rely on in 1899–1900. This is an argument which runs side by side with what I have already stated, that we should not inform our foreign friends of the course we intend taking. I desire to reserve to the Admiralty the liberty, so that when we come to the end of 1898–99 we may not find that we have incurred such liabilities in that year that if we want one description of vessel more than another we are hampered by the previous liabilities we have incurred. For instance, it might be thought necessary to lay down another large ironclad, which would influence the Vote for the year to the extent of £500,000, but when the time came we might find it desirable to spend the money on cruisers, and therefore from that point of view I only now propose this modest programme. I will not say what this modest programme will cost, because that would give too much of a clue to the class of cruiser we intend to build. I have stated that they will be powerful cruisers, and they will be adapted to those special circumstances which last year and this year have revealed themselves in different parts of the world. I must thank the House for the attention with which they have listened to me so far. There is one great department of activity which I have not yet touched upon, the main exposition of which I will leave to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty; that is the action which we have taken under the Works Act of last Session. We have been much disappointed in the progress of the works; we have been disappointed at Hong Kong, where we have not been able to get hold of the land; we have been disappointed at Gibraltar; and we

  1271
  have been disappointed in the extension works in several other localities. I do not say that the unspent amount of money is an exact criterion of the work that is not done, because it depends frequently upon the capital and resources of the contractor. If the contractor can go on for some time without asking for instalments, work may be done which represents money, but money which has been earned but which has not been asked for until a later day. We have not got the money entirely in our hands. But I will admit fully that we have been disappointed. We have had many disappointments. I have sometimes heard it said: Are the Admiralty aware that the works at Gibraltar are not making sufficient progress; or are they aware that no steps have yet been taken in such and such a direction? Yes, we are aware; and who so much as we are likely to deplore these delays? Who so much as we are likely to be mortified with the arrangements that have been made and which cannot be carried out? And who so much as we can deplore the fierce struggle and between capital and labour, which has deprived us of ships by which we had hoped to reinforce squadrons, and bring them up to their strength? We may be criticised for these delays, but it is we who suffer from them most; and as for my Naval and professional colleagues, who are criticised, and naturally criticised too, I ask the House to remember their position. They work on unostentatiously, quietly, and loyally; they are not cheered by any demonstrations of popular audiences. They may not take pen in hand in order to explain, contradict, or refute. They must bear chilling criticisms in silence, but they have this comfort, that they see, notwithstanding all the imperfections with which any great administration such as ours must necessarily be charged—they have, at all events, the comfort of seeing the fleet expanding from year to year, and from month to month. The fleet has been expanding, the personnel has been expanding; our guns have been improved, and there have been improvements in every direction, and for the organisation of all these, they deserve the chief credit at the hands of the nation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, expansion
  1272
  and improvement are going on, and though it is difficult for them to keep step through the labyrinth of difficulties, they are pressing forward. The Admiralty can do much, but it cannot do all. The State can do much, but it cannot do all, even if a generous House of Commons and a generous public consent to continue to place such colossal sums at our disposal. We require the steady co-operation of other interests. We require the steady co-operation also of those who represent the maritime interests of this country. We require, too, the steady co-operation of the manufacturing centres. If in those centres which have been the pride and strength of the country; those engineering and manufacturing centres which have been so famous for their work—if there the furnaces are extinguished; if there the men are standing out, or are locked out—I do not care how it may be, for we have no politics at the Admiralty, and we know nothing of trades unionism, and we only want to see the work of the country properly done; if the sons of our seamen take less and less to the sea; if, from some false idea of economy, or from the imposition of impossible conditions on the other side, British sailors are being ousted by foreigners from British ships then I say God help this country. It is not only with respect to our men-of-war, and not only with respect to the crews of our ships when war is likely to break out that "England expects every man to do his duty." There are other classes to which we may appeal, and there are other services which the nation has got a right to command; and if once more peace and harmony should reign in those great centres of industry, and if the maritime instincts of this nation which calls itself the mistress of the sea should re-assert themselves, and show again an increasing number of British seamen in the British mercantile marine, then, with the splendid spirit of the personnel of the Navy, and with the generosity of the taxpayers of the country, the nation may look forward with ever-increasing confidence to this prospect, that if there be peace, which God grant, it may be peace shrined in honour; and if there be war, which God forbid, it may be war crowned with victory.
  *MR. WILLIAM ALLEN: I rise to call attention to the country's deficiency in ships and men, and to move—
  "That this House desires to see a fuller provision for manning the fleet."
  I do not think the right hon Gentleman has upon this occasion indulged in any official optimism. The story that he told us is not one, I think, calculated to make us feel very satisfied with the strength of our Navy at the present time. He has told us that we have got fewer ships than we ought to have if it had been possible to carry out our programme. He has told us that though there has been a great deal of activity in the naval works in different parts of the world, at Hong Kong and Gibraltar, yet that the work is behindhand, and he has told us that he would desire to have spent more of the money voted, if we possibly could have, for the Navy. It seems to me that altogether it would need somebody with a light heart to have dealt with any official optimism in regard to the statements the right hon. Gentleman has made in the House. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to attempt to make any Party attack of any kind on the Admiralty or the right hon. Gentleman. I regard the question of Imperial defence as of such transcendent importance that it ought to be altogether outside of the circle of Party politics, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that in anything I am going to say I am endeavouring to make any Party points against the Navy. Now, Mr. Speaker, to one who, like myself, is not an expert in Navy matters, it is necessary to go to the Admiralty returns and to the various information that has been given in this House by the First Lord of the Admiralty and other Naval experts, in order that we may be able to judge what the standard of efficiency of our Navy should be in regard to the other navies of the world. I have endeavoured to do this, and I find that there is one standard that has been accepted by the leaders of both political parties in this House as the irreducible minimum which this country should have. Lord George Hamilton, in introducing the Defences Act in 1889, said—
  "I think I am correct in saying that that idea" (the idea underlying all Naval Minister's
  1274
  and Prime Ministers' speeches) "has been that our establishment should be on such a scale that it should be at least equal to the naval strength of any two other countries. For the purpose of meeting unexpected blows we should have a considerable margin of reserve."
  Then Lord Brassey, in the Naval Annual for 1889, said—
  "Our standard of strength in battleships should be twice that of France."
  Now I think that is the admitted standard, and it is common ground with both sides of the House that the irreducible minimum from which this country should not, under any circumstances, fall is supremacy over the next two strongest navies in the world combined. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish at the moment to argue whether this is a satisfactory standard to set up or not. But taking this standard, which is admitted by both sides of the House I believe, I shall be able to show that our Navy is weaker now, compared with the next two strongest navies of the world, than it was in 1889, than it was in 1894, and than we were last year; and that it will be still weaker on the completion of our present naval programme of 1899 and the following year. And yet the right hon. Gentleman tells us that we have made great progress. He tells us that the improvements of the last few years have put all other improvements of the past absolutely in the shade. I think it can be proved—and the figures of the Admiralty prove it—that, in regard in France and Russia—the next two strongest naval Powers—figures show our improvements are more imaginary than real, and that no really satisfactory progress in regard to the strength of our Navy has been made. The Return of 1889 gives our strength in armoured ships, and it also sets out what the standard of strength for this country should be. For the purposes of the comparison that I am now going to make, I only intend to take first and second class battleships. These will be our first line of defence, and on our great battleships we shall have to depend principally in the event of a possible combination between any two Continental nations. In 1889 we had battleships completed, 32; France and Russia had

  1275
  21. In 1894 we had 31; France and Russia, 26. In 1897 we had 35; France and Russia, 33. In 1899 we should have 46; and France and Russia, 45. So, taking the Admiralty's own Standard and their own figures that they have put before the House, we are considerably less strong in battleships now than we were 10 years ago in relation to France and Russia. We have increased our battleships by a total of 14 in that period, and they have increased theirs by a total of 24. Of course, this is making an allowance for ships that have been removed to lower classes, and for ineffective ships that have been struck off the list. In all, since 1889 we have built 29 battleships, all first-class. France and Russia 23 first class, 7 second, and 13 third—in all 43. So far as numbers are concerned, it seems to me that we are drifting into a very serious position, and that we are not going forward in the right direction, as the First Lord of the Admiralty told us a few moments ago. But these figures do not represent how bad the case really is, for we shall not have reached these figures in 1899. The delay that has been caused by the strike during the past year in our building programme puts us seriously behind. According to the First Lord's memoranda, and according to the calculations of the Admiralty made last year, if this country were to be considered safe at the present time we ought to have spent nearly £2,500,000 on new construction more than we have done, and we are that much behind in our programme; and of the battleships, four of which the First Lord of the Admiralty promised should be completed last year by the time he next made his statement on the Estimates, only one has been completed. I know he told us that two others, the Illustrious and the Hannibal, will very soon be launched, but they have been delayed, and the six ships of the Canopus class, the First Lord told us, were seven months behind. Altogether, the delays of last year means that we have lost 12 months in our construction programme, and we shall be 12 months behind for the next few years. The only vessel upon which there seems to have been any real progress made during the past year is the Royal yacht, and that vessel seems to be nearly completed. In 1899, according
  1276
  to the First Lord of the Admiralty's statement of what we were really doing, it seems to me that we shall be six battleships short, representing a tonnage of 77,000 and 91 guns. If we had to go to war with any combination of the great Continental Powers, it seems to me that our position would be a very serious one. Now, it has been urged in this House that we can build our ships so very much faster than France and Russia that it did not very much matter if we got slightly behind in any one year, but that argument has ceased to have the same weight now that it used to have, seeing that France is now building almost, if not quite, as fast as we are. The Jéna was launched six months after she was commenced, and some other French vessels have been launched in eight months, so that the great advantage that we had over others in the past, when France was building very slowly and we were building comparatively fast, has vanished, for the French are now building, as I said before, almost as fast, if not quite as fast, as we are. It is the case that our ships are very much larger than the ships of France and Russia, or of any other Power, and in that way we may be said to possess an advantage; but it is more an apparent advantage than a real advantage, because our ships have to carry much more coals on account of the distant stations in which they have to serve, that the size does not generally represent stronger armament, but only additional coal carrying power; and, therefore, they would not be stronger than foreign ships of 4,000 or 5,000 tons less when it came to the time of battle. Then there is another serious defect in respect of eight of the vessels which, in the Admiralty Return, are reckoned as effective second-class battleships. Eight of these are still armed with muzzle-loading guns. Now, does the First Lord of the Admiralty propose to re-arm these vessels? It is a most important point, but he told us nothing whatever about it to-night. Is it possible to re-arm them? It has been said that in the Alexandra and the Rupert the funnel casing comes up through the battery, so that it would be impossible to re-arm them with modern breech-loading guns. In another two, the turrets are so constructed that the cost would be so vast

  1277
  if they were to be re-armed, that it would be almost cheaper to build new ships. But, however that may be, I maintain that the Admiralty are not justified in counting these amongst their effective ships—amongst the ships that would be capable of meeting the ships of a foreign Power, armed with breech-loading guns. The First Lord of the Admiralty said, a few years ago, that we ought to trust in Providence in this respect. Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to think that Providence would not be likely to help us in battle if our ships were armed with muzzle-loading guns against the ships of an enemy armed with breech-loading guns. Up to the present, in numbers, in strength, and in armaments I do not think we have that superiority to any other two Powers in the world. It has always been maintained as the irreducible minimum that this country ought to have a Navy sufficiently strong to deal with the combined navies of any two other Powers. But this is not the standard that has been considered necessary by experienced naval experts. After the Naval Manœuvres of 1888, a Committee of three Admirals was appointed to inquire into what standard this country ought to have, and they told us it would not be possible to blockade the enemy's ships, as it will be necessary for us to do if ever we are going to war with a combination of Continental Powers, with less than a proportion of five English vessels to three foreign ones. That standard has never been either accepted or given up by the Admiralty. If the Admiralty do not accept the standard, will they give us the reasons for not accepting it, and the reasons why they think that the standard set up by these three Admirals was too high a standard for this country to attain to? On one occasion the Government gave us a standard that they thought was a sufficient standard for this country. It was the standard set up in the Return of 1889. The present Secretary of State for India, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, told us that the standard that this country should aim at is the standard of six English vessels to five, in first-class battleships, over possible opponents, and 4¼ to 2 in second-class battleships. We are not only below this standard set up as the standard that we ought to
  1278
  attain to by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the late Conservative Government, and a Member for the present Government, but we are below the standard of the three Admirals, and we are below the irreducible minimum that has been accepted by all parties; and, therefore, I cannot say that the Estimates and statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty are in any way satisfactory. But in all these standards it has always been contemplated that if we ever went to war it would be against a combination of two Powers. But, in considering our Naval Estimates, it seems to me that with our great commerce and our dependence on our Navy, we ought to consider the possibility of a still stronger combination being ranged against us. I think we have been able to realise during the last three weeks, when we have been hearing of wars and rumours of wars on every hand, that there is a possibility of a still stronger combination than the two strongest Powers that could be brought against us. In every part of the world there is a possibility of complications arising with three great foreign Powers—we have difficulties in West Africa with France and Germany, we have difficulties in Northern China with Russia, and at any time we may be called upon by the combination of these three Powers to evacuate Egypt; and it seems to me that we should be prepared to meet that combination. We have adopted what the Colonial Secretary called a policy of "splendid isolation"—a policy of disregarding alliances—and with that policy I, for myself, entirely agree, for I believe that when the time of danger came you could not depend upon your allies; but if we adopt that policy—if that is the settled policy of this country—we must be provided against every eventuality. We cannot at present consider we are safe if we are called upon to meet a combination of three Powers. We cannot afford to take any risks, and I believe that an all-powerful Navy—a Navy that would be capable of crushing any possible combination that can be brought against us—would be to the best interests not of war but of peace. The present Secretary of State for India, when, as First Lord of the Admiralty, he introduced his Naval Defence Act in 1889, told us of the enormous responsibility that our Navy would have cast upon it in time of war. The

  1279
  First Lord of the Admiralty has repeated that remark as to our responsibility. He has told us of the great mass of shipping and trade that our Navy would have to protect, and that a war between England and a combination of the great Continental Powers would be a war of limited liability on their part, but of unlimited liability on ours, because they could attack our Colonies and could crush us in every other part of Commons should very carefully paramount importance that the House of Commons should very carefully criticise the programme which the First Lord of the Admiralty has laid before us to-day, then, I believe, it will come to the conclusion that it is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. France and Russia this year are expending seven millions of money on new construction, and that is a larger expenditure than, I believe, has been known before. We read to-day in the papers that an additional ten millions has just been taken for the Navy of Russia. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us a year ago that there was a balance of power between the fleets of Europe, and that any extraordinary expenditure on the part of other Powers should mean an equivalent expenditure on our part. I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty's estimates carry out his own idea as to this. We have this extraordinary expenditure on the part of other countries, and we have no extraordinary expenditure on our part to meet it. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that it is impossible for him to finish the ships. I would, therefore, urge upon him the necessity of, as far as possible, pushing forward this extra building of ships to meet that, on the part of other naval Powers that may be against us. Also, at the same time, I would ask him to make provision for getting extra armour plates, and extra materials, to build these ships, if we are to be able to meet the difficulty I have mentioned as regards the large amount of money that is being expended by Continental Powers on their navies. During the last 30 years we have spent on new construction about £86,000,000, or an average of £2,800,000 a year, but we have no settled policy in our building expenditure. It varies between £800,000 and £7,000,000. France, on the other
  1280
  hand, in pursuance of a settled policy, has been gradually increasing her expenditure from year to year—an average of about £1,600,000 a year—and Russia has been doing exactly the same thing. There has been a steady rise in the expenditure on new construction of each of these Powers, but, again and again, when the First Lords of the Admiralty have come down to the House of Lords, they have assured us that they were perfectly certain that the Navy was as strong as need be; that there was no need for any new expenditure. The next year they came down and told us that the state of the Navy was unsatisfactory, and that, therefore, they needed much larger Votes of money. They have preserved no settled fixed policy with regard to this matter. In 1893, the right hon. Gentleman for West Monmouth told us that the Navy was in a perfectly satisfactory state. The next year we had an enormous expenditure on new armaments. In 1888 we were told that the Navy was in a satisfactory state, and that was followed by the Naval Defence Act of 1889. I have no wish to ask the House to believe, and I do not believe myself, that these statements were made in bad faith at the time, but, I say, they do show that we have in the Navy no settled building policy. These statements show that these Estimates rise and fall, and that, from year to year, the Admiralty do not look forward to what may be necessary to keep up the proper standard of strength. I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty for a statement of the requisite number of ships in each class that it is necessary for us to have, so as to be able to meet any likely combination that may be brought against us; and I would ask him if he could give that in a Report to the House every year. I would like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question with regard to our cruisers. There have been remarks made lately that the Powerful and Terrible have been unsatisfactory vessels. I have heard one statement that the engines were too heavy for the ships. It seems that there must be something seriously wrong during the time that the Powerful was going out to China. I would like, also, to ask the First Lord if he would give us a statement of how long it would take to send the A Division to sea; could it be done in 24 hours? Then, with re-regard

  1281
  to the manning of the Fleet, if I had heard the First Lord of the Admiralty's speech before putting the Resolution which I have put upon the paper, I should have moved an Amendment relating to ships as well as men, for it seems to me that in the First Lord's present statement we are more deficient in ships than we are with men, but, although his statement is fairly satisfactory in regard to men, I do not think it is altogether a satisfactory statement. He told us that, when the number of men was 106,000, it would be unwise to go beyond that in time of peace; but the First Lord, in his speech last year, told us that, when he built new vessels, new vessels meant more seamen, more marines, more of every kind of men. Therefore, if the First Lord has now come to his limit in men, and he still keeps to the statement he made the year before, he must also mean that he has come to the end of his programme, as far as building ships is concerned. There would be an enormous call on our men in the first few months of a war; it seems to me that there is no provision to meet such a strain. With the present Reserve, I do not suppose, in the first six weeks of a war, the First Lord of the Admiralty could rely on getting more than 10,000 to 15,000 men. It is in the first six weeks of a war that it would be necessary to man every cruiser to defend our trade routes. I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would lay a statement before the House of the number of men required to man every ship, and every class of ship, in the Navy? I think it would be satisfactory to have such a statement. We could then judge for ourselves whether the number of men now asked for is sufficient for all requirements. I do not think that the First Lord of the Admiralty's explanation in regard to the boys of the Navy was very satisfactory. He told us that he could get any number of boys for the Navy at the present time. Yet from his speech it seems that he had not got the number of boys that he was voted by the House last year. This does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory state of things. Altogether, I think that the programme now laid before us for new construction shows a very great weakness in ships. It shows, I think, we have fallen lamentably away from the standard of size which the
  1282
  House has given its assent to in the past. I therefore beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.
  *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that at any time in the history of this country it has been more important that we should have undoubted command of the sea. I have never heard a more frank or honest speech with regard to naval affairs, either in this House or outside, than that of the First Lord; but so far as new construction is concerned, it is a heart-breaking speech. I should like to say a few words with regard to the remarks of the First Lord as to the delay in carrying out the proposals made last year, and also as to the small number of ships proposed to be built this year. I should like it to be distinctly understood that I do not blame the authorities in any way whatever for the circumstances which have occurred, but I ask the House to consider whether the authorities are doing all they can under the circumstances with regard to increasing the Fleet. I consider the statement of the First Lord with regard to construction not only serious, but positively alarming, considering the preparations that are going on in other countries. The point I should like to urge is this: The First Lord tells us that he has spent £2,270,000 less for construction than he anticipated last year. What is the position? It is this, that the Government of the day, the Admiralty, and the Cabinet considered the expenditure of that money last year necessary to put our defences in proper order up to now. Therefore, we are that much short of what we ought to be at the present moment. This is a very serious question. I do not agree with the First Lord—but after his explanation it is rather difficult for me to make my point clear—that £1,400,000 is enough to add to this year's Estimate in order to make up that great deficiency in the construction of ships which are to defend our Empire in the event of war. In other words, we are going to take three years to make up this deficit, instead of doing, as I hold we should do, our level best to add it to this year's Estimates, and try to lay down or buy ships in order to fill up the

  1283
  Navy. There is another point. Last year the First Lord, in his speech on introducing the Estimates, declared—and it was very much taken notice of in the Press, and delighted all those people who looked to defence—that if other nations did increase their shipbuilding and their naval defences in any way, he should be prepared to come to this House and ask for more money. He did more than that, for, when other nations did show signs of increasing their forces at sea, he came to this House and asked for another £500,000, which shows that he himself thought at the time that that sum was necessary in order to keep pace with what other nations were doing. I maintain that at this moment we are not building up to our complete capacity. I have not been able yet to go through all the slips in the dockyards and all the slips in the contract yards, but the First Lord himself has acknowledged that the only elasticity that he has is in the private yards; and I believe myself that, looking to the gravity of the case, as I do, I think that we ought to get hold of every slip that we can in order to lay down ships at once to meet the needs that were regarded as absolutely necessary this time last year. I would point to another thing. I think it is most necessary that we should re-arm those vessels which are at present useless—there are 13 of them—and if they were re-armed, they would be most excellent vessels. Some years ago, I, myself, made a proposal to the Government when I was Captain of a Dockyard Reserve that we should re-arm these. I estimated that the cost would be about £1,300,000—and I do not think that it would amount to more—to substitute breech-loading guns of modern make for the useless ones that are at present mounted on these vessels. I think that under the circumstances which have arisen, and which can in no way be said to be the fault of the Government, any system of re-arming these vessels which can be done quickly should be taken into the consideration of the House. With regard to this question, we may be told that we could deal with that later, and that the issue of a war would be in favour of that country which had the greatest number of vessels to put to sea, and we shall then find that these vessels would be useful. I utterly deny that. These ships
  1284
  are at the present time armed with only muzzle-loading guns, and in addition to this they have neither the range nor the speed of more modern ships—that is to say that when they are out in blue water the modern ship can pick the position of advantage, because she has the speed, and she can always hit one of those ships armed with muzzle-loading guns, although the muzzle-loading gun ship cannot hit her. In their present condition, Sir, I say that these ships should be at once scratched off the effective list, as by their being allowed to remain there the public is deluded. While they are armed with muzzle-loading guns, as at present, the Government have no right to put them on the list of effective vessels, and I think that now is the time, when we are so backward in construction, that we should take this matter up. Then there is another question. I think, as the First Lord has got all this money, let it be spent. Why should we not buy all the ships that are at present being built in this country for foreign Powers? I believe we have a perfect right to do this. I know that we bought the Belleisle, the Orion, the Neptune, all of which were being built for Turkey, and the Superb, which was building for Brazil. I think it was in 1878, but, at any rate, we did buy those ships when there was just such an emergency as at present exists. There was no war, but there were rumours of war with Russia, and the Government of the day spent 4½ millions in buying those vessels. Sir, there are ships now on the stocks, and others that are being finished for foreign countries in many of our contractors' yards, and I think that it would be a very wise thing for the Government to immediately purchase all these vessels, As I said before, we are over £2,000,000 behind in our construction for last year. There is another point as to the increase of the Fleet. Owing to circumstances which have occurred recently, it is imperative that the Fleet should be largely increased. I will give my reasons for this statement. We have neglected for years a most important point, and that is the fact of our having adequate naval bases. If we do not have those bases, we must largely increase the Fleet. Batoum and Biserta were taken as naval bases, and we have taken nothing as a counterpoise. We have had a great deal of agitation

  1285
  and writing in the Press, and this and other things have induced the Government to at last put Gibraltar into something like an adequate state of defence. If it is necessary to put Gibraltar into a state of defence now, it was necessary several years ago to do so, and although a great deal has been done in this direction, much remains to be accomplished. I say that under the circumstances of the case they ought to have taken Alexandria. I believe we could have done it without any war at all, and made a naval base there. If we do not have naval bases we must have the fleet largely increased, because the ultimate issue of a campaign will rest with a fleet which can most quickly repair itself. You have now steel ships. The steel ships of the present day are not like the ships of the day when I went to sea. They are not self-supporting. In former days you would have on board spare spars and canvas to make new sails; but in these days you must go to her naval base to put her right and replenish her stores. How do we stand now? We have no naval base there. We have got Hong Kong, which is not as suitable as it ought to be as a naval base. My point is this, that the Government are not doing enough. Supposing they were going to have trouble with China, or there was anything looming on the horizon, what are we sending all those ships for? If there should be trouble there, how are we situated? Hong Kong is 960 miles from Chusan, and 1,500 miles from the theatre of war. I do not believe in the principle of "wait and wait and see what other people are going to do." Russia is perfectly right to go in Port Arthur, and say that "she is going to winter there." I should say her winter will last about 100 years. Let our First Lord of the Admiralty say that we were going to winter at Chusan in the same way. There is nothing of a threatening character in all this. It is simply looking after our trade and commerce. My point is this, that with the addition to the Fleet which the First Lord has sanctioned it is not big enough owing in our not having a naval base. I do hope that the Government will not go on with this waiting policy. I am as certain possible that Kiaou Chau will, in a in a short time, be fitted up as a proper naval base. In the course of a private conversation—I
  1286
  cannot say who told me—I was informed that an Admiral told the Government—
  "As for Chusan, don't bother your head about it; we can always take it if we go to war."
  That Admiral, if he said such a thing, ought to be tried before a court martial for being a fool. What you want is a naval base for stores, reserve of ammunition, and repair of our ships, and everything we want to enable the Fleet to go out again as soon as it could and fight an action. The idea of taking Chusan if we went to war is so ridiculous that I will not trouble the House any more with it. The reasons why I hold that further steps ought to be taken are: First, that we are 2¼ millions behind what the Cabinet of the day thought absolutely necessary for our safety last year; secondly, that when you have a want of properly equipped naval bases throughout the world you must have a larger Fleet in those waters if you have no place for repairing; and, thirdly, because we are not building ships as quickly as we ought to do in relation to the shipbuilding of other Powers. In the old days, if there was any likelihood of increased estimates for armaments abroad, we could always beat foreign Powers in the rapidity of construction. I observe, however, that both France and Russia are able very nearly to construct as quickly as we can. That is a most serious thing when you come to consider that, we are two millions behind what we ought to be. There was the Gaulois, for instance, which was laid down in January, 1896, and was launched in October, 1896. It used to take them two years to construct a ship. It is a very serious thing for us to reflect that they can now be ready as quickly as we. Another ship in France was laid down in January, 1897, and launched in July, 1897, and a third was laid down in March, 1897, and launched in October, 1897. This, I repeat, is serious when you come to think of the enormous advantage over foreign nations we once possessed by reason of our rapidity of construction. On the question of the proportion between our navy and those of other Powers, which the hon. Member opposite has brought before the House, I do hope we shall stick to that proportion of three to two which was laid down by three of our most celebrated

  1287
  Admirals. Take the total of ships launched in the last ten years. The British nation has launched 22 ships of 300,000 tons, Whilst France and Russia have launched 29 ships of 273,000 tons. Therefore, the proportion of three to two has not been kept up at all, and I should like very much to see it kept up. When that proportion was agreed to by this House, I thought it was a very wise proposal. I agree with the hon. Member opposite in saying that the proportion has certainly not been adhered to of late years. The First Lord of the Admiralty made some comparisons which were very interesting, but which were of no use at all unless he put them beside other comparisons. It is true that at one time we asked for £1,000,000, and now we are asking for £23,000,000. That is a great increase, certainly, but he ought to have told us something also about the increase in the exports and imports. Ministers say, "Look at what we are doing now compared with what we were doing some years ago." I do not care if you treble your Navy. The point is, Are you doing enough to meet the needs of the defences of this great Empire? The First Lord has said that some of the critics of the Admiralty had made grave remarks about the system. I am afraid I must plead guilty to that; certainly, I have been severe on the system of the Admiralty. What I have always complained about with regard to the Admiralty is that they had no plan of campaign, and no system laid down as to what they would do if war were suddenly declared. Until last year there could have been no plan of campaign; they never, for instance, thought of fortifying their bases in the narrow seas—they never thought of Gibraltar. Now, such things are being done. They are fortifying their naval bases, they are putting reserves of ammunition into the different stations, and they are building ships to maintain the same rates of speed, and whose gearing is interchangeable. That shows we are at last beginning to have a system in the administration of the Admiralty; but when the First Lord says that distinguished Admirals in the Admiralty have no right of reply, have no right to say, "We do not agree with you for such and such a reason," I would point out to him that it would be impossible for any First Lord or any Government to propose these large
  1288
  sums of money necessary to keep our defences in order unless the people who settle the question know the reason why. Those of us who are critics have never in any way tried to throw discredit on the authorities, but merely have sought to strengthen their hands in the only way possible, for the only chance you have of getting the attention of the people is by pitching into the authorities. The First Lord said very wisely that he had no place to put the men. That is one of the things we have complained of for so many years. The Hartington Commission had clearly shown that our want of business-like arrangement at the War Office and the Admiralty put us in this position, that we were invariably making out our requirements before we made out our establishments. The First Lord's proposal was most business-like. He said he could only join a certain number in the year; he did not think he could train more. That is a most important point, for I do not think that we ought to join men in a hurry, unless we have places in which to train them. We ought to look after our establishments before making up our requirements. There is another point about the Reserves. The First Lord made a speech the other day in which he said he was perfectly satisfied with the number of the Reserves and the training of the Reserves. A few of us took exception to that. Some of us said very distinctly that we did not think they were sufficient in numbers, and that the men were being joined on a wrong principle. Since that the Admiralty have altered the system of training and of joining, as well as the class of men they were joining, and though we cannot say it is a success, yet those of us who are critics are willing to wait to see what the result is. I believe it will be very beneficial to our service, and that it will ultimately succeed. But I would like the First Lord in his reply, or the hon. Gentleman below me, to tell me, and tell the House, what they consider the number of the Reserve now completing ought to be. The First Lord said he was going to put off the building of the ships in order to see what other nations were going to do. I do not agree with that policy, considering that our Fleet is not up to the strength it ought to be. I hope the First Lord will reconsider that and build the ships as quickly as he can.

  1289
  I know the men can be got afterwards. There is the bottom of the ship to be laid down, and the other parts to be brought from different parts of the country to make it complete—the boilers, engines, guns, ammunition, and armour, all of which take a great deal of preparation and consideration before the ship is built. I have heard the First Lord say that he did not think it would be wise to increase the guns and armour. Over and over again we have seen good and very valuable men-of-war hung up because the plates and guns were not ready, and I think the Government should take it into their heads to see if they cannot increase the existing plant. I know when I was in Chatham we were hung up over and over again in the dockyard because the plates made at Sheffield, although very good, did not come to hand. Well, Sir, the other points which have been mentioned by the First Lord of the Admiralty I prefer to take up on the Vote, because I think the House will prefer that rather than that I should make a long speech now. The Reserves and the personnel would come before it on that Vote. But I cannot but record my opinion, as a very drastic critic, that I do think the Admiralty are doing the best under the circumstances, with the exception of this question of construction, and I do hope that in this Debate there will be a general feeling in the House that some greater part of this debt of £2,270,000 should be paid off than is at present, because my point is this: that if the Government thought this time last year that the Navy was unequal to our needs, and that it required strengthening, then at the present time we must be in a very serious state. Things did not look half so black then as they do now. The proposals for more shipbuilding for other countries were not then determined, and certainly were in no way accepted by those Governments. But they are now accepted by those Governments, and, having regard to the fact that we have done nothing respecting a naval basis in the Far East, I consider it absolutely imperative that we should take action in the matter. I do not want to adopt an aggressive attitude, but I think we must make China an offer to buy Chusan there, or do what Russia is doing, and go and winter there. I have the honour,
  1290
  Sir, to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. W. ALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with very great pleasure to the speech which has been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and all that speech to me was very inspiring, especially when it came to the peroration. There were, however, some points in that speech which, I think, want a little elucidation in regard to what he so forcibly put—namely, the delay in building the vessels. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last alluded to the short expenditure of £2,270,000 this year.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment which is now before the House, and which deals simply with the question of manning.
  *MR. ALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I was just quoting the hon. Member's words on the dockyards.
  MR. SPEAKER: We have nothing to do with that question now. The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of manning.
  *MR. ALLAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not very well acquainted with the procedure of this matter, but I was coming to the point as to how the Government failed to spend the money on account of the loss of labour. Could I follow the hon. and gallant Member in the observations that he made in seconding the Amendment?
  MR. SPEAKER: Not unless the observations were addressed to the question of manning, which, to some slight extent, they were.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Sir, I fear I labour under the difficulty that the mover and seconder of the Amendment have not addressed themselves to it, but have dealt with entirely different subjects, and did not speak of it. Sir, I presume, nevertheless, that they will vote for that Resolution, although they used no arguments at all in support of it. But, although I propose to vote against the Amendment, I propose to speak to it. Sir, in the

  1291
  remarks which I wish to make—and they shall be as brief as I can possibly make them—I am sure I need not say that I am prompted by no animosity to the First Lord of the Admiralty or to Her Majesty's Government, but only by a desire to support some of the suggestions which I wish to see adopted. Still less let it be supposed that I intend to make any reflection upon the First Lord in his official capacity, because, Sir, I feel grateful—and I think the whole House feels grateful—to the First Lord for the manner in which he has conducted the administration of his Department. He has succeeded; others have equally taken credit; and it is worthy of remark that it has rarely, if ever, been found possible to pass anything like a vote of censure on the First Lord. Chancellors of the Exchequer are denounced as extortionate, on the one hand, and spendthrifts on the other; Foreign Ministers are derided for their weakness and indecision; and even Colonial Secretaries are brought in question; but rarely, indeed, is the First Lord of the Admiralty challenged. That I attribute to the very practical manner in which the work is conducted at the Admiralty, to the sound traditions of the Service, and to the experienced staff of naval officers and experts by whom he is assisted. Now, Sir, I hope I shall not be taken to task or be held to be presumptuous because I criticise the Admiralty, for the Admiralty, good as it is, is not all perfection in knowledge and wisdom. It was the case that, not longer ago than 1835, Lord Melville—then, I believe, the First Lord—wrote a solemn Admiralty minute, stating that the Admiralty felt it their duty to use every effort that they were capable of to resist the introduction of steam into the Navy, because, he said, it would be a fatal blow against the supremacy of England. Therefore I hope that in any suggestions that may be made the Admiralty will not despise this House, or even me, the humblest Member of it. Now, I have no new suggestions to propose; all I ask is that we may revert to what I hold to be the old traditions where they have been departed from. They were sound; they were based upon practical training, and they were based upon an almost equal contempt for pure abstract science and book-work. While the French were safe in port, learning high mathematics and
  1292
  ballistics, our men at sea were learning to handle ships and fire guns so as to hit a mark. Now, Sir, comparisons made between ships and ships, ton for ton, are very misleading, but still more misleading, in my opinion, is the comparison made between men and men in mere numbers, because, unless the training of these men is taken into account, such comparisons would be entirely useless. This matter of training seems to me not only of first importance, but of growing importance. In the old days the mercantile marine trained the men for the Navy, and the men you induced, or pressed, were as good as your own for all purposes, and some far better. The modern man-of-war, however, is so full of delicate machinery, her weapons are of such a complicated and ever-varying character, and the whole conditions of her life are so involved that it is absolutely necessary to have special men, specially trained in a way that can be only carried out by the Navy itself. And the greater the improvements, the more complicated the mechanism, the more it will become necessary that the men should have the Navy's special training, and no other. Now, this is no new doctrine, but I do think it is somewhat overlooked. To the public a ship is a ship, a man is a man, and I cannot help thinking that there is a temptation to the First Lord, seeing the view the public take, to say, "I will give you so many ships and so many men," and so to take a large proportion of money and apply it for those purposes, rather than for more training. The First Lord has said that he does not look only to numbers. But I am afraid, Sir, he does to too great an extent. Take the age at which boys are received in training-ships. Under the ordinary system boys are received in training-ships between the ages of 15 and 16½, and you have never had a lack of boys. Their 20 months' training is now reduced to 16. This is too short. Then, to send a boy to a training brig for six weeks is an absurdly short time. It ought to be at least 13 weeks. There are too few training-ships, too few training brigs, and the training squadron is too small. I would strongly urge the First Lord to increase his training ships, so as to give the boys the full amount of training, to abandon the mischievous innovation of the Northampton, and to increase

  1293
  his training brigs and the training squadron. I am very pleased to notice a paragraph in the report which indicates that certain reforms are to be effected in regard to captains of guns, and captains of turrets. Upon the captain of the turret the whole fate of a vessel may in a moment depend. In an action the fate of the vessel may hang for the moment upon his nerves and his eye, and the way in which he fights his guns. How have you treated the captains of the turret? You have modified the examination for becoming a captain of the turret, and so far so good; but once made, it is assumed he is made for ever, which is a great mistake. Nothing is more delicate than the duty he undertakes, and a man may lose his nerve and eye to a certain extent, and a man who is a good captain of a gun or turret yesterday becomes a bad or, at least, an indifferent one to-day. What I have always suggested is, that there should be more practice, with the Morris tube, if you like. You might make the man fire four or five shots with a Morris tube, and then you might see whether he keeps his eye and nerve, and if you saw he was fit to do his duty, instead of paying him the miserable 2d. or 3d. a day, I would suggest that the amount should be multiplied by 10; but I would make it depend upon his retaining those qualities which it is necessary he should have. Now I come to the worst part of my indictment, and where I do think the First Lord has gone seriously astray, and that is the age of entry for training for our officers. Of course, I recognise, and it is only fair to remember, that we are in a period of transition with regard to the training of our young officers. Now we want more officers than we should require to supply under normal conditions. I believe during the wars of Napoleon we had 3,000 lieutenants; we are very far short of that number now. We are very short of the number that we want to command our vessels. There is another extremely important matter: it must be remembered that officers, by winch I mean finished officers, have in these days to bear a very great strain when they have to take their stand upon the bridge and fight their guns. That strain is so great that it is certain older officers will not be able to stand it. The men must be younger.
  1294
  Now let us see what, I regret to say, is the alteration made with regard to the training of our officers. I will not deal with the substitution of the college ashore for the ship afloat, although I do very much regret not teaching the boys on a ship for the first 18 months, and letting them acquire a knowledge of ship and boat life at a very early stage of their career. Now, under the old regulations, those which are at present in force, the age at which cadets are accepted is from 13½ to 14½, or an average of 14 years. Now, that is full high, and I would rather it should be from 12½ to 13½, or an average of 13. Who does not remember Byron's lines—
  "Full well the docile crew
  The skilful urchin guides"?
  Yes, but it is because he is a skilful urchin taken young that when he grows up he becomes a good officer. I remember that story of a skilful urchin—Peyton, I think, was his name—who was told to take the Pride of the Mediterranean over to Gibraltar, and he did it, and having done so, he also brought her over to England. A boy who could do that at 11 years of age is likely to make a first-class officer. Well, the age used to be 13½ to 14½, and now the First Lord has altered it to 14½ to 15½; so that instead of being brought in to the Navy at the age of 14, as they used to be, the average now is 15; so that you have so much more time lost between the time the boy enters and the time he becomes a lieutenant. You have not only reduced the usual time of his training from his entry, but you have done worse—you have lost an enormous amount of the time which you allowed him to be trained in the Britannia. In the olden times he passed in the Britannia 104 weeks; under the new system he is to pass 65 weeks, and when the holidays and examinations are deducted from that, you will find that a boy sent into the Britannia fresh from the shore, and never, perhaps, having seen the sea, has only 48 weeks of instruction in the Britannia before he is sent to sea. The results are perfectly ludicrous in certain cases. Then as to the instruction; take French, for instance; that is no longer a compulsory subject for passing in, but it is compulsory if passing out, and if the boy does not

  1295
  acquire a certain amount of French in the Britannia he is sent away. Now, what opportunity has he for learning French at all?—the whole course is only 14 lessons. Well, French in 14 lessons! These boys are subjected to a course which is an absolute farce. In the case of French it cannot be more than a sham and a cram. I understand, and I hope and believe I am right in so doing, that this course of training, which is now 18 months, is to be extended to two years. But that is a point about which I particularly want to ask the right hon. Gentleman. How is he going to do it, if he is going to do it? Is he going to do it by sending the boys in younger, or by sending them in older? If he is going to do the latter, he will send them to sea later than they go at present, and involve them in a further loss of time before they can become lieutenants. We see these alterations are being made, and we know that this last one has been made especially to please the masters of public schools, and it is hoped that we may get boys from the public schools. We know the old story that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the Eton playing fields. But Trafalgar was not; it was won by men like Peyton, who led their men to the assault at the age of 16; that was how that was done. By getting boys taught young and trained into good naval officers. Now, I do not believe you would get boys from the public schools, and if you did get them they are not the boys you want. They are boys who would have acquired public school habits, and being used to all the luxuries of public school life, they would not be likely to be easily content, and to settle down, as would a boy of 13, to merely a chest and a hammock, to become a lieutenant. Now, what I respectfully submit is, that the age should be lowered again to 12½ to 13½, giving the average of 13, and then in two years you would get the full course in the Britannia, and you would get more adequate time at Greenwich and at Portsmouth, as to which I must again strongly complain. These two splendid training establishments are being absolutely wasted. In consequence of the time which the officer is allowed to spend, and can spend, in these establishments, he is not able to be properly
  1296
  instructed in the various subjects with which they deal, but is superficially varnished over with them by a system of cramming. And the percentage of officers who go away with anything more than the merest smattering of what is supposed to be taught to them either at Greenwich, where theory is taught, or Portsmouth, where practice is taught, is very small indeed. Why, at Portsmouth you are expected to learn six new gun drills a day, all with different guns! It is extremely advisable to lengthen the course of training, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman could do that by lowering the age of entry by a couple of years. Now, I wish to say one word with regard to the Naval Reserve. It now consists of 22,000 seamen, and the fishermen and boys bring up the total strength to 25,000. I think it should be increased to at least 30,000, or possibly 40,000. There are many people who think it should go as high as 60,000 or 70,000. I confess it seems to me that we should be very chary of importing too large a proportion of Reserve men in to such a highly special body as the Navy. The main part of the men on board our ships must be specialists, and should only be diluted to a very small extent with Reserve men. There is no difficulty in increasing the number. As to the Engineers, with regard to the training and the promotion, I have nothing but praise for the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, but there he has taken the step which I suggest should be taken in the case of our officers; he has reduced the age of entry from 19 to 18, and I trust he will have compassion for the officers, and adopt that step with them. With regard to the Naval Reserve in the British possessions abroad, there is an enormous advantage in having Reserve men in those places. In certain stipulated places there should be permanent stations, which would give this advantage: that instead of having to send out crews from home, you can make up your number of men from there, if necessary, in time of war. I need not point out what an enormous advantage it would be for a commodore of a squadron to find a number of trained men whom he could take on board at once, instead of waiting for them from home. Now, I just want to quote a few figures upon this subject, which might prove valuable for this purpose. The number of

  1297
  men employed in various vessels of the Mercantile Marine is 84,000, but that does not take into account the fishermen, who are estimated at another 70,000, and I find, by reference to Mr. Wilson's book on Newfoundland, that the Newfoundland fishermen are 55,000. Those figures, added together, give a total of 210,000. Now, that is a large fund to draw from for special purposes; and what I submit is, that at certain selected places, well spread about, such as Sydney, the Cape of Good Hope, Halifax, and Esquimalt, and other places where there are large naval stations, there should be large Naval Reserve establishments started, where men should be allowed to join for training. There would, I believe, be no difficulty in getting the men, and the right hon. Gentleman would have the advantage of having ready-trained men in various portions of the globe in case of emergency. I have made this suggestion in a practical spirit, and in no spirit of animosity towards the Admiralty, but rather with a view of co-operating with them in an humble way. We are on the verge—if not actually in—of some of the most troublous times we have ever had in our history. The old laws of the world have neither been improved nor changed; bird eats bird, and fish eats fish, and there is not a blade of grass that grows which has not to displace something else and fight for its life. It is still the law of the world, and, as we won our position, so we shall have to keep it, by hard blows. Out of the present situation, involved and complicated as it may seem, we shall come somehow, I hope, by the efforts of diplomacy and the skill of our Ministers; but I am sure, if it must be so, we shall come out of it by fighting. However it may be, it does behove us to gird our loins and make as perfect as we can our naval power, on which alone we can rely. The very essence of the naval power lies in the men. The importance of ships and guns lies in the men you put behind them, and the experience of the men depends upon the training you put into them, and it is for that reason I ventured to bring the suggestions that I have made before the House.
  *MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I wish to point out that compared with the
  1298
  numbers asked for in Vote A of last year, there still appears to be 1,398 men deficient. We voted 100,050, and there have been entered, according to the latest returns dated the 1st February, 98,652 men; and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that the exact number voted will be "practically obtained" by the 1st April. I do not quite understand what those words "practically obtained" mean. I rather suspect that by the words "practically obtained" we are to understand that the number will not be secured.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): They will be actually obtained.
  *MR. KEARLEY: I am given to understand that the men will be obtained. On the face of it this appears to be very satisfactory, and it will impress the country favourably that the Navy is being efficiently manned. But that is not the case; and a large percentage of this deficit, although the number appears to be small, represents one of a most serious character, because it is mainly made up of a particular class of ratings—namely, skilled ratings, which cannot be obtained, and the want of which has already seriously impaired the fighting strength and the value of our ships. Last year I called attention, Mr. Speaker, to the same deficiency, and the First Lord gave an answer which appeared to have some merit about it. He said last year there was some difficulty in entering the skilled ratings, owing to the general revival of the shipbuilding trade throughout the country. This year that does not appear, because the great strike, or lock-out, not only threw out of employment the engineers, but necessitated a large number of other skilled ratings being thrown out of employment also. And, consequently, these men being out of employment, if the conditions offered by the Admiralty were suitable, they would have been glad enough to have accepted naval service. But what are the facts? Why, there have practically been no entries in spite of the special efforts made by the Admiralty, who had had to send about the country, not only to their own naval yards, but to private shipbuilding yards, a Committee of Inquiry to endeavour to find out how

  1299
  it is that there is such an extraordinary deficiency in these skilled ratings. The amount of deficiency in skilled artisan ratings is simply alarming. I addressed, about a fortnight ago, a question to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty asking what had been the outcome of the inquiry, and, also, what was the deficiency of the complement in shipwrighting and certain other skilled trades which are largely employed. He told me that the shortage in shipwrighting ratings amounted to 72. Well, I do not think that disclosure of the facts was intended to mislead me, but I know that officials, when replying to questions, are not always to be taken seriously. But he knows, as well as I do, and as well as anybody does, what are ratings which shipwrighting includes. Well, now, Sir, I shall disprove his figures by simply giving figures with which I am perfectly acquainted and prepared to vouch for in my own constituency. Now there is a shortage in Devonport alone of shipwrights and carpenters' crew of 71 men. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend opposite tells us that the total throughout the country is only 72. There is also a shortage of blacksmiths' mates of 23, of engine-room artificers 35, and of coopers find other skilled ratings, 27, making a total deficiency in Devonport alone amounting to 156. That, I am told, is practically the same everywhere; and it is estimated, from information I have received, that there are certainly at least 500 of these skilled ratings wanted at the present moment. Well now, that, of course, is serious, because these men are skilled mechanics. As was pointed out by some of the speakers, the Navy to-day is a very different thing to what it was in the old days of practically wood and canvas. It is a highly technical instrument, is a ship of war, full of the most complicated machinery, and liable to break down at any moment, and unless skilled workmen are there to take it in hand the ship may become simply ineffective. The efforts made by the Admiralty to meet this difficulty have had a most evil effect. Of course, the sending of this Committee of Inquiry about the country no doubt was intended to solve the difficulty, but I may say here, in passing, that, strangely enough, that Committee of Inquiry avoided seeking information from the very people that might have given it to
  1300
  them—that is, the interested trades about the country. They carefully avoided like poison, as it were, asking information from these trades, either in the private yards or in the Government yards, from which the actual information might have been acquired. They preferred to go to official channels, and the result is they have obtained nothing that is of any service to them. The efforts the Government have been making have resulted in a very dangerous procedure being adopted. In the first place, they have reduced their old standard with regard to skilled ratings, and last year they issued an order—I think it was in September—not only to cut down the quantity of the complements of our ships, but, at the same time, they also reduced the quality. I have figures to prove this fact. I take what is considered generally the best class of battleship of the moment—that is, the Royal Sovereign class. Under the old scheme there were allowed for shipwright ratings four leading shipwrights, four shipwrights, one leading carpenters' crew, and two carpenters' crew, making a total of 11 efficient men. Under the new scheme, the battleships of the Royal Sovereign type will now carry three leading shipwrights, two shipwrights, two leading carpenters' crew, and three carpenters' crew, making a total of 10. The percentage of skilled men was higher than the percentage of skilled men under the amended scheme. And I say that this reduction is a great danger. Beyond that, the Admiralty have recently issued an order to the Commanders-in-Chief of the various home ports—and, from what I hear, the ports abroad also—that they are not to be particular in the test that they apply to mechanics who seek to come in to fill these ratings. The result can be seen by comparing the test that applied before this recent order was issued with the new test that is now sufficient to pass a man in. Under the old test, a man who wished to go in the Navy as a shipwright had to pass an examination in practical shipwrighting in both wood and iron. For the test of wood he would probably be called upon to mould and fix a timber to the ship, or to fit a plank to the ship's side. The test for iron work would be probably to shape and fit an angle-iron frame into a ship, or to put an iron plate

  1301
  in the side of a ship. That was a high test, and only skilled men who had served a seven years' apprenticeship would stand the faintest possibility of passing such a test. Now, what is the meaning of the test approved by the Admiralty order within the last few months? What is the test? A man wishing to be taken into the service as a shipwright has simply to demonstrate that he is able to use the adze and the axe. And with what result? Why, that a mere handyman from a remote country place, who would not stand the faintest possibility of being considered a carpenter or a skilled mechanic in civil employment, that man presents himself and becomes a skilled rating in the Navy. Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, this constitutes a very grave danger, more especially when we remember the reductions which have been made in the last four or five years, the outcome of the recommendations of the Manning Committee. Complements have been very much reduced, and the Member for Lewisham has protested over and over again against the sweating down in the engine-room staff. I think I have demonstrated amply and clearly that this sweating has been carried on in connection with the other skilled ratings. The effect will be, in my judgment, most disastrous in the case of war. You are aware that you have never faced the difficulty, and you are simply treating it as a passing one. I see this year you are endeavouring to meet the difficulty by offering extension pay of sixpence a day to men who would be entitled to retire at the end of their pension period to induce them to remain on. I am perfectly sure that the men who are serving now will not supply your deficiency by reason of any such expedient as that. The only remedy, if you want to get skilled mechanics into your Navy, will be to have a free and liberal pick from all parts of the country, and you will only get that by giving them better pay and better status. Just consider the position of these skilled ratings in the Navy as compared with their treatment on shore in the Civil employment of the Government. We all know there are Government schools at the various ports, and they are excellent schools. Civil Service examinations are held every year, and those who come out highest in the competition have the opportunity offered
  1302
  them to choose whether they will go into your civil employment as shipwrights or fitters' apprentices. Well, I merely mention that to prove the value that is put upon these trades by the Government themselves in their civil employment, But when one of these fitter apprentices has served his time in a naval establishment, when he is entitled and elects to go to sea, he starts at five shillings and sixpence a day. The shipwright apprentice, to whom you give the opportunity of selecting what he would become, whether a fitter or a shipwright, when he goes to sea he does so as a leading seaman, and he gets four shillings as against the other man's five shillings and sixpence. But not only is there a disparity in the pay—I am not suggesting the engine-room artificers get too much, on the contrary, I think they ought to get more—but the inferior rating which the shipwright holds also carries with it many menial duties, which no skilled workman should be asked to submit to. He is bound to take his share in the cooking of the mess and in the scrubbing of the decks. When he goes out of the dockyard, instead of marching out on the same terms as his former confrère, with proper leave, he is marched out under the control of the ship's corporal. This is the reason of all the difficulty. The skilled men will not throw up their good appointments on shore, where they can get six shillings a day, to go to sea and rough it and get two shillings a day less, besides unfair treatment. Mr. Speaker, this applies very much to other trades. To a lesser or greater extent it applies to blacksmiths, painters, coopers, and so on. These men request that they should have some respect paid to their position as mechanics. Well, now there is one statement that I want to refer to that appeared in the First Lord of the Admiralty's speech. It pointed out that last year, for mobilisation, there were 165 vessels mobilised, and that the number of men on these vessels was 36,619, and here the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the whole of these ships went to sea practically—that ominous word "practically," which we are given to understand means actually—fully-manned, and that the deficiencies were slight. Considering these ships, mobilised with only one-third of the skilled ratings laid down under your own

  1303
  scheme—and even to get to this one-third of your mobilisation complement you had to drain every ship in the harbours of all the ports—I think, Mr. Speaker, that we are really entitled to ask for a definite statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty as to whether we have a sufficiency of artisan ratings to mobilise our Fleet with a full complement in the time of war. Of course, these deficiencies may pass muster in time of ordinary manœuvres, but it would not be tolerated in time of war. The deficiency of skilled ratings cannot be denied, and we should have some assurance from the First Lord, now that he has the evidence before him, that he will take steps to bring forward some reform that will cause this deficiency to be set right upon the earliest possible occasion.
  *SIR E. T. GOURLFY: I am sure we all thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very able statement in which he has placed the Estimates for the coming year before the House. I have heard many statements from the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I remember them some 20 years ago, but the statement this evening far exceeds any of the statements which he made so far back as that. In dealing with the question of manning I would like to point out to the House that by looking back to the period of the Naval scare in 1884 we have increased the Vote to the permanent men during the last 12 years to nearly double. My contention is, that this increase of men has been almost entirely on the part of continuous men, and successive Governments have neglected to deal with the question of the Naval Reserves. It is quite true that the present First Lord of the Admiralty has made an attempt with regard to this new department, that is, he has enrolled men for the purpose of serving as such on men-of-war. This system, I ventured to state when the First Lord brought it before the House, I thought would be a failure. I think it has been a failure in procuring men for this six months' service who are able seamen of the class you anticipate. The First Lord has been compelled to reduce the age to 18, so that the so-called men are not men, but boys. With regard to this question, were the boys trained,
  1304
  in the first instance, for anything in the shape of seafaring life?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Yes.
  *SIR E. T. GOURLFY: I am very glad to hear it; but what I am anxious to see this evening the First Lord turn his attention to is that any future increases in the effective forces shall not be so much on the part of continuous men and permanent men, but to increase the Reserve, for 500 is a very small proportion. The reason why the Reserve ought to be increased is, in the first instance, that there is not at present any provision for waste. The right hon. Gentleman told us this evening that the annual amount of waste was 10 per cent. Well, if the annual amount during a period of peace be 10 per cent., what will the amount of waste be in the event of war? During the past 12 yeans the number of continuous men has been increased from 59,000 to over 106,000. It is all very well to increase the number of continuous men, and, as the right hon. Gentleman stated this evening, he has no room even for the number now proposed for the ships that are coming forward. This increase in the permanent men means an enormous augmentation in the annual cost to the country. In the year 1885 the cost of the permanent men was a little over £4,000,000. The Vote now asked for is increased to £7,000,000, an increase of £3,000,000 directly; but we have, in taking comparative cost into account, to allow for future contingent pensions. The £7,000,000 does not represent the actual amount which is to be provided, for the Contingent Pension Fund means an additional £1,500,000. Thus the Admiralty are asking for eight and a half millions annually. Now, I hold this, that with the increase in ships we never intended that these ships should be maintained and kept on a war footing. I believe the intention of Parliament was to maintain a powerful reserve. I feel bound to say this, that the Admiralty do not look sufficiently to the necessity for increasing the Reserves. My proposition with regard to the Reserves is this: the first-class Reserve should be increased to 25,000, the second-class also to 25,000, and the third-class or stokers

  1305
  to 10,000. That is, you ought to have in connection with the Reserve 60,000 men in all. The question may probably be asked, Where are the men to come from? I will endeavour to show hon. Members. A Departmental Committee was appointed in the year 1891 to inquire into this question of the Naval Reserve. One point submitted to that Committee was as to the source from which the Reserves were to come. The other point referred to that Committee was as to the use to which the Reserves should be put in times of peace and also in war time. With regard to the source from which Reserves could be obtained, according to the evidence laid before the Committee, we had something like 40,000 men in connection with the mercantile marine of the right age who could be enrolled in the first-class Reserve. Down to the present time the number the Admiralty has enrolled is 10,600 men. Another source of supply which was alluded to is as to men connected with the fisheries. We were informed by the Committee that in connection with the fishing industry of the country we have 70,000 who are wholly, and 46,000 who are partially, so engaged, making altogether 116,000 men who are available in connection with the second-class Reserve. Of these 116,000, all that the Admiralty has enrolled down to the present moment is 10,800. Then, with regard to the supply of firemen in connection with the mercantile marine, out of 60,000 men, down in the present time all that has been done is to enrol 1,700, and we are now proposing to increase the number by 1,800 this year, thus bringing up the number to 3,500. In addition to this, according to the statistics of men who have paid considerable attention to this question, we find that, beyond these numbers, we have something like 150,000 men engaged in a semi-seafaring life, all of whom are available for enrolment in the Naval Reserve. Sir, there is yet another source. Out of the whole of those men who enrol themselves in the Navy, a very large proportion never enrol again—I believe, something like 50 per cent. fail to enrol themselves for a second period. What I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is this: that some system or scheme ought to be devised under which those men could be retained for the Reserve. The
  1306
  late Admiral Hornby—than whom there was no higher authority—held that a Reserve of this kind was absolutely necessary. Then, as several hon. Members have pointed out, there are other sources from which the Reserve may be recruited. The hon. Member for Lynn told the House this evening that there are 55,000 fishermen and men connected with the fishing industry in Newfoundland. In these we possess some of the hardiest fighting material to be met with in any part of the world. Not only have we a large reserve of strength in Newfoundland, but we have also another large reserve in connection with Canada, which has something like 50,000 men also engaged in the fisheries, and the men in connection with that industry are the men we want to fill our Reserve. The man who is trained on a fishing vessel is almost as capable a man as one who is trained on a warship. Now, there is some objection made with regard to the constitution of the Reserve. It is held by some that the period of drill is too short. If we can judge from the reports as to the manner in which Naval Reserve men conducted themselves when placed on board men-of-war, we find that those men emulated their shipmates in the endeavour to perform their duties loyally and well. There is a paragraph in the Report of the Manœuvres testifying as to that. Admiral Lord Waller Kerr told me two years ago that the men we had as Naval Reserves under him in the Manœuvres had performed their duty in the most brilliant and admirable manner. He said perfectly truly that you cannot expect them to be as smart as those who have been in the Navy for several years, because that is impossible, but considering the shortness of the period during which they were under training, the men performed their work even better than they could have been expected to do. The fault is in the system. I hold that the system of drill and education adopted by the Admiralty for years and years past with regard to the training of the Reserves is nothing less than a disgrace. What do we find with respect to the system of education? Why, down to very recently, the whole of the ships on board of which these men have been trained and the whole of the guns mounted in the battery have been obsolete. Last

  1307
  year the right hon. Gentleman promised that there should be a change in the system of drill. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many batteries—I think there are 27—of the Naval Reserve are mounted with modern guns?
  MR. MACARTNEY: The whole of the 27.
  *SRI E. GOURLEY: I am glad to hear it, and I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his having made such a necessary change. There are one or two other points to which I should like to call the attention of the First Lord. First with regard to pensions. There is a great amount of dissatisfaction about pensions in the Reserve. With regard to the age at which a man becomes entitled to a pension—in the Navy a man is entitled to a pension at 55, but in the Reserve 60 is the pension age—I say that the age ought to be reduced from 60 to 55. I would ask how many men in the Reserve are now receiving a pension, because very few of them ever reach the age of 60 years? Hence I think the Admiralty might very well reduce the age. Then again I hold that the second-class Reserve men should also have a pension, in order to induce men of the fisherman class to join. The pension in their case should not be less than £10 a year. Another grievance is as to the kit. Of the men who would have to serve on a man-of-war in an emergency, the Reserve men would only receive £3 10s. each. The cost of a kit is £10 a man. Now the meaning of this is that the first-class Reserve man would have to work 84 days and the second-class man 104 days for nothing. That is a real grievance, which I think the Admiralty would do wisely in remedying at once. I think it ought to be altered, in justice to these men and their wives and families.
  CAPTAIN G. R. BETHELL: As some hours have already been devoted to this question, I will not detain the House long, but perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words. In common with everyone interested in the subject, I was extremely pleased that the right hon. Gentleman took up the question of the Reserves last year. I should
  1308
  like to point out that the real question of a Naval Reserve has yet to be grappled with; as yet, the fringe of it has barely been properly touched upon. The question is surely one of vast importance, and I trust that my right hon. Friend, who takes such a great interest in the profession over which he presides, will do well still more to add to his already great distinction by initiating a policy by means of which we shall see a really adequate Reserve established. After all, it will be a great and noble ideal to place before the country, that every man shall be trained in some way or other to use modern weapons in defence of his country whenever called upon. I am persuaded that under modern conditions of social life, whether it be for the Army or the Navy, we must ultimately depend upon a very large Reserve. I am entirely in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for York that we cannot expect the country in times of peace to undertake the burden of maintaining a much larger active list than we now have; but we must bear in mind that there is still the necessity of our having the means to enable us to expand our fleet on an emergency. We can only do this by means of a large Reserve. What particular course should be taken with this object I will not discuss now. I have recommended for the last few years—and I know that the hon. Members for York and the Forest of Dean are with me in this—that the experiment of short, instead of long, service on training ships should be tried. My hon. Friend has not got practical experience of these matters, and I should like to tell him the result, at any rate, of my experience as to training ships, both for boys and for officers. I was delighted when the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman instituted the system of trying to get boys at a later age and training them for a shorter period. I hope that system will be extended and developed. I can assure my right hon. Friend—and I do not think there is any man who has a professional and intimate knowledge of the question who will deny it—that a long period of training in the training ships is a mistake and time thrown away. It is far better to have simply a short period just to accustom the lads to ship life and then to let them

  1309
  pass into the regular Service. That has been my experience, whether for officers or men, and nothing disappointed me more when I was serving than the sad and melancholy want of knowledge, energy, and activity which the youngsters coming from the training-ships showed when they entered the general Service. So far from recommending my right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, I can assure him I at least would support the direction which his policy has taken of recent years—namely, that of raising the age and keeping them a shorter time in the training ships. These are the only two questions upon which I wish to address the House. The second one upon which I have spoken is not, in my opinion, of vast importance; the policy is settled. The other one—the question of the Reserves—is of huge importance: the policy is not settled; the policy has not yet been grappled with. It has yet got to be faced; and I do hope my right hon. Friend, who takes so keen and lively an interest in the great profession over which he presides with such great distinction, will add a further distinction to his term of office by initiating a policy which will establish a truly adequate Reserve.
  Amendment put and negatived.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I have a very few words I wish to address to the House on the question of the Royal Naval Reserve. It was my honour and pleasure to address this House on a similar subject last year, and I do not find in the Naval Estimates this year that there has been any appreciable increase in the Royal Naval Reserve. I find only an increase of 600 men. When we consider that we spend annually on the Army Reserve nearly two millions of money, and that we only spend £257,000 on the Naval Reserve, I think it is very disproportionate. There is only an increase of £7,000 since last year. I am told by my hon. and gallant Friend on my left that further inducements have been given to fishermen, and that a large number of them are at present joining the Naval Reserve. But our Naval Reserve compares very unfavourably with
  1310
  that of foreign countries. In France, I understand, they could, if necessity arose, have an effective Reserve of 50,000 or 60,000 men at practically a minute's notice. On the other hand, we have only a Reserve of 25,000 men. We have, I know, a long service system, and France has, comparatively speaking, a short service system, but I find that we have 6,000 trained sailors leaving the Fleet annually, of whom 1,300 or so—or about one-fourth—join the Reserve. Is there no system that can be devised to induce more men than these to join the Reserve, as these men are all competent and well-trained sailors, and would be very useful in an emergency? We know the terrible casualties that would occur if the English Fleet went into action, even if we were victorious, as I trust we should be, and I cannot help saying that it would be a wise scheme of the Government to adopt the suggestion I threw out last year. Why could we not have some reserve of sailors in Canada? There are 50,000 or 60,000 fishermen there, and, if we stationed a training-ship or two in Canadian waters, we could, I think, establish a strong Naval Reserve there of, say, 5,000 or 10,000 men, for an emergency. You could do the same in Australia and the other Colonies. When I was in Hong Kong I went on board our ships, and on the flagships of various other countries, and I found that, if we had a naval engagement outside Hong Kong, we should have no reserve of sailors to fill up casualties. They would have to be brought out from England. We can build ships, but what we require is a reserve of men to man them in time of need and replace the casualties of war. Nelson's victories, and Collingwood's, I read, were won, not by the ships, but by the skill and courage of the officers and men. We have now 106,000 men in the First Line, and I venture to believe that some scheme could be devised whereby we could get another 100,000 in the Reserve, instead of merely 25,000 as at present. Knowing the great danger we are in, and knowing that we may be involved in a war at any moment, we should see that we have an effective Naval Reserve. We hope the war clouds may pass away; still, who can say what the future may bring? I do not think I can conclude

  1311
  better than by quoting the words of Tennyson—
  "We have sailed wherever ships can sail,
  We have ruled o'er many a mighty State;
  Pray God our greatness may not fail,
  Thro' craven fear of being great."
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Mr. Speaker, before I address myself to the interesting and important subject of shipbuilding, I propose to say a few words on some questions which I certainly will not call minor questions, because I think no questions are of greater interest or of greater importance than those which affect the threshold of the naval profession and the early training of both officers and men. And it is on these that I propose to detain the House for a few moments. I will not follow several of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and on the opposite side, in the remarks they have made on the subject of manning. I think it will be far more satisfactory that these remarks should be answered by the responsible officials, who will be able to give the best information. But I think I may congratulate the Government upon the success which has attended the efforts year after year of the Admiralty to obtain the increased number of men winch has been rendered necessary by the increase in the number of ships that have been built. I have not now access to the same sources of information which were open to me some little while ago, and I am not perfectly certain as to whether the scientific proportion between the Reserves, and the number on the roll of active service, is being satisfactorily attained off not. Whereas, in the last Estimates which were presented to Parliament, a very considerable addition was proposed to the Reserve, and considerable reforms introduced in the whole system of the Royal Naval Reserve, I do not perceive in these Estimates any very considerable step in the direction of further augmenting the Royal Naval Reserve. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has further steps in contemplation. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am perfectly well aware that in time of war it would not be desirable to have more than a certain and limited proportion of Reserve men on Her Majesty's ships
  1312
  for war purposes, but at the same time we must remember that all the Reserves will not be available. We must not be so sanguine as to suppose that they will, and it may be necessary further to augment the Royal Naval Reserve. I do not know how far the investigations of the Manning Committee have been carried on under the present administration.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Regularly.
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am glad to hear that they have been regularly carried on. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me when I say that the large additions which have been proposed to the Navy in his time will necessitate a very considerable increase in the number of men beyond the number which was contemplated when his predecessor was in office;. I have estimated, with as much care as I could, the number of men who will be required for the ships, which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to add, or has already added, to the Navy, and I have found that many thousands of men will have to be added to the number which was previously contemplated. That, of course, is liable to a deduction on account of the fact that there are always ships, from year to year, which are becoming more or less obsolete, and less and less fit to be commissioned in time of war; but, at the same time, the total number for which provision has to be made, is largely increased, and I should like to have an assurance that a due proportion is being observed between the Royal Naval Reserve and the total number engaged for active service. It is, of course, a great satisfaction to members of the late Board to learn from the right hon. Gentleman how very successful the Northampton, and the ships associated with the Northampton have been in enlisting older boys for the Navy. I entirely dissociate myself from the criticisms of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. If that hon. Gentleman's plan were adopted we should simply have to draw boys from one particular stratum—from one particular age—and the result would inevitably be to lower the standard. The

  1313
  Northampton and her consorts have been singularly successful in enlisting a very satisfactory class of boys, and the reports of the captains upon those boys, from the very commencement of the system, have been extremely satisfactory. I hear with great pleasure that they continue to be satisfactory, and that these boys turn out excellent seamen. I have said before in this House, in speaking on this subject, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, that very great credit is due to the first captain of the Northampton for his share in the excellent training of these boys; and I think good judgment was shown in the selection of the captain, for his influence on the boys, the enthusiasm which he threw into the new system of enlistment, the immense trouble he took about it, and altogether the qualities which he brought to bear on this new experiment have, in a large measure, brought about the great success of that experiment. There is a point in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which I should like to call attention. I see that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to move the Agincourt from Chatham to Portland. It may seem a small change, but I hear of it with the very greatest pleasure and satisfaction. One of the unfortunate results of having to add such a very large number of boys from year to year to Her Majesty's Navy is, that after they have received the training to be obtained on the training-ships, for which the hon. Gentleman opposite has such a strong preference, after they have received that training, and after a great deal of trouble and money has been bestowed upon them, and they have been trained up in the way in which they should go, they are relegated to harbour and depôt ships, and a very great deal of good is liable to be undone thereby, especially if these ships are in the harbour of a dockyard town. I venture to express the hope that special attention will be given to finding healthy and useful occupations for these boys and to getting them to sea as often as possible, and to drafting them soon into seagoing ships. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of having to provide, in case of war, a larger navy that we can keep in commission in time of peace, that so many men and boys have to be kept in barracks and stationary ships. I rejoice
  1314
  to think that a step is being taken in the right direction, and I hope it will be followed up. With regard to the Naval cadets, everything I hear confirms me in the opinion I have previously laid before the House, and now express again, the opinion that a mistake, from many points of view, has been made in raising the age. It is desirable to catch these fellows young. The boys who are most satisfactory on the Britannia are those who have not been sent to crammers, and it would therefore be very much better that they should come early to the Britannia. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, and others who have got a voice in this matter, will keep their minds open and will not, because they have been led to consent to this experiment of raising the age in the Britannia, regard the matter as settled once and for all. If they find the change is not attended by the excellent results they anticipate, I hope they will have the courage to change their minds and revert to the system which, after all, has produced officers of whom this House and the country may well be proud, and upon whom we now rely, if, unfortunately, we should be engaged in war, to command the men we enrol for Her Majesty's service. And I have no doubt that, if we revert to the system which prevailed before the raising of the age, it will continue to produce excellent officers. The question of the further training of young officers is being inquired into by the Committee over which Admiral Tracey presides, and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will inform the House what stage that inquiry has reached, and how soon we may hope to have the results. I have so far been dealing with the training of boys and Naval cadets. I wish now to say a word with respect to the Marines. On the fifth page of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty there is an announcement to the effect that—
  "Towards the end of last year the large accumulation of recruits at the Walmer Training Depôt absorbed the whole of the accommodation there, and it became necessary, without stopping recruiting, to lessen the flow of men in that direction. This was done by forwarding recruits for the Artillery to the division at Eastney, and removing from Walmer the men

  1315
  of that branch, already in training there, to complete their course at their own headquarters."
  I know, Sir, that when the Board with which I was connected had rapidly to increase the Marines, we had to resort to exactly the same expedient, but it is a very unsatisfactory expedient. Walmer is a very satisfactory place for the training of the young; Marine; it is a place where he is exposed to remarkably few temptations, and the training system has been attended with exceedingly good results. At Eastney, and the other Marine Divisions, the conditions are not so satisfactory, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty will face the necessity of providing more accommodation at Walmer. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that, by the aid of the compulsory powers for acquiring land embodied in the first Naval Works Act, great improvements might be made at Walmer which would tend to the efficiency of the Marines and of the system of training recruits. I pass now to the subject in which the House is naturally most interested, and I confess that, although I came down to the House intending to say a good deal about the delay and disappointment in the shipbuilding programme announced last Session, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, by the frankness of his admissions, both in his statement and in his speech to-day, and also by the frankness with which he has apologised and expressed his deep regrets at the delay, has disarmed me so that I shall not go into detail so much as I had intended. But delay is written large over all the Estimates which have been presented to the House. The expenditure on new construction alone is less by the enormous sum of £2,270,000 than the Estimates which were presented to Parliament and the grants which Parliament made for what was regarded as necessary for construction. The House must remember that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty took the exceptional course of coming down to Parliament in July and asking for a Supplementary Estimate of £500,000, £400,000 of which was to be spent on new construction. There are three causes and three categories of failure to spend the money voted
  1316
  by Parliament. First of all there is the engineers' dispute. I do not propose to say anything on that point because I know there are Members who will deal with that subject, and will discuss the attitude of the Government towards the parties in the dispute and the responsibility of the Admiralty for the delay in the building of these ships. There is a second cause of delay which she right hon. Gentleman included in his statement, and which he has again placed before the House in his speech—I mean the delay due to the retarded designs of several ships. These ships were not proceeded with in consequence of the delay in experiments with new guns. I think the House will be of opinion that it was quite essential that the newest guns should be put into the newest ships, and I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was right in delaying the ships when he found it was impossible to send out the designs to the contractors without arming them with old guns rather than with new ones. What I cannot understand, however, is why the right hon. Gentleman was without that information in July; nor how he did not then understand that there must be delay in producing the designs when the type of gun was not settled. I trust some further information will be given on that subject. In his speech to-day the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the delay as due mainly to the contract ships, but an examination of the figures shows that that is not the case.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The delay on the Ocean, the Canopus, and the Goliath was caused by the contractors not having furnished stern-posts and other parts of the ship.
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I quite understand that, but I think the right hon. Gentleman unintentionally misled the House into thinking that the delay was mainly in the contract ships, and that there had not been as great delay in the dockyard ships. But, Sir, I find that there has been greater delay with the six dockyard battleships than upon the contract ships. The delay upon the contract battleships is represented

  1317
  by a nett short expenditure of £214,000 as against £482,000 on the dockyard ships. I do not wish to labour that point, but I think it is necessary the House should be put in possession of the facts, and should know that, as a rule, dockyard ships are quite as dependent on the performance of contract as are contract ships. The third category of delay is to be found in the short expenditure on naval works. Rather less than a million has been expended on the Naval works under the Act, whereas the Estimate for the year was no less than £2,700,000. We know the very serious nature of the delays at Gibraltar as to the dockyard, and the new docks, and in the extension works at Hong Kong, owing in large part to the difficulty of obtaining War Office land. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it will be necessary that we should be furnished at an early date with a detailed account.
  MR. A CHAMBERAIN: A paper will be in the hands of the Members very shortly showing the total expended up to date.
  *SIR U. BAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Quite so. I must apologise for calling attention to one shortcoming as to details of information, because I must say that there never was a more frank and full statement laid before Parliament, and this is almost the only point on which I find it difficult to arrive at the actual figures to find what has been done and what has not been done. Another point is about the expenditure for armaments. It seems right to suggest while on this point—though I confess we did not do it when in office—that it would be a great improvement if some details were introduced in he works Vote similar to those which are connected with the shipbuilding Vote, showing the actual expenditure during the past year, as compared with the Estimate. I do not see why the fullest information cannot be given. Now, Sir. I have only a few words more to trouble the House with, and those relate to the new proposals of the Admiralty in respect of ships. The right hon. Gentleman
  1318
  told us that he would put off a statement as to the nature of the new ships that were to be built until the latest possible day of the Session, and he only gave us the information that they would be very costly and very powerful ships. I could not help being reminded of the way in which, when we were in office, we ware pressed perpetually to give this kind of information. Gentlemen sitting on the Bench where I sit now got up year after year—I might almost say night after night—to press us for the most precise information as to the ships that we were going to build, and to insinuate doubts whether we had any plans for the future. I have no doubt whatever that the right hon. Gentleman himself has plans, and under the circumstances it will be wise to ask the House to exercise forbearance in the matter, and not press him to produce his designs. No pressure of that sort will come from this Bench on which I now sit. We remember too well how important it was not to give information of that kind hastily and prematurely to the House. Although we had plans for three years ahead, we did not think it right to lay them before Parliament—not because we wished to conceal anything from Parliament, but for the excellent motive that now influences the right hon. Gentleman in asking us not to press him. Therefore, from this Bench, so far as my hon. Friend and I are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will see that he will not be pressed for information which. I am satisfied it is not in the interests of the country to give, because if given it is at, once available to our rivals abroad. I have only one or two more words to say. The right, hon. Gentleman evidently expected that there would be more criticism of the Estimates, on the ground that he was not proposing enough, than that he was proposing too much. Taking into account, first that £1,400,000 of the shipbuilding Vote is postponed expenditure, and that, £400,000 voted last July has not been expended, you will find that the shipbuilding Vote of this year, instead of being an increase, is a decrease of £630,000 as compared with last year. I do not think that can be gainsaid; I have gone into the figures. The real provision for the current year for not new work—not in the nature of a

  1319
  revote—is £630,000 less than the grant of last year. Therefore, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will be regarded as too large. There will be some who will say they are too small; but I do think, as the right hon. Gentleman said in the answer he gave to-night—and which cannot be gainsaid—that we are limited by the resources of our armour supply. I have no doubt that the Admiralty will consider what they obviously will have to consider, and that is whether our sources of armour supply ought not to be increased. As to the idea of manufacturing armour in the dockyards, I quite concur in what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that we have quite enough responsibility in the way of manufacturing. I would rather limit than increase that, and I would rather throw armour-production open to the competition of trade than attempt anything in the shape of a Government monopoly. Whereas in the past we have only needed armour for battleships, we shall need armour in future for cruisers. Therefore I think that question arises. I know that the Government must do justice to the present manufacturers of our armour, who have been encouraged to develope their works in the way they have done, and who remain the sole suppliers of armour to the Government, but still that question of enlarging the possible output of armour seems to me to deserve attention. I will detain the House no longer. I hope, in the remarks I have made, I have at least treated with perfect fairness the statements which have been laid before the House by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for York in regard to this being a case of emergency. It does not seem to me that the First Lord of the Admiralty has exhausted all the means of recovering the ground which has been lost. It is quite well known that some of the largest shipbuilding yards in this country are not supplying ships for the Navy at all. In the Armstrong yard, for instance, and in outside yards, it is possible to find resources equal to our great dockyards. I may
  1320
  say that in the city I myself represent there are resources for the production of shipbuilding which have very few rivals in the United Kingdom, or even in the world. I am aware that it is not, as a rule, satisfactory for yards to undertake shipbuilding which have not made Government shipbuilding a speciality because of certain regulations enforced by the Admiralty. But here we are in presence of a deficit of ships of something like £2,000,000 in value, and I would suggest that it might be possible for the Admiralty to make a very special effort to adjust their requirements to the practice of those yards in order, if possible to get their assistance in filling up this very exceptional hiatus.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Belfast shipbuilding yards would equally have to procure armour, and precisely the same conditions exist for them as for the British Government. The key of the whole situation is that the articles we want are battleships and armoured cruisers. For those two classes of articles, the Admiralty has to depend upon the production of armour plate, and as the Government cannot get sufficient for their own wants, what private yards could obtain would only be taking away from the Government a supply which is not already quite adequate.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made a most valuable explanation, which I accept, and I acknowledge that the suggestion I have made falls to the ground. Some of the armoured cruisers, however, could have been proceeded with up to a certain state of advancement. A marked improvement in our ships has taken place, but having heard all that could be said in favour of this, as it appears to me, inadequate scheme of arming these ships, there does remain a residue of preponderating argument on my side. It is the number of shots that are fired simultaneously in an encounter that will decide the fate of that encounter. It is of vital importance that our ships should be very heavily armed. That view is enforced by every lesson in our history. It

  1321
  must be the duty of our ships to hunt the enemy and compel them to come to action. I know what is said about the necessity of carrying large stores of ammunition. All those things undoubtedly have some value, but it will come to this at last: If you lay two ships alongside that ship will in all probability be victorious which has the most powerful and most efficient guns fired in a given time; and it will be no consolation to the officers commanding the ship to know that they had a large amount of stores in their hold, that they had a large reserve of coal, or that they had some other luxury of that kind not available for the effective purposes of an action. Year by year we have been developing the efficiency of our coaling stations. We have been depositing a reserve of ammunition stores in many parts of the world, and creating coaling reserves all over the world, but we ought to be a little chary of devoting a large proportion of our ships to coal if it resulted in denying them effective gun power. Now, Sir, there is one other question upon which I should like to address the House, and it is the matter about which I asked a question in this House last Session, and it is a matter worthy of consideration. Whatever armament we may possess, whatever available ships and men there may be, there will be a time, at the commencement of naval operations, when this country will be, I will not say panic-stricken, but suffering from the effect of a shock unknown to this or the generations preceding it. I do not address the right hon. Gentleman, because he has a greater knowledge on the subject than myself, but any hon. Member of this House familiar with the facts of the last great naval war must know that there is one truth standing out more plainly than any other, and that is that we were losing our merchant shipping to a very large extent; but while those losses were great in the aggregate, they were absolutely nothing in comparison with the whole bulk of the mercantile shipping afloat. It was only three per cent., and so far from the destruction of the mercantile shipping injuring trade, we, by being able to blockade every port, were able to increase our mercantile shipping. But those times are gone by; the time of blockades has gone by. The opinion of naval officers
  1322
  of this and other countries is that we shall not be able to blockade as we used to, and it is a thing of the past. Steam navigation and the growth of great navies have, in some measure, revolutionised the condition of naval warfare; and what we shall see upon the outbreak of naval war will be a panic, or a near approach to a panic, at Lloyd's. We shall see notices posted at Lloyd's that ship after ship has been captured or destroyed at sea by some of the enemy's cruisers, and the effect of that cannot be doubted. It would immediately send up the freights and premiums. The insurance rates when we were confronted by the mere possibility of a war with a Power physically inferior to us went up five per cent., and can it be doubted that at the first alarm of war those premiums would be sent up to a much higher rate than that, and not only the insurance rates, but freights would go up. Hon. Members of this House who are well versed in business know that the whole export trade and the shipping and transmitting trade of this country depended upon margins so slight that they would not bear any tampering with, and the only way we can protect those margins was to stop a sudden fall of the barometer of confidence, and there was no reason why it should fall if we considered the broad possibilities and that the destruction of the mercantile shipping would only be a small percentage. But a man who has his all invested in one or two ships, or oven 20, might say, "It is true that the percentage will be small, but I may be the man to lose my all." That is the contingency you have to look to. Now, there has been a great deal of study applied to the question of a remedy for this state of things, and I am not going behind facts when I say that there is a large amount of general agreement as to what steps ought to be taken. There were three proposals, all of which had a certain amount of support, and all of which, no doubt, can be supported by very valid arguments. It was proposed, in the first place, that there should be in time of peace—it is essential that it should be in time of peace, and that due notice of it should be given—an undertaking that in the event of war the Government would be responsible for the safety from the enemy of ships which were sailing under

  1323
  convoy, or in conformity with Admiralty instructions. The second proposal was that the Government should pay, through Lloyd's, the difference between the ordinary premiums and the war premiums in the case of ships which conformed to certain fixed rules and realised certain conditions as regarded efficiency. The third proposal was that there should be a contribution on the part of all shipowners, say, of two per cent., which should go towards the payment of those insurance premiums which would guarantee their war risk. With regard to the first clause, I believe the financial aspect of the question has been considered, but I believe there is sufficient ground for desiring an inquiry in this matter, and I hope we shall get one, for it is no use strengthening our Navy if we do not get a sufficient compensation for the expenditure we make; and, if we once allow anyone to creep in, there are plenty to step in where we are unable to carry on our trade. But so long as our ships are assured that they will be allowed to come and go, and will be safeguarded against the loss by destruction or capture by the enemy, they will continue trading, and by adopting the methods I have referred to we may avoid a very serious panic on the outbreak of a war. In conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would not give a little more effect to the principle he stated to-night. He stated that he desired to make the recruiting for the Navy more general. That is a most admirable idea. It is desirable to open out new areas over the country districts to recruit the Navy. Side by side with that statement, he has said that there is no difficulty in getting boys to recruit the men, but on the strength of the other pronouncement to which I referred, I venture to ask if he will, not entirely on service grounds, but on grounds of public policy, apply that policy to that part of the United Kingdom which I have the honour to represent. Over and over again we have asked, in the North of Ireland, that we should have some means of seeing the Navy and coming into contact with naval men, by the presence of one of Her Majesty's vessels. That has been asked by the Belfast Corporation, the Belfast Harbour and Marine Boards, and the Belfast Chamber of Commerce. It has
  1324
  been asked by every considerable representative of Belfast, of every part of the great city's activity, that we should have some live representation of the Navy in some live representation of the Navy in the North-East of Ireland. We have tunity of supplying recruits to the Navy directly from Belfast. If we had qualities which we do not possess we should have received that boon. I know that other cities have received precisely the boon we require—Cork, for instance—and I venture to believe if we had had the qualifications which Cork possesses we should have had it also. The Black Prince was not placed at Queenstown for the benefit of the Navy, and it was against the opinion of the Admiralty as a service measure, and I do venture to believe that if we had been able to make the appeal which has been made by Cork we should have got the privilege which we have seen has been accorded to that city. We are loyal; we are well disposed towards the Royal Navy. None of our members have desired to see the Royal Navy at the bottom of the sea, and, therefore, I feel some confidence, but my confidence is a little shaken, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to give some sort of a reply to the request of my constituents, that they may see that they had some share in the possession of the Royal Navy.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: My hon. Friend who has just addressed the House in the first part of his remarks stated that these Estimates considered to-night are a matter of emergency. I desire to associate myself with him in those remarks. The occasion is one on which we feel, although we do not like to talk about it in detail, that the state of Europe is such that we might at any moment find ourselves at war with a European Power. We also feel, although I do not desire to enlarge upon it, that there would be a serious risk that, in the event of such a war, two other Powers might choose that moment to squeeze us with demands with which we could not easily comply. The circumstances, therefore, are those of emergency. Now, the Estimates which we have before us to-night are estimates of procrastination and delay. In 1888 Admiral Tryon said that the Admiralty

  1325
  had to carry out the policy which was laid down by Parliament, and it was not for them to initiate the policy, but only to see that it was carried out. That was not entirely accurate. It is the fact that the policy must be that of the Cabinet, as a whole, and not the Admiralty alone. They point to a policy, and lay down general conditions which the Admiralty has to fulfil. So far as the First Lord of the Admiralty is concerned, he has my confidence in so far as I believe he is willing to carry out a policy that is very well adapted to the end which is put before him. But the present are not ordinary circumstances. It is, of course, true of this country—more true than of the French, who invented the phrase—that "the trident of Neptune is the sceptre of the world." At the present moment, perhaps, the position comes home to us more in a German phrase, which is attributed to Prince Bismarck, in which he says the present state of Europe is like a fishpond. There are pike in the European fishpond, and carp, and the carp are made to be eaten by the pike. We do not desire to be either. But we do not desire to be eaten. I think the desire of the country is to feel with certainty that we are as strong as we can reasonably be made in our Navy, and that we thoroughly come up to the standards put before the country in the past. Do we come up to them? My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle asked the question—
  "Do we come up to the standard which successive Governments have put before us?
  The First Lord of the Admiralty has explained to us the extent to which the London strike and the lock-out throughout the country have affected his Estimates. The First Lord of the Admiralty last year explained that the Estimates he had put before the House fully brought us up to the past standard, but he said that changes might be made by other Powers which might destroy the balance, and that he might have to make fresh proposals. He did make fresh proposals. The right hon. Gentleman said he would watch, and the result of that watching was that he came forward and made supplementary proposals, for which we voted £400,000 at the end of the year for laying down new ships. But it has
  1326
  been shown to-night that we are still £2,000,000 to the bad, and the ships have not been laid down, not only those mentioned in July, but those mentioned in the original Estimates. Now, we seem to have lost more than seven months by the strike and lock-out, we seem to have lost a year, and we seem to have lost four British ships last year, and three battleships are only to be begun now. It was stated that three slips would be cleared in the last quarter of the financial year of 1897, and three ships would then be laid down. Those slips are not clear now, and those ships cannot be laid down. We appear to have lost in the year those three battleships, and four cruisers which were mentioned later in the year. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, in his Memorandum, makes the statement, which he repeated to-night in the House. He gives what he calls a summary of new vessels under construction, and in that summary he lumps together ships building, ships about to be begun, and ships not to be begun until the end of next financial year. It is somewhat confusing. But our main case is, and we can prove it from Government figures, that the Government are at the present moment of emergency far below the standard which they themselves laid down. We joined in attacking the Liberal Government in 1893 for being short of the standard, and we had a Return brought before the House in December, 1893, to show how we stood. Comparing that Return with that of 1896, the last Government Return we have, we find things were worse than they were in 1893. Between the Return of December, 1893, and the Return of November, 1896, taking ships "built" alone, there have been built seven ships of 95,100 tons, and France and Russia had built 11 ships of 98,730 tons. Therefore, from the point of view of tonnage, we are worse off, and in point of numbers very much worse off than the standard which has been laid down. The country has been, to some extent, undoubtedly misled with regard to the strength of its Navy by the Review to which the First Lord of the Admiralty has alluded in such very careful terms. The effect of that Review is, that it increases jealousy; it does not increase our strength. The tangible fact remains that we have gone to the bad, and that we have got worse

  1327
  is proved by the Government Returns of successive Governments, which show we are altogether behind again. The reasons which are given for this falling into arrear do not appear to be valid. They have greater weight with naval men who have faced the difficulty than they have with less experienced people who are unlearned and unskilled in these matters. The first is armour. I cannot but think that, in a country like this—looking at our enormous powers of production, and looking also at the strides that have been made by Germany—for instance, a business-like guarantee of orders for a series of years to private firms would produce a larger plant in the way that such orders in Germany have produced the plant of Krupp. I am bound to say that the excuses do not seem to be valid excuses, though, at the same time, I recognise that they are traditional—that they have been made by successive Governments. The First Lord last year said to some of us that we were trying to spur a willing horse. I confess at once that I want to spur a willing horse in his case. I am sure he is a willing horse as regards the strength of the Navy and the disposition to be made of our fleets. Of course there are people, like some of my hon. Friends near me, who desire to pull the willing horse, and it is quite natural on their part. We are prepared to argue the matter out, and they should face the matter frankly, as we are always prepared to do. When the First Lord last year told us that it was an absurd idea that this country should be prepared to face a combination of all the Powers, he was confusing the issue and presenting us as absurd and ridiculous persons to this House. What we do say is this: that we should be able to meet a limited number of the Powers who are in the habit of acting together against ourselves. It is a reasonable measure of precaution, for which this country is prepared to pay, to be in such a state of preparedness as to have a chance of successfully meeting those Powers on the seas. This question of having to meet several Powers affects the question of the Reserve. The way in which the question of the Powers affects the question of
  1328
  manning is this: The right hon. Gentleman, in discussing the manning of the Navy last year and the year before, told us that there must be a reserve of ships. He cannot be expected to send all the ships to sea at once. Of course, against a certain single Power there would be a large reserve of ships, but if you should have to face a combination of Powers different circumstances would arise. Every ship sent to sea ought, of course, to be sufficiently modern to be placed in the front line, instead of sending to certain butchery those on board. We want to know whether you are prepared to man all ships fit for such an emergency as that. The First Lord has told us nothing about our new Reserve. He said that 600 men were serving at the present time. In the printed statement 1,815 men were mentioned as enrolled in the new Reserve, and I should like to know what these 1,815 men are, whether any additional number than the 600 have served, and how many men at the present rate of progress this new Reserve is likely to give us from time to time at certain dates ahead which might be taken. I think he will admit that there is some ground for pressing him on this point, because of the great falling off with regard to the old Reserve in the last two or three years. The Appropriation Accounts were quoted by me last year as showing a seriously inefficient state of things with regard to the old Reserve. They have come out again, and they show almost the same thing as the Appropriation Accounts last year. They show that the expenditure on the Reserve is between £22,000 and £23,000 less than was granted, because neither officers nor men came forward in sufficient numbers. These facts, with regard to the Reserve, coming out year after year, show that the condition of the old Reserve was not as it ought to have been, that the anticipation from year to year had not been fulfilled, and that the system had broken down. That justifies us in pressing the right hon. Gentleman to tell us all he possibly can in the Estimates with regard to the numbers which his new Reserve is likely to give him in the future. Two years ago the First Lord spoke about our reaching in 1898 a number at which we might stay. He said that after 1898 we should have reached the maximum with regard to active-service men.

  1329
  The noble Lord the Member for York stated that he should be satisfied with a maximum of 110,000, instead of 106,000; and he is in favour, in order to get an increase of Reserve, of a certain number of men doing short service in the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman is not in favour of that proposition; the maximum with him and with the noble Lord is a different thing, because the noble Lord has a scheme which will constantly produce a reserve of short-service men. He said that after the year 1898 we should reach a maximum of active-service men; and I cannot think he was justified in making such a statement, in the present state of Europe, unless he saw his way to a constant and steady increase in the new Reserve. In the case of emergency, there is no real Reserve—nothing behind to take the place of the men who have gone in the first few weeks of the war. The figures of the Reserve are optimistically swelled in the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman. He counts the pensioners and the coastguard, but the pensioners have to take the place of the coastguard. In the mobilisation schemes of those foreign Powers with which we are at all acquainted, provision is made for doubling the coastguard in time of war. They estimate that they will require twice as many men as they need in time of peace. Here we count them all in our first line in time of war, and we count the pensioners who will possibly be the men who will take their place in a mobilisation scheme. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, in his speech on the manning question, pointed out that shortness of numbers extended even more to the lieutenants in the Navy than to the men. We know there is considerable difficulty also about the engineers. The figures in the Estimates prove that the lieutenants are exhausted by the annual mobilisation. The right hon. Gentleman has often said that you cannot do more for men unless you introduce short service and that he will never face the terrible danger of introducing short service. We none of us want to introduce short service when we have such a magnificent long service fleet. But we have to face the fact that the present provision made for the manning of the fleet is, to some extent, hypothetical, depending upon the
  1330
  New Reserve, which is a doubtful experiment, though one which we hope will succeed. The First Lord alluded to the question that lies behind—the supply of men from the merchant navy. Last year, he said—
  "There is an ever-increasing demand for the Navy and an ever-decreasing British mercantile marine."
  He produces no remedy, and the Government produces no remedy. Last year he also said—
  "If the shipowners cannot, or will not employ British seamen in sufficient numbers, what is to become of the maritime greatness of the country?"
  Governments are Governments, and if they use that language they must be prepared for people asking, "What is the remedy you propose?" It is quite true that in the great war we gradually worked up to twice as many men as we should now need. But nowadays the strain comes at once, in the first week of war. When we ask at such a time of gravity in the national affairs for assurances with regard to those questions we have raised to-night, we have some right to ask that the First Lord should give us information more specific than that which has been laid before the House. At this moment a great difficulty, to which the right hon. Gentleman pointed in his speech, is that the supply of young seamen in the mercantile marine is entirely disappearing. Taking the Board of Trade Returns, the number of young men, from 15 to 25 years of age—seamen in the very flower of their youth—the British have fallen off from 17,500 to between 13,000 and 14,000 in five years, whereas the foreign element of the British Navy of the same age has increased from 4,000 to over 5,000 in the same time; that is to say, there has been a considerable increase in foreigners serving in the British mercantile marine, while there has been a falling off in Britons. I am bound to say that there is in the British Colonies a supply of men for the Reserve of the fleet who would be worth having. One difficulty is the high price of labour in the Colonies, and if you set men from the Colonies to work side by side with men from home the latter would be discontented, because of the high wages paid the other. In Newfoundland, however, you have

  1331
  excellent fishermen at low writes, and there the experiment might be tried. The country has undoubtedly a higher confidence in the Admiralty at this moment than it has had for some time; but we want to be informed that the system is as good as the particular individuals who compose the Admiralty. With the present First Sea Lord and the officers responsible for the construction of the fleet, no doubt the country has a confidence in the system which it does not merit. The hon. Member for Dundee assured us that the present system was the one we were demanding; but we have no security whatever that the system is to continue in the future. The whole thing is kept secret from the House of Commons. I am certain that two at least of the Powers, to which I have alluded at the beginning of my speech, will not attack this country unless they should be invited to do so by a policy which combined undue adventure with actual weakness in maintaining our position.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I thank most of those who have taken part in this Debate for the indulgent way in which they have spoken of our efforts to put the Navy on a proper footing. I have often heard the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on naval matters, and I know the patriotic interest he takes in the subject, and the attention he has devoted to it; but I could frankly say that if I had to accept the facts or the excuses which the right hon. Gentleman has made for me and the Admiralty, I should be sorry to occupy the place I now fill. I reject the excuses he has made. He was extremely conciliatory towards myself. He said he understood it to be the system that I should carry out the policy of the Cabinet and the country.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not mean the policy of the Cabinet in regard to the actual construction of the fleet, but I meant as regards the size of the fleet, dictated as that is by the policy towards the Powers.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Quite so. That is to say, I would accept from the Cabinet a less number of ships than we at the Admiralty consider to be necessary for the service. I reject that excuse. I say
  1332
  these Estimates have been framed on an examination of what foreign Powers are doing, and what they have done. The right hon. Gentleman, using a rather striking phrase, said that these Estimates of £2,750,000 were Estimates of procrastination. I should like to know what sum the right hon. Gentleman would apply to a policy of energy—a policy of keeping to the mark. I was anxious to see how the right hon. Gentleman would grapple with the facts as to the ships that have actually been laid down. I cannot accept the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that we have been going back in recent years as compared with foreign Powers, or that we have fallen behind the standard which has been set up by this House. After giving the closest study it was possible for me to give to the naval programmes of other Powers, I say that in the statement we have laid before the House we have maintained the standard which has been laid down by the House. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with a confusion of mind when he says that these are days of emergency, and that, consequently, we ought to place a larger Naval programme before the House. If these were such days of emergency as the right hon. Gentleman describes, it would be our duty not to hamper the dockyards and private contractors with ships which would be useful three years hence, but to concentrate our efforts on completing, as far as possible, the ships we have in hand, and in putting every ship we have in a thorough sea-going condition. That is a point that is worth bearing in mind. It is also important, in this matter, to consider dates. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman also has considered the dates at which foreign ships winch are now building will be completed. There are statements available showing the number of ships actually building at the present moment for foreign Governments. Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that if we compare the number of completed ships belonging to other Powers, looking to their size, and armament, and efficiency, we are below the standard which has been laid down in the House of Commons as the relative strength of the British Navy? If so, I think he is mistaken, and I think he would be mistaken in the view of some of those for whom he himself has the greatest respect.

  1333
  I find that when he comes to discuss the ability, knowledge, and experience of my naval colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman most properly acknowledges that ability and experience. It has been my fate to represent opinions which have not been my own opinions, because I have no opinions of my own upon these technical matters, but the opinions of those who advise me. When hon. Gentlemen who are laymen and amateurs compared with my advisers put forward their views and expect me to adopt them, I can only say that I cannot adopt their views in the teeth of the professional advice given to me. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the system. Well, what is the system? I consider it to be that, so far as all technical matters are concerned, I am the spokesman of the views of those most, able professional officers who are at the Admiralty, and it is my duty to represent their views, however feebly and imperfectly. In the same way, when it comes to other questions, I am the spokesman of the House of Commons at the Admiralty. I consider that the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty is to be the spokesman in this House of his professional advisers, and at the Admiralty the representative of the views of this House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Belfast spoke about armour. Now, the question of armour is distinctly a professional matter, but, of course, there are certain principles of common sense to be applied to it. My hon. Friend, as I understood him, contended that our ships are not sufficiently armoured, although, at the same time, he admitted that a considerable advance had been made. I would like to ask him, would he sacrifice speed to armour? If he would, I think there are few naval officers who would agree with him. They would say that speed is, above all others, one of the main functions of a ship. The duty of our cruisers is to hunt our enemy's cruisers, to overtake them, and destroy them, and that cannot be done unless our ships have the necessary machinery and the necessary speed. I am not sure that there is not a growing belief amongst professional men that speed is one of the very first essentials of warships, especially those of this country, considering that we have to protect our trade routes and deal with the cruisers of other countries. Sir, my hon.
  1334
  and learned Friend the Member for West Belfast spoke on a favourite topic of his—namely, a system of national insurance by which the food supply of the country may be secured. My hon. and learned Friend has attempted to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend who is on the Defence Committee, in reference to this matter, but, from the point of view of the Navy, I consider it is the duty of the Navy to protect the trade routes with ships, and not with money. If it is to be done by financial arrangements it must be placed in hands other than those of the Admiralty, who would probably feel it would be a poor part we should play if we endeavoured, by some financial arrangement, to relieve ourselves of that responsibility which properly belongs to us—namely, to defend the commerce of the country. I return to the right hon. Baronet. He says these are Estimates of procrastination, and the right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite spoke of the degree to which we have been thrown back, and wanted to establish, not only that we have gone back by £2,270,000, but by £500,000 in addition. The £2,270,000 includes the £500,000 which has not been spent. In the coming year we propose an addition of £1,400,000 to the Estimates, in order to make up a portion of those arrears. So far, there is no procrastination; but I thought I had explained fully—and I am afraid I can hardly make it more clear—that we have no power to hasten any of these instalments. We cannot put any further burden on 1898–99 to meet instalments which will not become due. It is simply a question of the commencement of ships, and I do not think anything has been said which affects that question. Under the circumstances, looking at the difficulties which exist, I am certainly not prepared to place before the House of Commons ships which might relieve the amount of criticism which has been bestowed on the Admiralty, unless we have the security that during their construction the necessary material would be forthcoming in order to make the necessary progress. The right hon. Baronet naturally speaks of the difficulties which would be encountered by this country, but does he regard the difficulties which have to be encountered by other countries?

  1335
  If the House is to be influenced by a speech of the pessimistic character that we had to-night from the right hon. Gentleman, it is almost necessary that I should produce some figures on the other side. For instance, he objects to the dictum that we have to keep a certain number of ships in reserve, and he says that if we went to war with one Power it would be all very well, but if we went to war with two Powers we should have to man every ship we have got. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose there is any Power which would be able at a minute's notice to put every ship she has to sea? We should be able to send to sea at once a much larger force than foreign Powers could command, while at the same time retaining a Reserve. The same difficulties which delay us delay foreign Powers. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to Russia, and said she has made great progress in her industrial preparations. So she has; but with reference to armour, what resources has she got, compared with this country, for the supply of armour? What do Russia—what do other countries do? They apply to America, they apply to this country, they apply to Germany, where armour is to be procured. I do not think that those who denounce these as estimates of procrastination would be prepared to say that we should, at this moment, give an order for armour to the United States.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I quite accept that cheer of the hon. Baronet, but I do not know whether it would be wise for us, in order to hurry on ships, to encourage the manufacture of armour in other countries. I do not think that is a tenable proposition. What we ought rather to do is to stimulate the production of armour in this country. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to notice a phrase which I thought I used in my speech—namely, that this is not only a question of the sufficiency, but the adequacy of the plant to produce armour. The plant at Sheffield has been vastly improved, and it is in the process of improvement. But when you are improving your plant, you cannot expand it at the same time, and therefore at the moment these firms
  1336
  could not produce so much armour as would justify us in building more ships. But, whether we have done right or wrong in postponing the commencement of ships to be built by contract till later iu the financial year, surely the right hon. Baronet will see that that does not affect the present emergency, which he presses on us as the reason for building these ships. Another hon. Member suggested that we should lay hands on, or purchase, all the ships which are now building by private firms. That would be an emergency course; but there are two parties to be considered in such a course. The fact that so many ships were under construction in this country, would be a resource which, I think, we should have a right to point to. But in time of peace to take those ships away from the Governments who have ordered them, or from the private firms building them, is a startling proposition indeed, and, except under the most stringent stress of absolute political necessity and safety, it is a course which could not reasonably be taken. There is another question, too. Are these ships—I am not speaking of all of them, but some of them—ships that that would suit us? It does not follow that a vessel built for a South American Republic would suit the requirements of the British Navy. Many of the ships are built for special purposes; and though, they are powerfully armed, and are, indeed, excellent ships, they are lacking in that radius of action, as we call it, that coal-carrying capacity, and some of those characteristics which are essential to British, ships. But I will make this confession: I assure the House that if there were for sale in this country two or three first-class ironclads, suitable for our purpose and available for purchase, I am not sure whether I should not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote the two millions not spent in the current year to the purchase of those ships instead of burdening the Estimates for the ensuing year. It would be a businesslike proceeding. But none of those ships were for sale which we knew would be of use to us; and of those which were for sale none were of use to us. The noble Lord the Member for York spoke of the greater rapidity of construction in France and Russia and elsewhere. No doubt progress has been made, but I do not think that they themselves are of

  1337
  opinion that they have yet reached the rate of speed at which we are still fortunately able to build ships, at all events in our dockyards. You may launch a ship easily enough; but naval officers know very well that a great deal of its use will depend upon the state of advancement in which it is launched. A ship may be launched when it is near completion or when it is in such an incomplete condition that some time must elapse before it will be worth anything. I repeat, our Estimates are not based upon any pressure restraining the action of the Admiralty. They are based upon the survey which we have taken of the needs of the Empire; looking at the question from the same point of view as we did in July last and when we framed the last Estimates we have made no change. The right hon. Baronet may know what rate of progress during the last two or three years has been made in the construction of foreign ships. I am not at all sure that foreign Governments have not lost by inevitable delays of construction, in many cases, as much time as we have lost during the last seven months. We should be in a better position; I do not say we are in a worse position now than we were a year and a half ago. We are losing the lead we had, but I do not consider that we have gone back. I do not wish the opinion to be current that we are in a worse or, indeed, in a better position than we really are; and I can assure the House that I have passed the stage of sensitiveness to criticism, even as to complaints of the personal conduct of the Admiralty. The right hon. Baronet opposite spoke with reference to the personnel; he said that the noble Lord the Member for York had accepted the standard of 106,000 men, although he would prefer 110,000; but he accepted it with the idea of short service. I do not think the noble Lord holds by the idea of short service still. [Lord C. BERESFORD: Only for the Reserve.] But I think the noble Lord has given up the idea of having on the active list short service men and long service men together. Now, the original idea was that you were to have the short service system side by side with the long service system, in order that your short service men should pass rapidly into the Reserve. There is a very unanimous feeling among naval officers on no
  1338
  account to tamper with the present conditions of naval service, and they would go so far as to prefer to remain with 106,000 of stationary Reserve than to sap the efficiency of these 106,000 for the sake of passing more men into the Reserve. There are many reforms which I should be prepared to accept if they could be shown to be correct, but I do not think anything would induce me or my advisers and colleagues at the Admiralty to enter upon such a system. I have been very much pressed with regard to the expansion of the Reserve. My view is this; I expressed it last year, and I will express it again. I will not put down an increase for the Reserve on paper without some justification—without some certainty that I may be able to have efficient men, and my view is not to increase the Reserve until we have some assurance that the changes we have made will introduce a better system into the Reserve. How will you tempt men into the Reserve? I hope we are solving the problem by tempting them young. I do not believe you could tempt them by increased payment. I entreat hon. Members who talk of raising the emoluments of different classes in the Navy to remember this, that these men are serving side by side, and that increased emoluments in one particular class of rating means discontent in other ratings, possibly equally intelligent and important, where no increase is made, and to have Reserve men who do not know the duties on a man-of-war serving side by side with the blue-jackets who do, yet receiving a higher rate of pay, would be a certain method of increasing dissatisfaction. I see no Royal road to a rapid increase in the Reserve. We must feel our way. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Government do not bring in a Bill to increase the number of British seamen. He says it is the business of the Government. Well, I think, if the State is to interfere in this matter, it will be going very far. I do not say something of the kind may not be done; I think something ought to be done in other directions; but it is my firm conviction that the State cannot go beyond a certain point in this direction. A mercantile nation is exposing its future security and freedom if it does not see that a considerable portion of the population is sent to sea. You may train a few

  1339
  thousand apprentices, but who is to secure that when we have trained them they will remain in the maritime service? Suppose we trained them, what security is there that they would be employed in our Navy? What security is there that some outside organisation will not say, "You must only take those boys on certain conditions on your ships; if not, we will take them ourselves"? The Government would have indeed a tremendous task to undertake the duty of providing British seamen for British ships. I must apologise for taking up so much time. There are speeches which I shall be unable to touch, but I hope to be able to deal to-morrow with some interesting points which have been raised in the course of the Debate. Allusion has been made to the supply of the Reserve from the Colonies. That is a subject to which I have not been able to give much attention, but there are certainly very great administrative difficulties connected with it. You require batteries, you require instructors, and you require great organisation; therefore the establishment of a Reserve is a matter of very considerable difficulty. But I do not wish to exclude the consideration of a policy which I know commends itself, not only to many men in this country, but also to many of our fellow subjects in the Colonies. I content myself with saying that there are considerable administrative difficulties in the way. Now, Sir, reference has been made to the training of our boys, and one hon. Member expressed the opinion that we are entirely in the wrong in taking boys for the training ships as old as 18. We have had reports from captains in the Mediterranean on this matter, and these reports are to the effect that, though these lads are mot generally able to swim, there is otherwise very little difference between them and those who have been trained from an earlier age in our ships. The House will understand that this was a Measure that was adopted in a transitional state, and so soon as we have reached what I may call the normal stage the whole subject will, no doubt, be reconsidered. A minor point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the depôt at Walmer, where we no longer train recruits for the Artillery, who are now trained at headquarters. The right hon. Gentleman is
  1340
  correct in saying that the state of things there is not an ideal state of things, and suggests that more accommodation there shall be secured, but we must remember that we are pressed on account of the rapid increase we have made in the Marines. While we are raising 1,000 men a year as well as the men to meet the waste, of course there are many more recruits than when we are only raising recruits to meet the waste. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, as to the total number of men asked for, I only threw it out as a general suggestion that 106,000 should be the maximum. We are working up to a certain number, and I think we are approaching the maximum. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked some questions as to the manning of our ships. By taking only a portion of the Reserve we are able to man the ships which we should send to sea, and as every year we introduce fresh first-class modern ships into our Navy a certain number of the older ships are struck off, and this very year, when we agreed to our programme, we made a careful examination as to how those ships were to be manned, and the result of the examination showed that we should be able to send all these ships to sea, fully manned and provisioned. It would be, of course, folly to go on building ships unless we saw a prospect of having them properly manned, and the manning of the ships is certainly a subject which occupies the attention of the Admiralty quite as much as the building of ships. I have been asked to reconsider the question of the age of cadets, and an hon. Member said that he hoped that the system which I have introduced would not be eternal. The system cannot be eternal, because I cannot be eternal. If it be true that most people believe it to be wrong—a view which I do not share—there is nothing in the arrangements to prevent a change, if change should be desirable. Nor have I, I hope, that class of mind or that kind of pride which would lead me, because I have introduced this system, to refuse to permit a change if I found that the system did not work well. As it is, I have no proof that it does not work well, and nothing has been said to show that these cadets will not be as satisfactory as the boys who joined the Navy at the age of 11.

  1341
  There is now a great advance in education; and if boys come better prepared to the Britannia they may be able to do in six months more specialised work than formerly they would have been able to do after two years. We want to relieve our officers, as much as possible, of the work which is ordinarily taught in schools. There is another reason which commends itself to my own mind, and I should have thought would have commended itself to the hon. Member. I do not like the idea of taking a boy at 12 years of age and specialising him from that time forward. I like to think of our boys enjoying, as long as possible, the same general education that is gone through by other boys. I do not like to think of a class of boys who, from the earliest age, are to be taken off their general education and set down, almost as infants, to plod at mathematics, for instance, in order that they may compete in an examination. Therefore, I cannot say that I see my way to making any change in the system I have introduced. At the same time, we must see that the boys who now enter the Navy are properly reported on, and, if the profession tells me that the system is a mistake, I promise that I shall be ready to consider the question of the repeal of these Regulations. Those who declare that the public schools are not qualified to prepare boys for the Britannia should remember that it was a Harrow boy who took the first place in the last examination. That shows, I think, that the public schools are well able to send up lads, without any necessity for their going to crammers. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I may appeal to the House to allow you to leave the Chair. I should not make that appeal if it were not that to-morrow we are going to take a Vote upon this, when every topic we have dealt with to-day can be discussed, and discussed fully. While the Speaker is in the Chair it is impossible for me to reply to every question which hon. Members may desire to put to me, and as I expect that their object is less to put questions than to get answers, I should recommend them, in their own interests, to let us get at once to the Committee stage, when I can answer fully whatever questions may be put to me.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  DR. TANNER: Hear, hear! Amen.
  MR. SPEAKER: I warn the hon. Member that if he continues to make these disorderly observations I shall have to call upon him to leave the House.
  DR. TANNER: Hear, hear!

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed—

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1898–99.
  "That 106,390 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, including 18,005 Royal Marines."
  Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY [7th March.]
  Resolution reported—
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1897–98.

  CLASS VII.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,810, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1898, for expenditure in connection with certain Public Works, and for improved Communications, and other purposes, within the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including a Grant in Aid."

  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £44,789, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1898, to make good certain sums written off from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund."

  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £45,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1898, for a Grant in Aid to the Highland Railway Company of the cost of constructing a Line of Railway and certain Piers."

  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,038, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1898, for certain Expenditure, including sundry Grants in Aid, in connection with the Relief of Distress in Ireland."

  Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY [4th March.]
[SECOND ALLOTTED DAY.]
Resolution reported—

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1898–99 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
"That a sum, not exceeding £13,900,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, viz.—

CIVIL SERVICES.
CLASS II.

£

Home Office

40,000

CLASS I.

Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

12,000

Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

38,000

Houses of Parliament Buildings

12,000

Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

22,000

Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

10,000

Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

9,000

Revenue Buildings

120,000

Public Buildings, Great Britain

100,000

Surveys of the United Kingdom

80,000

Harbours, Etc., under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses Abroad

7,000

Peterhead Harbour

6,000

Rates on Government Property

210,000

Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

70,000

Railways, Ireland

70,000

CLASS II.

United Kingdom and England—

House of Lords, Offices

6,000

House of Commons, Offices

13,000

Treasury and Subordinate Departments

30,000

Foreign Office

22,000

Colonial Office

14,000

Privy Council Office, etc.

5,000

Board of Trade

60,000

Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

20,000

Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

3

Board of Agriculture

75,000

Charity Commission

14,000

Civil Service Commission

13,000

Exchequer and Audit Department

20,000

Friendly Societies Registry

2,200

Local Government Board

65,000

Lunacy Commission

5,000

Mint (including Coinage)

10

National Debt Office

5,000

Public Record Office

8,000

Public Works Loan Commission

800

Registrar General's Office

13,000

Stationery and Printing

230,000

Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

7,000

Works and Public Buildings, Office of

19,000

Secret Service

17,000

Resolutions reported;

Scotland—

£

Secretary for Scotland

4,000

Fishery Board

8,000

Lunacy Commission

2,000

Registrar General's Office

2,000

Local Government Board

4,000

Ireland—

Lord Lieutenant's Household

2,000

Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments

15,000

Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

700

Local Government Board

25,000

Public Record Office

2,000

Public Works Office

12,000

Registrar General's Office

5,500

Valuation and Boundary Survey

6,000

CLASS III.

United Kingdom and England—

Law Charges

40,000

Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

18,000

Supreme Court of Judicature

120,000

Land Registry

2,700

County Courts

10,000

Police, England and Wales

14,000

Prisons, England and the Colonies

180,000

Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

140, 000

Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

10,000

Scotland—

Law Charges and Courts of Law

30,000

Register House, Edinburgh

13,000

Crofters Commission

2,000

Prisons, Scotland

25,000

Ireland—

Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

24,000

Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

38,000

Land Commission

40,000

County Court Officers, etc.

36,000

Dublin Metropolitan Police

28,000

Constabulary

600,000

Prisons, Ireland

45,000

Reformatory and Industrial Schools

55,000

Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

2,500

CLASS IV.

United Kingdom and England—

Public Education, England and Wales

3,600,000

Science and Art Department, United Kingdom

200,000

British Museum

54,000

National Gallery

8,000

National Portrait Gallery

2,500

Scientific Investigations, etc., United Kingdom

12,000

Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

38,000

London University

5

1345

Scotland—

£

Public Education

600,000

National Gallery

1,400

Ireland—

Public Education

600,000

Endowed Schools Commissioners

300

National Gallery

900

Queen's Colleges

2,500

CLASS V.

United Kingdom and England—

Diplomatic Services and Consular Services

220,000

Uganda Central, and East Africa, Protectorates and Uganda Railway

85,000

Colonial Services

125,000

Cyprus, Grant in Aid

32,000

Slave Trade Services

500

Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

35,000

CLASS VI.

Superannuation and Retired Allowances

270,000

Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc.

3,000

Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

1,000

Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

130,000

Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

9,000

CLASS VII.

Temporary Commissions

8,000

Miscellaneous Expenses

1,000

Total for Civil Services

£9,070,518

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

Customs

280,000

Inland Revenue

650,000

Post Office

2,600,000

Post Office Packet Service

218,000

Post Office Telegraphs

1,081,482

Total for Revenue Departments

£4,829,482

Grand Total

£13,900,000

CAPTAIN D. V. PIRIE: I am aware, Sir, I am taking an exceptional step in moving a reduction of the Vote by £100, but the situation to which I intend to draw the attention of the House is an exceptional one, and I must really on behalf of my constituents enter a protest against the very great injustice under which the port of Aberdeen is at the present, moment suffering. I allude to the most unfair treatment in the closing of the port to foreign trawlers, and so preventing profit to the trade of the town, while at the same time English
1346
ports are open to these foreign trawlers. I have only to appeal to the feeling of justice which ought to animate English Members who look at the matter in a fair light. Aberdeen, and Scottish ports in general, are suffering under a real grievance, in this matter. It is an anomaly which cannot be allowed to continue. Originally in last year, when the Scotch ports were first closed, the proposal might have been treated without the same injustice as at present, but now that the object for which the legislation was made no longer exists, it is absurd that the regulations should continue. There is absolutely no breaking of the law by these foreign trawlers, but the fact is that the evil, instead of diminishing, is increased in Moray Firth. It is because I see no possibility of the evil ending under the existing state of affairs that I enter my protest on behalf of my constituents against this policy being continued. As I have said, the number of these trawlers is in no way diminishing. On the contrary, at the present moment I learn on reliable authority that there are no less than 11 trawlers at work in Moray Firth, all flying a foreign flag, and that they are actually engaging British seamen who have a knowledge of the Firth. Such a state of affairs is really nothing less than a public scandal, and it is exciting general indignation in Scotland. The loss to the Scotch fishermen is estimated at £2,000 per annum per boat, which sum is going to English ports; and not only that, but these foreign trawlers are taking the very best and the highest priced fish from the Moray Firth. It is well known that the flat fish which frequent Moray Firth is the most valuable and the highest priced of all fish. I trust the Lord Advocate will be able to assure the House that this state of affairs will not be allowed to continue very much longer. We are suffering not only from the matter I have already alluded to, but the Icelandic fishing, which is a most important thing so far as the Scotch ports are concerned, is in danger of being lost to them entirely. The advantage which the Scottish ports would naturally offer for Icelandic fishing is altogether lost. Unless the Lord Advocate can give us some hope that this grievance will be remedied, I must move the reduction of the Vote.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out '£13,900,000,' and insert '£13,899,000' instead thereof."—(Captain Pirie.)
Question proposed "That '£13,900,000' stand part of the Resolution."
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I think the hon. Gentlemen representing the Scotch fishing industry cannot complain that they have not had ample opportunity of bringing their grievances before the public, because I think that this is the second discussion that we have had upon this matter within about 48 hours. The hon. Member is probably aware that to-day, also, the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself have had the honour of receiving a deputation upon the same subject, and, I may say, that the views expressed to us were in precisely the opposite direction from those which we have heard to-day, and from the prevailing tone of the Scotch Members during the last Debate.
CAPTAIN PIRIE: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid he misunderstands what I said. I have been referring not to foreign trawling in Moray Firth, but to the closing of the Scottish ports to foreign trawlers while English ports are open to them.
*MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: If that is the grievance of the hon. Gentleman, I am glad to say that I need not detain the House very long in dealing with it. The port of Aberdeen is closed and English ports are open to foreign trawlers because the Statute says that the fish caught in contravention of the bye-laws are not to be landed in Scotland; it does not say that they are not to be landed in England. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government are doing what they are bound to do—they are merely carrying out the law as it at present happens to be. I only say to the hon. Member that, personally, I should be most glad to close English ports if I could, as well as Scotch ports, although I do not think the hon. Member would be any better off for the interests he represents than he is at present. That is merely a personal opinion, but, however, I cannot alter the
1348
law. All the Government has to do is simply to see that the law as it stands on the Statute Book is carried out.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. T. LOUGH: I would remind the House that there is one matter which was left over when this Vote was in Committee, and it was quite understood that we should have an answer about it when it came to the Report stage. I shall not detain the House at this hour at any length, but there is one point upon which I think I am entitled to require a substantial answer. Before I come to that I would like to draw the attention of the House to the matter of reporting the Debates. It is really most unsatisfactory. The grievance has been to some extent remedied by an answer given by the right hon. Member opposite to-day to the effect that the old practice of sending to Members two proofs of questions and answers would be reverted to. But, I think, any one who has looked at the Debates this Session will see that the reporting is being very badly done, and I cannot see why any change should have been made in the old arrangement. Apart from the badness of the reporting, the Reports are very slowly circulated. Instead of Members getting proofs within two or three days as we used to, we have now to wait nine or ten days. There was another incidental advantage under the old system. Under the last contract, I believe, the reporting was carried on by the Times, and a much ampler report of the proceedings was given in that newspaper, especially with regard to answers to questions. People in the country got into the habit of taking the paper for the sake of its full Parliamentary report. That was an advantage to the country generally—an indirect advantage, which ought not to be lightly thrown aside. I trust we may have some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury as to why the change has been made, and why the advantages which we enjoyed last Session should, by a new arrangement, be lost to the House. Then, Sir, I have one remark to make with regard to a matter, in which, I think, the Board of Agriculture has not kept faith with the House—I mean with regard to the promised

1349
amelioration concerning the muzzling of dogs. I think we ought to have some definite statement from the President of the Board of Agriculture as to the course he intends to pursue in regard to a grievance which is felt in all parts of the country. Now, I mentioned that there was one substantial question left over for discussion at the Report stage: it is a question of very great interest, and, unless I can get a satisfactory answer, I shall have to move a reduction of the Vote. When I raised the question of the administration of the Board of Trade with regard to the service of workmen's trains in the metropolitan district, perhaps owing to the influence of the dinner hour, I got a most unsatisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman. I mentioned several railways, which provided no workmen's trains after 6.15. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a return for the year 1890, issued by the London County Council. If he had referred to the last return, issued in 1897, he would have found that there were several railways, which ran no workmen's trains after 6.40 in the morning. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought that 6.40 was a very fair hour at which workmen's trains should cease to run. Now I want to refer to the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, to show that the Board of Trade has absolute power to force the railway companies to give these facilities. By Section 3 of that Act the Board have power to interfere,
"If the Board of Trade have reason to believe.… that upon any railway carrying passengers proper and sufficient workmen's trains are not provided for workmen going to and returning from their work, at such fares and at such times between six o'clock in the evening and eight o'clock in the morning as appear to the Board of Trade to be reasonable."
The Act does not say 6.40; it goes on to 8 o'clock, and it places very drastic powers in the hands of the Board of Trade. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is that he does not step in to strengthen and supplement the efforts of the London County Council. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself
1350
will see that the present position is most unsatisfactory, and I trust he will see the necessity of taking a firm stand with the companies, in which he will be only putting himself into line with former Presidents of the Board of Trade. Unfortunately, he has, not only in this but in other matters, shown himself to be not sufficiently firm in dealing with the railway companies. You can deal with them in a courteous manner, but you must be firm. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of replying, I move to reduce the Vole by £100, in respect of the item for the Board of Trade.
Amendment proposed, to leave out "£13,900,000" and insert "£13,899,900" instead thereof.—(Mr. Lough).
Question proposed—
"That '£13,900,000' stand part of the Resolution."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The hon. Member suggests that I should put myself in line with previous Presidents of the Board of Trade in regard to this matter. I fail to see how that suggestion is reconcilable with the statement the hon. Member also makes that the evil of which he complains has continued in exist for some years. It would appear, at any rate, that if I have not succeeded in satisfying the views the hon. Member takes of the duties of a President of the Board of Trade, I share that misfortune with more than one of my predecessors. Now, Sir, this question is not by any means free from complication. As the hon. Member knows, there is more than one class of persons who come into London to whom consideration ought to be shown in regard to these matters. There are the workmen's trains, by which ordinary workmen are supposed to travel; there is also a large number of persons, many of them females, who do not require, perhaps, to come to London quite so early in the morning, but who require special

1351
facilities because they have to live at a distance from the business centres in which they gain their livelihood. The hon. Member has stated that it is entirely in the power of the Board of Trade to impose regulations on the railway companies. I may remino him that in the very Act to which he has referred he will find that there is an appeal provided to the railway companies, and that the Board of Trade are bound to act in a reasonable manner in enforcing any powers that they have. The hon. Member admits that in regard to the great bulk of the railway companies they do fairly meet the public requirements. He said the other day, I think, that there were two companies that were in default, the Great Northern and the Midland.
MR. LOUGH: And the Great Western.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Well, Sir, I quite agree that there is a responsibility on the Board of Trade to see that the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act are complied with, and that proper facilities are given; and I think it is desirable that I should ascertain from certain of the railway companies what are their reasons for not giving the facilities which are given by other companies. I propose to put myself into communication with these companies with a view to ascertaining what are the difficulties that they sider stand in their way; and if it is possible to remove those diffculties I will undertake that they shall be removed.
MR. LOUGH: After the satisfactory answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment. [No, No!"]
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  Order of the Day for Second Reading read. Objection taken.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELD: By the courtesy of the House, I hope I may be allowed to make an appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who object. This is a Bill which embodies a report of a conference of inspectors of weights and measures submitted to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade have sent that report to all the local authorities in the country. Nearly 80 per cent. of these, including the authorities of such important cities such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Wolverhampton, Glasgow, Liverpool, Ipswich, and a number of counties, approve of its recommendations, which are embodied in this Measure. The Bill is absolutely non-contentious and non-pertisan. I do appeal to hon. Members to let the Bill be read a second time. Whatever discussion may be necessary upon it can well be taken in the Committee stage.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

TEINDS AND FIARS' PRICES BILL.
To amend the Law of Teinds and to abolish Fiars' Prices in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Renshaw, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir Thomas Gibson Carmichael, Mr. Gordon, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Robert Wallace (Perth), Mr. Cross, Mr. Cox, and Mr. Nicol.
Presented accordingly, and read the first time. To be read a second time upon Wednesday, 11th May, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
The House adjourned at 12.20.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack a few minutes before Half-past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.
  KINGSTOWN AND KINGSBRIDGE JUNCTION RAILWAY ABANDONMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time.
  BUENOS AYRES NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    RIOTS IN BOMBAY.
    LORD REAY: My Lords, as I see that the Under Secretary of State for India is in his place to-day, I wish to ask him whether he can give the House any recent information respecting the riots in Bombay?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The EARL of ONSLOW): The Secretary of State has been in telegraphic communication with the Governor of Bombay, with reference to the disturbances which have taken place in that city, but no telegram has been received within the last 24 hours from Bombay.
    1162
    Two came in yesterday, which I will read to the House. The first is—
    "No disturbance till to-day. Have just heard serious riot took place this morning in Bombay city on account of attempted removal of plague patient to hospital. Four men killed, three very seriously injured; three police officers injured, one very seriously. Mr. Dastur, a Parsee, one of the Presidency magistrates, injured. Riot over for the present. Military sent for."
    The second telegram, which followed after a few hours, was—
    "In continuation of my telegram, Commissioner of Police is now with me. He says there was an additional outbreak in adjoining part of town. Two rioters killed by fire. Promiscuous rioting in several streets; two British soldiers were killed, and another seriously injured; five more European police officers injured; several private Europeans were attacked and injured. No rioting since about 4 p.m. Principal streets and hospitals guarded by European and native troops. Rioting commenced in quarter inhabited by Julais, a sect of fanatical Mahomedans. Have asked the General Officer Commanding, Poona, for some cavalry."
    There is no official information beyond these telegrams, but the Secretary of State is in daily communication with the Governor, and we shall no doubt receive further information either this evening or to-morrow.

    LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): I move that the House now resolve itself into Select Committee on this Bill.
    House went into Committee accordingly.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: My Lords, on Clause 1 I am in a position now to state the names of the gentlemen who will form the Commission. Probably it will be more regular to move that they be inserted in the Bill at a subsequent stage. I may, perhaps, say that they are the same as those contained in the Bill of last year, with one exception. Lord Lister was, for certain reasons, not

    1163
    anxious to be re-nominated, and his resignation has enabled us to repair an omission which had been made, and by which there was no Member on the Statutory Commission who was directly connected with the University College. The only change that has been made is the insertion of the name of Professor Michael Foster instead of Lord Lister. The names of the Commissioners are as follows: Lord Davey (Chairman), the Bishop of London, Sir William Roberts, M.D., Sir Owen Roberts, D.C.L., Professor Jebb, M.P., Professor Michael Foster, and Mr. Busk (Chairman of Convocation).
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: With regard to Clause 2 there are some verbal amendments I wish to move. On page 2, line 11, I move to leave out "ninety-eight," and insert "ninety-nine," and in lines 16 and 17 to leave out "one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine" and insert "one thousand nine hundred."
    Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
    *EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I have given notice of a small Amendment to Clause 3, at the end of sub-section 1—viz., to add after the word "affected" the following words, "or the County Council of any county adjoining the County of London." The reason I move this Amendment is to include the Agricultural College of Wye, which has been established by the County Council for Surrey and Kent, within the purview of the Bill. The object of this college, which is doing really good work, is to give lectures, to try field experiments, and in other ways to promote agricultural research. It is just outside the 30 miles radius, but inasmuch as the Gresham Commission has recommended that there should be a Faculty of Agriculture attached to the University of London, I hope the Wye College, upon which the noble Duke has conferred the honour of a visit, will be favourably considered. We, who are interested in the Wye College, are anxious that it should
    1164
    have the advantages held out by the Bill, and that its professors should be, as it were, called "internal"—that is to say, included within the area of application to the Commission of the London University. This would not be contrary to the usual practice which has prevailed — viz., the grouping of colleges of University rank in territorial divisions. I may say that the Wye College is only just outside the 30 miles radius.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: The college is situated 60 miles away.
    *EARL STANHOPE: We considered it was only 46 or 47 miles distant. It seems longer by rail, but we are not blessed with rapid trains in this part of England. I hope the noble Duke will be able to consider this matter.
    *LORD ASHCOMBE: My Lords, as one of the Members representing the County of Surrey on the council of this college, I wish to support as strongly as possible the Amendment of my noble Friend. The Gresham Commission recognised that there should be a Faculty of Agriculture attached to the University of London. At the present moment there is no faculty provided for in the Bill. The Wye College is a thriving institution, and is doing excellent practical and scientific work. It is not only educating a number of young men, but its professors are giving lectures in various parts of the two counties, and carrying out scientific experiments. In addition to the visit of the noble Duke, it has already had one or two grants of Government money. I hope that, if the noble Duke feels he cannot agree to this Amendment now, he will take action subsequently on Report to relieve us of this grievance.
    *LORD THRING: Being a member of the County Council of Surrey, I ask that this college may be allowed to come within the University of London. It would be very hard indeed to the counties, which have made such a very great sacrifice, if this were not so. Surely, in this House, agriculture is not to be considered of little importance. Many other colleges with much less dignity than the

    1165
    Wye College will be included, and I earnestly hope the noble Duke will consent to the request made to him to-day. I am a Governor of Holloway College, and I am glad to see that that College is included. Although I cannot put Wye College on a par with Holloway College, I think it is one which ought to be included in the University of London, and I trust my noble Friend's application will be acceded to.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: My Lords, I am extremely anxious to meet, if possible, the wishes of the County Council and others who are interested in that very valuable institution, the Wye College. The object, however, of my noble Friends would not, I think, be entirely carried out by this Amendment alone, which would only enable the County Council of the counties interested to make representations to the Commissioners. In order to carry out the wishes which have been expressed further Amendments in the schedule would be necessary, one of which would refer to the 30 miles radius which has been mentioned. I have on several previous occasions had to mention that the conditions embodied in this schedule have been the result of a compromise between various interests arrived at after a great deal of negotiation and labour, and I am informed that one of the essential elements of that compromise was the insertion of some limit, and 30 miles was adopted as the limit. Well, my Lords, I am not altogether without hope that the difficulty may be got over, but I think it will be understood that I have to be very careful indeed how I disturb any of the provisions of that compromise which might lead to its being rejected by some of the parties to it. It is, therefore, necessary that I should make some further inquiries on the subject. I can assure my noble Friends that if I find it possible, without disturbing injuriously the compromise to which I have referred, I will see whether it is possible, on report, to insert a provision which would have the effect of admitting Wye College to any advantage which they might be able to obtain under the Bill.
    *EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I am thoroughly satisfied with the noble
    1166
    Duke's explanation. I think the position of Wye College is quite exceptional. No other county touching the London County Council, has, or is likely to have, an agricultural college, and in the interests of agriculture, in which we are all so much concerned, I trust the noble Duke will see his way to overcome the present difficulty. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    The remaining clauses agreed to without discussion.
    LORD ASHCOMBE: I had given notice to move in Section 8 of Part 1 of the Schedule, that after the words "University buildings," to add "and of the South Eastern Agricultural College of Wye"; but after what the noble Duke has said, I will not propose it. I withdraw it in the hope that we may have some satisfactory Amendments proposed from the Government Bench.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have an Amendment to propose in the Schedule. It is that after the word "recognised" (page 6, line 27), the words "by the Senate" be inserted. I think it would be better that it should be made clear what is meant by the word "recognised" It means here "recognised by the Supreme authority of the University," and, therefore, I think it would be better to put in the words "by the Senate." And I also move that, after line 27, the following be inserted as a new sub-section: "(c) In determining who shall be recognised as teachers of the University, the Senate shall first consult the Academic Council." The University, hitherto, has been a University for examining only, but now it is proposed, to the great satisfaction of all of us, that there shall be a teaching University. The Academic Council is the Executive specially concerned with this teaching part of the University, and it seems obvious that this Academic Council ought to be particularly consulted in regard to the appointment of teachers of the University. These teachers are to be selected with a view especially to those

    1167
    students who belong to the teaching part of the University. I hope the noble Duke will be willing to allow the insertion of the words "by the Senate," and of the little additional sub-section.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: My Lords, I am prepared to assent in principle to the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate. I suggest that the two Amendments might be conveniently thrown into one. I do not think that a new sub-section is necessary. I think the object of the most rev. Prelate will be accomplished if sub-section B were to read as follows—
    "Members of the teaching staffs of public educational institutions, situate within a radius of 30 miles from the University, who have been recognised by the Senate, after consulting with the Academic Council, as teachers of the University."
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am quite willing to accept that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I move that in line 32, page 7, after "represent" the words "as far as possible" be inserted. It stands here: "The Degrees conferred shall represent the same standard of knowledge and attainment." It is obvious it would be very difficult indeed to secure such a result as this except in a very broad and general sense, because the examinations will probably be conducted by different persons and will, to a certain extent, have a different character, and unless we put in some words which shall imply that there is not to be an attempt to do what is not really possible, I fear the time may come when it will be urged that the Senate ought to get rid of separate examinations in order to attain the object expressed in the words: "The Degrees conferred shall represent the same standard of knowledge and attainment." It is obvious, you may say, that these words are unnecessary, because they are understood, but I am rather anxious about this whole clause. The truth is, that if ever we get rid of separate examinations we shall drift back again
    1168
    into the very condition which we are striving now to get out of. The University of London was established, originally, with the idea of its being a teaching University, but it gradually became nothing more than an examining board. As an examining board it has done marvellously good work, but at the same time an examining board and a teaching University are two distinct things, and the result that is attained in the one case and the other is not always precisely the same. The real purpose of a teaching University is to bring the students into contact with great minds, and you want, therefore, above everything else, to get men of very great ability, and if possible genius, to be professors. The result will be that the inspiration of such men will make your University a real instrument for moulding the intellects of its students. There can be no question at all that you may have two men, who apparently have precisely the same amount of knowledge, and yet the one man has something about his knowledge which distinguishes him entirely from the other man. We constantly find, when we examine self-taught men, that there is a real difference between them and men who have been in contact with superior minds in their instruction. A man who has been in contact with a really superior mind has obtained something which his own personal learning would never have given him, and yet in an examination he would show the same amount of knowledge as the other man. It would be the same in quantity, but different in quality. I think this ought to be safeguarded in every possible way, and it is for this reason that I wish to insert these words. A little below, on the same page, and as part of the same clause, I wish to add, at the end of line 35, the following words: "and submitted to the Academic Council and the Council for external students." In every case a regulation, before it is passed by the Senate, should be fairly considered by the two Councils, which, are the executive of the Senate in doing all this work. They ought to be consulted in order to be able to put before the Senate what are the reasons for keeping up the system of separate examination. The maintenance of separate examinations is vital to the University if it is to be a teaching University. I know perfectly well that it

    1169
    is not easy to make this practically intelligible to those who have not themselves been engaged in teaching, but I doubt whether any real teacher would differ from what I am saying in regard to this.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: I am not quite sure whether my noble Friend opposite has not some objection to the alteration proposed. I do not feel that I am a very competent authority to decide whether these words are necessary or not. It seems to me that the words contained in the schedule: "The Degrees conferred shall represent the same standard of knowledge and attainment," must necessarily mean, "as far as possible." The two separate examinations cannot represent an exactly equal or equivalent standard of knowledge or attainment, and I should have thought the words were unnecessary. However, unless objection is taken to them by my noble Friend opposite, I have no objection to their insertion.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I agree with the noble Duke that these words are not necessary, and that they produce no effect. At the same time I do not think they make any difference. With regard to what the most rev. Prelate has said about his fear lest the course which was adopted many years ago should be adopted again by the Senate—namely, that of endeavouring to destroy the teaching part of the University, and make it a mere examining University—I think this fear is altogether ill-founded, because it must be remembered that the circumstances are altogether changed. At the time that course was taken by the University, there was no provision for those external or non-collegiate students. They are now provided for, and there is no fear that the scheme will not be loyally carried out in letter and spirit by the Senate, when it comes into existence. At the same time, if the noble Duke sees no objection to the insertion of the words I see none, but if I am asked whether I think they make any difference I must candidly confess that I do not think they do, because they are implied in the provisions as they now stand.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I cannot, of course, say how the matter will work in the future. It is always difficult to prophesy these things. I should have preferred altering this clause altogether, but I supposed there was some agreement on the matter, and it seemed to me that as it was of no use to propose a complete alteration of it, the best thing to do would be to put in this safeguard.
    *LORD THRING: My Lords, I do not think it is advisable to put in the words "as far as possible." I have had great experience in examinations, and I do not agree with the most rev. Prelate as to their effect. A good examination shows the degree of knowledge which the man possesses, and I think the whole object of the clause is to make it plain to the public that the external students are not to be distinguished from the internal students. If you put in the words "as far as possible" it does intimate the possibility of there being a difference. I think the insertion of these words would be mischievous.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I will not go into a discussion as to what the possible effect of the insertion of these words will be. I should be inclined to agree that they would make no difference. But the noble Duke is very well aware of the very extreme difficulty there has been in bringing about an agreement as to this Bill. None but those who have taken part in the proceedings are aware of the great jealousy existing between persons holding different views, and I should be rather afraid lest more objections should be raised by the insertion of these words. I suggest whether it would not be more prudent that the words, not being really necessary, should not be put in.
    Amendment negatived and Schedule agreed to.
    Bill as Amended reported to the House.

    EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, after this Bill has been passed so often in your Lordships' House, and twice

    1171
    read a second time in the House of Commons—once, 20 years ago, by a majority of 109, and only last year by a majority of 200 to 41—I should not have troubled your Lordships with many words upon the Motion for its Second Reading but that there has been persistently of late an effort to misrepresent its object, and I think so mistaken an apprehension of its effect, that I will ask your Lordships indulgence for a few moments, though, perhaps, I shall be only repeating an already oft-repeated thesis. One learned Gentleman thinks it right to say that this Bill, ostentatiously put before the public as intended for the protection of the innocent, is not framed in the interest of prisoners at all, whether innocent or guilty, but to ensure that more of them are convicted. My Lords, I am not very much concerned by such an accusation. I share the responsibility with the late Lord Bramwell, the late Mr. Russell Gurney, my noble Friend Lord Herschell, and Mr. Evelyn Ashley. My Lords, I am not certain that I should recommend such a change in the law merely upon what I should call expert authority. I am not certain that lawyers are, as a rule, the most enthusiastic law reformers; but when I see it appealed to on the other side by dogmatic and peremptory appeals to the writer's own experiences, and the opinions of such authorities as the late Lord Chief Justice, the present Lord Chief Justice, and such judges as Mr. Justice Hawkins, Mr. Justice Mathew, Mr. Justice Wills, and Mr. Russell Gurney brushed aside as of no value or importance, beside the individual opinions of the gentlemen who take a different view, I think I should be content to rest even upon the balance of expert authority. But, my Lords, I think the authority of the Legislature ought not to be disregarded. For more than 20 years the Legislature has been steadily advancing in the direction in which I want your Lordships to follow. Whenever a new offence has been created, it has invariably, I believe, been accompanied by the provision that persons charged with it may be examined as witnesses. My Lords, it would be absolutely impossible to give any reason why, in respect of old offences, there should be one law of evidence, but in respect of new ones another and a different law should
    1172
    prevail. My Lords, I shall have to call your Lordships' attention presently to some of the absurdities of such a distinction and the anomalies to which it leads, but for the present I am only dealing with the sanction which the Legislature has given to the principle for which I am contending by passing some 20 or 30 Acts to enable accused persons to give evidence on their own behalf. It is said that this Bill makes a new departure in the Criminal Law. How little it is a new departure in the Criminal Law, and what absurd incongruities the present state of the law introduces, may be tersely explained by my learned Friend Sir Henry Bodkin Poland, who is, I suppose, another of the persons whose experience is of no value. Sir H. B. Poland writes—
    "It is impossible to allow the present anomalies to continue. I could fill a column of the Times with them. Let me state a few of them:—A man, charged with an indecent assault on a female, is a competent witness, but if he is charged with an indecent assault on a male he is not a competent witness. If he is charged with an act of indecency with intent to insult a female under the Vagrant Act he is not a competent witness; if he is accused of gross indecency with another male under the Statute, although not amounting to an assault, he is a competent witness. If a man is charged with forging a trade mark he is a competent witness; he is not a competent witness when charged with any other forgery. Suppose the whole case depends upon whether the accused wrote a particular letter or document. If he is charged with libel he can give evidence on his own behalf; but if he is charged with writing a threatening letter or with forgery he cannot give evidence."
    It is a further observation that, besides the anomalous state of the law thus disclosed, our own system of permitting anyone to prosecute anyone in the name of the Queen gives an option to an accuser to determine whether the person he accuses shall be heard as a witness or not. It will be observed from what I have read that there is a borderland, so to speak, between the different forms of charge, so that the accuser, by slightly varying the form of accusation, can determine whether the accused is an admissible witness or not. My Lords, I certainly do not mean to dogmatise in the peremptory tone which I have observed in some of the publications to which I have referred, but I have a right to express my own firm belief that injustice is not infrequently

    1173
    committed by the exclusion of the accused from the witness-box, and, arguing from what I think is the common sense of the matter, I ask if any one of your Lordships were accused falsely of something, would not your first demand be to be confronted with your accuser and give your own account of the transaction? My Lords, it is said, and said with a certain amount of plausibility, that in great causes célèbres, where eminent counsel are engaged on each side, everything is done which can be done to elicit the truth; but it appears to be forgotten that there are daily occasions where this question of excluding the accused from giving evidence arises in a very practical form. A policeman gets into an altercation with someone. He may lose his temper—after all, policemen are mortal. He takes his antagonist into custody. He can give his own account; his antagonist cannot be examined at all. I know it is said he can make his statement. My Lords, that is an absolutely illusory reply. What is wanted is that he can make his statement so that it may be cross-examined and tested by the judge or magistrate who has to decide to which witness he will give credit. Some people argue as if their only notion of cross-examination were to puzzle and confuse an honest witness. My Lords, that is certainly not my idea of cross-examination, but a real and properly conducted cross-examination makes the true case more apparent, while it breaks down falsehood. I am reluctant to refer to cases which may give pain, but I think the cases of the Oxford professor and the Oxford undergraduate must be in the recollection of some of your Lordships, and, without pronouncing absolutely on which side was the truth in these two cases, I think I may ask, with some confidence, whether it was very satisfactory that the accused in these two cases were not able to make in Court the statements they afterwards made in the Press, and be cross-examined upon them? I think I ought to mention here that that most able and experienced magistrate, Sir John Bridge, has expressed to me his hearty desire that this Bill should become law. My Lords, I have received from Sir Herbert Stephen a publication which is intended, as indeed he states, to raise an opposition to this Bill, and
    1174
    I am desirous of treating with every respect opinions given by one who professes to speak from actual experience; but he must forgive me for saying that I cannot recognise the superiority of his experience to that of Her Majesty's judges. But undoubtedly some statements made by him require, and have caused me to inquire, so far as they are capable of being tested, whether he is right. Now, one statement of his is this: that in those cases tried on the Northern Circuit whereof he has been a spectator, where prisoners have been examined as witnesses, on an average three or four persons a year who have been convicted are innocent. Of course, for the purpose of the argument one has to assume that these people were innocent, though the jury thought otherwise, that their conviction was produced by their giving evidence, and that they would have been acquitted had they not given evidence. No names or cases are referred to as a foundation for this extraordinary statement, and one has to rely altogether upon Sir Herbert Stephen's judgment upon each of these propositions; but I have endeavoured to test it, vague as it is, by the only mode in which I could think of testing it, and that was by applying to the Home Office for the statistics of the Northern Circuit, and, as far as they are able to inform me, there is no trace of any such case. Your Lordships are aware that a great number of those who are sentenced in the Assize and other Courts resort to the Home Office (as exercising the prerogative of mercy) for a reconsideration of their cases. It certainly appears as if no one who has, or whose friends have, any ingenious suggestion to make why the decision of the Court should be questioned, ever refrains from communicating with the Home Office. It is almost incredible that no person has been found to complain of this state of things, if anyone has been, in fact, aggrieved. I must also say that it is very unsatisfactory to find in such a statement of the case as I have referred to such loose language as that the number of cases under the Criminal Law Amendment Act during each year on the Northern Circuit is from one to two hundred. In the 10 years to which the writer appeals we know not whether he means that there were 1,000 or 2,000. This is the

    1175
    more unsatisfactory, as the Judicial statistics do not appear to me to warrant even the lower figure. On this subject I have received a communication from the Home Office as follows—
    "In answer to your letter of the 15th ultimo, I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you, for the information of the Lord Chancellor, that he has no ground for believing that there are any appreciable number of cases in which innocent defendants have been convicted in consequence of having proffered themselves in evidence. Among the numerous pleas brought forward, it is very seldom, if ever, urged that the prisoner had been prejudiced at the trial by giving evidence; and the Secretary of State cannot recall a single instance in which such a plea has been made a ground for advising a total or partial remission of sentence. Scarcely a day passes without one petition at least being received at this Office, from either a prisoner or the friends of a prisoner, who has been convicted in a case in which he might have given evidence in his own behalf, and if it were a fact that in cases of this kind the law of evidence has wrought injustice to innocent defendants, the Secretary of State thinks it certain that the fact would have been brought to the notice of his Department. The entire absence of any evidence in the experience of the Office in support of Sir Herbert Stephen's statement seems to him fairly strong evidence that it is not common under the existing law for innocent defendants to prejudice their cause by giving evidence on their own behalf. He has caused an examination to be made of all the petitions received from or on behalf of prisoners convicted at the Assizes held on the Northern Circuit, in 1894 and 1895, of offences in respect of which the prisoner is made a competent witness by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. Other cases in which the accused is a competent witness under other Statutes are of such rare occurrence at Assizes that they may practically be left out of account. These years were selected in preference to later years, in order to ensure that all the prisoners who are likely to petition should have done so. Eighty-six of such prisoners were convicted, and the accompanying table shows the pleas on which petitions on their behalf were based. In no case did the prisoner allege that he had been injured by giving evidence himself or by refusing to do so. Indeed, the only allusion to this question which is to be found in these petitions is a statement that the judge asked the prisoner to go into the box, but that the latter refused because he felt confused. Apparently this man regretted that he had not given evidence."
    My Lords, the experience of the Home Office, I need not say, is not confined to one circuit, and the entire absence of any such complaint during a period of 13 years seems to me to be indeed an example of experience against theory, to
    1176
    use a phrase whereby Sir Herbert Stephen distinguishes what he considers his own experience as against the theoretical views, as he considers them, of the learned judges. My Lords, I have once or twice mentioned the name of Mr. Russell Gurney. That he was a most able and upright judge I should think no one would deny, and that his opinion on any such Act connected with the administration of the Criminal Law, I should think, would be acknowledged by everyone who had the advantage of knowing him; but there is a circumstance which appears to be unknown to Sir Herbert Stephen, which, even in his eyes, would give value to his testimony, and that is, that Mr. Russell Gurney studied this question in the United States and by the light of actual experience, where all accused persons are admissible as witnesses in respect of offences. I heard from his own lips the result of his investigations, and he told me that he thought that his experiences during that study had proved to his mind the great superiority of the system which allowed all the sources of investigation to be free, and that after what he had seen there, he could not entertain a doubt about the propriety of allowing accused persons to be heard as witnesses on their own behalf. This matter has now been five or six times before your Lordships' House, and I do hope that a great improvement in the law will now be carried out. I move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, like my noble and learned Friend I should not have intervened in the present Debate, for I have often expressed my views on the subject, were it not for the arguments recently placed before the public with a view to defeat the Measure which my noble and learned Friend has proposed. I quite agree with what my noble and learned Friend has said, that there are only two alternatives—namely, either to pass this Measure, or to repeal all those provisions in the law which have been passed during the last 20 years, permitting accused persons to give evidence. The present state of the law is utterly indefensible and ridiculous, and every argument used against the passing of this Bill into law is an argument in favour of the repeal of those provisions

    1177
    which the Legislature has passed in previous years. The case put before the public is this: Although there is much weight of authority on the part of those experienced in criminal trials in favour of the change, their opinion has been denounced without any experience of the effect of the change, and that the experience of the effect of the change by those who have watched these operations proves that the result would be, not beneficial, but mischievous. My Lords, I admit that my experience of accused persons giving evidence in their own favour is slight, and I am not going to generalise from it; but Sir Herbert Stephen is inaccurate when he says that I have had no experience of such cases. It so happens that I have had experience of evidence in a case which I think may be looked upon as a crucial one. I was prosecuting two persons charged with an offence under the Explosives Act, at a time when the charge was of a nature to excite a good deal of feeling and prejudice. The two prisoners elected to give evidence, and each was called as a witness; and if ever there was a case in which the accused was likely to suffer from going into the witness-box, that was such a case. The prisoners were acquitted, I believe, quite rightly. I felt satisfied at the time it was to their advantage that they had been able to tell their story; and, even though they told it under such circumstances as might be calculated in some degree to prejudice them, yet an opportunity might, nevertheless, prove to their advantage. My Lords, what is the experience which it is alleged renders this charge of no importance? It is to be found in the views which have been expressed by so many who have had to do with the administration of the criminal law, and to be the result of watching the effect of accused persons giving evidence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. I quite admit that this is a class of case in which there is, perhaps more than in any other individual class, the danger of a mistake being committed, as well as the danger of a miscarriage of justice. It is said that observation of these cases on the Northern Circuit, to which I had the honour to belong, shows that on an average three or four innocent persons have been convicted every year, for several years past, because they gave
    1178
    evidence on their own behalf. But no particulars are given; no facts are stated; no proof is offered. The assertion is made, and it rests entirely on the observation of the gentleman who has written the book to which my noble and learned Friend has referred. I have not had experience of trial in these cases during the last 12 or 13 years, but I have had experience for upwards of 20 years of the action of juries on the Northern Circuit, and I claim to be as good an authority as to the mode in which the criminal law was administered by those juries as the gentleman who wrote the book. I myself am not in the slightest degree satisfied—I say it with all respect—that, by the statement of Sir Herbert Stephen, he was right and the juries were wrong. Not a fact is given pointing to the possession of any such evidence, and, no doubt, it would have been forthcoming if it had beer in his possession. It is simply the impression produced on his mind that, in certain cases, the juries convicted where the accused were innocent. But that is not all. How can he prove that they were convicted, though innocent, because they gave evidence on their own behalf, and that if they had not given evidence on their own behalf they would have been acquitted? It is the merest speculation and I confess that my confidence in such a statement is very much shaken when any one dogmatises so far as to assert as a fact that innocent persons were convicted, the opinion being arrived at simply through the impression produced on his mind as an onlooker at the trial. There is another statement in the book which I think sufficiently startling. The learned gentleman says that the law allowing an accused person to give evidence entirely alters the attitude of mind of the jury, and that he is perfectly convinced of this by prolonged observation. Can any human being, by watching the course of the trial, so far master the internal consciousness of the jury as to know that the attitude of their mind is different in one case than in another, and that the question, as it presents itself, is different in one case from the same question in another case? I do not believe that it changes at all—the attitude is the same in every case. I do not believe that they put themselves

    1179
    any question excepting the one: "Is he guilty of the offence of which he is charged?—did he do it, or did he not?" I daresay that sometimes one juryman might view the question in one way, and another in a totally different way, but what they set themselves to determine is—"are we perfectly satisfied that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged?" That is the attitude of mind before, and that is the attitude of mind now, and I do not believe that, in the whole course of the day in which there were cases—we will say, in one of which the prisoner gives evidence, in the other of which he does not give evidence—their attitude oscillates from one condition to another, according to whether the prisoner can and does give evidence, and can and does not give evidence. I base my support of this Bill on the ground that it is right in principle. If a man is innocent of an offence, and desires to give evidence, and by so giving evidence submits himself to cross-examination, is it right that the law should preclude him from doing so on the mere fanciful delusion that if he can give evidence there are a certain number of cases where prisoners would benefit by it, although there will be a certain number of cases, and, it is suggested, a smaller one, where he would not? Is it right, because, possibly, in some cases prisoners would not benefit by it, to deprive a man of the possibility of telling his story as against the story on the other side, and submitting to have that story tested by the evidence of the time and place and circumstance? My Lords, it is an unsound principle, and I do not believe that an unsound principle will ever result in the wise, and just, and satisfactory administration of justice. My Lords, I admit that the opinions of lawyers are divided upon this question—there are certain opinions in favour of the change, there are some opinions the other way. But in support of which of the changes that had been made in the administration of the law have you found a unanimous consensus of opinion amongst the members of the profession? Why, my Lords, I believe that the judges were not unanimous upon the question as to whether you could safely abolish hanging people for committing thefts of articles of over 40s. in value, and some very distinguished judges in your Lordships' House expressed the strongest possible
    1180
    opinion that you could not safely make such a change in the law. The matter is not to be decided upon the authority of lawyers, or upon the experience, one way or the other, of this lawyer or that. When you have such a difference of opinion, it seems to me that you should go upon the question of principle—which is the sounder and the more defensible system—and in my opinion, the much more sound and defensible system is to allow a man, if he wishes to do so, to tell his own story in the witness-box. My Lords, it is said that the result of the change will be to alter, not only the attitude of the jury, but that of the counsel and of the judge towards the prisoner. It is said that counsel, in other cases, prosecute with quasi-impartiality, which disappears when they have to cross-examine a prisoner upon the evidence that he has given. That, I think, my Lords, is a good deal exaggerated. I think that the motives, the state of mind, the feelings which now dictate that quasi-impartial attitude, will not be destroyed by a change in the law such as this Bill proposes; and I hesitate very much to believe that in practice it will be found to be destroyed amongst the members of the circuit to which I had the honour to belong. My Lords, I would venture to throw out a suggestion for my noble and learned Friend—whether it might not be desirable to make a change of procedure which, at all events, would go far to remove some apprehensions such as that to which I have just alluded. Of course, anyone who has defended prisoners knows that it was the great object to avoid a reply from the other side—you wanted the last word, and, consequently, you sometimes hesitated to call witnesses whom you would have called if it would not have deprived you of the last word; and under this Bill, no doubt, you cannot call the prisoner, though there should be no other witness, without giving the right of reply. I think there is a great deal to be said for this change, that the advocate for the prisoner should always have the last word—that is to say, that, where the prisoner is called to give evidence on his own behalf, the counsel for the prosecution should make his speech upon the whole case as presented to the jury, and that the prisoner's advocate should make his speech upon the whole case as so

    1181
    presented. I think, upon the whole, it would be some advantage, but not an unfair advantage, to the prisoner, and I think that some of the dangers suggested as to the reply of the counsel for the prosecution, upon the effect of the prisoner giving evidence, would be mitigated, or, perhaps, altogether done away with, by a change of that description. There is one other matter to which I should like to allude also. There has always seemed to me to be a blot upon our present system in this respect—that when a person is charged with an offence, and brought before the Petty Sessions, before committal for trial, as soon as the evidence is concluded he is told that he can make any statement he pleases, but every effort seems to be made to prevent his making that statement. He is warned, and he is told that any statement which he makes will be taken down, and will be used against him. I confess that I do not see any satisfactory reason for that procedure, and I think it would be well that, instead of being as much as possible deterred from making a statement, he should be encouraged to make it at the earliest opportunity—for this reason: that, if he is an innocent man, it is likely to assist him when the case comes on for trial. The statement that he so makes may afford the means of corroboration of that statement, and it may satisfy the police authorities that there is evidence which would tell in his favour, which they would not otherwise be aware of. I remember a case in my own experience. A person was charged with stabbing a policeman. It was a very serious case, and, no doubt, if convicted, the punishment would have been very heavy. He called witnesses to prove that he was not near the spot, and he accounted for the wound which he had in some other way than that suggested by the prosecution—the suggestion being that he received it in the encounter with the policeman, because there was no doubt that the person who stabbed the policeman was severely wounded by him in return. The jury were unable to agree upon their verdict. I subsequently learned that there were nine in favour of a conviction and three against. The case consequently stood over to be heard at the next sessions. I found that the prisoner was not there for trial when the sessions came on. I made inquiry, and
    1182
    I was informed that, in the interval, the police had investigated the statements that were made on behalf of the prisoner at the former sessions, and had satisfied themselves that he was not the man. Now, obviously, it would have been a great advantage that this person should have told his own story in the first instance at the police court, and if he had done so there can be no doubt he would never have been imperilled at all. It was only by means of three of the jurymen holding out against the nine that he was not sentenced, in all probability, to several years' penal servitude. Therefore, my Lords, there seems to me to be a great advantage in prisoners telling their own story, and in their being invited to tell their own story, at the police court, instead of doing it in a manner which is calculated to do anything but induce them to bring forward their case at the time. I venture to suggest these two matters for the consideration of my noble and learned Friend, because, although they do not touch the question immediately of the prisoner giving evidence, I think they suggest steps which may be taken to mitigate to some extent the fears of those who are apprehensive of the results of the change.
    *LORD LUDLOW: My Lords, having had some considerable experience, both at the Bar and on the Bench, in the administration of the criminal law, I am anxious to say that I entirely approve of the principle of this Bill. It so happens that the first case that arose under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, was tried by myself at the Old Bailey. It was a very important case, it lasted eight or nine days, and whatever doubts I may have previously had with regard to the propriety of this change of the law were entirely removed during the course of that case. I do not propose to repeat the arguments which have been used both in this House and in the other House, and by many eminent authorities in the Press and elsewhere. They are well known. To my mind, the only real, substantial argument made against this Measure is one which I will now state. It it is this: that there is a fear that when the accused is made a competent witness, his not tendering himself as a witness will raise the inference of guilt

    1183
    against him in the minds of the jury. If I thought any such risk were likely to be incurred by an accused person, I should not be so favourable to this Measure as I am. But I do not believe in that idea. At the present moment a prisoner is invited to make a statement, and I have never heard or found that the mere effect of his not making a statement—of not endeavouring to explain his innocence—has in any way militated against him in the eyes of the jury, or induced them to convict him where otherwise they would not have done so. I do not believe that his not tendering himself as a witness would prejudice him with the jury any more than his not making a statement. I presume that the judge would tell the jury that the time-honoured principle, that the Crown is bound to make out the case beyond reasonable doubt, is a principle which still exists, and is a principle which the are to be guided by; and I do not for one moment believe that the fact of the accused party not tendering himself as a witness will then militate against him in any respect. Cases have been referred to showing the remarkable and intolerable anomalies in the criminal law as it now exists. I could illustrate those anomalies by numerous cases. A person is charged with common assault. He is able to explain it if he had an opportunity, but he cannot be called. If, on the other hand, he was charged with an indecent assault, he is a competent witness and can be called—in point of fact, making it depend upon the part of the body assaulted as to whether or not he can give evidence. Having regard to the experience I have had, I believe that this Measure is one which is loudly called for, and so far from in any way tending to the conviction of the innocent, it will be found to be a safeguard to the innocent, although I admit freely that it may bring about more convictions of the guilty.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can only say, with respect to what my noble and learned Friend has said, that the changes he suggests in the law of procedure of the criminal law does not seem to me to be at all unreasonable, because, as he says, though they do not arise immediately upon this Bill, some
    1184
    of the apprehensions which have been indicated may be removed by the changes he advocates. Of course, as to who last addresses a jury ought not in itself to make any difference to a jury, and I am not quite certain that it does make the difference that it is supposed to make. I am, of course, aware that it is supposed to make a difference as to who has the last word. A very distinguished lawyer once said that he did not care who had the last word so long as he had the first, but whether that is so or not I myself will not say, but if it at all facilitates the passage of this Bill, I can see no objections to the suggestion made by my noble and learned Friend. I have now only to say to your Lordships that I wish to present to you a petition from the Incorporated Law Society, who petition your Lordships in favour of this Bill. The petition runs as follows—
    "That in the opinion of your petitioners the existing law, which ignores the evidence of accused persons, produces substantial hardships and injustice, and the proposed alteration will be a great benefit to innocent persons who may be charged with offences, and will produce no hardships or injustice to those who are guilty. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the said pending Bill may be passed into law."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

    SECONDARY EDUCATION.
    *LORD NORTON: I beg to put the question to the Lord President of the Council, of which I have given notice, to ask him whether he contemplates stating before Easter what are the intentions of the Government with reference to legislation with respect to secondary education. I merely wish to add, my Lords, the reason why I raise this question so early in the Session. It is this: that some definite assurance is wanted on the part of the Government that they have this important question—one of the most important question's before Parliament—seriously in hand, and the principles on which they contemplate legislating upon it. This want is leading to the subject being dealt with largely by other bodies throughout the country—partly by private munificence,

    1185
    partly by municipal institutions on a still great scale with lavish expenditure of public rates, with such enthusiasm that their institutions are already treading on each other—and partly by County Councils, who, upon a system, I should think, unprecedented for absurdity in any age or country, have three-quarters of a million of public money per annum handed over to them to make tentative experiments in what they call or consider technical instruction, according to the fancy of the Councils themselves. If the Government intend to deal with this subject nationally, if they have any scheme in their minds of national secondary education, whether as a system for the whole kingdom, or, far better, in the way of subsidising undertakings on the part of independent local bodies, they should lose no time in letting the country understand that they have the subject in hand, and the principles upon which they intend to deal with it. Otherwise, there will be a preoccupation of the whole field of the subject, which will render their action, however wise, embarrassed and confused. We have experience that it is due to want of some definite understanding of this sort that has led to the primary education of this country being so utterly confused with the secondary education of the country that ii has led to most mischievous results, and made the action of both classes of education conflicting and ineffective. The waste of public money is the smallest mischief of the confusion of elementary and scientific education. The separation of the two is necessary, because we are all agreed, I think, that secondary and technical instruction should not be given as primary instruction is, entirely at the public expense for all classes, rich and poor. The State should not undertake to secondary education by way of scholar-cost to the sons of rich manufacturers, but public money should only give free secondary education by way of scholarships to the poor who can make use of them. It is for this reason, and with no distrust of the noble Duke's action, but with perfect confidence in the wisdom and good sense with which he will deal with the subject, that I hope that he will state now that he intends to take it up before long, and that even before that he will let the country
    1186
    understand the general principles upon which he is going to act, so that the whole field of his action may not be preoccupied and embarrassed.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: My Lords, I have for some time past, been giving a great deal of attention to this subject, and have brought it to a certain extent before the notice of the Government. As my noble Friend is aware, it was announced in Her Majesty's Speech that it was hoped that it would be possible for us to introduce a Bill upon the subject in the course of the present Session; but I do not think that I am able to state that it is at all likely that the Measure can be introduced into either House before Easter. I hope very strongly that after Easter it may be possible for me to make some announcement on the subject. After what has fallen from my noble Friend, I think I ought to make a reservation, and to state that it is not now, and never has been, the intention of the Government to do anything in the nature of establishing secondary education throughout the country. Any Measure which we might introduce would be solely for the purpose of organising in a better way that which already exists, and possibly supplement it to a certain extent; but the idea that what is being done by county authorities or municipal authorities or by private individuals is to be replaced by something which is to be done in the future by the Government is not one which in any way has ever been contemplated by the Government. I have no doubt that a certain amount of the £800,000 which has been given to the County Councils principally to be expended upon technical education, may have been at the outset misused, and perhaps a certain amount has been wasted; but, on the other hand, I believe that a very large portion of it is now being most usefully employed, with very great advantage in the various localities. It is not, as my noble Friend appears to suppose, dependent entirely upon the will and pleasure of the County Councils. Almost every County Council has established for the purpose of administering this grant in aid of technical education a Technical Education Committee, which does not usually consist

    1187
    solely of members of the County Council. It need not consist solely of members of the County Council. These bodies are naturally acquiring a very great deal of experience, and, I believe, in a great many centres they are doing at present a very invaluable work.

    ELECTRICAL ENERGY GENERATING STATIONS AND SUPPLY.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): The Motion of which I have given notice involves points of some considerable importance with regard to electrical legislation, but I think I can make the points clear to your Lordships in a very few words. First of all, I would premise by saying that up to the present time all electrical lighting undertakings have been sanctioned under the provisions of the Board of Trade Provisional Orders. Powers by means of Private Bills have not been allowed thus far with regard to electrical lighting undertakings, on the ground that it would be desirable that they should be kept under the control of the Board of Trade, and that the provisions with regard to electric lighting should be as uniform as possible. But, my Lords, under these Provisional Orders, and under the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, no powers are given for acquiring sites for generating stations compulsorily. Some difficulty has been occasioned in obtaining places in crowded localities for generating stations, and the question arises whether they should be free from liability as to nuisance. And also a question arises whether, if you are to grant compulsory powers of purchase, the same condition should not attach to electrical lighting undertakings as attaches to gas undertakings, in which case, under the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, notice has to be given to owners, lessees of buildings or dwellings within 300 yards of the site of the work for which compulsory powers are asked. My Lords, these questions are involved in the first paragraph of the reference which I propose to bring to the notice of a Joint Committee of the two Houses. That paragraph runs as follows—
    "Whether, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, powers should be given in any cases for
    1188
    acquiring land compulsorily for generating stations; and, if so, under what conditions as respects liability for nuisance, notices to surrounding owners, and otherwise."
    The second and third paragraphs relate to another case. It is to the case of electrical undertakings that have found difficulty or inconvenience in obtaining sites for generating electricity within their own district of supply, and are anxious to go outside that district for sites to generate electricity, which they will supply within their own district of supply. Now, my Lords, that involves a somewhat difficult question in connection with the powers which the local authorities have of purchasing electrical lighting undertakings at the end of 40 years. It stands to reason, my Lords, that complications must arise, for if you have the distributing mains and the distributing stations in one district, which the local authorities would have to purchase after the lapse of a given period, you have your generating stations in a district outside the district of the purchasing local authority. My Lords, it is with the view of laying down some rules upon that question and on this point that I have framed the second paragraph of this reference—
    "Whether compulsory powers of acquiring land for generating stations, if proper to be given in any case, should be given where the proposed site is not within the area of supply."
    Those are the two first questions I propose to have referred to this Joint Committee. The third question is one of a very much wider application, and really of very much more importance. A private Bill has been deposited this year in Parliament which would empower a company to purchase land for erecting a generating station—practically a great electric manufactory—in the middle of a populous part of the Midland Counties, and it proposes for a district comprised within a circle the radius of which would be about 26 miles, that it should supply electricity to anyone who chooses to take it from them. That area would include some of the largest and most flourishing towns in the West Riding of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and several other counties. My Lords, I think it is a question whether it would not be desirable that electricity should be produced on a large scale, as

    1189
    probably it may be produced much cheaper on a large scale than on a small scale; but, at the same time, when you have a company of this kind starting, which would have these powers spread over, probably, a district containing 120 or 130 local authorities, interfering, possibly, with companies and local authorities who have been already authorised to supply electricity for lighting or motive power by Parliament or Provisional Orders, it does raise questions of very great complication and importance, which are bound to arise, especially when you consider the points which I referred your Lordships to just now—the power that local authorities have of purchasing electrical undertakings after a lapse of 40 years. The fourth point, my Lords, relates also to a new development of electrical enterprise, where the Company itself does not propose to use the electricity which it produces, but to supply it to other companies to use it, either for lighting or for motive purposes. That is to say, it will be proposed to establish a central manufactory of electricity, which will supply its current to any number of companies or local authorities or persons who want to use it for their own purposes, either as a motive or lighting power. The remaining clauses of the reference are as follows—
    "Whether, in case of a generating station, however acquired, not being situate within the area of supply, power should be given for the breaking up of streets between the generating station and the boundary of the area of supply. Whether powers should be given in any case for the supply of electrical energy over an area including districts of numerous local authorities, involving plant of exceptional dimensions and high voltage; and, if such powers may properly be given, whether any, and what, conditions should be imposed—(a) With respect to system and plant, and to the construction and location of generating stations, in view of the powers of purchase conferred upon local authorities by Sections 2 and 3 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888; (b) With respect to the relations of the promoters to other undertakers and to local authorities within parts of the area: Under what conditions (if any) ought powers to be conferred upon promoters seeking to supply electrical energy to other undertakers, and not directly to consumers."
    My Lords, I think that this brief explanation of the main objects of the reference which as on the Paper will be
    1190
    sufficient to show to your Lordships the great importance of the questions that are involved. I was in consultation with the authorities of the House of Commons and also with the Board of Trade on the subject, and, having regard to the fact that the Bills that have been deposited this year, those Bills to which I have referred, involve so large a departure from some of the principles that have, up to the present time, guided our legislation in these matters, it seemed to me and also to the authorities whom I consulted, essential that we should have an authoritative guidance as to the principles on which these Bills should be modelled. Five years ago the same difficulties arose with regard to the measure of protection which should be given to telephonic and other wires by high electric currents. This principle was then referred to a joint committee of the two Houses, and the result was very satisfactory. The principle was settled, clauses were framed, and these clauses have been introduced into all electric traction Bills that have been introduced into Parliament since that time, and, as far as I can hear, they have worked very satisfactorily. It is with a view, my Lords, of having principles laid down with respect to the questions to which I have referred that I venture to call the attention of the House to this matter, and to ask your Lordships to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report upon the policy and principles which should guide our legislation in this matter.
    Question put, and Motion carried.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move—
    "That it is desirable that all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
    The subject of this Resolution is a Joint Committee, to which are annually referred all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills. Your Lordships have been good enough to consent to a similar Resolution in many previous years, and I trust that those who have already done

    1191
    valuable service in past years on the dry and thankless work which goes before this Committee will be willing to serve again. I desire to remand the House that the appointment of a Joint Committee does not remove Parliamentary control from the Bills referred to it, but, on the contrary, ensures that no kind of law shall creep in under the names of Revision or Consolidation, a risk which is undoubtedly incurred when Bills of this kind are passed through ordinary Committees of either House. The work is essentially that of experts. It is the office of the Joint Committee to certify that no Amendment of the law is contained in any Bill referred to it, and it is not understanding that Parliament has confidence in that certifical that the members of the Committee are invited to enter on their task.
    Question put and Motion carried.
    Their Lordships adjourned at 6.20 till Monday next.