Sitting of 4 March 1901

Preamble
Two other Members took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following Bills, referred on the First Beading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

  Devonport Gas and Coke Bill.

  Glasgow and Renfrew District Railway

  Transfer Bill.

  North British Railway Bill.

  Thames Deep Water Dock Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  BEXLEY TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To empower the Urban District Council of Boxley to construct and work tramways; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  CAMBRIAN RAILWAYS BILL.
  "To authorise the Cambrian Railways Company to extend their railway at Pwllheli; to construct a fixed instead of an opening bridge over the River Dovey; to grant further powers to that company in respect of the use of steam vessels; and
  360
  for other purposes," read the first time:. and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILE.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the South Yorkshire Electric-Power Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  ALDEBURGH CORPORATION (WATER) BILL.
    BINGLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

      BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL.
      BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
      BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
      BURY CORPORATION BILL.
      BURY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
      BURTON UPON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL.
      CALEDONIAN ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
      CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
      CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
      CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER BILL.
      COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
      DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
      DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
      DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
      DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
      ECCLES CORPORATION BILL.
      HARTLEPOOLS GAS AND WATER TRANSFER BILL.
      HECKMONDWIKE GAS (TRANSFER) BILL.
      HONLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.
      HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
      ILKESTON AND HEANOR WATER BOARD BILL.
      IRISH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.

  KETTERING URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.

      LLANDRINDOD WELLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
      LONDON BRIDGE WIDENING BILL.
      LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
      MANSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
      NEATH HARBEUR BILL.
      NEWRY PORT AND HARBOUR TRUST BILL.
      PAISLEY POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
      PEMBROKE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (COUNTY OF DUBLIN) BILL.
      PETERSFIELD AND SELSEY GAS BILL.
      RHYL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
      SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
      SHIREOAKS, LAUGHTON, AND MALTBY RAILWAY BILL.
      SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
      STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY, AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL.
      SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL.
      TEES VALLEY WATER BEARD BILL.
      THAMES PIERS AND RIVER SERVICE BILL.
      WALLASEY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
      WELLS CORPORATION WTATER BILL.
      WOLVERHAMPTON AND CANNOCK CHASE RAILWAY BILL.
      YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.

      MORTON CARR DRAINAGE.
      Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Milner and Mr. Faber.
  PETITIONS

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
    Petitions for alteration of Law, from Kingston-upon-Hull; Ipwich; Enfield;
    362
    Shipley; Ilford; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Wellingberough; and Kettering; to lie upon the Table.

    Petition from Gabinddas, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
    POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1896.
    Petitions for alteration of Law, from Barnes; Ham; Heston and Isleworth; Ipswich; and Kingston-upon-Hull; to lie upon the Table.
    SAHU, JUGRUP.
    Petition from Jugrup Sahu, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition from Leighton Buzzard, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Leighton Buzzard; and Rotherham; to lie upon the Table.
    VACCINATION ACTS.
    Petition from London, for repeal lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS, IRELAND).
    Copy presented, of Return of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy Lieutenants lodged during 1900, as furnished to the Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
    Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Glasgow for the year ending 30th September, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 70.]

    COMMONS ACT, 1876 (SKIPWITH, EAST RIDING OF YORK).
    Copy presented, of Report by the Beard of Agriculture upon an application Petitions for alteration of Law, from for Provisional Orders for the Regulation Common and for the Inclosure of

    363
    the Open Fields, respectively, at Skipwith, in the East Riding of the county of York [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 71.]

    COMMONS ACT, 1876 (SUTTON, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE).
    Copy presented, of Report by the Beard of Agriculture upon an application for a Provisional Order for the Inclosure of the Open Fields and the Heath and Wastes in the parish of Sutton, in the county of Northampton [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 72.]
    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (INCLOSURE, ETC., EXPENSES ACT, 1868).
    Copy presented, of Fees to be taken in respect of Transactions under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900, in accordance with the provisions of The Inclosure, etc., Expenses Act, 1868 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
    Copy presented, of Fifty-third Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st Mareh; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 73.]
    WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
    Abstract Accounts presented, for the year ended 31st Mareh, 1900, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 74.]

    MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN RECEIPT OF PUBLIC MONEY.
    Return ordered, "showing the names of present Members of the House of Commons who are in receipt of Public Money from any public source, whether in the form of Salary, Pay, Pension, or Allowance of any kind, or who have received Commutation in respect thereof under the Commutation Acts; the amount they receive or have commuted, with the amount of the Commutation Money; and the name of the Office or nature of the
    364
    Service for which the Money is or has been paid (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 197, of Session 1897)."— (Mr. Fenwick.)

QUESTIONS.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state on what Vote the field guns ordered from Germany will be charged.
*MR. BRODRICK: These have been charged to Vote 9 for 1900–1.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—ALLEGED BOER RECRUITING IN BELGIUM.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Beer agents are actively engaged throughout Belgium enlisting recruits for the Beer forces; and whether the Government have taken or intend to take any steps by friendly representations to the Belgian Government, or otherwise, to prevent a continuance of same.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have to say that we have received no information which leads us to think that recruiting of the kind referred to by my lion, friend is being carried on.

  JAMESON RAID—CHAPTERED COMPANY'S LIABILITY.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether he can inform the House if the claim of the late Transvaal Government against the Chartered Company in respect of; the Jameson raid is a British asset; and, if so, whether he intends taking action against the Company for its recovery and, if no action is to be taken, will he explain the ground for so acting.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,)rose to answer the question.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I rise to order, Sir? I should like to postpone this question until to-morrow, when, I trust, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be here. I do not want a repetition of last week.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If the hon. Member will allow me to explain, I think I can satisfy him. My right lion, friend is unable to be here to-day— [An IRISH MEMBER: He is in the smoke-

  365
  room]—but he has sent me his answer. Will that satisfy the hon. Gentleman?
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Yes, that will do.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The claim of the South African Republic against the British South Africa Company was for £1,677,938 3s. 3d., including one million for moral and intellectual damage. This claim Her Majesty's Government declined to entertain as not being reasonable. The question whether the direct loss proved to have been suffered by the South African Republic in consequence of the raid can now be recovered from the British South Africa Company by His Majesty's Government or by the Government of the Colony, as successor to the South African Republic, is a question on which I am seeking the advice of the law officers. On receipt of their opinion His Majesty's Government will take the whole matter into consideration, and will communicate, if necessary, with Sir Alfred Milnor and with the British South Africa Company.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I ask why the Secretary for the Colonies is not here?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. Because it was necessary for my right hon. friend to consult the Prime Minister on a matter of great importance.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: But as a matter of fact is not the right hon. Gentleman in the smoke-room now?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper has been fully answered.
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to be careful not lightly to give up this claim for the reason—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  FALSE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON NEWSPAPER CONTENTS BILLS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to placards published by a London paper on 28th February, to the following effect: "Surrender of Botha, Official, Sun"; and whether, as news-vendors are prosecuted for crying false information, he proposes to take any steps against the proprietors of this paper.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. RITCHIE,): I have been asked by my hon. and learned friend to answer this question. Newsvendors can only be prosecuted for obtaining, or attempting to obtain, money by false pretences, which is the case when it is proved that they knowingly call out news not contained in the paper they are trying to sell. I am advised that it is not likely that proceedings, if taken against the proprietors for obtaining or attempting to obtain money by false pretences, would be successful in this case. I may add that I have received from the editor of the Sun a letter, in which he expresses his deep regret for the occurrence, and says that—
  "The news came to the Sun on authority which has never before failed us.ֵThe addition of the word 'official' was the result of a stupid misunderstanding among the staff, one of whom is now no longer in the service of the Sun."
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these "spots" on the Sun are very common in London papers?
  [No answer was returned.]

  BRITISH REVERSES—OOMMANDER-IN-CHIEF'S REPORTS.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, and, if so, when, ho will inform the House what were the actual circumstances of the surrenders at Nicholson's Nek, Reddersburg, and other unsuccessful actions in South Africa; and what is the report of the Commander-in-Chief thereupon.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Commander-in-Chief does not consider it desirable to make a special report on each of the unsuccessful actions in South Africa, hut he has taken steps to deal suitably in each case with the officers in fault.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: On what ground was an exception made in the case of the action at Sanna's Post?
  MR. BRODRICK: A special report was made in regard to that action, and in his original despatch Lord Roberts alluded to that as a separate despatch which ho would publish.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Are we to understand that we are not to take the answer just given as going back in any sense from the promise made lately in debate on this subject?
  MR. BRODRICK: Certainly not.

  PAARDEBERG OPERATIONS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the concluding paragraph in Lieut.-General Kelly-Kenny's Report to Lord Roberts, dated 20th February, 1900, on the operations at Paardeberg; whether, as a matter of fact, Lord Kitchener did direct the operations at Paardeberg Drift on the 18th February by suggestions to General Kelly-Kenny; and who is held responsible by the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief for the conduct of those operations.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. I had that paragraph in my mind in the answers I gave last week, and I have nothing to add to them. General Kelly-Kenny is directly responsible for these operations, but the Commander-in-Chief takes full responsibility for what occurred.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that, according to the statement of The Times correspondent, General Kelly-Kenny telegraphed to Lord Roberts and received a reply from Lord Roberts to the effect that if more than one brigade were engaged Lord Kitchener was in command and he must take his orders from him?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have explained the exact position of General Kelly-Kenny and I have nothing to add. Lord Kitchener was empowered by Lord Roberts to offer advice. He thought fit to do so from time to time, and General Kelly-Kenny accepted the advice.

  BLOEMFONTEIN HOSPITALS.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that No. 8 General Hospital, one of the two largest hospitals at Bloemfontein, has remained on the same site for over ten months, the ground being thoroughly infected with enteric poison in consequence of the number of enteric cases treated there during and since the epidemic of last year; whether, in view of the increased rate of mortality from enteric in South Africa, immediate inquiry will be made as to why this hospital camp, in accordance with recognised principles of sanitation, should not have been long since moved to an entirely new site; and whether he can give the number of cases admitted to this hospital and the number of enteric deaths in it during each of the six months ending 31st January.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am informed that this hospital has remained on the same site for ten months, but there appears to be no reason for anxiety as the site has been reported to be perfect, and the sanitary reports up to the 18th January state that the general sanitary conditions were good. The figures of this hospital are as follow:—

  Admissions.

  Deaths.

  August

  220

  3

  September

  154

  —

  October

  26

  1

  November

  49

  5

  December

  61

  3

  January(to 25th) (to 25t

  93

  12

  The admissions in January are mostly of transfers from out-stations. The type of enteric fever is reported in January as severe, many of the cases being practically hopeless from the first. If any doubt is found to exist as to the sanitary condition I will undertake that the situation shall be changed.

  CIVIL SURGEONS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state with regard to the last fifty civilian surgeons and physicians engaged by the Royal Army Medical Staff Corps for employment in South Africa the length of time for which each had been legally qualified before being sent out.
  MR. BRODRICK: Ten were qualified in 1901, ten in 1900, and nine in 1899. The remaining twenty-one have been qualified for varying periods going back as far as 1876.

  SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the propriety of placing non-commissioned officers and private soldiers who have been rendered wholly or partially incapable of earning a livelihood by disease, clearly due to active service in the field, on the same footing for pension purposes as those who have been similarly incapacitated by wounds or injuries.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): All such cases will be specially considered with a view to the grant of a pension on the scale contemplated. The scale is under consideration.

  COST OF TRANSPORT OF HORSES TO THE CAPE.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will state the cost per head of transporting horses to the Cape from Great Britain, United States, Canada, Hungary, Australia, and Argentina respectively.
  LORD STANLEY: The average prices of freight for horses to South Africa are as follows: — From Great Britain, £24 13s. 6d.; United States. £22 4s. 6d.; Canada, £23 14s. 4d.; Hungary, £21 5s. 7d.; Australia, £18; Argentina, £14 5s. 3d. The cost of conveying horses in transports to South Africa cannot be given.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Does the Return for Great Britain include Irish horses?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir.

  REST FOR HORSES LANDED AT CAPE TOWN.
  DR. SHIPMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps are now being taken to insure sufficient rest being given to the horses landed at Cape Town, or other South African port, before they are sent on to the front, or otherwise employed in the service of the war.
  MR. BRODRICK: I can assure the hon. Member that every care is being taken to secure the horses as long a rest as possible before going to the front. Lord Kitchener has recently informed me that he has got his supply of horses well in hand.

  COMMISSIONS FOR THE YEOMANRY.
  SIR JOSEPH LEIGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Yeoman wishful to obtain a commission in the Regular Army can do so on the same terms as are allowed to the Militia, and whether active service at the front would be reckoned as of equal value in both cases.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yeomen who have served in South Africa are eligible for any direct commissions which may be granted for service in South Africa. They are not, however, qualified to go up for the Militia competitive examination. Some commissions will be placed at Lord Kitchener's disposal for the benefit of Yeomen.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—ACCOMMODATION FOR RECRUITS AT ALDERSHOT.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men who have recently joined the Yeomanry and are now at Aldershot, holding themselves ready to proceed to the front, are without proper military boots and coats, and are rapidly developing pneumonia, and becoming generally unfit for service owing to the accommodation to which they have been subjected.
  MR. BRODRICK: I must refer my hon. and gallant friend to a full reply on this subject which I gave to a question put by the hon. Member for the Basingstoke Division of Hants on Thursday last,

  371
  the 28th ultimo.† I have since visited Aldershot, and in my opinion the authorities there have housed and equipped the very large number of Yeomanry who have arrived with a promptitude which deserves every commendation. The supply of men with all necessaries is proceeding at the rate of over 500 a day.

  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE'S YEOMANRY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the stamp of men enlisting for the Duke of Cambridge's Yeomanry at 5s. per day; and whether this class of recruits justifies the additional rate of pay given.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Those men who have been accepted for the Duke of Cambridge's Yeomanry are fully qualified according to the standards, and justify the additional rate of pay given. A large number of the persons who offered themselves for enlistment have been rejected. It should be remembered that the men are as a rule some years older than ordinary recruits, and therefore are at the best military age.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL—"EXERTION MONEY."
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to a statement with reference to certain irregularities at Woolwich Arsenal in connection with the payments to principal foremen under the head of exertion money, and whether he will consider the advisability in the public interest of exercising increased supervision in order that sufficient money may be saved to raise the wages of the lowest paid Government labourers.
†See page 32.
*LORD STANLEY: I have seen no statement of the kind, and those responsible in the Arsenal report that there are no grounds for the allegations in question in their respective departments. Special payments of exertion money will cease in the Ordnance Factories on the 31st instant.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: What is "exertion money"?
[No answer was returned.]

ARBER HILL BARRACKS, DUBLIN— CONTRACTS—FAIR WAGES CLAUSE.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the contractor for extensive works at Ashurst Hill Barracks, Dublin, has subcontractors who do not carry out the Fair Wages Resolution or observe the hours of labour in preparing cut granite required for the work; and whether he will inquire into the complaint.
*LORD STANLEY: The contractor for the works at Arbor Hill Barracks— which are presumably those referred to by the hon. Member—buys his granite direct from a quarry in County Wicklow. On reference to the quarry in question, the General Commanding in Ireland is informed that the rate of wages current in the district where the stone is cut and dressed is duly paid.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL STAFF CORPS — RECRUITING STANDARDS.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, if a man offers himself as a recruit for the Royal Army Medical Staff Corps, he cannot be accepted if over 5 feet 5 inches in height, although he may be eligible in all other respects; and whether he is eligible for the Militia Medical Staff Corps and the St. John Ambulance Brigade if above that height.
*LORD STANLEY: A man if over 5 feet 5 inches in height could be accepted as a special recruit for the Royal Army Medical Corps, and, if he was a good and desirable man in every other way, would probably be accepted. A man of 5 feet 6 inches is not over standard for the Militia Medical Staff Corps, and

373
would be accepted if found fit. I am not aware of the standards required for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

ARMY TRAINING—RESPONSIBILITY OF ADJUTANT GENERAL.
COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Adjutant General, who by Orders in Council of 29th November, 1895, and 7th March, 1899, has been charged with the military education and training of the officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular and Reserve Forces and Militia of the United Kingdom, is responsible for the due performance of those duties direct to the Secretary of State, and whether general and other officers are forbidden to practise any system of training which has not received the sanction of the War Office.
*MR. BRODRICK: The Adjutant General is charged with the military training of all ranks subject to the supervision of the Commander-in-Chief, who signs all orders regulating exercises. It is essential that one system of training should be in force throughout the Army. If, therefore, general or other officers consider that any change from the existing system is desirable, it is their duty to submit it for the consideration of the Commander-in-Chief, and not to put it into practice until it has received his sanction.
COLONEL WELBY: Then am I right in understanding that the responsibility of the Adjutant-General is through the Commander-in-Chief, and not direct from the Secretary for War?
MR. BRODRICK: My hon. and gallant friend is fond of propounding questions in a debateable manner. The responsibility of the Adjutant-Ceneral in the performance of his duties is, no doubt, direct to the Secretary of State, but he acts under the supervision of the Commander-in-Chief in such military questions, and, of course, carries out the directions of the Commander-in-Chief.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, such a plan for the training of officers as has been indicated was submitted by the Adjutant-General to the
374
Secretary of State for War; and whether that plan has been neglected both by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor?
MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; I am not aware of anything of the kind. Any plan submitted by the Adjutant-General through the Commander-in-Chief would be carefully considered.
COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of the proceedings of courts-martial or courts of inquiry on surrenders in South Africa, showing those surrenders to have resulted from defective or ineffectual training of officers and men despatched from the United Kingdom, steps will be taken to fully judge the system of training, and to hold those who have laid it down as sharing equally with the officers and men who have had to put it in practice the responsibility for those surrenders.
MR. BRODRICK: It would be very difficult to draw any conclusions such as the hon. and gallant Member suggests from the courts-martial or courts of inquiry which have reported. The question of the training of the troops is being carefully considered by the Commander-in-Chief.

DECEASED SOLDIERS' SAVINGS— SERGEANT-MAJOR GARNER.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a man's regimental savings bank account is shown in his non-effective account, and has this item been rendered by the battery in the case of Sergeant-Major Garner; and whether the savings bank account of the battery has been submitted for audit since 1899.
At the same time, may I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the remainder of Sergeant-Major Garner's estate has been issued, as stated by the Financial Secretary; and, if so, has the non-effective account also been received, and on what date was the remainder of the estate issued; and, considering that eighteen months have elapsed since Sergeant-Major Garner's death, in justice to his widow, can inquiries be made by telegraph at the battery which is in standing camp at Natal.
LORD STANLEY: It appears that at the end of June, 1899, Sergeant-Major Garner had about £135 to his credit in his savings bank account. His non-effective account has not been received owing to the fact of his battery, which was engaged at Dundee, being unable to furnish the details. Enquiry has been made by telegram and every endeavour is being made to clear up the matter. The balance of money due to the Sergeant Major, with his war and discharge gratuities, has been provisionally issued, and although it is against all regulations I have authorised the payment of half the amount shown to be in the savings bank according to our last return.

IRISH LINEN KHAKI.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at a recent meeting of the linen merchants of Belfast disappointment was expressed because the Government would not take linen khaki for the making of soldiers' clothing, and that linen is only one farthing per yard more than cotton khaki, although linen wears three times as long as cotton; and whether he will see that Irish linen gets the preference from this time forward for making soldiers' uniforms.
*MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: May I ask the Government to take this matter into their most favourable consideration, as it is one which excites great interest in Belfast?
LORD STANLEY: The attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to this matter. The preference for cotton over linen khaki is due not only to the fact that the latter is more expensive, but also colder and less absorbent than the former. In view of the recent adoption of woollen drab serge for the service dress of the Army, it is very improbable that any large quantity of either cotton or linen khaki will be required hereafter by the War Department.
MR. DALY: Is it a fact that if Irish linen were used in the manufacture of soldiers' uniforms the constituents of the First Lord of the Treasury at Manchester would suffer?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS AT BARROW-IN-FURNESS.
MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether portions of the work for the furnishing and upholstering of the four ships building at Barrow-in-Furness for the Government has been sub-let, whether any of the work executed by some of these sub-contractors is of an unsatisfactory character, whether he is aware that the work have been carried out by boys and under-paid labour, and whether he will appoint an inspector to supervise and pass the work before paying for it; and whether subcontracting is allowed by Government Departments in view of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons.
*THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The work of furnishing on these ships has not been sub-let. The upholstering work, included in the contract, comprises only a few cushions and curtains, and is sub-let to a local firm who have previously done similar work for His Majesty's ships. The answer to the second and third questions is in the negative. All such work is invariably supervised and passed by Admiralty overseers before it is paid for. Subcontracting is allowed subject to Admiralty approval, and on condition that the responsibility of carrying out the work in a satisfactory manner, and that the wages paid shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen, remains with the principal contractor.

ROYAL VISIT TO THE COLONIES— PRESS ACCOMMODATION.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to say what arrangements are made for the accommodation of representatives of the press on the ships of war that will accompany the Royal Mission to Australia, and to state what news agencies or newspapers will be allowed to send representatives.
*Mr. PRETYMAN: The First Lord much regrets that it was not possible to find accommodation for all applicants; but careful inquiry showed that five

377
berths at the utmost could be made available on the two cruisers. These places have accordingly been apportioned among the applicants. A decision could not be postponed, as the cruisers sail on Thursday next.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will you kindly say what agencies or papers are to get places?
*Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps the lion. Gentleman will allow me to answer that question on the Supplementary Navy Estimate. I may, however, say that combinations have been arranged.

INDIA—PROPOSED NEW PROVINCE.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the sanction of His Majesty's Government has been given to a scheme by which it is proposed to join four or five provinces peopled with Pathan tribes, all outside the Indian border, under the same military, political, and revenue administration as now obtains in four of our own British districts within the borders of India; and will the full Papers relating to this scheme be laid before Parliament at an early date.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTION,): The Papers relating to this subject will be in the hands of Members in a few days, and they will show that the assumptions in the first question of the hon. Gentleman are erroneous.

CHINA—RUSSIA AND MANCHURIA.
*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, and Japan have protested against the ratification by the Chinese Government of the agreement lately concluded between the representatives of Russia and China in Manchuria; whether that agreement, if carried out, would give Russia control of Manchuria to the exclusion of all other nations, would prevent the subjects of any other Power from obtaining concessions in Manchuria, and would place the trade and customs there under Russian control.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): The question to which the hon. Member refers is engaging the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, and has been the subject of diplomatic communications between the Powers. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, any statement or discussion on the subject at the present moment would be inexpedient.

"KOWSHING" ARBITRATION.
SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give to the House any information as to the British steamer "Kowshing," sunk by the Japanese in their war with China; whether the Chinese offered to refer the case to arbitration; whether arbitration was accepted, and, if so, whether anything came of it before the commencement of the present hostilities; and whether he can give the House any assurance that the case will not be lost sight of, but that it will be included in the Bill of Indemnity to be paid at the end of the present war by the Chinese Government to this country.
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The Chinese Government accepted the offer of Her Majesty's Government to refer the case to arbitration, and the terms of reference to the arbitrator were under discussion when the disturbances broke out in China. In the actual circumstances further delay is inevitable, but the case will certainly not be lost sight of. As it is to be decided by arbitration it is clear that there can be no question of payment until the arbitrator has given a decision.

ARABI PASHA.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Arabi Pasha is to be allowed to return to Egypt from Ceylon.
*Viscount CRANBORNE: No petition has recently been received from Arabi Pasha for leave to return to Egypt. If he were to make such a request the matter would be referred to the Egyptian Government for consideration.

METROPOLITAN STIPENDIARIES.
MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will explain why he does not act upon the recommendation of the Report of the Departmental Committee of his predecessor in office and appoint an additional magistrate for the North London and South Western Police Courts; and whether he is aware that, as a consequence of there being only one magistrate appointed to these police courts instead of two, as in all other Metropolitan police courts, justice is frequently delayed by reason of the frequent demands that are made, consequent on the necessity of the same case having to be heard by a magistrate who can only attend the court occasionally.
*MR. RITCHIE: This is a question which has been repeatedly under the consideration of my predecessors and of the Treasury. It has not hitherto been considered that the total number of days on which Metropolitan magistrates sit during the year are sufficient to justify the imposing on Imperial funds the cost of two additional magistrates. I am aware that considerable inconvenience arises of the nature referred to in the question. Provision has been made to lessen this as much as possible by an arrangement that the magistrates attached to other courts, who sit in turn at the two courts in question, shall, as far as possible, do so in consecutive weeks, and on the same day in these weeks.

THAMES POLICE—CHRISTMAS BOXES.
MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the recent reduction of ten third-class inspectors of the Thames Division of the Metropolitan Police to the rank of constables for a breach of the regulations will affect the pensions of the men, some of whom have been in the service for nearly a quarter of a century; and whether, in view of the severity of the punishment, ho will order a fresh inquiry, with a view to a mitigation of the punishment.
*MR. RITCHIE: The amount of these men's pensions will, of course, be contingent on the amount of their salary immediately previous to their retire-
380
ment. Having made inquiry into the matter I see no reason at all for a reconsideration of the decision in their case.
MR. NANNETTI: What was the actually committed by these men?
*MR. RITCHIE: Certain constables, on one pretence or another, wont along the river collecting money from various wharfingers. They were punished for it, and in the course of the inquiry it transpired that ten third-class inspectors had connived at the action and shared the spoils. They confessed to it. They were punished, and, I think, not too severely.

METROPOLITAN POLICE PAY.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the recent increase in allowances to the men of the Metropolitan and other borough police forces is causing dissatisfaction among the men of county police forces serving in many cases actually on the other side of the street, and who, although they have as great expenses and live under practically the same conditions, are yet debarred from the advances that have been made; and further, whether he will recommend county authorities to grant these special allowances to men serving in populous urban areas under the same conditions which prompted an advance to the Metropolitan and borough forces.
*MR. RITCHIE: The existence of the dissatisfaction indicated has not come to my knowledge. But I may say at once that the matter is not one in which I could take the action suggested.

UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS IN LONDON.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Hoard of Trade whether, in case His Majesty's Government propose the appointment of a Committee to consider, in conjunction with a Committee of the other House, the best lines of route for underground railways in London, it will be proposed that all Bills for underground railways introduced in the present session shall be referred to such a Committee and

381
whether, in the case of the appointment of such a Committee, His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of letting the reference to it be sufficiently wide to allow the Committee to report upon the whole question of so arranging and connecting underground lines as to enable such lines to afford the maximum of relief to surface traffic, and to secure rapid, transit from the central parts of London to the suburbs.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir, I hope that the reference to the Committee will be so framed as to ensure that all the Bills of this session dealing with underground railways in London shall be laid before it, and also that the Committee shall be invited to report whether the lines of route proposed are best calculated to afford facilities for present and probable future traffic, and, if not, what modifications of those lines of route are desirable.

SKATING FATALITY ON COMPENSATION DAM, GREENOCK.
MR. JAMES REID: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that a young man named John Kennedy was drowned on the 16th instant while skating on the reservoir known as Compensation Dam, Greenock; that the said reservoir is the property of the Water Trust of Greenock, but is within the police jurisdiction of the authorities of the county of Renfrew; that no police were present; that no life-saving apparatus was available; that those present who gallantly endeavoured to save the young man's life stated that if such apparatus had been available his life could have been saved; and that the said reservoir is largely used in time of frost by the inhabitants of Greenock and district; and if he will give such instructions as may probably prevent a recurrence of similar accidents.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): As regards the lamentable accident referred to by the hon. Member, I understand, from a report which I have received from the Chief Constable, that two life-belts are kept in a sluice-house adjoining the dam, provided by the Water Trust
382
officials, and there also is a rope. All the employees of the Water Trust have a key to this sluice-house, as also the constable of the district. Although the constable had been in the neighbourhood of the dam on the two previous days, he was unfortunately not there on the day of the accident, having been detailed for special duty at a funeral at Wemyss Bay. As a heavy thaw had set in, he thought no one could possibly venture on the ice, and therefore did not apply for a constable to take his place. It would, as the hon. Member can understand, be impossible for the police to watch all the many reservoirs and dams within their jurisdiction and be responsible for warning persons against their own foolhardiness—a duty which is not imposed on them by any Statute. But the chief constable proposes to communicate with the engineer of the Water Trust of Greenock, to the effect that if he will at any time notify to the county police that in his opinion there is danger of accidents to venturesome people at the reservoirs within their jurisdiction, a police constable will be detailed to warn them of their danger.

PREVENTION OF STEAM TRAAVLTNG OFF SCOTLAND.
MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state how many gunboats have been placed each year for the last five years at the disposal of the Scotch Fishery authorities by the Admiralty, with the view of preventing steam trawling on the Scotch coast in the prescribed waters.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that during the last five years H.M.S. "Jackal" or a substitute has been at their disposal for fishery superintendence under the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts. The Board have also received occasional assistance from an Admiralty cruiser for the investigation of certain specific complaints of illegal trawling. It must be borne in mind, however, that the help given by the Admiralty is rendered in connection with the duties imposed upon them by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, and that these duties do not wholly refer to waters in which trawling is prohibited.
MR. POWER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman last year state distinctly that two or three gunboats had been placed permanently at the disposal of the Fisheries Board?†
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I remember giving an exact account of what had been done, and if the hon. Member refers to Hansard he will see what I said, no doubt.
MR. POWER: In view of the fact that so much damage is done in Ireland, where so little of the gigantic expenditure on the Navy takes place, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to impress on the Admiralty the desirability of sending a gunboat for the protection of the Irish fisheries?
[No answer was given.]
MR. TENNANT: Have not the Admiralty now a gunboat on loan to the Scottish Fishery Board?
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I must ask for notice.

POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN NORTHUMBERLAND.
MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received any communication from the inhabitants of New York and Murton, in the township of Murton, Northumberland, praying for further postal facilities; if so, can he state now whether he is able to make any improvement in this respect.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): A communication was received on the 20th ultimo from the chairman of a meeting of the inhabitants of the township. The necessary inquiries are not yet completed, but as soon as a decision has been arrived at it will be communicated to the hon. Member.

TELEGRAPH OFFICES IN RURAL PARISHES.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing
† Refer to The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxv., page 871.
384
the Postmaster General, whether, under the provisions of the Post Office Acts, and particularly of the Post Office Guarantee Act, 1898, any parish is entitled to require the establishment within its limits of a telegraph office, if the parish council considers that it would be for the benefit of the parish to have such an office, and is prepared to furnish the guarantee required by those Acts.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Post Office Guarantee Acts do not confer on a parish council the right to require the establishment of a telegraph office in the parish. They merely empower the, council to pay to the Postmaster General any loss he may sustain by reason of the establishment of such office. It is left to the Postmaster General to decide whether the office shall lie established, and I need hardly say that ho is always ready to give careful consideration to any case that may be brought before him.

SOUTH ARMAGH MAGISTRACY.
MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of Roman Catholics, and the number of non-Roman Catholics, in the population of the Parliamentary Division of South Armagh, and their respective representation on the Bench.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDIIAM,): There is no official information on the religious distribution of the population, or magistracy, by Parliamentary divisions, but, according to the census returns of 189] there were at that date in the County Armagh 05,900 Roman Catholics and 77,028 Protestants of various denominations. The number of justices of the peace in the county, exclusive of resident magistrates and chairmen of councils, is 108, of whom twenty-three are Roman Catholics and 145 are Protestants.
MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get rid of that disproportion?
MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered that question more than once.

SMALL DWELLINGS (ACQUISITION) ACT—PURCHASES AND LOANS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho can state how many houses in Ireland have been acquired by workmen under the provisions of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act.
MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board are unable to say how many purchases have been completed in Ireland under the provisions of this Act. As already stated by me, the Board has sanctioned one loan to enable the Dublin Corporation to make advances for the purchase of five dwellings.

IRISH LAND—REDEMPTION OF CROWN AND QUIT RENTS.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if ho can state how much money has been paid out of Irish estates in respect of the redemption of Crown and quit rents since the passing of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Since the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, up to 31st March, 1900, the money paid out of Irish estates in respect of the redemption of Crown and quit rents was £156,441.

LORD CLANRICARDE'S ESTATES.
MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Lord Clanricarde's agent refused recently two years rent, offered by the widow M'Doangh, in order to be allowed to enter into possession of her house and farm, in the parish of Woodford, county Galway; whether he is aware that the same house and farm was handed over since to a man named Lyons without any fine or compensation, who was unable to hold his own farm, the interest of which ho sold about six months ago; and whether he will state the number and the cost of the extra police drafted into the district for the purpose of protecting Lyons.
MR. WYNDHAM: I have no official information as to the accuracy of the statements in the first and second paragraphs, though I am informed that it is
386
true that the holding in question has been taken by a man named Lyons. No extra police have been drafted into the district for the purpose of protecting Lyons, and no extra cost has, therefore, been incurred in his protection.
MR. DUFFY: Will the right lion, gentleman say how many police are actually needed for the protection of this man?
MR. WYNDHAM: No extra police have been drafted into the district for the purpose, but I cannot say how many of the ordinary force there are engaged on the duty.
MR. J AMES O'CONNOR: Cannot the right hon. gentleman obtain the information asked for in the first paragraph?
MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot ask what terms have been offered.

DAIRY INSTRUCTION IN MUNSTER.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings at the last meeting of the Minister Dairy and Agricultural Institute at Cork on the 26th ultimo; and, in view of the fact that the governors of that institute communicated with the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction some months ago asking for a definite decision as to the establishment of an agricultural school in connection with that institute and the continuation of the system of itinerant dairy instructresses for the province of Munster, whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in sending a definite reply to the governors of the institute; and, seeing that the Cork County Council voted a grant of £1,000 a year in February 1900 in aid of the establishment of an agricultural school, can he say what steps the Department is going to take in this matter, and how soon?
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper report of the meeting referred to in the question. I am advised that the governors of the Munster Institute have been fully informed of the views of the Department of Agriculture, which were to the effect that the Department

387
would recommend no change in the position of the Munster Institute until all the county councils of the province had had time to consider the question adequately, pending which consideration the work of the institute would continue as heretofore. It is true the county council of Cork passed a vote of £1,000 for the purposes of the Munster Dairy School, but the schemes of the Cork County Council under the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act are as yet in a very immature state, and the other county councils of Minister are equally interested in the question involved. It would be most undesirable for the Department, by precipitate action, to take any steps which might adversely influence the character of agricultural education in the country generally.
MR. CREAN: Cannot the right hon. gentleman, out of last year's grant, now lying idle, do something to help this matter forward?
MR. WYNDHAM: I would do nothing against the advice of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland.

WEXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL'S APPEALS.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the two Returns entitled Wexford County v. Local Government Board and Local Government (Ireland) Officials standing on to-day's Paper.
†The following are the Returns referred to in the question—Wexford County v. Local Government Board.—Return giving the Report of the Judgment delivered in the Irish Court of Appeal on Monday, 25th February last, together with the Pleadings and Affidavits on both sides, in the ease of the County Wexford County Council against the Local Government Board for Ireland.
Local Government (Ireland) Officials—Return giving the cases in which the Salaries of County Council, District Council, Urban Council, and Union Officials have been increased or attempted to be increased by the Local Government Board for Ireland since the pissing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, together with the amount of the former Salary and of the increased Salary in each case, and the total addition to Irish Local Taxation consequent upon these increases; and giving also Copies of the protests of the local bodies concerned against these increases or attempted increases.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the comments of the Judges of the Court of Appeal in Ireland on the letter of the 30th April, 1 900, addressed by the Irish Local Government Board to the County Council of Wexford; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the letter referred to and the affidavits of Sir Henry Robinson, Vice-President of the Local Government Board, in reply to the case made by the Wexford Council against the sealed orders of the Board which have been quashed by the Court of Appeal.
MR. WYNDHAM: In respect of the first of these Returns there is no objection to giving the report of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, with the affidavits attached. I do not quite gather what is meant by the pleadings. It would be impossible to give, officially, reports of speeches made by counsel. There is no objection to giving the information asked for in the second Return, excepting only the protests of local bodies. There are, in all probability, protests upon minutes which have not been communicated to the Local Government Board in the form of resolutions. I should be unwilling, by publishing those received, to expose the Board to the charge of having withheld any protests. On the other hand the task of obtaining access to, and of searching all the records of all the bodies concerned over so long a period, would involve a greater labour than I feel could fairly be thrown on a heavily worked Department. The form of this Return is now under consideration in connection with a somewhat similar notice recently moved for by the hon. Member for North Donegal, and I will communicate with the hon. Baronet on the subject in the course of a couple of days.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the great labour which would be thrown on the Department in searching the records for protests. Could he not issue a three line, circular to each council, asking if any such protest has been made, and thus get the information?
MR. WYNDHAM: I have no objection to taking any reasonable steps, but there

389
might be some difficulty in following this plan. We might be charged with omitting some.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: That would not be your fault.
MR. FLAVIN: Have the Local Government Board any objection to giving county councils a copy of the judgment?
MR. WYNDHAM: No; perhaps the best plan would be to print it as a Parliamentary Paper.

GOREY LICENSING CASE.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of the Crown v. Boyan, in which the Gorey bench of magistrates refused to convict the proprietress of the Railway Hotel, Gorey, of a breach of the licensing law for allowing money to be played for on her billiard tabic; whether this case has been returned from the King's Bench to the justices of Gorey for rehearing with a view to a conviction, and with what remit; and if he will instruct the police in Ireland to prevent the playing for money on billiard tables in hotels in Ireland in future.
MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The case has been returned to the justices, who have convicted the proprietress of the hotel, fining her one penny and costs, with a direction in conformity with the suggestion of the Queen's Bench Division that the conviction should not be endorsed on the licence. The police are aware of their duty in such matters. No special directions are necessary.

CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL—DIRECT LABOUR.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings against three Clare county councillors, Messrs. Halpin, Lynch, and M'Inerney, in reference to a matter arising out of the direct labour question, and whether, as the Irish Government has drafted a Provisional Order dealing
390
with that question, he will take steps to have the defendants released from the order to enter into sureties to be of good behaviour.
MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. The Provisional Order can have no bearing on the prosecution to which the hon. Member refers.

SURETIES OE THE PEACE—HALIN v. RICE.
MR. MTADDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the judge of the King's Bench in Ireland in the case of Halpin v. Rice, and to the observation of the Lord Chief Justice as to the difference in the law affecting persons in England and Ireland on application before the magistrates for sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and if, in view of the opinion of the judge that persons in Ireland called upon to give sureties to be of good behaviour have a grievance in being precluded from giving evidence on their behalf, he will introduce a Bill assimilating the law on the subject in both countries.
MR. FLYNN: At the same time may I ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, in reference to the judgment in the King's Bench on the 2Gth ult. in the case of Deputy-Inspector H. Rice, Royal Irish Constabulary, v. Halpin, and in connection with his promise to bring in legislation with a view to carry into effect the recommendation of the learned judges, whether he will undertake to introduce a Bill before Easter.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): In answer to the question of the hon. Member for East Donegal, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question put to me on Friday last, when I stated that if the Members for Ireland would be good enough to give me an assurance that they would facilitate the assimilation of the law in the two countries in this respect I would forthwith introduce a short Bill for the purpose. The hon. Member for North Cork asks me if I will introduce the Bill before

391
Easter. I can only repeat that, provided I receive the assurance I have asked for, the Bill will at once be introduced.
MR. FLYNN: How can we give the assurance until we see the Bill?
MR. ATKINSON: I have said that the Bill will assimilate the law in the two countries.

FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS IN COUNTY KILDARE.
MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many fair rent applications are pending in the union of Naas, county Kildare; when will they be listed for hearing; what was the date of the last sittings of the sub-commissioners there; and when the next sittings may be expected to take place.
MR. WYNDHAM: The hearing of a list containing eighteen fair-rent applications from the Naas Union will be commenced at Naas on the 19th inst. The list includes all applications received from the union save two. A sub-commission last sat at Naas in January, 1900.

THE RECENT "DAY OK GENERAL MOURNING"—POLICE AND IRISH SHOPKEEPERS.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to compensate the traders of Roundwood and Lara for the loss they sustained in their business in consequence of the police order to keep their shops closed on Saturday, 2nd February; if not, what remedy have the traders for the injury done to their business by the illegal action of the police.
MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to this question is in the negative. I am unable to advise the hon. Member upon the point raised at the conclusion of the question.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Then am I to understand that the people who have suffered by the illegal action of the police have no remedy?
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member must understand that I cannot advise
392
whether they have a remedy or what it is
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: If they institute legal proceedings against the inspector will the right hon. Gentleman take care that—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has already said he cannot advise a remedy.

BIRR AND PORTUMNA RAILWAY.
MR. REDDY: On behalf of my hon. friend the Member for East Galway I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the International Railway Corporation, Limited, London, have agreed to comply with conditions laid down by the Irish Office in reference to the restoration and reopening of the Birr and Portumna line of railway, he will state what is the cause of any further delay.
MR. WYNDHAM: The proposals of the International Railway Corporation were brought by the Irish Government before the Treasury, who did not sec their way to hold out any expectation that they will consent to a grant of £12,000 in aid of the reconstruction of the line.

IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Code of Instruction for Irish National Schools, an extract from which was presented to this House last July, will be ready, and what is the special scale of salaries for each grade which this extract states is arranged.
MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners of National Education cannot, at present, fix a date for the issue of the Code, as they are still in correspondence with the Treasury. It will, however, be issued without avoidable delay, and will include the special scale of salaries.

LAND LAW ADMINISTRATION IN EAST TYRONE.
MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

393
tenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Agent of the Commissioners of Education has taken, or is instructed to take, proceedings to evict a tenant named Joseph Magennis, who resides in Derry-trisk, near Coalisland, county Tyrone, for a techuical breach of one of the provisions of the Land Act, which took place in ignorance of the law two years ago; and what steps, if any, it is proposed to take in this matter.
MR. WYNDHAM: In this case I am informed that the tenant committed a breach of one of the statutory conditions of his tenancy by opening a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors without the consent of the Commissioners. The Commissioners, in consequence, have directed proceedings to be taken for the determination of the tenancy. They are willing to waive proceedings if the tenant surrenders his licence as required by them.

IRISH PRE-UNION STATUTES.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether effect will be given to the suggestion of the Deputy Keeper of Public Records in Ireland in the last Report, and the publication of the original statutes of the Irish Parliament in Norman French be carried out.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the Treasury are in communication with the Statute Law Revision Committee on this subject. In the meantime the actual work of editing and preparing the statutes for press is being proceeded with.

WESTMEATH MAGISTRACY.
MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many Roman Catholics and how many Protestants there are in the county of Westmeath; how many Roman Catholic magistrates and how many Protestant magistrates there are in that county; and how many Roman Catholics and how many Protestant grand jurors have been summoned by the present High Sheriff of that county to serve as grand jurors at the spring assizes.
MR. WYNDHAM: The number of Roman Catholics and Protestants of various denominations in the county of Westmeath at the time of the Census of 1891 was 59,904 and 5,123, respectively. The number of justices of the peace in the county, exclusive of resident magistrates and chairmen of councils, is 146, of whom ninety-six are Protestants, forty-eight Roman Catholics, and there are two whose religions are unknown. There are no official statistics of the religious denominations of gentlemen summoned by the High Sheriff to act as grand jurors.

SHROPSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY— OUTRAGES IN TIPPERARY.
MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the series of outrages in the shape of house wrecking, robberies, and burglaries recently committed in Tipperary by soldiers of the Shropshire Light Infantry stationed there; whether any action was taken by the officer in command to prevent such conduct; and whether the persons suffering loss will be compensated by the Army Department.
MR. WYNDHAM: Two burglaries and a malicious injury to property were committed last month by soldiers belonging to this battalion in Tipperary. In each case the accused was arrested and committed for trial at assizes. Neither the officer in command nor the police anticipated such conduct, and no special steps were taken, therefore, to prevent it. The inquiry in the last paragraph should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War.
MR. CULLINAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the commanding officer took no steps to stop this series of outrages?
MR. WYNDHAM: One can hardly call two burglaries a series.
MR. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regiment has been transferred to Templemore, and that on arrival there the men smashed windows?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
MR. FLAVIN: Are these men acting under the proclamation of Lord Roberts?

PROTECTION OF IRISH FISHERIES.
MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if lie can state how many gunboats have been placed by the Admiralty at the disposal of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries each year for the last five years, with the view of preventing steam trawling in the prescribed waters oft' the Irish coasts.
MR. WYNDHAM: The number of occasions on which gunboats have been employed for the purpose stated during the past five years was—in 1896, twice; in 1897, twice; in 1898, once; and in 1899, three times. Last year no gunboat was employed. I would refer the lion. Member to my reply on the 21st February† to the question of the hon. Member for Galway as to the special steps now being taken by the Department of Agriculture with a view to the suppression of illegal trawling within the prescribed limits off the Irish coast.

PROSECUTION OF THE TUAM NEWS EDITOR.
MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John M'Philpin, editor and proprietor of the Tuam News, Tuam, county Galway, has been summoned by the Crown to give evidence in respect to resolutions and newspaper reports published in his paper, and alleged to have been furnished to him by persons awaiting their trial at Athenry on 14th March next; and whether, in view of the announcement made recently in respect to similar summonses issued in the city of Waterford, he will direct the immediate withdrawal of the summons against this newspaper editor.
MR. WYNDHAM: The cases of Mr. Redmond and Mr. M'Philpin are not identical, as the latter has only been summoned to produce reports sent to him for publication. While I cannot admit that he has any special privilege exempting him from the liability to produce these docu-
† See preceding volume of Debates, page 698.
396
ments, I will undertake that, unless it should be absolutely necessary in the interest of justice to examine him, lie will not be produced as a witness.

HORSE-BREEDING IN QUEEN'S COUNTY.
MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many premiumed stallions (thoroughbred and agricultural) have been allotted to Queen's County under the Royal Dublin Society's scheme; and whether any grant of public money goes in aid of this scheme; and, if so, what amount.
MR. WYNDHAM: As already stated by me, one-half of the annual grant of £5,000, paid to the Royal Dublin Society under the Probate Duties Act of 1888, is applied in aid of the Society's scheme for thoroughbred stallions. Of the twenty-five premiums paid under this portion of the scheme, one thoroughbred stallion has been allocated to Queen's County. The three premiums of £50 for agricultural stallions are not paid out of public funds, but out of the private funds of the Society.

LABOURERS' DWELLINGS IN MOUNTMELLICK.
MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed by the Town Commissioners of Mountmellick in favour of further legislation enabling corporate bodies to provide suitable house accommodation for the labouring classes at reasonable rents, and suggesting that a yearly grant, similar to that made under the Land Purchase Acts of 1891–6 in aid of the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland, should be made to towns commissioners and urban councils in order to lighten the burthen of the rates and facilitate the removal of hovels; and whether the Government propose dealing with this question during the present session of Parliament.
MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen the resolution referred to in the question. It is not proposed to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session.

FERMANAGH RENT APPEALS.
MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if lie will state the number of appeals from the Sub-Commission now pending for rehearing by the Chief Commission in the county of Fermanagh; and whether he is aware that some of these appeals have been lodged over four years, and will he state how many cases were reheard by the Chief Commission at their last sitting at Enniskillen, and when the Chief Commission will next sit in Fermanagh.
MR. WYNDHAM: There are 314 cases in county Fermanagh in which appeals are pending for upwards of two years, but there is no case unlisted in which the notice of appeal was lodged prior to June, 1898. One hundred and fifty-one cases were listed for the last sitting of the Commissioners at Enniskillen; of these, only sixty-four cases went to an actual hearing in court, the remainder being either withdrawn or settled by the parties. The date of the next sitting of the Land Commission at Enniskillen for the hearing of appeals has not yet been arranged.

WICKLOW MAGISTRACY.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Roman Catholics of county Wicklow are three-fourths of the population, and that the Roman Catholic magistrates are twenty-eight and the Protestant magistrates 135 in the county, he will take steps, either by suggestion to the Lord Lieutenant of the county Wicklow, or otherwise, to reduce the preponderance of Protestant over Roman Catholic, magistrates.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I can only repeat what I have already stated, that recommendations for appointments to the Commission of the Peace are made by the Lieutenant of the county to the Lord Chancellor, and that it is not within the province of the Executive to intervene in the matter, as suggested.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is it as necessary to pack the magisterial bench as to pack the jury box?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS.
MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been I directed to the practice of the Land Commission of postponing indefinitely the hearing of fair rent applications in cases where negotiations for sale are pending, and whether he will take steps to secure a more speedy hearing of such cases in future.
MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners inform me that the hearing of fair rent applications is only postponed in cases of the kind mentioned upon the application, and with the consent of both landlord and tenant, and that either party can apply at any time to have the fair rent applications proceeded with.

BELTURRET POST OFFICE.
MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the unsuitability of the present post office in Belturbet, both in its position and structural arrangements; and is it the intention of the Department to provide a proper building or build a new post office in Belturbet.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The present post office at Belturbet, to which the business was moved after the late fire, is a, temporary one, and inquiries are being made as to the best means of obtaining better accommodation. A scheme for buying a site and building specially is under consideration.

COUNTY TYRONE POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if lie is aware that the residents of the district in county Tyrone, known as Stewartstown to Aughinderg, which comprises eleven townlands, have petitioned the authorities for a daily delivery of letters, and can he state whether the prayer of that petition will be granted.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, the residents applied for a more frequent delivery of letters. Some little time ago the frequency of the service was

399
increased from three to four days a week, Mid the Postmaster General has now sanctioned a delivery every weekday. The improved service will be commenced as soon as possible.

IRISH RATING VALUATIONS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can explain why in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales the local authorities are the rating authorities, but the Irish Valuation Commissioner and officials are Government employees; and whether measures will be taken to have the law assimilated for the three kingdoms by amending the Local Government (Ireland) Act.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The difference of practice is the result of a difference in the law in the two cases. I am not prepared to propose any change in the Irish Act in this respect.
Mr. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that when the Irish Valuation Commissioner issues his valuation it becomes law subject to appeal, he can state whether the new valuation of the county boroughs of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford will increase local and Imperial taxation; and whether, in view of the Financial Relations Report, care will be taken that the valuation shall be lowered, in order that the Imperial taxation of those county boroughs may be reduced, as the local rates can be met by increased poundage.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say what will be the result of new valuations if such are applied for in the towns named. But there is no power under the Valuation Acts to lower the valuation as suggested.
Mr. FLYNN: Does the valuation occur if the local authorities object?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No valuation can take place unless the local authorities ask for it.
Mr. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that rating is based on rental, and that rentals include the annual value of the land upon which premises are built
400
whether it has been considered, or will be considered, by the Commissioner of Valuations in Ireland that the payment of taxation by the land-owning class has been transferred to the occupiers, as that which was formerly assessed as land is now assessed under the description of buildings being included in the rent of houses.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain that I understand the hon. Member's question; but I can assure him that, generally speaking, land in county boroughs is valued on its letting value, like other rateable property, and that wherever the amount of land attached to a building is more than a mere curtilage, a separate valuation of it will be made.

IRISH LIGHTS—MAIDEN ROCK, KENMARE BAY.
MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state who is responsible for the system of buoying in force on the Irish seaboard, and whether he will inquire as to the buoy at present marking a rock known as the Maiden Rock in Kenmare Bay, which is only an ordinary buoy, with a view to having it replaced by a bell buoy, so that vessels navigating those waters at night may have a means of knowing the situation of this rock.
Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: Except where there are local lighthouse authorities, the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys, and beacons throughout Ireland and the adjacent seas and islands are vested in the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The Commissioners inform me that no application has been received by them for a bell buoy at Maiden Rock, Kenmare, in place of the first class buoy by which the rock is at present marked.
Mr. JOYCE: Is it necessary that an application should be made?
Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: I think it very desirable.

KINSALE WATER SUPPLY.
Mr. CREAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a distinct understanding was arrived

401
at between the Kinsale Urban District Council and the War Office, with the approval of the Local Government Board, by which it was arranged that the War Office would advance the money required for providing a supplemental water supply in excess of the sum reached by the borrowing powers of the council and contract to take a water supply for the use of the military, recouping themselves for their outlay by an annual sinking fund covering principle and interest, to be taken credit for by them out of the amount to be annually paid for the water supply. Will he explain on what grounds, after the council had been put to an expense of about £200, the military authorities informed them that they had changed their mind and could not see their way to carry out the arrangement; and, if, under these circumstances, the matter will be re-considered with the object of enabling the district council to carry out the proposed work.
LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. No such understanding was arrived at with the council. The council made a proposal to supply water to the barracks at Kinsale which would have involved an estimated advance of £5,000 from War Department Funds. It was not considered desirable to agree to it, and no arrangement whatever was made with the council.

DEFENCE OF GIBRALTAR.
Mr. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will open negotiations with the Spanish Government for the cession of Tarifa and the territory adjoining the western shore of Gibraltar Bay before expending any more public money on the harbour works at Gibraltar.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have no intention of opening negotiations of the kind proposed.

ANGLO-PORTUGUESE TREATY—M. DELOASSE'S SPEECH.
Mr. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a speech in the French Senate by M. Delcassé, and whether in the event of hostilities there is
402
any Anglo-Portuguese treaty which would compel the British (Government to intervene in a dispute between the French and Portuguese Governments.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have received the textual report of the speech by M. Delcassé to which reference is made. They do not think its effect is properly described in the question.
Me. BOLAND: Will the Government lay on the Table of the House copies of any communications that have passed between the Government and Portugal?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: They are on the Table.

THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
Mr. JOYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has received information from various public bodies, by resolution and otherwise, expressing their disapproval at the words which His Majesty the King had to make use of at the opening of Parliament with regard to the Roman Catholic religion; and if he will give the matter his consideration.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I have received information of the kind to which the lion. Gentleman refers. I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made in answer to a similar question on the Paper.
Mr. JOYCE: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last paragraph of the question.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it clear from the answer that I have given it consideration.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the resolution which was passed by the Canadian Parliament on the subject?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I have not.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is interested in the subject?
*Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. DILLON: May I ask, with reference to the order of business today, whether it is proposed to take the Estimates in the order in which hey appear on the Paper, or to go on with the Civil Service Estimates from the point at which we left off on Friday?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I propose to take the Estimates in the order in which they are on the Paper.
Sir J. FERGUSSON: What will be the course of business to-morrow?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have already stated, the business to-morrow will be the Vote on Account, and, in accordance with the practice which was introduced a year or two back, I have made such inquiries as I can from authorised sources and I find the discussion which is most desired is that on the Education Vote, which will accordingly be placed first.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: In case the Speaker is not got out of the Chair on Friday, will the debate be continued on the Monday following?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I must not be understood to pledge myself a week in advance, as unforeseen necessities for taking other business may arise. But I hope the discussion on the Army Estimates will be continued on Monday.
*SIR CHARLES DTLKE: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State for War to make his statement first on Friday?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I hope so. I think it will be the most convenient course. On Thursday the first business will be the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Committee on the Civil List, and after that is disposed of we shall go on with the Supplementary Estimates.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not a departure from the practice of the House for the Minister for War to make his statement on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I think that has been the practice for some years. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying it was not the old practice. It is a new one, and I think it has been found to be most convenient.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Sir Francis Henry Evans, K.C.M.G., for the Borough of Maidstone.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE-AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS.
Standing Order No. 51 read.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to move the motion which has now been for some days on the Notice Paper of the House. The effect of the amendment of our Standing Order would be to place the House in relation to Committees of Ways and Means precisely in the position in which it ordinarily stands with regard to Committee of Supply. As the House is aware, it was formerly possible for private Members to move resolutions whenever one of the Orders of the day was to the effect that "Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the purpose of going into Supply." That practice has led to certain evils which it is not necessary for me to deal with now, and it was found to be intolerable. But up to last year no similar inconvenience has been felt with regard to the power of moving Amendments on going into Committee of Ways and Means. That power has always been open to private Members, but it has seldom been taken advantage of; and, before last year, I think I am not wrong in saying that there were only live cases in the last twenty yea is in which any lion. Member thought it necessary to take advantage of this privilege. With the exception of t he occasions when the Consolidated Fund Bill or the Appropriation Bill were before the House, I do not think tint for the past twenty years hon. Members have ever thought it necessary to interpose by putting down a motion upon going into Committee of Ways and Means. But it is evident that

405
a practice once started will continue. There are, I think, two motions down already on going into Committee of Ways and Means, and it is perfectly certain that the way having been once shown by some bold pioneer, like my hon. friend behind me, he would find plenty of imitators, and the House would no longer be sure, when the Order for Committee of Ways and Means is put down, that it might not be occupied by some quite different and possibly totally irrelevant discussion upon some other matter. It is very instructive to bear in mind what happened in a parallel case on going into Committee of Supply. It was a superstition very prevalent when I first came into the House, and it has not yet been wholly dissipated, that the power of moving resolutions on going into Committee of Supply is a modern relic of the old privilege possessed by the House of Commons of dealing with grievances before granting Supplies. I understand that very careful investigation was made into this question some years ago, and it was then discovered that the first time a resolution had been moved on going into Committee of Supply was in the year 1811, by a gentleman who seems to be the predecessor of my hon. friend in Parliamentary inventiveness, and who first saw the opening that this Standing Order left to private Members. But although that privilege was started in 1811, it was only used three times in the course of the succeeding ten years. But the practice grew, and it grew apace, until the time came when the House felt that it was impossible to deal with Supply if, whenever the business of Supply was put down, some totally different question was raised and discussed for an indefinite time. I suppose that there are Gentlemen on both sides of the House who regard this as one of a long series of tyrannical interferences with the rights of private Members, and who think the proposed amendment of our Standing Order, like all previous amendments, is really due to the inordinate greed and ambition of successive Governments, who wish to grasp unduly the time at the disposal of Parliament to carry out their own nefarious or,
406
at all events, undesirable schemes. I think that is an extremely shallow view to take of a process which I quite admit has been going on now for a century.
The real truth of the matter is that a great many causes have been at work which make it perfectly impossible for the Government to do any work at all, or to carry on the business of the country, without modifying the rules of the House. It is not the fault of the Government, or the fault of the House, but it is due to circumstances over which the House has really no control, for it is due to the increased perplexity of modern Governmental work, to the press and the telegraph; and due, perhaps, to one other cause as much as any other, and that is the fact that a very much larger number of hon. Gentlemen desire to take part in our debates than was the case one hundred, or eighty, or even sixty years ago. I am not one of those who believe that the level of Parliamentary ability in this House has in the smallest degree fallen; I rather take the other view. But assuming that what I say is true and that Parliamentary ability in this House is very much higher than it was, it is not surprising that the great mass of Members are now, being forced by their constituents, far less content than they were to allow the work of discussion in this House to be carried on by a relatively small number of selected and favoured individuals. While that process has been going on unfortunately the day still consists of only twenty-four hours, and only a certain number of Parliamentary days occur in six months, and sessions which last more than six months are rightly considered as inflicting too great pressure upon hon. Members of this House. Therefore, if you are going to treat your business in a common-sense way, and see that during this six months there shall be a fair amount of time given to those who desire to criticise matters, and a fair amount of time to those who want to discuss the Bills of the Government, and also a fair amount of time to the Government in order to carry out the work of legislation which the country requires, it is absolutely necessary that you should, from time to

407
time, so modify your rules that that fair division of time shall not be interfered with on one side or the other It may be—and my lion, friend thinks that it is a fact—that under our existing system the time allotted to Members of the Opposition and to private Members of this House for the purpose of Parliamentary criticism is inadequate. I think that forty-three days out of one hundred days, roughly calculated, which are given up to the work of criticism, is more than sufficient. That, however, in my judgment, is a matter for entirely separate discussion from the motion which I have placed before the House, and if the time allotted is insufficient, by all means let us increase it. We might increase the twenty-three days given to Supply to twenty-five days, or make any other change which is thought desirable, but do not let us re-introduce with regard to Committee of Ways and Means a system which has been productive of nothing but confusion and evil in connection with Committee of Supply. If hon. Gentlemen will look back at the debates which took place in this House when the privileges of private Members were gradually being curtailed in the matter of resolutions going into Committee of Supply, they will find that the evil most universally complained of, not merely by the Government, but by independent Members themselves, was that this system of moving resolutions produced the utmost uncertainty as to the period at which important business would come on. If that is true—and it certainly is true—of the resolutions moved on going into Committee of Supply, still more is it true of resolutions on going into Committee of Ways and Means. I may remind the House that almost the most important occasion on which this House goes into Committee of Ways and Means is when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to explain to the House and to the public his financial scheme for the year—which is an occasion of the profoundest interest both inside and outside of these walls, an occasion always looked forward to by every class of the community interested in it, and it would be of the utmost inconvenience should it be postponed at the wall of one single individual, which it
408
might be, because on going into Committee of Ways and Means there is not even that limited safeguard which we now claim for a motion for the adjournment of the House. A motion for the adjournment of the House cannot be moved unless, at all events, forty Members agree to it. But a single Member, acting in concert with nobody else and representing nobody else, has it in his power to put down a subject I for discussion on the motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" on going into Committee of Ways and Means, which may last nearly the whole night, and which may throw the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the dinner hour, and may cause in other ways the utmost confusion in our business, and inflict the utmost inconvenience both upon the House and the public. In a lesser degree the same objection applies to any other occasion in which the House is asked to go into Committee of Ways and Means. Those other occasions are really confined to the occasion on which the House goes into Committee of Ways and Means for setting up the Consolidated Fund Bill, by which we terminate our financial year, and again when the House goes into Committee of Ways and Means upon the Appropriation Bill, which winds up the financial business of the session. It is competent under our existing rules for an hon. Member to put down what motion he likes upon these occasions. But observe the great inconvenience of even this. At the present time the Consolidated, Fund Bill is the last work we do—or almost the last work we do—before the Easter rising, and if you allow private Members to bring in these motions upon the introduction of the Appropriation Bill then you will have to finish off the business of Supply a day earlier than at the present time. It is hard enough at present to get our Supply through so as to enable the Government to comply with the law, but that difficulty will necessarily be increased if you add one more day to the time given up to Supply by allowing hon. Members to put down a motion on going into Committee of Ways and Means when we introduce the Consolidated Fund Bill. A parallel argument applies to the

409
Appropriation Bill at the end of the session. We fix our holidays to run at the time when the Appropriation Bill passes its Third Reading, and we have to arrange to get through the work of Supply before the Bill is introduced. But unless this Amendment is accepted a notice may be interposed on going into Committee of Ways and Means, which would render our financial machinery, already cumbrous in certain parts, still more cumbrous.
There is another argument to put before the House in support of this motion. It is directed against the peculiar privilege which allows the House to discuss any subject which any lion. Gentleman chooses to bring forward on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means. But there are two occasions given, on the Consolidated Bill and the Appropriation Bill, ready to hand, within two or three days of the Ways and Means motion, upon which hon. Members have this opportunity. As everybody is aware, it is open to any hon. Gentleman on the Second and Third Readings of the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Appropriation Bill to raise questions—I will not say on any subject whatever, but any question which is relevant to any Estimate; and to add to these two occasions another occasion within three days appears to me to be adding to the difficulty and confusion of our Parliamentary proceedings, which is wholly uncalled for. I hope the House will see, therefore, that we are not interfering by this rule with the practice of the House, but are only seeking to perpetuate the practice of the House, the practice of going into Committee of Ways and Means without motion interposed, and a practice only interfered with five times during the past twenty sessions. In these circumstances I venture to say that a full case has been made out for assimilating our Standing Order relating to Ways and Means to the Standing Order which has worked with such excellent results in regard to Committee of Supply.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Order No. 51 be amended, in line 4, by leaving out the words 'or of Ways and Means.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It seems tome that the right hon. Gentleman in this motion is carrying rather too far the inroads and encroachments that have been made recently upon the privileges of independent Members. The right hon. Gentleman has himself, by his own action through several years, done a great deal to cure an evil which existed in the experience of many of us, in the irregular manner in which proceedings on going into Committee of Supply were conducted, and in preventing the proper business of the House, which the House was entitled to expect to come on, from being interfered with at the caprice of an individual Member. But I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in putting these few opportunities on going into Committee of Ways and Means at all on the same footing as Committee of Supply. After all, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated with perfect accuracy, there are in ordinary sessions only three occasions on which this opportunity occurs— the Consolidated Fund Bill, at the end of the financial year; the introduction of the Budget, and the Appropriation Bill at the end of the session. Well, I think on the face of it there could not be a more legitimate occasion for bringing forward various questions, if it were necessary to bring them forward, than on either of these occasions. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill afforded large opportunities for discussing general questions; but I am under the impression that in going into Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the discussions must be confined to matters involved in the Supplementary Estimates, and which are dealt with in the Consolidated Fund Bill; but in any case I do not think that even these opportunities are at all too much to be afforded to Members of the House for bringing forward numerous miscellaneous questions, if they choose to raise them, which they may be prevented from raising when bound by the strict rules governing debate in Supply.
The right hon. Gentleman says, if you wish to facilitate criticism, increase

411
the number of days for Supply; but, after all, these discussions are confined to the particular Votes brought forward in Supply. What is wanted is that there should be these more general opportunities of raising questions which would otherwise not come immediately into the view of the House. I quite admit that this is a rule which, in practice, might be employed in an embarrassing way not only to the Government, but to the House itself. For example, a motion might be made which would have the effect of delaying the introduction of the Budget resolutions, and the prospect of such inconvenience last year led to a special arrangement being made to avoid it. In the case of the Budget resolutions I quite recognise that it may be necessary to guard against such intervention, but that can be done by a special motion made for the occasion. The Government have this weapon at their hand if they wish, and could thus avoid the great inconvenience to public business as well as to themselves; and if they adopted that method it seems to me they would not be driven to make such an inroad upon the rights of private Members. We can carry the curtailment of the rights of private Members too far. I am not one who has ever been a champion of those rights above my neighbours; I rather lean to the other view of the question. At the same time, the private Member is like Nature: you may turn him out with a fork, but he will always come back. If he does not get a legitimate way of airing his eloquence and giving his views to the House, he will find another. If you shut all the doors the result will be a multiplication of motions for the adjournment of the House, which are most inconvenient to everyone, and which are all the more objectionable be-because they are entirely inconclusive, and which, therefore, we ought not to encourage. Here are these little escape holes, these little vents for the soul of such Members as my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. Seeing that the privilege has not been abused hitherto, and seeing that the Government have it in their power, by special resolution on particular occasions when public inconvenience might arise, to protect themselves and the
412
House against an abuse of the privilege, I do not sec any necessity for the further restriction proposed by the motion of the right hon. Gentleman,
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury has been pleased to talk of me as having introduced something novel in the practice of this House. But it is he that is the innovator, he is the revolutionary it is he that has carried the flaming torch and not myself. What does his motion really mean? He said that his object was to put the House in the same position in going into Committee of Ways and Means as in going into Committee of Supply; and at the end of his speech he said that his object was to assimilate the practice on these two occasions. But this motion will not do that at all. This motion is to leave out the words "or of Ways and Means." If the House will permit me, let me read the Standing Order—
"That whenever an Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee (not being a Committee to consider a Message from the Crown, or the Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means, or the Committee on the East India Revenue Accounts), Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such Committee unless Notice of an Instruction thereto has been given, when such Instruction shall be first disposed of."
The House will see the effect of that Order. The Speaker leaves the chair without question put, except in the case of going into Committee of Ways and Means. Committee of Supply is dealt with by another Standing Order, No. 50, and that provides that there also Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without question put, "unless on first going into Supply on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively," when an Amendment may be moved relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply. My right hon. friend does not recognise that his motion would not leave us in the same position as regards Ways and Means as we are in as regards Supply. If he were going to give us something instead of what he proposes to take away; if he were going to give us something in Ways and Means corresponding to what

413
we already have in we might consider the motion gives us nothing in return for the opportunities for discussion which now exist. And then the right hon. Gentleman characterises our objection to that as "revolutionary"! [Mr. Balfour dissented.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman used the word "revolutionary" in reference to a motion which I made on a former occasion—a motion I had a perfect right to make. It is a privilege which the house has exercised for centuries—that, namely, of moving an Amendment to the motion that the Speaker leave the chair and the House takes go into Committee of Ways and Means. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a superstition to presume that this right represents the old constitutional doctrine of discussion of grievances before Supply. But what does Sir Erskinc May say? In the 1879 edition of his work he says—
"The ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances is to be considered before the granting of supplies is now represented by the practice of permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question that the Speaker leave the chair before going into Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means."
What, therefore, my right hon. friend calls a superstition, Sir Erskine May calls the representative of an ancient constitutional doctrine. I need not remind the House of the restriction which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the right of moving an Amendment to the motion for going into Committee of Supply; but no restriction has ever yet been asked for by any Minister, unless it be a Conservative Minster, on raising Amendments on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means.
I cannot help thinking that his proposal rests upon a misconception of the functions and duties of the Government, and the duties and functions of this House. His Majesty's Government seem to consider that this House cannot be regarded as a creator, a destroyer, or a critic— a creator of themselves, a destroyer of their opponents, and a critic of the Estimates. I think the right hon. Gentleman has too low and mean an opinion of the functions of this House. There are many Members not on the Government Front Bench capable not merely of creating a Government, of
414
destroying the Opposition, or of criticising the Estimates, but of suggesting great improvements in the administration of the country, and of initiating new departures in high politics. I remember Mr. Gladstone bearing the highest testimony to the success of the efforts of private Members in introducing improvements in some of the Departments in this House. It is possible that even the most humble private Member might have some suggestion to make which may not have struck the Olympian imagination of a Minister. It is conceivable that he might even suggest that mistakes had been made which might be recognised by the Government. Why, then, should the Government cut themselves off from all opportunities of profiting from, the intelligence of those private Members who come here not merely to criticise, but to suggest? New Members have come here full of such suggestions. There is not one of them but has come with some important motion or some important Bill in his pocket, and with the firm conviction that he would be able to bring it before a full House and have it thoroughly discussed. No doubt every Member has referred to the Standing Orders, which have informed him that out of the five Parliamentary days in the week three days, or six-tenths, of the Parliamentary time belong to private Members, and that only two days, or four-tenths, of the time belongs to the Government. Therefore he comes here filled with a desire to engage in public service, and a conviction that he will he able to do it; but he has scarcely arrived at the House when he discovers that the practice is altogether contrary to the Standing Orders, and that instead of the Government having only four-tenths of the time of Parliament and the private Members six-tenths, the Government take nine-tenths and leave only one-tenth to the private Members. Now, that is discouraging to the private Member; but that is not all. He is still more discouraged when he finds that the little time left to the private Member is disposed of not by any reasonable arrangement according to the importance of the subject—and of course every private Member regards his as the most important subject in the universe—but

415
by blind lot, And, by the way, how the Irish Members manage to secure such a large share of that luck I never could understand. The private Member, therefore, finds himself deprived of all opportunity of bringing before the House those great and important national subjects which have seized his imagination. There are five such opportunities nominally available to independent Members. One is an Amendment to the Address; but an Amendment to the Address means a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and a new Member, at least on this side of the House, has full confidence in the Government—for he is a new Member. Then there is the opportunity, of putting questions; but questions lead to nothing. They are not always answered, or if they are answered the replies are not always explicable, and he sometimes finds that he cannot get answers to supplementary questions meant to elicit the meaning of the first answer. Then there is the Amendment on the motion for going into Committee of Supply; but that must relate to the Estimates to be taken in Supply. Moreover, the only thing the new Member can do there to assert his own importance to his constituents is to move the reduction of somebody's salary; but he does not care to do that—he would rather increase the salary, hoping to get it himself some day. Finally, he may move the adjournment of the House; but he does not want the House to adjourn, he wants it to go on sitting until it comes to his subject. These are the five only opportunities on which an independent Member can raise a discussion, and they are altogether inadequate. But there is this sixth—this ancient power of moving an Amendment to the motion that you, Mr. Speaker, do leave the chair, that the House may go into Committee of Ways and Means, a power which it is now sought to abolish.
Now, this Amendment implies no want of confidence in the Government, and it affords an ideal opportunity to a new-Member for bringing forward subjects in which he is interested. I beg the Government to ask themselves whether this proposal does not show a certain want of foresight. The Conservative party will not always be on this side of the House. A Conservative Ministry
416
will not always sit on these benches, and when we cross to the other side and find proposals made by our opponents which we consider revolutionary, or perhaps fatal to the country, then, I think, Conservative Members will bitterly regret the reduction of the opportunities for bringing forward such matters before the legislature and the country. I hardly need adduce many authorities in support of the importance of this rule, but there is one which I would ask the permission of the House to quote, if I am not wearying it. A Committee sat on the procedure of the House in 1861. It was composed of most eminent men, its members comprising Mr. Disraeli, Lord Stanley, Sir John Pakington, Mr. Bright. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Lord Palmerston. Now that Committee reported as follows—
"In strict conformity with the ancient usage of the House—"
mark "ancient"—
"a motion for going into Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means has offered a legitimate opportunity for full discussion on every variety of subject."
Having laid that down, the Committee proceeded to show the spirit in which the rules of the House should be dealt with, and I say that their words are absolutely admirable.
"On all these occasions—"
when the rules of the House are considered—
"the House and its Committees have proceeded with the utmost caution. They have treated with respect the written and unwritten laws of Parliament which for ages have secured good legislation, perfect freedom of debate, and a due regard for the rights of minorities. This respect for tradition and this caution in making changes have proceeded on the principle that no change is desirable which experience has not proved to be necessary, and that the maintenance of the old rule is preferable to speculative amendment."
No experience has yet proved the necessity for this change, which abolishes, as I have said, an absolutely ideal opportunity for raising the most important of questions. It has been admitted that the power of moving such Amendments has only been used four or five times— on two of them, I think, by myself— during the last twenty years. That is proof itself that there has been no con-

417
siderable abuse of the right. If this remnant of power left to private Members was so necessary as the Committee said it was in 1861, how much more is it necessary now, when, time after time, something has been taken away from the opportunities of private Members of bringing matters before the House The Chancellor of the Exchequer went one better when he said that this power had not been used for forty years until it had been rediscovered by myself. I do not know whether it was rediscovered by me or not, but if it was, I think I ought to have had better treatment from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead of praising me for unearthing this forgotten arm of the Constitution, he denounced me for being the author of an abuse. I must say he showed an ingratitude almost appalling; for on each occasion upon which I have taken advantage of the rule, I have, solely for the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, cut short my speeches so as to deprive them, if not of all power, at any rate of all finish. If ho speaks to-night, I expect from him a handsome acknowledgment of this, and if ho does not give it to me, I shall be very much disappointed.
Now, has there ever been any abuse of this rule If it has only been taken advantage of five times during the last forty years, and I have availed myself of two of these. What were the subjects brought before the House My first subject was the interception of the public taxes and their diversion from the public Exchequer. That was, I submit, a subject of first-rate, of the very highest importance, involving something like twenty millions a year being withdrawn from the purview of the House. The second occasion was one on which I introduced a very serious subject—no less than the confessed insolvency of the Post Office Savings Bank. I could not have dealt with either of these subjects adequately upon any one of the other opportunities left to private Members. It cannot be denied that they were subjects of very considerable importance and quite worthy of some debate in this House. Moreover, as I pointed out at the time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to wait a very short time before bringing in his Budget. There is
418
no shred of ground for accusing me, nor so far as I know for accusing any one else, of an abuse of this right. If indeed, this motion had been used irregularly—if instead of being used as a legitimate method of bringing on an important debate; if it had been used as an arm of coercion, and caused some Minister to make a doubtful and secret bargain behind the Chair, then it might have been called an abuse, and it might have been open to the animadversion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have not abused the rule; I have only used it for a legitimate purpose; and if I propose to use it again it is with the object of calling attention to most serious treaty engagements for which this country is liable—a subject which cannot be adequately discussed on any other opportunity. I had hoped that Ministers would have had some regard for the traditions, character, and efficacy of this House, even if these do come into competition with their convenience. I beg them to leave to the House some opportunities of showing that it is capable of useful discussion, and I do assure them that it will be safer for them to leave untouched the very few opportunities private Members still possess for earnest discussion of important subjects than to go on shutting down, one by one, the safety valves until there is an explosion. I do implore them to seek rather to limit their own convenience than to silence and suppress private Members. If they would only use a little more care and dexterity in handling the business of the House, Ministers will find that both the House and the Government would gain in every way. The Government are masters of big battalions, and may use them to crush out this last and most important right of the private Member, but if they do that—and I say it with regret—I will not be a party to it. If this motion is pressed, I must inevitably, as having striven to champion the right of private Members, vote against it. I regard the dignity and the efficacy of this House as far beyond the convenience of Ministers or the interests of party, and I believe that on the dignity and efficacy of this House depends to a very large extent the continued free-

419
dom and independence of the British people.
MR. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury made a statement at the beginning of the session that within the past forty or fifty years the power and dignity of the Crown had been an increasing and not a diminishing factor in the Constitution. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have stated that the rights and privileges of Members of this House had during that period greatly diminished, and certainly not increased. Independent Members are slowly being shorn of every privilege which they formerly enjoyed. I think everyone will feel sonic astonishment at the reasons given for the change proposed. I made a note of one or two of the points which were put to us by the right hon. Gentleman. The first statement he made was that this privilege had only been used five times in twenty years. Now, it seems to me that this is not a reason for taking away the privilege, but rather a reason for continuing it. The hon. Member for King's Lynn says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts the occasions on which this privilege was exercised as more rare than the First Lord of the Treasury said, but at any rate both of the right hon. Gentlemen agree that it has very seldom been used. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did not give us a single instance in which it was abused. Having been used on five occasions in twenty years, and no occasion whatever of abuse having been stated. I ask, Is it not a, strong measure to take to ask us to sign away this great privilege?
I want you to look at this from another standpoint. The hon. Member for King's Lynn spoke as if only he had made use of this privilege in modern times. I remember a case in which Mr. Knox, who was until lately a Member of this House, moved a resolution with regard to the treatment of Ireland, and he only got the opportunity of making that most interesting motion by giving notice of an Instruction to the Committee of Ways and Means. Then what took place—because this circumstance is very
420
relevant to our debate—was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his usual courtesy, met the hon. Member and said it would be inconvenient to put off the Budget, but if he would take another day an opportunity would be given him to bring forward his motion. The hon. Member readily agreed, and when he brought forward his motion this House discussed it for a whole day, having had ample notice about it. An hon. Member on the opposite side, who I am sorry to say is not with us now, Mr. Horace Plunkett, supported the motion, with the result that a revolution was brought about in the treatment of Ireland.
I believe the right hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this motion to-day has shown a want of the sense of proportion in his treatment of the subject. We may have one thing done within twenty years in this House that will leave its mark in the history of this country, and if we accomplish one such thing as that by one of the Standing Orders or rules, I think Ministers should have what I will venture to call a reverent feeling for that portion of our procedure which enables the subject to be dealt with. But, as my hon. friend says, the Leader of the House complains that this right is a very inconvenient one. I would like to ask what he means by inconvenient. He only means inconvenient to himself.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said it might inflict the utmost inconvenience both on the House and the public.
MR. LOUGH: I want to put it argumentatively. I think I can make a stronger point against the right hon. Gentleman if I say that he thinks it inconvenient to the Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not at all.
MR. LOUGH: Well, I put it from my standpoint. This right is inconvenient to him. It is a great convenience to me and to every private Member who wants to bring forward important subjects, and every Member ought to guard this right as one of the few he at present possesses. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was pecu-

421
liarly useless; but it was not useless to Ireland on the occasion to which I referred. That was not a useless occasion of the exercise of privilege. How does ho prove that it is useless? Because he says we have the Consolidation and the Appropriation Bills brought before us, and in the discussion of these Bills we can do all that we could do with a special motion. I deny it. When notice is given of the motion, it has to be discussed in an orderly way, and hon. Members come down prepared to give attention to it. That is better than the irrelevant, heartbreaking discussion which we have on the Appropriation Bill. What takes place? You find one Member competing with another to be heard. One Member says to his friend, "You won't be long, as I have something to say," and it is impossible to take more than one division. I believe that if hon. Members would give their attention to the point, they would see that these opportunities do not in the least meet the great opportunity which is given us by this privilege which we have retained so long.
There is one other point. The right hon. Gentleman said that the opportunities for criticism are sufficient. I agree that perhaps the opportunities for criticism are sufficient, and by all we make of our criticism, I think a little less would be quite as useful. A Minister stands up and gives a perfunctory reply or an amiable reply to the criticism. But that is not what we want. We want something done with the subject, and we want to have the opportunity of bringing forward something. I came here to-day to listen with attention to what could be slid with regard to the rule, and I have not found a scrap of a word to alter my opinion that this is an infringement of rights which Members on both sides of the House should resist. I am glad that the hon Gentleman opposite quoted the high authority of Sir Thomas Erskine May. This is really depriving us of the ancient right of bringing forward a grievance before Supply is granted. Generally speaking, we know something of the complaint before it is brought forward, and surely the right of putting down a motion before entering the Committee is one we ought to guard most
422
carefully. This is one of a series of infringements of our rights, particularly by the present Government, and for which the right hon. Gentleman is mainly responsible. The one-clause Bill is another method of infringing our rights. We have Bills introduced to which it is almost impossible to move an Amendment. Everyone who has watched the course of affairs in South Africa during the last four or five years, will admit that the Government have used all their influence to prevent criticism in this House. Have things gone well with us since Parliamentary criticism was suppressed by the Government? [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] I do not think that things have gone well with us. We have felt the kindly appeals made to us by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not to prolong debate. We have had them going on steadily since the Jameson raid. It has been stated that negotiations are going on, that the Army is engaged in the field, that there was a Committee appointed, that the matter was sub judice, and that the matter must not be discussed here. On the most important national affairs for the last five or six years we have hardly had one free, full, and effective discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of order. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in what he is now saying? It has nothing whatever to do with the Standing Order we are discussing.
*MR. SPEAKERstated that the hon. Member was not in order in the line he was now taking.
MR. LOUGH: I will strictly observe the riding you have laid down. I feel that it is not unreasonable. I only desired to give one or two examples of the way in which our debates have been restricted. It appears to me a most unfortunate time to make a change in the procedure of this House. Let us look at it for a moment from the standpoint of what the duties of the Committee of Ways and Means are. Its duties are to provide the necessary money—
*MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the duties of the

423
Committee of Ways and Means are not in the least affected by the motion.
MR. LOUGH: I did not intend to go into detail as to the duties of the Committee of Ways and Means. It seems to me a most inappropriate time to restrict the right of Members who desire to put down Instructions when going into Committee of Ways and Means. I was going to give an illustration to show that, but your ruling makes it inexpedient for me to do so. I am quite sure that Members will see my point. At a time when the national expenditure is so much swollen, and when delicate questions are being dealt with as regards Great Britain and Ireland, it is most inopportune to suggest any restriction of our privileges.
I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is depending on his majority to get this restriction approved. I am very glad that some protests have already been made by Members on the other side. I would appeal to them to remember that they may not always be sitting behind the Government as they are to-day. They may some day change places with us, and I would ask whether they do not owe a greater allegiance than that of party in this matter. No doubt the Whips will try to make them support the Government, but I think a small advantage gained for the party in power, at the expense of the privileges of the House of Commons, is one which they will afterwards regret.
MR. ELLIOT: I have heard the appeal the hon. Gentleman has made, that we on this side of the House should not listen to the voices of the Whips. I can only say that, having some little independence. I believe the interests of the country require us to make this small Amendment on the rule under discussion. There is an extraordinary fallacy underlying the arguments of the hon. Member for West Islington. He seems to think that a gigantic gulf lies between the business of the Government and that of the country. He seems to consider that Members are wanting in true loyalty to the House of Commons because they are anxious to advance the business of the Govern-
424
ment. It happens to be the case at the present time—the beginning of a new session of a new Parliament—that the most important business the House of Commons has to do is business which is in the hands of the Government. I support the motion of the light hon. Gentleman not so much on account of the rights of the Government as the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. There is no matter so important as that the House of Commons should reserve to itself full time to discuss the great questions brought before it; but the great questions likely to be brought before it are questions which will be introduced by the Government of the day. I would ask hon. Members, with all sincerity, on the other side of the House, whether the liberties of debate, whether the fulness of debate which we ought to have on all important questions, are not infinitely more in danger, not so much from the Government of the day as from the continual overpressing of the rights of debate by private Members. The real danger to the rights of the House of Commons is to be found in the excessive pressure of individual Members of individual rights, and the forgetting altogether of what is due to the House of Commons itself. I should be out of order if I gave some of the reasons which greatly limit our powers as a House of Commons, and greatly injure the repute in which we are held.
I should like to say one or two words as to the length to which Members have pressed the right of putting questions, whereby an hour of valuable time at the best part of the day is taken away, not, I venture to say, in the interest of the public, and not in the interest of the House of Commons itself. That is one example of the way the House of Commons is injured in its repute. I must say that without any pressure from the Whips I shall go into the lobby without the slightest hesitation in support of the resolution before us. We must remember that the times are serious, and that the business we have to consider is that which it is the duty of the Government to treat as its own, and to defend fearlessly and boldly before the House.
MR. CAINE: I listened with the greatest possible atten-

425
tion to the speech of the Leader of the House, but as far as I am concerned he failed to make out the least case for this alteration. One of his chief arguments was that this opportunity which he is now seeking to take away from private Members has been very seldom used. I have no doubt he has brought this motion forward because he fears that this session it will be very often availed of. Why does ho fear that? Because almost every opportunity hitherto available for private Members has been swept away. There is the motion to take away our Tuesdays before Easter. Does anybody suppose, if that motion is carried, we shall get those Tuesdays back? No; they will be gone for the session. In consequence of this ruthless seizure of their opportunities, the private Members are thrown hack upon the method aimed at by this resolution. I hope the motion will be defeated, and defeated by the help of the independent Members on the other side of the House. There are many, especially the Liberal Unionists, who come here pledged as independent supporters of the Government. I hope that they will not be content with cheering the excellent speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, but that they will by their votes let the Government see that this constant encroachment on the time of private Members is resented on both sides of the House.
MR. BARTLEY: The remarks of my hon. friend the Member for Durham seem to suggest really that we had better wind up all discussion and all questions, and simply come here to register the decrees of the majority of the House for the time being. I must protest against any such view. I have always been a supporter of the rights of unofficial Members. I agree they must use their rights with discretion; but the question we are now discussing seems to be somewhat unfortunate. The Leader of the House stated that this right has been exercised so very rarely during the last twenty years that he now proposes to take it away in perpetuity.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That observation of mine has been so often misused during this debate that perhaps the House will allow me to repeat what I did
426
say. I said that before last year the opportunity had not been used more than five times in the twenty years, but that last year it was used, and this year it is being used, in my judgment, to the great inconvenience of the House and the country.
MR. BARTLEY: That is very easily explained. The tendency to increase the use of this method is simply because the means by which unofficial Members can act are becoming every year fewer. What have we left now? After the Address is voted, the only way, practically speaking, in which any subject can be brought forward is by moving the adjournment of the House. That is a measure hostile to the Government, and one requiring the support of forty Members. It is a step very few Members care to take, except in a matter of extreme importance, and it is a movement almost entirely limited to the Opposition side. The real secret of the objection to this change is that the semi-official Member is becoming less and less a means of raising those questions for which ho is sent to this House. The question of importance is a matter really which the House itself must decide. I can conceive that this session there may be many questions arise which certainly would be very fairly brought up under this rule; but if this opportunity is taken away there will be no possible way for any of us to raise any question, except by moving the adjournment of the House. The whole reason of the present trouble is that Parliament ought to have met a little earlier. It is all very well to say that everything is left and that there is great pressure. The real thing is that the Government met so late, and now desire to make up for it by depriving unofficial Members of the small amount of time left at their disposal. It is rather hard upon us that we should be thus treated. The hon. Member for King's Lynn appears to be the chief offender in this matter in having ventured to take advantage of this rule. I very much regret if the rule has been improperly used, but I have not heard a single suggestion that any frivolous or unimportant matter has been brought forward. It is a pity, especially at the present time, when tins rule has not been abused, but has been

427
used, as all agree, only for the purpose of bringing forward very important matters, that the Government, which has such an enormous majority, should use its power to curtail our rights. I am afraid we are becoming a very despotic nation. We are ruled with a rod of iron. We give our allegiance to the Government, and are very glad to support it in every way we can, but it is somewhat hard that when it has unlimited power it should deprive unofficial Members of the one last remnant of the powers we used to enjoy.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: The Leader of the House contended that this practice was an inconvenience to the House and the country. I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman how and in what way it is so. Is it an inconvenience to the country to read in its morning papers dabates in this House upon matters that are of very great interest to it, and of very much greater interest than many of the propositions placed before the House by the Government? With regard to the House itself, wherein lies the inconvenience to private Members, who, after all is said and done, are the bulk of the House at present? I venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman would take away the crack of the party whip, or if the division upon the point were by ballot, a very large majority of the party opposite would object to this alteration of the rule, and it would be defeated by a very large plurality. Five motions have been made under this rule during the last twenty years. Can the right hon. Gentleman conscientiously say that a right which has been practised only five times in twenty years has been an inconvenience to the House, the country, the Government, or anybody else? The hon. Member for Durham told us that the great questions of the day were introduced by the Government. I refer the hon. Member to the King's Speech, in order that he may see and judge for himself what are the great questions of the day. Is the question of the alteration of the law with regard to—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is straying from the subject under discussion.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I will simply ask, what opportunity has the House for dealing with the great questions of the day? Even in regard to Amendments to the Address, a Member who puts down a motion is frequently precluded from bringing it on, because, in the first place, Bills are introduced dealing with the subject, or, in the second place, the debate is closured at a very early period. So far as the private Member is concerned, he has now hardly any rights whatever. A time will come when the liberal party will be in a, majority in this House, and it will be in the interest of hon. Members opposite to bring forward motions dealing with various matters in order, I will not say to obstruct, but, at any rate, to cry a halt to legislation which they think injurious to the country. Hon. Members will then look back to this afternoon and regret that they made such a fundamental alteration in the regulations of the House. If this were made a temporary or sessional, instead of a permanent alteration, it would be better; at any rate, we should have some experience of its working before it was stereotyped. Could the motion not be moved in such a form as to give it a six months trial before the alteration becomes a fundamental part of the constitutional rules and regulations of the House which cannot be altered?
MR. DILLON: On behalf of the Irish party, I desire to join in the protest against this new inroad a the rights of private Members. The First Lord of the Treasury made, absolutely no case for the proposed alteration. He unquestionably left the House under the impression that the effect of the alteration would be to place us in the same position as regards the motion for going into Committee of Ways and Means as we now stand in with regard to the motion for going into Committee of Supply. But, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn pointed out, the, proposed alteration places us in a much worse position. The only really substantial ground the right hon. Gentleman attempted to give against the right now enjoyed was, that it gave private Members the opportunity of throwing the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Ex-

429
chequer into the background, and that it imported an element of uncertainty as to the night upon which the Budget would be introduced. To anybody who follows the proceedings of the House that objection is utterly absurd, because the motions complained of are made only after notice has been given, generally after notice of long standing. If such a notice appears on the Paper everybody knows that the first business will not be the Chancellor's statement. That, therefore, is a very frivolous ground on which to seek to justify a serious departure from the practice of the House as it has existed for three centuries. The Tight hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these matters are matters of arrangement, and it would always be easy to arrange so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be called until half-past eight or nine o'clock.
I object to this resolution as part and parcel of a system which has been enforced since this Government came into office with far greater stringency and disregard of the rights of the House than at any previous time during my recollection of the House. That system has been gradually and steadily to contract the area of the ri⅙hts of private Members. It is all very fine for the right hon. Gentleman to spring up and indignantly deny that he had spoken of the convenience of Ministers or of the Government. Everybody knows the object of these successive invasions of the rights of private Members. There is really no other ground on which they are based than the convenience of Ministers and those who have the conduct of the business of the House. We are told that things are in such a condition now, that times are serious, and that the number of days before the end of the financial year is limited. Who is responsible for that? The condition of the country is the work of the Government. The limit of the time at our disposal is the work of the Government, because they, with a fuller knowledge than anybody else, could have of the business to be done, fixed the date of the meeting of Parliament. Therefore the only substantial justification put forward is the convenience of Ministers in carrying through Government business. The logical conclusion of that argument is
430
that private Members should have no rights whatever, that the House of Commons should be simply a voting machine, and that the proposals of the Government should be explained by Ministers and forthwith voted upon.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the various opportunities still left to private Members to bring forward their views, especially pointing to the Second and Third Readings of the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill. But he forgot to tell the House that, as I believe, for the first time in its history, he and the Ministry last session, in pursuance of this system, put in front of the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill three Government measures. That course of action was protested against by members of the party opposite, but their protest was futile. It is perfectly open to the Government, by an extension of the policy of last year, to deprive us altogether of that opportunity also. What security have we that that course will not be pursued, and that the next thing will be to take away the right of discussing the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, which would require no alteration of the Standing Orders, but an act of discretion on the part of the Government? This is a proposal which I believe is unparalleled in the history of the House, and which threatens private Members with the destruction of their rights and privileges. For these reasons I most strongly protest against this innovation of our rights, which, I take it, is only a symptom and a sign of what we are to expect.
*MR. DISRAELI: I desire to appeal to the Leader of the House to limit the period of this change to the present session. Like my hon. friend the Member for Durham, I consider that the times are serious, and I think that is a very good reason why this rule should be passed. Experience in the past has shown that this privilege has never been much abused, and I hope my right hon. friend will be able to see his way to make it apply only to this session.
MR. FIELD: As a private Member I desire to protest against the introduction of this

431
rule, cither as a sessional or a permanent order. My experience has been that since the Conservative Government came into power private Members have been deprived almost of all their private rights in this House. Private Members can now only move Amendments to the Address and ask questions, and for the remainder of the session they seem to have no other legislative functions. If this process goes on much longer private Members will have absolutely no rights at all. It will come to this, that Members of Parliament will come here simply to vote Supplies and sit in Ways and Means, and take up such Government Bills as may be proposed by the party in power. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to seriously consider this question, and to remember that in the past history of this Parliament many of the most important reforms which were passed into law were introduced by private Members, and not as Government measures.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of legislation by private Members does not arise.
MR. FIELD: I bow to your ruling. Mr. Speaker; but my point is that, according to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this motion, it is proposed to take away the time of private Members and the right to bring in legislation. It appears to me, if this motion is allowed to pass, that undoubtedly in the future private Members' rights will be much less than they are at the present time, and as an Irish Member, coming here with certain instructions from my constituents, undoubtedly my sphere of usefulness will be considerably shortened by this proposal. Some right hon. Members and hon. Members on the other side, including the hon. Member for King's Lynn, have spoken in a satirical way of private Members; but what do we come here for I Private Members are elected by constituents, and they are generally charged by them with the conveying of certain distinct grievances to this Mouse, and if this process goes on what opportunity will be left for a private Member to bring forward his grievances I We are now being closured and suppressed, and the
432
result is that private Members might as well stay at home as come and sit in this Parliament. Every hon. Member who comes to this House is charged by his constituents to bring forward some measure or other to remove a grievance in his Division, and when he gets here he finds out that there is no means of bringing the matter before the House. He may put down a private Bill, but, according to the system adopted by the present Government, the rights of; private Members are being gradually extinguished, and unless they take part in the debate on measures brought forward by the Government they have absolutely no power of making themselves heard in this House of Commons. Many of the questions brought forward by the Government are of immense importance as a rule, but the measures brought forward by private Members—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that the question of measures brought forward by the Government or by private Members has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment.
MR. FIELD: I know that the closure which it is sought to inflict upon us by this motion confines us very much in this discussion, but I thought the point I was raising was relevant. I will simply wind up by saying that as a private Member I protest in the strongest possible way against the extinction of the right of free speech which ought to belong to every Member of this Assembly. We are sent here to exercise the right of free speech with respect to whatever grievance may apply to our constituents, and I enter my protest against this closure motion being accepted either as a sessional or a perpetual order.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I cannot hope to add a single argument to what has already been said upon this question, but I must say that I have some sympathy with the Gentlemen on the front bench upon this occasion. I know that there are some hon. Members of this House, who can hardly be described as private Members, who take every opportunity afforded them of talking, and I think that is mainly the reason why it has become

433
necessary, in the public interest, to curtail some of those opportunities afforded to private Members in this House. What weighs with me on an occasion of this sort in voting away a privilege and a right of ancient standing is the consideration of what may he before us in times to come. No doubt there are some Members on this side of the House who have a regard for ancient traditions of this kind, and who bear in mind that there may come occasions upon which it may be necessary for private Members on this side to avail themselves of occasions like those to which this rule applies. I venture again to express my expectation that possibly the right hon. Gentleman and the Front Bench may content themselves with making this a sessional order, which would allow us to see how it worked, and which might enable us to find some other arrangement by which a restriction less extreme than this might come into force. I will not venture to add one word about the privileges of private Members, with which I sympathise very much. There are many questions which may be raised by private Members, and which when pressed upon the attention of the Front Bench give us a chance of bringing forward legislation, whereas if this alteration is made permanent we may be deprived of that chance.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Having in former times occupied a similar position, I can naturally sympathise with the Gentlemen on the front bench opposite, and especially with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the present occasion. I feel almost bound to say a word or two to explain why it is that I intend to vote against the motion which my right hon. friend has brought forward. Governments representing both sides of the House have, in former times, often been hard pressed in this respect, but it has never before been found necessary to ask for this reduction in the time which is left to the unofficial Members of the House. I feel that the objection which has been taken to this practice arises out of the delaying of the Budget last year, and I certainly would, in the interests of all, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take any remedy which is necessary to prevent
434
that occurring again. I am not surprised at the amount of irritation that was caused by the course taken by the hon. Member for King's Lynn in delaying the Budget statement last year, but I do think that when particular incidents of that kind arise they ought not to govern our action in dealing with the general principle of this Amendment. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the old proverb which says—"Those who play bowls must expect to meet with rubbers." The persons who are entrusted by the majority of this House with conducting the business of the country ought not to be treated at all as the antagonists of any class of Members in this House, and if, as in the case of Supply, I saw that things had been abused, or likely to be abused, I should certainly support this motion. But it is admitted that this motion can only affect three occasions in the course of the session, unless we come to some extraordinary demand in the midst of the session, like the war loan or any other unexpected expenditure. If the Government is called upon to make some extraordinary demand upon this House, then it is quite right that the House should have an opportunity of discussing not only that particular Vote, but also the policy which rendered it necessary, and the opportunity which you get upon such an occasion for discussion is totally different to the opportunity which is given in Committee of Supply. Discussions on Votes of Supply are naturally limited in character, and are very properly confined to the limitations which belong to those particular Votes. I think that the most important occasion upon which unofficial Members are offered opportunities by this rule is the power of challenging general policy. In regard to the interposition of unimportant matters which might threaten to delay the introduction of the Budget resolutions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government can always protect themselves by a resolution giving precedence to the Budget over any other motions, and that will secure for the Government all that they require. By this means you will obviate that inconvenience, which I am sure everybody wishes to avoid, and you will not part with this

435
general principle, which I think is to the advantage of the House of Commons, for it gives you the opportunity of opening and discussing large questions which you could not otherwise discuss. I confess myself that I was always extremely reluctant to use the closure in reference to financial questions. When we had a very fierce debate upon financial questions, I flatter myself that I never used the closure once. I do not believe that the House will gain any power or advantage by making this alteration. I think the Government have all the security which they need in regard to the two occasions upon which we can raise a general debate upon the policy of the Government—at the end of the financial year, in the month of April, and again at the end of the session, when you can review all that has taken place; and therefore I am not willing to deprive hon. Members of the House of an opportunity which they have enjoyed from time immemorial.
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am very reluctant to detain the House, but as this matter specially affects the Department over which I preside, I hope I may be permitted to say a few words. In the first place, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the House that in proposing this amendment of the Standing Order we have not any idea of depriving hon. Members of opportunities of discussing general questions of policy which ought properly to be discussed. My right hon. friend the Leader of the House has during the course of the last three sessions, whenever he has been asked to give an opportunity of this kind, afforded it to the House by giving preference to some Vote connected with the subject on the Notice Paper. Of course. I am speaking of questions in which the country is generally interested. My right hon. friend has constantly, by putting down some Vote of Supply on a particular night, and by making arrangements of that sort, afforded those opportunities, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will at once admit that in this respect he has fairly met the desire of the House. But this is not all, for my right hon.
436
friend has altered the rule with regard to the number of days to be devoted to Votes in Supply, so as to give additional facilities during the present session for the discussion of a Vote of an important military character. That, I think, is another instance of the way my right hon. friend has constantly endeavoured to meet the desires of the House. But what we are dealing with now is a matter of a very different character. The hon. Member for King s Lynn has taken me to task for protesting against the manner in which he used his power under the existing rule of moving an Amendment on the order for going into Committee of Ways and Means. I did find fault with the hon. Gentleman, and I do so now, for I do not think it is quite fair to say that no instance of any abuse of that rule has been alleged to the House, for the hon. Member himself has admitted that the rule was abused. What happened? I remember perfectly well that towards the close of last session the House was expecting to hear a statement from me upon the mode of finding additional means for the prosecution of the war, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn intervened with a motion upon a subject which may have been a matter of importance in regard to receipts being intercepted without being paid into the Exchequer. He made a speech on that subject, and although he said it was a matter of importance and a matter of great interest to those who take an interest in financial questions, no other Member of the House took any part in that debate. I made a short reply, and there the matter ended. The hon. Member himself must have felt that his motion was ill-timed, because he has admitted that he did not and could not do justice to his subject under the circumstances, because he felt that the House was not prepared for a long speech. If that was the case, what was the good of the privilege to him if he could not do justice to the subject?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Simply because I did not press my right under that rule. Had I done so, I could have driven the Budget into the next day.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It has been said that motions of this sort have been

437
made only five times during a long I period of years. If this is true how can we by proposing to repeal the existing power seriously curtail the rights of private Members, who have so seldom taken advantage of these opportunities of raising a debate? It is because this power has been discovered and exercised that the Government are anxious to prevent it becoming a gross abuse and a serious interference with the proper conduct of business in this House. This House has felt it necessary, with the general consent of both sides, to curtail the opportunities for moving amendments on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair on going into Committee of Supply. Is it seriously contended that this power, which has been restricted in relation to Supply, should remain unlimited in connection with the Committee of Ways and Means? My light hon. friend in moving this motion referred to the small number of occasions in the course of the session on which we have to place on the Paper the order for Committee of Ways and Means.
I will endeavour to explain to the House, if I am not detaining it, precisely what happens. I think the occasions when such power may be exercised have been somewhat underrated by my right hon. friend and others. First of all there is the invariable motion after the passing of the Supplementary Estimates. This has always been taken, ever since I can remember, as a matter of course, until this year, when two notices of Amendments to the motion that the Speaker leave the chair have been placed on the Paper. Now it is proposed that our proceedings at the close of the financial year, when every day and every hour is always important, in order that financial business may close within the legal time, should be interfered with by motions of this kind. Then the next occasion is the annual Budget. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down entirely agrees with me that to interpose with a motion such as my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn placed on the Paper, relating perhaps to the foreign affairs of the country generally, upon the Budget night would be an abuse; and it is proposed that this possibility shall be met by a special resolution
438
which, I suppose, will enable the Budget resolutions to be taken before the Amendment can be moved. What would that motion be? I suppose that it would be that the hon. Member who had placed a notice of Amendment on the Paper should not be heard, or that the Speaker should leave the chair without question put on that particular occasion. But, whatever the motion was, there would be nothing to prevent it being debated the whole evening. It is not because I happen to be Chancellor of the Exchequer that I say that nothing more inconvenient to the House, or even to the country, could take place. The whole course of the business of the session might be upset by the postponement in this manner of the Budget resolutions. I remember that on one occasion, when Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer, some loquacious and industrious Member had put a notice of motion of this kind on the Paper. Mr. Gladstone made an appeal to the hon. Member, and he did not press his motion. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] Yes, but hon. Members are not all so anxious that the business of the House should be conducted. Mr. Gladstone said on that occasion that if the hon. Member had not given way he would have been compelled to make his Budget statement with the Speaker in the chair. What would have been the result of that? After the statement had been made some hon. Member might have got up and moved a motion, which might have been debated all night, with the result that there would have been no time for the Budget resolutions to be taken. No one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman opposite how utterly the whole finance of the country might have been disorganised by such a procedure. I venture to say that by no means except by passing some general resolution such as that proposed, can you possibly prevent a thing of that kind from taking place.
But I go on to a further case. Throughout the consideration of the Budget by the House every year cases might arise in which it would be necessary again to set up the Committee of Ways and Means, so that there might be many occasions during the progress of an important Budget on which these motions

439
might be interposed. Finally, the same thing might happen at the end of the session, when the Appropriation Bill had to be founded on a resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. The hon. Member for King's Lynn referred to the Committee of 1861, but, contrasting the conduct of business in those days with the manner in which we are now forced to conduct it, I am certain that if those gentlemen who passed the resolutions of 1861 had had to deal with the difficulties that any Government has to deal with nowadays they would have been compelled to take steps to secure greater facilities for the conduct of business than they thought necessary then, Many lion, friends on this side of the House appear to think that by passing this Amendment we would be depriving ourselves of some very important weapon which might be used against hon. Gentlemen opposite should they ever get into power again. Although at one time I attached some importance to views of that kind, I have seen enough now of the proceedings of the House to be perfectly certain that no party, however anxious to stop legislation, can do so by mere obstruction of this kind. This means of bringing forward Amendments, which has been rediscovered by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, has been abused already, and unless the House, in the interest of the proper conduct of business, is prepared in some way to deal with it, it will be abused much more seriously in future.
MR. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech in support of the motion, but I confess that he has not convinced me that the Government are justified in the course they are taking. There are two things obvious: first, that this is a party motion to be carried by a party majority, and, second, that even the party which supports the right hon. Gentleman is by no means unanimous in favour of his motion, because of the five hon. Members who have spoken, four have condemned it. The result is that the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with a motion for amending the Standing Order, and that he is using his overwhelming majority to make a
440
fundamental alteration in the rules of the House. But that is not all. The very case which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward for his resolution is, in my opinion, the best case against it. The right hon. Gentleman says that the rule has not been abused. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman intimated that there was an occasion when it might have been abused—when an hon. Member put down a motion the evening on which Mr. Gladstone was about to introduce his Budget; but that motion was withdrawn when the hon. Member was appealed to. The only other case was when the hon. Member for King's Lynn had a motion on the Paper, but in deference to the wishes of the House, and on an appeal by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that debate was kept so short that only one hon. Gentleman spoke. I maintain, therefore, that no case has been brought forward by the Government which tends to show that there has been any abuse of the rule. It would be impossible on a Budget night for any hon. Member to bring forward a motion on a frivolous pretext to interfere with the business which the House and country were waiting to hear. It seems to me that a case has not been made out by the Government for a resolution which should only have been brought forward for sound reasons. It is a curious thing that this motion should be brought at a time when private Members have hardly any privileges left, and it is not very difficult for the House to see that there may come a time when we shall not have so courteous a Leader of the House or Chancellor of Exchequer as we have now—it is quite conceivable that a time may come when, by means of this motion, the whole of the privileges of private Members will be taken away. It is because this is one of the last few remaining privileges possessed by private Members—one of the only opportunities we have of bringing motions before the House—that I object to this motion being passed. The motion now before the House simply means that on the Budget night or on Budget i resolutions the Speaker will leave the chair without question put, which will preclude any subject arising on Budget night being discussed. Therefore the Opposition would, in my opinion, be

441
neglecting their duty in supporting this motion. It seems to me that the Government have not made out their case in favour of this proposal, and they have shown no urgency whatever; and, as no ground has been shown, I think it is a case where independent Members on both sides of the House should join in making an emphatic protest.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to call to the recollection of the Government what took place with regard to the Agricultural Rates Act and the application of its principle to Ireland by this very privilege. It will be within the recollection of Members that in the last Parliament Mr. Vesey Knox, Member for Londonderry at the time, moved that the principle of the Rates Act should
be applied to Ireland. That was rejected when the Bill was before the House. Next session his attention was called to this rule, and he put down a motion. The Government, in order to get rid of the difficulty, gave him a night, and, although he was beaten in the division upon the application of the principle of the Agricultural Rates Act. the Government, a fortnight afterwards, came down and applied the principle of the Rates Act to Ireland, and gave Ireland £600,000; so that on that occasion at any rate this privilege resulted in a benefit to Ireland. It is a privilege I am not going to part with if I can help it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 255. (Division List No. 32.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork N.E.

Dunn, Sir William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Ellis, John Edward

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Emmott, Alfred

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Ambrose, Robert

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fenwick, Charles

Mooney, John J.

Bartley, George C. T.

Field, William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

Blake, Edward

Flynn, James Christopher

Moulton, John Fletcher

Boland, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Murphy, J.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Furness, Sir Christopher

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Boyle, James

Gilhooly, James

Newnes, Sir George

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Brigg, John

Grant, Corrie

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Norman, Henry

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hammond, John

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Burns, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burt, Thomas

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Caine, William Sproston

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Caldwell, James

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Dowd, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hobhouse, C.E.H.(Bristol, E.)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Carew, James Laurence

Holland, William Henry

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon, N

Causton, Richard Knight

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Malley, William

Channing, Francis Allston

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Mara, James

Cogan, Denis J.

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jones, Win. (Carnarvonshire)

Partington, Oswald

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jordan, Jeremiah

Perks, Robert William

Craig, Robert Hunter

Joyce, Michael

Pickard, Benjamin

Crean, Eugene

Kearley, Hudson E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Crombie, John William

Lambert, George

Price, Robert John

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rea, Russell

Cullinan, J.

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Reckitt, Harold James

Daly, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reddy, M.

Dalziel, James Henry

Leng, Sir John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Levy, Maurice

Renwick, George

Delany, William

Lloyd-George, David

Rickett, J. Compton

Dillon, John

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lundon, W.

Russell, T. W.

Donelan, Captain A.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Schwann, Charles E.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Govern, T.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Dully, William J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Soares, Ernest J.

Tully, Jasper

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Spencer, lit. Hn. C. R(N'thants)

Wallace, Robert

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Sullivan, Donal

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Yoxall, James Henry

Tennant, Harold John

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

White, George (Norfolk),

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Thomasm Freeman-(Hastings

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Mr. M'Arthur.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cranborne, Viscount

Howard, J. (Midx., Tottenhm)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Holder, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

Aird, Sir John

Cust, Henry John C.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dewar, T. R(T'r H'ml'ts, S. Geo.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cocktield

Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

Atkinson, Kt. Hon. John

Douglas, Kt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Duke, Henry Edward

Kimber, Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Win. Hart

Knowles, Lees

Baird, John George Alexander

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Balcarres, Lord

Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Baldwin, Alfred

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lawrence, William F.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lawson, John Grant

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

Fielden, Edw, Broekle hurst

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Balfour, Maj K R(Christchurch

Finch, George H.

Leighton, Stanley

Banbury, Frederick George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Banes, Major George Edward

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. K.

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lowe, Francis William

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B(Hants

Flower, Ernest

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Beckett, Ernest William

Forster, Henry William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Foster, Sir M. (London Univ.

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft

Bignold, Arthur

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H(City of Lond.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Bigwood, James

Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bill, Charles

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(TrH'mlts

Macdona, John Gumming

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Maconochie, A. W.

Bond, Edward

Gorst, Rt, Hn. Sir John Eldon

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

M'Calmont Col. J. (Antrim, E.

Boulnols, Edmund

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Majendie, James A. H.

Bousfield, William Robert

Graham, Henry Robert

Malcolm, Ian

Bowles. Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St, John

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Greene, Sir E W (Bry S Edm'lids

Max well, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Grenfell, William Henry

Milton, Viscount

Carlile, William Walter

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Milward, Colonel Victor

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hain, Edward

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Hall, Edward Marshall

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derby shire

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.(Mid'x

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J(Birm.

Hamilton, Mar(i of (L'nd'nderry

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tyuemth.

Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

Chapman, Ed ward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morrell, George Herbert

Charrington, Spencer

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Heath, J. (Staffords, N.W.)

Morrison, James Archibald

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Heaton, John Henniker

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Cochrane, Hon. Trios. H. A. E.

Helder, Augustus

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Coddington, Sir William

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Rt. Hon A. G. (Bute)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hobhouse, H. (Somerset, E.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Hogg, Lindsay

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hope, J. F. (Sheff'ld, Brightsde.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Horner, Frederick William

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Hoult, Joseph

Pemberton, John S. G.

444

445

Penn, John

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Percy, Earl

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Valentia, Viscount

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Plummer, Walter R.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney

Pretyman, Ernest George

Seton-Karr, Henry

Webb, Colonel William George

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Tauntn

Purvis, Robert

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Pym, C. Guy

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Whiteley, H.(Asbton-under-L.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Remnant, James Farquharson

Spear, John Ward

Wills, Sir Frederick

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Rentoul. James Alexander

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge

Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stock, James Henry

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stroyan, John

Wylie, Alexander

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Round, James

Talbot. Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Thornton, Percy M.

Sir William Walrond and

Rutherford, John

Tollemache, Henry James

Mr. Anstruther.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (FINANCIAL BUSINESS).
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the House is already familiar with all the reasons for the motion which I now move. They are substantially the same as those we offered to the House last week when a similar motion was before it, although they are now of greater urgency. On the present occasion I would remind the House exactly how our financial business stands so far as the principle is concerned. If my motion is agreed to there are only twelve days for effective Supply before Monday, the 25th inst. On that day we must introduce the Consolidated Fund Bill in order to comply with the law. In two days we obtained ten Supplementary Votes out of twenty-nine, not a very promising beginning. We have to take large Supplementary Estimates, and we have to take, both as regards the Army and the Navy, but perhaps especially as regards the Army, a most important discussion upon the Speaker leaving the chair; and my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War proposes on Friday next to make his speech on the Army Estimates. I do not see how it is possible to get through this mass of work before the 25th unless the privileges which we ask for are granted. On the present occasion the House will see we ask for no privileges except as regards finance. We do not ask for privileges for legislative work
446
of any kind outside the necessities of the law, and we do not ask for Wednesdays, though, if the House insists upon discussing the Estimates at great length, I may be driven, much against my will, to ask for privileges as regards Wednesdays before the 25th.
I make this request with great reluctance. I have been attacked on both sides of the House by Gentlemen who seem to think I am an enemy of the privileges of unofficial Members. That is entirely untrue. I have always done my very best as Leader of the House to give private Members the fullest opportunity of criticising the Government, and I think my action in that respect will compare favourably with that of my predecessors. I take it it is a fact that at present we lose something materially by not having those opportunities on Tuesdays of general discussion upon subjects outside the business of Supply, or the Budget, or the business of legislation. And it is also perfectly true that when the House retains its privilege in this respect it usually shows its appreciation by a count out; but something might be done, though I make no promise, to secure a certain number of days, at all events, in the session on which abstract resolutions may be brought before the House. In the meantime, having regard to the necessities of the hour, if the House intends to comply with the law, it should take Tuesdays for financial business.

447
We have been told that this is a state of things for which the Government is responsible in not having called Parliament together earlier. That is a most unjustifiable statement on the part of lion. Members, seeing that the House had an autumn session. [A VOICE: A very short one.] Not a very long autumn session; but if these days which are now asked for had been added it would have made it abnormally long, and I saw no reason, and see no reason, why this House should be asked to meet earlier than it did. If the question had been put to them, and hon. Members had been allowed to vote according to their inclinations, as to whether the House should be called together on the 14th February or a week earlier. I wonder how the division would have gone. I am tolerably certain that the most officious of my critics would have said they were directly opposed to not giving the House a holiday. I am myself indifferent to the criticisms as to whether or not the House ought to have been called together earlier. As regards the present, we are bound to obey the law, and if the exhibition which we have had for the last two days continues we may have to ask not only for Tuesdays but for Wednesdays also. But I take no right to interfere with Tuesdays, except for Supply, and, therefore, if the House decides to dispose of Supply, the Tuesdays will be restored to private Members, and have no doubt, if the House is offered the plain choice of either discussing and passing the Estimates, or breaking the law, which they will choose. Under these circumstances I hope the resolution I now beg to move will be accepted.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, until Easter, Financial Business do have precedence on Tuesday whenever set down by the Government, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 50 be extended to that day."—(Mr. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am one of those who, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says and suggests, that the House should have met earlier, and whose suggestion he treated with no little ignominy and scorn, and upon that ground I cannot agree to this proposal. I quite admit that the right hon. Gentle-
448
man, having placed himself in the position in which he stands, can make out a strong case for taking Tuesday, Wednesday, and every other day in the week. But this is not the way to conduct important business of this House, above all the business of Supply, where everything that has to be done is to be done with a sort of Damocles' sword hanging over one's head. We are told that we have to pass these Votes, however large they may be, on a certain day, to do which we must curb our inclinations to discuss them in the manner in which we consider they ought to be discussed. This is not the first time the House of Commons has been asked to take a similar course, but I have never known an occasion such as this in which it was so obvious beforehand what the result would be. There is no novelty whatever in it—the only novelty is the unusual size of the Supplementary Estimates; we knew they would be excessive, but we never had the slightest idea that, at a time when we were to be asked to meet great demands for war expenditure, the Civil Service Estimates would exceed by a million the normal Estimates. In my humble judgment it was the Government's business to have foreseen that the present state of affairs would arise, and to have provided for it by calling Parliament together sooner. Being in this dilemma, the Government are reduced to taking these strong measures. But that does not make me regard the strong measures with the less dislike, and as a protest against them I shall certainly vote against the motion.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSfelt bound to protest against the course which had been taken by the Government. The Government would, he thought, get through their financial business much more quickly and much more satisfactorily if they showed some disposition to meet the views of lion. Members, and allowed them to have, retained Tuesdays for discussing subjects in which they were interested. There was no reason why the Government should not get through their financial business without special procedure, and he was bound to protest against the motion.
MR. DALYexpressed his great surprise at the proposals

449
before the House. He thought it was hardly worth the while of the right lion. Gentleman to make the suggestion that he would only interfere with Tuesdays in order to take financial business, because after that was disposed of hon. Gentlemen would no doubt find the Government Whips at
the doors persuading them not to come in to make a House. He hoped private Members would vote against the motion.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 237; Noes, 144. (Division List No. 33.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cust, Henry John C.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

Aird, Sir John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

Keswick, William

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kimber, Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Knowles, Lees

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Duke, Henry Edward

Lawrence, William F.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lawson, John Grant

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Lecky. Rt. Hn. William Edw H.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Faber, George Denison

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fardell, Sir T. George

Leveson-Gower, Frederiek N.S.

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Balcarres, Lord

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Finch, George H.

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowe, Francis William

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christeh'ch

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Banes, Maj. George Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bartley, George C. T.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

Beach, Rt Hon Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Forster, Henry William

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Beach. Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants

Foster, Sir M. (London, Univ.)

Maconochie, A. W.

Beckett, Ernest William

Gibbs, Hr A.G. H. (CityofLond.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gordon. Hn. J.E. (Elgin&Nairn

M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.)

Bignold, Arthur

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Majendie, James A. H.

Bigwood, James

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Malcolm, Ian

Bill, Charles

Goschen, Hn. Geo. Joachim

Manners, Lord Cecil

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Bond, Edward

Graham, Henry Robert

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Boulnois, Edmund

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Bousfield, William Robert

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Milton, Viscount

Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

Greene. Sir E. W (B'ry S. Edm'ds

Milward, Colonel Victor

Bowles. T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Brodriek, Rt. Hon. St. John

Grenfell, William Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Hain. Edward

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Carlile, William Walter

Hambre, Charles Eric

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (Mid'x

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Morris, Hon Martin Henry F.

Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Morrison, James Archibald

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Heath, James (Stallbrds., N.W.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Chapman, Edward

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Charrington, Spencer

Henderson, Alexander

Nicholson, William Graham

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hoare, EdwBrodie(Hampstead

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hogg, Lindsay

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Horner, Frederick William

Pemberton, John S. G.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Penn, John

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Hoult, Joseph

Percy, Earl

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Pilkington, Richard

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Plummer, Walter R.

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cranborne, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Purvis, Robert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Pym, C. Guy

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkne

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Webb, Colonel William Geo.

Bandies, John S.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

Reid, James (Greenock)

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Remnant, James Farquharson

Smith, Hon. W. E. D. (Strand)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Spear, John Ward

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Ridley, Samuel F.(BethnalGrn

Stock, James Henry

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. T.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Stroyan, John

Wylie, Alexander

Round, James

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Rutherford, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Talbot, Rt Hn. JG. (Oxf'dUniv.

Sadler. Col. Samuel Alexander

Thornton, Perey M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Sir William Walrond and

Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

Valentia, Viscount

Mr. Ansiruther,

Seton-Karr, Henry

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Allen, Charles P (Gloue., Stroud

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Ambrose, Robert

Grant, Corrie

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Dowd, John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Haldane, Richard Bunion

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harmsworth, K. Leicester

O'Malley, William

Blake, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boyle, James

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Partington, Oswald

Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Pickard, Benjamin

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hobhonse, C, E.H.(Bristol, E.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burns, John

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Price. Robert John

Burt, Thomas

Holland, William Henry

Rea, Russell

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Caine, William Sproston

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reddy, M.

Caldwell, James

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Redmond, JohnE.(Waterford)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e

Russell. T. W.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jordon, Jeremiah

Schwann, Charles E.

Caustor, Richard Knight

Kearley, Hudson E.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

Channing, Francis Allston

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cogan, Denis J.

Layland- Barratt, Francis

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Soares, Ernest J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R.(North'nts

Crean, Eugene

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal

Crombie, John William

Levy, Maurice

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cullinan, J.

Lloyd-George, David

Tennant, Harold John

Daly, James

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen. E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lundon, W.

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Thom as, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Delany, William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dillon, John

M'Dermott, Patrick

Tully, Jasper

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Govern. T.

Wallace, Robert

Doogan, P. C.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Douglas. Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duffy, William J.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Dunn, Sir William

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

White, George (Norfolk)

Ellis, John Edward

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Emmott, Alfred

Mooncy, John J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'n

Morley, Charles (Brecknocksh

Whiteley, George (York, AY. R.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Whitley, J. H.'(Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Murphy,, T.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Field, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Newnes, Sir George

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

TELLEES FOR THE NOES—

Filler, J. M. F.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Mr. Herbert Roberts and

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Mr. Soames.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
1. Motion made, and Question put, "A. That an additional number of men and boys, not exceeding 600, be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
*THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,),in the absence of the Financial Secretary, desired to say a few words in explanation of the Vote. The 600 men now asked for comprised the colonial contingent in China. New South Wales provided 262; Victoria, 197; and South Australia, 120, with the "Protector," gunboat. It was necessary under the Colonial Naval Defence Act of 1865, Section 9, to obtain the sanction of Parliament in order to bear those men on the Votes. Ho did not ask the House to believe that these men were necessary in order to give effect to the naval strength of the mother country in China. It was not the actual force, but the moral force which lay behind which was in question. The value in the eyes of the Empire and of the world of that small body of 600 men, side by side with our own sailors, soldiers and marines, was such that he did not think there would be any difference of opinion in the House in regard to the Vote. All the Members of the House were familiar with the services rendered by those men. The Colonial contingent had been most honourably mentioned by the commanding officer on the station. Their services were most valuable and were most highly appreciated, and their gallantry was conspicuous upon all occasions.
MR. KEARLEYwas sure that they all agreed with what had been said by the hon. Gentleman as to the good effect that must accrue from the services of those men. They had served side by side with our own seamen, and nobody would doubt at all the value of
454
their services. He asked whether the hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee what the arrangements were in regard to the pay of those men.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The question of pay falls to be considered on the next Vote. It will be better to discuss one Vote at a time.
MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote was entirely mistaken if he supposed that it was going to pass with the unanimity of all sections of the Committee. For his part, he had for a considerable period of years resisted on every occasion additions to the Navy, whether they appeared in the shape of a Vote for men and boys, or an increased money grant, because he was convinced—and every year that passed added strength to the conviction— that the policy inaugurated by this country six years ago of enormous in creases to the Navy was a policy calculated to destroy the finances of the country, and greatly calculated to plunge the country sooner or later into a terrible war. When a few Members commenced to oppose this policy a few years ago they were denounced, of course, as enemies of the country. They were laughed at as enemies of the Empire for venturing to prophesy that the increase commenced five or six years ago was only a small portion of what was coming. He remembered, five years ago when the First Lord of the Admiralty, now in another place, brought in one of the vast Navy Estimates and announced that they were undoubtedly of a startling character, but required by the necessity of the time. The House was startled, but it voted the Estimates under the illusion, which had now been dissipated, that by so voting it was placing the country in a position of security and defence, and that if there was not finality in them there was some thing approaching finality. Every year there had been a large increase in the Vote for men and boys, and the expenses of the Navy. He asked where this was going to stop. He believed it would not stop until the taxation of the country was raised to such a point that the people would rebel and revolt against it. He desired to say that those who had banded themselves into an organisation

455
called the Navy League were primarily responsible for this mad career along which the country was now being driven. What did they find these gentlemen saying after five years of inflation and enormous additions to the size of the Navy? They were now declaring that England was in a worse position at sea, and a worse mistress of the seas than five or six years ago. The more they spent on the Army and Navy the more they would be told that the state of the country was alarming, and they would have to go on increasing the size of the Services. He felt bound at every stage to resist any increase of armaments. He would vote against the proposed increase.
MR. DALYhad great pleasure in joining his voice to what had been said by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The hon. Member for the Wood-bridge Division had referred to the fact that 600 Colonial troops had come to help England in a difficulty. Considering that from so large an extent of country only 600 troops could be raised, he thought the hon. Member should not have mentioned that. It seemed to him that the colonies gave them very little sympathy if, when England was in trouble, only 600 men could be got to come to the help of the country. He asked how these troops were to be paid as compared with the troops of this country, because it struck him that if a very great inducement had not been offered to these men from the colonies it was quite possible that they would not have come to the help of England at all. It seemed to him that the amount of money in this Vote was extraordinary.
*THE CHAIRMAN: There is no money in this Vote.
MR. DALYadmitted that, but at the same time he expected that the men did not come without money, and one of the points which Members from Ireland had to watch was the money point. He had no sympathy, ho was proud to say, with this matter at all, and he thought the colonies had almost as little when the trifling number of 600 was all they could beg, borrow, and, he might say, steal to join the forces. It would be his duty to go into the division lobby against this Vote.
*MR. CORRIE GRANT: said he understood from what was stated by the hon. Member for Woodbridge in introducing the Vote, that it was desirable to give the colonies an opportunity of taking part in the operations in China, and therefore these men were selected to go, and charged on the Estimates. If so, why should the hon. Member for South Monaghan talk of sweeping the gutters to get men I He would go into the lobby in support of the Vote, as ho believed a great many Members on that side of the House would, because they desired, along with hon. Members opposite, to do everything they could to strengthen the bonds between the mother country and the colonies.
MR. ALLENentirely concurred with the hon. Member who had just spoken, and he intended to vote for the number of men stated. He did not think that, being a new Member, he should have got up to speak if one of the Members from Ireland had not attacked the Navy League, with which he had been more or less intimately acquainted since the commencement. He thought the Navy League had done a great deal of good in bringing home to the country the necessity of having a strong and large Navy. A great number on that side of the House would agree with him that it had been a distinct advantage to have the Australian and other Colonial forces fighting by our side.
MR. CULLINANsaid his hon. friend had a perfect right to condemn the policy of the Navy League. He concurred with the hon. Member for South Monaghan that it spoke badly for the sympathy of the colonies when they could only find 600 men. The Nationalist Members looked at this question in relation to the taxes they were going to put on their country, and he claimed that they had a perfect right to object to the Vote, on which no information had been supplied.
MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he was surprised at the paucity of the number stated in the Vote. He was afraid that 600 was a misprint, and

457
that there should have been another 0 added. He failed to see how 600 could supply the deficiency required. It had always been the fault of the Navy administrators of this country to ask for too few men. In this case he felt sure that they were committing the same blunder again, and when the proper Navy Estimates came on they would be asking for more men. He had always advocated that it was the duty of the Government broadly and honestly to put down the number they required, so that the House and the country would know what they required. It was well known that they would require ten times the number now put down.
MR. JOYCEsaid he desired to raise his voice against this Supplementary Estimate of a million and a quarter of money for 600 men. ["Order."] If he was out of order in referring to the amount, the Chairman was there to put him in order. [Laughter.] He would not take any laugh from Gentlemen on the other side. If he committed any breach of the rules he would bow to the ruling of the Chairman at once. He desired to say that this Supplementary Estimate for 600 men would cause the expenditure of a large amount of money. It appeared to him to be an anomaly when he looked at the fact that if they required a Catholic chaplain for the British Navy—
*THE CHAIRMAN: That cannot be discussed on this Vote.
MR. JOYCE: I bow to your ruling at once, Mr. Lowther, and I have just to say that when I am a little better acquainted with the business of the House I will interfere oftener and with more effect
in the debates. There is one portion of this Supplementary Estimate on which I desire to be a little more enlightened before I allow it to pass. [Laughter.] Perhaps I may know a little more about it than the hon. Members who laugh on the other side of the House. I want some information as to the policy of towing His Majesty's ships—
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is discussing the wrong Vote. We are now discussing Vote A. Will he confine himself to that?
MR. JOYCE: Am I in order in discussing any portion of the orders given in connection with this Vote?
*THE CHAIRMAN: These are not the Navy Estimates. When we reach the Navy Estimates that will, of course, be in order. These are the Supplementary Navy Estimates. This Estimate is for 600 men, and that is the only matter that can be discussed now.
MR. JOYCE: I desire to ask your ruling on Section C, page 3. Can I speak on that matter at present or not?
*THE CHAIRMAN: We are discussing Vote A, and not the other one.
MR. JOYCE: I bow to your ruling at once.
MR. McGOVERNthought the Committee should be told for what purpose these 600 men were required.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 34.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balfour, Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Aird, Sir John

Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christch'rch

Caine, William Sproston

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Banes, Major George Edward

Caldwell, James

Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

Bartley, George C. T.

Carlile, William Walter

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Bathmst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Cautley, Henry Strother

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

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

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants.

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

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Blundell, Col. Henry

Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Boulnois Edmund

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Bain, Col. James Robert

Bousfield, William Robert

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester)

Baird, John George Alexander

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Chapman, Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Charrington, Spencer

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Button, John (Yorks., N.R.)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rea, Russell

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Col lings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Renwick, George

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Keswick, William

Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge)

Cranborne, Viscount

Kimber, Henry

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Crombie, John William

King. Sir Henry Seymour

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kitson, Sir James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Labouchere, Henry

Round, James

Dewar, T.R. (T'rH'mlets, S Geo

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lawson, John Grant

Russell, T. W.

Dimsdale. Sir Joseph Cockfield

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rutherford, John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Duke, Henry Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Dunn, Sir William

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos Myles

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leng, Sir John

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Levy, Maurice

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Fenwick, Charles

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Macdona, John Gumming

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Finch, George H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maconochie, A. W.

Spear, John Ward

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthnr, Charles (Liverpool)

Spencer, Rt Hn C R(Northants.)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Forster, Henry William

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Stock, James Henry

Fuller, J. M. F.

Majendie, James A. H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Furness, Sir Christopher

Malcolm, Ian

Stroyan, John

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Thornton, Percy M.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Milton, Viscount

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Mil ward, Colonel Victor

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Valentia, Viscount

Graham, Henry Robert

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wallace, Robert

Grant, Come

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm' ds.

Morgan, D.J. (Waltbamstow)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

Money, Charles (Breeonshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Morrell, George Herbert

Webb, Colonel William Geo.

Hain, Edward

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

White, George (Norfolk)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Morrison, James Archibald

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Whiteley, H. (Asbton und Lyne

Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray. Charles J. (Coventry)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wills, Sir Frederick

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Helder, Augustus

Palmer, Waller (Salisbury)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wilson. John (Glasgow)

Henderson, Alexander

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Hobhouse. C.E.H. (Bristol, E.)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Holland, William Henry

Pilkington, Richard

Wylie, Alexander

Hope, J.F (Sheffeld, Brightside

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Horniman, Frederick John

Plummer. Walter R.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Hoult, Joseph

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Yoxall, James Henry

Howard. J.(Midd., Tottenham

Pretyman, Ernest George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Purvis, Robert

Sir William Walrond and

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Randles, John S.

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Boyle, James

Cogan, Denis J.

Ambrose, Robert

Brigg, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Atherley-Jones, L.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crean, Eugene

Blake, Edward

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Cullinan, J.

Boland, John

('banning, Francis Alston

Delany, William

460

461

Dillon, John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Donelan, Captain A.

Mooney, John J.

Pickard, Benjamin

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Duffy, William J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Reddy, M.

Field, William

Newnes, Sir George

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

Schwann, Charles E.

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Sullivan, Donal

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Hammond, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Thomas, A. Glamorgan, E.)

Hutton, Alfred F. (Morley)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tully, Jasper

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lundon, W.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

M'Dermott, Patrick

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

M'Govern. T.

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

O'Mara, James

Daly and Mr. Joyce.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an additional sum not exceeding £1,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

Vote 1. Wages, etc., of

£

Officers, etc.

500

Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

84,000

Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—

Section I. Personnel

98,500

Section II. Matériel

630,000

Section III. Contract Work

207,000

Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

230,000

Total

£1,250,000."

*MR. PRETYMAN: in asking for this Vote it will probably be convenient to the Committee that I should make a short statement on the different heads under winch the money is required. With regard to the Vote of 600 men just passed, the actual cost of their services was about £25,000. The contingent are paid by us at the same rate of pay and allowances as our own sailors, and they are calculated to serve for about seven months. Besides that, we are giving to the South Australian Government a sum of £2,500 for the services of the "Protector," because we have not only these 600 men, but also the "Protector," which is the property
462
of the South Australian Government. For repairs to that vessel during the time it was in the Imperial service wear paying £2,500 to its owners. The next head is the increase in the victualling charges. It will be recognised by all that since the time these Estimates were originally prepared there has been an enormous rise in the prices of all kinds of produce, and that rise has caused an increase of no less than £114,000, but against that there is an appropriation-in-aid of £30,000, reducing the actual Vote to £84,000. I might give one or two instances showing how prices have risen. Cloth has risen from 6s. 11d. to 8s. 11d., and serge from 11⅛d. to 1s. 3¼d., and so on, and the prices of provisions have increased in the same way. These increases have in nearly all cases come about and been largely augmented since the time the original Estimates were prepared. There was at the time some indication of a rise in prices, but the Estimates were prepared fifteen months ahead of the time at which they were voted, and it was impossible to say when the rise would take place. The same remark applies to the question of coal in Section 2 of Vote 8. It is a very difficult question to decide whether a rise in price is going to be permanent, and the question also arises as to the latest date on which it is possible to disturb a Vote once prepared. It is very difficult when a complicated Estimate has been prepared on the basis of prices then existing to go into it and revise all the items, and there is the further point that the rise in price may be only temporary. So far as we are concerned, the increase in prices of

463
coal, provisions, and clothing material, has been not temporary but permanent, and that is really the reason of the large increase in the victualling Vote, and, to some extent, the coaling Vote. The next head is shipbuilding and repairs, the amount there being £98,500. That increase is caused partly by more rapid construction and partly by repairs. Construction has been hastened, and I think the Committee will agree that that is not a cause for complaint. To-morrow an event will occur which is almost unique in the history of the British Navy. Four first-class vessels will be launched, and it is largely on account of the expenditure on these four vessels that this excess is asked for. £30,000 is for new construction, most of which has been spent on the "Montague," the "Albemarle," and the "Kent." The amount expended upon these three vessels during this financial year is no less than £629,000, so that an excess of £30,000 on that large sum will not appear very great. At the same time, I think the Committee would prefer that we should have an excess of £30,000 and succeed in turning these vessels out than that the vessels should have been delayed and £30,000 less spent. That is the real ground on which the money is asked for. Included in that £98,000 is a further sum for repairs to a large number of ships. There are two reasons why the repairs have exceeded the Estimate. One is a reason which will naturally occur to every hon. Member—namely, that during the year we have had this unforeseen trouble in China, and nobody knew at what moment the services of the Navy might be required in all directions. It therefore became imperative to execute all repairs immediately, and that every vessel which could be brought at short notice into a fit condition for service should be put into that condition. That naturally involved the working o overtime, and that accounts to a largo extent for this increase. The other reason is that it is not advisable in the interests of economy to allow a larger estimate for repairs than the lowest sum which really appears necessary, as whatever is allowed is pretty certain to be spent. It is desirable that the full sum anticipated to be required should be estimated. It
464
is very undesirable that it should be necessary to come here for Supplementary Votes at all. We should very much prefer to be able to state fifteen months beforehand exactly how much we are going to spend and exactly what we are going to do with the money. But if hon. Members will put themselves into the position of those who have to administer this great Department, look at the enormous number of items over which this work has to be spread, and conceive the difficulty of looking fifteen months ahead and estimating exactly how much will be required to be spent on repairs, for instance, which may be owing to accidents or breakdowns which nobody can foresee, it must be evident to them that, however much experience may be brought to bear or time given to the matter, such Estimates must to a large extent be guesswork, based partly upon the experiences of the past as well as upon the possibilities of the future. On that ground the Admiralty has perhaps more excuse than almost any other Department for coming to the Committee with a Supplementary Estimate, which is not very large in relation to the amount of work done, and all of which has been expended in putting our Navy into a state of efficiency such as the House of Commons is always impressing upon us as absolutely necessary.
The next item is one for which I need not apologise at all—namely, contract work. We have succeeded in getting more work to the extent of £270,000 out of the contractors than we estimated we could do. That is not increased, but merely anticipated expenditure. We are paving £270.000 more to contractors in this financial year for work they had hi hand, and therefore shall have that much less to pay at the end of the contract. Really, the contract is being executed more rapidly than had been anticipated.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: In respect of what ships?
*MR. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I have not that information, but possibly I shall be able to supply it later in the debate.
The last head is for miscellaneous services, the larger part of which is in con-

465
sequence of the services of the naval contingent and the fleet in connection with the trouble in China. It is perfectly clear that the China trouble was an unforeseen event in regard to which we are perfectly justified in asking for a Supplementary Vote, and therefore no excuse is needed for bringing this Estimate forward. Sub-head A is for the passage money and conveyance of the Australian contingent both by water and by land, and also of the additional officers who were sent to China. Sub-head C, for piloting and towing, is largely and principally due to extra charges incurred by the extra number of vessels going through the Suez Canal on their way to China. "Telegraphic communications" refer to the extra telegraphic services in connection with South Africa and China. The hire of steam vessels for communications in China is in connection with two vessels which were hired to keep up communications between different places. The next head is expenditure in connection with the seizure and detention of vessels in South African waters. In that matter the Navy was merely obeying its orders and doing its duty, and the matter has already been discussed. "The hire of distilling vessels for manœuvres" was an experiment. Two vessels were fitted as distillers, and valuable experience was gained. The vessels were somewhat too large, they had not sufficient pumping power, but at the same time they supplied a considerable quantity of water for the fleet, and the experiment was well worth trying.
MR. FLYNN: Was there distilling of spirits in these vessels, or was the experiment confined to water?
*MR. PRETYMAN: Although it was off the Irish coast, the experiment was confined to water. The last sub-head is in connection with the steamship "Ophir," which is to convey their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York on their tour to Australia and round the world. The only question of importance, I think, which has been raised in connection with that is with regard to the accommodation to be provided for the press. Questions have been asked upon
466
this matter in the House, and some hon. Members seem to be under the impression that Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, who is to go with this vessel, has been, by the sanction of the Admiralty, allowed to go on board as the correspondent of The Times, to the exclusion of other newspapers and other press correspondents. That is not so. Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace has had no communication with the Admiralty whatever in regard to his position on the tour, and he has not been appointed with the knowledge of the Admiralty as the correspondent of any newspaper whatever. But entirely apart from that, the First Lord has felt that it is most desirable, in the interest of the public and of the press, that some representation should be allowed, and that as far as possible some accommodation should be provided for the gentlemen of the press to accompany this expedition, and he has received a very large number of applications. He answered all these applicants, and they were informed that there were very great difficulties in the way of providing accommodation at all, but that everything that could be done would be done. The First Lord felt that it was very desirable that all the applications received should be considered equally, and not only did he wait until the last moment, but those important newspapers that had not applied for accommodation were communicated with and asked if they desired to be represented. That being done, every effort was made to induce the various newspapers and press agencies as far as possible to combine so that one press representative might serve two or three newspapers or agencies. That having been done, the First Lord found that he could provide accommodation for five press correspondents, and those five have been allotted as fairly as possible between the press agencies and the principal newspapers by combination, so that there has been absolute fairness. Those five gentlemen will be accommodated, and five berths have been prepared for them, and they will sail on Thursday.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly name the agencies and the newspapers?
*MR. PRETYMAN: I think it would be better not to, for it would be rather

467
invidious to do that. I believe the press are perfectly satisfied, and every effort has been made to show no favouritism of any sort or kind, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would wish that any invidious statement should be made. I will endeavour at the close of this debate to answer any further questions put to me, but I thought that I might save the time of the House by intervening at this stage.
MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he bad listened with the greatest degree of pleasure to the remarks of the lion. Gentleman who introduced the Supplementary Estimate of £1,250,000. He had no desire to traverse all the headings of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but would confine himself to the third.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and, forty Members being found present—
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN (continuing)said that there came under the heading of "Coals for Steam Vessels" the sum of £700,000; but the hon. Gentleman gave the Committee no explanation whatever as to when, how, or where this £700,000 extra was required over and above the original Estimate. It was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that the price of coal had risen, but his point was, when was the contract made by the Admiralty for coals? He was fully aware that in October, 1899, no contract was made for coals, although that was the time when every ship-owning firm, such as the Transatlantic General Company, the Royal Mail Steamship Company, etc., were making their contracts. The Admiralty could have bought coals then at 13s. per ton. Two or three months later the Admiralty went into the market and bought a small quantity at 19s. a ton, but made no contract. Then they had to go again into the market and paid 29s. a ton, but they bought more coals at the big price than they had any need for then, and which they would not need for a long time to come. Was that business? Why, the Director of Contracts knew no more about his business or the markets than the man in the moon! The hon.
468
Gentleman smiled. He (Mr. Allan) had for seven or eight years been treated to laughter in the House over naval matters, but he challenged the hon. Gentleman to deny that he could have bought those coals at 13s. a ton for which he had paid 29s. a ton. The hon. Gentleman tried to put off this enormously increased expenditure on the ground of the rise in the price of coal, but he wished the hon. Gentleman would find out something about the coals and where they went to. The hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee why this excess of coals was required, or that some of his boats were burning twice as much coal as others. That was the reason why the taxpayers' money was being squandered in a haphazard, un business like manner.
He bad listened with attention to every word the hon. Gentleman had said about repairs, but no proper explanation had been given. What boats were repaired, where were they repaired, and what did the repairs of each cost? What did this sum of £98.500 include? The repairs to the "Hermes," the "Europa," or the "Powerful," which was lying in Portsmouth Dockyard with her boilers nearly out of her? Then, he was sorry to say that this huge sum did not include repairs to the new Royal yacht, which indeed was not afloat yet. It was not fair to the House of Commons or to the taxpayers of the country that they should be called upon to vote money for repairs without the responsible Minister stating to the House what was the nature of the repairs. He did not want to use strong terms to any Minister or head of the Department, but the Minister ought really to be able to give a lucid, frank, and complete explanation of the Vote he was submitting to the Committee.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid, if the Committee would allow him, be might state that he had given a short statement of the headings of the Vote and a general explanation; but he would be most happy to answer any further questions that were put to him in the course of the debate. He thought that the hon. Member had scarcely been fair in accusing him of want of courtesy or a desire to

469
withhold information from the, Committee.
MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he was very glad to hear that the Committee was going to have a full explanation of why all this money was required for coals and repairs, and he sincerely hoped they would have the names of the boats and the reasons why the repairs were, necessary. The Paper did not show how much had been spent on the new Royal yacht. Did that come under repairs? The House and the country wanted to know that. He wished to refer also to one item under the head of "Miscellaneous Effective Services." Under Sub-head XX. very un business like phraseology was used—namely, "Hire, etc., of s.s. 'Ophir.'" Now that word "hire" had no right to be there at all. There was not a shipowner in the House who did not know that the word should have been "charter." He asked how much the charter of the "Ophir" was to be per month—what did the owners get? There was £43,000 down for the "Ophir," and what he wanted to know was not only the amount of the charter per month, but what was spent in refitting all the cabins, saloons, and berths, and on the accommodation for the crew, and also on the equipment of the vessel. To come here with a brief, condensed statement, like that put into the hands of hon. Members, was not taking the House into the confidence of the Government in the whole of this transaction. This was a matter of ship-owning and ship-management, and the Government ought to have been able to convey their Royal Highnesses the Duke, and Duchess of Cornwall on this tour on the new Royal yacht, instead of being compelled to charter another ship. It was their duty to tell the Committee every penny of expenditure on that chartered ship, instead of coming there with the word "hire," as if it were a cab-horse or pianos and bands of music, lie for one protested earnestly against the Minister responsible coming to the Committee with such flimsy pretexts, and he would at all times raise his voice against squandering the public money in such large sums without the slightest explanation.
MR. FLYNNsaid that no one could have listened to the hon. Member for
470
Gateshead without being forcibly impressed with his striking arguments. They all recognised the improvement in the manner of the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Vote compared with that of some of his predecessors; but they would await with interest the further explanations which had been promised. As to the matter of principle, before going into details he took it that this increased expenditure the Committee were asked for was was bound up with the reckless expenditure on which the country had launched in regard both to the Army and Navy. We were formerly supposed to be in a position to meet a combination of any two foreign naval Powers, but now we were going to meet any combination of any three Powers; hence the increased Estimates year after year. They had been told in the language of metaphor that a large portion of this expenditure was in the nature of insurance money for the protection of the commerce and trade of the Empire; but if that were so, Irish Members had a right to protest, seeing that they had no commerce to protect, against being compelled to pay their proportion of the insurance mney. What guarantee had the, Board of Admiralty in constructing these big battleships at such a rapid rate that they would not be obsolete and useless five or ten years hence— just as our artillery had been found of no account against modern "Long Toms" and "Pom-Poms" in South Africa. These ships might, in fact, in a few years be broken up and sold for old scrap iron. That was a danger which naval constructors should lay to their mind, considering the marvellous skill now being applied to modern artillery and projectiles, and to submarine boats and torpedo boats. His motto, indeed, would be festina lente when they remembered that a naval engagement, which only lasted a few hours, between an Austrian and an Italian man-o'-war in the Adriatic had revolutionised the system of naval construction of the whole world. The hon. Member for Gateshead, who had compelled the Government to reconsider the whole question of the adoption of Belleville boilers, had given very alarming figures as to the purchases of coal, which showed the imprudent, the improvident, and

471
slatternly manner in which the Admiralty conducted their business, and some further explanations were demanded from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate in regard to this matter. If such things had occurred fifteen or twenty years previously, when the Government was confronted with a vigilant and active Opposition, no Board of Admiralty would have held their position for six months. With regard to the royal yacht, this vessel was not fit to carry the person of the King, and yet £400,000 had been spent upon it. The Estimates were brought before the House without any details, but these were questions the Admiralty were bound to answer, they were matters upon which the country would require information. In the good old times, in circumstances such as these, the First Lord or the Civil Lord of the Admiralty would have been impeached, and dismissed as being incapable of doing public service. The right of free search for contraband of war was a right which should only be exercised with the greatest possible prudence and discrimination, and only when there was overwhelming proof that vessels under neutral flags were carrying contraband of war; otherwise every country with a powerful navy like that of England would become nothing less than a highway robber. All they would have to do would be to point their guns, claim the right of search, take all the food-stuffs they discovered, and then go before a court and get the ship condemned, and the taxpayer would have to pay. If such a power was attempted to be exercised by Germany, France, or the United States, the whole press of the country would howl with indignation against such high-handed tyranny. Yet the country had to pay £.30.000 for this little diversion of the Admiralty. Another point upon which some information would be required was the item of £2.500 under Sub-head A.A., for the use of the South Australian gunboat during service in Chinese waters. Was that for the purpose of protecting the Colonial Volunteers, of which the House had heard so much, because they were so loyal? The Government would not give Ireland a gunboat for the protection of her fishermen, but for this boat, which belonged to the colony,
472
and which we used for the transport of the colonists, the country was asked to pay this amount. The loyalty of the colony was not so great, after all, and he could quite conceive that the Government might have greater loyalty in Ireland under similar conditions. With regard to the item under Sub-head XX., Hire, etc., of ss. "Ophir," in connection with the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to Australia, etc., "hire" was not a very elegant word. It was not the proper way to treat Royalty, and it gave a very bad impression in the country to talk of such a vessel in the same way as one would of a row-boat on the Thames. Another question upon which the hon. Gentleman might be able at some future time to give some information was with regard to the policy of construction which at present was being so strongly advocated. Was it a wise and prudent policy to build these ships, as to the strength of which they knew nothing, when other nations were turning their attention to submarine vessels? He thought not.
COMMANDER YOUNGsaid he was unable to follow the last speaker in his suggestion that the policy of the Admiralty in constructing battleships was not wise, having regard to the fact that other nations were keeping pace with us. There was no doubt that France was building submarine vessels, and it was possible that those, boats might revolutionise the Navy; but it was not with the submarine boat alone that we should have to compete. We had to compete with the range of guns, and the speed of ships on the billows. No doubt the Admiralty would keep their eye on these submarine boats, and, if they built any, all he would ask would be that he might not be ordered to serve on one. As an up-bolder of the Government, he did not desire to detain the Committee. He desired to see the Votes go through. When the Naval Estimates came forward would be the proper time to discuss these matters. But as a naval officer he would like to have a satisfactory answer to one question, which was, whether the hon. gentleman could give any information as to when the Report of the

473
Committee now sitting on the question of rations and, victualling of seamen was likely to be laid on the Table of the House. Every day was of importance in this matter. A great deal of money was spent, especially by the young and growing bluejackets, on provisions, which clearly showed that they required a great deal more food than was supplied by the Admiralty. He hoped the Report would be laid on the Table shortly, and that the result would be satisfactory. With regard to the item of pilotage under Sub-head C, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to inform the House that there was no falling off in the pilotage qualities of the naval officer. Pilotage was a responsible duty, requiring care and nerve, which would have to be performed by the, naval officer in time of war, and the Admiralty should give as much encouragement as possible to naval officers to perfect themselves in this duty.
MR. KEARLEYsaid he did not think the Government ought to take a Vote of this character unless they were prepared to give the Committee the fullest opportunity of discussing it in every way and were prepared to answer every question which was put. Whatever might be said about the difficulty in contracting for coal, was the Committee to understand that the Admiralty had not sufficient foresight to make forward contracts for clothing and provisions for their sailors? It appeared to him that if these departments were properly managed the Admiralty ought not to have to come to the Committee and say that owing to the rise in the price of provisions and cloth they had had to pay £14,000 more of the taxpayers' money. If any private business was conducted in that way it would spell bankruptcy in a very short time. The fact of the matter was that neither the Navy nor the Army was run on a commercial basis. The gentlemen who managed these Departments were no doubt excellent men, but they had no commercial knowledge, and no one who had commercial knowledge to assist them. If they had had commercial training they would have saved their salaries over and over again. Everybody was aware from the debate in the previous
474
year that the food was inadequate, the meal-times out of joint, and the canteen arrangements unsatisfactory, A Committee had been sitting on this question for some time, and possibly the Committee might be told now whether any decision had been arrived at, and if so, what. No doubt the most important of the items on the Estimate was that dealing with construction, but there was an idea, abroad that although the Admiralty made a great display of shipbuilding it was only on paper. What the country wanted to know when they provided the money was that there would be in due course ships in commission and not upon paper. One serious cause of delay arose no doubt out of the contract work. There were four ships built in Government yards which would instance this. The "Ocean," the first ship laid down, was launched seventeen months after it was laid down, and it was not commissioned until some three years after. The "Implacable" was launched thirteen months after being laid down, and almost three years had elapsed since that time, and yet she was not commissioned. She had had some difficulties, and she had not yet passed her steam trials; that was the fault not of the Government, but of the contractor, but the Committee ought to be informed what steps had been taken or were contemplated by the Government for the purpose of dealing with the contractors who were responsible. The "Bulwark" was launched seven months after being laid down, the quickest launch on record, and she was not yet in commission; whilst in the case of the "Montague," which was launched sixteen months after being laid down, it was impossible to say when she would be commissioned. He drew attention to the different times at which the ships were launched to show that there was no plan in the building of these ships. It had been stated over and over again by experts that it was quite possible to commission a ship within twenty months of her being laid down, but in any case two years should be ample time. That time should also be ample to obtain the machinery, but one mistake the Government made was not to give out their contracts for

475
machinery until months after the ship was laid down. Our difficulty was that the Admiralty rarely laid down more than two ships of a type, so that the contractors had no opportunity of duplicating the machinery. He thought he had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean urge the advantage of having half-a-dozen ships projected at a time. Whether he suggested it or not, the hon. Member thought it was a practical suggestion. The public were anxious to have these ships delivered in a reasonable time. Some ships which were being built by contract had been in course of construction three or four years, but as they were voted upon every year the public outside fancied that we were adding to our battleships every year. Ho was glad to see, therefore, from these Supplementary Estimates that there was some evidence that the Admiralty were alive to their responsibilities. He hoped the Admiralty would tell them something that night as to their intention of expediting both in the Government yards and the contractors' yards the completion of the various ships already voted.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he could not agree with the lion. Member for Devonport in his somewhat ungenerous attack upon the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Estimates.
MR. KEARLEYinterrupted the hon. Member, and was understood to deny that he had made an attack.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid it appeared to him to be a somewhat ungenerous attack. Ho ventured to say that the statement which the hon. Gentleman made to the Committee would commend itself generally to them. It would not be in order to discuss the whole sphere of naval policy on these Estimates, but he thought ho might remark that the greater part of the million and a quarter which was asked for had been spent on coal. The note of explanation suggested that the expenditure was for the purpose of replenishing the stock of coal at certain places, and, if rumour were correct, that
476
replenishment had not taken place a moment too soon. They had heard rumours of one of the ships of the Mediterranean Squadron towing another ship in consequence of the deficient quantity of coal and the difficulties of replenishment. He did not know if these rumours were correct, but if they were, the state of affairs showed a want of foresight on the part of the Admiralty as regards the provision of coal. They wore now apparently performing the duty of replenishing the stocks wherever necessary. The Vote for coal expenditure appeared to be £607,000, and if the Admiralty would make the stocks sufficient throughout the Mediterranean and elsewhere, they would make one of the best possible preparations for naval operations. The 6OO men referred to in the Votes were only nominally added to the Navy. They were only nominally transferred from the Colonial Navy to the Imperial Navy, and he was glad that reference had been made that night to the patriotic services of the Australians, because the country had been going into patriotic fervour over the services which the colonials had rendered on land. Notwithstanding the somewhat unkind remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member opposite with regard to the subsidy, he ventured to say that the country at large would welcome the services which the colonies had given and were still giving to the naval as well as the military forces of the country. The most salient point was the fact that the Committee wore asked to vote £207,000 more for contract expenditure. If there was one duty which the Admiralty had been neglecting more than another in the past, it was the duty of pushing on with naval construction. They had had explanations from the late First Lord of the Admiralty, whose loss to that House and the Admiralty they all deplored, of the causes of the arrears in naval construction. Year after year the House voted money, and year after year it had been spent without any reasonable excuse whatever. Now they found the Admiralty waking up to a sense of their duty, for they had actually expended more than had been voted. He said, as one who took the deepest interest in these matters, let them go on

477
with Supplementary Estimates for expenditure on new construction beyond that which had been voted by the House. They had not made sufficient naval preparations. The country understood that upon the Navy alone the security of the country from invasion depended. Without anticipating what might be in the Naval Estimates shortly to be introduced, he ventured to say that the House and the country were amply prepared for a considerable increase in the naval expenditure. [A Nationalist Member: No, no.] He referred to those who had the good of the country at heart, and not those who desired to see His Majesty's ships at the bottom of the sea. He well remembered the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean made a speech in the House eleven or twelve years ago in which he called attention to the fact, which was then imperfectly recognised, that we were a hated nation. On that occasion the noble Lord the Member for Ealing moved that the naval preparations were insufficient. His right hon. friend suggested that the standard should be set up that the Navy of Great Britain should be equal to the navies of any two Powers that could be brought against it. If that was considered a sufficient standard then, was it a sufficient standard now? He asked those who had knowledge of the naval preparations in Europe, and a knowledge of the hatred with which we were regarded by many European nations, whether that was so or not? [Nationalist cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheered because they recognised that his statement was true. If it was true, was it not wise that they should make preparation for any attacks that might possibly result from that feeling? Since that time what had happened? In Germany enormous naval preparations had been made, and millions of money had been voted. Germany, which was not then a naval Power at all, had since become and still intended to become a naval Power of the first rank. The United States of America had established already, and were extending, a navy. Japan at that time had only the beginning of a navy. To-day she had one of the most powerful in the world. He asked whether in
478
these circumstances it was not of the utmost importance that the standard of comparison as regards the Navy should be raised. He ventured to say that naval opinion and the opinion of all those who had thought on this subject had led them to the conclusion that the standard ought to be in comparison with any three Powers that might be brought against it. [AN HON. MEMBER: Six Powers!] No, he was content with three. All he wanted was fair preparation. He hoped this discussion would at least have the effect of encouraging the Admiralty in the belief that the people of the country and the House in particular were prepared to endorse every reasonable proposal the Admiralty might bring forward for the naval defence, and therefore the safety, of the country.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not imagine they would be in order in following the last speaker in the discussion of the naval standard proper for this country. That was a matter which, of course, must be discussed on the first Vote of the Navy Estimates. On the present occasion they had to confine themselves to the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee. The last speaker, and also his hon. friend the Member for Devonport, both dealt in much the same way with the retardation of the naval programme, and although his hon. friend opposite criticised the words with which the hon. Member for Devonport opened his speech, he nevertheless used even stronger language with regard to the total inadequacy of the statements which were made last year to explain the retardation of the programme. His hon. friend the Member for Devonport had given credit to the Government for showing some signs in this Supplementary Estimate of a desire to overcome the retardation which had recently taken place. They had no facts before them to show how the money was to be expended. The hon. and gallant Member the Civil Lord, in making his statement that night—and he made it with conspicuous ability— told them what the expenditure in the dockyards was, but the contracts item, except for coal, had not been explained to the House. He ventured to throw an

479
interrogation across the House, and he had since had a private reply that it was for armour on the contract ships. He asked what contract ships were to be pushed forward in this way, because the delays had been extraordinary, even as compared with those they were led to anticipate in the debates last year. The Civil Lord took credit to the Admiralty, and congratulated the country on the fact that four launches were to take place at once. In addition to the one battleship which the hon. Member for Devonport described, there were a number of private contract ships which had been delayed to an extraordinary extent. His hon. friend opposite would admit that the reasons given last year by Mr. Goschen for that delay were altogether inapplicable in the circumstances. The "Albion" was in the programme of 1896, she was launched in 1898, but was not yet in commission, while there were three Japanese battleships larger than the "Albion," which were begun after that ship, which were first announced by the Japanese Government long after the programme in which the "Albion" was announced, all built in England, and all of which were in commission at the present time. These Japanese ships received their armour and guns from English sources. Two of them were in commission in the Ear East, and the other was about to proceed thither. These were tangible facts. They could not be disputed. He mentioned also the "Formidable" and the "Irresistible," both of which were in the 1897 programme, and launched in 1898, and neither of which was yet in commission. The "Implacable" and the "Vengeance" were in the 1897 programme, and launched in 1899, but not yet ready. The "London" had been more delayed than all the others. He asked specifically with regard to these ships what was the cause of the delay compared with the more rapid completion of ships for foreign Governments in the shipbuilding yards of this country? Mr. Goschen impressed upon the House the necessity for four new armoured cruisers as part of the 1897 programme. When would these cruisers — "Cressy," "Hogue," "Aboukir," "Sutlej"—be ready for service? The delay in the completion
480
of the ships he had spoken of had been greater than was anticipated.
*SIR JOHN COLOMBassociated himself entirely with what had been said by the hon. Member for Devonport and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, He trusted that the Admiralty would realise that there was a strong feeling throughout the country that we could not complete ships within the time specified for their completion or a reasonable time at all. The Admiralty should be able to fulfil its requirements with regard to certain ships within the necessary time in relation to the production of foreign nations. Unless the Government were prepared, when the Navy Estimates were introduced, to take the House and the country into their confidence, explain the causes of delays in the completion of ships, and satisfy the House that they had taken measures to remove those causes, they would fail in their duty. No party ties would induce any supporter of the Government to vote for them if the Admiralty showed they were not alive to the consequences of delays, and took no steps to remedy them. His hon. friend the Member for the Shipley Division had stated that the British Navy should be equal to any three others that might be brought against it. He had always protested against these rule of thumb standards. The real test of naval strength was not a matter merely of counting ships. It was necessary to take many other things into consideration.
*MR. PRETYMAN: I am conscious that the short time I have served the country at the Admiralty does not enable me to deal as the House would wish with the grave questions that have been raised. Although it is only right and proper that the questions which have been raised should be discussed, I think hon. Members will realise that within a very few days a statement will be made on the main Estimates by the Financial Secretary. I think the Committee will share the view that it would be more fitting for me to answer briefly, as far as I can, the questions which have been put to me, and to leave the general question of the efficiency of the Navy to

481
be dealt with, as it will be more properly, on the main Naval Estimates. Let me say a word or two with regard to the delay in construction. I think I may claim that the fact of there being a supplementary estimate for about £300,000 for money spent more than was anticipated a year ago is a proof that we have made some advance. It should never be lost sight of that in regard to this question of construction our main difficulties began with the great engineering strike, and we have never really reached the point of rapidity at which we then stood. Another point is that in regard to the time in which a ship can be constructed the governing factor is the machinery. The time of launching is, after all, only an incident, and it is not a fair statement to say that because one ship is launched in eight months, another in seven, and another in seventeen months, and yet are all commissioned about the same time, it shows a varying practice and a varying amount of supervision on the part of the Admiralty. The time of launching is not an indication of the state of progress in the construction of a ship. When a ship is launched largely depends upon whether the slip is immediately required for laying down another ship. The Admiralty fully recognise the justice of the criticisms which have been delivered with regard to the delays in shipbuilding, and there is as keen a desire and as firm an intention on their part as have been expressed by hon. Members here to do everything in their power to accelerate the progress of construction and to turn out the ships within the least possible time. The measures which will be taken to that end will more properly be put before the Committee by the Financial Secretary, and unless any further specific questions are put to me I would leave the general question there.
MR. BARTLEY: You have not explained why Japanese boats can be built so much more rapidly than our own.
*MR. PRETYMAN: Well, I think it is perhaps hardly fair to take one or two particular ships. The Japanese have not ordered so many ships in England as we have. We have a very large
482
number under construction, and perhaps it is not difficult to take out our slowest and show that the Japanese have been turned out more rapidly. We have many contractors at work, and it is impossible that all the contracts can be executed within the time. We have no doubt been unfortunate in the delay of some of our contracts. I do not wish to be taken as complaining of the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean. The Japanese ships were turned out quickly, but we have had ships turned out quickly also. The particular ships mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman certainly were rather backward. With regard to the question of repairs, I was asked whether I could name the actual ships on which the extra expenditure had been incurred and the amounts. I can do so. It is a long list, but the ships mentioned by the hon. Member for Gateshead, namely, the "Burmese," the "Europa," and the "Powerful," are not in it. The total extra amount incurred was £34,000, in amounts varying from £1,000 to £3,000 per ship. In regard to the individual ships upon which the extra contract sum was spent, I regret I can make no further statement at present other than that it was almost all for armour, which was delivered for various contract ships under construction in different parts. The Admiralty officials are at the present moment unable to specify upon which particular ships the amounts were incurred, but it is sufficient, I think, that the general programme of shipbuilding has been advanced. The point second in importance raised to-night has been, I think, the question of coal contracts and the increase in price. The hon. Member for Gateshead has vigorously attacked the Admiralty on that matter, and he told us that commercial firms were in the habit of making the contracts beforehand.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: In October.
*MR. PRETYMAN: But we have heard complaints from all the great railway companies, and engineering and ironwork firms, that the high price of coal has reduced their dividends and made it almost impossible for them to carry on

483
their businesses. I have not heard of a single great firm throughout the country whose business involves any large expenditure on coal which has not had to incur increased expenditure and pay reduced dividends in consequence of the increased price of coal. The Admiralty wish to be placed on the same footing as a business firm. As business firms have had to go to their shareholders and complain that their expenses have increased and their dividends diminished, so the Admiralty have to come to the Committee and say they have spent more money than they expected to do. The only difference between the Admiralty and a business firm is that the latter is at liberty to make contracts when it likes. If a director of a company, from information received, was able to inform his colleagues that coal would shortly go up in price and remain at that increased price for fifteen months, that company would be able to make contracts, if anybody would enter into them, to cover those fifteen months. But the Admiralty have to come to Parliament for a vote, and a great deal would be said by hon. Members if the Admiralty were to enter into huge contracts for coal three months before the money was voted by Parliament. Then we are told that instead of buying coal at 13s., when we might have done, we preferred to buy at 29s. In that matter we are in exactly the same position as a business firm. We provide for our foreseen requirements at what appears to us to be the best price. But when unforeseen demands arise we have to make the best arrangements we can. I must apologise for not having stated this in my original statement. The whole of this increase in regard to coal is not on account of the rise in price. Practically one half is due to that factor, but the other half is due to the increased quantity that had to be bought in consequence of the trouble in China. That is the point upon which I am at issue with the hon. Member for Gateshead. He says we might have bought last October twelvemonth all the coal we required to see us through the China trouble, which did not break out until eleven months later.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: You could have covered yourself for twelve months, the same as any business firm does.
*MR. PRETYMAN: I do not know of any firm which does so cover itself.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Every ship-owning firm does.
*MR. PRETYMAN: It covers its ordinary foreseen requirements.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: No.
*MR. PRETYMAN: A firm that is carried on on business lines has ordinary annual requirements, and it makes its contracts on the lines of the quantities required in the ordinary way of business for the year. But if an entirely unforeseen occurrence takes place halfway through the year, and there is a large demand for coal, that firm, will have to buy at the then price. That is exactly the position in which the Admiralty found themselves when the China trouble broke out. They were brought face to face with the question, Are we to buy coal which is necessary for the service of the country, not only for the supply of the Navy during this crisis, but also, as is essential when such a trouble occurs, to increase the stocks at our foreign stations, which it might be difficult to do after war had broken out? Could we hesitate for one moment in answering such a question, even if the price of coal was as high as 29a a ton? In regard to the victualling, a question was asked incidentally as to when the Report of the Committee might be expected. In answer to that I would say that the Committee are now considering their Report, but as it has not yet been presented it is impossible for me to say when it will be laid before the House. The hon. Member for Wokingham asked a question as to piloting. There is no question whatever of there being any less efficiency on the part of naval officers so far as their qualifications for piloting are concerned. This sum is almost entirely due to extra canal dues on vessels going through the Suez Canal on their way to China. The hon. Member for Gateshead asked what was the sum per month we are paying for the ss. "Ophir," and great fault was found because the word "hire" instead of "charter" was used. It is a charter, of course. The "Ophir" is a vessel of 6,910 tons. She is perhaps one of the most suitable vessels existing at present

485
for the services for which she has been chartered. The sum we are paying is £1 per ton per month.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Then you are paying £6,910 per month?
*MR. PRETYMAN: We are paying £1 per ton per month, and the tonnage is 6,910. She will be manned with a crew from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, with the exception of the engine-room staff, stewards, and cooks, who are being provided by the owners. The fitting of the ship has been carried out by the owners. I think I have now answered all questions of general importance which have been put to mo, and I must ask the indulgence of the Committee for any deficiences on my part. Nothing will more encourage the Admiralty in their endeavour to carry on this work to the satisfaction of the House and the country than to see that the House takes a real interest in the matter. I do not think the benches have always been very well filled during the discussions on the Navy Estimates, but the Admiralty certainly have no wish to slur the matters through without discussion, It is through what transpires here that we shall feel we have the support of the House, and through the House the support of the country, in using every endeavour to accelerate the progress of construction and to make the Navy, not on paper, but in actual fact, one of which the country may be proud, and which will be able to discharge its duties in the manner in which they have always been discharged up to the present.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: I congratulate the lion. Gentleman the Civil Lord on his appearance in this debate, and I am sure the great ability he has exhibited augurs well for the successful management of Admiralty affairs in this House. But I confess I am not quite satisfied with one or two of his replies. With regard to the delay in building our battleships. I was much surprised when he said that it was quite a usual thing, after a ship was launched, for her to have to wait at least six months for her machinery.
*MR. PRETYMAN: I did not state that.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain, but that was my impression.
*MR. PRETYMAN: I think the hon. Member for Devonport said that.
Sir JAMES JOICEY: If that be the case I am at a loss to understand why Japanese vessels—some of which were built on the Tyne—have been delivered so much more quickly than those intended for His Majesty's Government. When a vessel is arranged to be built it is provided that the machinery has to be put on board as soon as she is ready for it after launching, and I do not understand why there should be this delay in connection with His Majesty's ships. I believe that contracts could easily be made with any of the largest shipbuilding firms to deliver any class of vessel the Government might require within two years. These delays are a great disappointment, but I have been told by contractors that the great difficulty they have to contend with is, that the Admiralty inspectors go down to the yards, presumably to inspect the building— which is a very proper thing to do—but the contractors say that after they have received the designs and plans little or big alterations are continually being made, and these alterations are the means of seriously delaying the work and considerably adding to the cost. The result is, that many of the best shipbuilding firms refuse to contract with the Admiralty, because, as they say, they do not know what the contract means. When they take a contract from a private firm they know exactly what they have to do, but in dealing with His Majesty's Government they never know what the inspectors will expect them to do, and often after the work has been done in a manner satisfactory to any reasonable person, they have to pull it to pieces and do it over again. I hope His Majesty's Government will take more care in making their contracts and fixing their data, because, as a practical man who has had some experience of these matters, I feel that these delays are unnecessary and could be avoided. The hon. Member said that the fact that they were spending more money proved that they were pressing things forward more rapidly,

487
and almost in the same breath he stated that the reason of the delay in delivering the vessels was the engineering strike. Everybody who has had anything to do with shipbuilding during the engineering strike knows that instead of increasing the cost it considerably decreased the expenditure in a particular year, because if the ships were not delivered a very much smaller sum had to be paid, so that the one argument is practically destructive of the other. Another question with which the hon. Gentleman did not deal satisfactorily was with regard to the "Ophir." I understand that something like £400,000 was fixed as the expenditure upon the Royal yacht in the last Estimates. There must have been at least £100,000 or £150,000 expended in connection with that vessel, and why does it not appear in this Estimate? I presume we shall see it when the general Estimates are presented; therefore I shall not press that question now. I was glad to hear the reply to the hon. Member for Wokingham. I was not startled that there should be a considerable sum for pilotage. There are cases when it is better to have a skilled pilot, one who knows the particular port or the coast-line of the particular district to which a large battleship has to go, rather than take the risk of running such a vessel, costing £1,000,000 or £1,500,000, ashore. It is a, common practice with ordinary shipowners, when a ship goes to a port with which the captain is not very familiar, to employ skilled pilots, and I think the Government should do the same. When the sea is so rough that the skilled pilot is unable to get out to the ship, the owner, of course, has to rely upon the captain's own guidance in the matter. The Government would be well advised to give expert assistance to some commanders of our naval vessels if they thought it advisable to have it, but, naturally, in time of war they would have to rely upon themselves.
*SIR JOHN COLOMBasked, in reference to his hon. friend's statement that all the ship's complement for the "Ophir," with the exception of the engineering staff, was to be furnished by the Royal Navy, and that the engineers would be furnished by the owners,
488
whether the charge for the engineers was included in the Vote.
*MR. PRETYMAN: No, Sir.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that then there would have to be another Vote. He also wished to know whether all the men would be Navy Reserve men, and also how discipline was to be maintained, as part of the crew would belong to the Royal Navy and part be under the Merchant Shipping Act.
MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid he recognised that there was not now time to deal with several questions relating to the men in the naval dockyards, in which he was interested, and therefore he would postpone them until another occasion. After the courteous and able way in which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had treated the Vote he did not wish to add to his difficulties. There was one question, however, which he should like to put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. As late as last August Mr. Goschen appointed a Committee to inquire into the question of water-tube boilers. That was an extremely intricate question from the point of view of persons who were not experts. A rumour had found its way into the press that the Committee was about to make an interim Report shortly. Ho wished to know whether that was a fact, and also whether the Report would deal with the question as to the distinction between the Belleville boilers and other forms of water-tube boilers They all understood the difference between water-tube and fire-tube boilers, both as regarded advantages and disadvantages, but he for one did not understand the difference between one form of water-tube boiler and another.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member can connect a Report of a Committee on the Belleville boiler with the Vote now before the Committee.
MR. E. J. C. MORTON: Would it not conic under the Contracts Vote?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be entitled to object to certain

489
boilers in ships, but cannot see how he can connect an interim Report of a Committee now sitting with the present Vote.
MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I suppose I am entitled to ask whether there is to be an interim Report, as the answer would affect the way in which I should vote?
*CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: If the question does not arise on this Vote it would be more convenient to put down a question.
MR. DILLONsaid he had listened to the debate for a long time, and every hon. Member who had spoken had spoken in encouragement of the Admiralty in their wild career of extravagance. That was a most lamentable condition of things, and it appeared to him that it was time that the voice of economy should be heard, and that, after the eloquence to which the Committee bad been treated by experts anxious to see more millions expended, someone should speak on behalf of the taxpayer, who would have to find the money. He proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.000. They were now called upon to give a supplementary sum of £1.250.000 towards the Naval Estimates for the current year. That was not only a Supplementary Estimate, but it was a Supplementary Estimate in addition to what had been described as an additional Estimate. Of course they knew to their cost that during a time of war they were called upon to vote Supplementary Estimates for the Army or the Navy, as the case might be, but the war in South Africa had no effect on the Navy, and the Navy had not been called upon for any unusual exertions. Therefore they might treat the Navy as being on a peace footing. But, besides the sum now ask d for, they were called upon in Lily last to vote what was described as an additional Estimate of £1,269,000. Therefore the whole additional Supplementary Estimate asked for the Navy dining the current year was over £2,500,000. If hon. Members would look at the history of the British Navy they would find nothing to equal such a condition of things as that. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in making his Naval statement for 1900–1, announced that the total Estimate for that
490
year was £27,522,600, an increase of £928,100 over the Estimate for 1899–1900. They were now called upon to make a further increase of over two and a half millions, or, in other words, the cost of the Navy for the present year, without any additional expense attributable to the war or to warlike preparations, was three and a half millions over the cost of the previous year.
That was only the beginning of the story. The Committee had listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who gave expression to the sentiments held by the patriotic gentlemen who constituted the Navy League, and who were continually clamouring for increased armaments. He declared that what was wanted was a large and continuous increase in the cost of the Navy, and therefore the Committee bad the pleasant prospect of having to consider a still further increase next year. He asked himself where that policy was going to stop. Some years ago an hon. Member announced the proposition that the British Navy should he kept always equal to the navies of the next two greatest Powers in the world. The effect of that was, as he and other hon. Members ventured to prophesy at the time, that the navies of the two great Powers specified were enormously increased, and the argument used in Russia and France in support of the increases was the very statement made in the House of Commons that the British intended to be masters of the sea. Tonight an hon. Gentlemen announced that the standard, as he called it, for the future should be that the British Navy should be kept up to a point of equality with the navies of any three other Powers. He ventured to describe that as a career of madness. When Mr. Gladstone retired from public life they were led to believe, and he for his part did believe it, that one of the motives which induced him to retire at that particular moment was that his own friends insisted upon a substantial increase of the Navy, and Mr. Gladstone, with his immense experience, dating from the early years of the century and from the days of Sir Robert Peel, was convinced that if he consented to that increase, it would be impossible to tell where such a, policy would end. What had happened? When the Naval Estimates were introduced in 1895 the

491
then Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that ten years previously the total Naval Estimates were just over twelve millions, and that they were then asking for eighteen millions for that year, it was that increase which contributed to the retirement of Mr. Gladstone from public life. They had now reached a figure of over thirty millions, or an increase of twelve millions within the last five years. Those were figures which ought to make the Committee pause and reflect on the course they were asked to pursue. As Mr. Gladstone prophesied in 1895 would be the case, the increase then voted was a geometrical increase, and increased more rapidly in every succeeding year. During the debates on the Navy Estimates in the last few years there had never been a hint or a sign that they were reaching the limit.
Some hon. Members appeared to be under the delusion that England had such boundless resources that she could arrogantly take up the position of standing against the world in arms, and that she could hold the seas against the world. Such language was the language of madness, and would inevitably lead to the national ruin. If hon. Members continued to talk such preposterous language, and if they could get their views carried into effect, it could lead to nothing but national ruin. They could not bold the seas against the world in arms, and what had happened during the last few years had shown that such boasts were weak and foolish. They had encouraged the United States in a mad career of building a- fleet and engaging in what was called an Imperial policy. He believed that the people and the statesmen of England would bitterly rue the day in which they excited and encouraged the United States. If the United States were to take up that wild idea of naval armament it would put England to the pin of her collar to hold her own. Then there were the Japanese fleet and the German fleet, which formerly amounted to almost nothing, but which, largely owing to the boasts and insults of England, had been doubled and quadrupled during the last few years. It was absurd for England to attempt to maintain that world-wide supremacy of the seas which she maintained for many years. If England sought to be mistress of the seas, then he
492
prophesied that the day was not far distant when the British taxpayer would be crushed under a burden which he was no longer able to bear. He and other hon. Members had in recent years fought doggedly against increases in the Navy and in the Army, though he confessed he never thought expenditure would increase at such a rate as would satisfy hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who were continually clamouring for money, and whose appetite grew on what it led on. The more money that was voted the more they wanted. A gentleman, describing himself as Chairman of the Navy League, made a prophecy in The Times newspaper in December last which had been borne out in a most remarkable manner. He denounced Mr. Goschen, and stated he had been for a long time incapable of mastering the difficulties which confronted him at the Admiralty. He pointed out how the universal antipathy of the German people had found expression in the doubling of their fleet, and he said that the conclusion was irresistible that the management of marine affairs during the five years of the late Government had been incompetent, with the result that England had lost command of the seas. It was the opinion of the Chairman of the Navy League that, after twelve millions had been added to the expense of the British Navy, the result was that England had lost command of the seas. That was nice encouragement for the taxpayer. The Times newspaper, commenting on that conclusion, spoke of the Navy League as possessing an energetic policy, but it seemed to him as if it were suffering from the malady known as "political hysterics." Unless the Admiralty took the man who shouted the loudest, and made him their head, they would not satisfy the Navy League. Instead of applying themselves to remedy the evils and defects which experts were continually pointing out, the Admiralty seemed to have set themselves the impossible task of satisfying the cry of the Navy League for more money without any regard as to how it should be spent. They could not satisfy the Navy League, and they were now pursuing a, career which, if continued much further, must end in absolute bankruptcy or a revolt on the part of the taxpayers. There was

493
no assurance that the money was to be spent in such a way as that value would be had for it. No hon. Gentleman had spoken in stronger terms on the subject than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He delivered a speech about a year ago in Bristol, in which he defended the Government from the attacks of the Navy League. He said that the year before his Government came into office the expenditure of the Navy was fifteen millions, and that they had raised that expenditure in five years to twenty-five millions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded twenty-five millions as a great achievement, but now they were asked to vote thirty millions, and with every prospect of a still higher figure being demanded. He therefore, would take, that opportunity of protesting against the increased expenditure now proposed.
There was one item in the Supplementary Estimate—namely. £30,000, for the seizure and detention of vessels on the South African coast—to which he wished to refer. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty did not give an explanation of that, and he thought it very hard that the taxpayers should be called upon to pay £30,000 for proceedings which were a flagrant breach of the usages of war. He should like to know what reprimand had been addressed to the officers for the seizure of vessels engaged iii carrying food to Lorenzo Marques. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by one million.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an additional sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted for the said Services."— (Mr. Dillon.)
MR CREANsaid he desired to support the reduction. It was not necessary for him to add anything to what had been stated by his hon. friend, but he wished particularly to bring before the Committee the treatment meted out to Ireland in connection with naval expenditure, He had the honour of representing a Division in which a shipbuilding yard was located, which, however, for many years had been boycotted. The men had either to walk the streets idle, or cross over to England to seek employment. The Civil Lord of
494
the Admiralty stated that the cause of the delay in executing shipbuilding work was that the shipyards were not able to cope with it. There were many shipyards which had not had a pound's worth of work from the Admiralty, and they would get it were it not that the Admiralty had pet yards. Why should the work be confined to the pet yards of the Admiralty? Even if other yards got work, the inspectors were on the pounce, and watched carefully every man working on a boiler or fitting a plate on the vessel, He would not complain if that course were also carried out in other dockyards, but it was not. In the yards to which he was referring the work contracted for had not only to be completed, but every whim of every official had also to be carried out. That was the reason why some of the best yards in Ireland— which were some of the best in the world — would not take Navy contracts. Why were not Navy contracts taken, in Belfast? He objected on that ground to the Supplementary Estimates. He believed that 50 per cent, of the Estimate was dishonest, though, of course, he did not accuse the lion. Gentleman opposite of doing anything dishonest or dishonourable. What he intended to convey was that proper supervision was not exercised over the work executed in the pet yards of the Admiralty. In, his own constituency they dreaded to take a contract from the Navy, not that they could not turn out the work well, because they had been already complimented by the Admiralty. He asked for no favours, but that his constituents should get the common right of taxpayers who were contributing to the present extraordinary expense. They at least might be allowed to compete with English firms on equal terms.
The action of the Admiralty in asking for such a large Estimate was not surprising, because hon. Members connected with the Navy League were prepared to encourage them in their extravagance. The Admiralty were encouraged not to economise, and they were given to understand that they would get what they wished to ask for. The Irish Members protested against such conduct, He was very glad that the reduction had been moved, and he would vote for it. He pitied England if her boast that she

495
would meet the world in arms was as poor as her boast about her Army. If England could do with her Navy only what she had been able to do with her Army, it would not be much. The other day he read of ships in the Navy, supposed to be fitted to undertake any emergency, which had to be docked for repairs, He believed that nine-tenths of the ships in the British Navy were in the same condition, and were not in any sense as well equipped as the ships of the mercantile marine. The British mercantile marine was the best in the world, but he doubted very much if the British Navy would be capable of meeting the navies of any two other Powers.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is open to discuss the general condition of the Navy on this Vote.
MR. GREANsaid it was the efficiency of the Navy they were discussing, and his point was that the money was wasted because it was not efficiently expended. If they were to judge the efficiency of the Navy by the efficiency of the Army they would have to remodel their naval system completely, not only with regard to supervision of extravagant expenditure, but also as regards construction. At present vessels were not built in accordance with the original design, and no actual Estimate could therefore be framed for them. When a contractor got it into his head that the work was not to be completed according to specification, and that the design might be changed a hundred times over, he did not mind, because it put extra money into his pocket. The hon. Baronet who spoke recently stated that a commercial firm wishing to build a steamship entered into a contract which was carried out to the letter, and in accordance with the designs, and the result was that the ship was built for the price originally fixed. Ships for the Navy were never contracted for on proper lines, and were never built within 25 per cent, of the original estimate. The result was that extravagant expenditure was called for every year, and that extravagant Supplementary Estimates were brought, forward without any details being given. Even the present Estimates were not final, because the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that there would have to
496
be another Estimate for the engineering staff of the "Ophir." He had great pleasure in supporting the reduction moved by his hon. friend.
MR. JOYCEsaid he desired to make a few remarks on some of the sub-heads of the Supplementary Estimates. He entirely agreed with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said with regard to the sub-heads dealing with the wages, provisions and clothing of seamen. He would not object to any money spent in making the seamen more comfortable, but those sub-heads were very small indeed, whereas the amounts under other sub-heads had been enormously increased. After the very able and lucid speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, he would merely content himself with recording his protest against the enormously increased expenditure of £700,000 for coal. He thought the hon. Member had proved his case with regard to that, and although the Civil Lord of the Admiralty made a very nice and a very pretty speech he did not answer it. Then there was a sub-head for piloting His Majesty's ships. The hon. Gentleman said that, as a matter of fact, the large amount of money mentioned in the sub-head was not all for piloting. If it were paid for canal dues or otherwise, it should be placed in its proper position. He ventured to submit that piloting did not cost a fifth of the money.
*MR. PRETYMAN:£11,000.
MR. JOYCEsaid there was only one other matter he desired to deal with, and that was a supplementary sum of £8,000 for telegraphic communications. Many Parliaments had been known by peculiar names. He had read of the Long Parliament, and the Short Parliament, and the Rump Parliament. Now they had the Parliament of Telegraphic Communications. In every Estimate that was brought before the Committee the amount of money that was expended on telegraphic communications was simply enormous. He thought his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo was acting in the interests of the taxpayers when he moved to reduce the Vote, and he would support him.
MR. FLAVINsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman oppo-

497
site, in his friendly criticism of the proposals of the Government, stated that in connection with the Navy, England was not exceeding the expenditure of other European countries, and was simply following their lead. From a recent Parliamentary Return, it would, however, appear that His Majesty s Navy had been increasing, was and would continue to increase, and that England was leading other countries in naval expenditure. Was the Committee justified in voting the huge amount of money spent on the Navy? Were the condition of the Navy bad, were its ships in such a rotten condition that they would not he seaworthy, then they might be justified in incurring I reasonable expenditure, but the question they had to consider was whether the present expenditure was reasonable or just, and whether it was in proportion to revenue, and in proportion to the naval expenditure of other countries. He would quote for the information of the Committee a few figures from the Parliamentary Return to which he had referred. It would appear from that Return that the naval expenditure of the United Kingdom in 1897–8 was twenty-two millions out of a total revenue of 108 millions, or twenty percent. He should like to know if I here were any European countries that had such a large naval expenditure as compared with its aggregate revenue. The information he had led him to believe that there was no such country. In Russia the naval expediture was only six millions as compared with an aggregate revenue of 147 millions, or only four per cent. In Germany the naval expenditure was six millions, as compared with seventy millions of revenue. With reference to France, many Englishmen appeared much afraid of that country, and seemed to think that her naval, power was not second to that of England, although that was a question of trial between the two nations. And he believed that the day was not tar off when the issue would be fought out. [An HON. MEMBER laughed.] hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but they knew down in the bottom of their hearts that for the last two years naval experts had been declaring that the British Navy was bad. Two years ago an hon. Member who stated that the British Army could
498
not take away the freedom of a farming community in South Africa would not be listened to, but he would be listened to now. What did he find as regards the naval expenditure of France? It was only nine millions as compared with a revenue of 102 millions. He found that the naval expenditure of Great Britain was in one year equal to that of France. German) and Russia combined.
The question which hon. Members from Ireland had to consider was not whether these sums were necessary for the purpose of protecting the Empire, because they were not there to protect the Empire. They came there with the courage of their convictions, and told lion. Members what they thought about them. They came to demand justice for Ireland, and they knew that ever since the Union the contributions of Ireland had always been excessive. According to a Royal Commission appointed by hon. Members opposite—a jury empannelled by themselves—a verdict of guilty was brought home to them. It was the bounden duty of hon. Members from Ireland to protest against the increased expenditure in connection with the Army and Navy. The present revised Estimate in connection with the Navy was £30.419,000. He had shown, according to the Parliamentary Return for 1897–8. that the naval expenditure was then only twenty-two millions. The Irish Members wanted to know who was getting value for that greatly increased expenditure. Ireland received no benefit from it, directly or indirectly. Their shipbuilding yards were idle, and the British Government would not even give a gunboat to protect Irish fisheries which were at the mercy of the foreigner. Ireland had to pay part of this increased taxation not only in money, hut even in blood shed in South Africa. The Irish Members protested against the war when it began, and told the Government what the consequences would be. Irish Members now told the Government unhesitatingly that if through some foreign complication England came into conflict with her neighbour across the Channel, the British Navy would be as inferior to the French navy as the British Army was to the Boer army. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but the Irish Mem-

499
bers told them the same about the Army. He believed that if the issue had to be fought out in the morning. France would show a superiority over the British Navy. There were very large questions affecting Ireland which arose out of the Vote before the Committee, because Ireland had to contribute a sum of more than £3,000,000 a year beyond her just proportion. What did Ireland get in return? The Irish Members had endeavoured to elicit information in regard to contracts for the Navy and Army. The Government was generous enough
in giving huge coal contracts at the enormous price of twenty-nine shillings per ton. When contracts could have been entered into at thirteen shillings per ton—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The committee divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 35.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Kitson, Sir James

Allen, Charles P(Glouc., Stroud)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Knowles, Lees

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Atkers-

Lawrence, William F.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lawson, John Grant

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber, George Denison

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Leighton, Stanley

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Finch, George H.

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Balcarres, Lord

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Balfour,RtHnGeraldW,(Leeds

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Balfour, Maj K R.(Christchurch)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Banbury, Frederick

Flower, Ernest

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Hartley, George C. T.

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'uth)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fuller, J. M. F.

Macdona, John Gumming

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.)

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn)

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets)

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim,E.)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Majendie, James A. H.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Malcolm, fan

Bignold, Arthur

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bill, Charles

Graham, Henry Robert

Markham, Arthur Basil

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Grant, Corrie

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bond. Edward

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

Melville. Beresford Valentine

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Brassey, Albert

Groves, James Grimble

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredrick G.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Brook field, Colonel Montagu

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bull, William James

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hambro, Charles Erie

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Carlile, William Walter

Hamilton. Rt Hn. Ld. G (Midd'x)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nderry)

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F

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

Hay. Hon. Claude George

Morrison, James Archibald

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Cecil. Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Helder, Augustus

Nicholson, William Graham

Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r)

Henderson, Alexander

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Chapman, Edward

Holland, William Henry

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Charrington, Spencer

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

Partington, Oswald

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hoult, Joseph

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Percy, Earl

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jessse

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pilkington, Richard

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Johnston. William (Belfast)

Platt-Higgins. Frederick

Cook, Frederick Luoas

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Plummer, Walter It.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Joicey, Sir James

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cranborne, Viscount

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Purvis, Robert

Schwann. Charles E.

Webb, Colonel William George

Randles, John S.

Seton-Karr, Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff)

Simeon. Sir Barrington

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Reid, James (Greenock)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Smith, A bel H.(Hertford, East)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rentoul, James Alexander

Smith, HC (North'mb Tyneside)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Ren wick, George

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

Spear, John Ward

Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.)

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Stock, James Henry

"Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stroyan, John

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Sturt. Hon. Humphry Napier

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Round, James

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

Wylie, Alexander

Royds, Clement Molyneun

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Russell, T. W.

Tollemache, Henry James

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Rutherford. John

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Tufnell, Col. Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

Valentia, Viscount

Sir William Walrond and

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Mr. Anstruther.

Sandys, Lt.-Col Thos. Myles

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Ambrose, Robert

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Boland. John

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Boyle, James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Malley, William

Brigg, John

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Mara, James

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Jones, William (Canarvonsh.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jordan. Jeremiah

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caldwell, James

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Russell

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Reckitt, Harold James

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Lambert, George

Reddy, M.

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Cogan, Denis J.

Levy, Maurice

Rickett, J. Compton

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Macdonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Crean, Eugene

M'Dermott, Patrick

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cullinan, J.

M'Govern, T.

Sullivan, Donal

Daly, James

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomson, F. W. (York.W.R.)

Delany, William

Mooney, John J.

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

Dillon, John

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Tally, Jasper

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

Duffy, William J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, P. (Meath, North)

Elibank, Master of

Nolan. Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Field, William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Connor, Jas. Wicklow, W.

Captain Donelan and Mr.

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Patrick O'Brien.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Question put accordingly, "That an additional sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted for the said Services."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes, 248, (Division List No. 36.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Doogan, P. C.

Ambrose, Robert

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Duffy, William J.

Boland, John

Crean, Eugene

Field, William

Boyle, James

Cullinan, J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Burke, E. Haviland

Daly, J.

Flynn, James Christopher

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Delany, William

Gilhooly, James

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Dillon, John

Hammond, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Reddy, M.

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Lundon, W.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Sullivan, Donal

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tully, Jasper

M'Dermott, Patrick

O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

White. Patrick (Meath, North)

M'Govern, T.

O'Donnell. T. (Kerry, W.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Mooney, John J.

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Captain Donelan and Mr.

Murphy, J.

O'Malley, William

Patrick O'Brien.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

O'Mara, James

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex. F.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dewar, T. R.(T'rH'mlets, S. Geo)

Keswick, William

Allen,Chas. P. (Glouc. Stroud)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Dimsdale, Sir JosephCockfield

Kitson, Sir James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Knowles, Lees

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lambert, George

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Elibank, Master of

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Atkinson, lit. Hon. John

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lawrence, William F.

Bailey,James (Walworth)

Faber, George Denison

Lawson, John Grant

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Layland- Barratt, Francis

Balcarres, Lord

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

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Finch, George H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch'ch)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leighton, Stanley

Banbury, Frederick George

Fisher, William Hayes

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Bartley, George C. T.

FitzGerald, SirRobertPenrose-

Levy, Maurice

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Flower, Ernest

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

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

Forster. Henry William

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gibbs,Hn.A.GH(CityofLond

Lucas, Reginald J. (P'rtsmouth)

Bignold, Arthur G.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Rill, Charles

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn)

Macdona, John Cumming

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gordon, MajEvans-(TrH'ml'ts)

Maconochie, A. W.

Bond, Edward

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gorst,Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Brand, Hon. Arthur

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Majendie, James A. H.

Brassey, Albert

Graham, Henry Robert

Malcolm, Ian

Brigg, John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sb'ry

Markham, Arthur Basil

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brown,George M. (Edinburgh)

Groves, James Grimble

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

Bull, William James

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Caldwell, James

Hambro, Charles Erie

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Carlile, William Walter

Hamilton,RtHnLordG.(Mid'x

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hamilton. Marq of(L'nd'nderry)

More, R. Jasper (shropshire)

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

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

Harris, F. Leverton(Tyn'mouth)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Cawley, Frederick

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morrell, George Herbert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Morris, Hon. M. Henry F.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Heath,ArtburHoward(Hanl'y

Morrison, James Archibald

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm)

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r)

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Chapman, Edward

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Charrington, Spencer

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol,E.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Holland, William Henry

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hoult, Joseph

Partington, Oswald

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hutton, Jolin (Yorks. N.R.)

Pembertort, John S. G.

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Percy, Earl

(Corbett,A.Cameron(Glasgow)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pilkington, Richard

Craig, Robert Hunter

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Camborne, Viscount

Joicey, Sir James

Plummer, Walter R.

Cubitt. Hon. Henry

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Warner, Thomas Courteny T.

Purvis, Robert

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Randles, John S.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Webb, Colonel William Geo.

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rea, Russell

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. L'ne)

Reckitt, Harold James

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff)

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Whitmore, Charles Algenon

Reid, James (Greenock)

Smith, H.C (North'mb>.Tynesd.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Remnant, James Farquharson

Smith, James P, (Lanarks.)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Soames, Arthur Wesleyan

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Renwick, George

Spear. John Ward

Willox, Sir John Archibald

RicKett, J. Compton

Stanley. Lord (Lanes.)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Ridley,Hn. M. W. (St'ly bridge)

Stock, James Henry

Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

Ridley, S F. (Bethnal Green)

Stroyan, John

Wilson; John (Falkirk)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Sturt, Hon. Huniphry Napier

Wilson, J W (Worcesterhire,N.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Talbot, Rt Hn J G (Oxford Univ.)

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Ropuer, Colonel Robert

Thomas,F. Freeman-(Hastings)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Rothstchild, Hon. L. Walter

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Wylie, Alexander

Round, James

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tollemache, Henry James

Young,Commanded (Berks, E.)

Russell, T. W.

Tomlinson, W Edward M.

Rutherford, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Sir William Walrond and

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

Valentia, Viscount

Mr. Anstruther.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 37.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Flower, Ernest

Andrew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Forster, Henry William

Allen, Chas. P. (Glone.,Stroud)

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

Fuller, J. M. F.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Cawley, Frederick

Furness, Sir Christopher

Anson. Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r)

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chapman, Edward

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Charrington, Spencer

Gorst, Rt. Hon Sir John Eldon

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Bain, Col. James Robert

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Graham, Henry Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Balfour, Rt, Hn. A.J.(Manch'r)

Colomb.Sir John Charles Ready

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y.)

Balfour, Maj. K R(Christchurch)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Banbury, Frederick George

Craig, Robert Hunter

Groves, James Grimble

Bartley, George C. T.

Cranborne, Viscount

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

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

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Dewar, T. R. (T'rll'mlets, S Geo.)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'd'nderry)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Bignold, Arthur

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Harris, F.Leveiton(Tynem'th.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hn A. Akers-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bond, Edward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Elibank, Master of

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Brassey, Albert

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Helder, Augustus

Brigg, John

Faber, George Denison

Henderson, Alexander

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hobhouse, C. E.H. (Bristol, E.)

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

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

Holland, William Henry

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Bull, William James

Finch, George H.

Hoult, Joseph

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Caldwell, James

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Carlile, William Walter

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Joicey, Sir James

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Nicholson, William Graham

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Keswick, William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Spear, John Ward

Kitson, Sir James

Partington, Oswald

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Knowles, Lees

Pemberton, John S. G.

Stock, James Henry

Lambert, George

Percy, Earl

Stroyan, John

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Pilkington, Richard

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lawrence, William F.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Uni.)

Lawson, John Grant

Plummer, Walter R.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Lecky. Rt. Hn. William Edw. H

Pretyman, Ernest George

Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Thornton, Percy M.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Purvis, Robert

Tollemache, Henry James

Leighton, Stanley

Handles, John S.

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Levy, Maurice

Rea, Russell

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

Reckitt, Harold James

Valentia, Viscount

Long. Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Warner, Thomas C. T.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Webb, Col. William George

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Renwick, George

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Rickett, J. Compton

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)

Maconochie, A. W.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Arthur,Charles(Liverpoool)

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Majendie, James A. H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Williams. Col. R. (Dorset)

Malcolm, Ian

Roe, Sir Thomas

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Manners, Lord Cecil

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Wills, Sir Frederick

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.)

Round, James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Russell, T. W.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Rutherford, John

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wylie, Alexander

More,RobtJasper(Shropshire)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Morrell, George Herbert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Morrison, James Archibald

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Sir William Walrond and

Morton,Edw.J.C.(Devonport)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ambrose, Hubert

Gilhooly, James

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Boland, John

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Boyle, James

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cogan, Denis J.

Lundon, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A.

Reddy, M.

Crean, Eugene

M'Dermott, Patrick

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Cullinan, J.

M'Govern, T.

Sullivan, Donal

Daly, James

Mooney, John J.

Tally, Jasper

Delany, William

Murphy, J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dillon, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Col John P(Galway, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Dully, William J.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Captain Donclan and Mr.

Field, William

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid).

Patrick O'Brien.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

It being after midnight, the Chairman left the chair to make his report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow. Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHFANCELLOR The LORD CHFANCELLOR acquainted 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:—

Omagh Gas [H.L.].

Royal Exchange Assurance [H.L.].

Faversham Water [H.L.].

Sheffield District Railway [H.L].

Cardiff Railway [H.L].

Nitrate Railways Company [H.L].

Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water [H.L.].

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Presented; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners.
WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1ª.
PORTMADOC, BEDDGELERT, AND SOUTH SNOWDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  STRATTON AND BUDE GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2ª.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Fifty-third Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England; with an appendix. Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Abstract of Accounts for the University of Glasgow for the year ended 30th September, 1900, being the Annual Report on the State of the Finances of
  298
  the University under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act.

  INCLOSURE, ETC.,EXPENSES ACT, 1868.
  Fees to be taken in respect of transactions under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

  COMMONS ACT, 1876.
  Reports by the Board of Agriculture upon an application for—

  1. A provisional Order for the inclosure of the open fields and the heath and wastes in the parish of Sutton, in the county of Northampton.

  2. Provisional Orders for the regulation of the common and for the inclosure of the open fields respectively, at Skipwith, in the East Riding of the county of York.

  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS).
  Returns of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy Lieutenants, lodged during 1900, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVAL MANŒUVRES AND MERCHANT SHIPPING.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I wish to ask the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is quite sure as to the correctness of the answer he gave to a question I put to him on Thursday last.
  THE FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (The Earl of Selborne): I stated in answer to the noble Lord on Thursday last that the Admiralty had had no communication of any sort from the Merchant Service Guild before October of last year on the subject which the noble Lord brought before the House. That was a mistake. A communication had been received in April.

LIGHT LOAD-LINE BILL [H.L.]
[Second Reading.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, this is the third time the question of the

299
under-ballasting of ships has been before I your Lordships' House. On the two former occasions, in February, 1898,† I went very fully into the subject, and gave instances of vessels that were nearly lost, and one that was lost, for want of sufficient ballast. I also read to your Lordships a number of letters, or extracts from letters, from captains of ships, all setting forth the great danger of under-ballasting. I have received a great number of letters since from captains on the same subject and to the same effect. They point out the great danger that is run, and how very helpless an unballasted ship is in bad weather. They also give a number of cases where the vessels have been lost or severe damage done, and refer to the very-narrow escapes of others all due to the want of sufficient ballast. In short, the universal opinion amongst ship captains is that they are far safer in an over laden vessel than in one that is under-laden, as in the former ease the ship is at least under command, while in the latter case they are completely helpless and can do nothing.
While the Board of Trade is quite satisfied with the competency of these captains to command their ships and to take charge of lives and of an immense amount of very valuable property, yet they treat their opinions on this subject with contempt, and attach no importance to them. Therefore, my Lords, it would be useless for me to take up your time by reading—with the exception of two—any more extracts from their letters; but I would remind your Lord-ships that an underladen vessel is not only in danger herself, but is a great source of danger to others. Masters of cross-channel steamers, both in the English and Irish Channels, have told me how utterly helpless these under-ballasted vessels are in bad weather and how, when meeting such vessels, they have to take special care to give them a very wide berth. I will give your Lordships some opinions from other sources that may have more weight with the Board of Trade, though I think that the opinions of the captains who have handled these ships and seen their behaviour in all sorts and conditions of
† See The Parliament Debated [Fourth Series], Vol. liii., pages 615 and 1506.
300
weather are most valuable and deserving of the highest consideration.
I will commence by giving the opinion of a shipbuilder. At a meeting of the Institute of Naval Architects, held on 21st duly, 1899, under the presidency of Sir Edward J. Reed, K.C.B. M.P., Mr. G B. Hunter (an eminent shipbuilder), in the course of a paper on "Large Atlantic Cargo Steamers. "stated that—
"It is recorded in Lloyd's list that 173 steamships were disabled in 1898, mostly in the Atlantic, through failure of shafting. It is stated that fifty-three similar accidents occurred in April, May, and June of this year (1899). This can, I think, be regarded as highly unsatisfactory. The cause usually as signed for these accidents is the practice of steaming outwards from European to American ports in ballast, and generally with very insufficient ballast."
In the discussion which followed there was a consensus of opinion in favour of Mr. Hunters remarks, Colonel Swan, another eminent shipbuilder, stating that he was quite in accord with the general conclusions of Mr. Hunter, particularly so in reference to the ballasting of large ships. It had he said, always been a surprise to him that shipowners and underwriters had been content for so long to allow vessels to be sent across the Atlantic so insufficiently ballasted. As a need generally produces a remedy, so in this case Mr. McGlashan's ballast tanks and Captain Chaddock s patent hatch have been brought out to enable vessels to take sufficient ballast at a comparatively small cost. I hear that some modern vessels have been fitted with these tanks, and give great satisfaction. I now come to the underwriters. The following is a letter I have received from the Secretary of Lloyd's—
"The Committee of Lloyd's have heard with pleasure that your Lordship is about to introduce the Light Load-line Bill into the House of Lords, and the Committee request me to assure you of their approval of the principle of the Bill, which is evidently called for by the number of vessels which the Committee have to declare as missing, involving sometimes a heavy loss of life. The Committee trust that the proposed Bill may meet with the support which it undoubtedly deserves."
The Secretary of the Liverpool Underwriters' Association sends the following communication—
"This matter was considered by my committee to-day, and I am instructed to say that

301
they consider that the losses arising from vessels sailing with insufficient and improperly secured ballast are so serious as to warrant legislation on the subject, and they cordially approve the principle embodied in Lord Muskerry's Light Load-line Bill."
I will now quote the opinion given by Sir Edward Reed, who was at one time Constructor to the Royal Navy. He stated that the only vessel he ever owned was lost through the neglect of the managers in sending her round the coast with insufficient ballast. Another naval architect, Mr. H. B. Wortley, in the course of a very interesting paper read before the Shipping Masters' and Officers' Society on the subject of "Ballasting,"said—
"It is quite impossible to dwell too forcibly upon the evils of sending ships to sea insufficiently immersed, and the disasters of the past winter have been quite sufficient alone to emphasise this. The under-load-line record for 1898, as published by the Syren, represents a mass of human life and capital at stake which is appalling in its immensity."
From a captain's letter just recently written, in making a passage across the Atlantic Ocean, I quote the following—
"I trust that the Light Load-line Bill will very shortly be an accomplished fact. Here I am with no ballast, except the ordinary water ballast and just sufficient coal to take me to my destination, rolling rails under, and with a beam wind, just going to leeward like a mere balloon on the water, our draft being lift, 6in. It is enough to give one softening of the brain. Perhaps you think I have it for coming, but the precious dollar has to be earned."
I do not think that any one of your Lordships would like to have been in that vessel; and I may say that all Tinder-ballasted vessels behave in exactly the same way. Here is a letter I have received from another captain—
"When acting as chief officer of the S.S. 'Rutherglen' whilst in ballast, to save her from going on the Lizards we had to keep her going full speed astern for about six hours, the vessel being totally unmanageable. Also, when master of the S.S. 'Drummond' in ballast, bound from the Continent to Barry, the vessel could not be handled, and in endeavouring to round the Land's End we had to put back to Falmouth no less than three times."
The Institute of Marine Engineers has lately devoted two or three meetings to the consideration of this question. It involves no disrespect to the Institute to say that among its members there is a diversity of opinion as to the relative
302
importance of the several causes which tend to produce shaft failure. On one point, however, there appears to be pretty general agreement, and that is that an increase both in the size and durability of the shaft is not necessarily a guarantee of safety when vessels are persistently driven across the Atlantic with insufficient ballast.
Now, my Lords, I will take the opinion of two of His Majesty's judges. Mr. Justice Barnes, dealing with a case that came before him, said—
"Nearly every salvage case which we get now is owing to the breakage of the propeller."
Mr. Justice Phillimore said—
"There is nothing more dangerous to life and property than this practice, of sending vessels on winter voyages in these northern seas without ballast, and if the owners bat to pay he was not at all sorry, and if the underwriters had to pay it was their own fault for incurring such risks."
These are the views of two judges who have had a good deal of opportunity of entering into these matters. My noble friend the Earl of Dudley, when replying to me on a former occasion, stated that the Board of Trade surveyors had full power to detain any ship that was insufficiently ballasted. That may be so but how are they to judge unless they have some guide, such as this Bill proposes? You would surely not expect these surveyors to go on board a ship just before sailing and make an intricate calculation as to the depth the vessel should be immersed to be safe. Do you think they will take that responsibility? I venture to say they will not, and you cannot blame them for refusing. When I spoke on this subject in February, 1898, I asked if the Board of Trade was going to wait till some vessel was lost from want of sufficient ballast before they took action. I will now quote some of the casualties from the official reports of the Board of Trade. In the case of the "Nonpareil" the court of inquiry held at the Town Hall, Westminster, December last, stated that the vessel was not prematurely abandoned, and that the cause of her loss was that she was insufficiently ballasted to withstand the weather she encountered; no lives were lost by this casualty,

303
the crew being picked up by the "Glengoil."
"Report No. 5882.—The ship 'Midas,' lost with all hands, numbering twenty-two, on a voyage from Nagasaki to Portland, Oregon, the Court being of opinion that she was insufficiently and improperly ballasted for the voyage."
"Report No. 104.—The ship 'Celtic Bard,' which disappeared with all hands, numbering twenty-six, on a passage from Hong Kong to Vancouver, British Columbia. Captain A. Cunninghame, the inspector appointed by the Board of Trade, stated that she was not sufficiently and properly ballasted."
"Report No. 5971.—SS. 'Albion,' stranded in Carnarvon Bay, on or about the 11th November, 1899. The Court of Inquiry, held at West Hartlepool, stated that the vessel was not sufficiently and properly ballasted when she left Holyhead on the 9th November last"
"Report No. 106.—The ship 'Laurel Bank, 'disappeared with all hands, numbering 29, on a passage from Shanghai to Portland, Oregon. Captain A. Cunninghame, the inspector appointed by the Board of Trade, stated that he was of opinion that the ship had not sufficient ballast when she left Shanghai."
"Report No. 0007.— SS. 'Ardbanhan, 'stranded and a total loss, on the 7th February, 1900, half a mile south of Souter Point, County Durham. The Court stated that on her leaving Gravesend on the 5th February she was not at that time properly and sufficiently ballasted and in good seaworthy trim for a voyage."
"Report No. 107.—Ship 'Caradoc,' disappeared with all hands, numbering thirty, on a passage from Kobe, Japan, to Port Angeles, U.S.A. The inspector, Captain A. Cunninghame, stated that he was of opinion that there was not a sufficient quantity of ballast on board the vessel."
"Report No. 6023.—SS. 'Ethiopia, 'stranded on the 23rd February, 1900, at Oxwich, in the Bristol Channel, whereby she substained damage. The Court of Inquiry, held on the 22nd March, at Cardiff, states: 'For the weather actually experienced on the voyage, commencing at Hamburg on the 17th February and terminating by the stranding of the vessel on the 23rd February, her ballasting appears to have been sufficient; but if instead of fine weather and smooth sea the vessel had encountered such adverse conditions of weather as might reasonably be expected for such a voyage in February, the ballasting would have probably proved insufficient and a source of danger.'"
"Report No. 112.—'Dominion,' sailed from Honolulu for Royal Roads, Vancouver, British Columbia, on the 19th January, 1899, with a crew of thirty bands and has not since been heard of. The inspector (Captain A. Cunninghame) appointed by the Board of Trade, in his report after the inquiry held by him, stated that: 'I am of opinion that she was not properly and sufficiently ballasted,' and further on states, 'having regard therefore to the quantity of ballast and the trim is which
304
the "Dominion" was when she left Honolulu, as inferred from the evidence placed before me, I am of opinion that she was not in a safe condition for encountering bad weather.'"
"Report No. 111.—'Perseverance, 'left Probolingo, Java, on the 20th February, 1900, for Newcastle, New South Wales, with a crew of twenty-eight hands, all told, and has not since been heard of. The inspector (Captain William Erskine) appointed by the Board of Trade, in his report to them after the inquiry, state that the ballast was not sufficient in quantity to immerse the vessel so as to ensure her safe handling in a seaway in violent squalls, or in heavy weather.'"
There are also at the present moment four ships—the "Andrada, "the "Bertha, "the "Cape Wrath," and the "Ratlidown"—who sailed in ballast, and are long overdue, and still missing. My noble friend will doubtless point out to me that most of these ships sailed from foreign ports. That is quite true, but had they been marked as this Bill proposes, it would have been a guide to the masters in the same way as the present deep-load mark is, and the ships would have gone to sea properly ballasted. One hundred and sixty-five lives have been lost, and how many perhaps in the four ships that are missing now! Who is responsible? I say the Board of Trade. I do not wish to impute any blame to my noble friend. He does not give his own views on these matters, but speaks for the body he so ably represents in your Lordships' House. In all the dealings I have had with him on this and kindred subjects he has always shown the greatest courtesy and kindness, and I am sure that personally he would be only too anxious and willing to do all in his power to further the interests of the mercantile marine. Other officers of the Board of Trade in private life I am sure are very estimable gentlemen, lint taking the Board of Trade as a concrete body. I say it is morally guilty of the manslaughter of these 165 people. Had the, Board of Trade accepted three years ago my proposal to place this light load-line mark on ships, in all human probability these lives would not have been lost. If a fair proportion of these unfortunate people had been passengers, the press of the country would have rung with the disasters, the Government would have been asked why ships were allowed to go to sea in so unseaworthy a condition,

305
and the Board of Trade themselves would have been forced by pressure, of public opinion to introduce a similar measure— perhaps a much stronger one—to the one now before your Lordships. Can I, can anyone, bring forward stronger or more convincing arguments in favour of this Bill than those 165 poor creatures who have gone to what I may call a nameless grave for want of it? They were not passengers whose names would have been published and their loss commented upon; they were only sailors earning their living. Who knows their names? The Register of Shipping should, I think, have a list of the crews, the friends they left behind, the wives and children who were dependent on some of them for their daily bread. Would you, my Lords, or would the general public outside shipping circles, over have heard of these deaths if the matter had not been brought before your Lordships' House? It is terrible to think how much sorrow, how much misery has been brought about for the want of a simple precaution. I am sure the noble Lord who represents the shipowners will not now oppose this Bill. I "Cannot believe that they would ever dream of putting pecuniary interest in the balance against human life. At the best of times a sailor's life is a hard one; the unavoidable risks he has to run are many and great; but when we find a great danger that is avoidable by legislating for it. surely it is our duty to do so. I earnestly hope you will pass the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a much-needed and urgent measure, and by doing so you will earn the gratitude of the whole seafaring community. I beg to move the Second Beading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—(Lord Muskerry.)
*LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to move the motion standing in my name for the rejection of this Bill. The noble Lord has given the House various statistics, but I would warn your Lordships against accepting them without careful examination. I will take one list as an example—the list which is published in the Syren, and a copy of which was, I believe, sent to every one of your Lordships. In that list it is asserted that 185
306
ships were lost principally through want of ballast and injury to shaft; but of those 185 cases, 95 were foreign ships, to which neither the Act of 1894 nor the present Bill could possibly apply, so that they must be deducted. That reduces the number of ships to 90, or one-half per cent, of the 20,209 vessels on the British Register in the Registrar General's return for 1899. But that is not all, because the noble Lord's Bill is directed to casualties to the shaft. Out of the total of 185, 35 of the casualties or damages are described as due to broken propellers and not broken shafts, and I am informed that nearly every steamer afloat carries a spare propeller. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not allow these statistics to weigh with you in considering this Bill. I have thought it right to explain them after the inferences drawn by the noble Lord.
*LORD MUSKERRY: The statistics are from the official reports of the Board of Trade.
*LORD HENEAGE: I submit that, the Bill is unnecessary; that the settlement of the load-line question in 1891, after most careful inquiry by a committee of experts presided over by Sir Edward Reed, is working satisfactorily, and that the proposal in the Bill is utterly impracticable. The noble Lord does not fix the place where the light load-line is to be, except in vague and general terms, but this is the very essence of his proposal. The noble Lord leaves the level to the Board of Trade. I doubt if my noble friend who represents that Department will show due gratitude for his confidence, but I will leave him to deal with that point. The load-line was fixed by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. The sections dealing with this question are from 436 to 445 inclusive, but Sections 437and 438 have alone any connection with this Bill. Section 437 relates to the marking of deck-lines, and enacts that every British merchant ship over eighty tons shall be permanently and conspicuously marked with lines—in this Act called deck-lines—of not less than twelve inches in length and one inch in breadth, painted longitudinally on each side

307
amidships, or as near thereto as is practicable, and indicating the position of each deck which is above water. There are other directions as to colour and position of the deck-lines, which are to be white or yellow on a dark ground and black on a light ground. Section 438 deals with the marking of the load-line under the special direction of the Board of Trade as to the level and position of the disc. The owner of the vessel before proceeding to sea—
"Shall mark upon each of her sides amidships, within the meaning of Section 437, or as near thereto as practicable, in white or yellow on a dark ground, or in black on a light ground, a circular disc 12 inches in diameter, with an horizontal line 18 inches in length down through its centre."
Your Lordships will therefore observe that the load-line is essentially different from the deck-lines in Section 437, which are for an entirely different object and must not be confused with the load-line. But what is the proposal of the Bill? The noble Lord by his Bill proposes to add a second load-line to be called the "light load-line" identical with the present load-line, but marked on every vessel within the meaning of the Act of 1894 below the deck-lines prescribed by the Act. This, we say, is absolutely unnecessary and it is not only an addition to but. a revolution of the law, and would create confusion and hardship to British shipowners without reasonable cause. The present law has worked, we contend, satisfactorily.
If the responsible Department of the Board of Trade consider legislation necessary, let them legislate. I think the noble Lord has failed to show any necessity for the introduction of the Bill, and I deny that vessels are sent to sea so light as to be in a dangerous condition. I am sure we all desire to give the noble Lord every credit for his good intentions, with the object of saving life and property at sea; but we ask your Lordships to pause before you disturb the well-considered settlement of the load-line laws in 1894 without any apparent necessity whatever. Even if the Bill passed it would only apply to British shipowners, and thus handicap them still further in competition with foreign
308
vessels. We urge that it would be most unfair to harass the trade because less than one-half per cent, of the registered British vessels have met with accidents to their shafts, especially when Lloyd's Register in 1900 made amendments in their rules with a view of reducing the number of accidents to shafts in British vessels.
Where does the noble Lord propose to place his minimum or light load-line? According to him it is to be placed at the minimum depth to which a vessel may be navigated under any circumstances. Therefore it must lie placed in a position suitable for vessels being moved in ballast along the coast; the same line has to do for a voyage across the Atlantic and also when vessels are going in ballast round Cape' Horn. It does not require to be a seaman to know that under those varying circumstances the immersion would differ. I will leave the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade to defend that Department from the attack that has been made upon it. That is not part of my duty. But I venture to say, on behalf of shipowners., that they believe the Bill to be absolutely unnecessary and impractical le and that it would prove a delusion and a snare if it became an Act of Parliament. For these reasons I move the rejection of the Bill.
Moved, to leave out "now" and insert at the end of the motion "this day six months."—(The Lord Heneage.)
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords. I beg to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just spoken, and to second the motion for the rejection of the Bill. The Bill was moved in a very able speech by the noble Lord, who spoke in a very sympathetic manner with regard to the difficulties and the dangers which seamen have to encounter. As a sailor myself. I agree with a great deal he said, but I think the noble Lord fell into the not uncommon error of rather overstating his case. When he spoke so forcibly and strongly upon the loss of life which occurs through vessels being under-ballasted, he did not tell you how very small is the number of ships that are lost under those circumstances. I am in formed that of

309
all the vessels that went to sea in the year 1900, only one-half per cent, suffered any casualties through being under-ballasted.
There are other considerations which move me to oppose this Bill. It must be remembered that none of the great shipping companies send their vessels to sea under-ballasted. This condition of things obtains chiefly in connection with ships of the tramp class, that wander round the world trying to get a cargo and have great difficulty in making both ends meet. It is on the owners of these ships that the hardships would fall if this Bill passed. The result would be that the ships would have to be sold, and would probably fall into the hands of foreign nations. Under the new orders of the Board of Trade certificates are not given to vessels that are not equipped with much stronger propellers and shafts than used to be allowed, and, in addition to that regulation, there are new methods of providing water-ballast. This is being-adopted in all new vessels, and will render such accidents as have occurred hitherto less likely in the future. Therefore I think the evils to which the noble Lord has referred will gradually diminish as time goes on. We must remember that to shipowners, perhaps more so than to any other class, time is money, and that the time that would be lost by them in taking in ballast to go from port to port would be precious time. British shipowners would be handicapped in their competition with foreign shipowners if this Bill passed, and I therefore trust that your Lordships will refuse to give it a Second Reading.
*LORD KELVIN: My Lords, unless stronger arguments are put before the House than those we have already heard, it does appear to me that an exceedingly strong case has been made out in favour of the Bill. I cannot see any of the difficulties which have been described nor how the Bill can possibly be injurious to British shipmasters. I know it is urged against it that it will apply only to British-owned ships, and that foreign shipowners will be allowed with impunity to risk the safety of their ships and the lives of those on board by not complying with the conditions which this Bill seeks to impose. That appears to me no argument at all. The Bill gives a simple provision, and
310
one which cannot be inconvenient or expensive, or cause the detention of any ship which ought not to be detained, but which will make British ships and the lives of those on board safer than they would be without such legislation. That is in my opinion, a very strong reason for passing it; unless we hear something satisfactory from the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade in this House, in respect to official action, to secure the objects for which the Bill is intended.
We are told that there is a very strong wish that there should be no alteration in the present load-line law. It docs not seem to me that any good reason for wishing no change in the present law has been submitted to your Lordships' House. The deep load-line mark was carried after much opposition. We all remember how the Plimsoll load-line was opposed, but we are now assured that it has proved most beneficial. In my opinion, if this Bill is carried it also will prove beneficial. What possible confusion can there be between two marks, oven if they are of the same shape and colour—one for the deep load-line and the other for the light load-line? I intend to support the Bill unless I hear arguments which convince me that it ought not to be supported.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I came down to the House with a perfectly unprejudiced mind on this question, but it occurs to me that the opposition to this Bill is illogical. In my opinion, the arguments which were adduced by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading have not been at all answered by my noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill. I can quite understand the arguments which were used against the Plimsoll line and which were directed against any interference with the liberty of shipmasters to do what they liked with their ships, or the arguments which were adduced against the danger of interfering with and adding difficulties to the competition of British shipowners with the owners of foreign vessels. But as the Legislature have thought it wise to protect seamen against the dangers of overloading, it seems perfectly logical and equally necessary to protect them against the dangers they incur by the ship being insufficiently ballasted. I do not pretend to say whether the Bill in

311
its details is workable or not. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Heneage) said that confusion would arise on account of the two discs. That is a matter of detail; but I think it would be perfectly easy to place the marks in such a way as not to cause inconvenience. Unless I hear stronger arguments against it, I shall certainly support the Bill.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, I do not suppose that the House is desirous that this debate should be prolonged very much longer, as I know that some anxiety may be evinced to get on to the next item upon the Paper. But as this is a matter which comes under the purview of the Board of Trade, and as considerable reference has been made by noble Lords who have already spoken to the attitude previously adopted by the Board of Trade. I hope that I. may be excused if I take up the attention of the House for a few minutes in this connection.
I may say at once that those who have looked into this matter at the Board of Trade are of opinion that at the present time there is no necessity for legislation upon the lines of this Bill. I venture to say, as a general principle, that legislation of this kind, which seeks to impose an arbitrary restriction upon a great industry like the shipping industry, and which is at any rate opposed by a huge proportion of those who carry on that industry and who own ships, can only be justified if a very strong case is made out in its favour and if it is shown that considerable loss of life has occurred from the present state of things. My noble friend who introduced this Bill told the House that at the present time a great number of accidents occur to the machinery of vessels owing to those vessels being insufficiently immersed in the water. He quoted a few cases of accidents, which I shall refer to presently. I wish that he had told us how many vessels, in his opinion, suffer accident in the course of the year from reasons of this kind. I believe that the number, if you compare it with the total accidents to our shipping, is not large. A list has been circulated, to which reference has already been made, giving the number of accidents to the machinery of steam
312
vessels during 1900 as 185. I am quite prepared, as a basis of argument, to take that figure as correct; but I would, in the first place, point out that, even if 185 vessels did suffer accident to their machinery last year through this cause—which I do not admit—it only constitutes about a half per cent, of the total of the world's shipping. Therefore the evil, looked at from the worst point of view, is not a great one, and it cannot be said that it is at any rate up to now of great pressing importance.
I would go further. I would say that, even if these accidents to machinery take place, what my noble friend has to prove is that considerable risk or even loss of life occurs from the present state of things. I would submit to the House that accidents to machinery do not in themselves constitute a ground for legislation. Of course, if it can be shown that those accidents result in loss of life, or even considerable risk to life, then no doubt Parliament would only be following many precedents in dealing with the matter, but until this can be shown the question is one which concerns owners underwriters, and engineers much more than your Lordships' House.
I would call attention for a moment to the list to which reference has been made. We hear that 185 steamers suffered accident last year through the failure of their propelling machinery but of those 185 cases thirty seven are recorded as having lost their propellers. I am informed that if a vessel loses its propeller it does not at all follow that it is due to any excessive strain upon the machinery. A vessel may lose her propeller from many causes, even a fully laden vessel. So common a type of accident is it that nearly all vessels now many an extra propeller in order to guard against that contingency. Therefore I do not think those who support this Bill can say that accidents of this character are due to the absence of legislation of this kind. If we eliminate these thirty-seven cases, there remain 148 steamers which suffered accident last year principally of the kind known as tail-shaft breakages. A large proportion, however, of these ships were foreigners, and as has already been pointed out. We cannot, of course, touch 'foreign vessels. Deducting the foreigners,

313
we have only to consider the ease of seventy-six British vessels which suffered accident to their machinery last year from this cause.
Two questions, therefore, arise in connection with these seventy-six vessels— firstly, were the accidents due to under-ballasting; and, secondly, did those accidents involve risk to life? With regard; to the first point, what we are told is that at the present time ships in ballast, go to sea so light that when they encounter heavy weather the propeller comes out of the water, the engines race, and the consequent strain upon the machinery is so great that in many cases the tail-shaft breaks. My noble friend who introduced this Bill seems to think that the Board of Trade takes up a contemptuous attitude with regard to opinion upon this subject. I can assure him that since this subject was brought forward two or three years ago I have taken all the advice I could get about it. I have consulted not only the professional member of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, who is himself a seaman of considerable experience, but also the surveying officers around the coast, and although it cannot be said that in no case is under-ballasting a contributing cause of tail-shaft breakage, yet it is quite inaccurate to say that it is a sole or even a principal cause of accidents. I am informed that there must always be some danger of excessive strain on the propelling machinery, especially in these days of large steamers, and a certain number of accidents from this cause must always be expected. It is worth noticing that only twenty vessels were recorded as having suffered accident from this cause last year, and those accidents arose in many cases from causes that the ballasting and immersion in the water had nothing to do with—causes, for instance, such as the faulty materials of which the shafts themselves were made. In this connection I should like, with the permission of the House, to read an extract from a letter which we received only a day or two ago from one of the most trusted surveyors of the Board of Trade, lie says—
"I am not at all satisfied that these break-ages and losses are the result of under-ballasting. Take last year's list of such casualties. A considerable number of them occurred to laden vessels—large liners and others. I think
314
the material from which a number of tail-shafts are made has a lot to do with these breakages, and shipowners and others are becoming alive to the fact, and are insisting on nothing but the best iron being used in their construction."
Your Lordships will see from this letter that the, question of shaft breakages is largely an engineering one, and that they arise from causes which may be uncertain, but which are undoubtedly manifold. I do not think, therefore, that the fact that a certain number of vessels have come to grief in this way during last year, or any year, is in itself an argument in favour of legislation which only aims at one particular aspect of the problem. As my noble friend Lord Heneage has already pointed out, there is no need to fear that this question will be overlooked, as the attention of shipowners and underwriters has been directed to it for some time; and Lloyd s Register have introduced rules which there is every reason to hope will be speedily effective.
So much for the question of tail-shaft breakages. I hope that I have said enough to show that at any rate it cannot be said that under-ballasting leads to more than a few cases of accident of that kind. But the question still remains whether in those few cases loss of life occurs. My noble friend who introduced this Bill told the House that 165 deaths had ensued from this cause. I do not know where the noble Lord gets his figures from.
LORD MUSKERRY: From the official reports of the Board of Trade.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: So far as I am aware, there is no Report of the Board of Trade which attributes a single death directly to this cause. The only way in which we can get a satisfactory answer to this question is by an examination of the casualty inquiries during a period of years. For this purpose a summary of the casualty inquiries for the last nine years—from 1892 to 1900—has been made out for me at the Board of Trade. I find that out of a total of 895 inquiries held, in only twenty cases has there been any question of under-ballasting raised. In ten of these cases, however, the Court was of opinion that the vessels were

315
sufficiently ballasted. Of the other ton oases four were steamers and six were sailing vessels; and even in four of these cases, though it is true that the inspector was of opinion that when the vessel started on its voyage it was insufficiently ballasted, yet it is, of course, quite problematic whether or not the vessel was lost from that cause. I do not say that these four vessels were not lost through insufficient ballast, but I do say that to assume they were is assuming a great deal.
Therefore, if we take merely the cases of which we have full and complete evidence, we come down to this, that in nine years four steamers and two sailing vessels have been stranded owing, in the opinion of the Court, to insufficient ballast, and in not one of these six cases has a single life been lost. I therefore hope that the House will agree with me that the risk of life is at present so small from the particular reason we are now discussing that it is really needless to pass this Bill. Noble Lords who have already spoken have alluded to the practicability of the proposals. I do not think that there is any difficulty at all in fixing such a line as the noble Lord suggests but I would point out that the Board of Trade has no means of carrying out that step. The maximum load-line was fixed by a Committee which sat on the subject under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Reed, and a similar inquiry would be necessary to give effect to the noble Lord's proposal for a minimum load-line. It would be impossible for us at the Board of Trade to carry out legislation of this character without some previous inquiry by a Committee.
I should like to say this in conclusion. Reference has been made to the fact that there are certain powers at present in existence under the Merchant Shipping-Act for detaining ships. Both the noble Lord opposite who moved the rejection of the Bill and the noble Lord who moved its adoption were of opinion that the Board of Trade has power to detain vessels which have insufficient ballast. That is not so. We have power to detain vessels which are from any cause unsafe, and if a vessel was obviously unsafe from being too light it is natural to assume that she would be detained
316
under the present law. The President of the Board of Trade is about to issue a circular to all surveying officers on this point, and I can assure the House that if a vessel attempted to go to sea in an obviously unsafe condition she would be detained by our officers. The Government sympathise entirely with my noble friend Lord Muskerry in the efforts that he has on more than one occasion made to improve the lot of the merchant seaman, and to decrease the dangers of his arduous avocation; but in this particular instance I do think there is not sufficient ground for the somewhat drastic proposals which he has made. Therefore, if the Bill is pressed to a division. I. for one, shall feel compelled, to vote against it.
*LORD NORTON: I should like to say a word or two following upon the statement of the noble Earl. Perhaps I may plead a right to say something, having myself passed the existing load-line. I passed it many years ago and the experiment has proved most successful. I passed it against exactly the same arguments which are now being adduced against the proposal for a light load-line. I confess that I came down to the House to-day not having made up my mind which view to take with regard to this particular Bill. After hearing the arguments on both sides I confess that I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Dunraven. In my opinion, more futile arguments were never adduced against any legislation than those which have been put forward against this Bill. Everyone admits the danger of ships going to sea overloaded or under loaded. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill referred to the official reports of the Board of Trade. The noble Earl who represents that Department disputes them, and says that many of those casualties cannot be proved to have occurred through vessels being under-ballasted.
I do not suppose anyone who knows anything about shipping matters can doubt the danger arising from ships going to sea in such a condition. It is a palpable fact that a ship under-ballasted is quite unmanageable. It is clear that the remedy suggested in this Bill is suited to prove effective. The present

317
load-line has by experience proved of great benefit, and it is probable that the establishment of a light load-line would alike contribute to save sailors from parallel danger. The noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade said there was no necessity for this Bill. What amount of loss of life does lie require to make it necessary? That argument would be good against any kind of assurance whatever. I say there is no difficulty in this proposal. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill asked how the proposal in the Bill was to be carried out. He asked if the surveyors of the Board of Trade were to measure every single ship, but at the same time he said it was perfectly easy for any surveyor to refuse to allow a

WAR OFFICE ADMINISTRATION— DUTIES OF COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, in asking the noble Lord the Under
ship to go to sea if it was insufficiently ballasted. If it is easy for surveyors to do this, what difficulty would they experience in marking the average safety-line below which a ship should not be out of the water? There is, therefore, no difficulty in the way. Any slight trouble or expense to shipowners caused by the carrying out of this proposal is a small matter compared with the safety of life and property which would be secured.
On Question, whether the word "now" stand part of the Question, the House divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Verulam, E.

Kelvin, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Wharncliffe, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and' Mount-Earl.) [Teller.]

Hertford, M.

Northampton, M.

Falkland, V.

Lingen, L.

Knutsford, Y.

Middleton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Wolseley, V.

Monckton, L.[V. Galway.)

Carrington, E.

Belbaven and Stenton, L.

Monkswell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Mount Stephen, L.

Lathom, E.

Clanwilliam,L.(E. Clan william)

Muskerry, L. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Norton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Haliburton, L.

Pirbright, L.

Romney, E.

Herries, L.

Stanmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E.(L. Chancellor.)

Malmesbury, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)[Teller]

Morley, E.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Northbrook, E.

Forester, L.

Northesk, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Onslow, E.

Hencage, L. [Teller]

Scarbrough, E.

Hothfield, L

Bedford, D.

Selborne, E.

James, L.

Marlborough, D).

Stanhope, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lindley, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Macnaghten, L.

Bath, M.

Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

Lansdowne, M.

Frankfort de Montmorency, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.(L. Steward.)

Goschen, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Hardinge, V.

Muncaster, L.

Bradford, E.

Ridley, V.

Newton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Northbourne, I,.

Dartrey, E.

Asheombe, L.

Raglan, L.

Denbigh, E.

Avebury, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and queensberry.)

Balfour, L.

Robertson, L.

Blythswood, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)

Dudley, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Sackville, L.

Fortescue, E.

Churchill, L.

Sinclair, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Harrowby, E.

Dawnay, L.(V. Downe.)

Windsor, L.

Lauderdale, E.

De L'lsle and Dudley, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Bill to be read 2ª this day six months.
Secretary of State for War the question which stands in my name, I must claim your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments whilst I try to show that the

319
information which I seek is really required. The noble Marquess at the head of His Majesty's Government, speaking on November 9th, 1900, said—
'We must consider the defences of this country, scrutinise them carefully, and examine all the machinery, administrative and military, by which they are sustained."
Anxiety to comply with the noble Marquess's exhortation prompts my present question. I believe it can be said with accuracy that, at present, only War Office officials are in a position to understand the working of our military administration, which has never been fully explained to Parliament.
The noble Marquess who was Secretary of State for War in 1895, when the Government reorganised their military administration, said in your Lordships' House that he was not then able to give a full and final account of the proposals of the Government, but could merely give a brief and imperfect sketch of the main outlines of the new system. This brief sketch has never been followed by the full and final account of which the noble Marquess spoke. At present the only source of information is to be found in the Orders in Council. Orders in Council come, and Orders in Council go, in bewildering succession. Their appearance and their exit are conveniently recorded in the official preface to the War Office List, from which I have made the following extracts—
"An Order in Council of December, 1887, was slightly, but not essentially, varied by one of February, 1888. By a further Order in Council of November, 1895, a new administration was established, but the Central Office was not affected by this order, and the part relating to the Financial Secretary merely repeated the Order of 1888. An Order in Council of March, 1899, revoked the Order of 1895."
So much, then, for the Orders in Council as they appear in the War Office List, changing and revoking each other and altering the administration of the Army. The Order of 1899 contains the latest definitions of the duties of the Commander-in-Chief and the principal officers of the Headquarters Staff. But these definitions are necessarily general, and deficient in detail. The first paragraph of the Order endows the Commander-in-Chief with the general command of the Army. The four suc-
320
ceding paragraphs deprive him of control over the Headquarters Staff. Now, my Lords, in what sense can an officer be called Commander-in-Chief if he has not got control over the Headquarters Staff? We cannot tell whether the Commander-in-Chief has been or is the real adviser of the Secretary of State and the real head of the Army; we do not know his position and responsibilities in matters of finance; we are ignorant whether in time of war he is or is not discharged from a portion of his duties. On the outbreak of hostilities the Cabinet appoints a Commander-in-Chief in the field. This war Commander-in-Chief reports directly to the Secretary of State. Thus the duties of the peace Commander-in-Chief seem to lapse. It appears that, in addition to Orders in Council varying the administration of the Army, the Secretary of State for War may, as occasion requires, assume additional powers for dealing with special cases. For instance, it was notified at the end of January that the Secretary of State, in future, could place any officer on half pay for causes other than misconduct. A very well-known case in which this has recently been done will occur immediately to your Lordships. The question at once arises, Is there any limit to this assumption of special powers to enable a Secretary of State for War to solve in silenced difficulties of his own creation? To all officers in the Army, and to all those who mean to make the Army their profession, the answer is of supreme importance. I find, my Lords, that in 1887 a Commission appointed to report upon Warlike Stores reported upon the Secretary of State for War. Why that Minister was then classed as a "warlike store" I am not concerned to inquire. I merely quote to your Lordships from the Report of that Commission. The Royal Commission on Warlike Stores reported on 16th May, 1887.and said that—
"The Secretary of State is charged with five great functions, any one of which would be sufficient to occupy the whole time of a man of first-rate industry, ability, and knowledge."
A very few years later the Hartington Commission arrived at exactly the same conclusion in reference to the duties of the Commander-in-Chief. That officer

321
had duties placed upon him far in excess of the power of any one man to perform. The key-note of the Harrington Coin-mission was to lessen the power and diminish the responsibilities of the Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, the Commission recommended the abolition of that office. The Government decided to retain the name, but to practically abolish the office of Commander-in-Chief by transferring his responsibilities to the Secretary of State for War, in spite of the Report of the Commission of 1887 that that Minister was already completely overburdened. In 1895 the concentration of responsibility in the Commander-in-Chief was terminated in favour of co-ordinate authorities collectively responsible to the Secretary of State.
As though to accentuate the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War, that Minister is empowered by Act of Parliament not only to appoint, but at his pleasure to remove, the Financial Secretary, who is his chief adviser on all questions of Army expenditure, responsible to him for the Army Estimates, and for the redistribution of the sums granted for the year. We do not know, we have no means of knowing, what sum the military experts have asked for, what they consider to be the absolutely necessary minimum, or any of the reasons which prompt them to ask for loss or more than usual. All we know is that a certain sum has been granted, which may be less by millions than the sum asked for, and that the Financial Secretary is subject to removal at the pleasure of the Secretary of State for War.
A variety of boards, committees, and councils are mingled in the work of administration at the War Office. The Secretary of State for War. The Under Secretary, the Financial Secretary, together with the Headquarters Staff and the Commander-in-Chief, form the War Office Council. The Commander-in-Chief and the Headquarters Staff form the Army Board. But the decision of that Board, on appeal from any one of its members, may be reversed by the Secretary of State. The Commander-in-Chief, with two officers to assist him, carry out those duties which in Continental armies are discharged by one officer alone, the chief of the staff. Your
322
Lordships are aware that in 1895 the five-great officers of the Headquarters Staff of the Army were made directly and co-ordinately responsible to the Secretary of State for their different departments. They advise the Secretary of State directly upon all matters connected with their departments. Thus the Headquarters Staff of the Army is not the staff of the Commander-in-Chief, but the staff of the Secretary of State for War. Now the Headquarters Staff, sitting with the Commander-in-Chief as its head, forms the Army Board. Thus we have one staff serving two chiefs, the one a Cabinet Minister and the other a distinguished soldier. We have always believed from days of old that no man can serve two masters, for most undesirable results are certain to follow.
Above the Secretary of State we have, in the first place, the Cabinet, and, in the second, the Committee of National Defence. We do not know the powers of this Committee, or its exact relations to the Secretary of State. It is said to meet occasionally and to keep no minutes. However, this Committee of National Defence is composed of most illustrious. Ministers, without any of the special knowledge and experience requisite for successfully organising the defence of a world-wide Empire. The action of the Secretary of State implies often the initiative, always the consent, of both the Cabinet and the Committee of National Defence. It is true that the Secretary of State is held responsible for the whole Army, but in purely military matters it is impossible to bring personal responsibility home to a civilian Secretary of State. That responsibility must devolve on subordinate officers, who are protected from all blame by the umbrella of collective authority, under which they wait unconcernedly till the clouds roll by. Individual responsibility in the War Office seems to begin and end with the rank of doorkeeper.
I am not hopeful of any real reform of the Army unless the Government take the country fully and frankly into their confidence on the subject of Army administration. Popular enthusiasm, which is essential to the existence of a Volunteer Army, can only be aroused and maintained when the nation easily understands the way in which the Army

323
is administered. The Government must remember that, although we do not know the precise system which has governed the Army, we do know its exact result— namely, the opening scenes of the South African War. We had administrative machinery designed to ensure victory and success. Under the test of war it turned out disaster and humiliation. Is it unreasonable to wish to know the exact construction of the machinery which gave results so unexpected and so Calamitous?
I apprehend that your Lordships will agree that there is a widespread wish in the country for legislative reform in the Army—I say, my Lords, legislative reform as distinguished from administrative change. I am well aware that the Government cannot now make any announcement of their intentions for the future. But, my Lords, my contention is that a detailed explanation of our existing military administration would pave the way for legislative reform more usefully than a series of administrative changes launched haphazard from the War Office. The Secretary of State has already appointed two Departmental Committees, one to instruct him how to carry on the work of the Department over which he has just been called upon to preside, and the other to inquire into the exact position which the Yeomanry are to occupy in an organisation the principles of which are not yet determined. Departmental Committees have inquired into the condition of the War Office ever since the Crimean War. The cumulative result of the labours of those Committees are the disasters in South Africa, but my Lords, forty years of failure seem to count for nothing in the sight of the War Office, I presume because
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast: Committees never are, but always to be blest."
In conclusion, I beg to call your Lordships' attention to the apparent anomalies of the military administration, and to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for information on the subject.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence
324
that I address myself to this question. In the first place, I was brought up as a soldier, I had the honour to serve in the same regiment as the noble Duke, I learned the lesson of discipline in early life, and it goes somewhat against the grain to have publicly to discuss the proceedings of high officials whom I have always looked upon with respect from a distance. In the second place, as your Lordships are aware, my official life has been short; I have only been at the War Office for a few months, and I am asked to explain the working of a great system of which I have hardly had time to grasp the outline. The chief accusation which the noble Duke brought against the War Office was that there was no such thing as responsibility. I should like to point out that the changes to which the noble Duke took exception were brought about solely with the view of giving more individual responsibility. We all know that the tendency of all great institutions, whether Government institutions or not, is towards excessive centralisation. That tendency is continually increasing, and requires to be fought against. These Departmental Committees to which the noble Lord takes such exception were chiefly formed with the object of endeavouring, as far as possible, to further a system of decentralisation. The noble Duke complained that the result of the present system is that all power has been removed from the Commander-in-Chief. If you have any system of decentralisation you must decentralise responsibility, and to decentralise responsibility you must decentralise power. No man can accept responsibility without accepting at the same time a certain amount of power. You must give it to him in order that he may lie able to exercise that responsibility.
The four great department soft he War Office are the Adjutant General's department, the Quartermaster General's department, the department of the Inspector General of Fortifications, and the department of Director General of Ordnance. By the last reorganisation— I quite agree with my noble friend there have been several—those four departments were put under their respective heads, who were made absolutely responsible for the conduct of their respective

325
departments. That did not remove them from the supervision of the Commander-in-Chief, though they were removed from his control. Besides those four military departments there are the department of the Military Secretary and the department of the Director of Military Intelligence. The Military Secretary's department, as most of your Lordships are aware, deals with the appointment and retirement of officers, and so on, and these are matters which must come almost hourly under the immediate control of the Commander-in-Chief. The Military Intelligence department deals with military intelligence, with mobilisation, and with general staff preparation for war. It is also considered that that department should be under the direct control of the Commander-in-Chief. All these departments are under the supervision of the Commander-in-Chief; he can at any moment see papers he desires to see on any subject, and can send for any officer either inside the office or out of it. I cannot but think that the supervision of the Commander-in-Chief is exactly what the Commander-in-Chief chooses to make it. If the Commander-in-Chief were to attempt to control every department of the War Office, no mortal man could stand the strain for a week. Under the present conditions the responsibility, and therefore the power, was deputed to the heads of these departments. They have charge of the work which is to be executed in their departments, but the Commander-in-Chief is consulted when that work is boingmapped out. The head of the department does that work subject to the supervision of the Commander-in-Chief, who can see exactly what is happening.
I will now come to the difference between control and supervision. Control consists in standing over a man while he does the work; supervision consists in telling that man to do the work, still having the right to impure how ho is getting on with it at any moment. Take, for instance, the case of a Commander-in-Chief in the field. He has a column under his own immediate personal command. That is under his control. He sends out a detachment under a general officer. He says to that general officer, "March from A to B. "That column then passes beyond the control of the
326
Commander-in-Chief, it becomes merely under his supervision. The control of the column remains in the hands of the general officer until he gets fresh orders from the supervising authority altering his plans. That is the difference between control and supervision as applied to the relations between the Commander-in-Chief and the other officers in the War Office.
I now come to my own personal experiences. As far as I have seen, no question affecting discipline—and I use the word "discipline "in its widest possible sense—has been decided since I have been at the War Office without the Commander-in-Chief having been consulted. In many quarters capital has been made out of the fact that all the correspondence goes out in the name of the Secretary of State for War. That custom was adopted in deference to the views of high military authorities, but no great importance is attached to it, and the Secretary of State does not see why the correspondence should not be sent out in the name of the Department which sent it out. All the correspondence which comes into the War Office is addressed to the Under Secretary for War. The reason for that is that it all has to go to a central office to be registered. The Secretary of State sees no particular reason why the correspondence should not be addressed to the particular Department for which it is intended, but it would make no practical difference in the working of the system.
With regard to the personal relations between the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief, I can say that every Paper which I have seen—and I think I have seen most of them—which referred in the slightest way to discipline or to any purely military subject apart from that of expenditure—and even those in the great majority of cases— had a note upon it to the effect that the Commander-in-Chief had seen it and agreed with it. Indeed, the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief were in daily, almost hourly, correspondence. My room lies between the rooms of those two high officials, and constantly throughout the day either the Secretary of State passes through my room to see the Commander-in-Chief, or the Commander-in-Chief passes through to see the Secre-

327
tary of State. There are times when I wish that their communications were not so constant.
There seems to be an idea that the Orders in Council of 1895 and 1899 were brought in solely with the object of enabling the civilian element to overrule and usurp the position of the military element. I can assure my noble friend that that is wrong. The basis of the change then made was simply the decentralisation of responsibility, and in decentralising responsibility it was also necessary to decentralise power. The noble Duke alluded to the war in South Africa. I was not in office at the time to which the noble Duke alludes, but I must challenge him to produce his authority for saying that the deficiencies of the civilians at the War Office caused the disasters early in the war, and to give his authority to say that any supplies or any reinforcements that have been demanded by the military authorities have ever been refused by the civil authorities. I do not think he can.
In conclusion, I have merely to say this. The Secretary of State for War represents the Cabinet, and the Cabinet in the long run must represent Parliament, which must decide all great questions of policy and control every single item of expenditure. Therefore, whatever arrangements are made at the War Office, the Secretary of State must in the long run be supreme. But I can assure your Lordships that there is no desire on the part of anyone, whether inside or outside the War Office, either civil or military, to detract in any way from the, position, or to belittle, the authority, of the Commander-in-Chief.
VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: My Lords, I gladly avail myself of this opportunity to call your Lordships' serious attention to the novel and experimental Army system introduced a few years back, under which His Majesty's forces are. I cannot say commanded by a professional soldier, but administered by a civilian Secretary of State. I speak in the presence of many noble Lords who are or who have been soldiers, and who therefore clearly understand the great difference in the meaning of those two expressions— "administration" and "command. "I do not think I mislead those who have not
328
been soldiers when I state that in all countries and in all ages standing armies have been controlled by professional soldiers, who, above all things, were personally responsible for the discipline and war training, and, consequently, for the military efficiency of the troops they commanded. The only exceptions to this rule ever attempted, as far as my military knowledge goes, are, the Chinese army— not a very good pattern to follow—and our own Army, which for the last five years has been administered by a civilian Secretary of State, and not actually commanded by a soldier, as it had always previously been.
I shall try, my Lords, to make my statements as general and impersonal as possible. I shall adduce no specific instances nor quote any particular correspondence to illustrate what I say. My arguments are not directed against individuals, but against a military system which I have honestly tried for five years and found wanting—which entails many great dangers not realised by the people, of this realm. Before entering upon my subject, I would impress upon your Lordships that nothing can be further from my intention than to make any attack upon the Government, still less upon any particular member of it. With the late Secretary of State, for War, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, I was brought into almost daily contact whilst I was Commander-in-Chief, and I believe he will corroborate the statement that we worked most cordially together. No disagreeable incident of any sort that I can recall ever marred the pleasant relations which marked our intercourse. This is all the more satisfactory because, no matter what may be our military system, the non-political Commander-in-Chief and the political War Minister must often approach Army matters from very different standpoints. Even when equally impressed with the importance of a certain step they may disagree as to its feasibility. For example, say that it seems highly desirable to provide better field guns and more of them. It is the soldier's manifest duty to press for them strenuously, yet the War Minister, better informed as to the current financial demands of the Empire, may hesitate, to approve of the expenditure. He may

329
honestly believe that some other national requirements should have precedence. Even if he has been convinced personally of the urgency of the measure, he has still to bring his colleagues and the Cabinet to the same way of thinking, while there always remains the fierce Cerberus that guards the Treasury and so often refuses to be appeased.
It would not be difficult to show that the needs of the Army and its general efficiency have been more than once subordinated to the wish to produce a low Budget. Here, obviously, points of difference may arise between the political chief and the professional soldier. But it is not my intention to dwell upon the past. My concern is with the present and the future. I have no personal complaints to urge, no grievances to ventilate. My one great object is to strengthen the position of my successors in the post I have lately vacated, so that they may be given a larger share in the management of the Army than the existing Order in Council accords to the so-called, but really misnamed, Commander-in-Chief. No one can recognise more fully than I do the complete and individual responsibility to Parliament of the Secretary of State for War for everything relating to the Army. This constitutional responsibility was clearly defined in the War Office Act of 1870, and subsequently strengthened by Orders in Council. I do not, cannot, complain of it, for it existed long before the present Army system was invented, and it is inevitable under our Constitution
My complaint is against the present Army system, which has robbed the professional Commander-in-Chief of his chief usefulness, and has virtually handed over the command and entire management of the Army to a civilian Secretary of State assisted by subordinates with whom he deals direct. If anyone doubts this fact let him read the Order in Council of November, 1895. Let me give an illustration of how that Order in Council works and of the position of the Secretary of State under it. When. Mr. Kruger declared war against Her late Majesty in the year 1899, it was found necessary to send a large army to South Africa. But if that army had not been forthcoming, the fault would have rested with the Secretary of State for War, not with
330
the Commander-in-Chief. If the guns or small arms with which our troops took the field were not what they should have been, or, to come down to the present moment, suppose it were necessary now to mobilise our Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers for home defence, and it was found that the only guns in their possession were practically useless for modern warfare, the responsibility for that state of things would not rest with the Commander-in-Chief. The Secretary of State for War would be alone responsible for it. He is also responsible to Parliament that all reserves are ready, the guns, ammunition, clothing, horses, saddlery, harness, and everything else necessary to convert an army on a peace footing into an army fit for the field. Of course, under our Constitution this, the ultimate responsibility, he can share with the Commander-in-Chief or any other military officer. But he may be greatly relieved in it, the burden may be lessened, by the help of his expert adviser.
It has always been, and is still, the duty of the Commander-in-Chief to bring strongly—he cannot do so too strongly—to the notice of the Secretary of State the wants of the military forces. If he feels the Regular Army is not strong enough to perform the duties for which it is maintained, or if its material, its armament, and equipment are imperfect or insufficient, it is his duty to urge the need for additions—it has often been mine, as Adjutant General and Commander-in-Chief, to do so—but after that he can do no more. There the Commander - in - Chief's responsibility ceases. Although the various needs are not disputed, not only are no steps taken to meet them, but no one outside the Government is aware that their urgency has been raised. The Government has thought it advisable from economic reasons to postpone their provision, but yet it will not take the nation into its confidence that such important demands for men and stores have been put forward by the experts, and, nevertheless, refused. I cannot assert too emphatically that it behoves Parliament to devise some plan by which the fact that these strong representations have been so made and still refused should be laid before the nation for it to

331
decide between the expert and the economist. In no other way can we safeguard the Empire from great and unknown perils.
For the last twenty-eight years I have been employed in various positions under many War Office administrations, and many an evening at the end of my day's work I have felt sick at heart when I contemplated the great national risks deliberately accepted by the Government that happened to be in office. And why so accepted? Because it was not then politically expedient to ask Parliament for the money required to properly arm and equip our Army. Ministers evidently hoped that evil days might not befall the country during their term of office. It has often fallen to my lot when in the field to have to calculate the chances and the risks that certain operations would entail, and I have had at times to face, those risks and run them in making a choice of possible evils. But I would ask, What are such risks to those deliberately accepted time after time by Cabinets sooner than do the unpopular thing of asking for money to provide against them? When war is upon us, then money is to be had easily and for the asking. But money, as we know to our cost, will not then purchase in the open market soft he world the guns and other stores which were not laid in betimes, and which, when war comes, are consequently required. It is but natural in time of peace, under our system of government by party, and when the nation is left in ignorance of the views entertained by the military specialist upon the military requirements of the moment, that the party in power should still put economy before efficiency, and strain every nerve to spend as little as possible. That is the necessary out come of the political system upon which our Constitution is framed.
My Lords, in asking you to seriously consider the present unmilitary system under which the Army is now administered, I believe I can express some useful opinion upon this subject. At any rate, I feel that, as a Member of your Lordships' House, it is my duty, as well as my pleasure, to state here the result of my experience. Before I enter into details, I feel that I must ask the House
332
to allow me to give a short outline of the Army system it replaced. I shall not go into ancient history, and shall be as brief as I can. What I may call the modern system of Army Government was begun by the greatest War Minister have we had in modern days—Mr. Cardwcll— with the War Office Act of 1870 and the Orders in Council of that same year, which defined the respective duties of the Commander-in-Chief, of the Surveyor General of Ordnance, and of the Financial Secretary. The Commander-in-Chief retained under that system, as, theretofore, the direct and real command of the Army, and was charged with the discipline, distribution, military education, training, and the fighting efficiency of all ranks in all the military forces of the Crown. The Surveyor General of Ordnance was "charged with providing, holding, and issuing to all branches of those forces food, fuel, clothing, arms, and all the stores and equipment and transport they required, both in peace and war." The duties of the Financial Secretary were to draw up the Annual Estimates and to watch over all military expenditure.
This system remained in force until 1888, when Mr. Stanhope, then War Minister, amended and strengthened it by the Orders in Council of that date. They brought our Army abreast with modern ideas as far as that was possible under our form of government. The changes they introduced may be fairly regarded as the mathematical complement to Mr. Cardwell's great measure of Army reform of some fifteen years before. In my opinion Mr. Stanhope's system was a sound and workmanlike solution of a very difficult problem. The Army never gave him the credit he deserved for it, nor for the courage and determination with which he combated the opposition it encountered. Under it, the responsibility of the War Minister to Parliament was in no sense reduced, but subject to it; the Commander-in-Chief—the military specialist—was charged with the discipline, education, military training, and fighting efficiency of all ranks of the military forces that are annually voted by Parliament. In other words, the Commander-in-Chief was held responsible by the Secretary of State for War that

333
those military forces were always thoroughly efficient, and, supposing the stores, guns, etc., voted were sufficient, that the Army was always ready for rapid mobilisation. This, I contend, was a practical, well-working system— very different from that in force to-day. An effective control over all military expenditure was exercised by the Financial Secretary, who was a Member of Parliament and directly under the orders of the Secretary of State for War. The Commander-in-Chief had no command over public money whatever, and it was the duty of the Financial Secretary to keep the War Minister informed upon all matters bearing in any way upon Army expenditure. Whilst, therefore, the financial control of the Minister was absolute and complete, the military efficiency of the Army was secured by being placed under one man, the soldier-expert, the Commander-in-Chief. He was, in effect, as I have said, directly responsible to the War Minister for the discipline, military education, training, and fighting efficiency of all ranks. I believe it went far to reconcile the anomaly of dual government under which our Army has always laboured, and while it ensured the complete control of Parliament over the Army, did not interfere with the direct responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief for military efficiency.
The next modification of the system was started when Mr. Stanhope's Order in Council of February, 1888, was barely two weeks old. The new move was originated by a Member of the other House—an old friend of mine and an old soldier— who asked for a Royal Commission on the military and naval requirements for the protection of the Empire. This was a very sensible proposal, and it might well be revived to-day, when the nation is sadly in need of enlightenment on this essential question. The answer accorded was amusing, and it may be said that the hon. Member, having asked for bread, was given a stone. A Royal Commission was granted, not to investigate the necessities for national defence, but to report "on the extent to which our naval and military systems as at present organised
334
and administered are adapted to the national wants. "There was yet a greater change of front when the Commission was appointed and the reference to it made public. Its object was stated to be—
"to enquire into the civil and professional administration of the naval and military departments and the relation of those departments to each other and to the Treasury, and to report what changes in the existing system would tend to efficiency and economy in the public service."
This Commission consisted of the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council and of eight others. Of these, one was a soldier, one a sailor, one was a Member of your Lordships' House, four were Members of the other House, of whom one had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and three had been Secretaries of State for War, one had been Governor of Bombay and possessed great Indian experience, the eighth being a private gentleman of commercial experience. Had this Commission confined itself to a Report on the subjects set forth in the instructions given to it, I have no doubt that, composed as it was, its Report might have been of high public value. But it launched out into recommendations for a complete change at he system of Army command and Army administration. I feel that nine-tenths of the Army would not believe that efficiency could result from changes carried out merely upon the recommendation of a Commission in which only one member was a soldier—a brilliantly able man, indeed, an old comrade of whom I have the highest opinion, but who had never held any high command, and had never been Adjutant or Quartermaster General of the Army. This Committee submitted two Reports, and of the eight members five dissented from clauses in both Reports. One member, a late Chancellor of the Exchequer, recommended the abolition of the office of Secretary of State for War. And yet upon the strength of those Reports an Army system then known to have been working admirably was overturned and the present experimental system established in its place. I call it experimental because no such system had been tried that I know of in any other army before. I

335
have been told that the new proposals were based upon a system under which the Navy is administered by a Board. Not being a sailor, I am incapable of expressing any useful opinion upon the system upon which our Navy is managed. I emphatically pronounce it to be entirely unsuited when applied to the government of the Army, and I maintain that under it you will never have an efficient, and I doubt much if you will ever have a contented Army.
In 1895, the illustrious Duke, who bad been a most popular Commander-in-Chief for nearly forty years, resigned that position, and I was selected to succeed him. The present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in intimating to me that I had been selected to succeed his Royal Highness, informed me that it was intended to introduce regulations which would greatly alter the position of all future Commanders-in-Chief, and it was upon that understanding I accepted the offer. When I subsequently learnt what was the nature of these alterations, I found they were certainly not to my liking, but I resolved to give them a, fair trial. I have done so honestly for the last five years, including a full year of actual war. It is because, after this experience, I believe them to be injurious to the efficiency of the Army and fraught with danger to the highest interests of the Empire, and because I am certain that under their provisions you can never have any effective Army, that I am here to-day in the hope of making my reasons for this opinion evident and clear to your Lordships.
Allow me now to analyse briefly this experimental Army system of 1895. It follows generally, as I have said already, the plan under which the Navy has long been administered—namely, by a Board. In other words, it divides into what I may term water-tight compartments the responsibility, under the Secretary of State for War, for the fighting efficiency of the Army, a responsibility which in all previous times had been concentrated in the Commander-in-Chief. The heads of these four water-tight compartments have no connection one with the other. They have no general military head; each is singly and individually responsible to the Secretary of State for War for the orders he gives and the work he performs.
336
Each is the adviser of the Secretary of State for War, and in describing their duties and position no reference even is made to the existence of a Commander-in-Chief. Until 1895 the Commander-in-Chief, as I have repeatedly urged, was responsible to the Secretary of State that the Army was thoroughly well trained for war. There is now no one soldier to whom the country can look as directly and professionally responsible for the military efficiency of the Army it pays for. It must depend upon the statesman, almost invariably a civilian, whom the Prime Minister may select from among political supporters for the position of Secretary of State for War. I would ask, Is this wise? Is it businesslike?
I venture to illustrate this method of Army administration by a homely and familiar analogy. I have lately been engaged in converting an old farmhouse into a little country residence. My first step was to call in an architect, an expert. I told him what I wanted, and, having done so, I left the expert to look after the builder and his men. Under our Constitution the Secretary of State, as the representative of the Cabinet, used to stand to the Commander-in-Chief in much the same position as I did to the architect. The Secretary of State acted as the owner, the Commander-in-Chief was the expert. But mark the difference of procedure: instead of dealing with one expert, the Secretary of State asks the opinion and advice of every one of his foremen, without the knowledge of the architect, much less consulting him. Had I followed this system, I wonder what sort of a house I should have had—very possibly the staircase would have been forgotten. One of the foremen—let us say the carpenter foreman—in his anxiety to make perfect his own particular job in which his interest was absorbed, and knowing little or nothing of the general plan of the whole building, might have impressed me with the importance of his own special share in the operation, while the drains might have been over looked, or some other necessity might have been omitted that would have left the house uninhabitable. Amplifying this, and dealing with it on broader lines, the inconvenience, the mischief, the possible dangers of the present system may be exemplified in another way. Hardly one of the many

337
questions that come up before the Secretary of State for decision is of quite a simple nature. All, as a rule, concern several distinct branches in the War Office. Take, for instance, the introduction of a new rifle. Here there are intricate, technical points affecting all manners of people. The mechanism, range, and precision of fire are within the province of the Director General of Ordnance; the weight of the weapon, the carrying power of the soldier, the facility for aiming and firing, involve important questions which concern the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and so on. Each of these officers would naturally give the best advice from iris own particular branch's point of view, which would often be at variance with the views urged by other departments. How can the political Minister of War, to whom military science is more or less an enigma, usefully hold the balance between such conflicting opinions? How can he be sure that ho is giving due weight to each point, and that he fully realises the force of one and the weakness of another? That can only be well done by the trained military expert, the Commander-in-Chief, who knows from experience every technicality, every detail himself. It is the business to which he has been brought up, and he can therefore easily sift out the rubbish and emphasise the good stuff in a way that only an expert can. Then, when he has heard all sides, he will form his opinion, and with the sound judgment of ripe knowledge and wide experience he will lay the case before his official superior, the Minister for War. There can be nothing of this kind under our present military system. The civilian Secretary of State is left in a fog of doubt and indecision, the result of which is the probable shelving of the question, or, still worse, that the wrong course is taken.
If the Coinmander-in-Chiei is not allowed to command the Army in the sense that he is the one man whom the Secretary of State is to consult, and whose professional advice he is to follow, he will be like the invalid who took the advice of half-a-dozen doctors, each separately and without the knowledge of the others. In his case there will be as many conflicting and inconsistent plans of operation as there were foremen
338
under the arehitect in my building illustration. It would seem, indeed, that to save appearances the title of Commander-in-Chief is still bestowed upon a General Officer, but lie is not allowed to have or exercise the authority possessed by every Commander-in-Chief before 1895, and, strange to say, which is still exercised by the Generals commanding in Ireland, in India, and in all our foreign stations. The Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General are no longer the stall' officers of the Commander-in-Chief at Army Headquarters, as the officers bearing those titles are of the General Officers under whom they serve elsewhere, and as the Adjutant and Quartermaster of a regiment are the staff officers of its commanding officer. They are now accountable to the Secretary of State for War, and not to the Commander-in-Chief, for the discharge of their duties. They are, in fact, the staff officers of the civilian Secretary of State, who deals with them directly, independently of the Commander-in-Chief, and even without his knowledge, on all the most important subjects in which military efficiency consists.
Is this a military system that commends itself to any man who knows the A B C of military organisation, of military life, of military history? Only think of what would be the result if you introduced such a system into the management of an infantry battalion! Suppose a clever magistrate in each town where a regiment is stationed were selected by the Home Secretary to have under him the adjutant and the quartermaster, who were to be responsible to the magistrate for the discipline, housing, feeding, and general well-being of their regiment, and that the magistrate was at the same time to ignore the existence of the regimental commanding officer? Is that a condition of things that recommends itself to your Lordships? Does any man imagine it would conduce to military efficiency? But I may be told that the Commander-in-Chief is by the Order in Council of 1895 "charged with the general supervision of the military departments of the War Office." Yet the head of each of these is himself "responsible for all questions relating to his department, and for submitting

339
them—when higher authority is necessary—to the Secretary of State." The incompatibility of these provisions is surely obvious. Mow can the Commander-in-Chief supervise or control a department the head of which is an independent authority, at least to the extent of having free access to the supreme head? My Lords, I should not like to weary you with criticisms upon the distribution of responsibility laid down in the "memorandum showing the duties of the various departments of the War Office and the responsibilities of its principal heads to the Secretary of State." Suffice it to say that it is a contradiction in terms, and the system it creates is unworkable—is, indeed, in my opinion, an impossibility. The endeavour to combine general control in one place and person with individual responsibility in many others has failed in both objects. The Commander-in-Chief has not effective control; neither are the heads of departments fully responsible. Moreover, the work and cross reference in all branches has largely increased without any benefit to the Army or the public service.
As an illustration of this I may mention that all letters for the purely military offices, even those upon discipline, drill, and technical and purely professional points, are now addressed to the Under Secretary of State, and not to the military branches that can alone deal with them. They are all answered, not in the name of the Commander-in-Chief, but in that of the Secretary of State. When the colonel commanding a regiment receives a letter in the name of the Secretary of State, upon, say, the advantages of open formations in field movements, the order is received as a comical episode of our new military system. To many it is a joke, but this novel system of correspondence is misunderstood in the Army generally. It leads soldiers to believe that even serious matters of discipline are no longer dealt with by their officers, but by a civilian Secretary of State, of whose very name they are mostly ignorant. My Lords, I presume I need scareely tell you that our soldiers do not love the War Office or its civilian rulers. You cannot thus flout the sentiment of the Army without doing injury to its morale. No soldiers like the idea of being commanded
340
by men in civil life, and no one who knows what our soldiers are like would ever have invented a system which brings that fact home to our men. At present the centralisation of work and correspondence in the office of the Secretary of State is excessive, and the work is not nearly as well done as when it was distributed throughout the military branches. In fact, the Army becomes less and less ruled and governed on military lines, to the detriment of military efficiency.
In a, time of pressure, such as that we have lately gone through, valuable time is squandered. The Commander-in-Chief's action is often paralysed, and the office blocked with routine papers passing backwards and forwards to and from the office of the Secretary of State, most of which should be disposed of by suberdinate officers in the purely military branches. But I am told that our Navy, the first in the world, is ruled by a Beard in which there are only four sailors: that each of these four has distinct responsibilities, for the due performance of which each is alone answerable to the First Lord—a civilian who is necessarily as ignorant of ships and sailors as I am. I am not competent to express any useful opinion upon any naval matters, nor to criticise the mode in which our splendid Navy is governed: nor do I know whether the majority of our admirals and captains are fully satisfied with our system of naval government I am not a sailor, and, consequently, my opinion upon such a point would be absolutely worthless. I confine myself to expressing an opinion upon the govern ment of the service—the Army in which I have spent my life and in which I have held the highest positions, both in peace and in war. I am fully aware of the responsibility I assume when I state that my experience convinces me that as long as you continue to deprive the Commander-in-Chief of all responsibility for the discipline, military education, military training and fighting efficiency of the officers and men who constitute the military forces of the Crown, you must not expect to have the effective army which the' nation wants, and for which it is prepared to pay.
We have thus created for Army Head quarters a military system which I have

341
shown to be new to our own Army, opposed to all the experience of the past, and different also from the system under which our own armies in Ireland, in India, and at all stations at home and abroad are commanded and governed. You refuse to give to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army the command and discipline of the troops under him, although you do confer those responsibilities upon all local and suberdinate commanders. Does the nation mean to perpetuate a system as illogical as it is novel and unmilitary and unsatisfactory? If the Army must have a War Minister responsible to Parliament—and this constitutional principle cannot be departed from—ought we not. As far as possible, to prevent this principle from being destructive of our Army? No matter how able the civilian War Minister may be, I may without offence say that he must necessarily be ignorant of war and its science and still more of its practice. Who would care to know his individual opinion upon any military subject? Is he likely to be the best man to create an army or to convert a badly-trained army into a good one? We are proud to be called a nation of shopkeepers, but is this a businesslike proceeding? In the interests of the Army, but still more of the State, we are beund to work upon some intelligible plan for the management of England's military business which will harmonise with established principles. I say, with confidence, that the only one which will answer the national ends was that devised in 1888 by Mr. Stanhope. Under it the Army steadily improved year by year until 1895, when the present pernicious system was introduced, and on no sufficient reason so far as I can see.
I should much like, before I conclude, to return to one branch of the subject which I touched on incidentally at the beginning of my speech. I am strongly of opinion that the military expert at the War Office should have the privilege, that it should be his right, no less than his duty, to make his views public whenever the occasion arises. My Lords, it is not a satisfactory state of things that when there is a difference of opinion on our military needs between the political and the professional chief, nothing is heard on the point of issue outside the War Office. The matter may have
342
seemed to the soldier one of extreme urgency, fraught with momentous bearing upon our life, our very existence as a nation. The civilian, rightly or wrongly, thinks otherwise, and there it ends. Now I say, I affirm, most unhesitatingly, that it should not be competent for the War Minister, or indeed the Cabinet, to give a final decision adverse to a proposal deemed of such grave importance by the military expert. In such a situation, in such a conflict of opinion, only the nation itself can decide. We should take the people of Great Britain into our confidence, and after stating beth sides of the case, ask them for a verdict. The Commander-in-Chief would show cause why more men, more guns, more material, some change of military policy were in his opinion imperatively needed. The War Minister would reply defending his action in refusing to comply with such demands. Either side might be justified; the need might not be so great as suggested, the difficulty of response at the moment insurmountable; but at least those most concerned, the people themselves, would have the casting vote. I have always thought that Governments show much weakness in concealing the fact that such momentous questions hang occasionally in the balance.
I would go yet further in assuring the nation that its interests were being constantly safeguarded in the matter of its military institutions and strength. I would throw the weight and responsibility for these upon the Commander-in-Chief, not only by revising the Order in Council of 1895, but by calling for a definite and direct report or certificate from him, year by year, that the Army was in proper order, fit and complete at every point, sufficient in numbers, well found in every respect, armed with the best weapons, sufficiently equipped and ready for rapid mobilization. Where deficiencies and shortcomings existed they should be stated specifically and in detail. My experience of Army Headquarters in many capacities, and extending over many years, leads me to believe that had this rule been in force, had the demands made annually for the last fifteen years by the Commander-in-Chief been published, together with his reasons for making them, the taxpayer would, in most, if not all instances, have

343
insisted upon these demands being complied with whenever they had been refused. This would have added perhaps to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, but the country would have escaped many terrible risks. It is not the fault of any particular Secretary of State that we are never ready for any great emergency, but because the nation is never told how we stand in such matters, and the only practical remedy is to be found in this annual report from the Commander-in-Chief to which I have just referred. Without it I would warn this House and the people of England that they can never be certain they are getting the value of their money already-spent, or that they will not be rushed at a time of crisis into almost unlimited expenditure. There are many good reasons, into which I shall not enter here, why our standing army should be small. All I claim is that, at whatever level you may fix the strength of our fighting forces, they should at all times be thoroughly efficient, and that a report to this effect should be supplied by the Commander-in-Chief. His responsibility for this statement must so obviously affect his character-and reputation that a very sound guarantee for its honest is afforded.
Recapitulating briefly. I repeat that I found the system established in 1888 under which I worked all that could be desired under our constitutional conditions. I have lately given the new system, that of 1895, a fair trial of five years, and I condemn it as an arrangement that will never give us a satisfactory Army. I believe it to be a fruitful cause of military weakness, and that it is likely to become a positive danger in times of war. One other word. It may be reasonably argued that if our present Army system is so bad. So unlike that of all the great military nations, how were we able under it to despatch the large army to South Africa we so lately sent there in such a satisfactory manner? The answer, my Lords, is a simple one. No Army system, however bad it may be. Would be allowed to stand in the way at such a time by officers like those of whom the Headquarters Staff of the Army consisted in 1899. I have known the War Office well for the last twenty-eight years, and I unhesitatingly say
344
That as a whole it could not have been composed of better men than those serving when Mr. Kruger declared war. All were highly educated in their profession, almost all having qualified at the Staff College. They were effectively helped by all the generals and their staff at the several ports where troops embarked. All worked hard, day and night, and all were determined that the Army required in South Africa should be despatehed from England without a hitch, system or no system, and they successfully carried out that determination. But in doing so they were not helped by the new Army system. If ever the history of what was then done is fully written, the country will realise how much it owes to those officers, and how little to the new-fangled, experimental, and unmilitary system under which they were supposed to work. According to my views of national and military matters, it is an unwarrantable risk to run in war to rest content with an inherently bad Army system, trusting always to find first-rate officers to work it in time of need.
An army system to be sound must be constructed upon essentially military principles of the simplest and least complicated nature, so that it may work almost automatically. It must be worked upon military lines, by officers well educated by staff, work, under the direct orders and supervision of the most experienced general as a commander-in-chief. He must know what war is. And, abeve all things, must thoroughly understand British soldiers, their needs, their virtues—and they are many— their likes and dislikes. He should be a man who can sympathise with their prejudices, and who from personal experience knows well the history and traditions of His Majesty's Army. Our Army is a peculiarly complicated contrivance, differing from all other European armies in constitution, duties, and character, and my own long experience tells me it can never be what the British nation expects it to be under our present military system. As I have already said, no one is more convinced than I am that the responsibility of the Minister for War to Parliament cannot be reduced in any way. But, my Lords, it was most carefully safeguarded by the

345
provisions in Mr. Stanhope's Order in Council, whilst the Commander-in-Chief was made directly and professionally responsible to the Secretary for War for the discipline and efficiency of all our military forces. That is the chain of responsibility upon which alone, in a constitutionally governed country like ours, the efficiency of the Army and its readiness for war can be adequately secured. Without that link between the civilian statesman, who is the Parliamentary ruler of the Army, and the professional soldier, who is Commander-in-Chief, the nation can have no sound guarantee that the Army they pay for is always efficient, and always ready in every respect for that conversion from a peaceful to a war footing which we describe as "mobilization."
In what I have said I have endeavoured to avoid all reference to individuals, or to particular instances that would illustrate my meaning. I hope my reasons for doing so may not be misinterpreted, but I feel beund to say that the records of the War Office will be found to fully bear out all I have asserted. I end as I began, by imploring the House to seriously consider the essentially unbusinesslike system under which the military forces of the Crown are now administered.
*THE SECRETARY Of STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of Lansdowne): I wish, in the first place, to notice a gentle remonstrance which the noble Duke on the back benches addressed to me at the opening of his speech. He made it a subject of complaint that in the year 1895, when I had presented a somewhat concise description of the operation of the Order in Council of that year, I held out hopes of following it up with a fuller statement, and that I had disappointed that expectation. I am quite unconscious of having given that pledge, but if I did, and if it remained unfulfilled, it was perfectly open to the noble Duke to remind me of it in any of the years which have since elapsed, and to ask me to make it good. But the suggestion that we are unduly secretive in these matters is, I think, disposed of by the Parliamentary Paper which contains not only the Order in Council of 1895, but a full account of the duties of the
346
various departments of the War Office, and the rules of procedure under which its work is done. If the noble Duke will study that Paper, he will find that it deals with many of the points which he has raised.
I pass to the statement to which we have just listened from the cross benches. Although we may not all of us entirely agree with what fell from the noble and gallant Viscount, I am sure that we are all of us glad to feel that the self-imposed muzzle which he has worn for the last five years no longer prevents him from taking part in our debates, to which his great experience and authority cannot fail to contribute weight and information. I wish to confirm the statement that fell from him with regard to the nature of our personal relations during the five years in which we were employed together at the War Office. I do not know whether the Chamber which intervened between that of the noble and gallant Viscount and my own was the scene of such a fast and furious traffic as now appears to pass through it; but we constantly met. And I can honestly say that, so far as I am aware, no important question of Army administration was ever dealt with by me without reference to the noble and gallant Viscount. To-night he has touched upon the difficult and delicate question of the relations of the Commander-in-Chief and the seeretatary of state and of the relations of beth those high officials to the heads great departments of the great departments of the War Office. The subject is one abeut which much has been said and written. It is a subject full of difficulty and perplexity; but I think that those who have listened to the speeches of the noble Duke and the noble and gallant Viscount must have felt that the real issue involved tonight is a comparatively plain and simple one.
The issue raised is this: Are we once again to entralise in the Commander-in-Chief of the Army the whole of the responsibility for all the enormous and various work which is conducted in the War Office? Are we going to deprive the great experts of the War Office of the responsibility which now adheres to them for the advice which they give to the Secretary of State? Are we going to deny to the Secretary of State

347
the right to obtain expert advice at first hand from these high officials? That really is the broad and simple issue which has been raised. The answer to these questions must be in the negative, I am perfectly willing to admit that the system introduced in 1895 may be regarded as to some extent experimental, and that the experience of five years, culminating in the experience of a great war, may lead us to the conclusion that certain changes in that system are necessary. It may be that we shall do well to give back to the Commander-in-Chief certain powers which were withheld from him in 1895. It may be, on the other hand, that we shall do well to take away from his immediate control certain portions of office work which are now immediately under him. But those are, comparatively, matters of detail, and I will not attempt to anticipate the statement which, will, no doubt, before long be made elsewhere by the Secretary of State for War. But on the main principle of enabling the Secretary of State to obtain the advice of his experts at first hand— upon the main principle, I for one am not willing to listen to any proposals involving the reversal of the present system and a return to the old system of 1888.
My Lords, the noble and gallant Viscount went somewhat minutely into the history of the various changes which have been made in the organisation of the War Office. I am not going at this hour to follow him, but I wish to impress this on your Lordships, that the system of 1888, to which he wishes to revert, is not in any sense consecrated by long usage or justified by experience. It was a system introduced in 1888, in which year the office of Surveyor General of Ordnance, which was held by a civilian, a Member of the House of Commons, was done a way with and the three high officials, dealing with works, ordnance, and the supply of the Army, were placed under the immediate control of the Commander-in-Chief. The result of that change was to effect a stupendous centralisation of responsibility in the person of the Commander-in-Chief. You had at the head of this immense system His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, who for so long presided over the
348
Army, T and who certainly was not, regarded, even by those who most valued his great abilities, as in any sense an expert upon all the subjects with which the War Office has to deal. Under the Commander-in-Chief and abeve the great heads of departments there came the Adjutant General, again an officer who was not necessarily an expert, so that the advice of those who were really experts—experts as to works, experts as to fortifications, and as to supplies—had to percolate to the Secretary of State, first through the Adjutant General and then through the Commander-in-Chief. What was the result? The Secretary of State could not get expert advice upon all these questions from the Commander-in-Chief, and the true experts had no right to give such advice. Of course he got it occasionally, but be got it sub rosa. There were informal consultations between the Secretary of State and the heads of departments. Surely if there are to be consultations of that kind, is it not clear, is it not far better, that they should be abevebeard?
VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: Under the system of 1888, and even prior to that, so far as I know, the Secretary of State had the power, which he very often exercised, of sending for any military officer and asking for his advice on any topic that he wished to inquire abeut.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Exactly: but when the military officer gave that advice he gave it without responsibility. The responsible adviser was not the expert for whom the Secretary of State; the sole responsible adviser was the Commander-in-Chief. That is the great difference between the two systems. My Lords, the system of 1888 was almost universally condemned. It was condemned in the press and it was condemned in Parliament, and the disfavour with, which it was met led to the appointment of the Hartington Commission. The noble and gallant Viscount was severe en the composition of the Hartington Commission. We know how difficult it is to find suitable gentlemen to take part in these inquiries. I have noticed lately that whenever an inquiry is called for, what is most desired by the

349
public is that we should get away from professional people and go to what are described as men of business—men of common sense. Now, my Lords, if ever there was a Royal Commission on which common sense might be said to abeund it was, I should think, the Hartington Commission. I will not, in the presence of the noble Duke, suggest that he is conspicuous for that quality; but he was at the head of the Commission, and he was aided by Mr. W. H. Smith, pre-eminently a man of business, and a man looked up to by all who knew him for the soundness and vigour of his judgment: by Lord Randolph Churchill, a man of extraordinary brilliancy and originality; by Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, formerly Financial Secretary to the War Office, and subsequently Secretary of State for War; by Sir Richard Temple, an Indian administrator of well-known experience; by Admiral Richards, who was able to bring to the Commission a thorough knowledge of the affairs of the Admiralty—a Department which is so often held up to us for admiration; and, finally, by Mr. Ismay, a well-known shipbuilder. It is true there was only one soldier upon it, but the Commission took military evidence by the acre, and it was the Report of that Commission which led to the Order in Council of 1895. I will quote a few lines from the Report of the Commission. The Commissioners say—
"We consider that a definite and direct responsibility to the Secretary of State should be pieced on the heads of departments for then-several administration, as is the case with the Naval Lords at the Admiralty. Under the present system the only real responsibility appeals to rest on the Commander-in-Chief, who alone would be accountable to the Secretary of State, even for such a matter as the defective design of a heavy gun. We do not find that this centralization of responsibility exists in the administration of the armies of any of the Great Powers of Europe, and we consider that it cannot conduce to efficiency. The professional officers administering departments in the War Office should, therefore, be made directly responsible to the Secretary of State for the efficiency of those departments and for the economical expenditure of the sums annually allotted to them."
It became our duty to deal with that Report. When we came into office we found that our predecessors had made considerable progress in framing a scheme founded upon it, and I do
350
not think that when the Order in Council was introduced there was any great difference of opinion between the two parties in Parliament with regard to the course to be adopted. We gave to each of the heads of departments that responsibility which the Hartington Commission desired to impose upon them, and to the Commander-in-Chief we gave the supreme command of the Army, the right of general supervision, and we gave him, at the same time, extremely important duties of his own to perform. My experience of the system docs not agree with the experience of the noble Viscount. I believe, on the contrary, that the system has worked well during the last five or six years, and I believe if there were, as there no doubt have been, failures and mistakes during the South African War, they were not due to the system of 1895, but due, if anything, to the fact that that system was not carried out as faithfully as it might have been.
The noble Viscount suggested to us that we were able to keep a force of over 200,000 men in the field not on account of any merits in the system, but because of the devotion of the Headquarters Staff of the Army in those trying times. I gladly join my witness as to the devotion with which our colleagues; but does the noble Viscount forget that every important step and decision affecting the army in the field in South Africa was considered by the Army Beard which was introduced as part of the machinery of the scheme of 1895, an Army Beard of which he himself, under our rules of procedure, was the president, and which, therefore, gave him an opportunity at every step of keeping his finger on the pulse of what was being done and seeing that it was done properly, and that the departments did not act in ignorance one of the other? That part of the indictment of the noble Viscount has signally failed, because I think we may claim that if anything was well done—and some things were not badly done—it was done under the system introduced in 1895. The description which ho gave of the position assigned to him under the Order in Council was, if he will permit me to say so, a travesty of the actual facts. He repeated more than once that under the Order in Council

351
the command of the Army had passed away from him to the civilian Secretary of State for War. My Lords, I am constrained to say that that is a mere rhetorical phrase. None of the attributes of the Secretary of State for War can be properly described as involving any-thing like command. Under the Order in Council the command of the Army is in so many words conferred upon the Commander-in-Chief: all Army Orders are issued by him. He is the principal adviser of the Secretary of State for War. He is charged with the distribution of the Army at home and abroad, with the preparation and maintenance of plans for the mobilisation of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces, with the preparation of schemes of offensive and defensive operations; he is charged with the appointment to commissions, promotions, honours, and rewards; and the Military Secretary, who is his immediate suberdinate—not supervised by him, but under his control—deals with the admission of candidates for the Army and that great and important question of the education of the Army which the noble and gallant Viscount suggested had been taken away from his cognisance.
VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: I laid more stress on the training than on the education of the Army.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:I suggest that the duties thus assigned to the Commander-in-Chief, far from being inadequate and insufficient, are duties so vast and important that one is rather inclined to the belief that he would find them of a positively overwhelming character. I have, indeed, heard it suggested that too much work and not too little was thrown by the Order in Council upon the Commander-in-Chief. Yet the noble and gallant Viscount suggested that we had succeeded in practically abelishing the office of Commander-in-Chief. My noble friend the Under Secretary for War made use of an expression which summed up aptly this part of the case. He told your Lordships that the supervision exercised by the Commander-in-Chief, which the noble and gallant Viscount so much derided, was "exactly what the Commander-in
352
Chief chooses to make it." My complaint of the noble and gallant Viscount is that he chose to make his supervision a great: deal smaller than it really was, and that he has persisted in and acted upon that most erroneous belief. He may have wished to give the system a fair trial, but I am compelled to say that he did not
I think if he had been a little more ready to take advantage of the great opportunities placed within his reach he would not have made those complaints. My Lords, what are those opportunities. The Commander-in-Chief is a member of the War Office Council, at which important questions are discussed in the Secretary of State's presence, lie is president of the Army Beard, at which other important questions are discussed. It is laid down in the rules of business that all important Papers are to be laid before him, and he has an absolute right, of his own motion, to call for any Paper he pleases or to initiate any proposal he may think desirable. The noble and gallant Viscount did occasionally initiate proposals having reference to all the different departments of the War Office. But our complaint of him was that he did so fitfully, and only when the spirit moved him. If he had watched his opportunities more carefully, things might have been somewhat different. If he had paid more attention to the duties assigned to him by the Order in Council, he might, for example, have enabled us to turn to better account that large number of auxiliary forces that we have in this country, and which I am constrained to say have been not a little neglected during the last five years. I think that if he had paid more attention to that part of the regulations which requires him to prepare schemes of offensive and defensive operations he would, perhaps, have told us, before the South African War, that Ladysmith was not a very suitable military station for Her Majesty's forces to occupy. He might even, if he had paid rather more attention to these questions, have warned us that it would take more than one army corps to subjugate the two South African Republics.
My Lords, I say it with regret, hut I say it with a strong conviction that I am only saying what is true, that the

353
noble and gallant Viscount failed to take into account the immense importance of the special duties assigned to him by the Order in Council, and assigned to him not in common with other officers of the War Department, but as duties for which he alone was responsible to the Government. I know he was under a misapprehension, because, on the very eve of my departure from the War Office, I had an opportunity of considering a paper written by the noble Viscount on the subject which he has brought before us to-night, and I found, to my intense surprise, that in the enumeration of his duties contained in that paper he omitted altogether to mention that he was responsible for the mobilisation of the Army, that the Intelligence Department was under his special control, and that he was charged with the preparation of schemes of offence and defence.
THE EARL OF NORTH BROOK: Is the paper which the noble Marquess has quoted going to be laid on the Table?
*THE MARQUEES OF LANSDOWNE: I have no objection.
VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: What paper are you referring to?
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: A minute of the noble and gallant Viscount's.
Viscount WOLSELEY: Addressed to whom?
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: A minute addressed to the Prime Minister. It is impossible to listen to the two speeches of the noble Duke and the noble and gallant Viscount without feeling that the real grievance which has rankled in the mind of the noble Viscount is that the heads of departments in the War Office are given direct access to the Secretary of State—
VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: I assure the noble Marquess that I have no grievance of any sort or kind of a personal character.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It may be an impersonal grievance, but I
354
will call it his complaint of the system introduced in 1895, and the gravamen of his charge is that under that system the heads of departments are constituted the responsible advisers of the Secretary for War. I think that is accurate. That I hold to be absolutely essential. The Secretary for War has to defend in Parliament proposals involving the expenditure of millions of public money for such things as the supply of the Army, equipment, and artillery, barracks, and other works; and it is absolutely necessary, to my mind, that he should be fortified by the advice of experts, given not through two or three other members of the Headquarters Staff, but given to him directly, and with a full sense that the giver of the advice is responsible for that which he advises. The noble and gallant Viscount made a I great deal of the argument that the present system involved over centralisation in the person of the Secretary for War. I think his suggestion was that that was an infinitely more dangerous | kind of centralisation than the old centralisation in the person of the Commander-in-Chief. Let us consider that argument for a moment. There is all the difference in the world between the two kinds of centralisation. Centralisation in the Secretary for War is in a sense inevitable, because he and no one else is responsible to Parliament for the affairs of the Army. You must therefore have a certain amount of convergence of responsibility in him. But there is another aspect of the question. Centralisation under the Commander-in-Chief means centralisation in one who is a soldier and an expert. Centralisation under the Secretary of State means centralisation in one who is not a soldier, and has no pretension to be an expert. Consider the difference I in the position, let us say, of the Director General of Ordnance when he comes, in as the case may be, to the Secretary of State. He finds an official who is not his military superior and who has no pretension to expert knowledge. If he comes to the Commander-in-Chief he has to do with a member of his own profession, who is senior to him, and from; whom, with that strong feeling of discipline which is prevalent among soldiers, he may be extremely reluctant to differ.

355
Who is likely of the two to get at the I real opinion of the expert adviser, the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary of State? I venture to think the expert is far more likely to give his advice fully and freely to the civilian than he is to his military superior.
Something has been said by the noble and gallant Viscount as to the practice of the War Office with regard to correspondence. I think the Under Secretary for War dealt sufficiently with that point. he was perfectly correct in saying that in 1899 I had proposed that letters going out from the War Office should be written in the name of the heads of the different departments of the office. I was met by strong military objections, and I abandoned the proposal, with the result that the present system was introduced, and although the noble and gallant Viscount suggests that the present procedure leads to letters on purely military questions being addressed to distinguished officers by the civilian Secretary of State, he will remember that, although the letter is written by the instructions of the Secretary of State, the formula used (if my memory server me right) is that he intimates to the recipient of the letter that the view or the decision of the Commander-in-Chief is so and so. There is no attempt to suppress the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, and in all purely military cases it is his authority and not that of the civilian official that is always invoked.
With regard to letters addressed to the War Office. If an officer in a district were expected to address his letters, not, as now, to the Under Secretary for War, but to the particular department which had to deal with the subject of the letter, I am afraid that there would be perpetual confusion, because, as the noble and gallant Viscount himself told us, in such cases you are very often concerned with perhaps two or three departments, and the person who writes the letter may have considerable difficulty in deciding as to the manner in which it should be addressed. I remember that was brought very strongly before me when the question was discussed. But these are comparatively small matters. In regard to such matters I, for one, am entirely in favour of doing all that is possible to meet military
356
sentiment, and if any improvement in the procedure can be devised I shall join with the noble and gallant Viscount in welcoming it very heartily.
In another part of the statement of the noble Viscount he told the House that he thought it was extremely necessary in the interests of public safety that when the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State for War were unable to agree the public should be taken into our confidence, and that we should leave the public, as it were, to choose between the two. I am afraid that that is somewhat a council of perfection. Does the noble and gallant Viscount think that the government of this country would be possible, that the administration of the War Office would be practicable, if, whenever the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief were not at one, their arguments were to be publicly paraded and to form the subject of controversies in the press or on the platform I cannot conceive a more fatal arrangement than that there should be disputes of this kind in the eve of the public. The noble and gallant Viscount is a great supporter of a very popular institution called the Military Tournament. I should be very sorry if the Secretary of State were obliged to take part in a military tournament of the kind which the noble and gallant Viscount suggests.
Of course, it is the case, and it always will be the ease, that there will be differences between the civilian officials at the War Office and the military officials. It will be so to the end of time. I do not think that the noble and gallant Viscount has very much to complain of in regard to the manner in which his military demands were dealt with while I had the honour of serving with him. The Estimates, at any rate, rose during his five years from £18,000,000 to £21,500,000 sterling: and at his invitation we added to the strength of the British Army no less than 25,000 soldiers. Of course the noble and gallant Viscount did not always get what lie wanted, and I do not think I am wrong in saying that he certainly did not always expect to get what he wanted. At any rate, I know that when he and I used to take stock after the preparation of the annual Budget, he always accepted gratefully

357
and philosophically the substantial additions which I was able to procure for him, and that he never suggested to mo that any of our failures to concede his demands in full involved results fatal to the efficiency of the British Army. I will not, at this hour of the night, attempt to follow the noble and gallant Viscount through the other points upon which he touched in his long statement; but I will merely say that in my opinion he is too apt to forget the limitations which our Parliamentary institutions place upon us, that ho has failed correctly to apprehend the bearing of the system introduced in 1895, and that because he failed to apprehend it he did not turn to account the great opportunities which that system placed within his reach. In my opinion the system, of 1895 was in principle a perfectly sound system, and I sincerely trust that, whatever may be done hereafter, we shall not revert to the discredited and, as I believe, disastrous system which prevailed between the year 1888 and the year 1895.
The further debate was adjourned (on the motion of the Earl of Northbrook) till To-morrow.

LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
Moved to resolve, "That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report—

1. Whether the lines of route for underground railways in and near London, proposed by Bills which have been or may be introduced during the present Session, are best calculated to afford facilities for present and probable future traffic; and, if not, what modifications of those lines of route are: desirable.

2. What special provisions, if any, should be made for the protection of the owners, lessees, and occupiers of properties adjacent to underground railways from possible damage and annoyance.

3. What special terms and conditions, if any, as to construction and working should be imposed upon the promoters.

358

4. Whether any, and which, of the schemes proposed by the said Bills should not be proceeded with during the present Session."

—(The Chairman of Committees)
Agreed to. Ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to communicate this resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve as Chairmen of the Standing Committee:—

E. Halsbury. (Lord Chancellor.)

E. Spencer.

E. Morley.

E. Camperdown

V. Cross.

L. Elgin. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE IMPERIAL YEOMANRY-RIDING TEST.
THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that men who had failed for the Imperial Yeomanry when that force was first raised, on account of not being sufficiently proficient in riding, have been debarred from again competing, although many have in the interval devoted time and money to improving their horsemanship; and, if so, why.
LORD RAGLAN: in answer to the noble Marquess, I have to inform him that we have no knowledge of men being debarred for the reason mentioned in his question. No orders have been given to that effect. The matter rests entirely with the recruiting officer, subject to approval. If a case is brought to forward I shall be glad to make inquiries.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eight of the clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.