Sitting of 26 February 1900

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUM NEW.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Beading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely:—
  City and South London Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Rill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH; AND SPECIAL REPORT).
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Bills comprised in the list reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely—
  Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramroads.
  Hammond (G. H.) Company.
  And that they have made a Special Report in the following case, namely:—
  Great Grimsby Street Tramways.
  Ordered, that the Special Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE RILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
  West Ham Corporation Bill.
  Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
  Christchurch, Bournemouth, and Winton Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  BELFAST AND COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY BILL.
  CHESHIRE LINES COMMITTEE BILL.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL
  LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
  MAIDENHEAD GAS BILL.
  MID-KENT WATER BILL.

  VALE OF RHEIDOL LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge) moved: "That this House is of opinion that it is undesirable to sanction a Bill to enable a London vestry to build upon allotment

  1061
  gardens, which serve the purposes of an open space in a densely populated district." In doing so, he said he was very much surprised that the London County Council, which had hitherto put themselves forward as champions, and, in fact, had been the champions of open spaces in London, should have taken this course and tried to destroy about eleven acres of open space in one of the most densely populated districts of the metropolis. He was also surprised when he was told that there were gentlemen in that House who had been accustomed to speak in favour of open spaces, and who had been among the greatest advocates of such spaces in the past, and had done great benefit to London by insisting upon their being maintained, who were now going to speak in favour of a scheme which, in his opinion, would destroy one of the most important open spaces that existed. He wanted to know why the London County Council had taken up this position, and what there was behind the Bill of which they had no knowledge, because he could not find in any shape or form that the London County Council had anything whatever to do with the Latchmere allotments. It had nothing to do with them at the present moment; the property belonged to Lord Spencer, and it was only given by him to the parish for certain uses. The effect of the proposal of the London County Council would be to divert it from those uses. And why? Evidently the London County Council did not want to do certain work themselves; they wanted the vestry of Latter sea to do it, but they thought that as the Battersea Vestry might not be able to launch the matter successfully in the House of Commons, they had better father the scheme and bring it forward. A scheme very similar to this was promoted in 1887, and the opposition to it was so strong that it was never brought up for Second Leading; it was, in fact, laughed out of the House of Commons, which would not have it in any shape or form. If the Battersea Vestry wished to build houses for the working-classes, surely there was plenty of land in Battersea to be obtained for such a purpose, and why then should the vestry not obtain that land in a proper way instead of endeavouring to filch it from the people and depriving them of their open spaces? He was told that if the House of Commons should decide in
  1062
  favour of his Amendment, the effect would be to destroy the whole General Powers Bill of the London County Council. Well, that was not his affair. If they chose for any improper or wrong reason to father a scheme which was not acceptable to the House, they must take the consequences. But he would put this to them. If they would withdraw this particular clause—this particular objectionable power to take this land for' these purposes—from the Bill, he would offer no objection to their Bill going through. He was only objecting to it on this, and on no other ground. He could not sec any reason why they should father this scheme at all. Why should it not be brought forward as a separate measure, and then it could be dealt with on its merits in the House of Commons? In 1876 the House of Commons discussed this question, and Parliament laid it down as a rule that common land allotted for public purposes should not be diverted from such purposes except for recreation grounds and gardens. Now, if it was the case that this land could not be used for allotment purposes, lot it go hack to its original uses; let it be dealt with as a common open space, but do not try and deprive the people of seven and a half acres of land, and allow them only four acres for an open space. They were told that the only object of the Bill was to got rid of the claims of the allottees who were in possession of the land. In the notice hon. Members had received, it was admitted that there were prohibitions, from erecting habitations upon this land, and the vestry also admitted that unless they could get this Bill passed, they would not be able to do as they wished with the land. They wanted to remove the restrictions which now rested upon it; they wanted to get rid of the legal restrictions, and he was opposing the Bill in order to prevent them doing so. It was said that the allottees were not particularly anxious about this matter, but then they were poor men who had not the power or money to appeal to the House of Commons in order to defend their own interests, and to fight for their own rights. That being so, they ran the risk of being dispossessed. There were, he was told, 108 allottees holding the land at the present moment, and of these 108 no fewer than ninety-two had petitioned the House of Commons to prevent this open space being taken away from them.

  1063
  It would be stated that some of this land was not used for allotment gardens, hut that rubbish was shot upon it. His answer was that the vestry were acting in an illegal manner, and that they had no business to throw any rubbish upon this land, which was to be set apart for garden allotments, and if the vestry pleaded that they were doing an illegal action, and that in consequence thereof they should be allowed to alter the purposes to which this land was originally devoted, he did not think that such a plea would commend itself to the House of Commons. It was all very well for them to seek to get rid of their legal liabilities in order that they might do what they liked with the land. They said they were quite willing to bring the matter before a Committee of the House of Commons to decide upon the scheme in its entirety, but he would point out in reply to that that a Committee would have no power whatever to go into any alternative scheme. Its duty would be to examine this particular proposal, and to say whether it was a proper one. These eleven and a half acres are situated in one of the most densely populated parts of London—a part lying between Clapham and Wandsworth and the Thames. It was a very lowly situated neighbourhood, and it was important that it should have air in the same way as other parts of the metropolis. It would be just as right to give powers to take a part of Hampstead Heath or Battersea Park to be built on as it was to suggest that this open space should be utilised for the, purpose of building workmen's dwellings, and he hoped that the Members of the House would not allow any such arrangement to be carried out. The House of Commons would be taking upon itself a great responsibility if it should deprive London of what was known as one of its "lungs." Home Members representing constituencies in the south of London were, he understood, going to speak in favour of this scheme, and no doubt, in view of the over crowed nature of their constituencies they would like to see these dwellings built, but it was their duty, notwithstanding such a desire, to strictly preserve the lands allotted in the past to be retained as open spaces. The vestry, in their statement of the reasons for bringing forward this Bill, made a singular remark. They
  1064
  said that they were perfectly prepared to agree to the abstract proposition in favour of open spaces. Well, he never yet met a thief who was not also willing, when brought before a magistrate, to say that he was quite prepared to agree to the abstract proposition that stealing was wrong, so long as it was not applied to his own case. It seemed to him that the London County Council were putting forward a similar abstract proposition, and were asking the House of Commons to accept it. He hoped the House would remain true to its ancient traditions, and would prevent this space being taken from the people.
  *SIR JOHN BRUNNER ()hoped that the House would consent to the motion of his hon. friend, because he was of opinion that the action now taken by the London County Council was one unworthy—he would not say of the County Council-hut unworthy of London. It would in fact set a very bad precedent. He was very glad to hear his hon. friend speak of the London County Council as having been champions in the past of open spaces, and he hoped that the House would that day encourage the County Council in the course which up till now it had adopted. It had put forward year after year, with pardonable pride, a statement of the number of acres that had been secured for open spaces for the people of London, and he would ask the London County Council now to withdraw this proposal, because if they did not do so, and if they succeeded in carrying the present scheme they would hereafter have to publish the fact—that while they had secured so many acres in such and such a district as open spaces for the public of London, they had also in the parish of Battersea diverted so many acres from such a purpose, and therefore their total must be reduced to that extent. It will be sold, on behalf of the London County Council, that this space in Battersea was unfit for allotments, because the Battersea Vestry had shot rubbish on the ground. It was perhaps unfit, and it probably had become unfit by reason of the vestry having thus shot rubbish upon it, but if they had not done so the ground would, no doubt, have been fit for allotments. He trusted that the rational zeal of the London County Council for the housing of the working classes would be encou-

  1065
  raged, but that it would take this form—not to provide houses in which people are piled seven layers high on top of one another, but to persuade the working classes to take advantage of the rapid and cheap means of locomotion provided by the County Council to live a little way out of London. It was stated that the free holder—not the present Lord Spencer, but Lord Spencer's predecessor—handed over this space, under the Poor Law Relief Act, for the use of the poor.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND: And only for that.
  *SIR JOHN BRUNNER: And if he were not mistaken, the present Lord Spencer had not parted with the freehold, he wished to be informed whether the London County Council had done his Lordship the courtesy to ask him whether be intended or wished to part with it.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I am told that the land reverts to Lord Spencer if it is not used for the purposes to which it was originally dedicated.
  *SIR JOHN BRUNNERfeared chat a Bill like the present would override Lord Spencer's rights as a freeholder. For reasons which seemed to him to be excellent, he should vote for the motion of his hon. friend, and he trusted it would prove acceptable to the House.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' in order to insert: 'That this House is of opinion that it is undesirable to sanction a Hill to enable a London vestry to build upon allotment gardens, which serve the purposes of an open space in a densely populated district.'"—(Sir F. Dixon-Hartland.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *MR. JOHN BURNS ()said he had very little difficulty in subscribing to the abstract theory promulgated by the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the clause as to the necessity for the House of Commons to be very careful about parting with open spaces. All the hon. Member had said approving the County Council's efforts on behalf of parks and open spaces he cordially endorsed.
  1066
  But the hon. Member did not tell the House of Commons that it was in the interests not only of open spaces in London but of open spaces in Battersea especially that this clause had been introduced into the Bill. He would not associate himself with any movement that had for its object the deprivation of a single acre of open spaces in London. He had had the pleasure for fifteen or sixteen years of working with Lord Meath on behalf of both the Commons Protection and the Metropolitan Gardens Associations. But even in the promotion of these excellent, objects it had been found necessary to use discrimination at times, and he thought he would be able to show that in this particular case such discrimination was not apparent. What were the facts? They had in the parish of Battersea eleven acres of land miscalled allotments, and more than half of that acreage was at present used by the local authority as a slop shoot. What the parish of Battersea wished to do—and men on both sides of politics, including the overseers, were unanimous in supporting it—was that instead of a portion of this land being used as a slop-shoot and the remainder being devoted to the cultivation of consumptive cabbages, as well as constituting a rendezvous, for dead dogs and cats, nearly four acres of it should be converted into a recreation ground for children, five acres should be used for the erection of artisans' dwellings, not piled one on top of the other to the extent of seven stories as had been suggested, but workmen's cottages of two or three tenements only, and that the remaining two acres should be utilised as roads. In order to bring that about, the London County Council had included the scheme as a passenger in its General Powers Omnibus Bill. He wished at once to say that the Battersea Vestry unanimously supported it, so did the overseers and the local clergy as represented by Canon Clarke, while the Parks Committee of the London Comity Council and the Housing and Small Holdings Committees of the same body also approved it. If the facts were known there would be no surprise felt at the proposal to utilise five acres of this land for artisans' dwellings. It might not be generally known to the House that the land was situated only 300 yards from Battersea Park, which was 200 acres in extent and two and a quarter miles round. Seeing

  1067
  that such a park was so close to the Latchmere allotments, there surely was no pressing need for the land to he retained as an open space. More than that, in Clapham Common they had another 220 acres of open space, and at Wandsworth a further 183 acres, all in the same parish. In addition, they had three small recreation grounds and five or six gymnasiums, covered or open. He now came to the suggestion that the allottees were strongly opposed to the scheme. The hon. Member had made much of a petition he had got from those allottees.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I had nothing to do with getting it.
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: I didn't say you had.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: You said I had got it.
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: Well, the hon. Member made much of a petition supposed to come from the allottees, and he said that of 108 allotment holders ninety two had petitioned against that clause. Well, he examined the tenants' book at the Town Hall on Saturday last and found that out of ninety-two signing the petition thirty-seven only were genuine tenants and the remainder were not allottees at all. The hon. Member had suggested that this was a densely populated district. Now he shared with the hon. Member for Clapham the distinction of representing the parish of Battersea in that House, and he strongly resented the suggestion, as he was sure his colleague would do, that Battersea was either in-sanitary, overcrowded, or densely populated. He would prove this by simple figures. The Central District of London had 9,150 persons per acre of open spaces. West London had 943 persons per acre, while Battersea had only 286 persons per acre of open spaces. How then could it be said that Battersea was densely populated and in-sanitary, or that it wanted more open spaces, seeing that it contained more such spaces than any other parish in the whole county of London? Thanks in no small measure to that fact they had one of the lowest death rates in the whole Metropolis. With all these advantages why should this particular piece of land
  1068
  be reserved as an exclusive nuisance for ninety-two persons? He appealed to the House of Commons, in view of the increasing necessity to do something for the housing of the London poor, to allow this clause to pass, and, instead of allowing these eleven acres to be used as dung heaps and slop shoots, to convert a small portion of the land into a recreation ground and to devote the remainder to the erection of cottage property for the artisan and labouring classes, which was especially needed in that district, in view of the fact that the London and South Western Railway Company were about to pull down no fewer than 680 houses. He did not believe that any injustice would be done to Battersea by the proposal contained in this clause, and he therefore hoped that the House would reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Uxbridge.
  *MR. THORNTON ()said he was extremely sorry to find himself opposed to the hon. Baronet the Member for Uxbridge in this matter. He was sure that if the hon. Member only knew the real facts he would see that he had been acting under a misapprehension, and one which would be natural to anyone not familiar with Battersea. Could ho, for instance, locate the spot at which the land was situated whereon it was suggested workmen's dwellings might be erected without building on the Latchmere Allotments? The hon. Baronet must surely have been misinformed by those who alleged that an alternative site existed. He, having some knowledge of Battersea, opposed this motion for several reasons. In the first place he was a resident of the neighbourhood, and had cognizance of the needs of the people, and he was perfectly sure that one of the things most desired was additional land for the housing of the poor. The Latchmere allotments were only 315 yards from Battersea Park, and they were within half a mile of Clapham Common. They were also within measurable distance of Wandsworth Common, and the parish was therefore exceptionally well situated as regarded open spaces. They had a greater need for houses for the working classes, for there were two schemes on foot, one of which would dispossess many of the railway men now living at Nine Elms, a district described by Charles Booth as one of the poorest districts in London. A number of gas men would

  1069
  also be deprived of their homes by a projected improvement, and anyone who knew what it was for a man to stand eight hours before a retort would not think of suggesting that he should be called upon to travel ten or twelve miles into the country in order to get to his home. It was in the interests of his own constituents, and of some of the very poorest among them, that he asked the House to reject the motion of his hon. friend. If the hon. Baronet would like to get an idea of the real character of these allotments he would be very glad to entertain him at luncheon one morning and drive him over to see them, for he was sure he would then realise that he had been acting under a misapprehension, and would withdraw this motion. In 1887, when the question came before Parliament, he—the hon. Member for Clapham—was vicar's churchwarden at Battersea, and in such capacity supported the scheme, and wished he had then been able to lift up his voice in Parliament on its behalf.
  *COLONEL HUGHES ()said that the public had at present no right to stand on any part of the area referred to. Owing to the proximity of Battersea Park it was not required as an open space, but under the Bill additional dwellings would be built on it, and a real open space of four acres would be provided for cricket. The motion of the hon. Member, if carried, would destroy the whole Bill, which would be a great misfortune to London. He was, therefore, surprised that the hon. Member was not content in moving his Instruction instead of going to the root of the Bill. The discussion was premature, and he did not think any hon. Member would support the motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (General Powers) Bill to leave out Part 7 of the Bill as opposed to the principle of open spaces."
  *COLONEL HUGHESsaid that Part 7 did not allude exclusively to the question of allotments. The latter part referred to other land for other purposes.
  *MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Instruction is opposed it must go over to another day.
  *COLONEL HUGHES: I withdraw Sir.
  Question put, and negatived.

  COUNTY OF LONDON AND BRUSH PROVINCIAL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *MR. PICKERSGILL ()said the object of the Bill was to amalgamate eight or more important undertakings into one gigantic concern. Powers were asked to establish some central generating stations and to link up the scattered portions of the area of supply, the latter object involving the laying of new lines and the consequent breaking up of streets in six districts in London, in which at present the company had no locus standi whatever, namely Islington, Shoreditch, Battersea, Lambeth, Bermondsey, and White chapel. At present Shoreditch supplied its own electricity, and yet the people of that district would be required under the Bill to submit without any compensation to the inconvenience of having their streets broken up, and to the company occupying spaces on the streets, not for the purpose of supplying Shoreditch but some other district beyond it with electricity. The company ought not to have such powers without the sanction of the local authority. There were other considerations connected with the Bill of an even more important character. The company was really trying to drive a coach and six through the existing electric lighting code and if it succeeded other companies would follow in its wake. The passing of the present Bill would practically mean the repeal of the electric lighting code. At present a company could not obtain powers to supply electric lighting without the consent of the local authorities, though it was within the power of the Board of Trade to grant such powers by Provisional Order to be confirmed by Parliament if the local authorities withheld their consent unreasonably, but only in very exceptional

  1071
  cases did the Board of Trade override the wishes of the local authorities. Therefore, no company had a right to invade the area of a local authority without their consent. The company was breaking faith with the local authorities who might desire to exercise their powers of purchase, because the present Bill would render such powers illusory. The local authorities really consented to the various undertakings on the understanding that they were to he separate and self contained, in order that the option of purchase might be capable of being exercised. The Bill would practically render that option illusory, because under it several areas would be supplied by one generating station, and instead of several undertakings there would be one gigantic concern. One section of the Bill was very insidious. It provided that the company might make and publish one annual statement of accounts for the whole of its undertakings instead of an annual statement for each separate undertaking. That was in effect a repeal of Section 9 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and was of vital importance, be cause it would upset the deliberate policy of Parliament, and throw great difficulties in the way of the option to purchase being exercised. The promoters of the Bill appealed to the recommendations of the Joint Committee of 1898, but those recommendations were to a great extent discredited by the rejection of the General Powers Distribution Bill last session. Similar proposals had already been submitted to Parliament. A Bill substantially the same—indeed, almost identical—with the present Bill passed its Second Beading last session, but the; Committee subsequently found that the preamble was not proved. The preamble in the present Bill was identical with that which was rejected. Under such circumstances was it right to read the Bill a second time, and to put the local authorities to the expense of resisting it before a Committee? In these circumstances, having regard specially to the fact that the company had its opportunity last session, and failed to satisfy the Committee of this House that the statements made in the preamble were well founded; and these statements being identically the same in the Bill now before the House, he thought he had shown good grounds why the House should reject its Second Reading, and he moved accordingly.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT ()said he supported very strongly the motion for the rejection of the Bill, which seemed to him, like many others, an attempt to evade, or rather to override, by private legislation, the general law of the land, and especially in this case to escape the provisions of the Electric Lighting Acts, which required the consent of the local authority for the purpose of carrying out their provisions. The powers sought by the Bill were extremely strong. In the first place, by applying the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, it proposed to take property compulsorily and also water rights from the Regent's Canal, and yet in almost the next clause it was sought to escape from the provision of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act which secured that where there was severance the whole property should be taken. That was, of course, a clause which would be a great disadvantage to landowners. Then the Bill authorised the breaking up of streets, not only to lay the mains, but to alter and repair them from time to time. He need hardly point out the inconvenience of different authorities undertaking that work. But in the present case an exceptional injustice was to be perpetrated, because powers were sought to break up the streets in districts, not of supply, where a benefit was to be given and where a burden might on that account be submitted to, but in the intervening districts, which had no interest whatever in the work. Then the Bill evaded the provision of the Electric Lighting Act by which the consent of the local authority was necessary if the proceeding adopted was by Provisional Order, except that there was a right of appeal to the Board of Trade on the ground that the local authority was unreasonable. Again, he would point out that if a company elected to proceed by Bill instead of Provisional Order, it was only fair that they should be brought under the same Standing Orders of the House as those that regulated tramway companies, under which the consent of the local authority must be obtained if procedure by Bill was adopted. This

  1073
  was a matter of infinite importance in local government. Local authorities supplied electricity themselves, and there was no valid reason why their streets should be under any other jurisdiction than themselves. It had been argued that these large means of producing electricity were beneficial. Electrical experts, however, hold that beyond a certain point of capacity there was no advantage whatever in these large aggregations of power: but that, on the contrary, they were a source of some disadvantages. Then it was an evil that these powerful private companies were able to exercise a pressure upon consumers which was at variance with public policy. There was a case within his own personal experience the other day in which a large and powerful company said to all its consumers that they must submit to take a changed current of 200 volts or pay the maximum charge of 8d., whereas the current might, and ought to be, supplied at 4½ d., as in the City of London and elsewhere. The local authorities were those which had the interests of the community most at heart, which were representative of the consumers, and which were most disinterested in the matter, and their consent and approval ought to be required instead of being dispensed with as was sought to be done under this Bill.
  MR. KIMBER ()said that all the reasons—if they could be called reasons—given for the rejection of this Bill afforded, in his view, no ground for the House departing from the ordinary principle of referring the Bill to the ordinary Committee. None of the grounds put before the House by the mover and seconder was the House perfectly competent to discuss; whereas a Committee could proceed to ascertain the merits of the whole question. The House itself could not take evidence on the merits of the case, or to disprove the allegations of the hon. Member who had spoken, and it would be an intrusion on the time and attention of the House if he were to attempt to do so. It was said that one of the clauses of the Bill was an attempt to override the law of the land, because it adopted the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as to compulsory powers for taking property. He did not see how that was; it was only a provision to take advantage of a general Act passed in 1845 for the purpose of obtaining land
  1074
  for public purposes. The seconder of the Amendment suggested that while seeking for compulsory power to take land, the company asked to be exempted from the ordinary conditions that if they wanted one piece of land they must take the whole. But that was a matter of detail which the Committee could best deal with. There were an ample number of precedents given by the House, in Acts of Parliament passed in former years in which this exemption was granted; and he saw no reason why exemption should not be allowed in this case. But even if there were no precedents, the Committee might be trusted to do its duty. Another point taken was that the Bill exempted the company from the obligation, under the Electric Lighting Act of 1892, to render separate accounts for each undertaking, but when the Bill came before the Committee, if sufficient reason was not given why the company should not render separate accounts for each undertaking, the Committee could impose that condition. Then there was an objection that power should be given to the company to break up the streets in intervening districts. At the first blush, that did strike one as being a little strong; but Parliament, in its wisdom, had already granted such power to private undertakings, and he saw no reason why identical facilities should not be given in this case, so that the undertaking could be carried out in the most economical fashion and on the most approved system. At all events, whether this power "was right or not, it was a matter which would get equal justice from the Committee as from the House. He asked the House to pass the Order for the Second Beading and allow the Bill to go to the Committee.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that as a representative of what was called by the Bill an "intervening district," he wished to say a few words in support of the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and South Islington. It was a matter of regret to him that this Bill had been put down for that day, and that it could not have been postponed until after the decision of the House on other Bills which raised the same principle and which came on next Thursday. This Bill raised the question of intervening areas, which was a vital matter that the House of Commons ought to closely safeguard. If a local authority came to the House of Commons to get

  1075
  power to supply electricity, it was confined to its statutory area, and very properly too. And if a private company came to the House and asked for powers to override the general law, and to break up tike streets of a district which they were not going to supply with electric light—all for the profit of the private company and at the expense of the ratepayers of that area—then that was a principle the House ought to oppose. Another objection was that a conference of the local authorities of London had met and decided with unanimity that the Bill was against the general interests of the highways and streets administration. Last year the Committee of the House of Commons threw out the Bill, and would not have anything to do with it, because it invaded the principles which had been laid down with respect to areas. The Bill sought power to pull down workmen's houses, but its housing scheme was very defective and did not comply with the Standing Orders. He further objected to the Bill because it sought to abstract water from the river Wandle (which never had as much water as it should have) and was against the interests of the taxpayers. There was not a single clause in the Bill about the failure of electric lighting which had taken place. Recently there had been in Marylebone, Kensington, and Westminster a deficiency of electric light supply, and there was no remedy as against the company. The House ought not to allow any electric light Bill to go through, unless there was some protection for the electric light consumer in the event of the electric supply failing. If the company got the powers asked for, it would use them in the most arbitrary fashion. Its conduct in his own district had been referred to by Lord Justice Vaughan Williams as "lawless and highhanded."
  *MR. MARKS ()said that in November the new municipal bodies would come into existence. Great things had been hoped of the new bodies, and not the least of them had reference to electric lighting and electric power facilities. The question of electric lighting had lately occupied a great measure of public attention. In many districts applications had been made to take over the electric light and power plants as part of the municipal undertaking, and facilities had been afforded
  1076
  for doing that where the electric light and power plants had been purely local concerns. Obviously a new difficulty would be introduced into the matter if the local plants were to be amalgamated, and the municipal authorities had to deal, not with a local concern, but with one great amalgamation. He could not entirely free his mind from the suspicion that one of the underlying motives of the promoters of the Bill was to "head off'" municipal competition. To some extent he was justified in that view by the fact that in many districts in the East of London companies had obtained powers and had gone no further. As the new municipalities would blossom forth in November, he urged upon the House not to allow this company to create an amalgamation which would make the acquisition of electric plants by local authorities more difficult, if not impossible. In his opinion the now municipal governments would, if given a fair chance, be able to establish a useful, economical, and possibly profitable, local electric plant, and he hoped that the House would allow the Bill to go over at any rate for the present.
  SIR J. FEEGUSSON ()said he had no interest in the Bill. It was urged that the Bill should be thrown out because a Bill for general electric powers had been thrown out last year. In last year's Bill he took some interest. Great objections were entertained to it by municipalities because powers were given to the company to use compulsory powers in areas in which the municipalities had already set up their electric light. That was a very different thing from the present Bill, which simply sought to extend the powers already granted to the company. The head and front of the Bill's offence was that it desired to take power to carry its mains through districts which had an electric system of their own. It did not seek to compete with local municipalities. This Bill differed from other Bills that had been before the House in that, in addition to electricity for the purpose of lighting, it embraced electricity for the purpose of motive power. He ventured to suggest that the House should not refuse the Bill a Second Beading.
  MR. BOULNOIS ()said his name appeared on the Bill, although he was not interested in the company

  1077
  promoting the Bill. He did not know that he should have risen but for the remark which fell from the hon. Member for Battersea when he said the company was coming to the House to over-ride the decision of Parliament. The hon. Member spoke of this company as being desirous to break up the streets of districts which it had no power to supply with energy or electric light. During last session two electric lighting companies obtained Bills which gave them power to pass through districts to which they were not authorised to supply light or energy. This particular company supplied districts on the north and south of the Thames, and they were not able to get from one district to another without going to Parliament for powers. The consequence was they were obliged to establish generating stations, and were not aide to economise in the way they desired in the interests of the public. The Bill only facilitated the distribution of electric energy in districts in respect of which Provisional Orders had been obtained. They would not interfere with any right or power possessed by any municipality or local body. As to the desirability of local authorities supplying electric light or energy, they would have been in darkness still if electric lighting had been left to local bodies, and it was owing to the enterprise of these companies that they now possessed so good a light. Athough
  it was true that this Bill was thrown out last year by the Committee, that was no reason why they should reject the Second Beading. He hoped the House would not depart from its usual custom of giving the company a chance of stating their case before the Committee.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON ()said this Bill was substantially the same as the one introduced last session, therefore he thought they were entitled to have some indication of the views of the Government on this measure. This Bill contained identically the same principle as that dealt with in the very much larger and far-reaching measure which would have to be discussed when they came to deal with the Bill for generating electricity. That was a principle which the House ought to decide before adopting this Bill. He did not think they ought to do anything which would handicap the new municipalities about to be formed. This company would never have been given powers upon previous occasions if the House had thought they were endeavouring to set up a large monopoly and establishing a great rival to local authorities. Under the circumstances he hoped the House would reject this Bill, in order that the general question might be considered.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 41.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarksh)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Mr. Boulnois and Mr.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Kimber.

  AYES.

  Aird, John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Knowles, Lees

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Arnold, Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning (Corn)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finch, George H.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W B (Hants.)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

  Bill, Charles

  Gedge, Sydney

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Morrison, Walter

  Bowles, Capt. H F. (Middlesex)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Bowles, T. Gihson (King's Lynn)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Murray, Rt Hn AGraham (Bute)

  Cavendish. V. C. W (Derbysh'e)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Lease, Herb. Pike (Dadingt'n)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Coddington, Sir William

  Helder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Rich (Lancs Newt'n)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Howard, Joseph

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rasch, Major Frederic C.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Hound, James

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  O'Malley, William

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Pilkington, Sir GeA (Lanes S W)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Flower, Ernest

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Ambrose, Robert

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Price, Robert John

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Garfit, William

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gold, Charles

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Baker, Sir John

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Purvis, Robert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Hartley, George C. T.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Biddulph, Michael

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Blake, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rollitt, Sir Albert Kaye

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Burns, John

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh).

  Burt, Thomas

  Houston, R. P.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Howell, William Tudor

  Sinclair, Capt J. (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Souttar, Robinson

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Edward

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swan.)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Curzon, Viscount

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.).

  Dalbiac, Colonel P. Hugh

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n)

  M'Ewan, William

  Ure, Alexander

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Dillon, John

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wanklyn, James Leslic

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Doogan, P. C.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

  Wason, Eugene

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Milbank, Sir Powl'tt Chas. John

  Whitely, George (Stockport)

  Buncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Monk, Charles James

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Evershed, Sydney

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Faber, George Denison

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Pickersgill and Mr. Gallo-

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  way.

  Resolutions agreed to.

  Second Heading put off for six months.

  CHRISTCHURCH, BOURNEMOUTH, AND WINTON TRAMWAYS.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Hill ordered to be brought in by General Goldsworthy and Mr. J. Samuel.
PETITIONS.
  COMPANIES BILL.
  Petition from Bolton (Lancashire), for alteratian; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATH IN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Millom (two) and Workington; to be upon the Table.
  MIXES (EIGHT HOCKS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Lochore; Holbrook; Staveley; Hightown Liver-sedge; Tibshelf: Blackwell; Lye: Cradley Park; White Heath; Hanley Deep Pit"; Hanley (three); Longton (two); Perry Hill; Sandford Hill; Fenton; Sneyd; Grange; Race Course Pit; Point of Ayr; Cannock Chase (five); Altham; Marlpool; Aha: Swanwick; Alfreton; Birchwood; B. Winning; Old Coppice; Leacroft; Conduit (two); Wimblebury; Woodthorpe; Waverley; Cannock and Rugeley Nunnery; Alloa; Devon; Tillicoultry; and Clackmannan Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
  Petition from Lismore and Appin, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Cornsay Colly; Landport; and Haslingden; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.
  Petition from Bristol, for cessation of hostilities; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Yorkshire Women's Christian Temperance Union, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Bathgate; and Froine; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MANUSCRIPTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, VOLUME I. (NEW SERIES).
  Paper [communicated 23rd February] to be printed. [No. 72.]

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account presented, of Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judica-
  1082
  ture in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court in the year ended 28th February, 1899, and of Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 73.]

  SUPERANNUATIONS
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 20th February, 1900, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the post of Headmaster of the Royal College of Art, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are requisite [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Board of Trade under the provisions of the said Act, for uniting the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Districts, together with Report by Inspector on Inquiry [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,383 to 2,385 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham).—Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 74.]

  FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Copy ordered, "of Monthly Accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain foreign countries and British possessions, No. [."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 75-]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEWS FROM THE FRONT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): Can the First Lord of the Treasury give the House any fresh news from the seat of war?
  THE FIEST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have no news except that already in the hands of hon. Members.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND COMMITTEE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the proceedings of the Committee about to inquire into the administration of the Royal Patriotic and other funds will be conducted in public, and will be open to the representatives of the press.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is a matter which must be left to the Committee, as such matters are always left to committees, but I do not think the Committee will desire secrecy as regards their proceedings.

  TOTAL CASUALTIES TO DATE.
  MR. DALZIEL (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the number of officers and men killed and wounded up to the present time in the war in South Africa, and also the number of prisoners in the hands of the Boers.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): In the absence of my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the questions addressed to him to-day. The total casualties reported up to 24th February are as follows:—

  Officers.

  N. C. O.s & Men.

  Total

  Killed

  161

  1,490

  1,651

  Wounded

  494

  5,795

  6,289

  Missing and Prisoners

  133

  2,669

  2,802

  Total

  788

  9,954

  10,742

  PROCLAMATIONS AGAINST BRITISH SUBJECTS TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Royal Proclamation warning British subjects against trading with the burghers of the Transvaal Republic has not had the practical effect of stopping the transhipment of wool from
  1084
  Delagoa Bay, but that such transhipment is freely taking place in German steamers to the detriment of English vessels; whether a British shipowner who engaged with a neutral to carry wool, the property of a neutral trader, from Delagoa Bay to Port Natal would be contravening the proclamation above referred to; and whether any fresh instructions will be issued to the commandant at Port Natal.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The proclamation prohibiting British subjects from trading with the enemy does not affect neutral ships. The question whether any particular act amounts to trade with the enemy by a British subject must be decided in accordance with the circumstances of each case as it arises. It does not appear that any fresh instructions to the commandant of Port Natal are necessary.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trade in wool with Delagoa Bay is undiminished, and that the only effect of the proclamation is to transfer that trade from English to German ships.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I must ask for notice of that question.

  TASMANIAN CONTINGENT—HEROISM OF CORPORAL WHITELEY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Corporal Whiteley, of the Tasmanians, serving in South Africa, bravely rescued a dismounted comrade under heavy fire, and brought him safely out of danger; and whether he has been recommended for the Victoria Cross; and if not whether his commanding officer will be asked to report on his conduct.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No report or recommendation on this matter has as yet been received from Lord Roberts.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the question.

  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: He is one of your colonial friends.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have said that no report of this alleged act has been received.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly read the question? I ask if he will call for a report.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, Sir, the matter is one which rests entirely with the commanding officer.

  VACCINATION OF SOLDIERS AGAINST ENTERIC DISEASE.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a supply of anti-typhoid lymph for vaccination is placed on board all transports conveying troops to South Africa.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Anti-enteric vaccine is placed on board all transports proceeding to South Africa.

  TRACTION ENGINES FOR THE FRONT.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR, (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of ordering more traction engines with hauling gear to hoist guns on difficult positions; and whether the traction engines now in use are armoured.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Traction engines with very powerful hauling gear have been ordered in addition to those already in South Africa. Some will be armoured.

  RE-ENLISTMENT—"ROYAL RESERVE BATTALIONS."
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can say if the recent expression of Her Majesty the Queen's desire that Her Majesty's old soldiers would reenter Her Majesty's service applies to men of all ages and ranks; and, if not, whether In; will state the limit of age or exceptions of rank.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: They must be on the date of re-enlistment between the ages of twenty-two and forty-five. These particular's were fully given in the notice that has been issued.

  ARMY VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether as many as eighty civilian veterinary surgeons have been engaged by the military authorities since the outbreak of the war in South Africa r whether any commission has been gazetted in the Army Veterinary Department for nearly a, year; and whether there are now twelve vacancies for which there are no candidates; and, under those circumstances, will he consider the advisability of meeting the wishes of the officers of the Army Veterinary Department by placing them on the same footing as regards military titles with all other non-combatant branches of the service.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Eighty civilian veterinary surgeons have been temporarily engaged since the outbreak of the war. There are at the present moment twelve vacancies in the Army Veterinary Department. The conditions of service in the Veterinary Department are under consideration.

  INTERVIEWS AT THE WAR OFFICE.
  MR. BAINBRIDGE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers, irrespective of rank or service, applying personally to see the Military Secretary or his Assistant Military Secretary with a view to employment in South Africa, are refused an interview, and that the messengers have orders not to take the cards of officers so applying to either of these officials; and can he arrange for some modification of this refusal to grant interviews, in view of the deficiencies of officers in South Africa.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The number of officers applying for interviews with the Military Secretary and Assistant Military Secretary at a time like the present is such that if these officials were to grant interviews in all cases it would be impossible for them to attend to their duties, which already occupy their time very fully. In ordinary cases the objects of the applications can be stated without difficulty in writing. The statement that messengers have orders not to take the cards of officers applying personally to either of these officials is not correct.

  BRITISH AND BOER ARTILLERY.
  *MR. BAINBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether further information of the arrival of fresh guns in South Africa enables him to give any further details to the House of the respective number of guns in use by the British and Boer forces.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I do not think that I should be justified in giving the information for which the hon. Member asks.
  *MR. BAINBRIDGE: I have only asked for a correction of the information which the Under-Secretary of State for War gave to the House three weeks ago.

  UNDRESS UNIFORMS.
  MR. SEELY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the disadvantages of bright-coloured uniforms on active service as shown in the present South African campaign, the War Office would consider the desirability of issuing to the troops in England, Regulars, Militia, and Volunteers now clothed in scarlet, an undress uniform available for active service of khaki or grey or some similar colour.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir.

  POSTAL CHARGES ON GIFTS TO TROOPS AT THE FRONT.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the heavy parcel post charges to the Cape of Good Hope, namely, a minimum of 9d. per pound; and whether he will endeavour to make a reduction in the case of the small parcels of comforts for the troops in South Africa which arc transmitted by their relatives during the war.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY,): No general reduction in the parcel postage rates to South Africa can be effected without the concurrence of the Cape Government, by whom the sea service is provided; but the Secretary of State for War is considering whether any
  1088
  additional facilities can be afforded for the transmission of parcels addressed to the troops serving at the front.

  VOLUNTEER RIFLE RANGES.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have a large sum of money in hand intended to be spent on the construction of rifle ranges available for Volunteer practice; if so, whether he is aware that there is a suitable site at Machynlleth, in the county of Montgomery, and what steps are being taken to secure the same; and whether the Government are prepared to allocate a portion of the above sum to the purchase of this site and construction of a rifle range thereon.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: A considerable sum of money is being provideed to assist Volunteer corps in the provision of ranges. Nothing is known at the War Office of the site referred to, but the General Officer Commanding will be requested to furnish a report.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS' OUTFIT GRANTS.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the uniform grant to Volunteer officers barely covers half the cost of full uniform, the Government is prepared to consider the advisability of increasing the grant.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The allowance of £20 to Volunteer officers for outfit was only intended to be a grant in aid and not to cover the total expenditure.

  CADET CORPS.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, out of existing funds, a certain amount could be allocated to encourage cadet corps in schools; and whether the War Office would consider the advisability of consulting with the Education Department with the view of introducing sergeants to teach boys drill in all elementary schools.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: There arc no funds at present at the disposal of

  1089
  the Secretary of State for War, out of which money could be allocated to cadet corps. The suggestion made in the second paragraph of the question has already been adopted.

  BROTHERHOOD DEPRESSION RANGE FINDER.
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will ascertain from the general officer commanding the manoeuvres at Gibraltar last April whether any experiments were made with the Brotherhood depression range finder, and will he state the result of those experiments; and is he aware that, as the result of a trial made at Gibraltar by permission of the Governor, there were twenty-four direct hits out of twenty-seven shots at various ranges at a moving object.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir. A letter will be sent to the general officer commanding at Gibraltar to inquire into the matter.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES ACCOUNTS.
  *MR. BAINBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that it is difficult to abstract information from the 200 pages of the Annual Accounts of the Ordnance Factories, he can arrange, for the year 1899-1900, to have added to the Report an abstract of the number and cost of the guns and other war material which have been manufactured or passed through the factories in a completed state.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): Before the hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask if he has seen the question of which I sent notice to the Under Secretary for War—namely, whether the Admiralty object to the re-publication of the war material figures asked for by the hon. Member, and which were published a few years ago?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have no information on that point. To prepare such a statement would add very much to the labour and cost of preparing the account—over 300 men are constantly employed on the work already. If the hon. Member requires information upon any specific point, I will do my best to obtain it for him.
  *Mr. BAINBRIDGE: Would it not be possible to have the Report published in less time than eleven months after the end of the year to which it refers?

  ROUTES OF SUBMARINE CABLES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that foreign Governments prohibit the publication of the routes followed by their submarine cables, as, for example, in one of the agreements (specification as to manufacture of cable) between the Société Géné rate des Télégraphes Sous-marins and the French Government in reference to the cable between New Caledonia and Queensland; whether our own submarine cable lines are shown on the Admiralty charts, as, for instance, on those of Lisbon, Sierra Leone, and Delagoa Bay; and whether he will consider if it might be better in future cases to omit British cables, and to indicate them only, according to the practice of foreign Governments, on special private charts to be supplied to the commanders of men-of-war.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,) (for Mr. GOSCHEN): The right hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension in thinking that telegraph cables are never marked on foreign charts. The same principle appears to govern the action of foreign Governments in this respect as has guided Admiralty action—namely, that whore there is more chance of interruption from ships anchoring over the cables than there is any advantage to be gained in Avar by attempting to conceal the position of the cables they are shown on the plans or charts of approaches to ports. On the plans mentioned in the question the cables are shown for the above reason. The action suggested in the last paragraph has already been taken for such stations as it appears desirable.

  THE NEW FRENCH CALEDONIA-QUEENSLAND CABLE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Colonial Office has been called to the terms on which the New Caledonia-Queensland cable was laid for the Société Général des Télégraphes Sous-marins by the Sociéte´ Général des Téléphones; and whether the agreement between the

  1091
  companies purports to place relations with the public at the Queensland end of the cable under regulations made by the French Ministry of the Marine, and shows the French Submarine Cable Company to be bound to act in conformity with the directions of the French Government in all matters which concern connections with other lines, the company being bound to have none but French directors.
  MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): I have no information as to the terms of the arrangement between the Soeiété Général des Télégraphes Sousmarins and the Société Général des Téléphones, but the conditions mentioned in the hon. Member's question were laid down in the French law of 1893, under which the establishment of the cable was authorised.

  INFLAMMABLE MATERIAL ON WAR SHIPS.
  MR. PROVAND (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when re-commissioning vessels built previous to 1898, all inflammable woodwork fittings will be replaced by others which are non-inflammable.
  MR. MACARTNEY: No, Sir; it could not be done.

  COLONIAL LOANS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state what colonies up to the present time 'have received loans under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899; what amount has been lent in each case; and in which cases, if any, interest exceeding 2¾ per cent. per annum has been fixed.
  MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): No advances have as yet actually been made under the Act of last session; but agreements have been come to, under which Mauritius and Seychelles will receive the amounts specified in the schedule of the Act, Jamaica £318,000, Barbados and St. Vincent the sums, less than those given in the schedule, which may be actually required to be lent to planters at 2¾ per cent.; Cyprus £60,000 at 3 per cent., and £354,000 at 3¼ per cent. In the case of the other
  1092
  colouies, and of the balance of the loan authorised to be made to Jamaica, no final arrangements have as yet been made.

  WEST INDIES—SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has had complaints lately from the West Indies; whether he is aware that planters are being ruined owing to the sugar bounties which are given by foreign nations; and whether any legislation may be expected shortly to counteract these disadvantages.
  MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): For years past there have been constant complaints from or on behalf of the West Indies as to the effect of the bounty system on the sugar industry. The condition of things has lately improved owing to the countervailing duties imposed by the Government of the United States.

  DESTITUTE ALIENS AT GIBRALTAR.
  MR. STEVENSON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken by the Governor of Gibraltar to enforce the statutory powers conferred upon him for the exclusion of destitute aliens from the town and garrison of Gibraltar; how many' licences were granted in the year 1899 to aliens applying for permission to' reside within the fortress; whether any recommendations were made, by the Gibraltar Committee in 1898 with reference to this subject in connection with overcrowding and sanitary reform; and what are the objections to communicating to the House a summary of the general conclusions arrived at by the Committee, omitting all reference to any recommendations relating to armaments and defence works.
  MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBER-lain): The provisions of the aliens Order in Council are strictly enforced. Permits of residence to aliens are only granted on the application of a respectable inhabitant, who is responsible if the alien is incapable of maintaining himself. In 1899, 3,820 permits were issued and 3,240 given up. On 31st December last there were 2,839 persons living in the fortress on permit, and 364 in the bay. The Committee made, no recommendation except that the law should continue to be strictly enforced.

  1093
  It would be undesirable to give the conclusions of the Committee without giving their report, which, as I have already informed the hon. Member, is confidential.

  BRITISH CENTRAL, AFRICA—HUT TAX.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the cost of collection of hut tax in the British Central Africa Protectorate in the year 1898-9, when the tax amounted to £12,648, as compared with 1897-8, when the tax collected was £8,083; and is the tax paid in the form of labour or otherwise; if in labour, how many days' service are enforced, and what is the amount of tax per head.
  MR. BRODRICK: (1) It is difficult to say what the cost of the collection of this tax is. The staff of assistants, who are charged amongst other duties with that of collecting the tax, was raised in 1898 by four, the commencing salary being £150. (2) Hut tax regulations were published in the British Central Africa Gazette of August 20th, 1894. The tax is fixed at 3s. for each hut, payable in sterling coin on the 31st December. In cases of necessity the collector may accept any marketable stock or produce in lieu of coin. The regulations do not touch labour in any form.

  SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR—REPORTED BRITISH SALE OF AMMUNITION TO SPAIN IN 1898.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affair's whether he has seen the statement made some days ago in the Senate at Madrid by the Spanish Minister, Senor Silvela, to the effect that before the war with the United States in 1898 the British Government had consented to let Spain have 8,500 shells which had been manufactured at the Maxim factory in Plasencia, Biscay: and whether Spain accepted the offer: and, if not, can he, state what has become of the shells.
  MR. BRODKICK: I have not seen the statement. There is no record of it at the War Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire, as the Standard has declared that the statement was made in the Senate at Madrid?

  ASIATIC TURKEY—ATTACK ON BRITISH VICE-CONSUL AT SIDON.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to communicate with regard to the alleged attack upon the British Vice-Consulate at Sidon.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The two sons of the Vice-Consul were attacked and insulted on the 17th inst. The police interfered and protected them to the Consulate. The crowd was dispersed, and subsequently the Vali, at the request of the Consul General, sent a body of gendarmes under their colonel to investigate the matter and seize the offenders.

  PAPERS ON CHINA.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the next Blue-book will be issued containing papers relating to China.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Papers relating to China are now being prepared, and will be issued as soon as possible.

  BRITISH INDIAN REFUGEES FROM THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG GREE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report, which he promised in reply to a question last Tuesday to call for by telegraph from Her Majesty's Consul at Lorenzo Marques, regarding the ill-treatment of a number of British Indian refugees from the Transvaal by the Portuguese military authorities, and their compulsory deportation to India instead of to their homes in Natal, has been received; and, if so, will he state the contents of the Report.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The telegram has been received. Her Majesty's Consul reports the Indian refugees lived in a camp while waiting for the steamers to take them away. The camp was necessarily guarded by Portuguese soldiers. A person employed by the relief committee lived for some time in the camp, but reported no case of abuse. The Indians were sent to their declared homes, and none who were Natalians were sent to India. Her Majesty's Consul adds that no case of proved robbery or abuse was reported to him.

  BRITISH COMMERCIAL AGENTS ABROAD.
  SIR. E. T. GOURLEY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the tentative appointment of commercial reporters in various foreign centres, in accordance with the statement made to the House towards the close of last session.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Commercial agents have already been appointed in Russia, China, and Central America. The appointment of two more commercial agents, to be stationed in Switzerland and the United States, will shortly be made.

  CONSTANTINOPLE RIOTS OF 1896—CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUFFERERS.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that two British mercantile firms, trading at Constantinople, have been compelled to liquidate their affairs in consequence of the financial losses caused by the disturbances and robberies which took place at Stamboul, Haskeny, Pera, and Galata in August, 1896; whether repeated representations have been made by the British Chamber of Commerceat Constantinople in regard to the delay in settling the claims of Her Majesty's subjects residing in Turkey, under the protection of the Capitulations, who suffered loss of property at the time of the massacres; and what steps the Government propose; to take for the purpose of securing payment of the claims which have been certified as fair and reasonable by the British Ambassador.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are aware that the losses sustained on the occasion referred to have caused serious embarrassment to several of the sufferers, and that representations have been made by British merchants at Constantinople. The claims have been pressed on the attention of the Porte, and will continue to be so pressed; but Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to do more than act in concert with other Powers who are equally concerned.

  THE HOOLEY BANKRUPTCY.
  MR. FLOWER (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the matter of the bankruptcy of Mr. E. T.
  1096
  Hooley the liabilities amounted to £1,549,071, and that in the course of the nineteen months during which the estate of the bankrupt has been in the hands of the official trustee only one dividend of 2s. in the £ has been paid to the creditors; and whether he can state what is the cause in the delay in the winding up of the estate.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The estate is not in the hands of an official trustee, but of a trustee elected by the creditors acting under a committee of inspection. The trustee reports that he has notice of claims amounting to £1,524,505, but that he expects to reduce them by rejection to the extent of about two-thirds. He explains the delay in winding up the estate by the exceptional difficulties attending the investigation of those claims, and by the necessity of awaiting favourable opportunities for the redemption and sale of freehold and leasehold estates and other assets held in mortgage by secured creditors. The mortgaged properties are stated to have included upwards of 200 buildings in course of erection, some of which were not completed till last autumn, and cannot be advantageously disposed of till the spring. The trustee expects to gazette notice of a second dividend before Easter.

  DISCHARGES OF BRITISH SAILORS AT FOREIGN PORTS.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON ()had on the paper the following question:—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of sailors and firemen discharged from British registered vessels at Hamburg, Antwerp, and Rotterdam during each of the following years, i.e., 1897, 1898, and 1899; whether he can state the number of sailors and firemen engaged in British vessels at the same ports and during the same years; and whether he can state the percentage of foreigners so engaged.
  On being called upon to put the question, the hon. Member said: I have received information, in reply to this question, from the right hon. Gentleman; but as I consider the matter of great importance, I should like to ask him if he is willing to supply it in the shape of a Return, so that it may be put on the Table for the benefit of Members who

  1097
  want to know the percentage of foreigners engaged on British ships in foreign ports.
  MR. RITCHIE: There is a return which sets out clearly the number of foreigners employed on British ships. If I were to make returns of all the information for which the hon. Gentleman is continually asking me, I should he compelled to lay on the Table very much more than the House would care to have,
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: May I, in anwer to the tight hon. Gentleman—
  *MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MADDISON (): Will the right hon. Gentleman furnish other hon. Members with a copy of the answer, because we are equally interested, although from a different point of view?.
  MR. RITCHIE: I shall be very pleased indeed to let any hon. Gentleman who cares for it to have a copy of the answer. It is perfectly impossible to take up the time of the House by reading out all the figures for which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough asks me.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, may I ask him whether the information with which he has furnished me applies only to foreigners engaged on British ships in the United Kingdom, and not to those engaged in Continental ports.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman will see from the answer exactly what it is. I have given him a complete answer to the question.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I shall call attention to this matter to-night after twelve o'clock.

  ANSTRUTHER STATION, NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the recommendations of his Department, embodied in a Report by the late Major Marindin, issued in January, 1897, as to the necessity of properly laying out Anstruther Station on the North British Bait way system, so as to afford the usual facilities for passing trains and avoid needless danger to life and property, has yet been carried out; and whether the
  1098
  provision of a second platform at this station, as suggested by the Board of Trade inspector, has been made; and, if not, what steps he intends to take to make the company carry out the recommendations.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir: I regret to learn from the company that the directors have not come to a decision as to the alterations at the station. The Board cannot compel the company to make these desirable alterations, but I am in communication with the company on the subject.

  VIVISECTION—PHYSIOLOGICAL LABORATORY, LONDON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how often within the last two years the Physiological Laboratory, University College, London, has been visited by the Government inspector: is he aware that Mr. R. E Lloyd. B. Sc., in the Journal of Physiology, dated 2nd February, refers to experiments which be made upon three cats and four monkeys, the animals being allowed to linger for two months before death ensued; will he ascertain whether these experiments were made without the use of anæsthetics and, if they were, will he say when a certificate enabling Mr. Lloyd to dispense with the use of anæsthetics was granted z and whether any of these experiments were made in the presence of a Government inspector.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE; RIDLEY,): The Physiological Laboratory at University College was visited by the Government Inspector three times in 1898, and once in 1899. During the last quarter of 1899' no experimental work was being carried, on there. As regards the last three paragraphs of the question, I think, the article in the Journal of Physiology has been misunderstood. It does not appear that Mr. Lloyd performed any experiments on living animals at all; and he refers in the paper only. so far as his own work is concerned, to microscopical examination of some brains removed after death from animals upon which experiments had been previously made under, anæsthetics by a. person, holding the proper certificates.

  VALUATION OF SCOTTISH DEER FORESTS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state in what respect the valuation of deer forests in Scotland which are let differs from those which are not let; and if, in making the valuation, the number of stags which a forest can carry is considered, will he state by what evidence the assessor is guided and what is the valuation set on each stag.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The valuation of a deer forest which is let is based upon the conditions of the lease; and that of a forest which is not let is based on the information which the assessor derives from the proprietor or his factor and from any other available sources, as well as by comparison with other forests which are let. The value set on each stag ranges from £15 to £20, varying according to locality, facilities of access, and other such considerations.

  EDINBURGH SASINE OFFICE EMPLOYEES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that about a month ago an engrossing clerk in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, was summarily dismissed on the ground of defective eye sight, and that he died shortly afterwards in Morningside Asylum a pauper lunatic; and whether it is the practice of this Department to summarily dismiss officials under such circumstances; and if so, will arrangements be made to grant temporary leave of absence in similar cases, as in other public Departments in England.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed that it is true that an old engrossing clerk of the Register of Sasines recently died in Morningside Asylum. This clerk was not summarily dismissed, but had been continued in the office for many years until his writing had become illegible and a source of danger to the public records. The Department has at all times shown to its staff whatever kindness and consideration it was possible in the interests of the public service to show.

  MAIDSTONE REGISTRARSHIP.
  MR. CORNWALLIS (): I beg to ask the President of the Local
  1100
  Government Board on what grounds the Board gave their consent to the recent application of the Registrar General to unite the West Maidstone sub-district with the East Maidstone sub-district against the unanimously expressed opposition of the guardians of the Maidstone Union; whether this course was adopted on the advice of the Local Government Board's inspector; and whether he will now take steps to give effect to the wishes of the guardians in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,) (for Mr. CHAPLIN): The consent referred to was given by the Local Government Board in the belief that the proposed change would be for the general convenience of the public. The reply to the second paragraph of the question is in the negative. The wishes of the guardians could only be met by a fresh order being made by the Registrar General with the sanction of the Board, and he would be exceedingly unwilling to issue such an order. The new district is co-extensive with the parish and borough of Maidstone, and the Registrar General believes that the area is well within the capacity of a single registrar, and that the union of the two sub-districts will effect a reduction in in the cost of registration payable out of local rates.

  BIRMINGHAM UNIVERSITY.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, having regard to the fact that doubts exist as to whether the proposed charter for the University of Birmingham will empower the university to grant degrees in theology or other subjects not recognised by the statutes as subjects for degrees, the Government will state what is intended to be the effect of the charter in this matter, and will advise Her Majesty so to amend the charter as to make it clear that this cannot be done.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): It is not possible for me to state what the provisions of the charter will be; they will be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

  CHURCH COPPENHALL BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH (): I beg to ask the Vice President of the

  1101
  Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the affixing to the wall inside of the Board school of Church Coppenhall, Crewe, the parish almanack containing announcements that confessions are received every Sunday evening, when the rector will be found in church, and at other times by appointment, asserting the doctrines of the Apostolic succession of the clergy of the Church of England, advocating prayers for the dead, and deprecating the use of the word Protestant as applied to the Church of England; and whether the Education Department will interfere to have these placards removed.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): My attention has been called to this almanack by the question of the hon. Member. The Education Department does not seem to have any power to interfere in the matter.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is according to the law?
  SIR J. GORST: That is not the question. It may be quite according to law, but the only things the Education Department has power to prohibit are a catechism or a formula. The almanack is neither the one nor the other.

  TEETH OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to the fact that a large percentage of the young men who enlist in Her Majesty's Army are subsequently rejected on account of bad teeth, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a fully qualified dentist to attend periodically at each school under the control of the Council for the purpose of inspecting the teeth of all lads over the age of ten, so that they may be encouraged to take such steps as are necessary for the preservation of their teeth.
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council regard this as a matter for the consideration of local authorities and managers of schools: but the suggestion of the hon. Member shall be considered.

  EDUCATIONAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
  MR. YOXALL (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the appointment and proportionate allotment of members of the Consultative Committee, under the Board of Education Act, 1899, due regard will be had to the fact that this Committee is to be concerned with the registration of 60,000 elementary school teachers, and not with the registration of teachers in secondary and higher places of education alone: in what proportion the bodies of teachers in secondary schools and the body of teachers in public elementary schools are to be represented on the Committee; and whether care will be taken to ascertain that the persons to be nominated as representative of the said bodies respectively are likely to be considered suitable for the purpose by the said bodies before the nomination is actually made.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. In answer to the second paragraph, I may say that no persons will be placed on the Committee expressly as representatives of the teachers in secondary and elementary schools respectively. The function of the Committee will be to advise the Board on such educational questions as may be referred to them, not to advance the views of any outside body. Every effort will be made to secure the appointment of persons suitable for that purpose.

  DRILLING IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he could introduce (billing in elementary schools as part of the boys' education.
  SIR J. GORST: Drill or suitable physical exercises are according to the code a condition of the higher grant for discipline in all schools for older scholars.
  MR. TOMLINSON (): Will care be taken that in the future the drill is such as to fit the children for service in the Army?
  SIR J. GORST: In great towns it is done, but, obviously, it would be impossible in a country village, where there

  1103
  were only perhaps thirty children taught by a schoolmistress, to have military drill.

  THE WILLIAM BUTLER ESTATE, GALWAY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the sale under the Land Acts of part of the William Butler estate in Galway.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) (for Mr. C. W. BALFOUR): Any delay that has hitherto taken place in the proceedings for the sale of this estate is due, I am informed, to the tenants themselves, who would not cooperate with the solicitor having carriage of the sale in arranging for the settlement of the rental. All substantial difficulties have now been overcome, however, and a request under the 40th section of the Land Act of 18% will very shortly be issued.

  CHARITABLE LOAN FUNDS (IRELAND) ACT, 1843.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland does he intend to introduce during this session a Bill to amend the Charitable Loan Funds (Ireland) Act, 1843.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G W. BALFOUR): I hope to be able to introduce at an early date a Bill similar to that brought in last session.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Before Easter?
  MR. ATKINSON: I hope so.

  IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed by Cavan County Council, recommending that in all Irish speaking districts the knowledge of English and other useful subjects shall be imparted through the medium of Irish, and in places not Irish speaking it shall be lawful to teach Irish as a remunerated subject. And whether he can state if it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the resolution.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. M. BALFOUR): The resolution referred to has been received, and has been brought under the notice of the Commissioners of National Education. As I have already stated, the matter is entirely one for consideration by the Commissioners, who are the proper authorities to deal with it, in connection with the revision of the school programme shortly to be carried out.

  ANNALY ESTATE, COUNTY LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he will call for a report from the receiver of the Annaly (County Longford) estate into the allegation made by tenants living in the. parish of Rathcline, County Longford, that he had induced them to sign undertakings to purchase the holdings on the understanding that the purchase proceedings would be concluded in two years; whether he is aware that only a small portion of these tenants have had the promise; fulfilled; and can he indicate in what way these tenants can now obtain redress.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have more than once endeavoured to explain to the hon. Member that a receiver appointed over an estate awaiting sale in the Landed Estates Court is an officer of that court responsible to it, and liable to be removed or punished by it, for any misconduct or neglect of duty of which he may be guilty. The Executive have no control whatever over him, and it would be an unwarrantable interference with the authority of that court to make the inquiry suggested. If the tenants have anything to complain of in the conduct of the receiver they have only to bring the matter before the Land Judge, from whom I am certain they will obtain any redress to which they may be entitled.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: If substantial complaint is made will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report on the conduct of this officer?
  MR. ATKINSON: Certainly not. I have no right whatever to do that.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  1105
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will introduce a Bill for the reconstitution of the Irish Lights Board, in order to bring the Board into harmony with the representative principles of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): This question should more properly be addressed to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, the Board of Irish Lights being under the jurisdiction of the Department he represents. There is no analogy between the Local Government Act and the statutory powers under which the Irish Lights Board are constituted.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is the Irish Lights Board maintained as a costly fossil or as a useful body?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH POOR LAW UNIONS AND NATIONAL EDUCATION.
  MR. FLYNN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it the intention of the Government to permit poor law unions to contribute to the expense of national education under the Act of 1875 as heretofore; if not, will the teachers in contributory unions be secured the incomes they have hitherto enjoyed: and if unions that have been contributory are prepared to continue so, will the Government recoup them from the new grant as they formerly were recouped from the Customs and Excise Grant.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The Board of National Education have in contemplation a scheme of reform under which, if adopted, results fees would be abolished. In that event the Act of 1875, which only enables guardians to contribute a certain proportion of the results fees, would have to be amended to enable guardians to contribute in another form if that was ultimately considered desirable. As was explained by my right hon. friend in his answer to a question of the hon. Member for East Donegal on the 13th instant, arrangements have been made under which the teachers will receive direct (out of the sum of £78,000 voted by Parliament) the sum which was formerly refunded to boards of guardians of contributory unions. The financial
  1106
  details of the scheme are still under consideration, but the intention is not to prejudice the interests of the teachers.

  LEITRIM AND LONGFORD LAND APPEALS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commission has fixed an appeal sitting for Counties Leitrim and Longford, to take place at Carrick-on-Shannon on 13th March, and remainder of unheard cases at Mullingar on 14th March; whether he is aware that of the fifty-five County Leitrim cases listed for hearing at Carrick-on-Shannon only forty-six are proposed to be heard at Carrick, and the other nine to go to Mullingar; whether he can explain why the 176 cases from County Longford are to be taken past the county town to Mullingar to be heard there, to the inconvenience of the parties and for whose convenience these arrangements are made; and whether he can represent to the Chief Commissioners the advisability of the sittings for Leitrim being held in Carrick-on-Shannon, and for Longford at the county court-house in Longford town.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The second paragraph is based on a misapprehension. All the cases from the County Leitrim are entered for hearing at Carrick-on-Shannon. The list from this county consists, nominally, of fifty-five cases, but nine of these cases are duplicates—appeals having been lodged by both landlord and tenant, so that the number of distinct cases from the County Leitrim to be heard at Carrick is only forty-six. None of the Leitrim cases will be heard at Mullingar, as the hon. Member appears to suppose. With regard to the cases from the County Longford, the town of Mullingar, where they are listed to be heard, is only distant from the town of Longford one hour by rail, and the majority of those cases refer to holdings situated between Mullingar and Longford. The Commissioners, after careful inquiry, considered that Mullingar would be the most convenient place to dispose of these cases; but, consistently with the despatch of public business, every arrangement possible will be made to prevent persons attending from being unduly delayed at Mullingar.

  MURDER OF WILLIAM BIRD AT BANTRY—THE UNITED IRISH LEAGUE.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can give the House any information with regard to the murder of Mr. William Bird, an Irish landlord, who was shot at Bantry on Saturday last; and whether it is a fact that a branch of the United Irish League was established in Bantry the Sunday before.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (): On a point of order, may I ask whether the concluding paragraph of the question just put, conveying as it does an insinuation, is not an improper one, and one which under ordinary circumstances the hon. Member would not be allowed to place on the Paper.
  *MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was not aware of the character of the question which the hon. Member for Belfast intended to put. He ought to have given notice of the question.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I suppose I may be allowed to ask the Attorney General whether he has any information concerning the murder of Mr. William Bird, on Saturday.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir, unfortunately Mr. William Bird seems to have been murdered in his own rent-office at two o'clock in the day.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware of a single instance in which a member of the United Irish League has advocated outrage.
  [No answer was given.]

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
  MR. ARCHDALE (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland whether, taking into account the outbreak in England of foot and mouth disease, pedigree cattle can be imported into Ireland from England and Scotland by the Congested Districts Board or private individuals.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): In consequence of the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in England, the
  1108
  importation from Great Britain into Ireland of cattle, as well as of sheep and other ruminating animals, and also swine, has for the present been suspended. In view of the highly infectious nature of the disease, and of the rapidity with which it spreads, it is felt that it would not be safe, at present, to grant any permission for the importation into Ireland of pedigree or other cattle from any part of Great Britain.

  IRISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS HOARD—OPERATIONS IN CONNAUGHT.
  DR. AMBROSE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of acres of land purchased by the Congested Districts Board in the province of Connaught since the Congested Districts Board Act came into force, dividing them into the number of acres already striped and in the hands of tenants; the number of acres unstriped and in the hands of the Congested Districts Board, and how long have the Congested Districts Board been in possession of such lands; the number of acres striped and in the possession of the Congested Districts Board, and how long have such lands been in the Board's possession; and how many acres have been purchased within the last two years.
  MR. PLUNKETT: The number of acres purchased by the Board in Connaught down to the present date is 136,884. Of these the number of acres apportioned and in the occupation of tenants is 106,591. The acreage in the occupation of tenants though not yet apportioned is 4,069. The number of acres apportioned but still in the Board's possession is 1,060, of which 688 are now ready for occupation. And there are 25,161 acres not yet apportioned. The number of acres in the province purchased within the past two years and comprised in the foregoing figures is 128,989, the greater proportion of which, namely, more than 91,000 acres, is made up of one property the Dillon estate. Of the 25,161 acres not yet apportioned, it must be borne in mind that the more apportionment is a work that occupies very little time. Considerable delay is often entailed in the execution of the conveyance of the fee-simple, not to speak of the large amount of work involved in connection with fencing, the construction of accommoda-

  1109
  tion roads, and the erection of new houses to replace those unfit for habitation.

  REDISTRIBUTION BILL.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the result of the consideration which last session he promised would be given by the Cabinet to the subject of the increasing disparities in the representation of the people in Parliament; whether he is aware that the Registration Returns of last autumn show a still further increase in such disparities; and whether, without going to the extent of bringing in a Redistribution Bill in the present session, the Government intend to institute or will consent to some form of preliminary inquiry into and ascertainment of the facts upon which any future Redistribution Bill must be based, and which preliminary inquiry must necessarily take considerable time, probably a whole session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The facts to which my hon. friend alludes are well known. I do not think that any investigation such as he desires really would throw any light upon the topic he wants to discuss, and as he does not suggest a Redistribution Bill this session I do not think that any further steps need be taken.

  NATIONAL COAL SUPPLY—SUGGESTED ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering that it is twenty-nine years since a Royal Commission reported on our coal supplies in the United Kingdom, the Government will appoint another Commission to consider the subject, as the questions of their extent and cost have again become of pressing national importance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a very interesting one, but unless it can be suggested that some practical issue would come from the inquiry he suggests, it seems hardly worth while to appoint a Commission in order to investigate the matter.

  THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
  1110
  whether he will state when the Army Estimates will be taken.
  MAJOR RASCH ()had a similar question on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Army Estimates are not yet printed. In any case, the House must make further progress with the Navy Estimates before the Army Estimates can be taken.

  RUSSIAN CONSUL AT BOMBAY.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Russian Government has made a proposal to appoint a Consul General at Bombay; whether there are any British Consuls anywhere in Russia east of Batoum; and whether, before agreeing to the appointment of a Russian Consul General at Bombay, the Government will require the acceptance of a British Consular representative at some suitable place in Eastern Russia.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that this question has already been fully answered by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on the 19th of this month.*

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER (): I wish to ask a question with regard to No. 5 of the Orders of the Day. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with that to-night, in view of the fact that it covers the Vote on which is raised the question of the Cromwell statue.
  MR. WEIR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I wish to inquire if he is aware that only 21 Votes out of 138 had been discussed when he moved the closure on Friday. What opportunity does he intend to give us for discussing the remainder of the Votes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It has, I believe, been the practice of the House to take the Vote on Account in the course of a single evening. In answer to my right hon. friend, I may say that there is a Report down for to-night earlier than the one to which he refers. I do not propose to ask the House to sit to an
  * See page 374 of this volume.

  1111
  undue hour, but should the Report to which I have alluded be disposed of without debate, I should hope then to be allowed to get the other Report. But, under any circumstances, I should not ask the House to take it after half-past twelve.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The matter to which I alluded is the erection of a statue within the precincts, in defiance of the decisions of both Houses, a subject in which great interest is taken, and it would no doubt l) e for the general convenience if my right hon. friend would name a time after which he will not take the Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may point out to my right hon. friend that we had three or four hours discussion on this matter at a most convenient period on Friday last, and under these circumstances I think he is unreasonable in asking us to give an early hour for the discussion of the Report stage of a Vote which has already been taken after full debate.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It would be of great convenience to the Irish Members if the First Lord of the Treasury could state approximately when he proposes to move the House into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates. He has been kind enough to promise us a certain amount of notice, but can he assure us that it will not be done before the 20th March? Further I would like to ask him when he proposes to take the Budget. Will it be before Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly hope the Budget will be taken before Easter. As regards the other question of the hon. Member, I am unwilling to pledge myself without notice. I should like to see what progress we make with our financial business and to ascertain exactly what our financial necessities are. I would therefore suggest that he put his question again to-morrow or Thursday, and then I will endeavour to answer him.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I think I am relieved
  1112
  by the circumstances of the times from offering any justification for the magnitude of those Estimates which I now rise to. propose. The amount is £27,522,600, being an increase of £928,100 over the Estimates of last year. This is a stage—not a very long stage—in that increase of our naval expenditure which has now been going on for about six or seven. years. When we took office five years ago, the Navy Estimates stood at £18,700,000. to-day I propose them at £27,500,000, nearly half as much again. The average yearly increase during those years has been about £2,000,000, but the progress has not boon uniform. On one occasion the leap that was taken amounted to £3,100,000; last year it was £2,800,000. But whatever the differences have been in the amounts of the Estimates proposed, there has been a continuity of policy; the same principles have underlain all the Estimates from year to year, and they have not been spasmodic or capricious. When prompt action had to be taken, it has been taken, but we were still guided by those principles with which the House is fully acquainted, and which, I think, the House and the country have endorsed. To the Estimates this year of £27,500,000 must be added about £2,000,000 probably, for expenditure under the Naval Works Act, which would bring up the total to nearly £30,000,000 sterling. I say this coldly, not rhetorically, only for the information of the Committee. These Estimates have been framed on the same principles as former Estimates. There is nothing sensational about the Estimates—indeed I am informed in some quarters that the absence of anything sensational about the Estimates has caused great disappointment—they simply represent the steady progress which we have been engaged in for some years past. I need not tell the House that, though) there is nothing sensational in these Estimates, we thoroughly realise the situation in which we stand. We know what the nation expects of the Navy, and we know our duty is to prepare for all emergencies. We have framed the Estimates on that footing. We have not included in them any amount for the mobilisation of the Fleet. If the mobilisation had to take place, and if we thought it necessary, we should not hesitate for a moment to mobilise the Fleet and come to Parliament for the necessary sum in order to

  1113
  do so. But we do not think that that time has come, and we hope it will not come. We are not menaced by any naval Power; and, supposing we were to mobilise, what should we do with our mobilised vessels? There might be a long time during which there was no increase in the present tension, and during that time the mobilised Fleet would parade up and down the Channel in order to show Europe that we possess the ships. Europe knows our strength. There are times when a demonstration is advisable and sometimes necessary, but we do not think that a demonstration of that kind is necessary now. There are three meanings in which mobilisation is used. There is the mobilisation of the Fleet; there is the partial mobilisation, as we call it, which takes place at the manoeuvres; and there is the mobilisation of particular ships or a particular squadron. I daresay that some of those who cry for the mobilisation of the Fleet mean the mobilisation of a squadron, or something short of a great mobilisation, which is not necessary, and which would disturb the whole of the training which sailors and the marines go through at such establishments as the "Excellent." and the "Cambridge" at Devonport, the gunnery and torpedo schools, that constant training which is necessary to develop the bluejacket and the marine up to date. The alarmists cry for mobilisation; but the sensationalists scent it often where there is no question of mobilisation at all. There was a curious case the; other day, when the papers began to publish paragraphs headed, "Admiralty Active," "Admiralty Alive to the Situation," because we had begun, as it was supposed, coaling some ships in the Reserve. I had not heard of this coaling at all. I had to inquire about it, and I asked my naval colleagues. They had not heard about it, and no order had been given. We asked the Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth Dockyard, but he did not know; he had given no orders. What had happened? It was the storekeeper at Portsmouth, who, acting on a port order, had filled up ships with some coal which had been used on them during a certain time. There is a rule that they ought to be filled with coal when used up to a certain point, and, acting automatically on that order, these ships had been tilled up, but the incident was utilised in order to predict and emphasise the beginning of
  1114
  a mobilisation. That warns us that we must be careful what we do, because we do not want to disturb the minds either of the sensationalists or of any other class. There is an administrative measure which the Admiralty are going to take, and which will commend itself to the public generally. It is in reference to the Reserve Squadron. The ships of that squadron have hitherto gone every year about March 1st to Portland for prize-firing and some other exercises. They will go there this year, but we propose that they shall go there and act together, instead of singly or independently, and that the Admiral of the Reserves should take charge of the Reserve ships. He. will take them to sea and exorcise them in tactics as well as prize-firing, and in every way the efficiency of the squadron and the individual ships will be increased by their acting together in that manner. I mention it as an administrative measure. I do not know that it was necessary to inform the House of this, but I foresee that the moment this action takes place and the admiral hoists his flag at Portland the incident will be taken to mean mobilisation, and it will be stated "at last we have become awakened to the necessities of the situation." The absence of the Channel Squadron was commented on in the same class of paragraphs I have referred to, but at the time when it was said that our coasts were in danger during the present state of things the Channel fleet was engaged in excellent exercises in the seclusion of Bantry Bay. I come now to another subject not unconnected with this which I have treated. A point on which there has been alarm has been the question of coal. We have been summoned to explain why we did not take some measures to stop the export of coal to France and Russia and other Powers with whom it was thought we might possibly at some time' be at war. I ask the House, Is it within the sphere of practical politics to talk at this moment of stopping the export of coal? I do not know what would be the condition even of the great coal-producing counties. I do not know what would be said by the shipowners, by the owners of collieries, and by the vast interests engaged in the coal trade; but I submit that it is an entirely impossible measure to consider that it would be possible to stop the export of

  1115
  coal before war breaks out or until an emergency of a totally different character from the present one arises. What we hare to do, and are attempting to do, is to take every precaution that we shall he able to get all the coal we want, and that our coaling arrangements may be as perfect as forethought, arrangement, and organisation can make them. We have under review our arrangements with the collieries, and have examined carefully the question of the export of coal. I think the House may be interested to know what the percentage of the export of coal to France and Russia is to the total output of the United Kingdom. It is 4 per cent. The coal which went to France and Russia combined in 1899 was 9,000,000 tons. It is larger than usual. There has been a strike in Silesia, and in consequence Russia has been importing large quantities of coal for railways and other purposes from this country instead of from Germany. Russia has reduced the tax on coal in order to facilitate the import. It was stated that there were contracts for 400,000 tons, which created some alarm; but if a contract like this is made by a Government it does not follow that the coal has to be delivered at once. It may be part of the coal arrangements which are habitual, but the statistics I have given show that we ought not to be alarmed at the export of coal to France and Russia. At the same time it is our business to see that some arrangements are made to secure coal. The difficulty, however, lies not only with the getting of the coal, but with getting colliers, which is sometimes a more difficult point than the getting of the coal itself. There is one point I omitted with reference to mobilisation. I omitted to state that persons have commented upon the absence of ships, or have expressed a desire that more should be commissioned. I think they can hardly realise the enormous number of fighting and sea going ships and the great difference which exists in that respect between now and ten years ago. There are now 258 sea-going ships in commission, with crews of 56,000; while in 1888 there were only 139 ships, with crews of 25,000. Therefore, there are at sea at present twice the number of men and more than 100 more ships. Let people consider that when the) ask for the mobilisation of still more ships. But one step we took when the demand for cruisers for the Cape was considered, and
  1116
  when we had to send out the "Furious," the "Terrible," and others, thinking it our duty to look out for the transports at Gibraltar, Las Palmas, and St. Vincent. We then transferred the officers and crews from four ships of the training squadron to modern men-of-war; and by that step we strengthened the fighting efficiency of the fleet by four powerful ships. But there has been much comment on that step. My hon. friend behind me looks with dismay at this transfer, and he will probably ask me whether it is to be permanent. I cannot answer that question yet. No final decision has yet been taken by the Admiralty. Personally, I have always been in favour of the transfer, but the opinion of the Navy is extremely divided on the subject, and I think that the great balance of opinion among the men on the active list is that the sailing training squadron is doomed. Sucessive commanders-in-chief of the Mediterranean Squadron and of the Channel Squadron have held that opinion, and those great authorities must naturally have weight. As to my opinion, it is still in suspense, but I say distinctly that on a subject of this kind it is the duty of a civilian First Lord to be guided by the advice; of his naval colleagues on the Board. On this occasion I ought to say one word on the transport service, though it will be more fully discussed—possibly in a critical spirit—on a future day. I do not now intend to defend the action of the Admiralty, but merely to place before the House and the public the magnitude of the operations which have been undertaken. Since the beginning of July 181 transports and freight ships have been engaged in the conveyance to South Africa of a force of 132,000 officers and men, 23,300 horses, and 23,600 mules—exclusive of the troops, horses, etc., which have been conveyed from India and the colonies under local arrangements, and exclusive of certain Volunteer detachments and special corps. In this connection, I wish to compliment the mercantile marine on their part. It has been noted how extraordinarily few accidents have occurred. There have been two serious ones at most, but as far as we know the whole of these operations has been conducted without the loss of a single human life. In these vast operations we have seen the reserve power of this country for all the sub-

  1117
  sidiary operations of war, and the assistance which could be rendered by the mercantile marine in times of emergency. Not only have the ships been excellent, but I am told that the masters of all these ships—cattle boats many of them, or boats engaged in far rougher trades than that of conveying Yeomanry and Household troops—have invariably acted with a courtesy and ability in discharging their onerous duties which have excited the admiration and praise of our military authorities. I have thought it right on this occasion to mention a few matters which do not arise directly on the Estimates, because they appear to me to be of general interest, and it would be thought strange if I did not make some allusion to them. I pass now to the Estimates proper, and the great problems involved in them. Generally, the increase of £920,000 may be divided as follows:—Personnel, £448,000; Miscellaneous, £28,000; Works, £51,000; Ordnance Vote, £294,000: Vote 8, shipbuilding, £108,000. As to the Works Vote, one of the principal points in the increase is the attention which has been paid to hospitals. This is a matter which has attracted a great deal of attention on our part. The hospitals we did not think were thoroughly up to date; they required considerable reform: and the whole naval medical staff has been dealt with. In regard to the Ordnance Vote, the increase is over £290,000. It is a very anxious Vote; and I do not think I need justify the amount we have taken for that Vote, though it is immense. At present it stands at £3,000,000, while five years ago it stood at £1,000,000. It has almost doubled in that time: but it is a Vote no part of which would be grudged by anyone in this House. It is a very anxious Vote, because it is in connection with this Vote that we have to consider new inventions and appliances of every kind; and not only the nature of our guns, but the amount which we ought to have in store. But, at all events, I would ask hon. Members to remember that it is under this Vote that there have been provided the naval 4· 7 in. and 12-pounder guns which, under the blue-jackets and marines, have done such excellent service at the front. With reference to the personnel, we propose an increase of 4,240, which will bring the numbers up to 115,000. Can we get them? We can get them. I
  1118
  think the best proof that we can get them is that I asked for an increase last year of little more than 4,000 and we have raised them. The numbers have risen from 105,000 on February 1, 1899, to 110,000 on the 1st of this month. We have only 400 more to get during the next month to realise the whole number for which we asked. There was a time when we hoped that we might have rested at a lower figure than 115,000. Last year I said I hoped that when we had reached 110,000 we might stop; but the action of other countries and the general needs of the service have been such that we have been compelled to advance to the present figure. I will not deny that there are drawbacks to this rapid increase, which in a few years has raised a personnel of 65,000 to 115,000. One drawback is that we must have young recruits, and there is a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of petty officers of a certain seniority. Then there is great difficulty in getting them all to sea, notwithstanding the immense number of ships commissioned. We do our best to train them on shore, but there are many difficulties. With reference to the Naval Reserves, I have remarked in my printed statement that a smaller number were embarked for the six months training and somewhat fewer enrolled than we took the money for last year. The exceptional circumstances mentioned in that statement have accounted for the fact to some extent. But I would remind the House that this is a new scheme, under which the quality of the men is to be largely improved, and that is to be done by insisting that every Naval Reservist during the first five years shall go to sea for six months in a man-of-war, and that is a condition which I should be most reluctant to relax. We have no intention of retracing our steps in that respect. It is no use having a paper Reserve. We want trained men. We would rather put up with a somewhat smaller enrolment if it enabled us to have men who knew all about a man-of-war. But I do not accept the present slacker enrolment as normal, and, indeed, since the statement was issued we have better prospects of increasing the number of men at sea. In the Reserve Squadron, which will be brought together at Portland in March, there will be, for instance, 500 Reserve men, who will take their part in all the movements. We are not content

  1119
  with merely having the men. We have been giving a great deal of attention to the point as to the use to which we should put them in case of an emergency. We should not absorb a very large number of the Reserve in order to man every ship that we could possibly send to sea. But we are engaged in the study of a plan as to how to employ and utilise them to the very best advantage, and we, therefore, think it would be better to obtain powers to call up a certain number of the Reserve, if we required them—say 10,000 or 15,000 instead of the whole 29,000 at once. At present, as the law stands, if we were to call out the Reserve for mobilisation we should have to call out the whole 29,000; so we propose to introduce a short Bill, which I am sure the House will be willing to pass, to give us somewhat more elasticity in the calling up of the Reserve. It is often asked, Will the Naval Reservists turn up when they are wanted? The same question was asked with regard to the Army Reserve. The Army Reservists came up when the call was made on them, and I sec no reason whatever why the Naval Reservists should not show the same alacrity in fulfilling their engagements as was shown by the Army Reservists. But we are not content even to leave matters entirely in this position. We have been looking around for further organised Reserves. There is another Reserve which is very little heard of: it is that most excellent Reserve, the seamen pensioners, numbering 1,500 men, who have earned their pensions and have gone into the Seamen Pensioners Reserve, and who for a slight remuneration do a certain amount of drill every year, and are ready to be called out in an emergency. The importance of this Reserve is that the majority of the men are petty officer's, and these 4,500 seasoned men would be invaluable as petty officers for the 29,000 Reserve men, and we are now considering how these two organisations can be brought together. But that is an existing Reserve. We find that there is no Reserve for the seamen who take their discharge after twelve years service without re-engagement. The statistics of the discharge of these men do not give a right impression of the facts, because a great many of them re-enrol after six months, though they count as having taken their discharge. But no doubt there is a great number of these men who do not enrol themselves in this Reserve,
  1120
  and I am told that only one in five of them join the Naval Reserve, which is an entirely different body, composed of fishermen and sailors of the mercantile marine. These are men who are experts, who belong to the prime of the service, and whom it would be most desirable to secure. Now there is no Marine Reserve. We are at the present time studying plans for sweeping in both marines and seamen who have taken their discharge after twelve years, and I hope, on a future occasion, to be able to lay figures before the House showing how we have strengthened our resources in that direction. The more trained men we can get the more valuable our Reserve will be. I should say that both the seamen pensioners who have not joined a Reserve, and the Marine pensioners who have not joined any Reserve, are still all liable to be called up until they are 55 years of age. The men who are not liable to be called up are those who have taken their discharge without pensions. The House perhaps does not know the large resources we have in manning when we take into account all those Reserves together. We have 28,000 Royal Naval Reserve, 9,000 seamen pensioners, of whom 4,500 are in the Seamen Pensioners Reserve, 2,800 Marine pensioners, making a total of 40,000, all liable to service. Besides these there are 115,000 on the active list, giving a total of 155,000, from which I deduct 6,000 boys in training, leaving 149,000 men whom we are able to call up in case of emergency. That is exclusive of the new proposals I am about to make. I do not say whether it is enough, but I am putting the plain facts before the House. There is a further attempt we are going to make. The House will feel, I hope, that we are giving our attention seriously to this matter-. We are now inquiring as to how we can organise Naval Reserves in our colonies. The military instincts of the colonics have been so developed in connection with the war in South Africa as to inspire us with the hope that, if we can only find an adequate system of organisation, we shall be able to get valuable contingents for our Navy from Australia, Ganada, and elsewhere. But there are some difficulties in the way, partly on account of the differences in wages in the colonies and partly because we have not got the same appliances for training in the colonies that we have at home. We have had a long

  1121
  correspondence with some of the authorities in Australia. Our Commander-in-Chief has done his best, but, as I have said, we find certain insuperable difficulties—either that the terms which would have to be given to the Colonial Reserve would be so much higher than the pay of the blue jackets that discontent would arise; or that, on the other hand, if we did not give these high terms, and we required the men to undergo six months' training, we should not be able to get the colonials. That is a formidable difficulty, but it may be possible to solve it in this way namely, not to raise a sea-going Reserve from Australia, but a Naval Reserve for coast defence in which sea training would not be indispensable. But that is a matter for future decision. I thought it better to suspend negotiations on the subject until federation is established, as it would be infinitely easier to deal with one central authority for one Naval Reserve than to arrange for several Reserves with four or five distinct Governments in Australia. With Newfoundland we are more advanced. There wages are not so high, and there the fishing industry is so managed that it may be agreeable to the fishermen to be employed for a period in a man-of-war during the time the fishing season is closed. In that direction there is more hope. They have asked that we should reduce the time of training from six to four months to conform to their local exigencies. No final decision has been taken in the matter, but I thought it my duty to the colonies to inform the House of the interest they have shown in this attempt to form a Colonial Naval Reserve, and their great desire that the negotiations should be ultimately successful. Let me say a word on an important branch of the personnel —I mean the engineers. Those who have read my printed statement will see that we have tried to meet the desires of the engineers to as great an extent as we have found compatible with' the general interests of the service; but, as my printed statement may not have been as accessible to the engineers as I should hope, I should like to read what we have done—
  "The promotion, status, and pay of engineer officers have been recently considered by a committee of the Board, with the result that the following changes have been approved:—The list of chief inspectors of machinery has been increased from live to eight, and that of inspectors of machinery from eight to thirteen.
  1122
  The engineer-in-chief has been given the relative rank of a rear admiral. The yank of staff engineer has been abolished. Chief engineers will rank with lieutenants of and above eight years seniority, while engineers on promotion will rank with lieutenants of less than eight years' seniority instead of, as now, with but after lieutenants. In other respects the relative rank of engineer officers remains unchanged. Engineers will he given a new scale of pay—namely, on promotion, 10s. a day; after four years, 11s. a day; after eight years, 12s. a day; and the allowance of Is. a day at present paid to senior engineers for all ships will be replaced by a scale varying, according to responsibility, from 1s. to 2s. 6d. a day."
  There is one other important branch of the service about which I should like to say a word. I mean the medical service. We are doing what we can to give the medical officers in the Navy greater opportunities for studying and informing themselves generally with reference to the progress of medical science, and also to relieve them of burdens which seem to us unjust. Hitherto the medical officers have had to supply their own surgical instruments, and, as a consequence, which was not unnatural, in many ships the supply of surgical and other instruments and drugs, which are so essential for the welfare of the sailors, has not been sufficient. We have therefore thought it our duty to improve this service to the best of our ability. I hope these details are of some interest: f have given them fully in order that they may be read by others who take a great interest in naval matters. I now pass to another question, not more interesting, but quite as interesting—the question of matériel. I will speak, in the first instance, of construction during the present financial year. The House will observe in the statement an intimation that the two ironclads of which I spoke last year—the "Albemarle" and the "Montagu"—have been begun. It seems a very long time since the Hague Conference assembled to consider the question of mutual disarmament, held its meetings, and when it was called together, the House will remember, we suggested as a Government that possibly the laying down of further battleships might be kept in suspense, with a view to ascertaining what the decision of the Hague Conference might lie. This country, maligned as it generally is for an aggressive intention, was, I think, the only one which made a suggestion of the kind or met in any degree the peaceful spirit which inspired, most sincerely inspired, the

  1123
  Tsar in calling the Conference. The Conference met, and soon it appeared that disarmament was a policy too Utopian to he entertained, or even reduction of armaments. Other valuable matters arose in the Conference, but as to progressive reduction of armaments nothing at all was done; and in the next six months succeeding the Conference more gigantic programmes, stretching forward for eight, sixteen, and twenty years, were conceived and elaborated by the Governments represented at the Hague Conference than had ever been put forward by those Powers before. Well, we commenced the two ironclads which figured in the programme of last year. Then there is another point connected with the programme of last year—namely, that we have dropped our proposal to lay down three third-class cruisers of rather larger dimensions than the "Pelorus" class, intended to be very fast, and designed for special purposes. In the statement laid before the House I have described the considerations which induced us to change our plan. We were guided in the matter to a certain extent by the experience of other countries. France had also intended to lay down some very fast small cruisers, but the French naval architects, like our own, appear to have found the task impossible to perform, and the French Government have withdrawn the small third-class cruisers from their programme, just as we have dropped them from ours. The attempt was to put an enormous amount of machinery within a vessel of very small dimensions. That has been accomplished in the torpedo-destroyers—they are light and very delicate instruments; but when we came to try it on a larger scale it was thought that these third-class cruisers would only be torpedo-destroyers on a larger scale, that they would not have the necessary seagoing or fighting power, and, therefore, it was thought better not to embark on an ambitious attempt, which, though it would result in the appearance of a great success, might turn out to be impracticable in war. The Russian Government have taken a different view and have two such vessels under construction, one in Copenhagen and one in Germany. Whether they will be successful or not is for the Russian Government to judge; they may have a special object in obtaining craft of this kind. We have been guided by the best
  1124
  advice obtainable, and have altered our programme, substituting for these small cruisers a second-class cruiser of an improved "Hermes" type. In this I think the House will consider us justified, and the second-class cruiser will come within the limits of liability sanctioned by Parliament for the three third-class vessels. The proposed second-class cruiser will have the same armament as others of the type, a speed of about twenty-one knots, and a slightly larger displacement. The design is not yet complete. I come now to the most regrettable part of my statement—the failure on the part of contractors for armour, hulls, and machinery to earn the money taken by us in our Estimates, which we hoped would have been spent in the year. It is much to be deplored that we find that £1,400,000 or more of the sum placed at our disposal has not been earned. The most accurate calculations were made, ship by ship, on the basis of what we supposed contractors would earn. But contractors have not earned the amount expected, and a sum of £1,400,000 remains unspent for these purposes. Here I cannot resist the temptation to refer to an interpretation that has been put upon this failure to expend this sum, for it is the most extravagant case of the imaginative perversion of facts which I have over come across. I have seen it seriously suggested in a serious newspaper that the Treasury interfered to prevent this expenditure, that pressure was put upon us not to spend money which belonged not to us but to the contractors. The writer imagined the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to the Admiralty and saying, "Tell your contractors to drop work, because I should like a little more money to wipe off debt at the end of the year." This is the absurd idea seriously put forward, the fact being that we at the Admiralty have been straining every nerve to keep the contractors up to their work, visit after visit having been made to the armour manufacturers for the purpose of seeing whether they could not produce more. Notwithstanding this, such an idea was started. I need not assure the House that our anxiety has been to usefully spend every shilling Parliament has placed at our disposal. We deplore a condition of things which the House must realise in relation to our construction programme. It appears that, so far as machinery, hulls, and armour are concerned, it is difficult to

  1125
  produce more than we are asking for. We have been putting a pretty strong strain on manufacturers; there are fifteen battleships and fourteen armoured cruisers under construction, and it is not surprising that they are pretty well occupied. Under such conditions some critics ask that we should lay down, not two battleships and six armoured cruisers, but ten battleships and thirty armoured cruisers. It would be distinctly dishonest on our part if we were to suggest that we could undertake building and ask Parliament to vote money for ships we cannot build within the time. Our programme is limited to what we believe to be the output of the country in armour, hulls, machinery, and the vast number of accessories to be provided. The limit has been laid down after careful investigation founded on experience. Once before our programme was limited by the output of armour. The great armour firms were sanguine that they could produce so many thousand tons, but unfortunately their expectations were not realised, and though they have increased their plant by nearly 50 per cent. beyond what it was in the previous year, we are still short by £400,000 of the value of the armour we expected would have been produced. I may have a few more observations to make on our programme. As I have said, the main portion is two battleships, six first-class armoured cruisers, and one second-class cruiser. Shipbuilding in foreign countries, of course, has great interest at the present time. Our proposed expenditure for the year 1900–1 is £8,460,000. Russia in ordinary estimates proposes to spend £2,300,000, and under the famous ukase another £2,000,000, making together £4,300,000. France will spend in the financial year £4,154,000, according to estimates: and added together the expenditure of the two Powers makes £8,454,000, or, by an extraordinary accidental coincidence, £6,000 short of our expenditure, Germany will spend about three-and-a-half millions. Then there is a point which I think will interest the House. The French reporter of the committee which considers the Naval Budget states that materials in France for shipbuilding cost 40 per cent. more than in England, and that labour costs 10 per cent. more. I can scarcely believe that materials cost 40 per cent more, but the French experts ought to know. Generally, taking their
  1126
  shipbuilding in France, and probably Russia, as 20 per cent. dearer than here, we have an advantage amounting to no less than about £1,700,000 on the expenditure in the two countries—that is to say, though the expenditure here might be the same as in France and Russia combined, we should build an additional battleship and an additional cruiser. I have verified this view by comparing the cost of individual ships. Their ironclads and cruisers cost more than our ironclads and cruisers. That is an advantage which we have. Perhaps it may also interest the House to know that France has completed two or three ironclads, and that she will have under construction this year three ironclads, and probably if her new programme is carried out she will lay down two more towards the end of tin; year. Let me say one word with reference to the new programmes of France and Germany. Those programmes require to be analysed if we are to understand their true proportions. Germany is starting a programme for sixteen years. Her programme for personnel is to extend up to 1920. Germany's programme reaches the appalling figure of 70 millions sterling. France has got a programme spread over eight years of 28 millions sterling. Germany's first year's expenditure amounts to £4,380,000: and, France's first year's expenditure is £4,154,000, but the House will see that these appalling figures are for programmes spread over a very large number of years, and that what you have got to look at is the annual sum which will be spent, and not these gigantic totals. I compare our annual expenditure of £8,000,000 with the annual expenditure which is contemplated under their great proposals. If we were to act upon the German principle, and have a programme extending over sixteen years, at our present rate the expenditure would be £128,000,000 instead of the £70,000,000 of Germany, and applying the same parallel calculation as regards France we should find our expenditure was £64,000,000 instead of the £28,000,000 which is contemplated by France. I do not know whether any persons in this country would have wished us to lay down a programme for the next sixteen years or even for the next eight years. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth would not have liked a Naval Defence Act of that character, and I think now a Naval

  1127
  Defence Act is unnecessary, because the country has been thoroughly accustomed to certain principles and to a continuity of policy in this matter. The difficulty before the Naval Defence Act was that with constant changes of administration the Estimates went up and down, but I must say that I shall never regret that I was a party to the Naval Defence Act which gave us a large number of ships built as we intended them to be built and in the numbers which we intended to have. But now we are in such a position that I, for my part, would prefer to look on and see how these great Naval Defence Acts of foreign countries are going to work out. We know that France intends during that time to lay down six battleships and five armoured cruisers. I should like to see what class of battleships and of armoured cruisers they will be. It is always interesting to learn from foreign countries, and the French are extremely clever, as everyone admits, in naval construction. I think we had better go forward now with our annual Estimates, keeping them on the same lines and on the same principles. The House will see, if I have managed to at all make them understand our position, that our Estimate of £8,000,000 for constructive purposes now is quite equivalent to the larger programmes which have been made by other countries, and that these large programmes ought not to alarm us in that respect. Of course, these programmes are large, and it will require great vigilance and constant sacrifice and attention on the part of the House and the country to keep ourselves abreast of this great development of naval power which is being made, not only in France and Russia and Germany, but also in the United States and Japan. In all directions we see this great increase of naval construction. I have explained how I consider that our programme of battleships and cruisers is adequate, and I have also explained that it is limited by the power of the contractors and private firms. Then, it may be said, "Why do you not increase the number of men in your dockyards ad libitum, and so be enabled to lay down more ships?" There are many difficulties in the way. In the first place, we should have the same difficulty as regards armour and material. Then let the House understand that there is only a certain limited number of men belonging to the industries engaged
  1128
  in shipbuilding and engineering. We raise the number of men in our dockyards this year to 32,000, which is the largest figure it has ever stood at. It stood at 27,000 a few years ago. If we endeavoured to increase it still more we should simply be drawing away a certain number of shipwrights and boilermakers and others from the private firms engaged in building our cruisers and battleships. We should not gain much in that way. We do propose to employ more labour. We have taken an addition of £90,000 for labour in our dockyards, but we propose to employ that additional labour in a still more energetic course of repairs and refits than we have been engaged in the past. The House will see that at critical times repairs and refits of ships mean providing for the immediate future, while the laying down of ships which may be finished three years hence means the distant future. Therefore, in critical times it is our duty to take every ship in hand in that way that deserves repair's, and push on those repairs as fast as we can, so as to have as many ships as possible available at a given time for any emergency that may arise. But we do not repair ships which do not deserve repairs, and in this connection I may say something which I am certain will give gratification to the right Iron. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. We are going to strike off at once some of the older ships from our list—the "Warrior'," the "Boadicea," the "Belleisle," the "Black Prince," and some others. The right hon. Gentleman and others laugh, but I would point out that on the French list there are some good old friends. I see three battleships continuing to figure on the French list with which I was perfectly familiar, and looked upon as very fine ships indeed, when I had to propose the Navy Estimates in 1874. So that I hope that when these comparisons are made, and when we strike off our ships, the same course may be followed by the French Government, or, at all events, by those who draw up comparative lists between the two countries. There will be another opportunity for considering whether our programme should include any second-class cruisers. These second-class cruisers have their uses for the protection of commerce in all parts of the world, and it would be wrong to give up their construction, though, on the whole, I think that opinion, both here and

  1129
  abroad, is rather coming to the point of having a large number of ships of each class and diminishing the number of the classes—of having as much homogeneity in all classes as possible. I come now to the appendages of our Fleet. I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Belfast with reference to repairing ships, telegraph ships, and colliers. I will state our policy to the House with reference to these ships. As regards telegraph ships. That matter has been most carefully considered by us. In all our strategical combinations and we are engaged in considering strategy—the question of telegraph ships greatly enters. But we do not think we should be wise in buying or constructing telegraph ships ourselves, but that we should do far better by utilising the services of private enterprise and the cable ships of the companies who. in time of peace, are engaged in that work and are continually seeking, under the pressure of competition, to improve their plant and to develop every new invention. The House may be assured that we know what we are about. We are in communication with the cable companies, and we have found every disposition on their part to facilitate any organisation and any steps which may be taken, so that, when an emergency arises, Members need not fear that we shall then have to improvise our arrangements. The arrangements are considered beforehand very carefully and very thoroughly. Then as regards repairing ships. We recognise the importance of these ships. I do not know whether those hon. Members who have studied this question have read the annual report of the chief of the Bureau of Steam Engineering of the United States Navy. They will find there an explanation and description of the enormous services rendered to the American fleet in the late war by a repairing ship. I do not think I need labour this point. They are very economical because they may keep ships out of the dockyards, and nothing is worse for economy than when ships go into dockyards for small repairs. We do not propose to build such ships, but we propose that we should now contract to purchase a ship of the mercantile marine, and we find that there are ships engaged in the transport service which are very suitable and appropriate for the purpose. You require the large space which you find in ships of the mercantile marine. We hope to buy one of these
  1130
  ships soon, indeed at once, and to fit it with plant for repairing. We shall then see what further action is to be taken. The House must not, however, forget that we have two ships already employed on this work—the "Vulcan" in the Mediterranean, which is doing very good work, and the "Hecla" in the Channel, which is also a very good ship, undertaking the repairs of torpedo destroyers and torpedo-boats and craft of that kind. The House must understand that we have this matter well in hand and that we quite appreciate its importance. Then as to the third class—the colliers—there again we think that, on the whole, using private enterprise will do. bettor than building our own colliers. But we are bound to make such arrangements as will ensure the free use of colliers in time of war. We have made a useful experiment in this direction and we now charter colliers for a year instead of for the voyage, and perhaps for a longer time in order to give the owners of colliers an opportunity of improving their plant in the hope of permanent employment. We believe that under this system, under the pressure of competition, we shall be able to get the necessary class of colliers fertile services that we necessarily require.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): And speed?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes. But the difficulty of speed in colliers is this: as my hon. friend must see, to get speed you require large machinery and engines and large boiler-room, which occupy a large portion of the centre of the ship. Then again, speed involves that the collier eats away the coal which the collier ought to carry for the use of the Fleet. As my hon. friend will see, there are two sides to this question, but we shall endeavour to get the highest speed we can. At any rate we have not neglected our duty in regard to these ships. We are engaged in considering the best methods of carrying ammunition, stores, and provisions from the bases of fleets to the several stations. The methods have been determined for some time past. We are in possession of the views of the Commanders-in-Chief, but we have not yet come to a final conclusion. The whole of this question of mobilisation and organisation has occupied, and must occupy, our careful attention. Now I must offer an

  1131
  apology to the House for detaining them so long with a great many technical matters. It is difficult to choose subjects which will be of general interest. I know I have omitted many things, and have only slightly touched many important points. But I have no doubt my critics and friends will give me an opportunity of answering their criticisms either upon our programme or upon general administration. To sum up, the substance of the Estimates is that our expenditure is to be twenty-seven and a half millions and our personnel is to be 115,000 men; including our Naval Reserves it is to be 150,000 men. We hope to create two new reserves. In the dockyards there are to be 32,000 men. The expenditure on ships is to be £8,160,000. We are to lay down two battleships and six armoured cruisers, besides other smaller vessels, bringing up the total number of ships which will be under construction or passing through construction in the coming financial year to seventeen battleships, twenty armoured cruisers, four protected cruisers, twenty-one destroyers, and other small ships. But the vastness of these forces in men rand ships does not entirely give the clue to what we have to do, because we have most carefully to consider the use to which we must put these great forces, the strategy which is to underlie their operations, and all the precautions which have to be taken. We are much preoccupied with questions of this kind. The Intelligence Department has been strengthened from year to year. It now contains eight naval and five marine officers, so that there are thirteen men, all picked men. We are anxious to get as much brain power as possible into the department, rand we have been very successful in doing so. We have divided this department into three—mobilisation, foreign information, and strategy, and each has at its head an Assistant-Director of Intelligence, all being under the Director-General of Intelligence. I may fairly state that we receive intelligence from all portions of our dominions. Our plans are carefully worked out and the geography of the seas is carefully mapped out so that we know every trade route and can tell off at once all the ships that are to be posted in different parts of the world for the protection of our coasts and our commerce. The question has been asked by a writer, Is our Fleet perfect? and he continued,
  1132
  "The First Lord of the Admiralty says it is." I have never ventured on such an opinion. No administrator who knows his business could possibly believe in the perfection of such a vast organisation as this. The very statement which I have placed in the hands of hon. Members shows that it is improvement that we are aiming at—improvement in every direction with no consciousness that we are arriving at perfection. There can be no perfection except and this is the only exception in the loyalty, the sense of duty, and the "go" of the officers, and the courage and handiness of the seamen and the marines. I know of nothing else that is perfection. We do our best, and the task is a very heavy one, but we do not dream of perfection. I hope there is nothing in what I have said which looks like glorification of the Navy or of the Admiralty. I hope I have said nothing to give that impression. I have not waved the flag, but the flag is there; and I think that now, as heretofore, all the citizens of the British Empire, both in these islands and beyond the seas, even in these days of storm and stress, may rest content that under that flag their interest and their honour are safe.
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH ()said that when they had a corresponding debate a year ago it was held under the influence of the striking contrast between, on the one hand, the hopes which were entertained regarding the outcome of the Czar's Peace Conference, and, on the other hand, the vast increments in the naval and military expenditure in this and some other countries in the world. The Peace Conference had now been held, but that was not the opportunity for discussing its positive results. He feared, however, it could not be held that the prevention of war, the interruption of shipbuilding activity of Continental Powers, the abandonment of the practice of formulating ambitious paper programmes for sixteen years, or eight years, or shorter terms, were among the results of that Conference. He was sure the House, under these circumstances, would not complain if the Government, determined to maintain the national policy of an equality with two Powers, proposed to go on on the same lines as in recent years. The House and the country might rest assured that whether as regarded naval works, shipbuilding,

  1133
  manning of the Navy or Reserves, the Opposition, as a whole, remained as much in earnest as anybody in the desire and determination to maintain and advance with every modern improvement the force and efficiency of the British Navy. He wished distinctly to state that, because it became his duty to offer some criticism on the shipbuilding programme of the Government. He rejoiced, and the House would rejoice also, that there were no signs of alarm or loss of nerve; that these were not panic Estimates. There was no doubt an increase in the total Estimates, but that did not indicate any special uneasiness on the part of the Government. It was partly due to necessities, especially with regard to the personnel, for ships which had been built, or were building, and to improvements in the pay of the engineering and signalling staffs. He desired to say a few words upon a short passage in the printed statement in which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord said that the expenditure on new construction continually failed to reach the sum which was voted. That could only relate to the previous three years. If the House looked back to 1896-7 they would see that the estimated expenditure for total new construction is £7,381,000, while the actual amount was £7,327,000, or only £57,000 less than the Estimate. Previous to that date the actual expenditure year by year came up to very nearly the amount of the Estimate. One point to which he desired to draw attention was the causes by which construction had been retarded. Two years ago the retardation was due to the dispute in the engineering trade, whilst last year it was alleged to be due to the great boom in shipbuilding and the difficulties in carrying out the increased work. In the current year special difficulties appeared to have arisen in regard to obtaining materials, armour, and engines, and obtaining the necessary labour. He was. however, a little afraid lest the contractors had been allowed to become lax. Had contractors, perhaps, been less pressed by the Admiralty than formerly, he urged the Government to make it clear to them that the Admiralty would be quite as exacting as other customers. Contract dates were no longer enforced, which led to the result of our not Inning the ships which we expected, and which had been proposed as necessary to our naval strength. The whole work of the dockyards was
  1134
  thrown out of gear through the failure of contractors to deliver the necessary materials, armour plates, machinery, etc., with the result that when they were delivered it was sometimes necessary to resort to most uneconomical methods, such as overtime, in order to hurry forward the work. A close examination of the Estimates disclosed the fact that the dockyard work had been fairly well performed throughout the year, whilst the contract work had got into arrear to an alarming extent. There had been a short expenditure of £1,400,000 on the contract work of one shipbuilding Vote. Of this, more than a million was due to short expenditure on twelve ships of the greatest importance, namely, the four "Duncans," three of the "Drake" class, and three of the "Cressy" class, the "Monmouth" and the "Bedford." Orr the contracts forarmour alone £420,000 less than was estimated had been earned. He would like to know how far the Admiralty expected the output of armour to become more satisfactory. He was aware that the four present contractors had had to contend with special difficulties, because of the new hardening process introduced two or three years ago. What were the prospects for coming years? One great consolation remained that whilst delays took place in our naval construction, delays of a more serious nature were a much more frequent and chronic evil in the shipbuilding programme of another naval Power, and that whilst we were able to build ships of the "Majestic" class in two years or less, France had been unable to complete the "Charlemagne" in less than six to seven years, and the "Gaulois" and "St. Louis" in less than five years. With regard to the new shipbuilding, he did not regret the abandonment of the three third-class cruiser's and the substitution for them of a second-class cruiser. He thought it would Ire undesirable to build any additional small craft until they had before them the results of the trials of the new system of using steam—he meant the steam turbine. If the steam turbine turned out to be a success for torpedo-boat destroyers, it might also be a valuable reform on larger vessels. It was a change which was likely to result in a great saving of weight and, at the same time, the attainment of a much greater speed. He now came to the question of

  1135
  battleships and armoured cruisers. M. Lockroy, who had been three times at the head of the Admiralty in France, said in La Defense Navale —
  "The cost of ships has grown to such an extent that it has become impossible to our country to have at the same time a sufficient number of cruisers and a respectable number of battleships."
  And he then discussed the possibility of a compromise in a ship armoured with modern steel uniting in itself the qualities of a battleship and a cruiser. Armoured cruisers had these two advantages—that they cost rather loss than battleships, and they obtained a much higher speed. They had this disadvantage—that they did not carry quite as powerful an armament. Their secondary armament of 0-inch and other guns was the same; but in place of four 12-inch guns, they carried two of 9·2-inch calibre. Speed was, however, a matter of great importance, and in certain circumstances it was possible to use armoured cruisers of the "Cressy" typo as battleships. When they considered what was going on abroad, it was a grave question whether the continuance of the policy of building battleships was as necessary as the building of modern armoured cruisers. Our greater celerity in building enabled us to wait until we saw what ships were actually laid down abroad, and we need not be misled by paper programmes, which, perhaps, were never to be fulfilled. He submitted that the report of the French Budget Committee, pointing out, as regards the 1896 programme, how thirteen cruisers valued at over three million sterling, besides certain rapid scout-cruisers, had been abandoned, and thirteen gunboats had apparently no chance of being commenced, showed good reasons why people in this country might view with considerable equanimity the vast paper programmes to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred; and he thought he was justified in saying that it would be a wise policy for this country to watch and see what ships were actually laid down by other countries before being frightened into proposing large programmes. M. de La Porte and his Budget Committee said that only a little more than half the total value of ships projected in the 1896 programme had been commenced—only 79 vessels out of 220—and their report asked—
  "Were we wrong in asserting that the pro-
  1136
  gramme of 1896, though hardly three years old, has finally ceased to exist?"
  M. de La Porte argued that, in the choice between a war of squadrons and a war against commerce, England will choose the first, while France would not be wise in risking, at the commencement of the war, an encounter with her adversary's fleet, but at that stage would have two objects—
  "1. The mobile defence of her coasts, to which would be added offensive action within a short radius by means of torpedo boats, submarine boats, and perhaps mortar boats also. (2) War on commerce by means of rapid and numerous cruisers with a large radius of action."
  And M. de La Porte added these words, which were practically a repetition of the abandonment of the policy of 1896—
  "We have compelled ourselves, in our feebleness, to favour for the year 1900 the commencement of torpedo craft, submarine boats and cruisers."
  He had only one more extract to read, and he wished to read it to the House, because it was really the conclusion of the matter. The Committee wound up by saying—
  "We are to-day asking the Chamber to fix at £12,388,000 the total Budget of 1900 (for the Navy)—an increase of £244,600. We are evidently approaching the limit which cannot be exceeded, unless indeed our country, renouncing her traditional responsibilities as a Continental Power, should wish henceforth to look to nothing except the sea and the colonies. The credits appropriated to naval construction (£4,154,500 for 1900) seem to have reached their culminating point."
  That was, France spent half what we spent and got much less than half the result. The French Budget Committee had stated in a formal way that their naval expenditure had now reached a culminating point, and therefore so far as naval expenditure hero was concerned there was no need for panic or such a huge increase of expenditure as had been proposed in some quarters. On the question of building more battleships he would not attempt to express a final opinion without the fuller knowledge possessed by the Board of Admiralty, but while he was assured of the necessity of building such armoured cruisers as the right hon. Gentleman proposed, he could not help having doubts as to the necessity of two more battleships (in addition to

  1137
  two last year). He observed that the right hon. Gentleman had taken £1,000,000 instead of £750,000 for the coaling of ships; but his own doubt was whether it would not be necessary to make a larger provision for a reserve of coal in time of war'. With respect to the subject of colliers, probably the plan of having colliers immediately under the control of the Admiralty was one which needed great development, for the present arrangements could not he considered adequate in the case of war-. It was rather disappointing to read the paragraph in the; right hon. Gentleman's statement relating to wireless telegraphy. The experiments had opened up the prospect of our cruisers being able to act at a very much greater distance from the Fleet, and he hoped that the difficulties would he so overcome as to make wireless telegraphy a necessary appurtenance to the Fleet. He had been very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's references to the services of the naval contingents in South Africa. Several naval officers, whose names he need not mention, had rendered services of an exceptional character, and which had had far-reaching effects. The experience of naval guns accompanying troops in the field, and when used at places like Ladysmith, had given new hopes of what use might be made of these larger guns in connection with military operations, and had thrown a new light on the whole subject of military armament. The House ought to recognise with great gratitude the skill and initiative and inventive power of some of the naval officers who had rendered such valuable services in South Africa. On page 13 of the Statement it was said that the manufacture of guns was proceeding, and had "so far" kept pace with the requirements of the Navy, He hoped there was no ground for serious anxiety—either because of the great demands of the Army or from any other cause—that in future the supply of guns for' our new ships would not keep pace with the demand. He had no means of discussing the details of the transport work done by the Admiralty, but he congratulated the Department on the general result. The work had been unprecedented in magnitude and it had been, crowned with remarkable success. He thought the country owed an immense deal to the enterprise of the mercantile marine. As to the numbers added to the Royal Naval
  1138
  Reserve, he felt some disappointment, but he was glad to hear that the subject was receiving the attention it deserved from the Admiralty. There were great difficulties with respect to the colonies, but he should rejoice if we could have an addition to our Naval Reserve from Australia. In conclusion he asked for information with regard to the progress of the naval works. There was no part of the expenditure which was more vital to our naval strength.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has paid a tribute of admiration to the services rendered by the Naval Brigade in this war. Perhaps one of the greatest complaints I have to make against the First Lord of the Admiralty is that he seems not to have stood up for his own people in the matter of making known to the world, through the despatches, the part they have played at the front. It is exactly a month ago since the despatches referring to the exploits of the military at Gras Pan and Colenso were published, and yet the right hon. Gentleman has not succeeded in obtaining the permission of the War Office, or whoever it is, for the publication of the Naval despatches. One word as to coal. I hope the First Lord will remember there is nothing which deteriorates so much as coal. If he is going to lay in large stocks of coal all over the world, it will be necessary to make storage places for them—not such as he has at present, but underground cellars, where the coal will be kept at an even temperature and far away from rain and other deteriorating influences. We might as well not have coal as store it so that it will deteriorate. The First Lord apologised for his proposals as being modest beyond expectation. They are not more modest than they should be. The hysterical press that has been calling for the mobilisation of our Fleet has not begun to understand the naval situation of Europe or of this country. There has not been, and is not, the slightest necessity for such a mobilisation as has been demanded. We are strong enough at sea to do all that is required of our Fleet at the present moment; and, therefore, I was very glad the right hon. Gentleman, being strengthened and backed up by naval men, has escaped from that panic which seems to have

  1139
  overtaken some of the Fleet Street strategists of the cheaper press. I am very glad to hear that no decision has been arrived at with regard to the Training Squadron. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of this—that if the naval man on shore has shown such ingenuity in adapting himself to military work, such capacity in inventing new carriages, and in slapping guns about over all sorts of ground and getting them into impossible positions, it has been mainly on account of the training he got on masts and yards. If the Training Squadron is abolished I think the better half of the sailor in this respect will be abolished also. I hope the First Lord will hesitate long before he allows himself to be influenced by the enthusiastic young admirals at the Admiralty Board in the direction of abolishing the excellent Training Squadron. At any time a naval officer may be called upon to take charge of a sailing ship: and the great shipowners of this country (who have no prejudice, and only want to get the best men) insist on their steam officers having the kind of training to which I am referring. I hope this question will not be reconsidered until Lord Charles Bores-ford is back in the House. I was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was going to take the opportunity of his absence to make a final decision as to the Training Squadron adverse to the views that officer and I hold. It would have been over my dead body, but I would rather have had the gallant Admiral at my side in conducting the fight. As to the Royal Naval Reserve, I think the situation as at present shown is serious. I have always held that the new regulations the right hon. Gentleman made, though well-intentioned, were ill-advised. The right hon. Gentleman says he wants fewer men better trained. I say the great thing is to get the men. They do not require the same training as a shop boy requires. They are already three-fourths trained, and, therefore, there is not the least necessity to insist on six months in a sea-going battleship for the Naval Reserve men. The circumstances under which that new regulation was introduced were such that I was convinced it would have a deleterious effect on the numbers of the Royal Naval Reserve. The further we go the more it is seen that the plan was wrong, and that we shall have to go back rather more to the old plan. The colonics seem to hold
  1140
  the same opinion as I do, because they have urged the right hon. Gentleman to diminish the period of training from six to four months. That would, of course, make a very great deal of difference. The delay of the contractors in finishing their work of construction is a very serious matter indeed. Is it that we have arrived at the limit of the powers of the contractors plus the English dockyards to build battleships? [An HON. MEMBER: No!] I agree with the hon. Member who said "No." Why, then, have the contractors so failed to do their work? One reason is that they have been building an enormous amount of tonnage for foreigners. The figures show that, out of the whole enormous tonnage being built, one-fourth is being built for foreigners. I have seen some splendid battleships turned out for Japan, built by contractors during the time they might have been occupied in building battleships, for its. Why is it Japan can get her battleships built here and we cannot? Is it a question of price? Is it because the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get his men-of-war too cheap? I do not know. The failure to provide an adequate amount of armament I regard as very alarming indeed. Do you rely entirely on your contractors for your armour? I think I am right in saying you do. Is that safe? You admit you are short of armour. Almost every year the complaint has been made that those who provide the armour are not quite ready with that article when it is required. I think the right hon. Gentleman and the House should consider whether in addition to dockyards it would not be advisable to have armour rolling machinery of your own. You rely upon Woolwich for your guns. Are you content with Woolwich?
  MR. GOSCHENwas understood to say that the Admiralty relied upon Woolwich only to the extent of one half of the guns.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am glad to hear that, because I do not think Woolwich has worked, or is likely to work, so as to give complete satisfaction. I desire now to make a few remarks on what I may call the general naval question. There is no doubt that in this country we must address ourselves most particularly to the sea. The development

  1141
  of our sea power is the development of a power which will act, not only upon the sea, but also on nations situated inland if it is properly used, so as to stop their supplies. Two-thirds of the trade of the world is carried on by sea; therefore, if you command the sea you can practically stop the supplies of any country with which you are at war. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the command of the sea gives this country the great power of acting promptly and suddenly at a distance. There is probably no other country in the world that could have done one half of the work we have done on the sea during the last four months in the way of transporting men and stores to Africa. As to the use of this sea power, I have some small, but not serious, complaints to make of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have some very serious complaints to make about Her Majesty's Government. I cannot forgot that the head of the Government stated in 1871 that the Fleet was almost valueless for any purpose other than defence of our shores.
  MR. GOSCHEN: When?
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In 1871, and it is as true now. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not endeavoured to remove the cause which Lord Salisbury gave for this state of things. That cause was the signature of a Declaration allowing a neutral flag to cover an enemy's cargo. I entirely agree that the Declaration has greatly restricted the sea power of this country. Had it not been for that, we could have stopped every ounce of gold and every pound of wool that left the Transvaal under whatever flag we found it, and everything—not only contraband of war, but everything—that went to the Transvaal. It was the Declaration of Paris alone which prevented us doing that. But even the powers left to us—of seizing contraband of war—have not been exercised as they ought to have been. Mistakes have been made either by the cruisers themselves or in consequence of inadequate instructions. I rather lean to the latter theory. One of the most pressing necessities of this country is that we should have written for our Navy such a book as was written for the French Navy—a seamen's manual
  1142
  of International law. In consequence either of that defect, or of some laches (which I am loth to believe) on the part of the Admiralty, our cruisers have in some respects exceeded their attributes, with the result that we have had to release prizes and to make apologies. A more serious matter is that we have undertaken to give up the whole of the high seas with the exception of between Aden and Delagoa Bay; we have undertaken that we will not search vessels except between those points, which is a tremendous thing. We have also undertaken not to search any mail steamer anywhere. Wiry? Even in the case of the "Trent," when we went to the verge of war with the United States and North America, no such claim was made.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. We have not given up the right to search mail steamers.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the distinct statement made by Count Bülow that England had undertaken not to search mail steamers on more suspicion.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Ah! on mere suspicion.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Let me point out that until you have searched you can have nothing beyond mere suspicion. Until you have searched a vessel on the high seas, which search consists in examining her papers, questioning her captain and crew—
  MR. GOSCHLNwas understood to say that there might be cases in which it was known that a vessel had embarked contraband of war.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWELS: You can know nothing until you have examined the ship. Your information may be and has been false. One of the troubles in this very case has been that you have acted on false information. You can never be certain that your information is true until you have searched a ship, at any rate, to the extent of examining her manifest and all the rest of it, and questioned the captain and crew. I therefore again assert that until yon have searched you can have nothing but

  1143
  mere suspicion. I say that mail steamers are precisely the vessels which have been playing the most dangerous part in conveying contraband of war. I name no nation, but officers and men who have joined the Transvaal forces, a great many of the enemy's arms, and a large quantity of their ammunition have gone by mail steamers. I therefore think it is very unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government have been induced to promise that they will not search mail steamers under the only possible circumstances under which they could be searched, namely, circumstances of mere suspicion. Count Billow also says that we have agreed to the principle of a Board of Arbitration as to damages in case of unlawful or improper and unwarranted detention. That I really cannot comprehend. That is a matter for the Prize Court, and I cannot understand how even the English Foreign Office can presume to take it out of the hands of the Prize Court. The matter belongs properly and exclusively to the Prize Court, and I say you cannot arbitrate upon it. I have called attention to these matters with reference to the exercise of our sea power, because they are very important. There is another very important matter' to which I wish to call attention. The responsibilities of England are very much greater than many Members of this House are aware. There is our trade, which of course we must protect; we must protect our colonies, at the risk of losing them; but we are also bound hand and foot by the most tremendous treaties. We are bound to defend the absolute neutrality of Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the Ionian Islands. These are all treaties of the most solemn character. We are bound to defend Sweden by force of arms against Russia, in case Russia should make any attempt to seize that territory. We are hound to defend the independence of Turkey, and most especially of Asiatic Turkey. We are bound to defend the independence of Greece. We arc bound to defend Chusan for China against attack; and above all, we are bound to defend Portugal. These liabilities are very considerable, and at any moment we might be called upon to make good our engagements. It is therefore of, the utmost importance that we should lose no advantage, that we should not even waive any part of the sea power which we alone
  1144
  have. In recent times we have put ourselves under certain serious disadvantages in the use of our sea power in other ways. For instance, our occupation in Egypt is a very serious disadvantage from a naval point of view, inasmuch as the effect is to cut our Mediterranean Fleet into halves—one half being to the east of Cape Matapan and the other half to the west; it obliges you to have a constant force at or near Alexandria; and in the case of war in the Mediterranean it might. have a very serious effect upon your action there. I now come to the last and most important point to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. He said—and I think properly—that it is not necessary for us to take any alarming view or to bring forward any ambitious new programme at this moment. He said, with wisdom, that he is content to stand by and look on while the new naval programmes of France and Germany are being developed. I believe at the present moment he may safely do that, because we can not only build more cheaply but more rapidly than either France or Germany. And it must be remembered that France has practically announced that she will no longer contest the empire of the seas with us in line-of-battle ships; if she is to oppose us in any way it will be by means of cruisers, or corsairs, or of those ridiculous or impossible things submarine boats. But the present aspect of Europe seems to indicate that before long there will be an entire change in the balance of naval power. As to Germany, it is scarcely sixty years since we gave her a frigate with which to start a navy. She has now some of the finest guns and vessels afloat, but she has no navy, because she has no seamen. Her navy, so-called—her ships are manned by inland men with inland traditions, and I have noticed again and again the extraordinary absence from among German captains and admirals of knowledge in some of the most elementary duties—the A B C of seamanship—which are known to all sailors, properly so called. But with France it is different. France has the traditions by which alone a navy is made. Life at sea is so eminently artificial that unless you build it up and secure, so to speak, the position of each man, and settle his exact place upon the deck, you cannot carry out the duties satisfactorily. France has a navy; Ger-

  1145
  many, as I think, has none, but only ships, guns, and landsmen crews. But there has been announced lately the possibility of an event which, as I have said, would change the whole balance of naval power of Europe, namely, of Holland joining with Germany under some special conditions. That is an entirely new and most unexpected factor. For generations it has been to this country that Holland has looked for her protection, especially against her strong and ambitions neighbour, Germany. There has always been a German party in Holland, though that party may have been small, but recent events have caused that small party to become a very string and powerful party, and I am inclined to think it is now the larger party in Holland. The Dutch have many very valuable colonies: in fact, the Dutch colonies are the only paying colonies possessed by any country in Europe. The Dutch are now saying to themselves that they have colonies which they must look after, and there is no doubt that the notion, if not the firm purpose, exists in Holland that it is now time for them to turn away from. England and to make satisfactory terms for themselves with Germany terms which will involve the absence of military conscription, and make Holland an Admiral State with special privileges compared even with the other States like Bavaria, already within the Empire. That project is already taking form and may be brought to a successful issue. If it be so, the whole balance of naval power will be changed. The German Fleet, manned no longer with inland Germans, but with Dutch commanders and sailors. with their Dutch traditions, would, in a, few months, be as good, ship for ship and man for man, as the British Navy. But like every other great event which seems to act against us. that also would have, its compensations, because I do not suppose the French would be extraordinarily pleased to see that combination come about. It is, however, certainly within the possibilities of the future that there may be no longer only two fleets, as I hold there are now the British and the French—but a third, the German, manned by Dutch sailors and commanded by Dutch officers. Thai is an eventuality which cannot be left entirely out of account. If it should occur, the Naval Estimates will have to be very different from those we now have,
  1146
  but, as things are at present, I think the right hon. Gentleman has done his full duty to the country, and that his estimates are entirely adequate. If he will only agree not to abolish the training squadron, and not to proceed with the policy—to which I shall call attention in detail later on—which I think is calculated to destroy the training of naval officers and to some extent the training of sailors, in my opinion we shall have cause to remember him as one of the best First Lords of the Admiralty we have had. I only desire now to thank him for not having been led away by the hysterical old women who want to call out every ship and man we have as soon as there is the slightest disturbance, and to say that in that respect I think he has shown a very wise discretion.
  *MR. ALLAN (): I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the business-like and patriotic attitude he has adopted in the statement he has made to the House. I do not want to go over every point in that statement, for the simple reason that I am not sufficiently versed in every matter with which it deals, but there are two or three points to which I wish to refer. The right hon. Gentleman said that this most important branch of the Navy were the engineers. We all know that the modern navy consists practically of three elements coal, engineers, and guns.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Men.
  *MR. ALLAN: Engineers are men, of course. I want to address myself for a few moments to those points.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman says I stated that the engineers were the most important branch of the service. What I intended to say was that they were one of the most important branches. I ought not to have said they were the most important branch, because that is not my opinion. They are one of the most important branches.
  *MR. ALLAN: Of course, I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I noted his words at the time. What is being done for the engineers is up to a certain point very well indeed, but there are one or two points which are overlooked.

  1147
  The right hon. Gentleman says in his printed statement—
  "The list of chief inspectors of machinery has been increased from five to eight, and that of inspectors of machinery from eight to thirteen."
  That is far too small a number. I leave it to any business man, or anybody acquainted with the work, to say whether eight chief inspectors of machinery and thirteen inspectors of machinery are sufficient for 268 vessels. These numbers should have been practically doubled if you want efficient service and efficient attention paid to the machinery. Then—
  "The engineer-in-chief has been given the relative rank of a rear-admiral."
  That is very good and I am glad you have copied the American system to that extent, but you have not carried your copying far enough. You then state—
  "The rank of staff engineer has been abolished. Chief engineers will rank with lieutenants of and above eight years seniority."
  Is that fair to a chief engineer? Chief engineers rank far higher than that in the American Navy and get far higher pay. Instead of coming down and proposing a bold scheme of promotion for these deserving men, upon whom practically our Fleet depends for its success, the right hon. Gentleman only gives them the rank of lieutenant. It is not fair, and these valuable officer's of ours should not be treated in that manner. The statement continues—
  "… while engineers on promotion will rank with lieutenants of less than eight years' seniority."
  Here is where I think the great mistake has been committed. I know the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to do his best for the engineers of the Navy, but there are other influences at work which prevent him doing all he would, as is shown in this next paragraph—
  "In other respects the relative rank of engineer officers remains unchanged."
  I only say that it is not fair to the engineering staff of the Navy. That these officers, with their hard work, should receive this paltry promotion is not in keeping with the requirements of British engineers at the hands of the Admiralty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter into his serious consideration and endeavour to amend this beggarly
  1148
  state of advancement. Chief engineers certainly ought to rank not lower than commanders or captains.
  MR. GOSCHENwas understood to point out that the promotion of engineers was far more rapid than that of the other branches of the service, and the pay bettor.
  *MR. ALLAN: I suppose by "service" the right hon. Gentleman means sea service"
  MR. GOSCHEN: Either service.
  *MR. ALLAN: Whether on shore or at sea?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
  *MR. ALLAN: You recognise shore service to count for seniority: you do not require actual sea service?
  MR. GOSCHEN: There is no distinction.
  *MR. ALLAN: It is immaterial whether an engineer goes to sea or not? Then he may be the biggest duffer in the world as far as the sea is concerned. However, I will take that point up again on another opportunity. There is in this statement a startling oversight: there is not a single mention of engine-room artificers having anything done for them. In order to make the Navy as popular as it should be you ought to give the engine-room men every encouragement.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Nothing is said with reference to torpedo-men or gunners. We have not mentioned every class; we have simply mentioned those classes in which certain changes have been made. I fully admit that engine-room artificers are a most admirable body of men.
  *MR. ALLAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to rise high enough or to go sufficiently' far in these matters for me. The duties of the engine-room artificer or engineer are totally distinct from those of a gunner. They are exposed to all the risks of the engine-room. There is no analogy between the two branches of the service. Another great mistake is in reference to the Reserves. The right hon. Gentleman did

  1149
  not inform the House how many Reserve engineers there were. The next element which goes to constitute a man-of-war ship is coal. The right hon. Gentleman says in this Statement that he has taken some £400,000 for extra coal supplies, and that he is going to have a coaling depot at the Falkland Islands. I am very glad he is going to do so, because some years ago I urged that there should be one at that place. But I should like to point out that most of your present coaling stations are practically useless for holding coal. Welsh coal, of all coals, is rendered friable by exposure to the weather, and yet at the coaling stations you will see hundreds of tons of coal—costing perhaps 30s. a ton at the pit mouth, and another 20s. for carriage—lying in exposed places instead of being under cover. You can never expect to get the same amount of power out of that coal, it is an impossibility; and that is a matter which certainly deserves the most serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman, in order that the coaling stations may be so built as to protect the coal so that the full value may be got out of it. I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman as to the Government not having steam colliers. The Government ought to have a dozen or twenty armed screw colliers, steaming ten or twelve knots not more. The right hon. Gentleman's remark with reference to higher speeds than that was perfectly correct. You cannot get higher speeds without greater engine-room space. In peace times these boats would carry the coal from Wales to wherever it was required, thus saving hiring and transport, and in war time would be ready at a moment's notice to follow the Fleet. It is worthy the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman that that matter should be gone into in a thoroughly practical and businesslike way. It is no use Members of Parliament thinking that all you have got to do is to vote the money, and ships will be built that year. It cannot be done even by working night and day. I quite agree that if weare spending £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 on shipbuilding we have reached the limit, and it is impossible to do more. When you take into consideration the impetus given to the mercantile marine, and the fact that our manufacturers have to make large quantities of boiler plates and ship plates, naturally this hinders the supply of armour plate. As for the
  1150
  Government attempting to make their own armour plate, they would require works twice as big as those we now possess at Woolwich. The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about building cruisers, and he takes a very great interest in the Navy. He was dwelling upon the necessity and value of our cruisers, but perhaps it will surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that our cruisers, by comparison with the cruisers of other countries, are undergunned. Some of our latest built cruisers, compared with cruisers of a similar type built in foreign countries, and having the same displacement, are undergunned, and we are building these and sending them out to sea. I will take the "Highflyer," of which we have heard so much. It has a displacement of 5,600 tons. Then there is the "Matsusima," which has a displacement of 4,277 tons, or nearly 1,400 tons less displacement. The weight of metal discharged in one round by the "Highflyer" is 1,100lb., while the weight of metal discharged in one round from the "Matsusima is 1,245 lb. Therefore the smaller ship discharges 1,245 lb., as against 1,100lb. by the larger vessel. In this calculation I am just taking the big weapons that can do execution at long range. As a further example I will take one of our modern cruisers, Her Majesty's ship "Arrogant," and compare it with the United States cruiser "Olympia," both of which have a displacement of 5,800 tons. The total weight of metal discharged in one round from the "Arrogant" is 670 lb., while the weight of metal discharged from the "Olympia" in one round is 1,600lb.
  MR. GOSCHEN: They are totally different ships.
  *MR. ALLAN: What is the difference between two ships of the same displacement?
  MR. GOSOHEN: There are many other questions to be considered, such as how much ammunition is carried, or how much coal. Ships are a compromise, and must be judged according to the work to which they are to be put. We put either more guns, more ammunition, more coal, or more speed into a ship, but we can never have a maximum of ail these in any one ship.
  *MR. ALLAN: I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman, but he labours under the disqualification of not knowing the peculiarities of shipbuilding.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think it is possible to be five years at the Admiralty without knowing something about that.
  *MR. ALLAN: I think my comparison is a fair one. [An HON. MEMBER: What is the speed of the "Arrogant"?] I do not think that has anything to do with it. The system which has been in existence at the Admiralty is determined by the factor of stability, which seems to have been sacrificed for speed. [Mr. GOSCHEN dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman need not shake his head, for a startling instance of this is afforded by the Royal yacht, for she is so fine that she cannot stand upright. That very same thing obtains with our cruisers, for they are so fine that you cannot put heavy guns on their decks because it would make them top-heavy. I want to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another fact upon which the House requires some explanation. I was glad to note the other day that the right hon. Gentleman had instituted a series of comparative trials between the "Highflyer" and "Minerva," the latter being fitted with the old type of boiler and the former with the now boiler. What was the result? The "Highflyer," fitted with water-tube Belleville boilers, broke down, while the "Minerva" was read) at any moment to go ahead. The "Minerva" had less men in the stoke-hole and no smoke. I am very sorry for the sake of this country that this experiment was not begun two years ago, for if this had been the case millions would have been saved to the country. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but with me this is not a laughing matter but a very serious business.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I did not laugh at it. If I did laugh it was at the manner in which the hon. Member put it, and not because I did not think it was a serious matter.
  *MR. ALLAN: It is a great pity that this experiment was not tried sooner, for in this trial the "Highflyer" had to signal for artificers, and yet we have been spending millions of millions of money, and we
  1152
  have produced a paper fleet that will not stand the stress and storm of war. We have had that demonstrated by these trials, which have helped to show the Admiralty conclusively the advantages of the old boilers which burn less coal, give greater safety to the men and inspire them with more confidence: which require a less number of men, there is less grumbling, and the cost for repairs is less. I have had my say with regard to these boilers, and I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the trials he has made between the "Highflyer" and the "Minerva," and I sincerely hope that the same spirit which has actuated him today will continue to actuate him in the future, as long as he continues to represent the Admiralty.
  *ADMIRAL FIELD (): I am glad to have an opportunity of offering a few friendly observations upon the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He spoke to this side of the House rather than to the other when he said he expected criticism, and that he hoped it would not be unfriendly. We are always friendly critics of everything the right hon. Gentleman puts before the House, because we all recognise and I know I am voicing the service when I say it—that there is no man who has ever presided at the Admiralty for whom we entertain a higher respect. I have a word or two to say by way of reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead. I will confine myself to the point he touched upon last. I believe he dreams about tubular boilers, and I believe that when all the navies of the world are fitted with them as they will be in time, the hon. Member will go down to posterity as the only unconvinced Member of Parliament on the question. I will answer his criticism in one word. I know he has great respect for America. I read only last week a statement made by an officer in the United States Navy corresponding to our engineer-in-chief, before an American scientific institution, on this very question. He admitted frankly that he was always opposed to water tube boilers until his experience in the war with Spain, which had entirely converted him to their excellence. That is a sufficient answer to the hon. Member, as coming from an officer who was a convinced opponent of water tube boilers. A word or two as to

  1153
  the observations made by the late Secretary to the Admiralty. I am in sympathy with much that be said, and I think there is much force in his observation that some penalty ought to be enforced against contractors, at all events for the non-delivery of armour plates. I do not share his view that penalties ought to be enforced against contractors for the non-delivery of ships. That is an old controversy. Ships were delayed owing to the engineers' strike, but that is now past and gone, although we are suffering from it at the present time. But I do think that the Admiralty ought to satisfy the House that armourplate contractors are not supplying armour to foreign nations, and keeping the English Navy waiting. That would be a very serious matter. I offer no opinion on it, because I have not, of course, the necessary information, but the delay is very serious, because it keeps back battleships and armoured cruisers ordered by the House. The right hon. Gentleman also alluded to the new invention of propulsion by the turbine as Mr. Parson's wonderful invention. I am very glad to see we are carrying out experiments with that invention: but when the right hon. Gentleman appeals to the First Lord of the Admiralty to suspend the construction of vessels until the turbine has been proved to be, or not to be, an efficient method of propulsion, then I am at issue with him at once. To prove that will take a long series of experiments. Time is the essence of the business, and we cannot afford to suspend construction in order to carry out experiments. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated the Naval Brigade on their performance in South Africa, and that, of course, we all re-echo. But he hesitated about mentioning names. Well, if he would not mention names, I will. The name of Captain Percy Scott stands out pre-eminently. It is to his cleverness and inventive genius that we owe the fact that the 4.7 gun was mounted and sent to the front. Why should his name not be mentioned? Honour should be given to those who have earned it. The right hon. Gentleman also congratulated the Admiralty on the admirable work of the transport department. The transport department is worthy of the good opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, but we should also think
  1154
  of the man who organised it after the Crimean War, namely, Admiral Manns. Foolish people think that the transport department ought to be placed under the War Office, but I hope that will never be done. The Admiralty is responsible for the dispatch of troops to the scene of action, and can carry that out better than the War Office, who have enough on their hands. I now come to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He said that there was nothing sensational in the Estimates. I agree with him, but he need not have stopped at that. While there is nothing sensational there is much room for disappointment, and I know many of my friends are disappointed. Reading between the lines there is delay in the completion of ships by contract—delay here, there and everywhere except in the manufacture of guns. I say no more than that the statement is disappointing. We ought to be informed a little further as to why the ships promised to us have not been completed. The three cruisers which were sanctioned have not only not been completed but have been superseded on reconsideration, and a cruiser of the second class is to be built instead. That opens up a question of policy of very great importance. The late Admiral Sir Geoffrey Hornsby, who did more to educate public opinion on the deficiencies of the Navy than any other officer, was strongly of opinion that more cruisers were needed to guard our commerce and our commercial routes. He showed that a certain number would be required to be stationed at rendezvous to meet our mercantile vessels coming home, and I affirm without fear of contradiction that this question has not been dealt with in the serious way it deserves. I deeply regret that these three cruisers sanctioned by Parliament have been scratched off the programme, and a second-class cruiser, the keel of which is not yet laid, substituted on paper. The House is asked to approve of that, and of course the House will approve of it. One thing I did approve of, and that was the First Lord's answer to the criticisms as to why the fleet had not been mobilised. I should have regretted extremely to have seen the Fleet mobilised as a menace to Europe, doing no good whatever, and the Government have acted wisely in refusing to give way to such foolish and ignorant criticisms. No one can form an adequate opinion as to

  1155
  whether the Fleet should be mobilised except the Foreign Office, which understands the whole range of foreign politics. The First Lord did lay stress on the fact that certain coastguard ships had been summoned to Portland for training, but every naval man understands that. He then went on to explain that the Admiralty thought it right to unman the Training Squadron and transfer the officers and crews to four cruisers which he called a special service squadron. The First Lord then dwelt upon the differences in naval opinion as to whether the Training Squadron should be maintained or permanently abolished, and cited the 'Opinions of distinguished naval men whose names he did not give. We know the names. Some of them are on the retired list, though they were recently on the active list, and they are men of great influence. I mention one—Sir John Hopkins, the late Commander-in-chief of the Mediterranean Squadron, for whom I have great regard and great respect. But there are many eminent officer's who hold the contrary opinion. The matter has attracted a great deal of public attention. I hope it will attract more before it is finally settled. I hold that the First Lord should not be entirely guided by his official advisers in the matter. It is a national question, not a departmental question at all, and the opinion of four naval men at the Admiralty should not be conclusive regarding it. As far as numbers are, concerned, there are more sailing vessels than steamers in the mercantile marine, and as long as we have any number of sailing ships carrying the commerce of this country to foreign ports it would be a scandal and a shame that our naval officers should not be able to handle them on the high seas. These distinguished men who are now in favour of abolishing the Training Squadron would never be what they are were it not for the instruction they received in sailing ships, and it is illogical and inconsistent that they should now try to abolish the system by which they themselves climbed to eminence. That policy ought not to find a place within the four walls of the Admiralty. It is a national question, and hon. Members—oven non-service Members—have a right to express an opinion upon it. I defy the Admiralty to part company with the Training Squadron. The Admiralty have not
  1156
  heard the last word upon it. Naval opinion is very much exercised and divided on the subject. I, for one, am in favour of maintaining the Training Squadron, and the arguments of the naval advisers in favour of abolishing the Squadron are not worth powder and shot. At any rate, these naval advisers will not have their way without a good struggle in this House and out of it. I support all the First Lord has said in regard to telegraph and repairing ships. We have two such ships at present, the "Vulcan" and the "Hecla." I am glad to hear he proposes to buy another. In regard to the colliers, I cordially support the First Lord in his objection to building a special class of ships for the coal supply of the fleet. I never shared the views of Lord Charles Berosford on this point, and I agree that with our splendid mercantile marine, on which we can rely to carry coal for the service of the fleet in any part of the world, it would be a waste of time and expense to lay down such a special class of ships. I disagree with my right hon. friend in putting aside the building of the third class cruisers which were voted last year, and which ought to have been built tins year, and substituting for them second class cruisers, which he thinks more suitable. What we want is scouts, which third class cruisers would lie; and at any rate, you can build third class cruisers quicker than second class cruisers. I am glad to see the proposed improvement in the engineers' rank and pay; but I hope the First Lord will not yield to the demand which, I understand, has been made that the engineers should have the power of punishing their own men. I trust the First Lord will offer his most strenuous opposition to any change of the administration of discipline in the Navy. I am sorry to see the necessity for the removal of the boys' training ship "Ganges" from Falmouth to Harwich. Why not have an additional training ship at Harwich, and keep the "Ganges" where she is? for it is most important to have an adequate number of ships for training boys. I am delighted to see the increase of 300 in the Royal Marines, and that the barrack accommodation at Walmer is to be increased. I observe that there has been a wastage of 2,000 men in the Marine corps, and that it will take some time to raise that corps to its full strength. The First Lord said two years ago he

  1157
  would look into the question of wastage, and now we are put off with the statement that the matter is under consideration. The men ought to be secured by the expenditure of a small sum of money. The same remark applies to the wastage in able seamen. I come now to an old grievance of mine—the negotiations for procuring a rifle range at Plymouth. I have pestered the First Lord on this subject for years, and yet we are "no forrarder." I understand you have compulsory powers of purchase. Why not exercise them? It is monstrous that an expense of,£2,000 a year should be incurred in carrying the Marines down to Brown down to carry out their rifle practice. I see that the Army ranges at Tregantle are now available, but why were they not made available before. I think it is most unsatisfactory that we should not have a rifle range at Plymouth. I know there is an opinion abroad that the Royal Marines and the Engineers should be represented on the Board of Admiralty. I am utterly opposed to any such pernicious proposal, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stamp it under foot. We arc not going to allow any desperadoes in this House to alter the Queen's Navy, and we will continue to govern it without Royal Marines and Royal Engineers. The next question which the First Lord touched upon was the Naval Reserves. Now, here I am entirely at issue with the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to think he had made out a good case when he said that the Naval Reserve amounted to 27,000, or including the Coast Guard, to 40,000. But I consider that that is an altogether inadequate Reserve for a great sea power like England. I must say. with great respect to the First Lord, that this question has not been faced by the Admiralty with all the seriousness it deserves. I am certain that the Reserve is not adequate, and that there is not a naval officer who would consider it adequate to moot the wastage of a great war. Let the Admiralty take a lesson from the sister Service. Whoever anticipated that 200,000 troops would be required to carry on a war against two small Republics? If a great naval war were to come upon us, it would be short, sharp and quick, and I maintain that our Reserves are not adequate to meet any great emergency. Many more men should without delay be enrolled in the Reserves.
  1158
  For years past the diminution of British seamen in the mercantile marines has been complained of. We all know and admit it, but no one has attempted to find a remedy. There was a Manning Committee at the Board of Trade, which urged upon the Government that some coercive measures should be passed to prevent the mercantile marine passing entirely into the hands of foreign seamen. The conduct of Ministers on this subject has been most unsatisfactory. Over forty per cent. of the sailors in the mercantile marines are foreigners, and yet you plume yourselves that if necessity arose you could call out your Naval Reserves. It is absolute nonsense to say that we could fall back on the mercantile marine to supply war wastage after depleting the mercantile marine of 25,000 Reservists. It would be to deplete British ships entirely of British seamen, and instead of their being partially manned by foreigners, the British ships would be altogether manned by foreigners. What has become of the initiative of Ministers? They are paid to initiate. I pass by the building programme, but there is one important matter to which I wish to draw attention. It is stated in the papers to-day that the men employed upon the magnificent cruiser "Kent" had been taken off and put to make the repairs and alterations on the Royal yacht. That is a transfer which I utterly condemn. This mighty cruiser is pressed for, and the Royal yacht might wait for a more convenient season. Her Majesty's yacht, the "Victoria and Albert," is already efficient, and she will last for some time longer, at any rate until the "Kent" is built. As to armaments, I rejoice to see that intermediate guns are being manufactured. We are thankful for small mercies, and hope and believe that as a similar gun has answered in the Japanese Navy the Admiralty will be perfectly safe in introducing the 7· 5 gun. I should like to have some more information with respect to the supplies of cordite. An explosion of cordite occurred on the flagship of the Mediterranean fleet, and I want to know whether the Admiralty has had any report as to whether the cordite was stable or in some way defective. The Government knows my opinion as to magazines for the storage of explosives, so that it is useless to labour that to-night. Cordite is safer than powder if you know

  1159
  your material. We believe it is quite as safe and quite as stable; but French chemists, who are just as clever as the English, advised the French Government the smokeless power was perfectly stable, and there was the explosion at Toulon. Cordite is stable, and we have the explosion on board the flagship. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some reassuring information on that point. With regard to the magazines, they simply say the work is progressing satisfactorily. No doubt it is from their point of view, but not from mine When I am dead and gone an explosion will not matter to me, but the Government of that day may then recollect my humble efforts and the protests I made against such a piece of gross folly on the part of the Government as this.
  MR. KEARLEY (): Two points have been made in the course of this debate. One, the failure of the contractors to deliver to contract time, the other the failure of the Naval Reserve to retain its numbers. The default of the contractors not only effects the contract work itself but very materially affects the progress of the work in the dockyards. The rapidity of construction in the dockyards is beyond question, but, so long as the dockyards depend on outside contractors for armour and other materials, so long will their efforts be of no value. It is only a few years ago that the Devonport Dockyard was entrusted with the building of engines for large ships, and as soon as the opportunity was offered it was found that Government hands could build engines as reliable as those turned out from the shops of the great contractors: therefore, this class of work should not always be put out to contractors. If there is a surplus, then let the contractors have it, but the Government employees ought surely to have an opportunity of doing this high-class work. With regard to armour, that is a more debateable point, but I fail to sec why we should not commence the manufacture of armour in our own yards, and I hope we shall hear of something being done by the Government in that respect. I am convinced that these delays on the part of contractors will continue, and in years to come they will find it impossible to keep up to contract dates, despite; the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says the output of armour has increased 50 per
  1160
  cent. Not only will our Naval programme of construction be delayed, but before the ships can be commenced the Government will have to wait for the convenience and goodwill of the contractors for various parts. It is essential, therefore, to increase the output by commencing manufacture in the Government yards. This year that to a certain extent has been done. Until this year there was only one slip available on which you could lay down a battleship; if that yard were developed you could build three battleships simultaneously. You are now going to enlarge that slip, but there are two sheds at Mutton Cove which, if developed, would enable you to build two battleships there. The right hon. Gentleman took exception to the idea of increasing the output of armour by manufacturing it in our own yards because he thought it would necessitate the withdrawal of a large number of men from the private yards. I think nothing of that; we have increased the staffs of our yards from 22,000 to 32,000 since 1892, with the great advantage that in our yards we are never likely to be subject to those labour difficulties which crop up in naval yards. With regard to the Naval Reserve, it is obvious that the sanguine expectations of last year have not been realised. The Admiralty has not yet succeeded in hitting upon a plan which will attract a sufficient number of men to enable it to build up the Naval Reserve it requires. In the last ten years the personnel of the Navy has increased by 50,000 men. In the same period the Royal Naval Reserve has only increased by 8.000 men. I believe the personnel of the Navy will increase to 150,000 men, and that the disproportion between it and the Reserve will be much more marked, and the Admiralty will be confronted with the great difficulty that it is impossible, on a peace footing, to keep the strength of the 'personnel of the Navy up to war requirements. The next difficulty will be that these men, even now, cannot be sent to sea a sufficient time to give them a good training. So it is necessary to build up this Reserve if the Admiralty wishes it to be a trained, organised, and reliable Reserve. It must be done now; it cannot be postponed. I will assume for the moment that the present Reserve is about 29,000. Naval authorities hold that its strength should be much greater,

  1161
  and Lord Charles Beresford hold that it ought to be 75,000. I am confident that if a system of short service was introduced into the Navy the long service would suffer, because you could not work a short service against a long one. If you really intend to build up the Royal Naval Reserve you will have to make it moderately worth the while of the mercantile marine to take apprentices. The attempt to got the colonies to assist us to build up the Royal Naval Reserve may so far be regarded as a failure.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Some of the colonies are very anxious to join us, and we shall be glad of all the Naval Reserve men the colonics may give us, but it is not a source that we calculate upon, nor an easy source to secure.
  MR. KEAELEY: It will be a good thing if we accept the offers of the colonies, and I hope that the Reserve will go on increasing.
  COMMANDER YOUNG ()congratulated the First Lord of the Admiralty on the statement he had made, and trusted it would dispel many illusions which had been ventilated in the press. He also congratulated the right hon. Gentleman and his Department on the marvellous manner in which the transport of troops to South Africa had been conducted. Knowing the responsibility which must attach to the right hon. Gentleman it anything happened to the Navy, he thought the House should leave the matter entirely to him. He expressed great satisfaction that something had been done for the engineering branch of the service, than which no part of the service would have to show more courage in time of war. He hoped that promotion up to the rank of lieutenant would soon be open to warrant officers, because these men were largely responsible for the discipline on board ship, and their duties were very important. With regard to the naval training squadron, he owned that masts, yards, and sails were very beneficial, but when he saw that only a few youngsters were able to go through the training squadron, and those only for six months at a time, he came to the conclusion that the training squadron should be done away with, and that the men should be kept at their exercise in the gymnasium or around the guns.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): The hon. and gallant Member who has just addressed the House thinks we ought, considering the enormous responsibility which would fall on the First Lord if anything went wrong m the event of war to leave him to deal with his programme. We have lately seen how difficult it is to bring home responsibility in a land war, and I believe the First Lord himself would prefer to feel that his hands were strengthened by this House. He has from time to time stated, having regard to the way things are criticised publicly, that he desired to be fully criticised by this House. The whole House has accepted that view. As one of those who have the highest standard with regard to the efficiency and relative strength of the Navy, I also desire to avoid sensation and panic. I can the more easily do so on this occasion because I do not believe that any of the risks apprehended from the present war by many organs of the press, and by persons who write letters to the press, in fact exist. Why is there no reason for panic, engaged as we are in a war which taxes the military resources of the country? Simply because of the strength the Fleet has attained relatively to the Meets of foreign Powers. That is our insurance, which has been successful. Surely the recollection of that fact, which is admitted by all, ought to lead us to be very clear in our minds that we are not failing to do now things the omission of which may jeopardise our relatively similar position in the future. I have gradually become more of a supporter of the naval administration of the First Lord, and of the naval position taken up as a whole by the Government. If there is, as I believe, not the slightest risk of any intervention by anybody in the present war, or in connection with the terms of peace, it is entirely on account of the strength of our Fleet, and not on account of any of those large proposals for sedentary defence of which we hoar. It is not expenditure upon time-expired men being formed into regiments for home service that is our guarantee against intervention; it is the possession of our Fleet, and that alone—or, more accurately, the idea entertained of our Fleet by foreign Powers. If there were at any time to be a German emperor who desired to destroy in a

  1163
  successful naval war our possession of colonies and our commerce, it would be his opinion of our Fleet that would cause us to have peace, and prevent him from attempting to carry out any such project. I know there are many of my friends opposed in an indiscriminate way to all military and naval expenditure. Perhaps they do not give enough time to the matter, and therefore they condemn military and naval expenditure root and branch. I always say to them. "If you want to try to reduce expenditure as a whole try and pick out what is vital to the country and set that aside: then concentrate your efforts for reduction on what is the least important." The strongest friends of peace in this country are not those who are most strongly opposed to all naval and military expenditure. The opponents of all war expenditure frequently quote the strongest friend of peace, the author of the Hague Conference, M. de Bloch. He has very recently written on the British Fleet, and what does this rigid apostle of peace say? He says that for England there is an interest of the first order in remaining mistress of the sea everywhere; she should subordinate everything else for the sake of her Fleet. If there were special risk of a naval war at the present time—which I think there is not I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that shipbuilding would not meet it. That is obvious. To use his own words, it is clear that at a critical time like the present we ought in that case to provide for the immediate future, and repairs are more imperative than shipbuilding. Sir, the menace to this country which the House has to consider when it comes into Committee of Supply on the Naval Estimates, is a more distant menace. We cannot afford to have regard only to the risks and circumstances of the present year: we must look further ahead, and consider the position we ought to keep up. From that point of view, I doubt whether the programme laid before us tonight is a sufficient programme. The First Lord of the. Admiralty and the right hon. Gentleman who followed him from the front Opposition bench were inclined to speak of paper programmes, and to contrast performance with promise as regards those programmes. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke second in this debate confined his examination of these programmes in detail to French pro-
  1164
  grammes. The French programme is not the one, I think, which we ought to have most in view on the present occasion. The German and Russian programmes ought still more to be kept in mind, because they are more likely to be adhered to than the French. Can anyone doubt that who watches what they are doing? I think it is wise and statesmanlike to treat the German and Russian programmes now before us as likely to be adhered to in their main lines. The standard which has been set up to-night in the figures of the First Lord is the standard of equality to two other Powers—France and Russia. France and Russia are cither never likely to attack us at all, or they are likely to attack us in company; and although no one would pretend that our Fleet, on paper, is equal to the fleets of Germany, France, and Russia at the present moment, still no one who knows the facts can doubt, looking at the difficulty of allied operations at sea. and the extraordinary disparity in the classes of their ships, hut that the British Fleet is one which would cause any three Powers to pause before they attacked it. The danger to this country from a Franco-Russian alliance without the interposition in the war of any other Power is one of the most unlikely of possible events. What is a possible event would be a great coalition of the Powers stretching along the north coasts of Europe from Gibraltar to Behrens Sea; but that is a coalition which would bring to our side the naval power of Japan as a set-off. This two Powers standard which has in recent years given us the security of being in sufficiently near proximity to equality with three Powers is, to my mind, to some extent jeopardised by the programme now placed before us. In itself it does not jeopardise the position, but if the argument it contains prevails, it seems to me it is likely to jeopardise it in the future.
  MR. GOSCHEN: What is the argument?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: The argument, to put it plainly, is that we are checked this year in our programme, not by the enormous character of our expenditure, but by the fact that we have reached the limit of the manufacturing power of this country. That is a libel on British trade, and it is not in any essential point

  1165
  of view true. I am not accusing the First Lord of the Admiralty of using a disingenuous argument, but when examined by those who are not persuaded by it, it seems to break down in the point of actual and literal truth. I undertake to say that not only can we manufacture for ourselves, but that there are means by which the difficulty can be met. If the Admiralty will guarantee the continuity of orders in regard to armour, they will he able to get that armour; but they cannot expect contractors to engage a great number of men, and invest in an expensive plant and machinery, if they are to be perpetually faced by the risk that the orders may any day suddenly stop. The Admiralty must guarantee its orders from year to year. If that is done, we can manufacture on any scale we, please: and neither the difficulty about propelling machinery nor the difficulty about armour, which has been placed before us as a reason for pausing in our programme, is worthy of examination. From the point of view of the future, it seems to me the programme is weak. All the time we are told that propelling machinery and armour cannot be produced, and that we must draw in our horns because of that difficulty, the very same firms who are contracting with us are executing enormous works of the same description for foreign Powers. I believe the Government have the alternative of either giving to firms like Armstrongs, the Thames Iron Works, and the Sheffield armour firms guarantees of orders year after year, or of having some mixed system by which they will be partly partners in them for State concerns—or else by the State manufacturing themselves, they can overcome the difficulty. I am certain it is unworthy of the Government (and untrue when examined) to give as a reason for drawing in our horns as to our shipbuilding programme that we have reached the limit of the manufacturing power of the country. The First Lord of the Admiralty also disappointed me on several matters of detail. The one point on which I think he showed that outside criticism had thoroughly livened the Admiralty was with regard to what may I be called the auxiliary services of the Fleet. There it was evident great progress had been made since last year. He did not name distilling ships. I gather from his nods that the matter has not escaped attention. In the same way, what he said with
  1166
  regard to colliers showed great care and thought on the subject. If there is one matter more than another which the recent land war has brought into prominence, it is the question of guns. We had a. little Army debate in which, through an interruption, the First Lord of the Admiralty took part, when some doubt was thrown on the question of the supply. To listen to the words of the First Lord to-day, anyone who had not read the Estimates would suppose that there was to be a large increase of guns this year, whereas there is less money taken for guns this year than was taken last year. We are told that the needs of the Fleet, as regards the larger guns, have been supplied, and that we are keeping pace with the new ships, that the guns for the new ships are ordered and will be supplied in time. But what about the reserve of guns? The life of these guns is very short. Few, except practical gunners and those who have studied the subject, know how short the life of these guns is. There is a constant pressure, which this war will enormously increase, for gun practice under service conditions at moving targets and so forth, where a full charge is absolutely necessary. The more you practise, the shorter the lives of these guns will be. I doubt very much whether even now the reserve of naval guns is sufficient, considering the shortness of their lives and the necessity for a large amount of practice with them. The complaint of the Admiralty as to the non-supply of armour is no new thing; but for the first time this year the non-supply has been treated as past praying for. A much reduced sum is being asked for, not because the Department do not want as much armour as last year, but because the supply cannot be obtained. Either the Admiralty ought to make the supply of armour certain by arrangements with firms such as I have mentioned, or the Government must begin the supply of armour themselves. My hon. friend the Member for Devonport spoke of the power of the dockyards to construct ships. There has been some increase, but that power is governed this year by the question of propelling machinery. With regard to the number of men in the Reserve, the First Lord has committed himself to a statement which went further than statements he has made on previous occasions. He said that it would be possible to send every ship to sea with

  1167
  only a moderate call on the Reserves. I confess that astonishes me, but only a very highly skilled technical man can question it. But he admitted in reply to a direct question by the hon. Member for Devonport that he is not satisfied, and cannot be satisfied, with the number in the Reserves; and of course he admits that his now Reserve scheme has temporarily failed—has not produced those great results which were hoped from it last year. Suggestions have been made with regard to the Colonies. The First Lord in previous debates anticipated the difficulties with regard to wages in Australia, and with regard to Canada there arc difficulties with which the Admiralty is familiar. But the First Lord did not mention the case of Newfoundland, where the wages are very low and where there is an enormous fishing population which would be available under a scheme similar to our own.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That has been done.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I am very glad to hear that, because I am certain; there is an enormous Reserve proportionately to the population to be obtained in Newfoundland. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak of strategy in connection with the Intelligence Department. Of course strategy lies at the base of all the proposals which are made, or ought to be made, in this House, for expenditure upon our Fleet. But strategy for future British wars must be the business of the First Sea Lord, not of the Intelligence Department. I conclude, as I began, by reminding the House that our one defence which can avail us at the present time is the opinion which I believe is justly entertained of the power of the British Fleet. In the absence of a Prime Minister who takes a keen interest in this subject we can hardly hope that both the land and the sea defences of the Empire should be controlled by a single mind. The First Lord of the Admiralty controls his share of it—the question of sea defence; he has made the best fight he can in the Cabinet against those who would spend unduly upon the land or fixed defences here at home. It is for him to make that fight, and I believe he makes a good one. We shall be only strengthening his hands—not weakening them—in any criticism against his plans for insufficiency. As to the argument he
  1168
  has been compelled to use to justify that insufficiency, namely, that we are unable to produce beyond the present figures, I confess I think that this House has reason for believing it to be an argument unworthy of this country.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is only by the courtesy of the House that I can reply to the speeches which have been made, but I think there are many Members who would wish that I should offer a few observations at this point. There are two principal points which have been raised—one connected with the Reserves, and the other connected with the supply of armour and the general producing powers of this country; but before I turn to them I will deal with the side issue raised by the right hon. Baronet in reference to the Intelligence Department. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the First Sea Lord who is responsible now, as he has always been responsible before, for naval strategy in all parts of the Empire. But in order to assist him in that work it is very important to have able officers who are thoroughly conversant with the whole of the foreign strategy and with the position of every ship, and who can work up for him various details. The First Sea Lord is taken up to an extraordinary extent with Admiralty business: there is no harder-worked man in the Empire, and it is most important, therefore, that there should be men of first-class capacity under him to assist him by drawing up details, while he superintends the principles of the strategy and the defensive operations of this country. As to the Reserves, I think that hon. Members have made too much of the slight falling-off this year in the Naval Reserve after the change which was made last year. The House should remember that when the change was first introduced men in the second-class Reserve, who had been through their term of five years, could elect to go for their six months sea training at once. The consequence, as would be perfectly natural, was that a large number of the men embarked at once in the first year of the now scheme, and I do not look at the present falling-off as any proof that the scheme has failed. Those who were in favour of the scheme are by no means discouraged, and for this reason, amongst others—that the effect on the men who have embarked

  1169
  has been extremely good. Some hon. Members said that the Reserve men, the fishermen or sailors, would easily pick up what they had to learn on a man-of-war. But the duties are much more complicated than that idea indicates. The handling of the guns and countless duties cannot properly be learnt except on board ship. The modern sailor is a scientific product; he has duties to perform on board which tax his energy and his training, and for my part I should dispense with the greatest reluctance with this primary condition of efficiency—the six months training at sea. It may be that other arrangements will have to be made, but the system ought at least to have as long a trial as possible for its success. I have been pressed as to the number of the Reserves, and I have been pressed to say whether I consider the present Reserve adequate. I have remarked on previous occasions that it is considered that the larger the number of men on the active list, the larger the number of the Reserves ought to be. That is the theory, but it may be argued with possibly more force on the other side that the more men you have on the active list the less you have got to look to the Reserve. [An HON. MEMEER: It depends on the number of ships.] Yes, but we have increased the men so rapidly that we consider the Reserve need not be increased in the same proportion. The right hon. Gentleman commented on the statement I made that we could send all ships to sea that were effective with a comparatively moderate demand on the Reserves. I have always maintained that the demand would be moderate, hut it is more moderate now, and at this moment the statement is more true, because we have never been cheeked in the number of men we have tried to enrol, but we have been checked by the number of ships which had to be prepared. Our ships have been thrown back, as many hon. Members know, but we have not been thrown back in the men. Consequently, we have a larger number of men now to man the ships which could possibly go to sea than we had in former times.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwas understood to say that the number of men had been thrown back also.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, we have 28,700 Reserves, instead of 29,000; we have
  1170
  been thrown back a thousand, but I think it will be some time before we shall require the whole of the 28,000 or 29,000 that we have got.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB (): If the number of men is in excess of the number required on ships, then I suppose the excess of seamen will be quartered on shore.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant friend means the number of seamen on the active list or on the Reserve. We have not got men over on the active list: we require all the men on the active list and a moderate proportion of the Naval Reserve in time of war. The remainder would remain as a Reserve. Hon. Members say we ought to have a very much larger Reserve. I should like a larger Reserve, but I would call attention to this point. It is said that wastage in time of war of the men would be very great, and that it is for that purpose that we ought to have a larger Reserve, and that is the ordinary view, lint it is highly possible that the wastage of ships in these days will be faster and greater than the wastage in former times. That is a matter well to be considered in this connection. A ship in these modern days, with the machinery and engines of every kind involved, may easily be put out of action without the crew suffering severely at all. It is not as in the old days, when a large number of men were killed, and practically the ship could easily be repaired. In these days ships may be put out of action while the crews may be comparatively intact, and the crews could then be transferred to other ships which had been in reserve. I put that before the House in order to show that it does not follow at all, because there would be wastage of men, that we should need to employ a very large number of Reserves. We should require them, if at all, rather for auxiliary ships, and for the defence of harbours and many other services. Therefore, I do not think there ought to be the alarm with reference to the number of Reserves that appears to exist in some hon. Members' minds. The second point I wish to allude to is that you compare the active service list of 115,000 with a Reserve of 29.000, but you must not put

  1171
  the 29,000 against the 115,000, because the 115,000 comprises a vast number of services for which there is no Reserve, and which are not taken into account in this matter. Of this number of Reserves that we have got there are 25,000 who are seamen, and you must put those 25,000 seamen as a proportion against the number of seamen proper out of the 115,000. For instance, I know that in the 115,000 there are categories for which no reserve is required, and it is not necessary to have the same reserve of stokers, because it is perfectly clear that a large number of stokers would immediately be available. Thus, this nucleus of 25,003 men on the Reserve is a much larger nucleus than will appear if you consider the numerical figures only. I have stated to the House very frankly that we desire to establish two new services, a Marine Reserve and a Reserve of seamen who have passed their twelve years. Those will be excellent Reserves. Do not let us look too much to numbers, let us look to their quality, and if we are able to get a considerable number of men from these two sources it will certainly be an extremely valuable addition to the Naval Reserve. I confess that, while I should like to have more, and will make efforts to get more, I do not think we stand as regards the Reserves in such an unsatisfactory position as Ave are described as being in. I did not plume myself upon the number of our men. As soon as a Minister makes a statement to correct misrepresentations, as soon as he makes certain statements of fact, he is said to plume himself upon those facts. I simply stated to the House the facts affecting our Naval Reserves. With regard to withdrawing men from the mercantile marine, we are less and less relying upon the mercantile marine for our Reserves. We are drawing thorn now almost exclusively from the fishermen class, who are put through a training of six months—the fisherman class, if they are properly trained, being more available than the mercantile seamen, who are scattered all over the globe, and who would not be upon the spot when their services were wanted. We think that the mercantile marine will continue to be able to assist us in our mercantile cruisers, and be able to carry on the trade of the country during war, as also to help us in all those subsidiary operations which we have dis-
  1172
  cussed this evening, and which are so necessary to the successful conduct of war. Having said this much I will drop the question of the Reserves, but I hope I may try to clear up some other misunderstandings. The hon. Member for Gateshead made a humorous but violent onslaught upon our water-tube boilers, and referred co some trials which have taken place in regard to the "Hyacinth" and the "Minerva." Those trials are not yet concluded, but some very interesting results have been obtained. [An HON. MEMBER: Will the new vessels be built with water-tube boilers?] I have said that these trials are not yet concluded, but I must not give the hon. Member any impression that the new ships will not be fitted with water-tube boilers. With regard to the hon. Member for Gateshead, I can only say that those boilers are being put into every ship that is being built by France. Germany, Russia, and America, and if we have a "paper fleet" because of our water-tube boilers, then those Powers are in the same position, because all have water-tube boilers. The water-tube boiler has been adopted by all the great maritime nations, and I do not think we ought to go back upon it. There are certain difficulties, not with the boilers, but with the machinery, which have still to be overcome—leaky joints in consequence of the very high steam pressure—but these difficulties, I am sure, will not ultimately be beyond the power of our great shipbuilders. The adoption of water-tube boilers is looked upon as a final act by all the great Powers, but, of course, it is within our competence to review the whole question and to take different action from other nations if it were proved to be necessary. The next point of great importance which has been brought forward by hon. Members touches a double ground. The first ground is the action on the Continent as regards the programmes of laying down ships, and the other is our programmes as limited by our production of armour. The light hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the French policy, and suggested that practically the French were abandoning the construction of battleships. It is true that the French Naval Commission reported against battleships, and M. Lockroy wrote against them, but the Council of Admirals have fought a stubborn battle against the young school upon the subject, and I

  1173
  believe the battleship party will win. The matter is not yet decided; the battle is not yet over; but, so far as we can read the issue, notwithstanding the frontal attack of M. Lockroy, I think the battleship party will win. The programme of [France for the next eight years is to lay down in the course of those years six battleships and five armoured cruisers. We propose to lay down six armoured cruisers and two battleships this first year. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these programmes are not at all "paper" programmes. France, because she has changed her programme so often, has now adopted the system of the Naval Defence Act. and wishes to interpose legislative prohibition against any further change in the programme which she may lay down now. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that probably Germany and Russia will stand by the programmes they have made. Russia is carrying out the ukase of the Emperor with a 90 million rouble programme, and we have taken that into account in every step which we have taken. We have faced the programmes of other countries, and we consider—though we have been limited, as I admit, in our arrangements by what we consider to be the reasonable output of the country—that our proposals are adequate, looking to our cheaper and swifter construction, and looking at the action of all the Powers. But I admit that the entry of every new energetic Power into this naval competition, as regards the increase of construction, must increase the strain upon this country, and must make us look very carefully to the standard of construction which we may from time to time consider necessary. With reference to the output of armour, it has been urged upon us to-night in several quarters, in the strongest manner, that we should arrange an armour manufactory of our own. This would be quite a new departure, and it would be some considerable time before the first output of armour took place. Notwithstanding the views which may be entertained by hon. Members as to the increase of Government establishments, it is a very serious thing to undertake a new industry by Government departments. In the present enthusiasm of the moment we are trusted, and we would be trusted, by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen in many parts of the House; but if we established
  1174
  a great armour manufactory we should increase—
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to me, what I said was that you must either guarantee orders or, if necessary, go as it were into partnership with the firms, or else manufacture yourselves.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It would be a very great undertaking to go further in our dockyards than we have done already. The hon. Member for Devonport suggested that much larger work might be done. In the aggregation of Government workmen in that place, and in Portsmouth and in Chatham, it would be extremely difficult to go on ad infinitum. There is almost congestion, even now. We have gone on from 22,000 to 32,000, and the hon. Gentleman argued from that that we might go on still further. Is it not possible that the very increase of Government establishments has decreased the number of workmen who are available in private yards for the construction of our ships? I come now to the important suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that we should give to the great constructing firms orders for ships for some time to come. Let me assure the House, with regard to armour, that armour manufacturers have received every encouragement from the Government to increase their plant, that they have been supplied with ample orders, and, as they have a monopoly of the manufacture, these firms are, as a matter of fact, increasing their plant. I do not think it is sufficiently borne in mind by those who criticise the producing powers of this country that we have an enormous number of ships building at the present moment. What country could have, as we have, under construction fourteen battleships, fourteen armoured cruisers, and a number of other ships into the bargain? France has nothing like such an amount of shipbuilding on hand, nor has Germany; and it is to the credit of our shipbuilding firms that we are able to place such large orders in their hands. No doubt the circumstances of the moment have thrown back the producing powers of our great shipbuilding firms. We have not yet got over the lamentable

  1175
  results of the labour difficulties two or three years ago. These threw hack not only the engineers, but every trade that supplies the engineers. The subordinate trades that manufacture articles for the engineers were all behind hand. A certain number of orders had been placed, and they could not be executed because the work was in arrear. The contractors and the sub-contractors also were, therefore, in arrear, and they have had stiff work to pull up. But it must not be supposed that, because we have not been able to spend the amount of money we were entitled to spend, the contractors will not be able to complete their orders within the time of their contracts. What has happened is that they have not been able to work up to the estimates those who advise us considered they would have been able to earn. But they have not been behindhand in their deliveries, and that is the chief thing. Believe me, you cannot meet a difficulty of this kind by the exaction of penalties. Whether we have or have not been remiss in this respect is a matter upon which Gentlemen opposite challenge us, but if the money spent is behind our expectations it has not arisen because we have not enforced the penalties. The general enforcement of penalties on firms who have not been able to secure the more rapid execution of their orders would have this result: considering the limited number of men who do this work, contractors would in future ask for longer time and for higher prices, lest they should be exposed to these penalties again. Now, with regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that we should give the firms orders in advance for a certain number of ships, I think that is a proposal that we should be only driven to in the very last resource. The control of the finances and the very selection of the firms would be a matter of extreme difficulty. We should have to decide whether to go and make arrangements with firms on the Thames or in Newcastle and leave out the Clyde and the great firms there. I do not see how the matter can possibly be arranged, for we cannot demand that no foreign ships should be built in this country. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that enormous orders for the building of ships of war were carried out in this country for foreign nations. Japan is
  1176
  the only country for which such orders are being executed, if we except small experimental ships here and there. It has often been contended that it was an advantage to this country to have warships for other Powers built here, for if there was an outbreak of war, such vessels would probably be at the disposal of the Government, thus increasing our resources to a considerable extent. I do not think it is fair to cast a slur on that particular industry of this country, because that industry has borne, and is bearing, a tremendous burden, looking to the orders we have already placed. I should abuse the privilege which the House has allowed me if I were to continue my observations on other minor points which I shall be able to deal with on a future occasion. I was, however, anxious to put these two matters straight—to explain our views as regards the Reserve, and as regards these short earnings, looking at the matter in connection with the action of foreign Power's. I was going to ask my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, if he had not left the House, not to expect me to go into that long list of treaty obligations which he has sprung upon us this evening. I must confess that, when he asked me whether we had realised all the commitments of the last few years, I had certainly forgotten some of them. Nor would I, on this occasion, go into the remarks which he made with reference to the degree in which he thinks we have weakened our naval power by the arrangements we have made as regards the right of search for contraband of war-. I should like to make one remark which his speech suggested, and that is this—that no fault is to be found with the gallant naval officers who have been conducting this most unpleasant, this most ungrateful and difficult right of search. They have done their duty with great assiduity, continually disappointed, always watchful, always endeavouring to carry out the instructions which were given to them. I wish it to be understood that the great difficulty of the case lies in the fact that they have not got to deal with a hostile port to which goods are being carried. Every operation is complicated by the fact of Lorenzo Marques being a neutral port; and, being a neutral port, and the enemy having no ports at all, it has immensely added to the difficulty of our naval officers. I trust that no blame will

  1177
  attach to them if on certain occasions ships have been released because there was 'no proof that they carried contraband of war, though our officers, from the information they received, felt entitled to make these investigations. I beg to thank the House for the manner in which on the whole they have received these Estimates. I think they have considered that they are moderate, and I hope they have also considered them adequate. I am glad to find that the House endorses the attitude of the Government with reference to their desire to avoid sensational measures or anything that may look like panic in any quarter of our Empire.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (): In considering the statement put before us by the right hon. Gentleman to-night, it must, of course, be borne in mind that a good deal of the general situation has been created by the war in South Africa, and I am sure the Hot use generally will acknowledge the very gallant part the Navy has played in the war. On both sides of the House there seems a determination to maintain the efficiency of the Navy. But, although the country undoubtedly has confidence in our Navy administration, I think that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean appeared to go a little too far, for he practically absolved the House from criticising the Naval Estimates. I cannot help thinking that the Naval Estimates in the past show that we have been a little lax in maintaining the efficiency of our Navy. In my opinion the Navy and the Admiralty administration in the past would have been better if there had been a little more free and open discussion. The general increase in the Navy during the last twenty or twenty-five years has been enormous. The First Lord of the Admiralty has reminded us how the number of men in the Navy had practically doubled, and I can find no grounds for believing that any such increase has been carried out by any foreign Power. While we have undertaken this enormous increase, France has only increased her strength by about 20 per cent. Of course we are obliged to take a great deal of the information given by the Admiralty on trust, for only one country—and that is France
  1178
  —publishes in any detail what she is doing. Russia and Germany are more or less dumb in this respect, and, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean quotes Germany and Russia as factors which must be taken into consideration in a greater degree than in the past, we must consider what he says. If you take the last sixteen years programme of Franco I do not think that you will get an average of anything like the sum named by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not think that the programmes of German) and Russia this year should affect our estimate as to what our duty is. I cannot help feeling that it is a disadvantage that we cannot have more information as to what is alleged in justification of this enormous expenditure on new construction. There has been probably too much reluctance in the past to criticise the Admiralty proposals. In regard to new construction we have got this fact to consider, that for the last three years the Admiralty has failed to carry out its programme. One year after another the estimated programme has not been carried out. The First Lord of the Admiralty has suggested as a reason for that the fact that the limit of our output has been reached in this country. This seems extraordinary, and almost incredible, considering' all the private yards in this country where money might be expended. Surely it is hardly a fair statement of the case to say that we cannot get more work done in private yards, and that we have reached the limit of output of all our manufacturing firms in this respect. I cannot help feeling that there are other explanations. The First Lord has said that his estimates are not sensational. I think a further inference is justifiable, and it is that the Naval advisers are perfectly satisfied with the conditions of the Navy. There may be endless details and endless ways in which further expenditure may be justifiably incurred to perfect our ships, and the House has given the Government no reason to think that there will be any reluctance in voting them money, for they have had more than enough money. For three years now the Government have asked for large sums of money which they have not been able to spend, and which has been taken from the pockets of the taxpayer. I believe this country is profoundly peaceful in its intentions,

  1179
  and I hope it may long continue to be so. I do not think we can complain of the expense when we consider how far reaching the power and influence of out Fleet is, but I venture to interpose these remarks because of the torrent of suggestions which seem to have all gone in one direction, and that is in the direction of greater expense. I do not believe myself that our difficulties in regard to defence can be entirely supplied by having a powerful Fleet and a powerful Army, for in the end we must depend upon the brain and muscle of our own country. There is a great deal to be done in the country in this respect for which money is wanted, and which is not available to be devoted to improving the condition of our people, and cultivating our own physical resources. I do not want in any way to lower the standard of the efficiency of our Navy, or the power and position of the country in regard to naval defence, but I believe that a more vigorous criticism is perfectly justifiable upon naval matters without incurring any reproach in this respect. I hope our efforts will be directed to facilitating that end, and that we may be led to urge and lay emphasis upon a wise and conciliatory diplomacy and attitude towards other countries.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

SUPPLY [22ND FEBRUARY].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [22ND FEBRUARY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1899-1900.

    CLASS I.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the expenses of Post Office and Post Office Telegraph Buildings, Great Britain."
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to Her
    1180
    Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in respect of Government property."

    CLASS II.
    4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,150, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
    5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council."
    6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for stationery, printing, paper, binding, and printed books for the public service."
    7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st"day of March, 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."
    Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

LORD DUNBOYNE.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Robert St. John Fitz-Walter Butler, Baron of Dunboyne, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
Great Grimsby Street Tramways [H.L.].
Milford Docks [H.L.].
And the Certificates that the Standing-Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Hammond (G. H.) Company.
London United Tramways.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with—
Christehurch, Bournemouth, and winton Tramways.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Whitechapel and Bow Railway [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BIRMINGHAM (KING EDWARD THE SIXTH) SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
  BIRMINGHAM UNIVERSITY BILL [H.L.].
  Reports of Her Majesty's Attorney General, received, and ordered to be on the Table.

  GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.

  COWES PIER BILL [H.L.]
  GLASGOW BUILDING REGULATIONS BILL [H.L.].
  NEATH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.].
  RAWMARSH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.].
  SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL [H.L.].

  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  BARRY RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.].
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [H.L.].
  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  DORKING WATER BILL [H.L.].
  LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.].
  SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.].
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  CORK, BANDON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY RILL [H.L.].
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].

  MIDLAND OREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Code of Regulations for Day Schools 1900.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2383. Servia.
  No. 2384. The Somali Coast.
  No. 2385. Greece (Thessaly).
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION
  Treasury Minute, dated 20th February, 1900, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the post of Head Master of the Royal College of Art, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are requisite.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
  Order made by the Board of Trade under the provisions of the above Act for uniting the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Districts; together with report by inspector on inquiry.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, in respect of the funds of suitors of the Court in the year ended 28th February, 1899: also account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature; together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the notice standing in my name on the Paper, to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee, presided over by Sir George Chesney, on the Employment of Retired Sailors and Soldiers; and, in view of the probable glut in the market for unskilled labour when the term of service for Reservists and the Auxiliary forces on active service with the colours abroad has expired, to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House measures should be taken to give soldiers, on being drafted into the Reserve, the best chance of obtaining employment by providing them, previous to their discharge from the colours, while not on active service, with the opportunity of enjoying as large an amount of technical instruction as is compatible with the due performance of military duties, and that such duties should, as a temporary expedient, be lightened by the employment
  1044
  of outside labour in the discharge of fatigue work."
  I hope it is not necessary for me to tell the noble Marquess that I am exceedingly reluctant to encroach upon his time at the present moment, when he has such a weight of responsibility and anxiety cast upon him, and I trust that the events of the last few days have lightened that anxiety. Perhaps the noble Marquess regards my motion as inopportune. I entirely agree with him that now is not the proper time to enter into the details of the scheme that he has shadowed forth for the permanent increase in the numbers and efficiency of the Army; but my motion does not deal with details at all. It goes to the root of the whole of our military system, and is, I venture to think, a pressing matter. In a short time—I hope in a very short time, namely, at the end of this war—the noble Marquess will have an excellent opportunity of putting into practice the recommendations of the Chesney Committee, and it is necessary that he should prepare the ground at once. I dare say the noble Marquess will think I am an irreclaimable faddist when I tell him that it appears to me that if he is bent upon increasing the permanent establishment of the Army there are only two courses open to him—to educate the soldier and make him fit for civil life, or else have recourse to conscription. Under the voluntary system we must popularise the Army, and, in my opinion, the only effectual way of doing that is to fit the soldier as best we can for the duties of civil life. I think that in doing so we shall make him as a soldier' not less valuable, but more valuable, than he has hitherto been. If there is one lesson more than another we have learned by this war, it is that what we want in all ranks of the Army is initiative, and that intelligence as well as bravery and discipline is absolutely necessary in modern warfare. With regard to conscription, the noble Marquess the Secretary for State has stamped heavily upon the noble Earl who sits on the cross benches, and it seems to me that, holding the view that he does, he could not have done otherwise. The Secretary of State has taken a momentous course in deciding absolutely against conscription even for home service, and I venture to repeat what I said on that subject some little time ago, namely, that

  1045
  it is idle to suppose that, if the Secretary of State was unable to obtain the extra 25,000 men he said were necessary in 1898, he can obtain by voluntary enlistment under the terms he now proposes a much larger addition to the Army than 25,000. In July last, when the noble. Marquess made this statement, I suggested that there was an inducement I should like to see tried. I said that it would be well to be able to tell the recruit that while he was serving he would have some opportunity of receiving manual training. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State stamped upon me as heavily as he stamped upon the noble Earl on the cross benches. He told me he did not think it would be any inducement to recruiting to give soldiers several hours schooling a week. That was a travesty of what I said. When I speak of education I do not mean mere book learning. I mean education in the widest, and, I venture to say, the most correct sense; that is to say, the drawing forth of every faculty that a man possesses, whether of mind or body, in such a way that he may be able to use those faculties to the best advantage of himself and of the community. The noble Marquess has hitherto expressed some amount of sympathy with me, but a few days ago he did not express any sympathy at all. I have very often drawn his attention to this matter, but I have not thought tit to weary him by quoting any of the evidence. But, my Lords, I think it is necessary now for me to come to close quarters with the noble Marquess, and adduce, very shortly, the evidence upon which I rely in support of my proposal. I dare say the noble Marquess will tell me that the weight of military opinion is, on the whole, against my proposal. I do not know whether that is so or not; it may be so. But I have, at all events, as the noble Marquess knows very well, a great deal of military opinion in my favour, and I contend that civil opinion has a light to be consulted in this matter as well as military opinion. Officers naturally are solicitous about the soldier as a fighting machine. Their principal interest, very naturally, is with the; soldier while he is with the colours, and in making that statement I do not intend to say anything in any way against the officers. On the contrary, nobody admires more than I do the zeal and the enthusiasism with which they attempt to brighten
  1046
  the lives of the men under their charge, but their principal interest is, as I have said, with the soldiers while they are with the colours. The Secretary of State takes a broader view. He naturally considers that the Army for those who enlist is not a profession at all. Service with the colours is merely an episode in the career of a citizen. The Secretary of State for War is usually a civilian. Why is he usually a civilian? Because it is felt that Army matters should not be looked upon exclusively from a Service point of view. But, as I have said, the Service is to a great extent with me. The first evidence I shall quote to the noble Marquess will be from a lecture which was delivered before the Aldershot Military Society on December 12th, 1889, by (as he then was) Major-General E. F. Chapman, C.B., of the Royal Artillery. On that occasion Lord Wantage was in the chair, and among those who took part in the discussion was the present Adjutant-General, Sir Evelyn Wood. This lecture, with the discussion which followed it, has been printed in a pamphlet, and is still, I believe, on sale at Aldershot. General Chapman is a man whose opinion has a right to be considered in this matter. He was for some time Chief of the Intelligence Department, and was subsequently in command of the Scottish district. I believe he commands that district now, but I am not sure. I quote General Chapman not only because he is a high authority, but because he has expressed my views very much better than I can express them myself. He said, in the course of his lecture—
  "The training of the soldier whilst he is serving with the colours may be divided into, three branches—1st. Military training proper; 2nd. Educational training; 3rd. Special teaching in preparation for employment in cull life. The two last, while they are calculated to raise the status of the Army in the country, and to promote directly the good of the individual, are very important adjuncts of the military training to which the time of the soldier is more particularly devoted, and, unless I am mistaken, they are vital to the development of those faculties and that general intelligence without which, in the present day, he cannot successfully take part in the difficult problems which modern warfare presents."
  Then, my Lords, the gallant General went on to say—
  "A full consideration of the various efforts which have already been made to secure Government employment for reserve soldiers as a matter of privilege has convinced me that

  1047
  the only way by which remunerative civil employment under Government or in the labour market can be secured to soldiers who have completed their period of service with the colours, is by rendering the men themselves, through their Army training, better qualified than others to compete for employment in civil life."
  In the discussion which followed, Sir Evelyn Wood said—
  "We are now working the soldier's muscles more than we used—some of them think too much—and we are working his brains a good deal more. In these respects I agree with the lecturer that we are making a 1,000 per cent. better man of him for the time when he goes out of the Army. I am exceedingly obliged to General Chapman for what he has said about our soldiers, although I do not quite agree with him in everything he has advanced."
  Lieutenant-Colonel E. T. H. Hutton, Deputy Assistant Adjutant General, who also took part in the discussion, said—
  "I venture to think that this lecture is one of the most admirable and far-sighted of any we have yet heard before this society. It does appear to me that at this camp of practical instruction—almost the only one with the exception of the Curragh—it is, of all places, the place for this subject to be considered, and for any practical suggestions to be worked out by our staff, regimental and company officers, who are rightly assumed to be responsible for training our men for their further employment in civil life. I may say we all of us accept this responsibility which General Chapman rather doubtingly asks us to do; and in accepting this responsibility we can never forget that we are considering the interests of men who inarch with us, and fight with us, whose interests are wrapped up entirely with ours (luring their period of service, and who are serving in the common cause of our country. I cannot help thinking that we have in our hands, at the present moment, the power of fitting a much larger proportion of men to pass into civil life than we have done heretofore, and I feel sure that if commanding officers would develop their offices and trade shops as much as might be, it would have distinctly good results."
  Major Beresford, of the Royal Engineers, said, in the course of the same discussion—
  "As regards the technical training of soldiers in peace time, I would suggest that a science and art school, as a branch of South Kensington, should be established in the camp. Every large town in England has one, and many of the smaller ones. South Kensington gives large grants of money and sends down qualified teachers to these branches. Such a branch could be organised at once, and would give facilities for the better education of soldiers, such as is provided for artisans in other centres."
  The chairman of the evening, Lord Wantage, after guarding himself by say-
  1048
  ing that he had not had sufficient time to consider the subject as well as he should have liked, said—
  "I think General Chapman puts his finger upon one of the difficulties. I know there is a great desire on the part of civilians to employ soldiers, but I know also that they are frequently disappointed in the soldiers who come to them. I do not say it to the detriment of the soldiers; I believe it arises from causes which have been touched upon—namely, the want of technical training which tits men for civil life. Sir Evelyn Wood has said that it would be well if we could give soldiers some teaching in regimental workshops while serving, and in this I quite agree."
  And he went on to say—
  "I do hope that the regimental officers, of whom the lecturer has spoken in such high terms, and to whom is owing almost all the improvements which have taken place in the lot of the soldier, will still persevere in this direction, and do what is possible to tit him for civil life."
  Lord Wantage concluded his remarks as follows—
  "The Russian soldier can turn his hand to anything, whereas the English soldier is comparatively helpless. This is a deficiency in our system which might be remedied by technical teaching. I very much hope that that light and ventilation so necessary to the evening class rooms may be accorded shortly, and money granted for the purpose."
  Now, my Lords, I come to the Report of Sir George Chesney's Committee. The paragraphs in the final Report are not numbered, but they are numbered in the Chairman's Draft Report: and, referring' to the numbering in the Chairman's Draft Report, the paragraph to which I would first call the noble Marquess's attention is No. 15. In the last part of that paragraph the Committee say—
  "They [the soldiers] enlist at exactly that period of their lives when they might otherwise be learning what would be most useful to them as mechanics, as craftsmen, or in other civil vocations. They have lost many opportunities for establishing connections and. interest; they have saved the rest of the community from the inconvenience and hardship of universal service; and, for a small retaining fee, they have undertaken to return to military life whenever called upon."
  And in paragraph No. 20 the Committee state—
  "Your Committee would suggest that, in the winter months especially, and subject always to the paramount duty of maintaining their military efficiency, soldiers might be given some further encouragement than that which they at present enjoy in attending any courses of instruction, including, those of the

  1049
  National Schools of Technical Education, by which they would be likely to benefit after their term of service with the colours shall be completed. Your Committee would also recommend the further and more frequent employment of soldiers in all industrial work incidental to their daily life and calling."
  I believe the noble Marquess has tried to do something with a view to carrying into effect that recommendation, but I am afraid he has not been very successful. Captain Maud, Brigade Major in the Guards, entered into communication with the Technical Education Board of the London County Council with a view to soldiers being admitted into the Polytechnics, but in the end the Technical Education Board were obliged to reluctantly say that soldiers, or most of them, were too ignorant to profit by the education given in those institutions. The last paragraph in the Report of the Select Committee on Retired Soldiers' and Sailors' Employment is as follows—
  "The Report of the Select Committee of 1876-77, made nearly twenty years ago, dealt mainly with the problem how, in finding civil employment for soldiers and sailors, that particular portion of the community might derive some benefit, But your Committee are of opinion that since that period, during which the short service system has been fully developed, and the labour difficulty has greatly increased, the question has become a much larger one. All authorities are agreed that nothing tends so much to popularise service in the Army as a knowledge on the part of those who serve that they will not find themselves stranded and unable to find work at the end of their military career. And in view of the growing demand for higher wages, side by side with the existence of purely voluntary service, your Committee believe that the recommendations they have now made, if carried out in their integrity, will not only increase the self-respect and efficiency of the soldier, but will also be of great advantage to the State and to the country at large."
  I do not suggest, if it is impracticable to do so, that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War should carry out the exact recommendations of the Committee and send soldiers to National schools for technical education. I draw the noble Marquess's attention to the Report, because it proves the absolute necessity of something being done. If your Lordships will glance at the evidence you will, I think, see that the recommendations of the Committee do not err at all in being too drastic. I shall only quote from the evidence of two witnesses. One is Sir Charles Wilson, the late Director-General of Military
  1050
  Education, and the other—even a more important witness still—Mr. C. S. Loch, the secretary of the Charity Organisation Society. Sir Charles Wilson was asked by Mr. Woodall—
  "What are the opportunities enjoyed by a soldier of acquiring anything like a technical training or manual instruction?"
  The answer given by Sir Charles Wilson was that—
  "The only opportunities are in the tailors' shops, the farriers' classes of two months at Aldershot, and the regimental workshops."
  Captain Grice Hutchinson remarked—
  "You have spoken of technical education, and you have said you thought it would be a very good thing, with regard to the soldier obtaining civil employment, if some system of training him for a trade could be carried out besides what you have mentioned?"
  To this Sir Charles Wilson replied in the affirmative. He was then asked—
  "Have you any idea as to how it could be carried out? Do you think, for instance, an establishment such as that at Aldershot would be taken up and welcomed by the soldier?"
  Sir Charles Wilson's answer was—
  "I think the soldiers would attend in winter, not in summer."
  Captain Grice Hutchinson then said—
  "You have never gone much into the question, I suppose; but what sort of technical education do you think would be most desirable—carpentering and shoemaking?"
  Sir Charles Wilson replied—
  "Carpentering, shoemaking, and smith's work."
  Mr. Woodall asked—
  "A soldier has abundant leisure and opportunity, has he not, for spending his time profitably in such homes and institutions as exist in different garrison towns?"
  The answer was—
  "Yes, in the evenings."
  With regard to what I may call the book-learning of the soldier, to which I do not attach so much importance as to manual training, Sir Charles Wilson put in an appendix which, I think, shows a deplorable state of things. He said there was a steady and satisfactory increase in the number of men who hold first and second class certificates, as naturally there would

  1051
  be, considering the general educational progress of the country. But he went on to say—
  "On the other hand, very little move than one-third of the men hold certificates of education, and since the abolition of the compulsory education of recruits there are no means of accurately ascertaining the standard of education of the remaining two-thirds. In 1886—the last year in which the compulsory attendance of recruits at school was required—no less than 3 (i'48 per cent. of the recruits failed to obtain a fourth class certificate of education. The standard of knowledge implied by the possession of this certificate was about equal to Standard II. in civil schools, which children of eight years of age are expected to pass."
  I now come to what I consider the most important evidence of all—the evidence of Mr. Lock, the secretary of the Charity Organisation Society. It appears that the Charity Organisation Society appointed a special committee, which reported in June, 1891, on the homeless poor of London. In the course of their Report the committee said—
  "In the battle of life the soldier is a feeble combatant. He is a man who has been trained up to lean so much on authority and discipline that when turned adrift on the world he is at a loss how to shift for himself."
  That was adopted by the special committee, and quoted from the Annual Report of a House of Shelter for 1890. The Report of the special committee goes on to say—
  "It is worthy to note that, out of seventy-seven homeless soldiers who applied to the St. James's Charity Organisation Committee in 1889, no less than thirty-six had 'very good' discharges, a remarkable fact, even when allowance is made for the leniency with which such discharges are usually given. In striking contrast with the number of soldiers is the absence of naval seamen from the homeless ranks. For instance, at the St. James's Charity Organisation Committee, which has dealt during the last five years with over 1,200 homeless persons, 'a homeless able-bodied seaman from the Navy' appears to he unknown."
  The gist of this Report is that soldiers, although they are brave and disciplined, have but little initiative. The initiative has been, so to speak, drilled out of them. The Report is a scathing condemnation of our present system of training soldier's. This, however, is not the official view. The official view is that all is for the best, and that the soldier is the best possible person to get employment when he joins the Reserves. I hold in my hand a
  1052
  little pamphlet called a "Guide to Obtaining Civil Employment," compiled for the use of soldier's about to be discharged or transferred to the Army Reserve. This, I believe, is not an official book, but it is on sale at Aldershot, and therefore, I suppose, the military authoties do not greatly object to anything that is said in it. I find in this book, which has been brought up to date—the edition I shall quote from is dated 1899—a letter from the Commander-in-Chief dated September 22, 1887. That letter still continues to be quoted, and therefore, I suppose, the Commander-in-Chief still adheres to the opinions he then expressed. This is an extract from his; letter—
  "There can be no doubt that the man who has been for six or seven years a soldier has learnt habits of discipline, obedience, tidiness, cleanliness, and punctuality, that render him most valuable in all positions. He has in our ranks been associated with men of superior position, and has learnt to be what I may term a man of the world, with his wits and intelligence brightened and quickened in a manner that his brother in civil life can never aspire to. In fact, all round, for every occupation in life, he is a far more valuable workman than, the man who has never had any military training."
  Now I would ask, my Lords, how can the Commander-in-Chief reconcile those words with the Report of the Select Committee? This book is on sale at Aldershot. What must the soldier think who buys it, and who sees his comrades experience the greatest difficulty in obtaining employment when they join the Reserve? What must he think of the knowledge of the Commander-in-Chief of the state of the soldier as regards his capacity for civil employment when the latter is constantly told by employers that "my soldiers need apply" because they are not persons fitted for a great many of the occupations of civil life? The noble Marquess now proposes to increase the Regular Army. I would point out that any increase in the numbers of the Regular Army brings not only the difficulty of recruiting, but also the difficulty of subsequent employment of the soldier, and I think that it is highly probable that the noble Marquess may have, instead of increasing the Regular Army, to fall back upon making the Auxiliary forces more efficient. I shall not be sorry if he comes to that conclusion, because it appears to me that the lesson

  1053
  of the war is that there is not such a very great difference in efficiency in the field between the Volunteers and the Regular Army as some people, have supposed. The end of the war will bring the noble Marquess into contact with a very unpleasant labour problem. With regard to the Reservists who will come back, their situations are mostly kept open, but they will displace a certain number of persons who will be cast upon the labour market, which, after a great war, is nearly always in a very glutted condition for unskilled labour; and for Regulars the privileged employment which the noble Marquess is able to give is insufficient now and will be, I am afraid, at the end of the war, very insufficient indeed. What a spectacle it will be for the Secretary of State for War, relying on voluntary enlistment, to see soldiers after an arduous campaign compelled to take refuge in the workhouse or the casual ward. Such a scandal as that must be avoided at any cost. Some of the soldiers will remain in the ranks one, two, three, four, or even five years, and they would welcome any instruction which fitted them for skilled labour when they left the colours. My suggestion that fatigue duties should be done by outside labour would relieve the pressure on the labour market, and. by giving more leisure to the soldier, would facilitate manual instruction. Expediency is not the only argument upon which I base my case. I call in aid of my motion the principle of justice. I say that a man who has voluntarily served for seven years in the Army the best seven years of his life is entitled, even if it is inconvenient and expensive, to have the opportunity in his leisure of getting the best available instruction in the best trades which it is possible to teach. I deeply regret that it should be left to me to take up the question of the education of the soldier. It is such an important and such a far reaching matter that I should have wished, and earnestly wished, that somebody of position and importance in your Lordships' House had taken up the matter: but as it is pressing, and as the noble Marquess will have the opportunity I have stated in a short time of carrying into effect some of the recommendations I have read to him, I feel that it is absolutely incumbent on me to take up this matter even at the expense of occupying a good deal of the time of the noble Marquess.
  1054
  Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, measures should be taken to give soldiers, on being drafted into the Reserve, the best chance of obtaining employment by providing them, previous to their discharge from the colours, while not on active service, with the opportunity of enjoying as large an amount of technical instruction as is compatible with the due performance of military duties, and that such duties should, as a temporary expedient, be lightened by the employment of outside labour in the discharge of fatigue work.—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to reply at any great length to the speech which has been delivered by the noble Lord opposite, because I may say, without affectation, that I should think as regards five-sixths of that speech I am entirely in agreement with him. I have always chought it would be of the utmost value to the Army if, while soldiers are serving with the colours, we could give them some instruction in the rudiments of a track;, and thereby render them better fitted for civil employment after they have left the colours. I must say that I was surprised when the noble Lord charged me with having stamped upon him when he made a proposal of this kind on some former occasion. I certainly am unconscious of having done so. My own views have been very much in accord with those of the noble Lord, and I may add that the views of almost every soldier of experience with whom I have discussed this question, have been such as those which he has quoted. But, my Lords, the question is a practical one. We have shown our desire to do what the noble Lord recommends in a very practical way, because last year we provided £75 in the case of each of a number of battalions which seemed to us suitable subjects for an experiment of the kind, and we gave directions that an attempt should be made to give technical instruction as recommended by the noble Lord. I am sorry to say that the result of the experiment was not encouraging. We have had reports on

  1055
  the subject, and none of them have been of a very favourable character. I will take one case as an illustration. At Woolwich there were exceptional facilities for carrying on work of this kind. But what happened at Woolwich? At the beginning of the season we had forty-one men on the roll there for a course of instruction of this kind, but I am sorry to tell the House that at the end of the season forty out of the forty-one men had withdrawn, and there was left one solitary student as a monument of OUT' disappointed hopes. We shall, however, continue the experiment, and shall spare no pains to make it successful. But the fact remains that it is exceedingly difficult to induce private soldiers, whose time is pretty fully taken up, to attend classes of this kind. I cannot help thinking that the feelings of the private soldier are very much what I remember the feelings of schoolboys were at the time when I was a schoolboy. We were all of ns delighted to attend classes in extra subjects so long as those classes were substituted for a part of the regular curriculum of the school, but the moment they involved any inroad on our leisure the whole of our desire for that particular form of instruction vanished most completely. I think that is the case with the soldier, and when I made the observation the other evening that I did not think the introduction of instruction of this kind was likely to be popular with the Army, or to encourage recruiting, that was what I meant. I have no doubt it is an excellent thing for soldiers if you can induce them to take it up. The difficulty is to find a means of inducing them to submit themselves to instruction. I heard with regret a suggestion in which the noble Lord seemed to imply that ex-soldiers, and particularly Reservists, were to a great extent to be found among the homeless and destitute part of the population. I believe that nothing is further from the truth. There may, of course, always be found a broken-down ex-soldier in the casual ward of a workhouse, but it is more than likely that the man found in such a condition has been discharged from the Army with ignominy, and it is within our knowledge that when, a few weeks ago, we called upon the Army Reserve, by far the greater number of the men were in regular and well-remunerated employment.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I am very glad to find that the noble Marquess has done something to endeavour to train the soldier, but he does not seem, as he says, to have been particularly successful. Of course, I shall not press my motion, but I should like to know whether the classes at Woolwich were started in the summer, because, if they were, it is only natural that soldiers would not attend.
  *THE MARQUEES OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
  LORD MONKSWELL: It would make all the difference. They would not attend in the summer, when they have excessively hard work, but I suggest that there are dark months in the winter when they would be glad to attend, and some inducement might be given in the way of increased pay, prizes, etc. As the noble Marquess has referred to his school days, I should like to remind him that it was a very popular form of recreation in the school to which he belonged to make use of the turning lathe. I find it difficult to think that soldiers will never take kindly to manual instruction, because I remember that at the Chelsea Military Exhibition, where there were a lot of exhibits made by the soldiers at Aldershot in workshops which were partly fitted up at the expense of the officers, those exhibits were sold for more than enough to pay all the expenses. I do not for a moment contend that the great majority of Reservists are homeless people. I only say that there were a considerable number of Reservists with good characters who were proved to be homeless people in the year 1890. I hope matters have improved since then. In 1890, while out of seventy-seven homeless Reservists thirty-six were found to have had very good characters, at the same period out of 1,200 persons not one was found to be a sailor, and I commend that to the serious consideration of the noble Marquess. I withdraw my motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY—ARMAMENT PAY.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery ordered on service to South Africa are deprived of armament pay, which is issued to all officers of this branch of the service both in England and India; whether officer's of any other branch of Her Majesty's forces are deprived of any portion of their pay whilst in South Africa; and whether he will consider the advisability of continuing the issue of armament pay to the officers concerned during their absence on active service in South Africa.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the armament pay to which the noble Lord refers was given to the Garrison Artillery as, I understand, a kind of solatium for the comparative irksomeness of employment in fortresses, and with the object of making the dismounted branch of the Artillery less unattractive than it might otherwise be. According to the letter of the Regulations, armament pay can only be drawn by an officer of the Garrison Artillery when he is employed on the duties of his corps, and there was consequently some doubt whether-, when a Garrison Artillery officer was for a time employed with field artillery, he could be allowed to draw the armament pay. But I have made inquiries into the matter, and I find that when the particular officers to whom the noble Lord refers were selected for employment with the Field Artillery, no special arrangement was made with them in regard to the abandonment by them of their armament pay. That being so, I think there would perhaps be some hardship in depriving them of what they no doubt look upon as a permanent and well-assured part of their emoluments, and I have therefore arranged that their armament pay shall be given to them.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his very satisfactory reply.

  TREATMENT OF WOUNDED SOLDIERS EROM THE FRONT.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Before the House adjourns I venture to interpose for
  1058
  one moment to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the treatment of certain convalescent soldiers returned home from the front. The troopship "Dunera" arrived home on 25th January with two hundred men on board from Wynberg Hospital. They had lost all their clothing, kit, and necessaries, and practically landed with nothing except the clothes they stood up in, and those clothes were the colonial suits that had been supplied to them at the Cape. When the men left Wynberg Hospital they were told that when they went to Netley they would receive their proper equipment to make good their losses. Orr their arrival they were provided with four shirts and four pairs of socks, each out of the Daily Mail "Absent-minded Beggar" Fund. On Saturday two of those men, Guardsmen, named Carey and Castle, were sent down from Netley to the convalescent hospital which has been started by Lady Carrington at Wycombe, appearing in the same clothes that they landed in on 25th January. All that was given them by the authorities at Netley was a railway pass—no money and no food. Having been travelling from 7 a.m. till 5 p.m., they arrived at the convalescent hospital in a state of exhaustion, one man particularly so, as he had been severely wounded in the head. I have communicated with the commanding officer at Windsor, and asked him to send the men the proper necessaries, as they arrived without a hairbrush, without a sponge, and without any of the ordinary articles of a soldier's kit. I call attention to these cases because I feel certain the noble Marquess will at once give orders which will prevent other convalescent soldiers being subjected to similar treatment. This, I believe, is not an individual case.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will gladly make inquiries into the case, but it must be obvious that, not having received notice of the question, I am not in a position to state what the facts are. I would venture to suggest that it would have been better if the noble Earl had given notice of the question.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes past Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.